Moors were Black

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.

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...

Edited by pinguin - 13-Mar-2009 at 00:36

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...

Originally posted by pinguin Umayyads, yes, sorry for the typo.

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

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.

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

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   http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&rlz=1T4SKPB_enUS232US233&um=1&q=+site:www.makari.com+photos+of+skin+lightening+bleaching+cream+for+black+americans

You have a good sense of humour LOL

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


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!

 

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

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?

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

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... 

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

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?


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...

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?

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

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 !!!

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. 

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...

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...

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...

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.

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...

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

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!

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.

 

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