History Community ~ All Empires Homepage

Welcome to The Archive on All Empires

Forum Home Forum Home > General History > General World History
  New Posts New Posts
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login


Forum LockedMoors were Black

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 910111213 26>
Author
Message
dmarniche View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 06-Mar-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 66
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Moors were Black
    Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 03:38
Originally posted by pinguin

Originally posted by dmarniche

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PNgVzIL0yg&feature=channel_page 

Some modern Moors singing the ancient music of their people in Mauritania.

 
Yes, it is music of the Moors played by a people that aren't the ancient Moors. The Roman province of Mauritania is not located in the country that called itself Mauritania in recent times.
Of course you forget the spread of the Moors down South and are confussing cause with effect.
 
 
 
 
yes - Chilean friend -  they are in fact the Sahrawi Hassaniyya descendants of Berbers and Sulaym Arabs of north west Arabia  that came down from the North.  The same Banu Sulaym ibn Mansour whom Al Jahiz an Iraqi of the 9th century and Ibn Athir a Kurd of the 11 th called "pure Arabs" and "black skinned" as the lava of al Harrah in the Syro Arabian area they once inhabited.  
 
You can ask the Maghrebins that.
 
  
KushaDwipa
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7508
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 03:48
Well, we agree in something then.
 
Whatever. I know a bit about the Moors simply because I am Hispanic, and I know theirs influence in Spain. You probably know the Moors spread theirs influences in both directions: to Europe and to Subsaharan Africa. Now, we must be careful, though, because the term Moor was applied in Spain to any Muslim, including Arabs, Syrians, Persians and even more, including Native Iberians of Muslim religion, too! Indeed, most of the time Moor is used as a synonim of Arab!
 
In Spanish, the terms Moro, Moreno, Marroqui, all sound the same and point to the Maghreb rather than to such a far away place like Mauritania.
 
To complicate things more, after the Moors spread south they berberized, and arabized people there. It is not coincidence the library of Mali had so many books in Arab and that the local people there played string instruments of oriental roots.
 
"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
dmarniche View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 06-Mar-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 66
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 03:49
Originally posted by pinguin

Romans called Ethiopians to all people of the Horn. They called Moors to the people of the Maghreb. I doubt Romans ever met a Kenyan.

History doesn't fit well with "color conscience". Please read the book "Not out of Africa" of profesor Mary Lefkowitz before continue going in circles, inventing a past that didn't exist.

 
 
 
They called Moors black sir whether they were in the maghreb along the river Gir or in Europe. A little history here, please. 
They were in fact probably quite familiar with the people of that region  of Kenya since that is where many people of Yemen and Somalia settled in ancient times. 
 
Just to let you know I am probably one of the reasons Lefkowitz wrote her book. History was conscious of color.  It doesn't have to fit.  
KushaDwipa
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7508
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 04:03

Lefkowitz was the single SERIOUS schollar that was couragious enough to stand against all the lies of Afrocentrism. I admire her for that.

And don't try to change Roman history, please, that I know quite well the relation between Romans and theirs province of Mauritania.

 

 
Notice where there was the Roman Province of Mauritania
 
 
That's the Maghreb!
 
Notice how far away is today's Mauritanea... Not in the region at all. That's really silly.
 
 
Please, don't try to make me believe Cambodians are Chinese, or Italians are Russians. Nor try to convince me either that Moors are Subsaharans; they aren't.
 
 
 
 
"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
dmarniche View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 06-Mar-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 66
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 04:06
Originally posted by pinguin

Well, we agree in something then.
 
Whatever. I know a bit about the Moors simply because I am Hispanic, and I know theirs influence in Spain. You probably know the Moors spread theirs influences in both directions: to Europe and to Subsaharan Africa. Now, we must be careful, though, because the term Moor was applied in Spain to any Muslim, including Arabs, Syrians, Persians and even more, including Native Iberians of Muslim religion, too! Indeed, most of the time Moor is used as a synonim of Arab!
 
In Spanish, the terms Moro, Moreno, Marroqui, all sound the same and point to the Maghreb rather than to such a far away place like Mauritania.
 
To complicate things more, after the Moors spread south they berberized, and arabized people there. It is not coincidence the library of Mali had so many books in Arab and that the local people there played string instruments of oriental roots.
 
 
You need to learn about the term Moro as it was used for 1500 years in most of Europe including Spain.  Do not tell me that you don't know that King Franco's black army in Spain was called Moorish and that the Moors named  Morocco and Mauritania. Where is your source. The name Arak and Saracen was used in late times for Muslims in the Iberian peninsula for Syrians, Iranians and descendants of slaves who were numerous in the last centuries of the Moorish period.  Berbers were not even the dominant Moorish influence in Spain, Arabians were who were quite bigoted against people the color of Syrians and Iranian and other people they originally called "the color of slaves".   
 

 Quote from a Syrian, “Red, in the speech of the people from Hejaz means fair-complexioned, and this color is rare amongst the Arabs.  This is the meaning of the saying … 'a red man as if he is one of the slaves". The speaker meant that his color is like that of the slaves who were captured from the Christians of Syria, Rome, and Persia.”  Found in Seyar A’laam al-Nubalaa, vol. 2 by the Syrian el Dhahabi   of the century 14th a.d., cited in The Unknown Arabs, 2002.

Ibn Mandhour born in Tunis before the 12th c. wrote "lank hair is the kind of hair that most non=Arab Persians and Romans have while kinky hair is the kind of hair that most Arabs have. " Lisaan al Arab, vol. 3.

KushaDwipa
Back to Top
dmarniche View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 06-Mar-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 66
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 04:10
The darkskinned tall pastoral people of neolithic  Sahara appear in rock art playing stringed or lyre- like instruments several thousand years ago, as similar people did in the Syro ARabian deserts. 
KushaDwipa
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7508
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 04:17
Originally posted by dmarniche

 
You need to learn about the term Moro as it was used for 1500 years in most of Europe including Spain. 
 
It is you who is tries to change the meaning.
 
Originally posted by dmarniche

Do not tell me that you don't know that King Franco's black army in Spain was called Moorish
 
Fellow. Blacks in Spain has always being called Negro. The Franco army wasn't made of Blacks but Moors comming from Morocco and Algiers.  If you aren't convince why don't you look to the definition of "Moro" in the Spanish dictionary?
 
Originally posted by dmarniche

and that the Moors named  Morocco and Mauritania. Where is your source. The name Arak and Saracen was used in late times for Muslims in the Iberian peninsula for Syrians, Iranians and descendants of slaves who were numerous in the last centuries of the Moorish period.  Berbers were not even the dominant Moorish influence in Spain, Arabians were who were quite bigoted against people the color of Syrians and Iranian and other people they originally called "the color of slaves".   
 
Where is my source, you ask? I am Hispanic. My ancestors come from Spain! I have read many classical books in Spanish you may not be aware of. I have an "insider look" to the culture of the region. Even more, we still carry Berber traditions in folk arts in our culture, so Moors aren't unknown to us.
 
What you are trying to do with Moors is the same that Willy Smith made with Jim West: changing the race of people. What next? A black Superman? 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
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 125
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 04:26
Originally posted by dmarniche

.  I just misquoted them saying that they were "black skinned, unlike the Vandals" and saying that Mauri was a synonym for Niger.  Furthermore you r absolutely right!  Scythians, and "Peoples of the Sea" and Greeks and Romans and Vandals and Alans and slaves and mercenaries from Europe, Turks and Syrians and Iranians never ever settled in North AfricaTurks and Syrians and Iranians never ever settled in North Africa, nor mixed with the Berbers who were not the Maures.

Their has been foreign occupation,but I've never heard of Scythians,Turks,Iranians,and Syrians moving in mass numbers to northern africa

Originally posted by dmarniche


and Christopher Ehret and other specialists on African dialects did not show that most semitic dialects are in Ethiopia and were the root of the AfroAsiatic languages


I would like to know where your sources are from,I know they linguist say that emitov does have some hamitic basis and root words but I never new of Semitic language being fomrulated to the Ethiopian languages.
S
Back to Top
dmarniche View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 06-Mar-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 66
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 04:41
oh, now I see what the deal is? you want to be a Moor too?!
 
The Romans like Pausanius, Agroetus, and Polemon and Silicus Italicus and the Greek authors said that peoples known as Mauri occupied the coast of Iberia and North Africa in ancient times, and that they were black skinned .  If you want the exact sources let me know.  Or else stop sending your opinion.  You barely know anything about the ancient world, let alone the ancient Maures.  
 
The land of Mauretania which streched from the coast ofr Morocco to near Tripolitania in ancient times was occupied by the Mauri Mazaces (Amazigh),  Mauri Gentiani and Mauri Bavares or Babar, and Mauri Bacautes of the Upper Atlas.  They shared the region with  the Vandals from Spain, the Armeni, the Palmyroerni the Mesrata, the Friges or Phrygias the Persae or Phusii, and the Marmaritae, Turini and Ausitani or Aus.  This is found in the list of Provinces of Diocletian dating before the 4th c. A.D. Thus the Moors shared Mauritania with other people who were not Moors. But, it is clear phrases like 'woolly hair like a Moor" as stated by MARTIAL and "black skinned unlike the Vandals" by Procopius speak for themselves. Don't shoot the messenger. These people were undoubtedly ancestral Tuareg like the Imakitan (Ketama Berbers) and Aulamidden (Lamtuna Berbers) who came down from places like Numidia bringing their camels with them and swords with them.
KushaDwipa
Back to Top
dmarniche View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 06-Mar-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 66
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 04:45
Originally posted by AksumVanguard

Originally posted by dmarniche

.  I just misquoted them saying that they were "black skinned, unlike the Vandals" and saying that Mauri was a synonym for Niger.  Furthermore you r absolutely right!  Scythians, and "Peoples of the Sea" and Greeks and Romans and Vandals and Alans and slaves and mercenaries from Europe, Turks and Syrians and Iranians never ever settled in North AfricaTurks and Syrians and Iranians never ever settled in North Africa, nor mixed with the Berbers who were not the Maures.

Their has been foreign occupation,but I've never heard of Scythians,Turks,Iranians,and Syrians moving in mass numbers to northern africa

Originally posted by dmarniche


and Christopher Ehret and other specialists on African dialects did not show that most semitic dialects are in Ethiopia and were the root of the AfroAsiatic languages


I would like to know where your sources are from,I know they linguist say that emitov does have some hamitic basis and root words but I never new of Semitic language being fomrulated to the Ethiopian languages.
S
 
Certainly will look up my bibliography tomorrow.   But this means you are not familiar with Afro-Asiatic studies whatsoever if you do not even know that many Ethiopians speak semitic languages.   Tired now night,night. 
KushaDwipa
Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 05:03
Originally posted by pinguin

 
 
What you are trying to do with Moors is the same that Willy Smith made with Jim West: changing the race of people. What next ? A black Superman ? Confused
 
 
 
 
Some ethnicity never made great achievements or had an empire,so by hijack other's culture in revision history is best thing they can accomplish Cry
 
In America,blackmen have been hired as " black Santa Claus LOL " at shopping malls ( even in White neighborhoods ) during Christmas season.
 
 
 


Edited by pebbles - 09-Mar-2009 at 05:50
Back to Top
goldenstar View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 09-Mar-2009
Location: Europe
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 120
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 06:02
It became really ridiculous that so many ignorant and desperate people try to steal others' heritage only because their own ancestors did not achieve enough, or didn't achieve anything at all in thousands of years of history.

According to the vast majority of historians, archeologists, and anthropologists, the direct descendents of the Moors of ancient times, are modern Arabs from the Maghreb region, just like all the ancient inhabitants of the rest of North-Africa including Egypt are the ancestors of the modern populations who live there, North-African Arabs.

If your argument is Moors were Africans so they were Black, keep in mind Africans were originally the people of the Northern part of what we call now the African continent, named after a North-African tribe called the Afris. The name of Africa was then applied by foreign colonisers to the whole continent, and the same for its inhabitants, who had never identified themselves as Africans before the Arab and European aliens came and named them this way in the Middle-Ages.

The same for Asia, a term originally associated with present day Turkey only. People started to use this word for the whole of the modern continent of Asia, which doesn't mean all the civilisations of ancient Western Asia in the modern Arab World, Iran, and Turkey, belong to Chinese and Japanese people, who are commonly known as Asians but are not related to the ancient people of Western Asia.

You can also say Christians are invaders in Europe and stole the continent from original Pagans, who were probably, in your opinion, African animists , but using puns to convince yourself will not help you know real history.



  • The land of the ancient Moors, a Berber nation, was called Mauretania (rarely spelled Mauritania to avoid to confuse it with the modern state of Mauritania). While first representing only modern Northern Morocco,  its monarchs then extended its borders to the 2/3 of today Northern Algeria following their alliances with the Romans against neighbooring Numidia, an other North-African kingdom corresponding to modern Northern Algeria. Eventually, both of Numidia and Mauretania became Roman territories.



















  • In Medieval times, the term of Moor was used to name North-African and Iberian Muslims.
  • Today, this name is only used for the Arabs of the modern Saharan country of Mauritania, which has nothing to do with ancient Mauretania in the North. Those Mauritanian Arabs are of mixed Black/North-African ancestry and make up the majority of the country, where a minority of pure Sub-Saharans inhabit in the South.













I am myself of North-African descent, my parents are from the Maghreb, Eastern Algeria to be precise. This means I am an Arab person whose ancestors are the indigenous Berber-speaking natives of the region, who massively adopted Arabic (a language that belongs to the same language family as Berber, which isn't a Sub-Saharan tongue) following the 7th century, and who were certainly not Black but of Mediterranean stock.

Sorry, I don't mean to be racist, but your history is only Sub-Saharan Africa, your lands, nor Mauretania neither Egypt, 2 civilisations belonging to the Arab World's heritage whether you like it or not.

You can also deny the French their Gaulish heritage arguing that they speak a variety of Latin, a language that isn't the same as the Gauls' Celtic tongue, and arguing that the words France/French originate from an invading Germanic tribe, which is true by the way. So you can assume it makes the French  people German invaders who stole France from poor Black Gauls, those who civilised the world and their Roman colonisers? Will it serve your cause, will you feel more White, will it help cure your massive inferiority complex?

Noone ever tries to steal Sub-Saharan Africa's history, so why are you constantly trying to attach yourselves to other people's history, even worse, to claim it only for yourselves? Keep Sub-Saharan history to pride yourself with it and just stop rewritting our history because noone takes you seriously in the world, people only think you're desperate and pathetic.


Edited by goldenstar - 09-Mar-2009 at 07:36
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 125
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 06:19
Originally posted by dmarniche


Certainly will look up my bibliography tomorrow.   But this means you are not familiar with Afro-Asiatic studies whatsoever if you do not even know that many Ethiopians speak semitic languages.   Tired now night,night. 




I know they linguist say that emitov(Semitic) does have some hamitic basis and root words but I never new of Semitic language
 
My typo,excuse me

Who doesn't know Ethiopian languages are Semitic, I was saying according to some linguist say that semitic languages seem to be offshoot of Hamitic.But like I said there is really know so called first language or group of languages in the Afro asiatic  family including Ethiopia .There is alot of stipulating but no one can come up with that conclusion.


Edited by AksumVanguard - 09-Mar-2009 at 06:26
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Location: Snowy-Highlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5725
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 06:21
Originally posted by dmarniche

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Originally posted by d

And lastly black people in America are not black they just imagine they are because after all there is no such thing as race.

That's right after a fashion. It just becomes stupid when they imagine that other people are black.

A half-Somali half-Yemani woman, married a Ethiopian, her daughter grew up and wanted to marry a Kenyan. She said "You want to marry a Black Man?!?"

 
The Romans and Greeks called the Somali, and Yemenis and Ethiopians and Kenyans blacks.  You will never find a person living or dead as black as some Somali people. And they are more narrow in their features than their less black brethren.

Who cares what the Romans or Greeks think? Some English think people whiter than Greeks are black. Maybe Greeks are black.
You totally missed my point, try reading it again, have you ever heard of a think called perspective? Different people have different ones.
I mean, most Somalis are whiter than most Sri Lankans, why aren't you trying to claim Sri Lankans as black?
If a Dinka, met a black American in South Sudan, the Dinka would probably call the American white. Because the American is much whiter than the Dinka.
If you came to outback Australia, and started calling yourself black, you'd find very fast that you have much more in common with the whites than with the black fellas.
Now, we must be careful, though, because the term Moor was applied in Spain to any Muslim, including Arabs, Syrians, Persians and even more, including Native Iberians of Muslim religion, too! Indeed, most of the time Moor is used as a synonim of Arab!

Not to mention the Moros of Mindinao in the Phillipines. Or the Sri Lankan Moors. lol, maybe Phillopinos are black too
These people were undoubtedly ancestral Tuareg like the Imakitan (Ketama Berbers) and Aulamidden (Lamtuna Berbers) who came down from places like Numidia bringing their camels with them and swords with them.

You know by Tuareg tradition they are descendents of the Lamtuna, who are descendents of a tribe that migrated from Yeman.
The Tuareg and Lamtuna are not originally from africa - except by intermixing.

That little piece of info was written down 400 years ago, in Timbuktu, by Al-Sadi.


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 09-Mar-2009 at 06:23
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 125
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 06:51

Originally posted by goldenstar


Sorry, I don't mean to be racist, but your history is only Sub-Saharan Africa, your lands, nor Mauretania neither Egypt, 2 civilisations belonging to the Arab World's heritage whether you like it or not.



I would like to know who you are referring too,because I do have some ancestor from  eastern Africa years ago who came to the western world a free a rich and proseperous man with relatives in both the carribean and north america.Also Arab is a broad term and they are many Arab countries,but there is one Egypt,So just because some one is Jordanian,Palestinian does the Ancient Egyptian civilization belonged to them as well.


You said it yourself
Originally posted by goldenstar


I am an Arab person whose ancestors are the indigenous Berber-speaking natives of the region, who massively adopted Arabic




Originally posted by goldenstar


Noone ever tries to steal Sub-Sahara's history, so why are you constantly trying to attach yourselves to other people's history, even worse, to claim it only for yourselves? Keep Sub-Saharan history to pride yourself with it and just stop rewritting our history because noone takes you seriously in the world, people only think you're desperate and pathetic.


The British and Italains have many stolen artifacts of Aksum and other relics ,and the NME have been trying to get them bacl for years.

They are also has been pilaging of the kingdoms  relics in Benin and Ghana by other European Nations.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200902100008.html
http://www.articlesbase.com/antiques-articles/britain-return-our-stolen-artefacts-507539.html
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4544803.stm
Back to Top
goldenstar View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 09-Mar-2009
Location: Europe
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 120
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 07:23
Originally posted by AksumVanguard

I would like to know who you are referring too,because I do have some ancestor from  eastern Africa years ago who came to the western world a free a rich and proseperous man with relatives in both the carribean and north america.



I don't know what you mean, my post was addressed to those who fake and rewrite history.

Also Arab is a broad term and they are many Arab countries,but there is one Egypt,So just because some one is Jordanian,Palestinian does the Ancient Egyptian civilization belonged to them as well.


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.

Arab countries see themselves as a common nation and share the same history and heritage, which means the ancient civilisations of the Arab World belong to all Arabs.

In any event, ancient Egypt's history still belongs to the Arab nation of modern Egyptians, not to any Sub-Saharan state.

You said it yourself


Said what?

Arabs as all nations including modern Black nations formed themselves by assimilating foreign entities, if you deny the Arabs their identity then most people in Black Africa have no identity and should return to their original roots.

Originally posted by goldenstar


The British and Italains have many stolen artifacts of Aksum and other relics ,and the NME have been trying to get them bacl for years.

They are also has been pilaging of the kingdoms  relics in Benin and Ghana by other European Nations.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200902100008.html
http://www.articlesbase.com/antiques-articles/britain-return-our-stolen-artefacts-507539.html
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4544803.stm

You're making an other word-play, puns are not credible and only show bad faith.

Western colonisers pillaged and stolen things in Africa and other nations because they value arts and archeology but they didn't claim the history of such nations was theirs, while Afrocentrists claim with idiocy the history of the Arabs is theirs.

Speaking of which, Arabs would have more credibility claiming the Ethiopian civilisation of Aksum is an Arab invention, since many credible scientists assumed Aksum had been founded by Semitic-speaking Sabaeans from modern Yemen who crossed the Red Sea from South Arabia. Many assumed this civilisation emerged after the immigration of Southern Arabia's people who brought their Semitic language and culture to the local population who had no state structure at this time and were later organised into the Kingdom of Aksum first ruled by an Arabian family.

However, I guess Arabs don't have time to waste by debating about such futile topics, Aksum is yours so be proud!


Edited by goldenstar - 09-Mar-2009 at 07:49
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 125
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 09:30



I don't know what you mean, my post was addressed to those who fake and rewrite history.



Originally posted by goldenstar


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.


I would like to know which south africans are you talking about, I believe they may adore the history of the Ancient Egyptians but I don't think they have ever claimed it as theirs especially when they have their own to claim I've never met any who have.


Originally posted by goldenstar


Arab countries see themselves as a common nation and share the same history and heritage, which means the ancient civilisations of the Arab World belong to all Arabs.



Who's using wordplay now, just because they are countries who consider themselves Arabic does not mean they do not know their own history, such as Iraqis,Syrians, or Lebonese. Now wheres your logic didn't you say that since most Afro-Centrist are West AFricans that they cannot claim the Achivements of East AFricans civilization so now there is an exeption to your golden rule that every Arab country  can idnetify and assume the identity of another country such
ie Iraq claimng the Phoencecian culture,Syria claimng the Ancient Kush Culture,no I think their wise enough to know their identity.


Originally posted by goldenstar


In any event, ancient Egypt's history still belongs to the Arab nation of modern Egyptians, not to any Sub-Saharan state.


Yes it doe belong to the modern Egyptians many of which do have a mixture of genes from Macedonian,,Sub Saharan,and North African geneology that are related to the most people in the world the Kholrian -san people. Since we know there is no recent population of Sub Saharan africans into Egypt but the egyptian population does have races of it their genes. What is evident is how Narmer shows Khosian Khalarian  features,it also shows a recent migration of Berbers into Egypt,but I'm not going to get into a debate about minscule subjects, take a look for yourself

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/egyptian-y-chromosome-study-shows-a-complicated-ancestry/


Other lineages are present at lower values in both Egyptian and NW African populations. Hg 1, which is present in Egyptians (8%) and NW Africans (Arabs 6%; Berbers 4%), indicates a limited degree of gene flow from Europe to North Africa, since it has been predominantly found in Europe, with increasing frequencies from the Middle East to northwestern Europe (Semino et al. 1996; Rosser et al. 2000). Hgs 2 and 26 are found at moderate and low frequencies, respectively, in the three populations. However, little information can be deduced from these lineages since they are present in both Europe and Asia and do not show any informative geographic variation along the Eurasian landscape. Hgs 7 and 8 are typically sub-Saharan African lineages, and they have been suggested to be genetic signatures of Khoisan and Bantu language families, respectively.


Originally posted by goldenstar

Originally posted by AksumVanguard

You said it yourself


Said what?

Arabs as all nations including modern Black nations formed themselves by assimilating foreign entities, if you deny the Arabs their identity then most people in Black Africa have no identity and should return to their original roots.


Hmm didn't the indegneous Berber population have their own language before outside contact,and have adopted the Arabic culture from Eurasia,well maybe it is plausible to identify with Arabic culture since the Maghrebs advancement,territory expansion,and architectural achievements  in Spain,Tunsia,and Tripoli are due to the Saracens.In which any advancements before are due to the contact of the Phoenician Carthagians Roman,and Greek occupation all who claim they were roving barbarians.
Originally posted by goldenstar


I am myself of North-African descent, my parents are from the Maghreb, Eastern Algeria to be precise. This means I am an Arab person whose ancestors are the indigenous Berber-speaking natives of the region, who massively adopted Arabic (a language that belongs to the same language family as Berber, which isn't a Sub-Saharan tongue) following the 7th century, and who were certainly not Black but of Mediterranean stock.


they key phrase is a berber ADOPTING Arabic culture so it safe to assume you know your history before Arab interaction

Originally posted by goldenstar


The British and Italains have many stolen artifacts of Aksum and other relics ,and the NME have been trying to get them bacl for years.

They are also has been pilaging of the kingdoms  relics in Benin and Ghana by other European Nations.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200902100008.html
http://www.articlesbase.com/antiques-articles/britain-return-our-stolen-artefacts-507539.html
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4544803.stm

You're making an other word-play, puns are not credible and only show bad faith.
Originally posted by goldenstar


Western colonisers pillaged and stolen things in Africa and other nations because they value arts and archeology but they didn't claim the history of such nations was theirs, while Afrocentrists claim with idiocy the history of the Arabs is theirs.


I can agree to a certain extent,however retaining artifacts and relics and not  realeasing it to some degree claiming someone culture since you want to hold on to a part of it.

Originally posted by goldenstar


Speaking of which, Arabs would have more credibility claiming the Ethiopian civilisation of Aksum is an Arab invention, since many credible scientists assumed Aksum had been founded by Semitic-speaking Sabaeans from modern Yemen who crossed the Red Sea from South Arabia. Many assumed this civilisation emerged after the immigration of Southern Arabia's people who brought their Semitic language and culture to the local population who had no state structure at this time and were later organised into the Kingdom of Aksum first ruled by an Arabian family.


Now my friend what are scientist doing in another area of study. First the horn of AFrca were always semitic speakers and had a Semitic Culture.So historians saying that Sabeans crossed over and forunder the Aksum kingdom is not true. Because event the Sabeans claim they was a civilization already there called D'mt in which the kingdom of Aksum somehow gains hegemony of the Sabean Empire where by King Gadarat makes the Sabeans tributaries.

Not to mention the Aksum kings always have the monarchial titles similar to that of Kush and the further more scholars have discredited he theory altogether claiming Aksum is does gets its upstart from orginal population.There is no record of an Arabian family ruling Axum where do you get that,the sabean queen you relate to Aksum is way different,and scholars and archelogist don't have any concrete eveidence for existing in both kingdoms.




Edited by AksumVanguard - 09-Mar-2009 at 12:55
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7012
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 11:16
Originally posted by pinguin

Finally, Shakespeare was an ignorant... At least with respect to Moors. In fact, most Anglo-Saxons are confussed about the topic. You better ask Southern Europeans and the Moors themselves: the Amazigh people and other coastal Berberians people.
I don't know why you think Shakespeare was ignorant on the subject. Any Moors in Shakespeare are North African. Same goes for the English in general. As for the US the treaty with Morocco of 1786 makes it plain that a 'Moor' was a subject of the King of Morocco (and forbidden to take US citizens as slaves or hostages under the treaty). The Africans brought in as slaves were not termed 'Moors'.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1786t.asp
 
The ambassadors from Morocco to the court of Queen Elizabeth in 1600 were also called 'Moors', being from North Africa, and Shakespeare would have been wel aware of the embassy's arrival.
 
Basically, Shakespeare and his countrymen would agree with you.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7012
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 11:22
Originally posted by dmarniche

A little history here, please. 
It would be nice if you paid a little attention to it.
History was conscious of color.    
History isn't conscious of anything. It's not conscious, period.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7012
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 11:38
Originally posted by dmarniche

Ibn Mandhour born in Tunis before the 12th c. wrote "lank hair is the kind of hair that most non=Arab Persians and Romans have while kinky hair is the kind of hair that most Arabs have. " Lisaan al Arab, vol. 3.
So Arabs have 'kinky' hair? So do many Jews. So do a lot of English people and Tamils. All that shows is that 'kinky' hair isn't restricted to sub-Saharan Africans.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 910111213 26>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.