Moors were Black

  What you have to understand is that the population of ancient Egypt doesn't necessarily rely on the Genetics of the Modern Egyptians presently,it deals with assimilation of incoming foreign influence, mass migration towards the south as it shows in the article below,and the characteristics of the North Westen Afrcican population migration in recent times.

But we that Southern Egyptians have recently migrated to Northern Sudan.

http://racialreality.110mb.com/egypt_nubia.html

we can infer that the migration of northern mtDNA types to the south is older than the migration of southern mtDNA types to the north (or that there has been less gene flow from north to south than from south to north along the Nile River Valley) and that Egypt and Nubia have had more genetic contact than either has had with the southern Sudan.

Originally posted by goldenstar Not even half of the Egyptians allegedly have 4 to 5% of Sub-Saharan markers so I guess it means a small number of Blacks came and created ancient Egypt, and were then invaded by larger non-Black populations who stole their civilisation... http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/egyptian-y-chromosome-study-shows-a-complicated-ancestry

Alright you may be right to certain degree on this point in which I mis-interprented the article as to saying the Khosian Marker was expressed relatively high no it wasn't.But it was the  marker HG9  which has an affinity to Ethiopians which is expressed very  high,which constitutes some affinity to both populaces.

Hg 9** is the second most common lineage in the Egyptian population (35%) and is also present, although at lower frequencies, in the two NW African populations examined (Moroccan Arabs 14%; Moroccan Berbers 4%). This haplogroup shows the highest frequencies in the Fertile Crescent, and it has been suggested to be a genetic signature of migrations from the Middle East associated with Neolithic farmer expansions (Semino et al. 1996; Rosser et at. 2000; Quintana-


Now here is the part in which they say the HG9 an Ethiopian marker has relations with the Egyptian gene pool.

Interestingly, Hg 9 is also present at relatively high frequencies (25%) in the Ethiopian population, highlighting the extent to which Semitic peoples have left substantial traces in the Ethiopian gene pool at different times

Originally posted by goldenstar The firs thing I wanted to answer to, among all of your illogical and self-contradicting statements, was that concerning genetics because once again you contradicted yourself with your own source...

Now let me tell you,the if the most dreaded name on this forum isn't Afro-Centrist the next most dreaded name is "CAUCOSOID".I 've noticed that CAUCOSOID is thrown around alot and is used to describe any facial features that gives inclination to European charecteristics. Anything that is sharped nosed ,defined cheek bones is considered in particular an European characteristics,not true it used to descibe the resemblence so tone it down.

Originally posted by goldenstar The cultures of Egypt and Nubia are the ones most often claimed by Afrocentrists, usually Americans of West African descent. But the data from anthropology and genetics reveals the Caucasoid make-up of Egyptians, both ancient and modern, and places Nubia, which acquired a partly Negroid character, in the Afro-Asiatic cultural complex, separate from sub-Saharan and West African groups. Caucasoid mtDNA (maternal) sequences, labeled L3E and U6, were detected at frequencies of 96% in Moroccan Berbers, 82% in Algerian Berbers and 78% in non-Berber Moroccans, compared with only 4% in a Senegalese population.

I remember in one of the other  threads in this forum  that people described Nubians as "caucasoid ", hah,I think we would agree that the ancient nubians were black whether they be of Kerma or Kush but according to this article their Caucasoid ,well  guess what, so would most East Africans according to dillusional anthropologist and scientist. So do you  think your out of the woods yet, because I'm seeing alot of racist TOPICS pop on the board ,Man O Man ,I must've touched nerve somehow.

Originally posted by goldenstar Apparently, Senegalese, who are ones of the darkest Sub-Saharans, have the same ammount of foreign (Caucasoid) admixture. I think the second part is a case closed  too, and I really hope you'll end this endless and senseless debate because it makes you lose all your credibility concerning some history knowledge you own.

No I wouldn't say that 4% makes making up the fractional portion of the Senegalese gene pool of the population is white because as I said the Caucasoid term is thrown around  very  much too often. I will say there was a slight misreading of the article  to the Egyptian Y chromosome but it still does show a large relation to Sub-Saharan,so please read on it.

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

Originally posted by goldenstar Apparently, Senegalese, who are ones of the darkest Sub-Saharans, have the same ammount of foreign (Caucasoid) admixture. I think the second part is a case closed  too, and I really hope you'll end this endless and senseless debate because it makes you lose all your credibility concerning some history knowledge you own.

Check this out,you know the Senegalese are located in Western Africa and are  indefinitelty black african so I would agree that there is a need to  explain the definition of Caucosoid  make up in the populations gene pool.It is a very Exhaustive word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasoid,_Negroid,_Mongoloid

The racial classification scheme of Carleton S. Coon after the Pleistocene.

The racial classification scheme of Carleton S. Coon during the Pleistocene.

	Caucasoid race
	Negroid race
	Capoid race
	Mongoloid race
	Australoid race

No  would't you agree.

Originally posted by goldenstar It is very minor, read again the genetic studies about the Greeks and their "substantial" relatedness to Ethiopians:

I have read the article and it lacks numbers that really is very abstract,it doesn't answer anything.Lets see the numbers

Originally posted by goldenstar and just like you tried to classify Mauritanians as Sub-Saharans,

Why lie were is the proof,I know there is mixed population of Moors and Blacks in Maurentania but I don't beleive I said it was totally Sub-Saharan.

Originally posted by goldenstar However today most Sudanese see themselves as a part of the Arab World rather than Sub-Saharan Africa, and not all of them are racially Sub-Saharans, many Northerners are mixed.

Originally posted by goldenstar  (not to mention she shows Algerian faces she labels as Moroccan),

Lets not make a fret I think she showed the Algerian faces and Morrocan faces because they were both North-West Africans, you do like your fellow Maghreb brothers don't you,or do you find any minor excuse to make an argument, I think we both agree there the same racial group or closely related.

Sub Saharan Countries being labeled  Arab like the Sudan

, Kush, a creation of locals who adopted the identity and civilisation of North-Africans for millenia.

Originally posted by goldenstar However today most Sudanese see themselves as a part of the Arab World rather than Sub-Saharan Africa, and not all of them are racially Sub-Saharans, many Northerners are mixed.

Listen my friend do me favor and lets tone down the relatively modern terms. The Sudanese are what you would call black,so no need for word play.But lets check this article out,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_history_of_Sudan

A prehistoric burial discovered in northern Sudan, known as Cemetery 117, reveals what is believed to be the world's earliest indication of warfare, dating to the twelfth millennium BC [1]. By the eighth millennium BC, people of a Neolithic culture had settled into a sedentary way of life there in fortified mud-brick villages, where they supplemented hunting and fishing on the Nile with grain gathering and cattle herding. Anthropological and archaeological research indicate that during the predynastic period Nubia and Nagadan Upper Egypt were ethnically, and culturally nearly identical, and thus, simultaneously evolved systems of pharaonic kingship by 3300 BC. [2] But during the close of the Nagada III period, Nagada, in its bid to conquer and unify the whole nile valley, seems to have conquered their southern neighbors and "Egyptianized" them.

So what it basically says is that its really same ethnicity hmm,why would you say their different from a fluke website like wsu.edu which seems to be asinine in which it devalues the orgins of most African civilizations.

There is still alot to be learned about Kerma as it says in this article,but we know that Egypt called "Kerma",  Kush in ancient times,so it was thought to be the same civilization.

http://library.thinkquest.org/22845/bronze_age/kerma.pdf

It says 6000 bc here
http://www.ancientsudan.org/religion_01_basics_kushite_religion.html

Khartoum the ancestors of the Sudanese seem to have had San orgins too.

http://www.arkamani.org/vol_5/archaeology_5/missinglinks.htm

Early Cultures before the End of the Fourth Millennium BC

 

Early Khartoum    

Khartoum  is considered the oldest cultural center in the Nile  Valley. The people of early Khartoum were the descendants of the San -like people, who came from the south or the southeast. They established their early occupations in Khartoum and gradually they spread northwards along the Nile Valley. 

 

lets observe and see how there was an economy in Kerma and devoloped

 

Another important ancient site in Kerma region is Wadi El Khowi. It was an old bed of  the Nile about  ten kilometers east of Kerma. Several human  settlements  around  5 000 BC emerged on its banks.[20] More than thirty cemeteries were identified in the site some of which have over 1000 graves each. Grave offerings show that communities lived a high social hierarchy.[21]

 

The graves of the people of Kerma indicate that their economy was developed. This development was probably due to their wide activities in trade. The location of Kerma near the mouth of Wadi Howar, the tributary of the Nile that came from the western frontiers, enabled them to be involved actively in trade with central Africa. They played an important role as mediators between the Nile valley and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Heres why else Kerma was indegenous as stated with London Professor

http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/nubia/kerma.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOiAvoqZzks&feature=related

In this video it shows that Kerma had its own outpost.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559614/sudan.html


Southern Sudanese there some Northern Sudanese that are blue black













Let's compare the above, who are not Sub-Saharan racially but clearly of mixed ancestry, to ethnic Southern Sudanese people:

Your way off bro if you take a look at the  Craniomatics  above you'll see the picture of why Caucasoid feature are found in Nubians so whats your point.

	Caucasoid race
	Negroid race
	Capoid race
	Mongoloid race
	Australoid race

Originally posted by goldenstar They are not the same racially, are they? I read an article telling a large part of Southern women enlight their skin with a dangerous process causing cancers and other skin diseases as they want to look like Northern Sudanese people, who have a lighter skin tone. So it is an other proof they are clearly not the same population.

Originally posted by goldenstar Nubians are a people living in Southern Egypt and Northern Sudan, they identify with the North for millenia, as early as ancient Egypt, not because of recent history, and that's your own website that tells they are not Sub-Saharan in term of historical heritage

All sudanese do have the same racial make up,this is another attempt to define  what an ethnicity is.
.

Originally posted by goldenstar And whatever, they have the right to class their civilisation in the group they wish, you have no authority to force anyone to identify with your people, arguments

What gives you the authority to class their civilzation,and why did you bring Arab into the debate,were taking if their SUb -Saharan and we both agree they are. Now even they are mixed your trying to imply that since they have small portion of Moor in their genes they are Moor,as I said I am 1/4 east indian does that make me dravdian

Originally posted by goldenstar  (...North-Africans are in Africa, thus they're the same as Sub-Saharans...).

I've never said North-Africans are Sub-Saharans I said they have E3b gene which is prominet in the Middle East ,mainly in yemen,and no just because they have that marker doesn't make them Sub Saharan.You should read more carefully.

Besides those civilisation are not more Sub-Saharan than North-African in term of race, they're mixed, and all that matters is who they identify with, not with Blacks I think.

Originally posted by goldenstar Now if you ask me whether the people of Somalia, Djibouti, and the Comoros, are Arab or not, I will answer NO, because the only Arab thing in these countries is they were accepted politically speaking as members of the Arab League since a minority of Arabic-speakers live there.

Somalia is considered part of the Arab world,so that goes to show your small opion doesn't matter even amongst your kinsmen.
www.american.edu/ted/ice/somwar.htm
Somalia is located on the Horn of Africa in North-East Africa, many consider this region of Africa as part of the Arab world,

Originally posted by goldenstar As for Ghana, first of all, it emmerged centuries after ancient and Muslim North-Africans had entered the region, the Arab introduction of camels to West Africans helped develop and enrich the region, by boosting the economy. Second of all, its heartland was today Arab Mauritania, not Sub-Saharan Africa.

Now who is trying to steal history you give reference for some alternative unimportant college website that is not even credible.I really like it ,though because you contradict yourself by saying Ancient Egypt had no contact with Western or Sub-Saharan Africa when we know they used valuable resources from there,your sources contradict yourself here's what your  article says:

history of northwestern Africa was the use of the camel as a transport vehicle. In ancient times, the Egyptians and Carthaginians engaged in just a trickle of commercial trade with west Africa, even though west Africa was rich in gold, precious metals, ivory, and other resources.

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

thats right buddy can't keep your facts in order,however here is  more credible source to the beginning of Ghana

Ghana (Wagadu), the earliest known empire of the western Sudan, first entered the historical consciousness of North Africa near the end of the eighth century but probably originated long before.

http://www.accessgambia.com/information/ghana.html

Founders of Ghana:
The founding ruling people of this "Land of Gold" were the Serahule (Soninke), the indigenous inhabitants of the area, who established their capital at (Koumbi) Kumbi Saleh, at the time a leading trading centre of the Western Sudan. The Serahule who lived to the north of the upper waters of the Niger River formed themselves into a strong trading state. This state spread its power over many neighbouring peoples and in the process the trading state became an empire. It commanded a large region of trade, security and strong government. It lasted for several hundred years and was deeply respected by travellers who came within its borders, as well as those who read or heard about it beyond its borders.

Why are you trying to steal West African history are you jealous first of all Maurentania is Sub Sahara

An unconfirmed tradition dates the origins of the kingdom to the 4th century ad. Nothing is known of the political history of Ghana under its early kings. The first written references to the empire are those of Arabic geographers and historians from the 8th century, and it seems certain that, by 800, Ghana had become rich

and powerful.

How can the Arabs created it when it is first mentioned in the 8th century BC by your fellow kinsmen.

According to the 11th-century Spanish-Arab chronicler Abū ʿUbayd al-Bakrī, the king welcomed to his capital many of the northern African traders of the Sahara, who,

Here it says the camel were introduced before the introduction of Islam.

http://www.answers.com/topic/ghana-empire

The introduction of the camel, which preceded Muslims and Islam by several centuries, brought about a gradual revolution in trade, and for the first time, the extensive gold, ivory, and salt resources of the region could be sent north and east to population centers in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe in exchange for manufactured goods.

You really fooled yourself,why do you want to my history,as I said I like the Moors thats your history be proud of it and not take mine.

And the southern Maurentania is in the Savannah lets see the map

Originally posted by goldenstar You claim the Moors, their ancestors, and descendents, are Sub-Saharans who mutated and became what Maghrebis are today.

You wish  can you prove it,only by saying they mutated if you go back and read what I said I was talking of the racial make up of the Berbers and people were saying they were related to Southern Europeans and Middle Easterners which they are,but they have the e3b.That doesn't mean I said there black,if you look at my first post in this thread  I said they weren't but feel consumed and enraged when I state facts about civilizations in Africa.Don't worry it seems your not alone.

http://esfna.net/esfna/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=88

Aksum and D'mt

Around the eighth century BC, a kingdom known as D?mt was established in northern Ethiopia and Eritrea, with its capital at Yeha in northern Ethiopia. Most modern historians consider this civilization to be indigenous,

Ge'ez is the indegenous language

However, Ge'ez, the ancient Semitic language of Ethiopia, is now known to not have derived from Sabaean, and there is evidence of a Semitic speaking presence in Ethiopia and Eritrea at least as early as 2000 BC.[6][7]Sabaean influence is now thought to have been minor, limited to a few localities, and disappearing after a few decades or a century, perhaps representing a trading or military colony in some sort of symbiosis or military
alliance with the Ethiopian civilization of D`mt or some other proto-Aksumite state.


Aksum was a product of Ethiopia and By Ethiopia so heres another reference if you like,

http://wysinger.homestead.com/aksum.html

Aksum was previously thought to have been founded by Semitic-speaking Sabaeans who crossed the Red Sea from South Arabia (modern Yemen) on the basis of Conti Rossini's theories and prolific work on Ethiopian history, but most scholars now agree that it was an indigenous development. Scholars like Stuart Munro-Hay point to the existence of an older D’mt or Da'amot kingdom, prior to any Sabaean migration ca. 4th or 5th c. BC, as well as to evidence of Sabaean immigrants having resided in Ethiopia for little more than a few decades. Furthermore, Ge'ez, the ancient Semitic language of Ethiopia, is now known to not have derived from Sabaean

Originally posted by goldenstar You seem to not have understood my point, the point is since conquered people married their conquerants, it is not a valide argument to mention marriages between Egyptians and their conquered Sub-Saharan people.

Yea but rulership with foreign people such as  Shosneq were not looked at with pride.Thats why when foreign rulers came in it was an intermediate period, they never took wives of Syria or the Levant when they conquered them,such as Thutmoses III,they frowned upon the marriage of Ankneton and Nefertiti.

Originally posted by goldenstar By the way, the French scientist who analysed Ramses II's mummy, Christiane Desroches Noblecourt ,  said on T.V he was red haired and had foreign ancestry from Western Asia's Semites.

Yea but is red hair  a trait in west asian semites,I bet you found that on a website who said they found  Hoffas body buried in alien cocoon.





Edited by AksumVanguard - 19-Mar-2009 at 14:39

Originally posted by DAGAN Originally posted by goldenstar Originally posted by DAGAN Well, being myself a tunisian with andalusian origin (like most people in my town), I can say that i have not encountered any black families in cities and villages with andalusian origin in Tunisia (Soliman, Grombalia, Belli, Nianou, Zaghouan, loughia, and Djedeida Kalaat Al Andlouss, Testour, Metline, El Alia, ...) People are not different from other Tunisians, they are even whiter ! I don't know for Morocco and Algeria. انت تونسي صح ولا تتمسخر؟    تونسي يا راجل علاش نتمسخر ؟

The official language of this forum is English.  If you post something in a language other than English, please provide a translation.

Originally posted by goldenstar Originally posted by DAGAN Well, being myself a tunisian with andalusian origin (like most people in my town), I can say that i have not encountered any black families in cities and villages with andalusian origin in Tunisia (Soliman, Grombalia, Belli, Nianou, Zaghouan, loughia, and Djedeida Kalaat Al Andlouss, Testour, Metline, El Alia, ...) People are not different from other Tunisians, they are even whiter ! I don't know for Morocco and Algeria. انت تونسي صح ولا تتمسخر؟

Originally posted by pinguin The oldest Iberians are men of the Neanderthal.... If they want them, they can keep them..

I am fascinated by Neandertals, it seems like traces of their presence were found only in Europe and the Middle-East, too bad there weren't in North-Africa. Did you know that before the relatively recent Celtic invasion of the Iberian peninsula, there was a non-Indo-European people there called the ancient Iberians, forefathers of Spanish and Portugese people?

They were not a primitive population, they left monuments and artistic things and then fusioned with the Celtic invaders came from today France, leading to the Celtiberian culture.

Many theories were proposed for their original location, some think they were part of pre-historical European populations, other think they came from what is now Maghreb a few millenia ago.

Since there are also theories telling Maghrebis came from the Iberian peninsula before the Indo-European expansion into Europe (as well as a theory of a North-East African and by extension Western Asian origin), it would mean the ancient Iberians first fled to North-Africa with the ancestors of the Maghrebis, and then abandoned their counterparts there, coming back to their original home where they mixed with the Celts...

It is only hypothesises of course.


Edited by goldenstar - 17-Mar-2009 at 15:12

Well, being myself a tunisian with andalusian origin (like most people in my town), I can say that i have not encountered any black families in cities and villages with andalusian origin in Tunisia (Soliman, Grombalia, Belli, Nianou, Zaghouan, loughia, and Djedeida Kalaat Al Andlouss, Testour, Metline, El Alia, ...) People are not different from other Tunisians, they are even whiter ! I don't know for Morocco and Algeria.

Originally posted by goldenstar ... When they will start claiming ancient Iberians were Black (some theories imply pre-Indo-European Iberians originated from North-Africa) you'll understand how it feels... ...

Originally posted by goldenstar It may seem ridiculous to debate, but it is irritating to read plenty of organised groups on the internet spreading lies and even insults against yourself and your ancestors. When they will start claiming ancient Iberians were Black ( some theories imply pre-Indo-European Iberians originated from North-Africa) you'll understand how it feels...

I find it rather ridiculous that the longest threads on this supposedly "serious" history forum tend to debate around absurd issues such as whether Moors or Egyptians would be considered as "Black" by American standards, or how much Mongoloid blood do modern Russians have....

Judging by common sense, it is a blatant fact that Ancient North Africans and Egyptians looked  in general very similar to their descendants today.
I would say that North Africans are predominantly Mediterranean with a small degree of sub-saharan mixture; and that Egyptians display a wide range of physical types from Mediterranean in the north to East African in the south.

What is more to be said?

Originally posted by AksumVanguard Your immature

Insulting ancient times' populations with historical anachronisms is not a sign of maturity, if being immature is proving you wrong when you spread lies, using irony by the way, then I am immature.

But since you like being a mature boy, from now let's talk and debate with relative respect and with no sarcasms.

and you continue to make things worse because you have no factual proof and make anything an argument If you are saying for me to concur in matter where history is being misused then you should really think over motives in trying to tell history in the wrong way.

I never said any wrong statement about history though, you magically chose to forget every argument whenever it proved you wrong, and to focus on futile topics in a desperate attempt to win the debate. The veracity of all my statements in history can be verified simply by googling, your claims however are only accepted by some Afrocentrist counterparts...

By contrast, I answered absolutely all of your statements, I always defended all my positions and never used non-loyal tactics. I just contradicted you and destroyed all of your arguments with ease and eloquence thanks to scientific sources leading you gradually to give up your claims and focus on new topics...

You make the smallest issues a big deal such as Muslims ruling France

Wrong, you are the one who transformed this off-topic into a big subject and since I proved you wrong by posting serious sources you are embarassed. The point it was Maghrebi troops who expanded into Western Europe, in both ancient and Medieval times, not Middle-Easterners unlike what you said earlier.

the timeline of Maghreb invasion and occupration.

I don't know what you mean, you're the one who implied Maghreb was occupied by the Vandals when Muslims came in the region, yet you have the audacity to criticise others.

I did chose to remain idle while seeing alot of racist wordplay but it seems there is  no getting through,even when people pick buttons

I don't remember I said any racist thing, I said you probably envy light-skinned people and want to have their features. I mean it because you are obsessed with us and seem frustrated. Most Black people I know are proud to be Black, some however have an inferiority complex, found among many Arabs and Europeans too by the way.

By contrast, you equaled Maghrebis to submitted savage barbarians with no culture.

Its very ironic being called afoc centric when one tried to redefine rulership of a territory and invasion of a territory,despite the known claims of most history books. Say what you will about the Muslims ruling France most people would disagree.

The strategy of associating me to your delirious ideology to make me lose credibility doesn't work since people can read. I think most people would tell you Afrocentrists base their ideas on myths, while everyone, especially here in France, knows Muslim troops and their governors including the famous Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, invaded France and stayed in parts of it for years. If you need a clear definition of the word rule there are some nice dictionnaries:


Rule, verb

1.  To exercise control, dominion, or direction over; govern.
2. To dominate by powerful influence.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rule

They are alot of things of topic,such  you bringing the economic status of countries in Sub -Sahran Africa that you like to include becuase you would like to make it a point that no African Civilzation,or as you would say "black civilization" could ever progress.

I didn't get it totally. I was showing you that the richest and most industrialised nations of Africa were the Northern Arab states, just like the most prosperous nations of the Mediterranean are the European ones in the North. In this region, things always change throughout the centuries and empires rise and fall as you'd say, it is your turn to show that you can do better than North-Africans for one single time in history.

Black civilisation is a term that is used to disambiguate, because North-African civilisations are not the same. Stop feeling offended for everything.

That is what I am  saying he believes that Egyptians are the same population as they were in the ancient times,not intermixing with arab or black populations.

Everyone knows that Egyptians are mainly the same as in ancient times, besides Afrocentrists who assume they mixed and lost their Black face.

One doesn't need to originate from the original Arabian heartland to be an Arab, one doesn't need to originate from original Africa (the North) to use the African label, one doesn't need to come from original Europe, which is Greece, to be European.

But as you said that is his opinion.

Yes, so don't use it to fake reality about the identity Egyptians identify with, be loyal when you debate and use realistic arguments.

Keep going on with the wordplay I see LOL

There is no wordplay. You are just not paying attention and did not read the article, this Nobel Prize winner was preaching peace telling to the minority of extremists who dream about launching a jihad (a war holy war against invaders to defend the homeland), to make a jihad in sciences in the sense of making a war against backwardness.

But as usual you chose to avoid the subject to make us forget you were proven wrong, the point is he identifies as an Arab and seems to call all Arabs to unite and work together, not only Egyptians, which was a counter-argument to your propaganda about Egyptians not feeling Arab.

You are the one who choses to say that most Sub -Saharan African civilzation where brought by alien population have you heard of Ghana,do you say that washelped to be created by Arab Muslims too.

I never said this, I told the only Sub-Saharan states that were able to rule some portions of lands out of Sub-Saharan Africa, were conquered/influenced by the people they conquered in later times.

As for Ghana, first of all, it emmerged centuries after ancient and Muslim North-Africans had entered the region, the Arab introduction of camels to West Africans helped develop and enrich the region, by boosting the economy. Second of all, its heartland was today Arab Mauritania, not Sub-Saharan Africa.

It was created by the Southern Nomadic Berber-speaking people of the desert, so you're just making my point again, owning yourself over and over again...

From the same American university:


Around 750 AD, under the influence of Islamic peoples, northern and western Africans began to use the camel to transport goods across this forbidding terrain. Camels do several things exceptionally well: they can carry unbelievably heavy loads for impossibly long distances and they can keep their footing on sandy terrain. It was as if someone had invented sand ships and its effect on western African culture was just as profound as if they were sand ships.

The [Southern] Berbers were primarily a nomadic people and would eventually play a crucial role in the spread of Islam across northern Africa. In the fifth century, however, they formed a new kingdom, called Ghana or Awkar in an area that is now southeastern Mauretania. This Berber kingdom would form the model from which all the Sahelian kingdoms would be built.

Although the state was originally formed by Berbers, it was built on the southern edge of Berber populations. Eventually the state became dominated by the Soninke, a Mande speaking people living in the region bordering the Sahara.

The kingdom of Ghana never converted to Islam, even though northern Africa had been dominated by the faith since the eighth century. The Ghanaian court, however, allowed Muslims to settle in the cities and even encouraged Muslim specialists to help the royal court administer the government and advise on legal matters.

The Berbers who had originally formed the state ultimately proved to be its demise. Unlike the Ghanaians, the Berbers, calling themselves Almoravids, fervently converted to Islam and, in 1075, declared a holy war, or jihad, against the state of Ghana

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


Since Sub-Saharan Mande imposteurs had stolen the throne from Southern Berbers, the original creators of this civilisation, it was natural for them to take their property back...


And here is the most important part, which makes my point again...


In the fifth century, however, they formed a new kingdom, called Ghana or Awkar in an area that is now southeastern Mauretania.  This Berber kingdom would form the model from which all the Sahelian kingdoms would be built.

You've also claimed that Kerma and Kush were started by Non Sub-Sahran people who started civilization in that region,when you open up a can of worms this what you get.

I didn't use your terms, but the fact is it was created by Egyptianised Sub-Saharans who were conquered and "civilised" by Egyptian people, which explains why their descendents today are mixed and identify with Northerners rather than with Sub-Saharans.

Check the website of the American university about Kush.

As for Kerma, I had not studied it yet. According to the Swiss mission of archaeology in Sudan, Kerma didn't have the knowledge of writing, and was culturally influenced by its future Egyptian conquerants, who then Egyptianised the locals, allowing the creation of the later Kingdom of Kush, the first civilisation of what was then considered to be Sub-Saharan.

http://www.kerma.ch/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3&Itemid=42


Of course millenia lasted, and today such populations, who are now a mix with Northerners in some degrees, do not want to be attached with Sub-Saharan Africans and prefer to identify with those who shared their history. But if people of Northern Sudan and Southern Egypt suddenly change their opinion abandoning their ancestors' identity to identify with aliens just because they have a relatively similar skin tone and hair texture, it is their problem not mine.

cannot comprehend  facts no matter what race or creed they are thus trying to play a " race game."Take a guess? LOLLOLLOLLOLLOL Again it is obvious that you are prejudice and buyist,you will try to ask me what Nationality I am to label me in by your so called jurisdiction.It is apparent you

I don't know what you mean. Again, you know my original nationality and use it to criticise me and my forefathers, so be honest and stop hiding your origins. Anyway, nevermind, I am proud of my [Algerian ancestry] and do not hide behind my French nationality, but not everyone has to be.

Still a broad term,and is not politically correct.

To me it is very precise and correct, Whites = Europeans and by extension light-skinned people, Blacks = Sub-Saharans and rarely extended to Black-skinned populations of Oceania and India.

Yes those resources were exclusive to that area.

I don't understand what you mean, show a source, an article written by a serious scientist, a proof, to prove that the various people of Southern Africa and Northern Sub-Saharan Africa's had real contacts with each other and built a common history.

It seems other people will agree that African civilization was all started by outside influence doesn't mean it is true.

It is not what I said, I refered to the Sub-Saharan African civilisations that were able to invade non-Black lands, those that were colonised by Egyptians and Southern Arabians.

When I said "some other people", I actually mean "the whole world", thinks you're an Afrocentrist imposteur, even if not as radical as the traditional ones.

i have not claimed the Moors were Black,the Olmecs black,or another race oustide Africa black so how I am an Afro Centrits because I bring new things to light.

You claim the Moors, their ancestors, and descendents, are Sub-Saharans who mutated and became what Maghrebis are today.

You have not a strategy of stealing our civilisation as radical Afrocentrists, you rather want to force us to belong to your ethnicity so that you can claim our heritage as your own.

You would say that any Arab country having an Arab identity gives you the right to claim it as yours wouldn't you.

The answer is I would not claim the land as my personal property but as a common homeland, as a Californian would claim New York is his home too. This is how the Arab World works, in particular the 3 countries of the Maghreb. There are some descendents of Tunisian immigrants in my family's village in Algeria, noone sees them as foreigners and they see Algeria as their land.

Political boundaries do not always reflect reality, not only in Maghreb where local sovereigns always changed the frontiers to serve their agenda, but especially in Western made Sub-Saharan countries, where different ethnicities are grouped with each other while same nations are separated, causing terrible internal wars.

Yea but alot of cities were built due to the Roman interaction would't you agree

There were Maghrebi cities centuries before the Romans came there or ever became a power in the Mediterranean, and Maghreb had the richest city of the world. Many cities built during the Roman period were constructed on the site of former Maghrebi cities of the Mauretanian (ancient Maghrebi Mauretania), Numidian, Phoenician, and Carthaginian periods. All I agree with is Romans, who also enjoyed the benefits of earlier civilisations including that of Greece and those of the Arab World, have influenced Maghreb with their great civilisation, but certainly not civilised it.

Also, Romans occupied only a small portion of Maghreb before the 1st century A.D, corresponding to the remants of Carthage, the rest of the land was organised into the Kingdom of Numidia and then Mauretania, which was annexed by Rome only in 40 A.D in the current era after the death of king Ptolemy of Mauretania. The influence of Romans was especially seen in the former Carthaginian heartland, not in all of Maghreb.

See no matter how much times your were told that Arab was introduced to the Maghrebs in 647 BCE,we would agree that Arabic has been very exhubrent in Maghreb for the past millenia but as said before you cannot talk the credibility of Arabic culture thats another ploy to distort the lines.

Huh... Semitic was spoken B.C, but Arabic was introduced in Maghreb in the 600s A.D, not in 647 B.C.

No matter how many times you repeat your propaganda, everyone agrees that most languages in Europe (in particular Latin, Slavic, and Germanic tongues) were not spoken in their current locations a few millenia ago as they were introduced by conquerants, so what's your point?

What jealousy ,I don't care about what you and your culture

Then stop attacking our identity by denying our relative unity.

have just do not claim that arbized Egyptians started a the civilizations in Kerma,or Sabeans starting Aksum,and chose not to speak on any of the non Maghreb civilzations especially sub Sahran  if you want nothing to do with them.

I answered above for Kerma.

I never used the term Arabised Egyptians, I said the ancient Egyptian ancestors of Arab Egyptians, conquered the people of Kush, and Egyptianised them.

As for Sabeans, you are the one who gave credibility to archaeologist Fattovich by using the article of an other scientist who based his conclusions on Fattovich's studies, who said himself that Sabeans had been the cause of the urbanisation of the Horn of Africa and allowed the creation of the ancestor of Kingdom of Aksum, D'mt, which he calls himself a copy of the Sabean civilisation. Read again:

The Early Urban Stage (first millennium BC), represented by the pre-Aksumite culture in Eritrea and Tigray. It corresponds to the development of the Sabean-like kingdom of Da’amat on the plateau.

The contacts with the Sabeans gave rise to the local kingdom of Da’amat. An urban society, reflecting the south Arabian pattern, appeared on the plateau.

http://www.arkeologi.uu.se/afr/projects/BOOK/fattowich.pdf


I think you have a bad faith, you have deliberately occulted all my arguments and the scientific sources that were attached with.

Now initially when I made I comment in this thread that Moors were not Black ,some people chose to take it further and scrutinize  all other Sub-Saharan cultures,

I never did such a thing, you have attacked me first, I only criticised Afrocentrists without being mean to Sub-Saharan cultures.

Phoenicians started most of the ancient cities in North Africa

Do you have a source for this as I provided a source for the ancestors of the Arabs creating the first cities of the Sub-Saharan Horn of Africa?

And what is your point by the way? Earliest cities were founded in Iraq, not Phoenicia, and Phoenicians are an ancient Semitic civilisation of the Arab World, not Sub-Saharan Africa.

Cirta was started during the Punic wars and was later built by Romanized people.

* I just said it was later built by Romanised Algerians, you're repeating the same to make it look like you have an argument.

* Do you have a source telling Cirta was started during the Punic wars? You said earlier it was built by the Phoenicians.

By the way you still showed no proof of this, I don't deny, I just want to see a source.

Cirta was the capital city of Eastern Numidia's king Gaia, captured at his death by Western Numidia's king Syphax, and recaptured by Gaia's son, king Massinissa, during the second Punic War. Ancient authors strongly value the magnificent royal palace of Massinissa in Cirta, but no ruins were found yet.

after by Can you give me its orginal name of it being name before being stapled by Constantine

The original name is Cirta.

not to mention they only come into contact 332 bc

Not at all, you are reffering to the period when Greek troops of Alexander the Great captured Egypt from Persia.

The civilisation of ancient Greece had contacts with Egypt and the whole Middle-East centuries earlier, they were totally related in economy, arts, architecture, religion, sciences, and so on. All the Western sources I read say how the Greek civilisation was first totally influenced by its neighboors and the Middle-Eastern farmers who spread agriculture and the use of wheel there, and then developped into an unique leading civilisation that finally dominated the whole Middle-East during the Hellenistic period and the defeat od the Persians. For example, the Greek alphabet, which gave birth to the Latin alphabet you and me are now using, was adopted by the Greeks from Semitic scripts of the Canaanites-Phoenicians, the early Greek writing system having disappeared after civil wars. Pythagoras' theorem was known from Egyptians and Mesopotamians a millenium before Greek scientist Pythagora, who was educated in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Syria, spread it in Greece.

This, is the main reason why Afrocentrists claim Blacks civilised Greece (and thus all White Westerners, who claim Greece is the cradle of their civilisation), because Egyptians contributed to the rise of the Greek civilisation. If you need any source or link, feel free to ask.

Pure hogwash,why didn't the ANcient Egyptians seek those marriages when they weren't conquered

You seem to not have understood my point, the point is since conquered people married their conquerants, it is not a valide argument to mention marriages between Egyptians and their conquered Sub-Saharan people.

By the way, the French scientist who analysed Ramses II's mummy, Christiane Desroches Noblecourt ,  said on T.V he was red haired and had foreign ancestry from Western Asia's Semites.

not mention Cleopatra was not in a position of power.

She was queen of Egypt. But still, being in power or not, what is your point?

does it matter they were also great religious imporatnce at Delphi,Your not going to imply that Greek Gods are Egyptian Gods

Yes I do, Greeks adopted Egyptian gods, and Romans adopted both Greek and Egyptian gods, Jupiter being the Roman version of Greek Zeus, Mars an other version of Ares, and so on. The cult of Isis was common in non-Egyptian lands, including the construction of temples, and some even make the hypothesis that Athena, one of the most famous Greek goddess, is Isis.


Traditional Greek religion was pagan polytheism, meaning that it included many gods and other supernatural beings. Greeks inherited many of their ideas about the gods from the Middle East. Their basic belief remained constant: People must honor the gods to thank them for blessings received and to receive blessings in return.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741501460_5/Ancient_Greece.html#s25

well lets stay on topic,why is it that I'm an Afro Centrist ??Hmm becuase I do not agree with all such claims and ideology of African Culture go.

For all the reasons I said above.



Edited by goldenstar - 17-Mar-2009 at 08:53

Originally posted by pinguin   I wonder how many pages more are we going to discuss this dumb topic...