Moors were Black

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

Edited by pebbles - 09-Mar-2009 at 05:50

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

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

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

Originally posted by dmarniche A little history here, please.