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 Reverse Sort Order
Goocheslamb View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 16-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 40
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Moors were Black
    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
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: 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
jfsndvs View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 13-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 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There is entirely too much use of outdated racist termonology.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
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7508
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 00:31
Originally posted by goldenstar

....
Great, I have known some Chilean friends in my childhood in France.

By the way, I heard the Conquistadors were Blacks... LOL
 
And for me, my interest in the Maghreb comes from the histories my dad toll me when I was a child. Unfortunatelly I haven't met people from the Maghreb, no matter there is a large Arab population in Chile, but most of them are from Palestine.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 


Edited by pinguin - 13-Mar-2009 at 00:36
"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
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 120
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 23:48
I am back.

Originally posted by pinguin

In my case I am not a native American or a member of the First People, but -and that "BUT" is important- I am a native Chilean... Not a Spaniard at all. The ancestry don't define nationality; my land is here and nowhere else.


Great, I have known some Chilean friends in my childhood in France.

By the way, I heard the Conquistadors were Blacks... LOL


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: 12-Mar-2009 at 16:11
Originally posted by goldenstar

You're making a simplification... you were probably born in Chile, because Spain conquered it, but it doesn't mean you're a native Indian American... Smile
 
In my case I am not a native American or a member of the First People, but -and that "BUT" is important- I am a native Chilean... Not a Spaniard at all. The ancestry don't define nationality; my land is here and nowhere else.
 
"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
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 352
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 16:05
Originally posted by goldenstar

   
    * 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.

   
 
Definitely. That was a big part of the Renaissance.
Infonor homepage: http://infonor.dk/ RAIPON homepage: http://www.raipon.org/
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: 12-Mar-2009 at 15:39
Originally posted by pinguin

Umayyads, yes, sorry for the typo.


I also used to make this error, since in French it is Omeyyade... LOL

The troops and generals that conquered Spain were mainly Maghrebi. However, the government was Arab, up to the Almoravid and Ahmohads entered Spain.

In fact, the language that influenced Spanish was Arab, and not a Maghrebi tongue.

I don't understand your point, Arabic was and still is the major language of Maghreb, and the variety of Arabic that influenced Spanish and European languages is Maghrebi Arabic dialects, not Middle-Eastern Arabic.

As for rulers, I heard on a TV documentary the monarchs were of mixed stock and married Christian women too, but they were of Arabic identity, as Maghrebi people.

With respect to the genetic composition of Al-Andalus, the Spanish population was the largest majority. And although there were Maghrebies, of course, there were also Arabs, Syrians, Persians and other nationalities, including slavs!

True, most people were Spaniards and Portugese.

But the scientists I mentionned were not from the Middle-East, they are credited to be of Maghrebi ancestry.

Finally, Averroes was born in Cordoba, so he was Spaniard.


You're making a simplification... you were probably born in Chile, because Spain conquered it, but it doesn't mean you're a native Indian American... Smile

It is like Hellenistic Egypt, it is hard to know the exact origins of its scientists because they were Greek-speaking, Ptolemy for instance is sometimes called a Greek, sometimes an Egyptian.

My point is Averroes was a part of the Maghrebi civilisation, as Iberians were then a part of the Muslim world, he served at both the Almoravid and Almohad courts, 2 Berber dynasties.

The name has nothing to do with it because at that time, most local population was islamized and used arab names!


I guess that converted people had Islamic names, my point was only to remind that Averroes was only a Latinised form as I thought you saw it as a Christian name.

I wanted to be polite and answer your last post, but I really need to leave now. Have fun Wink


Edited by goldenstar - 12-Mar-2009 at 15:44
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: 12-Mar-2009 at 15:20

Umayyads, yes, sorry for the typo. The troops and generals that conquered Spain were mainly Maghrebi. However, the government was Arab, up to the Almoravid and Ahmohads entered Spain. In fact, the language that influenced Spanish was Arab, and not a Maghrebi tongue. With respect to the genetic composition of Al-Andalus, the Spanish population was the largest majority. And although there were Maghrebies, of course, there were also Arabs, Syrians, Persians and other nationalities, including slavs!

Finally, Averroes was born in Cordoba, so he was Spaniard. The name has nothing to do with it because at that time, most local population was islamized and used arab names!
 
 
"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
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 120
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 15:08
Originally posted by pebbles

 
In America,black-Americans spend billions to have their skin superficially appears fairer than dark natural tone.
 
Now you know where their little silly imagination comes from LOL
 
 


You have a good sense of humour LOL LOL

I am sure that not all Blacks are that stupid, there are good and stupid people in every ethnicity... Sleepy


Anyway, I will very be busy this week and won't post again on this section of the website.

To all people, have a lot of fun!


Edited by goldenstar - 12-Mar-2009 at 15:10
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: 12-Mar-2009 at 14:56
Originally posted by pinguin

I agree in many things above. However, I believe you made some mistakes: Spain was under Arab rule, not maghrebi. At lest during the Omeyyas period that was the peak of the culture there.


Hi friend   Wink


When Iberia was conquered starting in 711 A.D, Maghreb had joined Islam for a while. The expedition against Visigothic Iberia was made by a contingent of Maghrebi troops led by Berber general Tariq Ibn Ziad, the new territory was placed under the rule of the Umayyads.

While the Umayyad dynasty originated from Arabia, the Muslim elite of today Spain and Portugal who participated to this civilisation was of Maghrebi stock, a large part of native Christian/Jewish Iberians who had converted to Islam or not actively participated to it as well.

After the massacre of the Umayyads of Damascus by the Abbasid dynasty in the 700s, a survivor fled to Iberia and created his independent state there, which was no longer linked to the Arab empire.

Iberia was later absorbed by the 2 Berber empires of the Almoravids and Ahmohads, and was still more advanced than the rest of Europe even if it was much less successful because of the fanatical personality of the new Muslim rulers, who did not allow the life-style of preceding Muslim dynasties, judged as depraved and non-Islamic.

Almohad Iberia was gradually reconquered by Northern Christian kingdoms, and the kingdom of Grenade collapsed in 1492.

More important, Averroes was Spaniard, not Maghrebi.


It depends what you mean, of Iberian origin or identity. He was a Muslim and considered himself to be Arabic according to records, but perhaps he was of Iberian stock.

Averroes's real name was Abu Al-Walid Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Rushd or simply Ibn Rushd, Latinised as Averroes in the West.

He and his ancestors had Arabic names, his exact origins may be Maghrebi as well as native Iberian. However all the history books I read always said he was a Berber/Arab.

Of course Spaniards and Portugese were fully a part of the flourishing civilisation of Al Andalus, the point was he was a part of the Maghrebi civilisation, Iberia being then a part of it, and served at the court of the Almoravid Berbers.


Averroës, in Arabic, Abu al-Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Rushd (1126-98), Spanish-Arab Islamic philosopher, jurist, and physician, born in Córdoba, Spain.

His father, a judge in Córdoba, instructed him in Muslim jurisprudence. In his native city he also studied theology, philosophy, and mathematics under the Arab philosopher Ibn Tufayl and medicine under the Arab physician Avenzoar. Averroës was appointed judge in Seville in 1169 and in Córdoba in 1171; in 1182 he became chief physician to Abu Yaqub Yusuf, the Almohad caliph of Morocco and Muslim Spain. Averroës's view that reason takes precedence over religion led to his being exiled in 1195 by Abu Yusuf Yaqub al-Mansur; he was restored to favor shortly before his death.


http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565383/averro%C3%ABs.html


Edited by goldenstar - 12-Mar-2009 at 15:18
Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 13:47
 
Originally posted by goldenstar

 


I don't think that someone is taking you seriously, especially since you assumed Egyptians and Maghrebis were Sub-Saharan Africans who became lighter.

Instead to focus on other people's history, you should value yours.


 
 
In America,black-Americans spend billions to have their skin superficially appears fairer than dark natural tone.
 
Now you know where their little silly imagination comes from LOL
 
 
 
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: 12-Mar-2009 at 12:59
I agree in many things above. However, I believe you made some mistakes: Spain was under Arab rule, not maghrebi. At lest during the Omeyyas period that was the peak of the culture there.
 
More important, Averroes was Spaniard, not Maghrebi.


Edited by pinguin - 12-Mar-2009 at 13:02
"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
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 120
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 12:50
 
Originally posted by AksumVanguard

Now  what Maghreb influence do we see around the world .


It is long to write everything, I'll only post a few examples.

Maghreb extended its influence on vast empires reaching Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa in the past centuries: Aghlabids, Fatimids, Almoravids, Almohads, and so on.

Maghrebi scientists contributed to develop sciences, medicine, mathematics, agriculture techniques, architecture, music, geography and exploration, chemistry, astronomy, etc

One of the most eminent was Averroes, he worked in medicine, astronomy, philosophy, physics, psychology, and so on

The Maghrebi scientist Abbas Ibn Firnas was a pioneer in aeronautics and built his own glider, being one of the first men to fly and to use a parachute. He set up astronomical tables, he wrote poetry, he evented a metronome, he built a planetarium and designed a water clock. He developed a process for cutting rock crystal. He invented an artificial weather simulation room with stars, clouds, artificial thunders, lighting, astonishing spectators.

An other major Maghrebi scientist was Ibn Zuhr one of the fathers of experimental surgery, working for the Almoravid Berber dynasty, which extended its domain to South-West Europe.

Ibn Zuhr was a unique case of his time. Despite his vast and encyclopedic knowledge, he specialised in medicine and practised it all his life. He made many innovations, such as the description of various internal and skin diseases, and surgery. He led researches on the ulcers and diseases of the head, ears, nose, lips, teeth, eyes, neck, lungs and heart. He was concerned by the different kinds of fever. He described pericardium inflammation and distinguished it pneumonitis.

Ibn Zuhr based his researches on empiricism and scientific examination. He was able to discover some diseases that were unknown before, such as lung diseases. He operated on trachea, and was the first to use hypodermics for artificial feeding.

He was one of the leading physicians who directed their interest to the study of diseases found in particular environments, like diseases that were widespread in Marrakech. Just as he was among the first doctors to stress on the curing and nutritional value of honey.


Let's skip the scientists part because there are too many to list them.



    * Under the rule of Maghrebi people, Iberia (Spain and Portugal), Sicily, and Malta, were ones of Europe's richest areas, superior in technology, economy, and arts.

    * Maghrebi cuisine influenced neighbooring Mediterranean countries in particular modern Sicilian cuisine

    * 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.


I am not mentionning ancient times when Maghrebi states such as Numidia, Carthage, and Mauretania,  prospered and were a part of the civilised world.

So, what were the scientists and inventions or innovations of your ancestors? Tell me.

Aksum was noted to be one of the four greatest kingdoms of the ancient world.


Greatest is ambigue, a rich nation enriching itself thanks to abondant ressources for instance is also called great because it is beautiful even if it is not creative and weak in technology.

So, can you tell me how Aksum enlighted the world, how was it a great kingdom, did it invent anything, did it educate other nations, did it influence other countries in the world?Maghrebi states were the strongest of Western Mediterranea and controlled it for centuries in both ancient times and the period between the 7th and 19th centuries A.D.

Speaking of which, you are speaking about ancient history, thousands of years ago, but was Aksum a major power in recent history? Maghreb states were tiny in demography (7 million people in the combined countries including Libya in 1830, 33 million in single France) and were still able to dominate and conquer far bigger ennemy populations for centuries. Maghreb successfully defended its independence from the 7th century to the 19th century while all of Sub-Saharan Africa was conquered in a few years with almost no resistance when colonisers began to be interested in its ressources, even if Sub-Saharan populations were large in number.

,(son –in law)Bilal,Uthman ibn Affan,Ruqqaya,,two wives Umm Habiba and Umm Salma sought refuge in Aksum so there probably would be no Islam if it wasn’t for Aksum .


Afrocentrism again... LOL

Islam is a religion originating from the Arab World, just like Christianity, adopted by the people of Aksum...

In the meant time check out the  architecture of Magdella,Laibela,Lake Tana,Obelisks,some being biggest in the world


North-Africa built obelisks centuries before Aksum ever existed, and it wouldn't surprise me if this idea spread there from Egypt through Kush...


As a conclusion, I really think you are nothing different from Afrocentrists, and the fact you get frustrated for my initial posts against Afrocentrism and are now debating with anger instead to denounce them too, is because you fully adher to their ideas and couldn't bear to see someone contradicting your strange ideology's fairy tales.

I don't think that someone is taking you seriously, especially since you assumed Egyptians and Maghrebis were Sub-Saharan Africans who became lighter.

Instead to focus on other people's history, you should value yours.




Edited by goldenstar - 12-Mar-2009 at 15:23
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: 12-Mar-2009 at 12:48
Originally posted by AksumVanguard

The thing is Numidians never had any cities before Carthage


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.

that’s why they were in Ohhs and Ahhhs when the Queen Dido choose to build  and make another colony.


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.

Phoenicians are the first colonial empire


Really? Building tiny trade posts in collaboration with local people are a "Colonial Empire" for Afrocentrists LOL LOL

I think you forget the Egyptian empire launched conquerests in Asia, it preceded Phoenicians, you also forget many other real empires such as Persians, Assyrians, Hitites, and so on.

they built cities on the North African coast such as Lepcis,Tingis,Certa ,it’s a fact you if you don’t know simple history that carthage was phoenician colony. Most astute, academic,and degree holding scholars would agree.

I ‘m not going to repeat myself the civilization was Phoenican and a colony that is why the Queen Dido decided to let the Numidians  and Garaantians in because it was their strength to be multiethnic society it was based on trade.


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

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.

And the Persian armies of Cyrus and Darius consisted of 200,000 men so its not impossible to bring that amount across to colonize a city.


This 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...


Why didn’t Vandal NORTH AFRICA defend yourselves against the foreign  muslim armies when they came in with Uthman Ibn Affan


You're off-topic, why do you ALWAYS change the subject when you feel defeated? LOL

You say Vandalic North-Africa had to defend itself from Muslims, besides the Vandalic kingdom was erradicated by Byzantines in 534 A.D long before Islam ever came into Maghreb, you are so ignorant of history... LOL

By the way North-Africa was never Vandalic, Vandals were invaders and the natives never adopted the Vandalic culture, they lived separated during the short Vandalic presence.

Muslims never ruled france they were booted by Charles the Hammer


Charles won its battle only in 732 many years after the initial incursion, this victory only stopped the Northern advance from Poitiers, it did not expell the invaders who kept on going in the North.

but the point is that Maghrebs seem to always conmform to foreign culture


Coming from a Black person this is very ironical, especially because you are claiming the foreign culture of North-Africa for days now. Black people are known for quickly adopting the culture of foreigners, but unfortunately in a very wrong way, which makes it incompatible for them, not to mention Afrocentrists who do not want to adopt but steal other cultures.

For your information, Maghreb had only 2 identities in its history, Berber and Arabic, both still exist, Phoenician, Arabic, and Berber, belong to Afro-Asiatic languages.

I have no time to remind you about the Islamisation and Christianisation of Black people, who suddenly left their ancestral beliefs with so much rapidity in recent years. Languages of recent colonisers are considered as national tongues in Sub-Saharan Africa and natives speak them with pride and honour.

In other words, Sub-Saharan Africa, which was first Arabised by Islamic warriors, was then totally Europeanised in a few years following the colonisation of the 19th and 20th centuries.

No your saying no African country ever ruled outside of the continent well I gave you an example,not to mention Kushite empire


What a bad faith, don't make it look like you didn't understand to avoid to answer and to make me look non-credible.

Again, how do you explain the fact that besides Kush, which ironically invaded its Egyptian creator thanks to the civilisation North-Africans brought to the kingdom of Kush's people, the only Sub-Saharan country that was able to rule a small piece of non-Sub-Saharan land,  was Aksum, a Semitic speaking nation located near the then advanced Southern Arabian civilisation?

Still no answer, you're avoiding the question!

Yea and you know what that same website says Kush came about 4000BC so not only was it old but according to you its older than Sumer.But I’m not going to be little the dating of the Age of sumer I I know it predate 3000BC


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? Sleepy


Not all Sudanese identify with Arabic identity,ever heard of Darfur  7 million Sudanese think otherwise while 30 million think different.Your eplaying word games,Arabic is new term that covers a lot of ethnicities but we are speaking of the Arabic Nubians  or Nubians of Ancient times.


I am happy you avoided the remark about Kush being an invention of the ancestors of Arab Egyptians, I suppose it means you had nothing to say.

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.

So sorry your so sensitive but lets keep eye to eye I’ve never called you racist up unitil you said the colonisers were strong enough to take parts of my history and not take give it back because we are weak.


How is that racist? Westerners also colonised Maghreb, and Maghreb also occupied Western lands for centuries.

You like to be a victim but you understood my point, Western invaders stole some things but were not stupid and imbecile to claim the civilisations they had conquered belonged to their own ancestors. Only strange, desperate, and irrational idiots, keep on claiming other people's history with no fear to be seen as ridiculous and pathetic in the eyes of the whole world.

Now your opening a can of worms here because you would have to describe what you mean by cultural,technological,or Philisophical impact. Asian Civilization did influence the world by making marvelous inventions that were taken west then eventually making its way to Europe who very much captilized of the inventions,with weapons who did end up imperialisng the world. We don’t see may East Asian architecture around the world.


Europe was creative and inventive long before Muslims brought Asian inventions there, try again.

As you said, Asian created inventions, and so did Europe and the Arab World (plus the whole Middle-East). What major invention did Aksum or D'mt create, can you name a single invention? Since you identify with all of Sub-Saharan Africa, what did Sub-Saharan Africa invent or give to the world, how did they contribute to civilise humanity, how did they help humankind to be stronger and more modern?

All your have to answer is showing some realisations in architecture, even prehistorical populations knew how to build monuments and it doesn't seem extremely fantastic. I can post Maghrebi architecture too:

Numidia
























Carthage












Medieval and later Maghrebi sites and monuments 



















Not to mention the magnificent cities Romanised Maghrebis built such as Timgad, Leptis Magna, and so on...





I am not going to post pictures of recent buildings because it is clear that Ethiopia/Erythrea and all Sub-Saharan Africa are still out of the challenge in 2009.... Big smile



Edited by goldenstar - 12-Mar-2009 at 14:25
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: 12-Mar-2009 at 12:46
Originally posted by AksumVanguard

I would disagree you stated claims of Afro-Centrist as if I were to blame for them.I never defended any Afro-Centrist  you said that all people with Afro ancestry claim other ethnicities culture,but I don’t. And if you were aware of what some people with Afro-Descent  they do not like afro centrist,Moorish Science,etc because some dilute the actual great history.
  


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

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

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

Look I’m sure no one Sub-Sahran want to claim those of Maghreb but if they are some mixed of Maghreb/black  who are you tell’em what they can’t identify with 


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

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.

Whatever!Do take note there is no Moorish ethnic groups,or Maghreb in Sub Saharn that take Northern African history, other than those sub Saharans with mixed ancestry,so they have the right to claim it if they have ancestry of that culture.


I don't understand what you mean, I just said Mauritanians were mostly Arab.

Actually I was using that argument for Northern Africans and other Arbs who identify with who want to identify with  Egyptian culture.


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.

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,


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?

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.

also they are many prosperous countries in Africa.


Such as? The richest and most developped nations on the continent of Africa are the North-African states, but they are not Black as you know.

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.

















I think any Afro-Centrists ,Neo Naziracist or extermeist as yourself use wordplay to as a desperate attempt to make an argument.
 


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

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.

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


Same for you about me, I have made no racist statements.

  Blah Blah blah,your using meaningless wordplay time and time again up to no avail,scholars or anyone don’t know of the full contact between afrcian empires because there has been many destruction and confiscation of archeological finds.


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?

Listen ,first off it physical feature are not totally definitive when it comes to determining genetic origin ,it seems you have more reading to do.And North Africans are african they have the e3b haplogroup which mean they are African and have mutated into phenotype far different from all rest of the africans 


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.

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

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

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:

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

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.


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

You put a lot of numbers, I didn't verify your sources because I don't really have time to spend with irrationality, I prefer to look at pictures and reality it is quicker.

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.

Conclusion, the best reasonning following your logic would be Sub-Saharans are North-Africans who became Black...

Now the websites you gave prove nothing because those only a few anomillies 1 /421in the population had a black genome.Whereas the modern Egyptians they have more khosian and some east African but  higher frequencies of 45%.But the Khosian are not related to east Africans nor are  they in the  proximity which means they came in earlier times,and  40-45% Egyptians carry these genes of hg21and guess what the 3 Maghrebs and 2Europeans you samples don’t these traits only hg 7 and hg8  or or so  I beleive


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

My websites prove nothing? The website you used to prove your point seems to not be neutral, I read Mathilda's blog and she doesn't simply post studies from scientists, she gives her opinion and seems to contradict their conclusions.

I don't know about her credibility, but how come she made a big mistake by showing Algerian people that she labeled as Moroccan faces, huh? LOL LOL LOL


Wait, I did not read your whole websites. Let's forget complicated and confusing expressions and let's use simple terms.

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.

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.




Typical Northern Egyptians:
















Typical Sub-Saharan Blacks:















The 3 boys above are cute, but it is still evident that there is a clear racial difference between Sub-Saharans and North-Africans, no matter if some people of Egypt (just like people of Sub-Saharan Africa) are mixed as this country has had contacts with Sub-Saharan Africa through the Nile River in particular slavery.

I really feel you badly want to be attached to the people of North-Africa, instead to focus on your own history. Of course your strategy is a bit different of that of Afrocentrists, you don't want to steal our history you want us to be a part of your own history. Sorry, we are not... Wink

  See that’s just it the Muslims did not interbreed with slaves why would they,a lot of them are thought to be castrated,but most were sent to Iraq and other parts they were not kept in Egypyt. Why would they sell them in their own Khedivian territory the baqts made an agreement and most likely they too them to the Persian gulf or sold them to colonist.


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.

Really lets see a reference and laets say the proportions of the population that have African blood along with amount og genes in the individuals in the population. Lets get a reference shall we and not just the one below


The proportion of African ancestry in Egyptians is extremely low and doesn't affect their phenotype. Besides those who are clearly of mixed ancestry, typical ethnic Egyptians have a Mediterranan face. As for those who don't, they have have some Sub-Saharan ancestry and aren't fully autochtonous.

Read this study:

HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks.

The following conclusions have been reached: 1) Macedonians belong to the "older" Mediterranean substratum, like Iberians (including Basques), North Africans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks (Anatolians), Armenians and Iranians, 2) Macedonians are not related with geographically close Greeks, who do not belong to the "older" Mediterranenan substratum,


3) Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian) people, which separate them from other Mediterranean groups.


Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310. Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses.

The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt.

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... Confused

I feel like you think any person who has more or less Black African ancestry belongs the Black African community as a property even if such people refuse to be a part of your people... by the way why wouldn't we reverse your Afrocentrist logic, since such Black populations share genes with Greeks and Egyptians it means those Blacks are Greek and Egyptian, and that Egypt and Greece founded these Black nations... I cannot believe I am making such stupid theories now, SENSELESS !!! Cry

Dear, even if in your dream we were Black people, we do not identify with Blacks, Egyptians or Maghrebis do not want to identify with Sub-Saharan Africa so no matter how many Black ancestors we have they are our ancestors not yours. And if as you said they are ancient Black populations who migrated to the North thousands of years ago before there was any Black African state or civilisation, you should stop considering these ancient immigrants as your people.

Your talking about the culture absorption.Well forcibly assimilating a culture and language is one thing ,and intertwining  2 different cultures is another.


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

Dude as I said why wasn’t the  berber language used,when at the time of the Vandal and Visigoth presence, I guess you guys decided for something new to do and tried it.


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.

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.

I guess the Vandals and Visigoths got boring But all the while Arabic is not consdiered indigenous to North Africa by scholars.


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

Try again.

Did I see Swahili was spoken by all blacks .They are many different languages in East Africa but when a person from one ethnicity meets another person from another ethnicity they speak Swahili. It is Spoken mostly on the Eastern coast,alot of africans are bilingual.


You implied it.

So, some Blacks recently learnt Swahili, but speaking a second language to communicate with each other is not a sign of being the same nation, otherwise all people speaking English in the world would fit in your defnition of a common nation.

Well there really is no recorded first kings of Aksum having wars or battles with neighboring cities.


Little is known about the history of Sub-Saharan Africa, records and testimonies are extremely rare...

By the way, there were no battles in Maghreb, most people gladly adopted the new Islamic civilisation besides a minority living in mountains that wasn't in contact with earlier Romans and Byzantines.

Also they they were native to the land but in the scenario of Maghrebs they were not of the continent so,you did pick up something new.


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

And Aksum is native,you even have Sabeans using Aksum coins prior to dominion ocver their empire.


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.

And it never was conquered by Arabians get it your facts straight

there is no record of Sabea making Aksum a vassaL


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

the culture you see indegenous and the first recorded king is Zokales so how did they conquer them.


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

Also,popluar belief and legend say it was a dominated by Kush before occupation so get your history together.


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

No it is indigenous because they have found that Ge’ez is native and there were now inscriptions of the Sabean script used.


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.


They were never kingdoms of Numdians or Maurantinians just tribes who had kings .


There was never a kingdom of Aksum, only Black tribes with a king.

You make no sense, a tribe having a king lives in a kingdom.




Edited by goldenstar - 12-Mar-2009 at 13:40
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: 12-Mar-2009 at 11:53
Originally posted by ru2religious

I don't know where this ideal comes from that the Moor were not black ...
From the fact (among others) that the word 'Moor' designated people from the Maghreb. And less than 500 years ago, so there's plenty of historical record. If there were - which is debatable - 'black' people living in the Maghreb before the Islamic invasion, they were replaced or at least governed by  the Moors. 'Moor' is an English word (no matter what its etymology) and in English it refers to an inhabitant of the Maghreb, and in particular to subjects of the King of Morocco. It's not in fact a racial or tribal designation.
 
read my post and you will see on a basic level that there were black moors. Once this is established we can move on to the debate that the Moors were black people and the Arab Muslim latter became part of it.
There undoubtedly were 'black' Moors just as there were 'black' sailors in the 18th century Royal Navy (and on English ships before that) and 'black' Englishment (subjects of the Queen/King) in the 16th and 17th centuries. That doesn't mean the English are a 'black' people, just that some Englishmen are 'black'.
 
Establishing there were black Moors is not establishing the Moors were black. If you think it is then I suppose you'll never understand what you're talking about.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
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: 12-Mar-2009 at 04:50
Originally posted by pinguin

In any case, it doesn't matter what African Americans or Subsaharans think about the topic. What's important is what the people of the Maghreb think they are, and they have already spoken. They are the Moors. The rest are wannabes.


Well said! ClapClapClap
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: 12-Mar-2009 at 02:30
Originally posted by goldenstar


Did I ever call you an Afrocentrist? I have never addressed you, my post was addressed to the Black people who revise and fake history, you chose to defend them and challenged me to show proof that some Blacks claim others' heritage as their own, I just proved my point.


 I would disagree you stated claims of Afro-Centrist as if I were to blame for them.I never defended any Afro-Centrist  you said that all people with Afro ancestry claim other ethnicities culture,but I don’t. And if you were aware of what some people with Afro-Descent  they do not like afro centrist,Moorish Science,etc because some dilute the actual great history.



First of all they are blacks(sub saharans) in Maurantania,some of who are mixed,what gives you the desposition to say what a person can or can't claim,

Wrong again.

1) We are talking about ancient Maur Etania, located in today Maghreb, not about modern day MaurItania, a Saharan country which only has the same name as the antic Northern kingdom of Mauretania (also spelled Mauritania, but rarely to avoid to confuse it with the current country).

Look I’m sure no one Sub-Sahran want to claim those of Maghreb but if they are some mixed of Maghreb/black  who are you tell’em what they can’t identify with


Originally posted by goldenstar


but your using another word play attempt which is meaningless to deny the fact since you feel a common bond with Mediteraneans and  Arbics the you all can share the same history and thats fine but its the same with other people with Afro descent such as those in the US,Carribean,and Latin America.

This is wrong, I don't deny anyone the right to claim anything about themselves and those who want to attach with them, the point is such people should stop trying to claim things that aren't theirs.

Moreover, I don't identify with all Mediterraneans, there is a major difference between Islamic and Christian Mediterranea, but it doesn't stop us from feeling a bit similar in many aspects such as physical apparence, cuisine, culture (relatively speaking, in the sense of the love of sun and siesta for instance, machism, love and adoration of mothers, etc), and of course strong historical ties since antic times, which don't exist between us and Sub-Saharans besides the tragedy of slavery.

I do not say this with racism or irony, my point is just because Europeans met and enslaved millions of Africans for centuries doesn't mean Africa shares anything with Europe in term of history or culture, thus I don't understand why some people in Sub-Saharan Africa beg to be attached with Northern-Africa, even worse, claim it as their own land and call the natives Arab invaders.


Whatever!Do take note there is no Moorish ethnic groups,or Maghreb in Sub Saharn that take Northern African history, other than those sub Saharans with mixed ancestry,so they have the right to claim it if they have ancestry of that culture.


Originally posted by goldenstar


Well, if West and South Africans feel like the same nation and want this, I totally agree with you. But do they? A skin colour and a hair texture mean nothing, the idea that Blacks are all the same group regarldess of the intense ethnic and linguistic variety in Africa is mainly a Western concept, Blacks are always catagorised as the same thing while Europeans insist about their diversities.

If we took your logic then Italians and Algerians could do the same regarding their racial similarity and their common geographical origin.

I wonder if people from Senegal and other Islamic states of West Africa, who I know well, feel they are the same nation and share a common heritage with Black Christians from distant South-Africa, but if they do then it is their right and noone is going to deny it.


Actually I was using that argument for Northern Africans and other Arbs who identify with who want to identify with  Egyptian culture.

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,also they are many prosperous countries in Africa.

I think any Afro-Centrists ,Neo Naziracist or extermeist as yourself use wordplay to as a desperate attempt to make an argument.







LOL

I'm not racist  at all, it isn't like I was attacking Blacks or putting their civilisations down, I just defend mine.

Again, Arabs are one ethnic group, divided in several entities, Africa is a huge continent with thousands of ethnicities and languages.


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


Attaching yourselves with people who share nothing with you besides their skin colour and hair texture to feel stronger is your right and I don't deny it, it is the same as Arabs identifying with Italians and Spanish as I said above, I don't find it logical but who cares, they can do whatever they want for as long as they keep Sub-Saharan Africa's history and don't claim our history as theirs.

I think any Afro-Centrists ,Neo Naziracist or extermeist as yourself use wordplay to as a desperate attempt to make an argument.




Now wheres your logic didn't you say that since most Afro-Centrist are West AFricans






What does it have to do? I never said Aksum was not part of Sub-Saharan Africa. But anyway I don't see why Aksum is so much a source of pride to you, it did never achieve anything special, it was of course a prosperous trading nation while many parts of the world were still primitive including most of Sub-Saharan Africa, but it didn't create major inventions or influenced the world unlike European/Arab/Middle-Eastern/Asian civilisations.

You are going to call me a racist again, besides what I say is only the truth, and it would be racist only if said in an other context, hatred by example, while you're attacking and I am only defending.


Now your opening a can of worms here because you would have to describe what you mean by cultural,technological,or Philisophical impact. Asian Civilization did influence the world by making marvelous inventions that were taken west then eventually making its way to Europe who very much captilized of the inventions,with weapons who did end up imperialisng the world. We don’t see may East Asian architecture around the world.

 

Now  what Maghreb influence do we see around the world . Aksum was noted to be one of the four greatest kingdoms of the ancient world.,(son –in law)Bilal,Uthman ibn Affan,Ruqqaya,,two wives Umm Habiba and Umm Salma sought refuge in Aksum so there probably would be no Islam if it wasn’t for Aksum . In the meant time check out the  architecture of Magdella,Laibela,Lake Tana,Obelisks,some being biggest in the world


http://www.ganeandmarshall.com/images/ethiop_axum_main.jpg


http://www.ganeandmarshall.com/images/ethiopia-main.jpg

http://www.thenewblackmagazine.com/Photofiles/Gondar.jpg




Swahili is certainly not the language of all Blacks, where did you read this?

Swahili is present in a relatively small region of Africa, Blacks have thousands of different


Did I see Swahili was spoken by all blacks .They are many different languages in East Africa but when a person from one ethnicity meets another person from another ethnicity they speak Swahili. It is Spoken mostly on the Eastern coast,alot of africans are bilingual.



Finally, when you say West-Africans share the same history as Southern Africans, I think it is relative, for example West-Africans have had more historical contacts (religion, slavery, trade etc) with Northern Arabs and Europeans in the past millenia than with people of South-Africa, who were isolated and probably never met Northern Blacks for centuries if not more. Same for Egyptians and Sudanese, I doubt Sudanese people are closer to Zimbabwe in term of historical contacts than to Egyptians. The same can be applied to the Horn of Africa and Arabia, Blacks from Ethiopia seem to have more historical ties with Arabia than with Southern Africa.

Now  the article says is that Egyptians have genes closer to that of Morrocans and Maurentanians than they do of Libya.


Blah Blah blah,your using meaningless wordplay time and time again up to no avail,scholars or anyone don’t know of the full contact between afrcian empires because there has been many destruction and confiscation of archeological finds.


Then your study is either totally stupid, or you just don't mention the exact facts. Look at typical Egyptians and tell me again they look more Black than Mediterranean.

Egyptians' closest population in term of genetics is people from the Arab Maghreb, just because Egyptians and some Blacks share some [Black?] genes that are specific to them doesn't mean those Blacks are close to Egyptians, it only means Egyptian genome contains a few genes that constitue the majority of some Black ethnicities' genes, but the remaining genes are mostly of Mediterranean stock.


Listen ,first off it physical feature are not totally definitive when it comes to determining genetic origin ,it seems you have more reading to do.And North Africans are african they have the e3b haplogroup which mean they are African and have mutated into phenotype far different from all rest of the africans

 




Just because some Northern Europeans share a few unique genes with Arabs/Turks because of history doesn't mean they're closer to Arabs/Turks than to their European neighboors.


Now but we do know that that ethnicity or partcular groups in that ethnicity once lived with each other,




I thought Muslim Egyptians invaded and enslaved Southern Blacks, and brought them in the North.

Only invasions bring foreigners? Did you hear about the intense and massive enslavement that Muslim Northerners including Egyptians practised against Southern Black people for centuries since the beginning of Islam?

Did you hear about slavery in antic times? Did you hear about the ancient Egyptian kingdom's invasion of Sub-Saharan Africa (Nubia and today Sudan)?

As you see there are many factors, and even if those genes originated from the very beginning of the Egyptian civilisation, what would it prove? They are a minority of genes and White people from Europe carry Sub-Saharan genes as well.


See that’s just it the Muslims did not interbreed with slaves why would they,a lot of them are thought to be castrated,but most were sent to Iraq and other parts they were not kept in Egypyt. Why would they sell them in their own Khedivian territory the baqts made an agreement and most likely they too them to the Persian gulf or sold them to colonist.

Now the websites you gave prove nothing because those only a few anomillies 1 /421in the population had a black genome.Whereas the modern Egyptians they have more khosian and some east African but  higher frequencies of 45%.But the Khosian are not related to east Africans nor are  they in the  proximity which means they came in earlier times,and  40-45% Egyptians carry these genes of hg21and guess what the 3 Maghrebs and 2Europeans you samples don’t these traits only hg 7 and hg8  or or so  I beleive

Really lets see a reference and laets say the proportions of the population that have African blood along with amount og genes in the individuals in the population. Lets get a reference shall we and not just the one below.







Are you blind or do you sincerely think Egyptians have significant Black admixture that may attach them to Black people in term of ethnicity only because you wish ancient Egypt had something to do with Black people?

Similar rates of Sub-Saharan genes are found in Northern and Southern European populations as well, you make no sense.


African female heritage in Iberia: a reassessment of mtDNA lineage distribution in present times.

The most relevant results are the following: (1) North African sequences (haplogroup U6) present an overall frequency of 2.39%, and sub-Saharan sequences reach 3.83%, values that are, in both cases, much higher than those generally observed in Europe; and (2) there is a substantial geographic heterogeneity in the distribution of these lineages (haplogroup L being the most frequent in the south, whereas haplogroup U6 is generally more common in the north). The analysis of the observed diversity within each haplogroup strongly suggests that both were recently introduced (in historical times).



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

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.



Yes, just like Blacks did, just like almost all countries in the world have several languages, the biggest nations adopted foreign tongues, so you still make no sense.

Bro we all know Arabic is not indegenous to north africa neither is the culture nice try though LOL.

Taking your logic, no language is indigenous to nowhere, we all came from Southern Africa I heard.

Of course Arabic is now an indigenous tongue of North-Africa, and Arabs are now indigenous to North-Africa as its natives are Arabs, as for Arabic culture it means nothing in the sense you say it since Arab peoples always kept their original culture and simply adopted other features from foreigners such as those who Arabised them centuries ago.

The history of Sub-Saharan Africa is not known enough to debate loyally, since there is almost no trace of writing there it is hard to know which African ethnicity adopted other languages or not, or to know which African ethnicity was culturally assimilated or not, knowledge is limited about Africa while you know well Arab countries because their rich history is not a mystery since they left plenty of testimonies, monuments, and events, which give you many arguments to bash Arabs, even if they still don't make sense.


Your talking about the culture absorption.Well forcibly assimilating a culture and language is one thing ,and intertwining  2 different cultures is another. Dude as I said why wasn’t the  berber language used,when at the time of the Vandal and Visigoth presence, I guess you guys decided for something new to do and tried it.I guess the Vandals and Visigoths got boring But all the while Arabic is not consdiered indigenous to North Africa by scholars.






So your saying the city states of Rome such as Pompeii and Naples were not roman becuase they were conquered by Rome,way bad example.

What a bad faith, making it look like I was the first who started this senseless theory to give yourself credidibility and avoid to face my argument LOL

I am following your logic, remember your theory about Maghrebi Arabs not being Arab because of conquest. The same for Aksumite people, they weren't part of this culture they were conquered by original Aksumite warriors. All people in the world have no culture and are imposteurs, this is your theory not mine.


Well there really is no recorded first kings of Aksum having wars or battles with neighboring cities. Also they they were native to the land but in the scenario of Maghrebs they were not of the continent so,you did pick up something new.

And Aksum is native,you even have Sabeans using Aksum coins prior to dominion ocver their empire.And it never was conquered by Arabians get it your facts straight,the culture you see indegenous and the first recorded king is Zokales so how did they conquer them.Also,popluar belief and legend say it was a dominated by Kush before occupation so get your history together.






And Aksum is native,you even have Sabeans using Aksum coins prior to dominion ocver their empire.And it never was conquered by Arabians get it your facts straight,the culture you see indegenous and the first recorded king is Zokales so how did they conquer them.Also,popluar belief and legend say it was a dominated by Kush before occupation so get your history together.

Listen, for decades the most eminent historians assumed Aksum was the product of the Arab civilisation and the ancient local language a variety of Sabaean Arabic, right?

Today many changed their opinion, but many still think this civilisation and its ancestors were founded by more advanced Sabaean Arabs. You cannot deny this, and telling Aksum is indigenous is only an hypothesis, not a certified fact since it is disputed and debated by historians.


No it is indigenous because they have found that Ge’ez is native and there were now inscriptions of the Sabean script used. However the Sabeans used Askum coins which ,Arabic,Ge’ez and Grek for the population of jews and other byzantnanium taders in Ethiopia.





3) Carthage was not a Phoenician state, it was an indigenous empire of mixed Berber-Punic culture, inhabited by native Berbers who spoke the Punic tongue, the people of Carthage, and whose elite was made by both descendents of Phoenicians and native Berbers, or mixed Phoenician-Berber people such as Hannibal you mentionned above.


They were never kingdoms of Numdians or Maurantinians just tribes who had kings .The thing is Numidians never had any cities before Carthage that’s why they were in Ohhs and Ahhhs when the Queen Dido choose to build  and make another colony. Phoenicians are the first colonial empire they built cities on the North African coast such as Lepcis,Tingis,Certa ,it’s a fact you if you don’t know simple history that carthage was phoenician colony. Most astute, academic,and degree holding scholars would agree.

The Phoenician  Carthaginians allowed anybody to be citizens thats we the let alot of people let in and the phoenecian founded cities such as Carthage ,Lepcus,Tripoli,and Tingis.






They founded many cities in Europe as well, Malaga, Cadix, Ibiza, and so on.

Carthaginians were not Phoenicians from Phoenicia, and no state in the ancient world could move hundreds of thousands of people to a distant area accessible only by sea. The estmation for the population of the single capital city of the state of Carthage, not the whole land, was 250.000 to 800.000 people if not more.


I ‘m not going to repeat myself the civilization was Phoenican and a colony that is why the Queen Dido decided to let the Numidians  and Garaantians in because it was their strength to be multiethnic society it was based on trade. And the Persian armies of Cyrus and Darius consisted of 200,000 men so its not impossible to bring that amount across to colonize a city.




When did the Muslims rule France and Italy,they ruled Sicily and Malta ,but the whole Italy.


Why didn’t Vandal NORTH AFRICA defend yourselves against the foreign  muslim armies when they came in with Uthman Ibn Affan


Muslim forces occupied half of France for several years and kept on making advances in the North even after the defeat of Poitiers in 732. They reached Sens, a city that is close to Paris.

Muslims never ruled france they were booted by Charles the Hammer,but the point is that Maghrebs seem to always conmform to foreign culture




I don't know the exact history of Da’amat, when was it founded? The various sources I checked say in the first millenium B.C

Well, Sabaeans existed since about 2000 B.C ...

But perhaps you have some credible sources telling
Da’amat preceded Sabaeans.

Just like Aksum was preceded by
Da’amat, Sabaeans had ancestors and civilisations long before the Sabaean kingdom existed, and it may be them who brought civilisation to he Horn of Africa, historians mention Southern Arabian immigrants but not necessarilly Sabaeans.

By the way, Sabaeans did not use Black scripts to write their language from what I know, while Aksum first used the South-Arabian alphabet (not related to modern Arabic scripts, evolved from Semitic Aramaic).

in which there is no record of Sabea making Aksum a vassaL

Really? There are many hypothesises assuming Sabaeans ruled the territory of what became Aksum.



Wrong again scholars have concluded that Ge’ez gad long been the spoken language and wa always in use.

in which there is no record of Sabea making Aksum a vassal

You seem very happy for this, besides people of the Ancient/Medevial/Modern Arab World occupied thousands of Sub-Saharan ethnicities for centuries if not millenia and their cultural impact is still present.


No your saying no African country ever ruled outside of the continent well I gave you an example,not to mention Kushite empire



And actually, I read from an American university that Kush, the first Sub-Saharan civilisation, emerged thanks to North-African contacts.

The first African civilization after Egypt was built by an Egyptianized people who lived between the Nile River's first and third cataracts and spoke Nilo-Saharan languages. This region around the first cataract, called Nubia, had been conquered and colonized by Egypt in the fourth millenium BC. Because of this, Egyptian civilization diffused southward and a new African kingdom was built up in the floodplain around the Nile's third cataract: the Kush. Their capital city was Kerma and it served as the major trading center for goods travelling north from the southern regions of Africa.


http://wsu.edu/~dee/CIVAFRCA/KUSH.HTM

Yea and you know what that same website says Kush came about 4000BC so not only was it old but according to you its older than Sumer.But I’m not going to be little the dating of the Age of sumer I I know it predate 3000BC



Moreover, it was in today Sudan, and most Sudanese are the same as Mauritanians, they are not Sub-Saharans in term of race but people of mixed Arab-Black ancestry, who identify with the Arab World, certainly not with Black people.

I also wonder if the Kingdom of Kush, which later extended into later D'mt and Aksum, was the reason why such entities then existed. I don't know, but let's ask historians.[/QUOTE

Not all Sudanese identify with Arabic identity,ever heard of Darfur  7 million Sudanese think otherwise while 30 million think different.Your eplaying word games,Arabic is new term that covers a lot of ethnicities but we are speaking of the Arabic Nubians  or Nubians of Ancient times.


I also wonder if the Kingdom of Kush, which later extended into later D'mt and Aksum, was the reason why such entities then existed. I don't know, but let's ask historians.



[QUOTE]

Racist because I use the term Black for Sub-Saharan to disambiguate and not confuse with North-Africans, who are Mediterranean not Black? Well, Black supremacists always call me a racist person too, so it is just routine now.


So sorry your so sensitive but lets keep eye to eye I’ve never called you racist up unitil you said the colonisers were strong enough to take parts of my history and not take give it back because we are weak.

 





Edited by AksumVanguard - 12-Mar-2009 at 02:51
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 352
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2009 at 23:52

Well, I don't disagree with him so far, actually. He has not made the second part, but he says he will in the future. Berbers are native Africans, that I surely agree with - it's even my point.

It is also obvious that there have been some intermixture with Med and Arab people, no doubt, and maybe others.

What I say is this - the "Moors" that invaded Spain are the same people, to a large degree, that inhabit North Africa now. What or where those people were at a significantly earlier time I can't say. They are the people that were called Moors,  you could say they are the "famous" Moors.

 It's not like the case with Egypt where things are more muddled because it started over 5000 years ago, the Moorish invasion started in historical times, and much has been written down.

 

So, did the Moors live in the dessert to the south prior to this? I can't say if he's right. Maybe he thinks they were like Tuaregs at one point? Notice that he illustrates his words with pictures, and the pictures are Berbers. Could be that we don't agree, but he isn't just saying something outrageously wrong. He could be right about the multiple ethnicities, because Moor isn't an ethnicity. That doesn't mean that they consisted of Dinka and Scandinavian looking people.

Edited by Jams - 12-Mar-2009 at 00:06
Infonor homepage: http://infonor.dk/ RAIPON homepage: http://www.raipon.org/
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 910111213 26>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 1.156 seconds.