quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

You've been here, and on TNV, for two years and
you've read us on this issue for that whole time.
So what did you learn? Judging from your above
assessment, looks like not a thing at all.

Additions to DougM's references
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001383

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001320#000021

---

Yeah T-rex, this is like 4th or 5th time you ask a question that has been answered numerous times on this board. It makes me wonder if you are really the same person as Underpantman.
 

---

Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus:
Were the Moors black?

---

WHAT!?!
 

---

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
 
The African Foundation of Modern Spain (The Berbers)
 

---

Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus:
I've encountered this perception many times, but I thought the Moors were mostly from Arabia and the Maghreb region. I think there were probably some black people from Upper Egypt and the Sahel among them, but I suspect most of them looked like people living north of the Atlas Mountains, who usually aren't black.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis:
The Ummayad muslim dynasty that led the invasion of southern spain was totally Syrian and had not much to do with bedouin arabs.
And the Berbers were only used as foot soldiers while Tariq Ibn Ziyad even though being a berber saw himself more as a Umayyad elite than a Berber, infact the only reason he invaded spain was to keep the unruly berbers occupied on other issues since their rebellion was getting out of hand, only latter did the muslims start to show interest for southern spain.

---

How do you know this about Tariq?
 

---

Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
 
By reading!
 

---

Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis:
By reading!

---

quote:

---

The Miknasa Berbers originated in Tripolitania and southern Tunisia, but migrated westwards into central Morocco and western Algeria in pre-Islamic times. The modern Moroccan city of Meknes bears witness to their presence there.

After defeat by the Muslims the Miknasa converted to Islam. In 711 members of the tribe took part in the conquest of the Visigoth kingdom under Tariq ibn Ziyad. They settled north of Córdoba and in the 11th century founded the Aftasid dynasty in Badajoz.

Another group of the Miknasa took part in the Maysara uprising (739-742), adopted Kharijism and established the Emirate of Sijilmasa on the northern edge of the Sahara. This became very wealthy as the western end-point of the Trans-Saharan trade route with the Sudan. In alliance with the Caliphate of Córdoba it was able to fight off the attacks of the Fatimids. However, when the Miknasa chief Al-Mutazz allied himself with the Fatimids, the Miknasa were driven out of Sijilmasa by the Maghrawa, who were allies of the Umayyads.

A further group of Miknasa were allied with the Fatimids against the Umayyads, and overthrew the Rustamids of Tahert in 912 and drove the Salihids from northern Morocco in 917. But they could not maintain their resistance to the Magrawa in northern Morocco permanently, and, weakened by the struggle, they were subdued by the Almoravids in the 11th century.

The Aftasids (from the Arabic Banu-l'Aftas or Banu al-Aftas) were a Arabized Berber Miknasa dynasty in Badajoz (1022-1094) in the Al Andalus (Moorish Iberia).

When the Caliphate of Cordoba broke up into the Taifa kingdoms, the Berber mercenary Abdallah ibn Muhammad ibn Maslamah ibn al-Aftas (1022-1045) took control of Badajoz, by death of Sabur al-Jatib (a Slavic serf, previously serving at the court of Caliph al-Hakam II, that had proclaimed himself Lord of Badajoz in 1009, and that Ibn al-Aftas served). Ibn al-Aftas added to his name the Laqab al-Mansur Billah, Victorious by Grace of God, and ruled over and extensive part of the Al Garb Al Andalus, from the Douro river to the south of Tagus river. Ibn al-Aftas died in 1045.

Under Ibn al-Aftas' successors, Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Abdallah al-Muzzaffar (1045-1065) and his two sons 'Umar ibn Muhammad al-Mutawakkil (1065-1094 in Évora) and Yahya ibn Muhammad al-Mansur (1065-1072 in Badajoz), the Taifa of Badajoz not only controlled large expanses of western Spain and Portugal, but was also a major centre of Islamic culture, which was fostered by the Aftasid rulers. In 1055 however Badajoz came under the suzerainty of the Kingdom of León-Castile and was forced to pay tribute, loosing significant parts of its territory, south of the Mondego river (south of Coimbra). Also, the Abbadids of Seville conquered parts of their territory. In 1094 the kingdom was annexed by the Almoravids.

---

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftasid
and
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miknasa
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
The word Moor was coined by the Spaniards and is derived from the Latin word Maure meaning black! This is quite simply because the main body of Islamic invaders from North Africa were indeed black.

The lighter-skinned Muslim elite-- Arabs, light-Berbers, and Persians, were all labeled as Saracen.

Eventually, the term 'Moor' became associated with any Muslim North African regardless of his appearance.

Again, this topic was discussed many times on this board but especially in this thread here: who were the MOORS, which unfortunately was closed due to being plagued by that roach-like troll Jaime!
 

---

Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
^Absolutely, in fact, after the Umayyads were driven from Syria, the only one left from the ruling elite was Abd al-Rahman I, who himself was allegedly of mixed Berber Syrian heritage. Therefore, many of those who then ruled as Umayyads would also have been mixed Spanish, African, Syrian and Arab, since there werent many Umayyads from Syria to begin with, after they were overthrown. People must remember that there were waves after waves of Arabs who swept across Northern Africa over time and many of these waves came during or after the Moorish period in Spain and mostly focused along the coastal areas. Muslim history in North Africa from 700AD up until the European conquest of North Africa in the 1800s was a fractured and divided one of various groups fighting based on various divisions, including ethnic, religious, economic and political control.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King_Scorpion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
^Absolutely, in fact, after the Umayyads were driven from Syria, the only one left from the ruling elite was Abd al-Rahman I, who himself was allegedly of mixed Berber Syrian heritage. Therefore, many of those who then ruled as Umayyads would also have been mixed Spanish, African, Syrian and Arab, since there werent many Umayyads from Syria to begin with, after they were overthrown. People must remember that there were waves after waves of Arabs who swept across Northern Africa over time and many of these waves came during or after the Moorish period in Spain and mostly focused along the coastal areas. Muslim history in North Africa from 700AD up until the European conquest of North Africa in the 1800s was a fractured and divided one of various groups fighting based on various divisions, including ethnic, religious, economic and political control.

---

Well, I got the impression from 'When the Moors Ruled in Europe,' that they were calling Abd al-Rahman III Black...I forgot where the woman said it though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
Have you seen the documentary from Channel 22?

When the Moors Ruled in Europe

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Willing Thinker {What Box}:

quote:

---

Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
Have you seen the documentary from Channel 22?

When the Moors Ruled in Europe

---

Hey, what channel is channel 22 where you live, is it the history channel?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by King_Scorpion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
^Absolutely, in fact, after the Umayyads were driven from Syria, the only one left from the ruling elite was Abd al-Rahman I, who himself was allegedly of mixed Berber Syrian heritage. Therefore, many of those who then ruled as Umayyads would also have been mixed Spanish, African, Syrian and Arab, since there werent many Umayyads from Syria to begin with, after they were overthrown. People must remember that there were waves after waves of Arabs who swept across Northern Africa over time and many of these waves came during or after the Moorish period in Spain and mostly focused along the coastal areas. Muslim history in North Africa from 700AD up until the European conquest of North Africa in the 1800s was a fractured and divided one of various groups fighting based on various divisions, including ethnic, religious, economic and political control.

---

Well, I got the impression from 'When the Moors Ruled in Europe,' that they were calling Abd al-Rahman III Black...I forgot where the woman said it though.

---

She said it towards the first 1/3 of the story, when talking about the palace he built as embracing a black eunuch or some such thing. Odd how a king like him would be a eunuch, being from a ruling dynasty and not a slave.

---

quote:

---

One of the enduring debates among historians of Iberian culture is the question of how acculturation (or transculturation) occurred in the Iberian Peninsula, where large populations of Christians descended from Hispano-Romans and Visigoths lived alongside Muslim Arabs, Muslim Berbers, and Jews from 711-1492 and after. At the extremes of the political and intellectual camps, Iberian culture has been characterized as either the product of a dark-skinned, Muslim, North African people who conquered the Iberian Peninsula in the early eighth century and were only partially expelled after 1492, or an essence that is European, Christian, and white. ^1 Today most scholars adopt the more reasonable position that Spain and Portugal are the result of an intermingling of those peoples with a generous admixture of Jews. ^2 These perspectives describe the consequence of convivencia (cohabitation) but they rarely address the question of howsuch cultural diversity occurred. Convivenciais a loose term that suggests that by virtue of living in close proximity the people of the Iberian peninsula enjoyed cultural diversity and a corresponding richness of artistic forms and styles between the arrival of Islam in 711 and the expulsions in 1492. But history shows that, just as military and political frontiers do not necessarily prevent trade on the popular level, the proximity of diverse groups does not in and of itself cause interchange. ^3 With respect to al-Andalus, historians have rarely agreed on how diversity...

---

 

---

Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
 
Economic interest and power seemed to be the key to 'convivencia' as long as a status quo was evolving! If you look at El Cid and how he became to be called as such you can see he was as noble and an Arab and had the honour of being in their company. He served their interest despite being a Spaniard and conquered teritory in their name. Being exiled, allowed him the freedom BUT he changed sides, supposedly, when he was not paid the proper price for his services. In that time he got to know their culture, their modus operandi and this became an asset to his cause at a later period.
The group known as Moriscos and Mozarabes represented a mixed group depending on where they lived because certain tribes were known to operate in certain areas of the peninsula! The Jews served as intermediaries so they obvioulsy had benefactors on both sides until stuff went sour!
Yugoslavia had the same situation because when the Turks invaded, many accepted their rule by explicitely volunteering to be yeniseri or mamlukes so they could better their social standing, or even escape death! IN some studies, it shows the base population of Turkey had sufficient numbers of Croatians, Serbs and other Eastern European MtDNA.
You could say equal opportunity was present in those days!
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^Not surprising considering that historically, Turks imported most of its female slaves from Slavic countries...

A tradition that is still going on to this day, I might add.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Another good book reference on the Moors:

http://books.google.com/books?id=L3UcAAAAMAAJ&printsec=titlepage#PPA27,M1

(Older is always better in this regard.)

On a side note, a lot of games, like prince of persia are actually based on the culture and history of North Africa and Al Andalus. The costumes and architecture in the game being based on them and can be seen in older images from Morrocco and elsewhere.
 

---

Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
 
Let us look at the psychic use of language to insult and uplift! WIth this I say while the Moors were not exclusively 'black' they were indeed African! Black is a colour and so is white! Big deal. It is the psychology!
Dig this. I have never seen nor heard the expression white-a-moor but I have in the expression black-a-moor! Solved! The Moors were black.brown.

My mind will change only if someone show me the expression, white-a-moor!
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
^^Of course. It only goes without saying that Moor and Black a Moor came about because black Africans were a significant enough presence among the muslims who invaded Spain from North Africa and elsewhere. Of course that is not ALL Muslims who invaded Spain, but there were enough to have made the term Moor a common epithet for those Muslims of that period.
 

---

Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
The Moors were described as being as either Black-a-Moor or Tawny Moor. The term "tawny" meaning brownish--within the ranges of that colour.

In a curious twist though the present-day Moors of Mauritania have been described by colonial French ethnologues as as "white Moors"--perhaps to distinguish them from so-called "Black Moors" of Mauritania.

But the obvious point though is that the "white Moors" are not white at all--in the generic sense of that term but are rather more like the lighter-skinned Tuaregs. For Westerners the "white Moors" in general have the phenotype of individuals of Euro-African parentage.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
^^True as well. However, the legacy of the "white moors" in Mauretania has more to do with invasions of the Hasaniya arabs who currently control the government there over the indigenous black Africans, Muslim moor and otherwise. This invasion, BTW, was called the Char Bouba war and lasted 30 years. In fact, many histories of Mauretania start first with Bafours as the original indigenous population followed by migrations of "Berbers" like the Zenaga and Almoravids.

quote:

---

From the 3rd to 7th centuries, the migration of Berber tribes from North Africa displaced the Bafours, the original inhabitants of present-day Mauritania and the ancestors of the Soninke. Continued Arab-Berber migration drove indigenous black Africans south to the Senegal River or enslaved them. By 1076, Islamic warrior monks (Almoravid or Al Murabitun) completed the conquest of southern Mauritania, defeating the ancient Ghana empire. Over the next 500 years, Arabs overcame fierce Berber resistance to dominate Mauritania. The Mauritanian Thirty-Year War (1644-74) was the unsuccessful final Berber effort to repel the Maqil Arab invaders led by the Beni Hassan tribe. The descendants of Beni Hassan warriors became the upper stratum of Moorish society. Berbers retained influence by producing the majority of the region's Marabouts--those who preserve and teach Islamic tradition. Hassaniya, a mainly oral, Berber-influenced Arabic dialect that derives its name from the Beni Hassan tribe, became the dominant language among the largely nomadic population. Within Moorish society, aristocratic and servant classes developed, yielding "white" (aristocracy) and "black" Moors (the enslaved indigenous class).

---

quote:

---

Zenaga (autonym Tuḍḍungiyya) is a Berber language spoken by some 200 to 300 people (Ethnologue estimate, 1998) between Mederdra and the Atlantic coast in southwestern Mauritania. The language shares its basic structure with other Berber languages, but specific details are quite different; in fact, it is probably the most divergent surviving Berber language, with a significantly different sound system made even more distant by sound changes such as l > dj and kh > k, as well as a difficult to explain profusion of glottal stops. The name 'Zenaga' comes from that of a much bigger ancient Berber tribe, known to medieval Arab geographers as the Senhaja; the name "Senegal" is thought to derive from "Zenaga" as well.

Zenaga was once spoken throughout much of Mauritania, but fell into decline when its speakers were defeated by the Maqil Arabs in the Char Bouba war of the 17th century. After this war, they were forbidden to bear arms, and variously became either specialists in Islamic religious scholarship or servants to more powerful tribes. It was among the former, more prestigious group that Zenaga survived longest.

---

quote:

---

From the 3rd to 7th centuries, the migration of Berber tribes from North Africa displaced the Bafours, the original inhabitants of present-day Mauritania and the ancestors of the Soninke. Continued Arab-Berber migration drove indigenous black Africans south to the Senegal River or enslaved them. By 1076, Islamic warrior monks (Almoravid or Al Murabitun) completed the conquest of southern Mauritania, defeating the ancient Ghana empire. Over the next 500 years, Arabs overcame fierce Berber resistance to dominate Mauritania. The Mauritanian Thirty-Year War (1644-74) was the unsuccessful final Berber effort to repel the Maqil Arab invaders led by the Beni Hassan tribe. The descendants of Beni Hassan warriors became the upper stratum of Moorish society. Berbers retained influence by producing the majority of the region's Marabouts--those who preserve and teach Islamic tradition. Hassaniya, a mainly oral, Berber-influenced Arabic dialect that derives its name from the Beni Hassan tribe, became the dominant language among the largely nomadic population. Within Moorish society,
aristocratic and servant classes developed, yielding "white" (aristocracy) and "black" Moors (the enslaved indigenous class).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
For example: I an curious to know why the so-called Mauritanian "aristocracy" is called "white", when in actual fact they approximate phenotypically the average offspring of Euro-African parentage.

---

quote:

---

Anyway, in commemmoration of this event, I will talk a little about Zenaga this week. Zenaga is the nearly-extinct Berber language of Mauritania. Until about five hundred years ago it was spoken throughout most of the country; its ancestor would have been the language of the Almoravids. However, after the main Berber tribe, the Lamtuna, was defeated by the Arab Beni Ma`qil, most tribes gradually shifted to Hassaniya Arabic, which itself came to contain numerous Zenaga loanwords. The "marabout" tribes, those specialising in Islamic religious learning, retained Zenaga longest, and to this day it continues to be used, at least by the elderly, in a few areas near the southern Atlantic coast. It is remarkably divergent from other Berber varieties, due partly to a number of sound shifts (x > k, l > dj) and partly to a rather different vocabulary, incorporating words rare elsewhere in Berber along with Wolof and Pulaar loanwords. In addition to influencing Hassaniya Arabic, it has also contributed a number of loanwords to the Azer dialect of Soninke, and several words - notably the words for three of the five prayer times, and some religious holidays - to Wolof. Catherine Taine-Cheikh has been doing some documentation of it.

At least one of the few books on this language is available online: Le Zénaga des tribus sénégalaises, by General Faidherbe - although, chillingly, the author dedicates it to the genocidal mass murderer King Leopold II.

---

quote:

---

Up


Military Organisation in the Reconquista

Armies of Al-Andalus and Orders of Battle for the better known battles, .
Armies of Al-Andalus
Andalusian

Andalusian armies were composed of a number of elements. The proportion of these elements changed depending on the political situation, and particular armies would concentrate on some and not others.

Organisationally the army was composed of 5 groups (Heath, 1980):

Jund, hereditary regulars,

Hashid ("recruits"), volunteers recruited for a single expedition,

Mujahids or al-Murabitun, unpaid religious volunteers,

Murtaziqa, regular foreign mercenaries

Muttawia, unpaid foreign irregulars

Ethnically the army was also compose of 5 groups:

Arabs. Arab immigrants provided the basis of some early armies; the significant influxes were in 711, 712, and 741 (Heath, 1980).

Slavs (Saqlabi). European Slave troops were employed from the reign of al-Hakam I (796-822) although only became a large professional military force in the 10th century (Kennedy, 1996). Despite being called Slavs, most were recruited from Kingdom of Leon.

Berbers. Berbers mercenary/immigrants were being employed throughout the history of Al-Andalus, however, there were particular bursts of recruitment: under Abd al-Rahman II (822-852), Al-Hakam II (961-976), and the vizier Al-Mansur (976-1002) (Kennedy, 1996).

Negroes. Negro slaves and mercenaries were employed periodically - particularly as a counter-balance to either the Slavs or Berbers (Kennedy, 1996).

Andalusians. Muslims born in Al-Andalus of any extraction (native, Arab, Berber).

Abd al-Rahman I (756-788) imported 40,000 Berber mercenaries from North Africa as a counter-foil to the Arab Jund already settled in Al-Andalus. He also recruited a Black Guard of 2,000 men.

Al-Hakam I (796-822) had an army of 50,000 (Heath, 1980). it consisted mainly of Berbers and Negroes, but also included a Christrian Guard known as al-Khurs ("The Mutes") of 2,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry.

The vizier Al-Mansur (976-1002) had a fully professional army of 60,000 (Kennedy, 1996; Heath, 1980). He particularly favored Berbers, bringing many over from North Africa. This emphasis meant the army was predominately cavalry. In c. 978 Al-Mansur disbanded the existing Caliph's Slav bodyguard of 3,750 men, but Slavs continued to form a significant proportion of the army. A small Andalusian element remained although the Andalusian elite was largely demilitarised by this time (Nicolle, 1988) .

The Caliph Muhammad II (1008-1010) was opposed by the Berber generals, and most, but not all, of the Slavs abandoned him to pursue their own political aims (Kennedy, 1996). As a result he attempted to recruit a militia from the native Cordobans which faired badly against the Berbers.

The Caliph Al-Qasim ibn Hammud (1018-1021, 1023) attempted to counterbalance the Berbers by recruiting a Negro bodyguard (Kennedy, 1996).

Taifa armies were small (Kennedy, 1996). In 1055 Seville took Algerciras with only 200 horse, and in 1069 when they took Cordoba they had an advance guard of 200 horse and a main body of 1,000. However, having called for volunteers to retake Barbastro, Al-Muqtadir of Zaragoza managed to raise an army which included 6,000 archers and 50 horsemen from Seville. Granadine garrisons may have been as low as 100 Zanata in Granada itself and 300 at Malaga.
Al-Murabitun

The Al-Murabit leaders were all from the Banu Turgut of the Lamtuna tribe of the Sanhaja Berbers (Kennedy, 1996). Originally the men were from the Lamtuna tribe, these and the Guddala and Massufa (also Sanhaja) remained the mainstay of the armies throughout the period. Other groups were assimilated including the other Sanhaja tribes (Gazzula, Lamta, Banu Warith), Masmuda tribesmen of the Atlas and Zanata of northern Morocco.

The armies appear to be comprised of various groups (Kennedy, 1996): Al-Murabitun, Mercenaries, Slave soldiers, Andalusian Volunteers, Guards.

Al-Murabitun. Probabaly Berbers of the Lamtuna, Guddala and Massufa, but possibly any Sanhaja.

Mercenaries (Hashm). I suspect these are non-Al-Murabitun Berbers.

Black slave soldiers (Abid). Nicolle (1988) mentions larges numbers of black Africans and I presume these are the Abid mentioned by Kennedy (1996). Most were recruited form Senegal, and they used bamboo spears, long leather shields, bows, and massed drums. A slave soldier sparked the Cordoban rebellion in 1121, and many black slaves were in the army the Aragonese defeated in 1129.

Andalusian Volunteers (Muttawia).

Christian. The Murabitun employed Christian mercenaries and converted prisoners (Nicolle, 1988).

Guards. Ibn Tashfin formed a guard of slave soldiers - 2,000 blacks, 500 uluj, and Andalusian horsemen (Kennedy, 1996; Nicolle, 1988). Nicolle says the blacks were horsemen, but Kennedy only says the Uluj were. Nicolle also says the uluj were non-Berber including Arabs, Turks and Europeans, but Kennedy suggest they were probably of Frankish origin. .

The Murabitun used camels - later armies had 30,000 available - although as time when on they relied more on cavalry (Nicolle, 1988).

The mercenaries and slave soldiers adopted the veil in imitation of the Al-Murabitun (Kennedy, 1996).

Most Al-Murabitun fought on foot with a front rank of long spears and javelinmen behind (Kennedy, 1996; Nicolle, 1988). The commander of each unit carried a flag that was used to direct his men: stand when the banner is up and kneel when the banner is lowered. Under Ibn Tashfin and subsequently Murabitun made use of war drums (Nicolle, 1988).

From 1132 to 1144 a Catalan renegade called Reverter - the one time viscount of Barcelona - lead the elite corps of the Al-Murabitun army (Kennedy, 1996). This may have been the Uluj mentioned as part of the guards ??.

The Al-Murabitun armies could reach 20-30,000, but were usually smaller, for example, in 1058 Abu Bakr led a force of 400 horsemen, 800 camel men and 2,000 foot (Kennedy, 1996). The invasion force of 1086 had 12-20,000 men. 4,000 men were sent to the siege of Aledo. Even provincial forces were up to 5,000. In 1102 the Al-Murabitun had 17,000 horsemen in Al-Andalus: 4,000 in Seville, 1,000 in Cordoba, 1,000 in Granada, 4,000 in the Levante, and the remaining 7,000 distributed along the frontier. These figures are for horse only and it is unclear how many foot were maintained although it is worth remembering that foot considerably outnumbered horse in Al-Murabitun armies.

Although powerful in the field, the Al-Murabitun were reliant on their Andalusian allies for expertise in siege work (Kennedy, 1996).
Almohads
Included black slaves, Murabitun deserters, and elite Ghuzz Turkish archers (Nicolle, 1988). Almohads made even more use of war drums than the Murabitun. Almohad infantry formed similarly to the Murabitun: a front rank with long spears, a second with javelins and spears and a third of slingers.

---

From: http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/iberia/0711/org.htm

Note the racist depictions of all Africans as "slaves", while casting Berbers (a language) as eponymous "non black" Africans. Obviously, even without counting the Berbers, there were significant numbers of Blacks among the Moors. When the Berbers are accounted for and the blacks among them, that makes even more.

Many of these soldiers looked similar to the Tuareg and Elite horse guards of the Caliphs in West Africa today, like this:

They wore colorful attire and had flags, horse barding and all sorts of military colors and heraldry, like patterns and colors, also derived from African traditions, likewise seen in Egypt.

They also introduced the use of the Kettle drum, or war drum into the military heraldry of Europe, as Africans always used the "talking drum" as part of their order of war. This can even be seen in ancient Egypt:


This also influenced the Musical heritage of Al Andalus and became the basis of the timpani drum in modern orchestral ensambles:

quote:

---

B.E.: What about drums? I have the sense that everybody got drums from Africa, including the Arabs.

D.R.: Drums too are such a basic idea and such an ancient instrument that it's almost impossible to assign an origin, a geographic origin or a time period. For most cultures, we have no idea when they started using drums, or ideophones, the idea of taking two different blocks or solids and knocking them together. The contribution of the Arabs in al-Andalus is clear from one particular thing. Apparently people had not seen drums corps used in a military situation. Particularly the Almohads used performers of large drums, perhaps kettle drums, that they would use with the advancing troops. It's clear in several different texts that when Christians first heard these, it was a frightening sound, the idea of these advancing troops with these tremendous corps of huge kettle drums.

---

quote:

---

The Black Prince's Ruby enters the "stage of history" in middle of the 14th century as the possession of Abu Said, the Moorish Prince of Granada. At that time, the rule Castillian Spain was being centralized to Seville and the Moorish Kingdom of Granada was being systematically attacked and reverted to Spanish rule as a part of the Christian Reconquest of Spain. Abu Said in particular was confronted by the belligerency of nascent Castile under the rule of Pedro of Castile, also known to history as Don Pedro the Cruel. According to historical accounts, Abu Said wished to surrender to Don Pedro, but the conditions he offered were unclear. What is clear is that Don Pedro welcomed his coming to Seville. It is recorded that he greatly desired Abu Said's wealth. When Abu Said met with Don Pedro, the Don had Said's servants killed and may have personally stabbed Said to death himself. Upon searching Said's corpse, the spinel was found and added to Don Pedro's possessions.

In 1366, Don Pedro's illegitimate brother led a revolt against Don Pedro. Lacking the power to put down the revolt unaided, Don Pedro made an alliance with the Black Prince. The revolt was successfully put down and the Black Prince demanded Abu Said's ruby in exchange for the services he had rendered. While historians speculate that this was contrary to Don Pedro's desires, he had just suffered a costly civil war and was in no position to decline. It can be assumed that The Black Prince took the Ruby back to England, although it is absent from historical records until 1415.

---

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Prince's_Ruby

In all reality the Black prince most likely originally was a reference to Abu Said and became associated with Edward of Woodstock, Prince of Wales, because of the jewel. Anyway this ruby is the most famous of the crown jewels and most importantly, most of these jewels represent defeats and conquests of Europeans.

Paintings of Morroccans:
http://orientaliste.free.fr/rousseau/index.html

One of Rousseau's works:


 

---

Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
 
Doug M stated "Moore info on the Moors and the significant number of black Africans among them",
to which I would add the title 'Moor' to indicate black tells me us they were African. If anything, the hue compromised ones (the fairer?ones) were the minority and that does not make them less African! Like the NFL with a white coach and assistant, it is still black team!
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Yazid, I was not stating that all Moors were black or only one hue. What I was attempting to do was put forward evidence that there WERE blacks among the various Muslim populations that entered Spain and stayed there from the 7th century to 14th century. If anything this period was the beginning of a great mixture and melding of traditions across the Muslim world from Europe, Asia and Africa, meaning many different people played a role in the Muslim culture of Andalus and Moorish Africa.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Here is another interesting piece I ran across on the Moors:

quote:

---

He had no armour, for there had been no time to put it on. It was sufficient for him to know that his palace was assailed, to leap from his bed, and putting on the barest clothing, snatch at the ponderous axe which always hung within reach on the wall of the bedchamber , and rush out and take his charge of the defence. There seemed to be no room for our people on the hall floor, so great a space did my father's sweeping weapon keep clear. I recall all that I have heard of his prowess, but surely he never wielded such deadly strokes as he did that night in defence of his home. One man tried to rush in, thinking to get within the sweep of the axe, but my father was ready. He slid his hands down the handle towards the axe's head, and thus shortening the reach, brought it with awful force on the fellow's head, and laid him lifeless on the marble floor. With his own hand he struck down half a score of the men whose dusky faces we could now see. They were Moors; not bandits. Doubtless they had never forgotten that the palace my father had won had once been theirs, and this was an effort not so much to regain it as to work out their plan of revenge. They might capture it, but they could never expect to hold it against the might of Spain. They could rob, and kill, and burn; and that they had come to do.
a good book

While I stood on the stairs, compelled to stay there, since there was no room on the crowded floor of the hall, I heard the Moorish war - cry behind me. The Moors, some of whom knew the place well, since it had once been their home, had entered at another point, and were crowding along the corridor in which I had been standing when I rang the alarm bell. Now came my own turn to fight, and Padillo, who was at my side, shouting his loudest to our men on the stairs, leaped forward to meet the Moors who came that way. I have known but few who could use a sword so skillfully, and he drove them back step by step with his cutting and lunging. But in the end numbers told. Those behind drove forward the Moors who were in front, until there was such a crowd that there was not room for us to use our own weapons.

The Moors came on, driving us backwards to the staircase, where many of us lost our footing and fell, and the enemy, pressed by their fellows, trampled over our bodies as we lay. .It was terrible - to hear all the clamour of the conflict, the screams of the wounded, the shouts of the fighters, my father's strong voice ringing above the clamour, the clash of the steel, the thud of a falling body.

But all came to an end as far as I was concerned, for while I lay beneath the trampling feet of a hundred Moors, one who saw me move bent down and struck me with his mailed fist. My eyes seemed to strike fire at his blow, and then, feeling such pain as I can scarce describe, I lost all consciousness, lying there, as I have since been told, like one who was dead.

---

From: http://www.sticksite.com/golden/index.htm

It was accompanied by the following illustration:

 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
Moors from Croatia dressed in splendor:


http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/02-16-800-00-14.html

Someone can clarify this however, my understanding of "who" were considered Moors was any Africans in Europe at the time whites arrived to observe them. And the Africans in Europe went by different names where later, although whites might have been considered these people, the indigenous phase was African: Celts, Gauls, Halstaat, La Tene, Vikings (in the earliest phase). The picture I have of Attila the Hun is with his head under the foot of the wooly-headed Valentin (who defeated the Huns). Attila's head was wooly - African (interesting is that Budapest is named of two parts of Hungary Buda and Pest that became one. But, Buda was the name of Attila's brother. Along with Valentin, the general who brought about Attila's fall was Aetius. Aetius was trained by Attila since he was a child and reliefs show him also with wooly hair, African. Attila lived mostly in the Carpathian Basin and Panonia during the time of the Roman Empire. Hungary includes the Pannonia and the Carpathian Basin. The figurine and statues of this time are mostly African.

CONCLUDING: Any non-white person "might" have been called a Moor and non-whites in Europe of that time were African.

Your question was about the color of Moors. The picture above shows some.

Best regards,


Marc
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
Concerning the name "Moors" being generic and not "tribal" per se, it's a historical fact that black Moors were to be found in Scandinavia and the Netherlands. Here is something to consider with their presence in the Netherlands. We have the name of the American general Westmooreland. Pronounced in German, the West is "Vest" The West Moor land. Picture 8 contains an African presumably a Moor showing newly incursive whites around the terraine. Where did whites coming from land-locked lands get their boats? Same place the Sea People did - undeniably from Africans. Picture 9 shows an African peoples that history could call, variously, the original Vikings, indigenous East Greenland, Tassilaq people, to Moors; 3 being an example of a "later" boat. No. 1 perhaps an earlier one.


http://www.beforebc.de/Related.Subjects/Ships.Sea-faring/02-17-800-36-01.html
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
^^Marc, the Moors is a term that refers to the populations that entered Spain in 700AD from Northern Africa. It became a general term for dark skinned person in Europe after the actual Moorish period was over in Spain. This has never been applied to Huns. The Huns and their features is a totally different ethnology and history. This thread is specifically referring to those who entered Europe from Africa in the Islamic period, not a general overview of who and who wasn't dark skinned in Europe at any given point. The stuff you are talking about should be in a separate thread.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Doug, if you remember who you're addressing then you know it would do you no good. LOL
 

---

Posted by Myra Wysinger (Member # 10126) on :
 
Bronze figurine of a Moorish cavalryman



This bronze figurine, originally seated on a horse, shows a Moor from the Roman province of Mauretania in North Africa. He has distinctive dreadlocks, a drooping moustache and a full beard. His eyes appear very lifelike because they are inlaid with silver. He wears leather boots and a short cloak over a tunic, and he holds his round shield in front of him. His right hand, now broken, would probably have held a spear.

Moorish cavalrymen rode without bridles and as early as the second century BC they were famous for their nimble horsemanship. They were deployed as specialist units in the Roman army, and a detachment is clearly depicted in one of the sculpted battle scenes on Trajan's Column in Rome (erected about AD 113). There they are shown fighting alongside Roman troops in the Emperor Trajan's Dacian Wars (AD 101-105).

Source:

www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk


Were these cavalryman Numidians?

.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
But of course they were..

Others have used these images as the basis of depicting Numidian and Moorish armies for artistic and fantasy wargaming purposes:

http://www.geocities.com/nwgrant/tony/numidians.html

http://www.geocities.com/dbplastic/plastic/hat_8020.html
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Some more orientalist art of Moors:

Artist Ludwig Deutsch:







Artist Rudolph Ernst:


 

---

Posted by Ebony Allen (Member # 12771) on :
 
Great pictures. Why is this stuff not in history books? Especially black history ones? Are whites trying to hide this?
 

---

Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ebony Allen:
Great pictures. Why is this stuff not in history books? Especially black history ones? Are whites trying to hide this?

---

Most probably don't even know they exist...lol. I don't think there's any doubt about the Almoravid and Almohade Dynasties...what people usually debate is the nature and ethnic makeup of the invading force.

Here's another...this is called The Nubian Guard

The Musician

 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ebony Allen:
Great pictures. Why is this stuff not in history books? Especially black history ones? Are whites trying to hide this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zdf:
Not to excuse America's truly despicable history of racism but I personally think Europe has had less race conflict primarily because it has had less racial diversity. Seems to me that the conditions of North Africans in France and South Asians in England, the level of discrimination they currently face, demonstrate that any society is capable of brutal nationalist racism when it faces large amounts of immigration and diversity within its borders. Of course it is horrible, but I doubt if there is a society which has fully escaped it. I think you're right, however, that European views of world power are more "realistic" as opposed to "idealistic," in part due to its history of bloody wars and imperial clashes. Still, when Britain was the world's top power it did things like abolish the slave trade, talking of morals and the rights of human beings, while simultaneously breaking heads all over Africa and Asia to maintain its empire. Isn't that similar to America's dubious self-righteousness today?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Yes. America has been known to ban for import many images, books and other material that puts blacks into a positive light. Europe has never had this problem, seeing as they are the ones who would KNOW about the history of blacks and civilization first hand. It is only America which has tried to create a fake history for blacks that omits their contributions to civilization. Remember that Europe was never racist towards blacks the way that they were/are in America, because America's whole EXISTENCE and very NATURE is based on racism and oppression and nothing else, no matter what they SAY out their mouths. Europe's history is quite different and they are more honest about the bloody history of civilization and how everything about civilization isnt always "good" as some want it to be. Of course Europe has also been very racist in its own right, but this racism isnt so much in denial of the OBVIOUS, it is more up front and open as opposed to hidden in the closet and behind capes and masks. This is probably due to the long history of wars, strife, struggle, conflict, imperialism and destruction in European civilizations that has produced a more honest attitude towards empire building than the "new and different", two faced, dishonest and hypocritical approach of American imperialism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zdf:

Not to excuse America's truly despicable history of racism but I personally think Europe has had less race conflict primarily because it has had less racial diversity. Seems to me that the conditions of North Africans in France and South Asians in England, the level of discrimination they currently face, demonstrate that any society is capable of brutal nationalist racism when it faces large amounts of immigration and diversity within its borders. Of course it is horrible, but I doubt if there is a society which has fully escaped it. I think you're right, however, that European views of world power are more "realistic" as opposed to "idealistic," in part due to its history of bloody wars and imperial clashes. Still, when Britain was the world's top power it did things like abolish the slave trade, talking of morals and the rights of human beings, while simultaneously breaking heads all over Africa and Asia to maintain its empire. Isn't that similar to America's dubious self-righteousness today?

---

quote:

---

Spain was threatened now as France had been threatened centuries before when Charles Martel crushed the Arab hordes on the plains of Tours. All Christendom felt the danger and Pope Innocent III. preached a crusade for the defence of Spain against the infidel. In response, thousands of armed cru- [97] saders flocked into Spain, coming in corps, in bands, and as individuals, and gathered about Toledo, the capital of Alfonso VIII., King of Castile. From all the surrounding nations they came, and camped in the rich country about the capital, a host which Alfonso had much ado to feed.

Mohammed An Nassir, the emperor of the Almohades, responded to the effort of the Pope by organizing a crusade in Moslem Africa. He proclaimed an Algihed, or Holy War, ordered a massacre of all the Christians in his dominions, and then led the fanatical murderers to Spain to join the forces there in arms. Christian Europe was pitted against Moslem Africa in a holy war, Spain the prize of victory, and the plains of Andalusia the arena of the coming desperate strife.

The decisive moment was at hand. Mohammed left Morocco and reached Seville in June. His new levies were pouring into Spain in hosts. On the 21st of June Alfonso began his advance, leading southward a splendid array. Archbishops and bishops headed the army. In the van marched a mighty force of fifty thousand men under Don Diego Lopez de Haro, ten thousand of them being cavalry. After them came the troops of the kings of Aragon and Castile, each a distinct army. Next came the knights of St. John of Calatrava and the knights of Santiago, their grand-masters leading, and after them many other bodies, including troops from Italy and Germany. Such a gallant host Spain had rarely seen. It was needed, for the peril was great. While one hundred thousand marched under the Christian ban- [98] ners, the green standard of the prophet, if we may credit the historians, rose before an army nearly four times as large.

....

It was a splendid array upon which the Christians gazed,—one well calculated to make them tremble for the result,—for the hosts of Mohammed covered the [100] hill-sides and plain like "countless swarms of locusts." On an eminence which gave an outlook over the whole broad space stood the emperor's tent, of three-ply crimson velvet flecked with gold, strings of pearls depending from its purple fringes. To guard it from assault rows of iron chains were stretched, before which stood three thousand camels in line. In front of these ten thousand negroes formed a living wall, their front bristling with the steel of their lances, whose butts were planted firmly in the sand. In the centre of this powerful guard stood the emperor, wearing the green dress and turban of his ancestral line. Grasping in one hand his scimitar, in the other he held a Koran, from which he read those passages of inspiration to the Moslems which promised the delights of Paradise to those who should fall in a holy war and the torments of hell to the coward who should desert his ranks.

---

From: http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=morris&book=spanish&story=tolosa

The funny part is that the patterns of warfare, chivalry and dress of these periods were all pretty much derived from the cultures in the east. The horsemanship, bridling, barding, chain armor, castles and other things were very similar between the two camps, owing to a common origin. Mail armor, horsemanship, colorful standards, war drums, castles and mail armor were all standard aspects of warfare going back to the times of Egypt and Mesopotamia. It was only later, in the 14th century and onwards, that the European fashion of plate armored knights and gunpowder became a distinguishing feature of European warfare. In fact even the heraldric devices of Europe derive from the East, as the various soldiers from the various regions of the Muslim empires often had their own colors, standards and regalia, which helpded distinguish them on the battlefield. The checkerboard often seen in European heraldry can be seen in Egypt from an ancient time and the walking or reared lion is a familiar motif in Perisan and Babylonian symbols of State and warfare. Likewise putting the images of defeated enemies into standards, banners and imagery is likewise ancient in the Levant and Egypt.

Illustrated Manuscript from Fatimid period showing full body chain mail armor:
http://www.eternalegypt.org/EternalEgyptWebsiteWeb/HomeServlet?ee_website_action_key=action.display.element&story_id=&module_id=&element_id=40624&language_id=1

Beaded mail covering over 26th dynasty mummy:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_7-3-2005_pg6_8

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2005/1316009.htm

Fancy bead or mail covering Egyptian diety:


Checkered pattern in Egyptian tomb:


Checkered pattern in another tomb (12th dynasty):
http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/egypt/photos/beniHassan/amenemhet-01.html
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Shunet el-Zebib (Storehouse of the dates)
Oldest free standing wall on earth, built by King Khasekemwy.

Dates were an important part of Moorish trade as Northern Africa had many Date groves that were signs of wealth and prosperity from LONG BEFORE the muslims.
http://www.eartharchitecture.org/index.php?/categories/23-Egypt

The wall:


Khasekemy serekh (note the arch)


Khasekemy statue showing king in ceremonial regalia (robes). Quite similar to the later style of dress for Moorish monarchs:


Story of Khasekemwy and his enclosures:
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/khasekhem.htm

quote:

---

Before the great pyramids, ancient Egyptian kings left less grandiose monuments to themselves: fortresslike sanctuaries enclosed by mud-brick walls. Inside these mortuary complexes, people presumably gathered to worship and perpetuate the memory of their departed ruler. The crumbling, almost vanished remains of such structures, archaeologists say, attest to the political hierarchy and religion of the newly unified Egyptian state, beginning more than 5,000 years ago.

---

Oldest free standing wall on earth, from Upper Egypt. Note that the recessed niches of this wall predate anything similar in Mesopotamia, even though the historians and archaeologists claim that the Egyptians derived their ideas from there.
This is an example of the monumental walled cities, fortresses and palaces that were typical of Egyptian architecture using mud brick and wood. Quite often this architecture is decayed and no longer exists, but MOST of Egypt's architecture was built using mud brick and wood, which has unfortunately not survived.

Example of an egyptian whitewashed mudbrick and painted wood house.



These themes of architecture from Egypt and elswhere played heavily on the rise of the Moors, as they were built on the indigenous traditions of both local Africans, which included traditions from Egypt.

Ben Youssef Madrassah from Marrakesch showing African architectural elements:


And also do not forget that daggers were a very important part of the dress of the pharoahs, as can be seen in the daggers found in tut's tomb. Well made ornate daggers have also been found all along the Nile in Egypt and Sudan, attesting to the ancient practice of using daggers. These daggers were often worn in the waist.
 

---

Posted by One_and_Done (Member # 10712) on :
 
Ebony Allen wrote:

quote:

---

Great pictures. Why is this stuff not in history books? Especially black history ones? Are whites trying to hide this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by One_and_Done:

...Besides the North African men in those pictures are caucasoids because they show caucasoid tendencies. This is because caucasoids came in from the Middle East and mixed with their foremothers.

---

quote:

---

And before anyone of you African Americans start, those people posted do not look like you. These people are from North Africa you are sub-saharan.

---

I'm not African American, but even I know there is no seperation between "North" and "sub-Sahara". Both are on the same continent. The Sahara was not always a desert but was once green and fertile, but even when it did dry out and become desert was there never a barrier between south of it and north of it.

quote:

---

Its laughable, because Africans have nothing to do with North Africa.

---

LMAO at this nonsensical cotradictory statement! How can Africans have nothing to do with North Africa?! LOL

quote:

---

Stick to West, East, and Southern Africa. Leave Morrocco, Algeria, Mauritania, Mali, Tunisia, Niger, Libya, Chad, Egypt, and Sudan alone.

---

We see where you're coming from-- a false disillusioned mentality. I knew it from the moment you posted in this board. 'One and Done' you've got issues, and judging by your latest post your logic seems that it was 'one and done' a while now.
 

---

Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

The funny part is that the patterns of warfare, chivalry and dress of these periods were all pretty much derived from the cultures in the east. The horsemanship, bridling, barding, chain armor, castles and other things were very similar between the two camps, owing to a common origin. Mail armor, horsemanship, colorful standards, war drums, castles and mail armor were all standard aspects of warfare going back to the times of Egypt and Mesopotamia. It was only later, in the 14th century and onwards, that the European fashion of plate armored knights and gunpowder became a distinguishing feature of European warfare. In fact even the heraldric devices of Europe derive from the East, as the various soldiers from the various regions of the Muslim empires often had their own colors, standards and regalia, which helpded distinguish them on the battlefield. The checkerboard often seen in European heraldry can be seen in Egypt from an ancient time and the walking or reared lion is a familiar motif in Perisan and Babylonian symbols of State and warfare. Likewise putting the images of defeated enemies into standards, banners and imagery is likewise ancient in the Levant and Egypt.

Illustrated Manuscript from Fatimid period showing full body chain mail armor:
http://www.eternalegypt.org/EternalEgyptWebsiteWeb/HomeServlet?ee_website_action_key=action.display.element&story_id=&module_id=&element_id=40624&language_id=1

Beaded mail covering over 26th dynasty mummy:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_7-3-2005_pg6_8

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2005/1316009.htm

Fancy bead or mail covering Egyptian diety:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by One_and_Done:
Ebony Allen wrote:

quote:

---

Great pictures. Why is this stuff not in history books? Especially black history ones? Are whites trying to hide this?

---

Are you crazy? White americans of european extract do not tell lies, provide misinformation or hide the truth.


What reason would they have to lie?


They don't even care about Africans or African Americans. And they especially don't care about Africa's history and culture.

You act as if they get bent out of shape and angry when you post something about Africa. You don't see them obsessing about Africans on any of their websites. In all of my time using google and yahoo I have never come across whites discussing Africans or African Americans at all.

However you will find Africans and African Americans obsessing about Finland, Luxemberg, Slovenia and Scotland. Anybody who has had any experience on the internet has seen this.


Besides the North African men in those pictures are caucasoids because they show caucasoid tendencies. This is because caucasoids came in from the Middle East and mixed with their foremothers.

And before anyone of you African Americans start, those people posted do not look like you. These people are from North Africa you are sub-saharan.


Its laughable, because Africans have nothing to do with North Africa.

Stick to West, East, and Southern Africa. Leave Morrocco, Algeria, Mauritania, Mali, Tunisia, Niger, Libya, Chad, Egypt, and Sudan alone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King_Scorpion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

The funny part is that the patterns of warfare, chivalry and dress of these periods were all pretty much derived from the cultures in the east. The horsemanship, bridling, barding, chain armor, castles and other things were very similar between the two camps, owing to a common origin. Mail armor, horsemanship, colorful standards, war drums, castles and mail armor were all standard aspects of warfare going back to the times of Egypt and Mesopotamia. It was only later, in the 14th century and onwards, that the European fashion of plate armored knights and gunpowder became a distinguishing feature of European warfare. In fact even the heraldric devices of Europe derive from the East, as the various soldiers from the various regions of the Muslim empires often had their own colors, standards and regalia, which helpded distinguish them on the battlefield. The checkerboard often seen in European heraldry can be seen in Egypt from an ancient time and the walking or reared lion is a familiar motif in Perisan and Babylonian symbols of State and warfare. Likewise putting the images of defeated enemies into standards, banners and imagery is likewise ancient in the Levant and Egypt.

Illustrated Manuscript from Fatimid period showing full body chain mail armor:
http://www.eternalegypt.org/EternalEgyptWebsiteWeb/HomeServlet?ee_website_action_key=action.display.element&story_id=&module_id=&element_id=40624&language_id=1

Beaded mail covering over 26th dynasty mummy:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_7-3-2005_pg6_8

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2005/1316009.htm

Fancy bead or mail covering Egyptian diety:

---

I doubt chain mail came from Egypt since Chain Mail (or an early version of it) wasn't used in Ancient Egypt until the New Kingdom after Hyksos rule. Chain mail probably originated in the Levant somewhere and was just diffused to Egypt like the chariot.

You're right though that a lot of the chivalry aspects of Middle Age Europe comes from the East...it was talked about to some extent in Golden Age of the Moor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Another example of the elaborate styles of dress that often dont get much coverage from Egypt:



Look closely at the somewhat faded intricate colored mail corselet worn by Amenhotep III.

The remains of a similar type of coreselet was found in tut's tomb:

http://www.eternalegypt.org/EternalEgyptWebsiteWeb/HomeServlet?ee_website_action_key=action.display.element&story_id=&module_id=&language_id=1&element_id=60364

Note that these styles of corselets are an excelllent example of the level of sophistication in making stylized scale and chain mail armors for the royalty along with the elaborate helmets that were worn. Many people confuse the fact that the Egyptians portrayed themselves going to war in loincloths as meaning that they actually had no scaled armor of leather or metal. This was not the case, as most of these images were simply traditional, going back to the beginnings of the Egyptian state and had nothing to do with the actual day to day accoutrements of warfare. If they only wore kilts they would have been destroyed way before the 6th dynasty.

Anyway, this type of scaled dress is very old indeed in Egypt and can be seen going back a ways. One good example is the dress of Kemsit from the 12th dynasty. Which, by the way, I also recall seeing in its full color glory in one of the Egyptian picture books I have here at home....



I think it was on the cover of the The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (or History of the World) from the late 80s to early 90s that featured an excellent illustration of Rameses II riding into battle with horses that had colorful plumes, riding gloves, scale armor and the like. Definitely a sight to see and definitely NOT the linen kilt wearing soldier many would expect from Egypt.

A funny thing I have noticed is that many of the picture books offer more undeniably black African images from Egypt than those on the web, whether any color remains or not. I was looking at some of the sculpted reliefs from Karnak and it was amply evident. A good example is the white chapel of senwosret I. Also there are images of tombs that are not often found on the web as well.

More on scale armor and clothing from the ancient world:

quote:

---

98) Thomas Hulit, University of Durham,
Organic Body Armor in the Late Bronze Age Near East

Organic remains in archaeology are often lost due to decomposition, and can lead to large gaps in our understanding of the archaeological record. Organic materials were often used in the manufacture of military equipment, including body armor. Current hypotheses generally suggest that most body armor from the Late Bronze Age was manufactured from bronze, however the author’s recent research suggests that the majority of coats of scale body armor in use in the LBA were made from rawhide. As a biologically active (but inert) material, rawhide rarely survives in the archaeological record, and there is only one known surviving LBA example of rawhide armor; the armor from the tomb of Tut_Ankham_n. In an analysis of the methods of construction of scale body armor, the socio-economic factors governing its use, and the relevant contemporary Near Eastern texts, it appears that as many as 200 coats of organic armor were in use for every one coat of bronze armor. It is also quite likely that the few bronze armor scales found in excavations were from coats of armor made of a composite of both bronze and rawhide scales. Experimental work conducted at H.M. Royal Armories Museum (Leeds) has proven that bronze, rawhide, and composite bronze/rawhide scale armor is quite effective at protecting the wearer from injury.

---

From: http://www.asor.org/AM/fridayabs.html

But even with the decay of artifacts, the abundance of imagery from Egypt of persons wearing scale and intricate chain armor suggests that it was much more widespread than what is often suggested in Egypt.

Leather armor of Tutankhamun that presages the leather breastplates worn by the romans:
http://www.touregypt.net/museum/armorpage.htm

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ebony Allen:

Most blacks do have an inferiority complex.

---

Is this based on polling of "most" blacks around the globe?
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ LMFO Good question!
 

---

Posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh* (Member # 13372) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by One_and_Done:
Ebony Allen wrote:

quote:

---

Great pictures. Why is this stuff not in history books? Especially black history ones? Are whites trying to hide this?

---

Are you crazy? White americans of european extract do not tell lies, provide misinformation or hide the truth.


What reason would they have to lie?


They don't even care about Africans or African Americans. And they especially don't care about Africa's history and culture.

You act as if they get bent out of shape and angry when you post something about Africa. You don't see them obsessing about Africans on any of their websites. In all of my time using google and yahoo I have never come across whites discussing Africans or African Americans at all.

However you will find Africans and African Americans obsessing about Finland, Luxemberg, Slovenia and Scotland. Anybody who has had any experience on the internet has seen this.


Besides the North African men in those pictures are caucasoids because they show caucasoid tendencies. This is because caucasoids came in from the Middle East and mixed with their foremothers.

And before anyone of you African Americans start, those people posted do not look like you. These people are from North Africa you are sub-saharan.


Its laughable, because Africans have nothing to do with North Africa.

Stick to West, East, and Southern Africa. Leave Morrocco, Algeria, Mauritania, Mali, Tunisia, Niger, Libya, Chad, Egypt, and Sudan alone.

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

Besides the North African men in those pictures are caucasoids because they show caucasoid tendencies. This is because caucasoids came in from the Middle East and mixed with their foremothers.

Its laughable, because Africans have nothing to do with North Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by One_and_Done:
Nice Vidadavida *sigh* wrote:

quote:

---

---

It is quite clear that you are one of the most sound and profound posters on this forum. Your posts are always backed up with facts and not opinions. You are clearly not obsessed with African Americans as you have been accused. Your posts definitely do not wreek of a poor pitiful loser white racist. You should be given high adjulations by all.

---

Gee thanks, this is probably due to my "caucasian tendencies" <--whatever the **** that means LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

What are caucasoid tendencies...

---

^ Tendency to make nonsensical claims based on arguments rooted in racial pseudoscience. (?)

Example: The Moors were fully caucasoid - Erroneous Euro.



 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Of course.

quote:

---

Originally posted by One_and_Done:

It is quite clear that you are one of the most sound and profound posters on this forum. Your posts are always backed up with facts and not opinions. You are clearly not obsessed with African Americans as you have been accused. Your posts definitely do not wreek of a poor pitiful loser white racist. You should be given high adjulations by all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
[qb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

The funny part is that the patterns of warfare, chivalry and dress of these periods were all pretty much derived from the cultures in the east. The horsemanship, bridling, barding, chain armor, castles and other things were very similar between the two camps, owing to a common origin. Mail armor, horsemanship, colorful standards, war drums, castles and mail armor were all standard aspects of warfare going back to the times of Egypt and Mesopotamia. It was only later, in the 14th century and onwards, that the European fashion of plate armored knights and gunpowder became a distinguishing feature of European warfare. In fact even the heraldric devices of Europe derive from the East, as the various soldiers from the various regions of the Muslim empires often had their own colors, standards and regalia, which helpded distinguish them on the battlefield. The checkerboard often seen in European heraldry can be seen in Egypt from an ancient time and the walking or reared lion is a familiar motif in Perisan and Babylonian symbols of State and warfare. Likewise putting the images of defeated enemies into standards, banners and imagery is likewise ancient in the Levant and Egypt.

Illustrated Manuscript from Fatimid period showing full body chain mail armor:
http://www.eternalegypt.org/EternalEgyptWebsiteWeb/HomeServlet?ee_website_action_key=action.display.element&story_id=&module_id=&element_id=40624&language_id=1

Beaded mail covering over 26th dynasty mummy:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_7-3-2005_pg6_8

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2005/1316009.htm

Fancy bead or mail covering Egyptian diety:

---

I doubt chain mail came from Egypt since Chain Mail (or an early version of it) wasn't used in Ancient Egypt until the New Kingdom after Hyksos rule. Chain mail probably originated in the Levant somewhere and was just diffused to Egypt like the chariot.

You're right though that a lot of the chivalry aspects of Middle Age Europe comes from the East...it was talked about to some extent in Golden Age of the Moor.

---

Actually, as I have posted earlier, the Egyptians used scale and chain armor from a very early period. The issue in most circles becomes whether was purely for symbolic, ornamental or actually used in warfare. Pieces of scale armor have been found as far back as the first intermediate period, long before the Hyksos invasion. Princess Kemsit is often shown wearing a variation of a scaled dress, which could have been made of leather. Egyptians have also been used to use beads as a form of scaled dress and adornment, if not a form of armor. From this you can see that the Egyptians have been making intricate garments of linked plate, bead, metal, leather and glass for a very long time. The corselet found in Tutankhamun's tomb is a form of mail or linked armor, even if it isn't the form of linked metal hoops. They all fall into the same category of material. Like everything else, much of this aspect of Egyptian history is based, often erroneously, on the remaining imagery from Egypt. It should be considered that it is possible that many of the depictions of Egyptian soldiers in battle was as much symbolic as literal, meaning that it was not necessarily a 100% true to life reflection of ACTUAL gear used by Egyptian soldiers at any given time.

From the thread "Egyptian slippers (about the textile traditions of Egypt)"

---

I don't doubt all of that. I'm saying I doubt MEDIEVAL chainmail came from Ancient Kemet in the way we think of it. That it's more likely it came from elsewhere where chainmail was more commonly used.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
I understand that. The point I was trying to make was that by the MEDEIVAL period chain mail was already old in Africa and Asia, which is where it originated. These populations are the ones who introduced it to Europe. Therefore chain mail was NEW to Western Europe, but OLD to those of the East. The time period of ancient Egyptian scaled and chain mail armor is thousands of years prior to the Medeival period even if just counting the LATE period of Egypt. Just as castles and siege warfare were also already OLD technologies by the time of the Medeival period in Asia and Africa, but NEW to Western Europe. Egypt is PART of the history of chain mail and so-called Medeival warfare, which is ACTUALLY the END of a LONG HISTORY of warfare using castles and cavalry, which was THOUSANDS of years old already.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Chain and scale armor of the Kushites and Meroites:



Even though the images are extensions of Egyptian style, the influence had evolved into elaborate scaled and fancy linked geometric chain armor. No doubt that by the Meoritic period chain mail and other forms of armor were commonplace in Sudan. This influence spread west and south into Kanem and across the deserts towards the West. Therefore, when one speaks of the techniques of warfare in Africa that spread from the East, they are ACTUALLY talking of Sudanic techniques and other techniques from WITHIN Africa, as much as without.

Ramessid period Egyptian armor:





(note how this form fitting leather/scale armor with skirt presages that of Greece and Rome.

An image of a Meroite similar to the images of Sudanese warriors in the Moorish period:


 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Extract from "Candide" by Voltaire:

quote:

---

MY eyes have not always been bleared, and bordered with scarlet; my nose has not always touched my chin; nor have I been always a servant. I am the daughter of a king, and the Princess of Palestrina. I was brought up, till I was fourteen, in a palace, to which all the castles of your German barons would not have served for stables, and one of my robes cost more than all the magnificence in Westphalia. I increased in beauty, in charms, and in fine accomplishments, amidst pleasures, homages, and high expectations. I began to captivate every heart. My neck was formed—oh, what a neck! white, firm and shaped like that of the Venus de Medici. And what eyes; what eyelids! what fine black eyebrows! what flames sparkled from my eyeballs; the poets of my country told me they eclipsed the twinkling of the stars! The maids who dressed and undressed me fell into an ecstasy when they viewed me, and all the men would gladly have been in their places.

I was betrothed to a prince, the sovereign of Massa Carara. What a prince! as handsome as myself, all sweetness and charms, of a witty mind, and burning with love. I loved him, as one always loves for the first time, with idolatry, with transport. Preparations were made for our nuptials. The pomp and magnificence were inconceivable; nothing but continual feasts, carousals, and operas; and all Italy made sonnets upon me, of which there was scarce one tolerable. I was just on the point of reaching the summit of happiness, when an old marchioness, who had been mistress to my prince, invited him to drink chocolate at her house. He died there in less than two hours' time in terrible convulsions. But this is only a mere trifle. My mother, in despair, and yet less afflicted than I was, resolved to retreat for some time from so mournful a place. She had a very fine country-seat near Gaeta. We embarked on board a galley of the country, gilt equal to the altar of St. Peter at Rome. We were scarcely at sea, when a corsair of Sallee fell upon and boarded us. Our soldiers defended themselves like true soldiers; they all fell upon their knees, after throwing away their arms, and asked pardon,in articulo mortis, of the corsair.

We were instantly stripped naked as monkeys; my mother, our maids of honor, and myself too, meeting with no better usage. It is a very surprising thing with what expedition these pirate gentry undress people. But what surprised me most was that they should touch us where we women do not ordinarily allow. This ceremony appeared very strange to me; but so we judge of everything that is not done in our own country. I soon learned that the search was to find out whether we had not concealed some of our jewels there. It is a custom established time out of mind among civilized nations that scour the sea. I know that those gentlemen, the pious knights of Malta, never omit to practice it, when they capture Turks of either sex. It is one of the laws of nations, from which they never deviate.

I need not tell you how great a hardship it is for a young princess and her mother to be carried slaves to Morocco. You may easily form a notion of what we underwent on board the vessel of the corsair. My mother was still very handsome, our maids of honor, nay, our plain chambermaids, had more charms than are to be found throughout all Africa. As for myself, I was all attraction, I was all beauty, and all charms; nay, more, I was a virgin. However, I was not one long; for this flower, which had been reserved for the accomplished Prince of Massa Carara, was taken from me by the captain of the corsair. He was an ugly negro, but fancied he did me a great deal of honor. Indeed Her Highness, the Princess of Palestrina, and myself must have been very strong to resist all the violence we met with till our arrival at Morocco. But let me pass over that; these things are so very common that they are hardly worth the mentioning.

Morocco overflowed with blood when we arrived there. Fifty sons of the Emperor Muley Ismael had each their adherents; this produced, in effect, fifty civil wars, of blacks against blacks, of blacks against tawnies, of tawnies against tawnies, and of mulattoes against mulattoes. In a word, there was one continued carnage all over the empire.

No sooner were we landed than the blacks of a party adverse to that of my corsair made an attempt to rob him of his booty. Next to the jewels and the gold, we were the most valuable things he had. I was here witness to such a battle as you never saw in your European climates. The people of the north have not so much fire in their blood, nor have they that raging passion for women that is so common in Africa. One would think that you Europeans had nothing but milk in your veins; but it is vitriol and fire that runs in those of the inhabitants of Mount Atlas and the neighboring countries. They fought with the fury of lions, tigers, and serpents of the country, to determine who should have us. A Moor seized my mother by the right arm, while my captain's lieutenant held her by the left; a Moorish soldier took hold of her by one leg, and our pirates held her by the other. All our women found themselves almost in a moment seized thus by four soldiers. My captain kept me concealed at his back. He had a scimitar in his hand, and killed every one that opposed his fury. In short, I saw all our Italian women and my mother torn to pieces, hacked and mangled by the brutes that fought for them. My fellow-prisoners, those who had taken them, soldiers, sailors, blacks, whites, mulattoes, and lastly my captain himself, were all killed; and I remained expiring upon a heap of dead bodies. These barbarous scenes extended, as every one knows, over more than three hundred leagues, without the perpetrators ever omitting the five prayers a day ordained by Mahomet.

---

From: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/voltaire/candide/chap11.htm
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Who was it again (some Spaniard) that made a claim something like "in only a few generations we washed out the black stain of the Moors"?
 

---

Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
 
Lets face, we see a bunch of pictures, paintings and anecdotes of stories but none of this really and conclusively tells us about what the majority of moors looked like. I'd like to see some genetic studies and more conclusive evidence before I start making any conclusions.

That last story was interesting though, according to the writer, they were attacked by a group of what seemed to be black and brown-skinned pirates and mauraders from morrocco.
 

---

Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
 
First one must defines what Moor is...

A North West African? Were the converted people in Iberia Moors as well?
Could Arabs be included in the Moors as well?
Don't forget that for Medieval Iberians pretty much all muslims were Moors, even the ones in the Philippines.

But restricting this to a North-West African and Iberian scenario, some were undoubtly black. (though defining black is also not that easy).
But most weren't. Most proofs seem to point to this really.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ The word 'Moor' is derived from the Greek word Maure meaning black. Hence it is the root word for the name of the modern country of Mauritania, which is a black African country. Moor was used by the Spanish and other Europeans during Medieval times to describe the black North African Muslims. The lighter skinned Berber and Arabs were called Saracen. Moor was eventually adopted by many North Africans regardless of color due to the prestige it carried due to powerful Moorish dynasties such as the Almoravids.

This issue was discussed all too many times before. I suggest you look in the archives.
 

---

Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
 
I have read the archives, at least part of them. Yes, the word maure means black, but black simply meant dark, as far as we know. And what's dark for some isn't dark for others. Today North Africans are still darker than Italians or Greeks, but I don't think they are black.
But this brings me to the following:

What is black exactly? Are the people of nowadays Morocco "black"? Because from what I know I doubt they looked any significantly different from their ancestors just 1000 or 2000 years ago.
So if they today are black for you, then yes, the Moors were black. They certanly were African, but black is quite the subjective term to me.

Even in Mauretania, you can find people who at least look similar to Southern Europeans, and the connection between ancient Mauretania and Mauritania is little. Like ancient Ghana and Modern Ghana.

But I await your answers before proceeding.
 

---

Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
The majority of present-day Mauretanians are of Foulah, Wolof and other West African extraction. The so-called "Moors"--called locally in Senegal and Gambia "Nar"--could be hardly mistaken for "Southern European". They are generally short and lean in stature and would seem to fit in phenotypically with the nomadic peoples who populate the Sahara--such as the Tuareg. I have seen and spoken with many such.


Present-day Moroccans are, for the most part, phenotypically congruent with the populations of places like the Dominican Republic.

In Renaissance Europe the term "Moor" was used to refer to either "black-a-moor"(an actual "black man"[as per European usage] as in Shakespeare's Othello) or a "tawny-moor"(someone who would be phenotypically congruent with a copper-coloured Tuareg).
 

---

Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
 
I know that. I was talking about guys like these:





They do look similar to Southern Europeans.

But again, present day Mauritania and Ancient Mauretania are separated by thousands of miles,specially considering most people in Mauritania live in the extreme south if I am not mistaken, so this matters little.

Also, what's your source for that statement? If the use that word has today in my country is of any indication, Moor was used to label all Muslims, but specifically North African ones, and the phenotype associated with them would one considered "dark med, swarthy".

Morocans look like Dominicans? I never been to both places (though I have met Moroccans and other North Africans and have been to Tunisia) but quick googling of pics (not even necessary since I have seen plenty), including their national teams, would reveal them to be significantly different though there is an overlap yes. I personally would use Brazil instead of the Dominican Republic, since it's a country and people I know better and I think it fitts better.
In any event most North Africans have a distinct look which I rarely see in other places.

Still, all of this eludes a question of mine, quite important for this matter. What is...a black person? What defines one? Colour of skin? If so, what colour then? Other characteristics too?

From where I come from, black means SSA like. But then SSA vary alot, so it doesn't really help us. And no reason is given as to why black should only mean SSA.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
First and foremost, the overwhelming issue here is the history of Muslim interaction with North Africa and the history and people involved in that history. Modern Mauretania has a long history and part of it involves a very long war between Arabs and indigenous African berber speaking black Africans. To show the images of the two fellows in Mauretania and not understand the history of Mauretania is to not put things into proper context. The war was called the Char Bouba war and took place AFTER the expulsion of the Moors from Europe. In fact, all throughout the Moorish period in Spain, Arab groups were flowing into North Africa, constantly fighting with various Moorish dynasties and each other. It is the infighting between various Muslim groups that led to the downfall of Moorish Spain, because the infighting allowed the Christians to reorganize and defeat the petty Tarifan kings one by one.

What we are talking about when we say Moor is the indigenous African population from all across North Africa, which had no country boundaries at the time. Morocco did not exist in the time of Moorish Spain. Neither did Algeria, Libya or Tunisia. Morocco was founded by Africans from Southern Morocco, into Senegal and the Sahara, the Almoravids. The name of Morocco being based again on a description of these people as very dark. The Moorish period between AD 700 and 1492 involved many different African people and not just Africans North of the Sahara. The Africans who formed the Almoravid movement were largely indigenous black Africans from the Sahara, Sahel and Senegal river. These people spoke a dialect of the Berber language called Zenaga, which is the basis of the Name Senegal and the Senegal river. It is from these regions that the Almoravid dynasty rose to power. After the Char Bouba war, when many Arabs fought with these Africans for almost a hundred years, the Zenaga language was almost all but obliterated. Again, you cannot understand the modern population of Northern Africa without looking at the history of North Africa to give it context. It should also be noted that the ancient African kingdoms of Ghana and the ancient towns of Tichitt are also found in Southern Mauritania and both predate Islam. These peoples were a significant factor in the trade of gold, spices, leather, camels and other commodities that made the ancient African Muslim empires of Morocco, Algeria, Ghana, Timbuktu, Songhai and others wealthy. The trade caravans of these times were highways of commerce and they too predate the Muslims. But today, these societies and kingdoms are long gone, with modern Ghana being a country far to the South of modern Mauritania. Again, you have to realize that you cannot generalize 1300 years of history from 700 AD to the modern times and not understand how this history has affected the people and cultures of Africa.
 

---

Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
 
@Doug M:

Yes, good post for the most part even if I have some doubts. First and foremost, I would like to see some sources for that.

With those pics I didn't pretend to imply that such people are the majority or even natives, which I know they aren't. I was only proving my statement that people like that exist in Mauretania. You seem to by implying they are the result of an Historical Middle-East migration. Fine with that, even if they look quite North African to me, it's well known that many Middle-Easterners migrated into North Africa when expanding Islam.

But, again you mention black, without explaining what black is. When one has a thread in which it is asked if the Moors were Black, one must define what a Moor and a Black is. Only after can one go forward.

Now you say that Moors are the indigenous African population all across North Africa.
And then I ask...indigenous *African* population?
Are there indigenous-non African populations in North Africa? But if they are indigenous, then they are Africans by default, and thus that would be a redundancy. Am I reading too much into your statement? (and indigeneous can be a troublsome word btw, afaik, everybody came from some place else, either sonner or latter).
So what did these indigenous North Africans looked like at the beginning of the Islamic expansion? (I believe this is the appropriate time frame, no?)
Also, what is North Africa for this discussion? Africa north of the Sahara? North of the Sahel?
And you mention indigenous black africans..I might be reading too much into this again, but then, are there indigenous non-black africans? but this leads me to...

I don't really want to sound repetive, but I do need a definition of black. I've offered my own, but as I said it is highly subjective. Certanly not scientific.
 

---

Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
The majority of present-day Mauretanians are of Foulah, Wolof and other West African extraction. The so-called "Moors"--called locally in Senegal and Gambia "Nar"--could be hardly mistaken for "Southern European". They are generally short and lean in stature and would seem to fit in phenotypically with the nomadic peoples who populate the Sahara--such as the Tuareg. I have seen and spoken with many such.


Present-day Moroccans are, for the most part, phenotypically congruent with the populations of places like the Dominican Republic.

In Renaissance Europe the term "Moor" was used to refer to either "black-a-moor"(an actual "black man"[as per European usage] as in Shakespeare's Othello) or a "tawny-moor"(someone who would be phenotypically congruent with a copper-coloured Tuareg).
 

---

Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
 
Hum, why do you repeated your post lamin? This does not make it right (even if it may very well be right).

Also, Doug M, what about North Africans who look liked Southern Europeans but are Berber speaking? Even living in isolated places such as the many mountains there? Is it feasible that they are like that due to Middle-Easterns mixing with them?
 

---

Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
The post was not deliberately repeated. There was a message about "flood control" and a request to post again after a short wait. Maybe the first non-post did become a post. It happens on this site from time to time.
 

---

Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
 
Oh, I stand corrected then.
 

---

Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:
But, again you mention black, without explaining what black is. When one has a thread in which it is asked if the Moors were Black, one must define what a Moor and a Black is. Only after can one go forward.

Now you say that Moors are the indigenous African population all across North Africa.
And then I ask...indigenous *African* population?
Are there indigenous-non African populations in North Africa? But if they are indigenous, then they are Africans by default, and thus that would be a redundancy. Am I reading too much into your statement? (and indigeneous can be a troublsome word btw, afaik, everybody came from some place else, either sonner or latter).
So what did these indigenous North Africans looked like at the beginning of the Islamic expansion? (I believe this is the appropriate time frame, no?)
Also, what is North Africa for this discussion? Africa north of the Sahara? North of the Sahel?
And you mention indigenous black africans..I might be reading too much into this again, but then, are there indigenous non-black africans? but this leads me to...

I don't really want to sound repetive, but I do need a definition of black. I've offered my own, but as I said it is highly subjective. Certanly not scientific. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:
@Doug M:

Yes, good post for the most part even if I have some doubts. First and foremost, I would like to see some sources for that.

With those pics I didn't pretend to imply that such people are the majority or even natives, which I know they aren't. I was only proving my statement that people like that exist in Mauretania. You seem to by implying they are the result of an Historical Middle-East migration. Fine with that, even if they look quite North African to me, it's well known that many Middle-Easterners migrated into North Africa when expanding Islam.

But, again you mention black, without explaining what black is. When one has a thread in which it is asked if the Moors were Black, one must define what a Moor and a Black is. Only after can one go forward.

Now you say that Moors are the indigenous African population all across North Africa.
And then I ask...indigenous *African* population?
Are there indigenous-non African populations in North Africa? But if they are indigenous, then they are Africans by default, and thus that would be a redundancy. Am I reading too much into your statement? (and indigeneous can be a troublsome word btw, afaik, everybody came from some place else, either sonner or latter).
So what did these indigenous North Africans looked like at the beginning of the Islamic expansion? (I believe this is the appropriate time frame, no?)
Also, what is North Africa for this discussion? Africa north of the Sahara? North of the Sahel?
And you mention indigenous black africans..I might be reading too much into this again, but then, are there indigenous non-black africans? but this leads me to...

I don't really want to sound repetive, but I do need a definition of black. I've offered my own, but as I said it is highly subjective. Certanly not scientific.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:
True lamin.

Doug M, that was an informative post. But tell me...As you know some (plenty?) North Africans are not dark or medium brown skinned (in their unexposed skin specially). Acording to you, can they be natives or not? If not, then when did such type arrived? What is present at the time of the Moorish conquests? Just curious.

At least to me it seems both types, black and non-black North Africans have been there for quite some time, either native or not, since I don't really know what that means. If people arrived there 5000 years ago, are they not native? What about 50,000? What about 500? Where's the line drawn?

Btw, are any people whose skin is medium to dark brown black to you? Are South Asians Black? Polynesians? Melanesians? Australians? South-East Asians? Even some Native Americans can get quite dark. Again, just curious. These are honest questions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:
What's your point really? Did I ever said I or my people were white? I think terms like white and black are meaningless.
I don't give a damn about being White. I'm Portuguese. Period.

Limpieza de Sangre was a load of crap anyway. Nothing to do with looks, but with culture/religion really.

What do you mean by Blue Vein Society? What defines such people?

And yes, who's black can be a mistery. People don't agree on it, now do they? What's your definition of black anyway?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by X-Ras:
As far as Moors, I had this same debate in another forum. Obviously some of them were what we would call black in phenotype and some were not. The thing thats clouds it all is the usage of the term and whom it applied to. I think as time wore on, the term Moor came to apply to any Muslim person in Spain regardless of phenotype. Any thoughts on this anyone?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:
So the general consensus seems to be that Moors are the Muslims in North (West) Africa and Iberia. I say North West Africa because I don't think Egyptians were called Moors or considered the same was the North Western muslims.
North West Africa is the Western part of North Africa, which is anything North of the Sahel/Sudan.

And black is someone whose skin is medium brown and darker.

So now I can answer safely and say. Some Moors were black. Others not, lol.
Question answered!

And if anyone is wondering, yes some Moors were White if by White we mean Pink skinned. But they were a minority. A small one.

Next!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:
No alTakruri, I am not a nationalist...at all!
You have clearly misinterpreted me.
I don't think Whites did wrong to my people because simply Whites don't exist to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:
...
I don't give a damn about being White.

...

Limpieza de Sangre was a load of crap anyway.

...

better not use such retarded term

...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:
... my beligerance? I was quite civil with people here until you started making me questions which were totally irrelevant for the issue at hand, in a clear atempt to rile me up, with your "You're not white!" tirade.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:
But the ones from East Africa, the Swahili, were.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:
@Doug M:

Yes, but those are the exception, no?

Hum actually. One should not use the word Moor then. One should ask:

"Were the Umayyad/Almoravids/Almohads/Marinids/Nasrids, etc, who conquered and ruled North West Africa and Iberia mostly, its troops and its subjects, black?"

Since that's what people are thinking when they use the word Moor.

The answer is the same I believe.

@alTakruri:

I just thought it was a interesting, and comical even quote from a site I read. It's about Portuguese in the Guyanas I think.
My use of it as my signature is more of a joke than anything else, I assure you.
Don't presume to know me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:
Well, the term Saracen is not used commonly here as far as I know. At least not popularly.
I think it was reserved for Middle-Eastern Muslims. Certanly doesn't has the impact that the word Moors has over here.
So Saracen would be the Middle-Easterners and Moor would be the Africans. But then it gets confusing, since South-East Asians were also called Moors, like in the Philipines
I do know that Turks weren't called Moors by Portuguese of the Age of Discoveries Period.
I read a book about battles Portuguese fought in the Indic, and on the texts they quote they are always refered as the (Big in some cases) Turk simply. Never Moors.
Unfortunately I don't have the book with me, and other than the epic, I have no book from the time. Not really in a mood to read it all, it's huge, lol. Besides being a poem...

Edit: While I was writting this, I found a translation of a medieval document called the Gothic Chronicles. Seems a well known document.
The people who first conquered Iberia are refered as Saracens.
But references to Moors and Arabs also appear latter, sometimes interchangeably, a guy is called a Moorish King and then refered as the King of Saracens and so are is trops, etc. Other times they are used separetely, a quote speaks of Saracens, Arabs and Moabites, another term used.
Ali bin Yusuf, a North African, is called King of the Saracens.
The guy also makes a disctincion between Ismaelites and Moabites, which he defines as Andalucians and Arabs respectively.

Really, there seems to be little coherence between the uses of the words. Moors is only used 4 times I think. Saracen many, many times. Arab and Moabite only some times too.

I guess the conclusion is that all of these terms are a load of crap, lol. Medieval Iberians didn't seem to care much, I guess they were all a bunch of infidels who should be killed, lol.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:


Btw, some people here seem to cling alot to the etymology of the word Moor, for its meaning. Yes it means dark/black, and certanly when Greeks/Romans used it back then, they were refering to people who were darker than themselves.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

But when Moor was used in the Middle Ages, by Portuguese (actually their ancestors under the visigoths) for example, it seems to me they were only using it in a geographical sense.
I don't think they were going "ok, these are the Moors cause they are darker than us", more like "these are the moors since they come from Mauretania".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
The distinction between "native" and "non-native" is this: if the phenotype and/genotype of the organism in question is a specific product of the environment where it has its habitat then it is "native", otherwise not.

In the case of North Africa, individuals whose genotype and phenotype are the product of local conditions then they "native" to the region. Otherwise not, which, of course, has nothing to do with nationality and its obligations, etc.

---

quote:

---

Miguell:

Well, then Mediterranean people in North Africa are native.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by yazid904:
It makes sense but in the Spanish versions of locations of the various group, they stated that some group ocupied certain areas like the Moors, Arabs, Syrians and they do describe the features so that is a case in point regarding who the narrator is referencing. The foot soldiers were for the most part Moors (moros) meaning black or dark skin colour while the dynastic leadership were either Arabized Amazigh like Tarik, or Syrian or Arab or otherwise!

Saracens appear to be used interchangeably with Berber.Amazigh!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by yazid904:
It makes sense but in the Spanish versions of locations of the various group, they stated that some group ocupied certain areas like the Moors, Arabs, Syrians and they do describe the features so that is a case in point regarding who the narrator is referencing. The foot soldiers were for the most part Moors (moros) meaning black or dark skin colour while the dynastic leadership were either Arabized Amazigh like Tarik, or Syrian or Arab or otherwise!

Saracens appear to be used interchangeably with Berber.Amazigh!

---

Actually, Amazighs were among the darker African Moros of Spain. In fact, Amazigh identity had no meaning at this time as they all were Africans or part of the various Sanhaja clans of Berber speaking individuals. Likewise, the Arab chiefs often had offspring by African women, therefore, to generalize Amazigh as being someone UNIQUELY closer to the Arab in appearance and not like other Africans is quite inaccurate.

---

quote:

---

Miguel:

Well, Coastal North Africa is climatically Mediterranean. It makes sense to assume that the black people who arrived there thousands of years ago, tens of thousands even would have specialized for the territory in which they lived, no?

---

quote:

---

Yazid 904:

'Black Africa' b]but refuse to repeat "White Europe"[/b]

---

quote:

---

Cliff:
Could I have one of those Chesterfields now?

Coccotti:
Sure.

Cliff:
Got a match? Oh, don't bother. I got one. So you're a Sicilian, huh?

Coccotti:
Uh-huh.

Cliff:
You know I read a lot. Especially things that have to do with history. I find that fuqking fascinating. In fact, I don't know if you know this or not, Sicilians were spawned by niggers.

Coccotti:
Come again?

Cliff:
It's a fact. Sicilians have nigger blood pumpin' through their hearts. If you don't believe me, look it up. You see, hundreds and hundreds of years ago the Moors conquered Sicily. And Moors are niggers. Way back then, Sicilians were like the wops in northern Italy. Blond hair, blue eyes. But, once the Moors moved in there, they changed the whole country. They did so much fuqkin' with the Sicilian women, they changed the blood-line for ever, from blond hair and blue eyes to black hair and dark skin. I find it absolutely amazing to think that to this day, hundreds of years later, Sicilians still carry that nigger gene. I'm just quotin' history. It's a fact. It's written. Your ancestors were niggers. Your great, great, great, great, great-grandmother was fuqked by a nigger, and had a half-nigger kid. That is a fact. Now tell me, am I lyin'?


True Romance
written by Quentin Tarantino
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm_LbJTvTWA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIzHOfC0cMU

---

Sicilian, Portuguese, same story, same bottomline.

In fact, Moors petted that kitty 'till it purred
clear across the straits littering littoral North
Africa with all kinds of mtDNA creaming up the
complexions there to what it is today.
 

---

Posted by pseudovellum (Member # 13906) on :
 
Nope,

this Moor is grey and green, haven't seen any black ones???

Saddleworth by name

http://extraverse.orcon.net.nz/myra.h8.jpg


 

---

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:

@Mystery Solver:

As I said, there are probably many reasons as or why the word Moor was used.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

If what I said is correct (which I don't know nor claim to be, being merely a suposition of mine) that wouldn't imply what you just said to be wrong.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

What do you mean by African rule in Iberia? (Not Spain, which only appeared centuries before)
The Caliphate and Emirate before them wasn't African rule then, I take it. Which makes sende considering the origins of the dinasty.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

So yes, in that sense, Almoravids were the first Muslim African Dinasty to rule part of Iberia.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

So called Black Africans do seem to have been quite important in their armies, leaders and subjects. That's not an issue.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

Was the term Moor only used those black men appeared? Or right at the beginning when the Umayads arrived?
Honest question, since I don't know.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

The black head flags yes. Other than proving that at least some Moors were black, they don't do anything else.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

As you well know, people are more atracted to the exotic, to the different. On the other hand demonizing the enemy by making such difference even bigger is also a common tactic.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:


Also, from another thread about Moors, someone quoted an Italian man who said:

"I felt the danger of being a modern participant in the complex historical relationship between the southern Italian, whose land borders Africa and was dominated for centuries by dark-skinned Moors, and the black man"

So, as I said in that thread, it seems that dark-skinned Moors and the black men were different things.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

I gave my opinion on how the use of the word Moor came about, giving it a geographical cause. You think that it was due to their pigmentation.
I honestly don't know who is right.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

quote:

---

Mystery Solver:


Given this, why couldn't the term "Moors" have been brought down from antiquity to that point in history in southwestern Europe, identifying 'Mauretania' as a region inhabiting people who were perceived to be generally darker than Europeans

---

It could've of course. But then, generally darker doesn't mean black. Today North Africans are still generaly darker than Europeans, but not black going by most definitions. Some are black for sure though.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

I think the question I ask to you is:

Where all Moors necessarely black? Just because their name (which might haven been given for geographical reasons as I said) implies darkness (which doesn't mean blackness as we perceive it today*)?

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

And are only Moors the Almoravids? What about those who came before? And after? What about the converted natives which the majority I believe?

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

Anyway, I do think it's best to use names such as Almoravids, Umayads, Al-Andalucians, etc, than Moor which seems to be a troublesome word.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

*Remember how Caucasian peoples are called black by Russians...When they actually seem fairer than many Southern Europeans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by yazid904:
I have a solution!
Insteading of referring to colour, perhaps usage of African or European would be better.
From the Arab point of view, the Umayyads were Syrian/Arab but the Almohades and Almoravides were definately African (forget about the colour thing since Africa is where they originated). The Sanhajas were definately sub-Saharan Africa hence closer to what we know as 'black Africa'.

Here's my point? WHy do we continuosuly say 'Black Africa' but refuse to repeat "White Europe". There is some very subtle social construct and conditioning taking place and it does more to create illogical thinking.
So therefore, it is safer to say the Moors were African regardless of colour because they originated in Africa. Other than the Umayyad who were from Damascus, the rulers keep in mind that
the Umayyad were traditionalists and they kept the converted outside the tent and that is why they lost control.

Check up on the word 'mawali' and the dynastic differences between the goals of the Umayyad, Almohades and Almoravides!

---

quote:

---

The Arabs introduced superior irrigation systems; some of their qanats (channels) still flow under Palermo. They established the Sicilian silk industry, and at the court of the Norman monarch Roger II great Arab thinkers like the geographer Abdullah al Idrisi were welcome. Agriculture became more varied and more efficient, with the widespread introduction of rice, sugar cane, cotton and oranges. This, in turn, influenced Sicilian cuisine. Many of the most popular Sicilian foods trace their origins to the Arab period.

Dozens of towns were founded or resettled during the Saracen era, and souks (suks, or street markets) became more common than before. Bal'harm (Palermo) was repopulated and became one of the largest Arab cities after Baghdad and Cordoba (Cordova), and one of the most beautiful. Construction on Bal'harm's al-Khalesa district built near the sea was begun in 937 by Khalid Ibn Ishaq, who was then Governor of Sicily. Despite later estimates of a greater population, there were probably about two hundred thousand residents in and around this city by 1050, and it was the capital of Saracen Sicily. Bal'harm was the official residence of the Governors and Emirs of All Sicily, and al-Khalesa (now the Kalsa district) was its administrative center. As we've mentioned, in 948 the Fatimids granted a degree of autonomy to the Kalbid dynasty, whose last "governor" (effectively a hereditary emir), Hasan II (or Al-Samsan), ruled until 1053. By then, Kasyr Yanni (Enna), Trapani, Taormina and Syracuse were also self-declared, localized "emirates." (This word was sometimes used rather loosely to describe any hereditary ruler of a large locality; in law Sicily had been a unified emirate governed from Palermo since 948, but by the 1050s the others had challenged his authority over them.)

Naturally, Arabic was widely spoken and it was a major influence on Sicilian, which emerged as a Romance (Latin) language during the subsequent (Norman) era. The Sicilian vernacular was in constant evolution, but until the arrival of the Arabs the most popular language in Sicily was a dialect of Greek. Under the Moors Sicily actually became a polyglot community; some localities were more Greek-speaking while others were predominantly Arabic-speaking. Mosques stood alongside churches and synagogues.

Arab Sicily, by 948 governed from Bal'harm with little intervention from Qayrawan (Kairouan), was one of Europe's most prosperous regions --intellectually, artistically and economically. (At the same time, Moorish Spain was comparable to Sicily in these respects, but its prior society had been essentially Visigothic rather than Byzantine.) With the exception of occasional landings in Calabria, the Sicilian Arabs coexisted peacefully with the peoples of the Italian peninsula. These were Lombards (Longobard descendants) and Byzantines in Calabria, Basilicata and Apulia, where Bari was the largest city.

Under the Byzantines' empire, Sicily enjoyed some contact with the East, but as part of a larger Arab empire having greater contact with China and India, Far Eastern developments such as paper (made from cotton or wood), the compass and Arabic numerals (actually Indian) arrived. So did Arab inventions, such as henna --though today's middle-class Sicilian obsession with artficial blondness is a twentieth-century phenomenon. Under the Arabs, Sicily and Spain found themselves highly developed compared to England and Continental northern Europe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:

Some points:

"Interesting how you start of by questioning as though you had no clue, and then go onto acknowledge what was being said"

Yes, simply because I never thought as the Umayad and those who followed in African or Asian terms, since they all came from Africa and even at the beginnin with the Umayads many of them were African, so such difference did not exist in my mind.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"You've said many things. Specifics please"

That Moors were called as such in the middle-ages due to being from Mauretania and not due to being darker (even if they were)

Interesting you don't know that Italian quote, since you were the one who posted it I think. Aren't you Supercar? Your way of posting strikes me as very similar. So any doubts you have about it, I think you can solve them.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"Moreover, what is the limiting point of 'black' since, you poclaim that being darker doesn't mean black?"

I was going by what it had been said to me earlier in the thread. Black would be medium brown and darker.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"You are wrong of course, because as part of the coastal northwest African continuum, there are sections of the population who compare with southwest Europeans in skin tone"

No, I am not, since I said *generaly* darker than Europeans.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

Even South-Western (who are the darkest afaik, darker than Romans and Mainland Greeks) but that's besides the point. Yes, there's a significant overlap, but that doesn't change what I said.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"Depends on what "Moors" you're referring to."

Ok, there are more than one group of Moors.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"I don't recall the Umayyad rulers being referred to as "Moors""

Interesting. I provided a document which does seems to confirm this, since the word Moor is only used after the Almoravids arrived.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

Anyway got any links, specially with depictions of the Almoravids?

Thanks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:

How does this:

"There are sizeable sections of coastal northwest Africans who approach the same tones in southwestern Europe, which is what makes these sections of north Africans essentially outliers in African natural skin distributions."

Contradicts this:

"Today North Africans are still generaly darker than Europeans"

?

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

You might say that such statment was irrelevant for the matter at hand, or that the conclusions I took from this fact are incorrect but not that it's wrong.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

The fact that some North Africans overlap with some Europeans, does not makes the statment wrong.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

Anyway, let's go back this was your answer:

"You are wrong of course, because as part of the coastal northwest African continuum, there are sections of the population who compare with southwest Europeans in skin tone. You posted the etymology of "Moor" as being equated with 'black/dark skin', in its usage by Greco-Romans, which would mean that these people were yet darker than the said Europeans. But guess what? The Almoravids came largely from southward in a region(s) that Greco-Romans didn't have much exposure to. Skin gradients in Africa typically get darker as one moves towards the equator, which in coastal Northwest Africa's case, would be regions towards their south."

What you said here, and correct if I am wrong, was that the Almoravids would have been even darker than the Maures, since they would have been from southern latitudes.
Which I considered a good point.
But again, I don't see how does that means that:

"Today North Africans are still generaly darker than Europeans"

and this:

"generally darker doesn't mean black"

Is wrong.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

Only that in this case, it doesn't matter. Exactly because Almoravids were from the southern regions. Wrong? No. Irrelevant? Yes.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

Btw, I noticed you rarely mention black and that I do no know what black is to you.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

Answering the original question of this thread and debating it you becomes then, impossible. Since the only thing that I know is that you claim the Moors were significantly darker (since otherwise they wouldn't have been called Moors) than Europeans (Southern or otherwise) which I agree, then the discussion was pointless, since I was acting on the basis that "black" today was "medium brown and darker" but that it might not have been so in the past, including possibly light brown and olive (as demonstrated by Russian example).
Since it wasn't so, I'm afraid all of this was for nothing.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

Oh well..

Conclusion: The Moors were significantly darker in general than Europeans. And they were Africans.
Nothing more can be said, nor does it needs to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:

"Not sure what you're trying to get across here, but the relevancy of talking about the 'southern' origins of the Almoravids, a specific group which ruled in southwestern Europe, is that they would have been as dark, if not even darker than the north Africans Greco-Romans called Moors, and for that reason, according to the etymology you reproduced herein. Since, you haven't shown any evidence that this connotation had changed on the onset of Almoravid presence in southwestern Europe, then we will have to go with the Greco-Roman understanding of the term, in the Medieval time in question...since this term was inherited directly from the antiquated term."

I agree with this. And no, I showed no evidence. I only proposed a theory, which people would take it as they want. You presented your arguments as to why such theory would be wrong, arguments which *I* will take as I want.

---

quote:

---

In the middle of the 14th century, one of the most profound examples of the symbol of the blackamoor can be seen in the use of this image to represent Christ. It is clear from the documentation we have for the city of Lauingen in Germany, for example, that at about this time, the city's seal with the head of Christ wearing a crown of thorns is transformed to the head of a blackamoor wearing a golden crown. That the latter insignia is meant to represent the former is quite obvious from the accompanying inscriptions. One of the earlier ones read: "Sigillum civium de Lougingin" (seal of the city of Lauingen), while a later version clearly explains itself as the "Sigillum secretum civitatis palatinae Lavgingen (secret seal of the palatinate city of Lauingen)."

A German heraldic scholar writing before World War II offered two other reasons for a similar coats of arms. He pointed out that Ethiop (sun burnt) the black was a sun sign and therefore a symbol of divinity that could alternately be used for the Son of God or the Son of Man. He also pointed out that from what we know of the cult of the Black Madonna, the blazon of the blackamoor queen was a reference to Mary, the Queen of Heaven or her prefiguration as the Queen of Sheba and that the male versions of these insignia were therefore references to her Son.

---

quote:

---

The upper left-hand section depicts a brown-faced Moor, crown and collar. This element is not rare in European heraldry, and it is very frequent in the Bavarian tradition. It is called "caput ethiopicum" or "Moor of Freising."

As Ratzinger himself explained in his autobiography, this element has been included in the shields of the bishops of Freising for some 1,000 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:

"You mean to tell me that you can't tell the difference between "generally", and the contextualization above, in terms of 'sizeable sections'?"

Yes I can. And?

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"By saying that contemporary coastal Northwest Africans are generally darker than southwestern Europeans"

I didn't say that. I said Europeans, period. I latter did say that the same could be said even if only using Southern Europeans. Which it can.

---

quote:

---

Mystery Solver:

"you are ignoring the frequent outlier sections [in terms of natural African skin gradients] on the coastal tips of northwest Africa, who are not much different from their European neighbours when it comes to skin shade."

I'm ignoring nothing, and I am perfectly aware of this fact. I didn't even mention coastal tips of Northwest Africa, but North Africa. Don't start pulling strawmen.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"I'll call it as I see it. You're flat out wrong to generalize in that manner."

I was? Why? Generalizations aren't perfect and can only go so far. That doesn't make them incorrect or wrong. Only imprecise.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

What I said would be the same as saying:

"The average North African is darker than the average European"

And you say: "Oh, but you are forgeting the many nuances and overlaps"

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

And I say: "Yes, and?" "I am not denying them, am I?" "So what's your point exactly?"

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

Notice, again, that I didn't say SouthWestern Europeans and Coastal North-West Africans. And even there, from what I know, when looking at the averages South-Western Europeans are lighter than Coastal North-West Africans, even if the overlap becomes much, much bigger.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

So, the veracity of the statement would remain.

"Of course it does, because as I just said, they are more frequent in the coastal tips than your statement makes it out to be with that generalization"

Yes, and? Again, what's your point?

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

You provide no information that makes my statement untrue. In general, North Africans are darker than Europeans. Period. This is non-debatable.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

Introducing the fact that the difference between average South-Western Europeans and average Coast North-West Africans is quite small serves to complete my statment, and make it more correct, not making it wrong. So you should have said: "Yes, but to be more precise..." or "Yes, but don't forget that..."

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

And I would obviously agree with you.
Not saying it's flat out wrong.
But, as you said, you'll call it as you see it. You made your point, and I have made mine.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

Let's agree to disagree then, and let each people figure it out for herself.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"and I also told you what was wrong in the second case, to which you decided not to reply"

Hum, what are you talking about? That dark doesn't mean black?

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

It doesn't. My hair is dark. It isn't black. Going by the most common definitions black and dark aren't the same. Black is a colour. Dark is an adjective which implies lack of lightness. It may be black as it may not.
But then, this part of the debate was rendered meaningless, since you never defined what black was for you anyway.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"Not sure what you're trying to get across here, but the relevancy of talking about the 'southern' origins of the Almoravids, a specific group which ruled in southwestern Europe, is that they would have been as dark, if not even darker than the north Africans Greco-Romans called Moors, and for that reason, according to the etymology you reproduced herein. Since, you haven't shown any evidence that this connotation had changed on the onset of Almoravid presence in southwestern Europe, then we will have to go with the Greco-Roman understanding of the term, in the Medieval time in question...since this term was inherited directly from the antiquated term."

I agree with this. And no, I showed no evidence. I only proposed a theory, which people would take it as they want. You presented your arguments as to why such theory would be wrong, arguments which *I* will take as I want.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"'Black' to me, is a euphemism for the natural visible skin pigmentation gradients of Saharo-tropical Africa"

Ok, still a bit fuzzy, but more clear anyway. Your definition is as valid as anyone else.
And yes, now I can say, the Moors were black, if by black we mean "the natural visible skin pigmentation gradients of Saharo-tropical Africa".

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"You may have been arguing past me, but I wasn't doing so, with respect to you. See my post on your obligation to delineate what limits 'dark-skin' from being referred to 'black', and see if you can deliver this time around"

I have no such delineation. Black to me is a colour which is well known. Very few times have I seen black people. And they might have been a very dark brown anyway. But this is besides the point.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

When I used black here, I was using Doug's M definition, the only one which was proposed to me when I asked for one, which he described as medium brown and darker.
In coloquial language, when I use black it has the same meaning as yours pratically...if you're wondering.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"If it makes you feel better to put it this way, as a way of not having to say 'black', then I say whatever works for you. But then, at least be consistent in referring to sub-Saharan Africans in the same way."

My feelings are irrelevant. I feel neither better nor worse with all that was discussed here.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

As I just said, yes, the Moors were black, by using your definition of black.
As for the last part, I don't remember being not consistent in that matter when it came to SSA. At least in this thread.

---

Oh well, so now you're settling for "black".
 

---

Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
 
Here we go again....

"LOL. You start of saying that you weren't saying that, only to end the comment with acknowledging that you did say something to that effect."

Yes, why lol? My original comment didn't say that. Only after I added that, as a sub hypothesis. So I did say that. *After* you add already pulled your strawman.

"Well, when you generalize coastal north Africans the way you did, that ignores the point you proclaim to not be ignoring. In what way is that a strawman?"

It ignores for the sole purpose of the generalization. Generalizations ignore what's not average, as you know. But they don't deny the existence of what's non average. When ones says in "in general" or "generaly".
Had I said only "North Africans are darker than Europeans" as absolute fact, then of course, I would be wrong.
And it's a straw man since I didn't mention coastal north africans and south western europeans at first..."By saying that contemporary coastal Northwest Africans are generally darker than southwestern Europeans..."
I did say that.

Basically, this what happened, at least to my understanding:

"North Africans are darker than Europeans" I say, and you reply, "No, because Coastal North-West Africans and South-Western Europeans have the same pigmentation"
And *this* is were the strawman happened, because I never mentioned because "Coastal North-West Africans and South-Western Europeans" in the first place.
But them after your strawman I said:
"Even when talking about Coastal North-West Africans and South-Western Europeans, the first ones are darker than the last ones"

This is of course paraphrased. You and everybody else is free to check the real sequence of events.

"This is what is a true strawman, because you are citing your own words, and passing them off as mine."

Passing off? Never. It's quite clear that's only a scenarion I created from my mind to better explain my position. I never said those were your words. It was an analogy. Again, people can take them as they want. If my analogy doesn't convince you, or you doens't portray the discussion at hand in a rightfull way, so be it. It's not a strawman. I'm not attacking your points for something you didn't say!

"But using your rationale, I can make a generalization along the lines that you made of 'north Africa' towards the coastal tips of north Africa, by saying that they are lighter shaded than other Africans to their south on average, but on average, they approach the same skin shades as European neighbors to the north. So now what?"

First I did not made a generalization of "North Africa" towards the coastal tips of North Africa.
I made a generalization of North Africa period.
And that generalization you made is accepted by me.

"Well, we are dealing with Moorish rule in "southwestern Europe", and so, what makes you think somewhere else in Europe is the focus at hand?"

Irrelevant. Attack my comment for that if you wish. But that doesn't change the fact that I only said "European".

"The same with north Africa. The said Africans moved into "Southwestern Europe" through "northwestern Africa"; what makes you think then, that we are talking about the whole of North Africa?"

See above. No. I'll explain again. You could have said that my generalization was irrelevant because "Europe" and "North Africa" wasn't the point, but yes "South-Western Europe" and "North-Western Africa" or whatever was. I can perfectly accept that.

"According to what do you deem that "Southwestern" Europeans are lighter than "coastal Northwest Africans" on average?"



This map. As you can see, the far north of the peninsula is of a diferent colour than the rest. That colour is the same as the one on the coastal strip of North-West Africa.
By the simply fact that Iberia as a part of it that is lighter than Coastal North Africa. one can reach that conclusion.

There's also things I have read, such as Coon's Races of Europe. Yes, it's not the Bible, outdated, etc. I know.
And of course my personal observation.
But that map alreadly explains it.

"And so, you can't ignore the fact that contemporary coastal Africans from that region do approach skin tones of southwest Europeans, and are therefore likely to be much lighter on average than the Almoravids who spearheaded the Moorish [African] rule in southwestern Europe, and that you don't have evidence that application of the "Moor" appellation on them is any different than the context in which it was used by Greco-Romans towards the North Africans, perceived to be 'dark skinned/black'. How many times must this point be communicated, before it sinks in?"

What? I already acepted it before. Perhaps you failed to notice or I expressed my self badly.

"And that's what again, we call strawman, when you want to listen to yourself speak, or 'wish' to hear what you'd like others to say, rather than listening to what is actually being said."

No, no strawman. This is merely my oppinion. It was a personal sugestion.
I've listened to what you said, and for that same reason I made this comment. Again, take it as you want.

"I agree that you are flat out wrong, not because I feel that we are simply sharing opinions here, but because my claims are based on objective assessment, while yours lack objective merit. How about that!"

Hum, no they don't. See above. North Africans are darker than Europeans, inspite of any regional variation.

"Citation of where I made such a claim, if you believe it isn't a fantasy of yours?"

You don't recognize your own words? I asked you a question. If you don't want to answer it's fine.
What do you mean by this:

"and I also told you what was wrong in the second case, to which you decided not to reply"

?

"Antunes, it's best you save energy answering questions, rather than wasting them on non-issues. The issue at hand was what you dilineate as 'dark skin' and 'black skin'. I asked you to point to us, at what limit does 'dark skin' cease being 'black'. You danced around and dodged this question in all sorts of manner"

No, I didn't dogded. More than once I said that I was following Doug's M definition, stated in this thread for all to see.
But if you my personal answer then dark skin ceases to be black skin with it ceases to of the colour black.

"Again, you are mixing apples with oranges. My assessment is based on actual "material" that I come across, and yours is uncorroborated wishful "assumptions". Notice the difference now?"

Never said there was no difference. or that they were qualitatively the same. Still, I have seen that "material" for most of it.
Though, I do choose to believe for the most part that you are in fact basing yourself in such "material", since despite of your personality you seem an honest man.
There's nothing like seeing with my own eyes though, and hence I asked for such material. Wich did the best to provide. Now it remains to be seen if such materail will convince, but this is besides your interest.

"And mine would be what?"

This:

"the natural visible skin pigmentation gradients of Saharo-tropical Africa"

You had just said it.

"Could have fooled me, with all that talk about agreeing to disagree, and the idea that each of us have a sensible substantial point to make, when clearly your end is suffering severely from objectivity, in contrast to mine"

Mere speculation. Besides the point anyway. Believe as you will.

"Oh well, so now you're settling for "black"."

Well, only know was I given a definition of Moor and Black for the purpose of this thread.
Acordingly, answering yes to the question asked in this thread seems to be logical conclusion.
 

---

Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
 
Transfered to my next post...
 

---

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:

Here we go again....

"LOL. You start of saying that you weren't saying that, only to end the comment with acknowledging that you did say something to that effect."

So I did say that. *After* you add already pulled your strawman.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"Well, when you generalize coastal north Africans the way you did, that ignores the point you proclaim to not be ignoring. In what way is that a strawman?"

It ignores for the sole purpose of the generalization. Generalizations ignore what's not average, as you know. But they don't deny the existence of what's non average.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"This is what is a true strawman, because you are citing your own words, and passing them off as mine."

Passing off? Never.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

It's quite clear that's only a scenarion I created from my mind to better explain my position.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

I never said those were your words. It was an analogy.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

Again, people can take them as they want.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

If my analogy doesn't convince you, or you doens't portray the discussion at hand in a rightfull way, so be it. It's not a strawman. I'm not attacking your points for something you didn't say!

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"But using your rationale, I can make a generalization along the lines that you made of 'north Africa' towards the coastal tips of north Africa, by saying that they are lighter shaded than other Africans to their south on average, but on average, they approach the same skin shades as European neighbors to the north. So now what?"

First I did not made a generalization of "North Africa" towards the coastal tips of North Africa.
I made a generalization of North Africa period.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"Well, we are dealing with Moorish rule in "southwestern Europe", and so, what makes you think somewhere else in Europe is the focus at hand?"

Irrelevant. Attack my comment for that if you wish. But that doesn't change the fact that I only said "European".

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"The same with north Africa. The said Africans moved into "Southwestern Europe" through "northwestern Africa"; what makes you think then, that we are talking about the whole of North Africa?"

See above. No. I'll explain again. You could have said that my generalization was irrelevant because "Europe" and "North Africa" wasn't the point, but yes "South-Western Europe" and "North-Western Africa" or whatever was. I can perfectly accept that.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"According to what do you deem that "Southwestern" Europeans are lighter than "coastal Northwest Africans" on average?"



This map. As you can see, the far north of the peninsula is of a diferent colour than the rest. That colour is the same as the one on the coastal strip of North-West Africa.
By the simply fact that Iberia as a part of it that is lighter than Coastal North Africa. one can reach that conclusion.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

There's also things I have read, such as Coon's Races of Europe. Yes, it's not the Bible, outdated, etc. I know.
And of course my personal observation.
But that map alreadly explains it.

---

You said "Coon" and "outdated" in the same comment; need I say more?

quote:

---

Miguel Antones:

"And so, you can't ignore the fact that contemporary coastal Africans from that region do approach skin tones of southwest Europeans, and are therefore likely to be much lighter on average than the Almoravids who spearheaded the Moorish [African] rule in southwestern Europe, and that you don't have evidence that application of the "Moor" appellation on them is any different than the context in which it was used by Greco-Romans towards the North Africans, perceived to be 'dark skinned/black'. How many times must this point be communicated, before it sinks in?"

What? I already acepted it before. Perhaps you failed to notice or I expressed my self badly.

---

Well, your acceptance is acknowledged.

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"And that's what again, we call strawman, when you want to listen to yourself speak, or 'wish' to hear what you'd like others to say, rather than listening to what is actually being said."

No, no strawman. This is merely my oppinion. It was a personal sugestion.
I've listened to what you said, and for that same reason I made this comment. Again, take it as you want.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"I agree that you are flat out wrong, not because I feel that we are simply sharing opinions here, but because my claims are based on objective assessment, while yours lack objective merit. How about that!"

Hum, no they don't. See above. North Africans are darker than Europeans, inspite of any regional variation.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"Citation of where I made such a claim, if you believe it isn't a fantasy of yours?"

You don't recognize your own words? I asked you a question. If you don't want to answer it's fine.

---

Of course, I recognize my own words; I just don't recognize that ones that you falsely attribute to me.

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

What do you mean by this:

"and I also told you what was wrong in the second case, to which you decided not to reply"

?

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"Antunes, it's best you save energy answering questions, rather than wasting them on non-issues. The issue at hand was what you dilineate as 'dark skin' and 'black skin'. I asked you to point to us, at what limit does 'dark skin' cease being 'black'. You danced around and dodged this question in all sorts of manner"

No, I didn't dogded. More than once I said that I was following Doug's M definition, stated in this thread for all to see.
But if you my personal answer then dark skin ceases to be black skin with it ceases to of the colour black.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"Again, you are mixing apples with oranges. My assessment is based on actual "material" that I come across, and yours is uncorroborated wishful "assumptions". Notice the difference now?"

Never said there was no difference. or that they were qualitatively the same. Still, I have seen that "material" for most of it.
Though, I do choose to believe for the most part that you are in fact basing yourself in such "material", since despite of your personality you seem an honest man.
There's nothing like seeing with my own eyes though, and hence I asked for such material. Wich did the best to provide. Now it remains to be seen if such materail will convince, but this is besides your interest.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"And mine would be what?"

This:

"the natural visible skin pigmentation gradients of Saharo-tropical Africa"

You had just said it.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"Could have fooled me, with all that talk about agreeing to disagree, and the idea that each of us have a sensible substantial point to make, when clearly your end is suffering severely from objectivity, in contrast to mine"

Mere speculation. Besides the point anyway. Believe as you will.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"Oh well, so now you're settling for "black"."

Well, only know was I given a definition of Moor and Black for the purpose of this thread.
Acordingly, answering yes to the question asked in this thread seems to be logical conclusion.

---

Okay then.
 

---

Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
 
Nevermind. All of this is leading to nowhere. I don't even know why I am arguing with you.
It was only about my "theory" which you refuted in your own way, then I guess I started discussing other things.I should have ended it right there. We only disagreed on irrelevant stuff mostly.

Only one remark. Not all of the Iberian Peninsula is of the same colour as Coastal North-West Africa. When averaged, it would tilt in favour of making the Peninsula lighter than Coastal North-West Africa.
And as you said, people tend to get lighter the further they are away from the Equator. The Iberian Peninsula is further away from the equator than Coastal North-West Africa. Not by much, but it is.

More importantly, that map was made in 1940.
Frankly, we don't know how things were in 1080 or 180 bc. Yes, based on radiation one can more or less predict the pigmentation, but as one can see, pigmentation is not uniform even in areas when such radiation is the same. Compare Northern Europeans who are fair skinend to Eskimos and the like who are considered dark.
Radiation also has a lesser effect as peoples evolve and start using technology to help their survival. At some point, natural selection ceases to apply, since nature can't affect Man no more. For example. Northern European descended people in Australia. Cleary not adapted to the terrain for the most part, but they managed. Or black people living in Europe.
Similar things might have existed back then.

We are only sure of the following (according to Mystery Solver, since I haven't done any research, and correct me if I am wrong)

Maur means dark. How dark? Darker than Romans and Greeks at least. (Are there any depictions of ancient Maures?)
Moors (Almoravids? I'm still not sure of what I should label as Moors) were named as such because they were dark too (when compared to Iberians?). In this case we have the depictions which show how dark they were. More, considering their origin, one can also reach a conclusion on how dark they might have been.
Going by the average Joe on the street, many of them would be labeled as "black". (Black is no valid scientific definition though, no?)
 

---

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:

We only disagreed on irrelevant stuff mostly.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

Only one remark. Not all of the Iberian Peninsula is of the same colour as Coastal North-West Africa. When averaged, it would tilt in favour of making the Peninsula lighter than Coastal North-West Africa.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

And as you said, people tend to get lighter the further they are away from the Equator. The Iberian Peninsula is further away from the equator than Coastal North-West Africa. Not by much, but it is.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

More importantly, that map was made in 1940.
Frankly, we don't know how things were in 1080 or 180 bc.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

Yes, based on radiation one can more or less predict the pigmentation, but as one can see, pigmentation is not uniform even in areas when such radiation is the same.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

Compare Northern Europeans who are fair skinend to Eskimos and the like who are considered dark.
Radiation also has a lesser effect as peoples evolve and start using technology to help their survival.

At some point, natural selection ceases to apply, since nature can't affect Man no more. For example. Northern European descended people in Australia. Cleary not adapted to the terrain for the most part, but they managed. Or black people living in Europe.
Similar things might have existed back then.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

We are only sure of the following (according to Mystery Solver, since I haven't done any research, and correct me if I am wrong)

Maur means dark. How dark? Darker than Romans and Greeks at least. (Are there any depictions of ancient Maures?)
Moors (Almoravids? I'm still not sure of what I should label as Moors) were named as such because they were dark too (when compared to Iberians?).

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

In this case we have the depictions which show how dark they were. More, considering their origin, one can also reach a conclusion on how dark they might have been.
Going by the average Joe on the street, many of them would be labeled as "black". (Black is no valid scientific definition though, no?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
The Moors
By Ross Brann, Cornell University

"Isidore of Seville, who died well before Islam came to Iberia, follows Roman usage in referring to northwest Africa as Mauritania (from which maurus/moro is derived) on account, he says, of its inhabitants **blackness**."


http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/program/neareast/andalusia/pdf/10.pdf


[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 31 March 2005).]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
The Moors
By Ross Brann, Cornell University

An elegiac passage from the thirteenth century Primera cronica general (chapter 559 General Chronicle of Spain) recounts the events of 711 fro what is construed as the (temporary) downfall of "Spain" in that year. The text testifies that semantic transformation of "Moor" was not nearly as benign as some readers have assumed:

"their faces were black as pitch, the handsomest among them was black as a cooking pot, and thei eyes blazed like fire; their horses swift as leopards, their horsemen more cruel and hurtful than the wolf that comes at night to the flock of sheep. The vile African people...."

http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/program/neareast/andalusia/pdf/10.pdf

---

 

---

Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
 
"I don't consider the following irrelevant"

I do.

"*Disagreement on the context of "Moor" appellation on Africans in question on the onset of their rule in the Iberian peninsula, by way of weight of evidence...whether this was merely geographic and stripped of its 'dark skin' connotation, or the inheritance of the antiquated term with along with its context of 'dark skin' intact"

Either them being named Moors because they were dark or because they came from Mauretania is irrelevant because in the end Moors were quite dark, at least part of them. This has been more than established.
It was merely an interesting concept, or so I thought, which occured to me, and I decided to present it, to see what the experts here would have to say. You were the only one to do so, btw.
You have made your point.

"*Disagreement about the manner in which you generalized "coastal northwest Africans" and vis-a-vis first "Europeans", and then "Southwest Europeans"/"Iberian peninsula"."

Irrelevant since Moors will continue to be dark, either if Coastal NA are darker or not than Iberians.

Btw you claim that, when speaking about them map and Iberians being lighter or not than Coastal NA:

"The evidence you, yourself chose to present, says that you're wrong on that account."

It does? Explain what's wrong with what I said instead of simply saying it's wrong. A part of Iberia *is* lighter than Coastal North-West Africa. Will not that change the final average? Making it lighter than Coastal NA?
People on the 12-14 level don't have all the same pigmentation then magically, in Northern Spain, become lighter. No.
Logic and experience says it will be gradual, hence it would be safe to assume that on the 12-14, the further north ones goes the further people are close to the 12 and the further south the closer they are to the 14.
Disagree? Fine. Explain why. Claim lack of proof? Ok. Am I wrong? Perhaps. Lack of proof is not proof of lack. Disregard what I say then if you only want to discuss firmly prooved facts, since I bring none.

And in the end, yes, it's irrelevant because I only brought this to say that dark and black aren't the same by most standard definitions. Which they aren't.
The Ancient Maurs and Moors continue to be dark (for southern Europeans standards) either they were "black" or not.
I had already explained this, and you haven't said this wasn't so, concentrating instead on what do I mean by black, since only after that you could approach the question I guess. More than fair.
Now you know what I mean by "black", this:

"dark as the ranges seen the Saharan to Sahelian belts today."

So where the Maurs in that range? I now already know that the Moors (Almoravids) were.
Still, I wonder, acording to you, where all or near all Almoravids like that? Just a curiosity.

"*Disagreement on the relevance of bringing generalized "north Africa" and "Europe" into the discussion, when we are discussing "the use of Northwest Africa" to spearhead African rule in "southwest Europe"."

Hum, we didn't disagree. The moment you said that it wasn't relevant for those very reasons I agreed. If I didn't it was a lapse.

"*Disagreement in delineation of 'dark skin' and 'black' without giving a limiting point of when 'dark skin' ceases to be 'black'."

There could be no disagreement if there was no delineation. In fact, it seems we have the same concept of "black". Dark is of course very subjective. But I haven't labeled something as dakr which you didn't agree it. The same for what you labeled as dark.

"*Disagreement in the significance of accounts of historians in mentioning dark skin Moorish figures, as well as that of art depictions of dark skin Moors, as that of the four dark Moorish heads on the flag."

Only as to its importance. But the case of this ties with I am going to say next:

Strangely, you forgot to mention the most important disagreement, which really is the key for this discusion. What is a Moor. To me, a Moor is (or was) simply a Muslim from North Africa and the converted Iberians.
Once it was established by you that Almoravids were the Moors in question, then most of the disagreements, if not all disapear, including the black heads.


Moving on:

What's the connection of this:

"Coastal tip of Northwest Africa became that way, not because of natural skin variation in response to UV radiation, but primarily due to geneflow with its European neighbors."

To this:

"And as you said, people tend to get lighter the further they are away from the Equator. The Iberian Peninsula is further away from the equator than Coastal North-West Africa. Not by much, but it is." said by me.

When did this geneflow happened?
Couldn't it be possible that since the climate is so similar, that Coastal North Africans would have the same pigmentation as Iberians for example (its Europeans neighboors by excelence)?

"Well, we know that light skin groups were in coastal north Africa during the late Dynastic periods of Egypt, because there are wall paintings of them. Does the Tamahou ring a bell? This would have been well before the Almoravid rule in the Iberian peninsula."

So there were light skin groups in Coastal North Africa back then. How do the Maures fit into this? There was both dark and light groups?
Or were the Temehu still darker than the Romans/Greeks?
And tying with what you said up there, are these Tamahou the result of geneflow with Europeans?

"The map you posted is not skin tone prediction based on UV radiation; it based on studies of actual populations from region to region."

Never said it was. Why did you thought so?

"Irrelevant. That issue has been dealt with in previous skin color discussions. Our focus here is on the Iberian peninsula and "northwest Africa" from where the Africans moved into the Iberian peninsula. You've admitted just moments ago to your tendency to drift away from the specific issues at hand; well, you are doing it again."

Can't be helped I guess. Bare with me, if you may. Only some harmeless speculation. I like speculating, lol.

"You may not be sure, but your representation of the etymology isn't fuzzy about what it meant, and you've produced no evidence that it was stripped off this meaning on the onset of Almoravid rule in the Iberian peninsula, whose leading figures have been described as dark skinned, and expectedly so, given the region they came from. This is one of the points, as I mentioned earlier, that led further to our exchanges."

Yes, true. Can you answer my questions, if you may?

Many thanks.
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
In addendum to Thought's reposted historic citations.

For Procopius' reflection of Maur colour just a
century before the conquest of al Andalus and
ibn Nunabbih's colour characterization of Berbers
a century after said conquest, see here:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003949#000007

So, we have a continuum in historical writings of
the Moors blackness and as brunette and ravenette
European types but as blacks of an African type
from the ancient Greeks who invented the term
throughout all the ensuing ages of history
right up to a native of just pre-conquest Hispania.

Any skepticism of their conclusions must be likewise
supported from authors of the same places and time
periods if such skepticism is anything more than
opinionated personal bias.

Moors were black by the original Greek perspective of black,
by the Byzantine perspective of black, by the Arab perspective
of black, by the Iberian perspective of black, by the common
European perspective of black, and by the modern popular
perspective of black.

Were the Moors black? Yes. Ipso facto by any perspective
of blackness from 2500 years ago up to the present they
overall were black.

What more is there to say? Contemporaneous authors
made it clear for all except the willfully blind and
biased followers of the disgraced neo-Coonian John Baker
school of race based anthropology to see.
 

---

Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
 
Thank alTakruri.

Just one correction. Moors are not black by the modern Portuguese popular perspective of black.
Which is interesting.
Really, most if not all people here, when thinking of a Moor they simply think of a random muslim guy, though preferenciably from North Africa who looks like this:



For example, a friend of mine looks alot like that man, and in our group his nickname was the Moor. One of many examples of such mindset.
I must confess that this mindset cause me some problems at first, but now I know better.

It would be interesting to study why and when did such started to happening.
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
We're not interested in your academically disproven
opinion or anecdotes. On this forum we are interested
in what scholarship reveals about all aspects of Africana.

Even though you go on and on, essentially by the rules
of put up or shut up, you've put nothing up so even
though you stick repeat like a misreading compact disk you
have been intellectually silenced. Everyone but you can see that.
 

---

Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
 
You're free to see it that way but I wasn't even arguing with this last post.
With this last post I wasn't arguing that what was said to me here wasn't true, more like the opposite.

"I must confess that this mindset cause me some problems at first, but now I know better."

Here, I was giving credit where credit is due, to people like the ones in this board who thaught me many things. But if you want to be all agressive then so be it. Keep your knowledge for yourself then, and be happy with it. I fail to see the point though.
You won't achieve anything with that.
I on the other hand I learned many new things here, and tried to contribute in my own way. I brought up oppinions which I thought would be interesting.
I see that you don't like it. A shame.
I do learn alot by the "rules of put up and shut up". (rules which btw I am also playing by, I have "shut up" more than once)
I know it can be hard, but you seem to be more than up to it

Again, Takruri, I think you have the wrong idea of myself. Might be language barrier.
I read quite some posts before logging in and I thought you were cool. Seems not..

"On this forum we are interested
in what scholarship reveals about all aspects of Africana"

So am I! That's why I ask many questions. Look even at the last post:

"It would be interesting to study why and when did such started to happening."

I just want to know.

"We're not interested in your academically disproven
opinion or anecdotes"

As far as I know, my opinion and anecdotes haven't been the subject of academia, so they weren't disproven. They weren't proven either, that's true also. If it bothers you that much you can simply ignore my posts.
But I don't really get your agressivity. I really don't.
Other than calling you stiff I wasn't rude to you...

There have been far more worse posters here, trolls if you like than me.
And again, if I am disruptive, the mods can warn me or ban me.
 

---

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:

"I don't consider the following irrelevant"

I do.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:


"*Disagreement on the context of "Moor" appellation on Africans in question on the onset of their rule in the Iberian peninsula, by way of weight of evidence...whether this was merely geographic and stripped of its 'dark skin' connotation, or the inheritance of the antiquated term with along with its context of 'dark skin' intact"

Either them being named Moors because they were dark or because they came from Mauretania is irrelevant because in the end Moors were quite dark, at least part of them. This has been more than established.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

It was merely an interesting concept, or so I thought, which occured to me, and I decided to present it, to see what the experts here would have to say. You were the only one to do so, btw.
You have made your point.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"*Disagreement about the manner in which you generalized "coastal northwest Africans" and vis-a-vis first "Europeans", and then "Southwest Europeans"/"Iberian peninsula"."

Irrelevant since Moors will continue to be dark, either Coastal NA are darker or not than Iberians.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

Btw you claim that, when speaking about them map and Iberians being lighter or not than Coastal NA:

"The evidence you, yourself chose to present, says that you're wrong on that account."

It does? Explain what's wrong with what I said instead of simply saying it's wrong.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

A part of Iberia *is* lighter than Coastal North-West Africa. Will not that change the final average?

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antune:

Making it lighter than Coastal NA?
People on the 12-14 level don't have all the same pigmentation then magically, in Northern Spain, become lighter. No.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

Logic and experience says it will be gradual, hence it would be safe to assume that on the 12-14, the further north ones goes the further people are close to the 12 and the further south the closer they are to the 14.
Disagree? Fine. Explain why. Claim lack of proof? Ok. Am I wrong? Perhaps. Lack of proof is not proof of lack. Disregard what I say then.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

And in the end, yes, it's irrelevant because I only brought this to say that dark and black aren't the same by most standard definitions. Which they aren't.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

The Ancient Maurs and Moors continue to be dark (for southern Europeans standards) either they were "black" or not.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

I had already explained this, and you haven't said this wasn't so, concentrating instead on what do I mean by black, since only after that you could approach the question I guess. More than fair.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

Now you know what I mean by "black", this:

"dark as the ranges seen the Saharan to Sahelian belts today."

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

So where the Maurs in that range? I now already know that the Moors (Almoravids) were.
Still, I wonder, acording to you, where all or near all Almoravids like that? Just a curiosity.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"*Disagreement on the relevance of bringing generalized "north Africa" and "Europe" into the discussion, when we are discussing "the use of Northwest Africa" to spearhead African rule in "southwest Europe"."

Hum, we didn't disagree. The moment you said that it wasn't relevant for those very reasons I agreed. If I didn't it was a lapse.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"*Disagreement in delineation of 'dark skin' and 'black' without giving a limiting point of when 'dark skin' ceases to be 'black'."

There could be no disagreement if there was no delineation. In fact, it seems we have the same concept of "black". Dark is of course very subjective. But I haven't labeled something as dakr which you didn't agree it. The same for what you labeled as dark.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"*Disagreement in the significance of accounts of historians in mentioning dark skin Moorish figures, as well as that of art depictions of dark skin Moors, as that of the four dark Moorish heads on the flag."

Only as to its importance. But the case of this ties with I am going to say next:

Strangely, you forgot to mention the most important disagreement, which really is the key for this discusion. What is a Moor. To me, a Moor is (or was) simply a Muslim from North Africa and the converted Iberians.
Once it was established by you that Almoravids were the Moors in question, then most of the disagreements, if not all disapear, including the black heads.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

Moving on:

What's the connection of this:

"Coastal tip of Northwest Africa became that way, not because of natural skin variation in response to UV radiation, but primarily due to geneflow with its European neighbors."

To this:

"And as you said, people tend to get lighter the further they are away from the Equator. The Iberian Peninsula is further away from the equator than Coastal North-West Africa. Not by much, but it is." said by me.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

Still, have you any proof? When did this geneflow happened?

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

Why, if the climate is so similar, would not Coastal North Africans have the same pigmentation as Iberians for example (its Europeans neighboors by excelence)?

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"Well, we know that light skin groups were in coastal north Africa during the late Dynastic periods of Egypt, because there are wall paintings of them. Does the Tamahou ring a bell? This would have been well before the Almoravid rule in the Iberian peninsula."

So there were light skin groups in Coastal North Africa back then. How do the Maures fit into this? There was both dark and light groups?
Or were the Temehu still darker than the Romans/Greeks?
And tying with what you said up there, are these Tamahou the result of geneflow with Europeans?

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"The map you posted is not skin tone prediction based on UV radiation; it based on studies of actual populations from region to region."

Never said it was. Why did you thought so?

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"Irrelevant. That issue has been dealt with in previous skin color discussions. Our focus here is on the Iberian peninsula and "northwest Africa" from where the Africans moved into the Iberian peninsula. You've admitted just moments ago to your tendency to drift away from the specific issues at hand; well, you are doing it again."

Can't be helped I guess. Bare with me, if you may. Only some harmeless speculation. I like speculating, lol.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"You may not be sure, but your representation of the etymology isn't fuzzy about what it meant, and you've produced no evidence that it was stripped off this meaning on the onset of Almoravid rule in the Iberian peninsula, whose leading figures have been described as dark skinned, and expectedly so, given the region they came from. This is one of the points, as I mentioned earlier, that led further to our exchanges."

Yes, true. Can you answer my questions, if you may?

Many thanks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:
You're free to see it that way but I wasn't even arguing with this last post.
With this last post I wasn't arguing that what was said to me here wasn't true, more like the opposite.

"I must confess that this mindset cause me some problems at first, but now I know better."

Here, I was giving credit where credit is due, to people like the ones in this board who thaught me many things. But if you want to be all agressive then so be it. Keep your knowledge for yourself then, and be happy with it. I fail to see the point though.
You won't achieve anything with that.
I on the other hand I learned many new things here, and tried to contribute in my own way. I brought up oppinions which I thought would be interesting.
I see that you don't like it. A shame.
I do learn alot by the "rules of put up and shut up". (rules which btw I am also playing by, I have "shut up" more than once)
I know it can be hard, but you seem to be more than up to it

Again, Takruri, I think you have the wrong idea of myself. Might be language barrier.
I read quite some posts before logging in and I thought you were cool. Seems not..

"On this forum we are interested
in what scholarship reveals about all aspects of Africana"

So am I! That's why I ask many questions. Look even at the last post:

"It would be interesting to study why and when did such started to happening."

I just want to know.

"We're not interested in your academically disproven
opinion or anecdotes"

As far as I know, my opinion and anecdotes haven't been the subject of academia, so they weren't disproven. They weren't proven either, that's true also. If it bothers you that much you can simply ignore my posts.
But I don't really get your agressivity. I really don't.
Other than calling you stiff I wasn't rude to you...

There have been far more worse posters here, trolls if you like than me.
And again, if I am disruptive, the mods can warn me or ban me.

---

 

---

Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
 
Ok, I'll answer your questions.

What is black to me? Honestly?

This:



Unless deemed necessary I will avoid using black to define people. If their skin is really black I will refer to them as such.
But colloquialy black would be someone who looks to me to be Africa except for coastal north africa. Even if similar to your own it's far from objective, don't you think?
Hence my need to avoid using it.
Hency my preference to use other people's definitions, since I know they won't disagree.
Now I know, I should have asked yours much sonner.

Dark? Also far from objective, but to me dark is so called olive (light brown?) and darker. I have posted a pic of Moroccan in the post before this one. He is right at the beginning of what is dark to me. The border is not easy to pinpoin though. Using the map, the range of colors that start's at 15? Yes, I think that's basically it.

"I've already been patient with you long enough as it is."

This is true. Thanks again.

"What, you're ignorant of gene flow from southwestern Europe into Northwest Africa, and vice versa. This even after an example was presented in another discussion that you participated in?"

No, I remember. You said that it was due to the slave trade and also Iberians Moors going to Morocco, right?

"You tell me, after all you were able to come up with the etymology for "Maures"/Moors."

Yes, there were both light and dark groups in Coastal North Africa at least since the late dynastic period of Egypt. The Tamahou were the light ones. I also remember that some Lybians were decribed or depicted as dark skinned. Even if this is untrue, the Maures prove that darkskinned people inhabited Coastal North Africa as well. So there were of both types yes.

Only one question remains, are the Tamahou the result of European geneflow? What do you think?

"Well, then that just shows how out of sync you are with the discussion; it says that you don't have a sense of focus, because you are operating from a weak premise of denial and wishful thinking"

True, I am out of sync and don't have much of a sense of focus besides the oppening posts were I was trying to know what Moor and Black were in this context.
But trust me, there's no denial (of what?) nor any wishful thinking from my part. I don't think that just because I want something to be true, that I convince myself it is. I don't want anything to be true anyway.
The only thing I wish is the truth no matter it may be. I won't settle for something easely though. I apologize if this characteristic of myself was unpleasant for any of you.
 

---

Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
 
Oh, no problem Takruri.

I was holding out at first yes, but then I saw the evidence and now I know better.
Ok, I'll try to not make more unfound comments and assertations.
Yes, I have seen those Evil Euro and others, but most of the time I did not agree with them and I could see their were wrong! So I'm *not* glad that I sound like them. It wasn't my intention.
Really it was not.

Thanks for your patience!
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Please use the internal search engine to find
what we all have already written on the
tamahou
tjemehu
TMHHW
tehenu
THHNW
and whatever variant spellings exist for these two
NA ethnies known to the AE's.

It should take you at least a day to digest not
merely skim read all the material. Come back
with clarifying questions or your own value add
AFTER you do the necessary homework (thus saving
us uneeded aggravation which we will only turn
right back on you).
 

---

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:

Unless deemed necessary I will avoid using black to define people. If their skin is really black I will refer to them as such.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

Dark? Also far from objective, but to me dark is so called olive (light brown?) and darker. I have posted a pic of Moroccan in the post before this one. He is right at the beginning of what is dark to me. The border is not easy to pinpoin though. Using the map, the range of colors that start's at 15? Yes, I think that's basically it.

---

quote:

---

Miguel Antunes:

"What, you're ignorant of gene flow from southwestern Europe into Northwest Africa, and vice versa. This even after an example was presented in another discussion that you participated in?"

No, I remember. You said that it was due to the slave trade and also Iberians Moors going to Morocco, right?

---

quote:

---

Minguel Antunes:

"You tell me, after all you were able to come up with the etymology for "Maures"/Moors."

Yes, there were both light and dark groups in Coastal North Africa at least since the late dynastic period of Egypt. The Tamahou were the light ones. I also remember that some Lybians were decribed or depicted as dark skinned. Even if this is untrue, the Maures prove that darkskinned people inhabited Coastal North Africa as well. So there were of both types yes.

Only one question remains, are the Tamahou the result of European geneflow? What do you think?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
For Miguel

It's no mystery what a black is or who's black.

The real question is what is a white person.
Sangre Limpieza excluded all Moors who were
not renegade Spaniards from the blue blood
in veins beneath white skin.

So what is a white? Only the blue vein society
which excludes all southern Europeans without
some kind of Germanic/Nordic ancestry.

Ergo your Greek, Latin, Keltic Euros aren't real
white people. Goths and Vandals were the only
whites of old Spain. That's why the Moors and
Arabs dubbed it Al Andalus -- of the Vandals.

---

Actually the Greek, Latin, Keltic etc. Euros would fall under the "white blue vein society". Have you ever seen Southern Europeans in the winter time? They get as pale as their northern brethren when their natural skin tones comes through without the summer sun helping them. The "they are not really white" idea arose from an old Anglo-Saxons fallacy based upon their religion (Catholics and Orthodox(Southern/Eastern Europe vs. Anglos(Northern/Western Europe)) and the color hair/eyes(which is pretty dumb given the numerous fair haired Southern/Eastern Europeans-including Anatolia that exist) of the Greek, Latin, Keltic and southern Europeans, not their skin tone.
Greek Resistance WWII
Resistencia Griega 1940s
Greece: 1930s &40s
¡Ay Carmela! Española 1940s
Guerra civil española- Republica 1940s
Italians 1940s
Italians WWII
Keltic:The Valley of Knockanure
First Soccer Club: Keltic of Belfast
Turks of the early 20th century
Early Years of Republic of Turkey

Modern Greek Cypriot Military
Greek Military:Modern Armies of Greece and Cyprus
GREEK MILITARY: ALPINE TROOPS
Modern Turkish Police
Iranian Military: YouTube has some very cool World Military photos. :-)
And if by "Latin" it is implied Latin America well they come in all shapes and colors including "black, white, red and in between" etc.

Came across this 5 year old Egyptian girl Belly Dancing. She is more then likely of "foreing" origins, meaning not of ancient Egyptian origins but check out her dancing!! LOL!!
 

---

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
 
Southern Europeans are on average darker than their northern European counterparts. This is reality that finds expression in skin tone maps and hair color maps.



And also, noting the UV radiation differentiation as one goes from southern Europe to the northern regions therein...



...every group on the same geographical latitudes as Europe appear to have the beige-like shade, save for that northwestern corner of Europe.

Egyptsearch link
 

---

Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by yazid904:
A Miguel,

What do Gabrielle Reece, Vin Diesel, Rashida Jones and Wentworth Miller (Prison Break, the series) have in common?
WHich one of those would you call moreno/a? Groups may have varying degrees of the same ancestry but they will be expressed in different ways.
The appellation Moro is the same thing? First look at the origin of the word Moro. It is definately not European. It is African!

You say you are have origin in Portugal, then look at the Brzilian phenotype range! It is mirrowed in all Central America and South America, where in a family one will see varying degrees of phenotype and colour distinction and they are all in the same family! The roots are the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:

I must confess, I don't understand your Brazil/Latin America comment though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:


Southern Europeans are darker than Northern ones. Now the difference, in winter time isn't that big, and plenty of Southern Europeans are in range of Northern Europeans when it comes to the skin. But the difference is there, which makes sense considering we adapted to sunnier climate.

---

quote:

---

Doug M:
I am sure you are not saying that learning history makes someone fascinated with any particular group or religion. That is the second time I have heard you say that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis:

quote:

---

Doug M:
I am sure you are not saying that learning history makes someone fascinated with any particular group or religion. That is the second time I have heard you say that.

---

Of course it is, you are fascinated by a group who wouldn't exist without Islam and professed their whole existance and movement to the religion of Islam, which unified and gave them the spiritual strength that kept them going on.

That's why i find it strange that non-muslims would try to claim such a group, since obviously they wouldn't care of anyone outside the islamic religion and considered him/her a kaffir, who's open for subjugation.

---

The study of history is not an act of fascination.
That is something you seem to have a problem with. When you study history and are willing to dig deep to get the facts and accurate data, that does not reflect a fascination with said group, but a fascination with THE FACTS. It only seems that the reason this represents fascination for you is because it goes against the historical dogma that has been taught in Western history saying that the West is purely a result of Greek and Roman heritage, with no input from anyone or anywhere else. This dogma therefore covers up the history of Islam in Europe and the part played by Africans in bringing advanced culture and civilization to Europe. So of course anyone who goes off the beaten path and tries to fill in the blanks of this period is someone who is really interested in this era.

Like I said however, I look at the Moorish period as being heavily influenced by Egypt and its customs, among others. The pastel colors, the colorful striped clothing, the castles, the Kasbahs even Islam itself all derive from Egyptian and African elements. Therefore, when I study the moors I am not just studying Islam I am studying African history as a continuous flow of history.

Colorful stripes (headdresses etc)










The colorful robes in stripes and pastels and the colorful leathers seen in Morocco were partly derived from the traditions of Egyptian fashion that can be seen in the Ramessid period of clorful leathers and stripes.

Dancing with canes and swords and using lutes and flutes are another tradition ancient along the Nile and in Africa.

Worshipping prostrate as a sign of humility and reverence for a god, burning incense and using fragrant oils and perfumes are also thousands of years old on the Nile.



The whitewashed homes and dwellings of the Muslim period all trace back partly to the traditions of whitewashed mud brick housing in Egypt and Sudan. The ships of the Muslim era are derived from the Feluccah and other boats along the Nile. The wearing of all white as sign of purity was in Africa thousands of years before a Islam. Purification in sacred waters prior to worship again another practice thousands of years old in Africa.

All of this is what I see when I study Moorish history and partly is what I am looking for, the connections between the Moorish period and previous cultures in Africa and elsewhere.
 

---

Posted by dan5678 (Member # 13968) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Morenos applies to brunettes and ravenettes as well
as Africans because, as previously submitted, Euro
street knowledge has it that the Moros gave all the
Latins (Iberians, Italians, Sicilians, even French) their
darker hair eyes and skin.

I hate morenos! (clickable link)

---

What idiots. LOL!! They make absolutely no sense, say stupid things "i dont like morenos" (idiots) and base their views upon old wives tales. We know from depictions of southern Europeans (Iberians, Italians, Sicilians, even French) since ancient times that they had dark hair and eyes long before any contact with the Moors. Plus dark hair people and eyes are more common world wide then blond haired blue eyed people are.

Also check this out:

Ancient Germans weren't so Fair:
She extracted DNA from ancient human bones as old as 3000 years old from three different locations in Germany and looked for these SNPs. Her findings suggest that red hair and fair skin was very uncommon among ancient Germans. Out of a total of 26 people analysed, Schmidt found only one person with red hair and fair skin, a man from the Middle Ages. All the other people had more UV-tolerant skin that tans easily.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1154815.htm

although some of her other comments leaves you scratching your head.
 

---

Posted by dan5678 (Member # 13968) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Some modern videos from within the old Moorish heartland of southern Morocco:


http://www.dailymotion.com/tag/ahwach/video/x216o1_ahwache-tata-33_music

(a lyrical battle.... )
http://www.dailymotion.com/tag/ahwach/video/x20ytd_ahwach-tata-23_music

http://www.dailymotion.com/tag/ahwach/video/x20w28_ahwach-tata-13_music

http://www.dailymotion.com/related/3341824/video/x1yn4a_ahwach-du-sud-maroc_music

http://www.dailymotion.com/tag/ahwach/video/x1zmkg_ahwach-et-danse-au-sabre-sud-maroc_music

http://www.dailymotion.com/tag/ahwach/video/x1xi5n_video-100-chleuh_creation

---

Nice. Thanks for posting those, Doug. Great videos.
 

---

Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
 
@Yazid:

Yes, I know. That's what happen when the groups who mix *are* of different phenotypes. But what's the relevance of this?

@lamin:

Yes, I have been to Salvador too lol. And I know about the way Brazilians classify themselves. But it has no bearing on Portuguese from Portugal terms.

@Mystery Solver:

Yes, usually Northern Europeans and Southern Europeans can be told apart, bar some more or less significant overlap.
 

---

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:

@Mystery Solver:

Yes, usually Northern Europeans and Southern Europeans can be told apart, bar some more or less significant overlap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:



The whitewashed homes and dwellings of the Muslim period all trace back partly to the traditions of whitewashed mud brick housing in Egypt and Sudan. The ships of the Muslim era are derived from the Feluccah and other boats along the Nile. The wearing of all white as sign of purity was in Africa thousands of years before a Islam. Purification in sacred waters prior to worship again another practice thousands of years old in Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:

@Mystery Solver:

Yes, usually Northern Europeans and Southern Europeans can be told apart, bar some more or less significant overlap.

---

And?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:


Southern Europeans are darker than Northern ones. Now the difference, in winter time isn't that big, and plenty of Southern Europeans are in range of Northern Europeans when it comes to the skin. But the difference is there, which makes sense considering we adapted to sunnier climate.

---

Distinction in phenotypic [and genetic as well] trends between southern Europeans and their western Northern Europeans is as clear as that between day and night, no matter how "Pan-Europeanists" feel about it.

---

I would hardly call it clear as "day and night". Southern Europeans phenotypic are not that different from Northern Europeans in fact they are more similar then different. My work has me contracting around Europe a lot from East to West and North to South and that is a false assumption that I had to until my job started taking me to Southern Europe more and more often and realized my assumption was false. Europeans in general are phenotypic more a like then not. Most recently I had a job assignment in Greece for almost two years were I noticed the supposed "major" phenotypic difference between Greeks and other European people(Northern or Southern) were not that major at all. I've always been under the assumption they were very dark and stayed dark all year long, with facial features more ME but this is not the case at all. Not true, in fact you wouldn't be able tell them apart from other Europeans, Northern Southern Western of Eastern.
Greek Gymnast Stefani Bismpikou
Greece's First Lady Natasa Pazaiti-Karamanli

Natasa Pazaiti-Karamanli - she sort of reminds me of Princess Di
Old Greek Ad from the 1960s
Old Greek Ad from the 1980s
Old Greek Ad from the 1990s for same product as above ION-Greek based chocolate
New Greek Ad for same product ION-Greek based chocolate
Another old Greek Ad 90's for same product ION-Greek
New Greek Add for Vodafone with Greek pop singer Rouvas
New Greek Add for Vodafone Soccer game
New Greek Add for Vodafone Family Plan
New Greek Add for OTE another Cell Phone Company in Greece
New Greek Add for OTE Blind Date
New Greek Add for COSMOTE another cell company
New Greek Add for OTE Old guys
Olympic Flame Ceremony(Part 1)
Olympic Flame Ceremony(Part 2)
Greek Childrens from Crete
Women in the Greek military
Greek from Athens Boys Soccer Club
Greek TV Talk shows
Mediterranean Games, Bari 1997(Metal Ceremony: Greece - Gold)
1980s Greek Clip
Another 1980s Greek cult clip
Greece Top Model / Dance Group 1998
European Mens 400m Hurdles Gold 2006 Metal Ceremony: England - Bronze; Poland - Silver; Greece - Gold
Greece Euro 2004-the defeat on that Portugal player's face is heartbreaking :-(
Russian, Greece and Bulgarian presidencies
Greek Political TV
Greek TV Show
Greek Athlete Chrysopigi Devetzi Triple Long Jump 2004 Olympics
Greek Commercial featuring Chrysopigi Devetzi from above clip
Greece vs. Italy: Waterpolo Womens Finals Athens 2004
Greek Gymnast Theodora Pallidou Ball Athens 2004
Greek Gymnast Ioannis Melissanidis 96 olympics event finals floor routine
Greece Team Budapest 2006 Synchronized Swimming
Greek Team Evanthia Makrygianni Solo European Cup 2007
Greek News
Greek Athlete Paraskevi Tsiamita World Champion in Triple Jump
Greek Gymnast Maria Apostolidi
Greek Rhythmic Gymnast Maria Pagalou Hoop WC 97
Greek Rythmic Gynmast Eleni Andriola Hoop Athens 2004
Greece 3 Ropes 3 Balls Brussels World Championships 1992
Greek Team 2007
Greek Team 2006
Greece 12 Clubs Patras European Championships 1997
Greek Gymnast Dona Evmorfia Ribbon Sydney 2000
Miss Greece 1995(Won Miss World 1996 Title)
Old Greek Ad 70s
Old Greek Ad from 1980s
New Ad for Greek Yellow Pages
The Miss Hellas 2007 Pageant
Second batch of Girls.
More Girls from the pageant
Interviews of other more girls who took part in the pageant.
Continuation of the clip above.
Miss Greece Young 2007 Daiana Igropoulou
Greek TV
Greek Childrens TV
PA for Childrens Missing from Greece
Two young Rappers
Little John from Greece
Funny Greek Ad
Marianna Antonopoulou
Greece movie clip
Kalomira(Greek Singer), Some fugly Greek announcer guy, Viki Kagia(Hot Greek model/actress)
Its not just their Beauty Queens, Actors/Acresses, Singers, Newscasters, Politicians or Athletes, their Playmates have similar physhical characteristics. You wouldn't be able to tell them apart from Northern/Western/Eastern/Southern Europeans(don't worry no nudes) :-)
Greek Playmates who took part in the 2007 event
Greek Playmate 2007 Winner
Greek Playmate 2001 Winner
Elli Kokkinou
Greek olympic medal winners
Greek TV: Tennis Greece vs. Bulgaria
PAS - Eiperos, Greece
Greek Maxim Girl Sasa Basta
Greek Maxim Girl Stella Giampoura
Greek Maxim Girl Maria Enezli
Greek Maxim Girl Eleana Papaioannou
Greek Maxim Girl Maria Korinthiou
 

---

Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
 
I doubt Southern European phenotype is mainly due to admixture with Moors or non Europeans...what about genetic admixture in the Horn of Africa, did it affect Ethiopian or Somali phenotype? What about slanted eyes among Swede and Northern Russian(Blond and Blue-eyed European) is it due to foreign admixture with Asian population as their genetic makeup might indicate? What about African American, by how much their phenotype has been affected by genetic admixture (they are lighter than Black Africans, is it due to the weather or genetic admixture)?
 

---

Posted by dan5678 (Member # 13968) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Some more nice berber fun videos.

http://www.dailymotion.com/related/2069344/video/x1x8t1_chleuh-fahim_dating

http://www.dailymotion.com/related/2069344/video/x1kjyr_httpdadeswebifrancecom_music


http://www.dailymotion.com/related/2638611/video/x1hf7u_sur-httpdadeswebifrancecom_music

http://www.dailymotion.com/related/2492490/video/xy4nr_fahim-aghbalou_music

http://www.dailymotion.com/related/2069344/video/xy4wy_khalid-lbdraoui-ahiwaoui_music

Very nice old 1936 video, even though it is a little dark in spots:
http://www.dailymotion.com/related/2069289/video/xoqgd_tinejdad1936-tamazirt_events

---

These are Great!! Thanks again, Doug.
 

---

Posted by dan5678 (Member # 13968) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by AFRICA I:
I doubt Southern European phenotype is mainly due to admixture with Moors or non Europeans...what about genetic admixture in the Horn of Africa, did it affect Ethiopian or Somali phenotype? What about slanted eyes among Swede and Northern Russian(Blond and Blue-eyed European) is it due to foreign admixture with Asian population as their genetic makeup might indicate? What about African American, by how much their phenotype has been affected by genetic admixture (they are lighter than Black Africans, is due to the weather or genetic admixture)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:

@Mystery Solver:

Yes, usually Northern Europeans and Southern Europeans can be told apart, bar some more or less significant overlap.

---

And? And that's it. What else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:
If that's your interpretation... Is there an overlap between "night and day"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
One thing I cannot reiterate enough. The chasm between ancient Moorish North Africa and Spain and today is as wide and deep as that between ancient Egypt and the present. The lands of the Moors were under such constant states of attack and counterattack that many people, cultural details and monuments have been lost. In Morocco, many of the now glorified ancient monuments of the Almoravides and Almohades, who made the greatest mark on Moroccan architecture, were in ruin at the turn of the century. It is in fact due to modern FOREIGN MONEY and foreigners that many of these monuments have been returned to some vestige of their former glory. o

---

I have this lost Intro to African History teacher who keeps repeating that the Berbers are White (as well as the Almoravids and Tuareg).
 

---

Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
He is correct. Most of what we call the Moors in Spain consisted of the Arabian army that swept across north africa during the Muslim conquest.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Actually he is incorrect. Most scholars state unequivocally that the armies that swept the Iberian peninsula from Africa were AFRICANS. And a great number of those Berbers were black, especially the Almoravids and Almohads.

And the Islamic world during the time of Moorish Spain included blacks from across Northern Africa, into Arabia proper, India and South Asia. That was the Islamic world of the time and MOST of these people were NOT Arabs and a great many were indeed black.
 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 







 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 
More Morrocans










 

---

Posted by SmiteYT (Member # 15889) on :
 
Regarding the original question, where the Moors Black as in Negro?

Of course not, only those imported by the Berbers in a servile role.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Question: What do you mean by "negro"??...
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
The simple fact is that the Moors were a population of Africans from various parts of Northern and Western Africa and many of whom were definitely black. They were primarily speakers of Berber languages who ranged from the Sahara to Morocco and Mauritania. They also were the traders who operated over extensive PRE Islamic trade networks that crossed the Sahara from North to South and East to West. These Africans made up the majority of the forces in Spain, but there were also Muslims from other parts of the world there as well, like Syria, Arabia, Iraq, Persia and to a lesser degree India and South Asia. (In fact many of the decorative traditions in art and architecture of Moorish Spain actually have more in common with Indian and Chinese architecture than Persian architecture, which shows how extensive the trading and information networks were in that time. )

But no matter how many Africans there were in Spain, they still were the minority and over time many of them were mixed with European blood, just as many North Africans also have European blood. This was only furthered by the arrival of more Arab tribes during and after the time of Moorish Spain.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
The simple fact is that the Moors were a population of Africans from various parts of Northern and Western Africa and many of whom were definitely black. They were primarily speakers of Berber languages who ranged from the Sahara to Morocco and Mauritania. They also were the traders who operated over extensive PRE Islamic trade networks that crossed the Sahara from North to South and East to West. These Africans made up the majority of the forces in Spain, but there were also Muslims from other parts of the world there as well, like Syria, Arabia, Iraq, Persia and to a lesser degree India and South Asia. (In fact many of the decorative traditions in art and architecture of Moorish Spain actually have more in common with Indian and Chinese architecture than Persian architecture, which shows how extensive the trading and information networks were in that time. )

But no matter how many Africans there were in Spain, they still were the minority and over time many of them were mixed with European blood, just as many North Africans also have European blood (and many Europeans have African blood). This was only furthered by the arrival of more Arab tribes during and after the time of Moorish Spain. The original Moors were indeed predominantly black Africans, but over time their numbers decreased due to the influx of various populations and interaction with Europeans. This included the Turks who introduced millions of European sex slaves into Northern Africa. And keep in mind that there is a big difference between the Morocco and North West Africa today, versus the Morocco and North West Africa of 1000 years ago, during the height of Moorish Spain. There was no Morocco 1000 years ago, as the country did not exist. What existed were various city states and kingdoms, many of whom had strong relations with kingdoms to the South, as it was from the South that Gold and other precious commodities flowed. In fact, it was the GOLD that was the basis of the wealth of Moorish Spain (and much of the Islamic world) and that gold came from black Africans. And it was this trade in gold, camels, spices, leather and other commodities that created MANY wealthy black kingdoms in the Sahara and other regions to the South of Morocco. But these links to the South were largely broken as a result of the consolidation of power by Arab elites in Morocco who turned against their Southern neighbors and sacked places like Timbuktu.

But yes, many North Africans are simply mixed African-Eurasians:















 

---

Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
 
See for yourselves:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=zm3OjfgWqnk&feature=related

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=2oUBdmpHbEk
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
And many of the flamboyant "Moors" seen in European paintings are really more WEST AFRICAN than North African, as North African dress is not as flamboyant and the head scarves and attire gets MORE fancy as you go to the South into places like Mali, Niger and Nigeria. And the reason for this is that West Africa has had a very important cultural impact on the Islamic cultures of Africa, through trade and other contacts.
 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 
POWERFUL STUFF

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=5OLQwtmpWE4&feature=related

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
See for yourselves:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=zm3OjfgWqnk&feature=related

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=2oUBdmpHbEk

---

 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 


[Vierge Noir Du Puy: a copy]


Very good postings!

I tend to see these Moors as allegorical figures who represent Blue Blood (1500-1789), which is Black Blood, after the 'Blue Men' as European Blacks in Europe were known (500-1500). I did not see the Black Madonna's included, but the Vierge Noir Du Puy, was destroyed during the French Revolution. The Black Madonna's have to be connected with the Rise of the Black Magi or Black King in European iconography, which signaled the start of Black Kingship (1500-1789).

Source:
Titel: Iconographie de la Vierge Noire du Puy / [catalogue réalisé par F. Vialet et B. Gourtay]
Auteur: F. Vialet; B. Gourtay
Jaar: 1983
Uitgever: Le Puy : Baptistère Saint-Jean
Annotatie: Tentoonstellingscatalogus
Lit. opg
Omvang: 275 p. : ill. ; 21 cm

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
And many of the flamboyant "Moors" seen in European paintings are really more WEST AFRICAN than North African, as North African dress is not as flamboyant and the head scarves and attire gets MORE fancy as you go to the South into places like Mali, Niger and Nigeria. And the reason for this is that West Africa has had a very important cultural impact on the Islamic cultures of Africa, through trade and other contacts.

---

 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 
M O R O C C A N S


http://www.thisfabtrek.com/journey/africa/morocco/20050627-essaouira/open-woman-hair-mustafa-4.jpg









 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Edmund, you are mixing up your facts and making up false conclusions. Yes, concepts of European nobility and aristocracy were heavily influenced by Africans and others during the middle ages. This is beyond doubt. However, the images of the "Moors" you are referring to have more to do with the Europeans portraying the "exotic" black West Africans they encountered as they became more involved in West Africa through slavery, trade and later colonialism. But these are not Moors in the sense of Muslim Africans in Spain, but Africans labelled as Moors because the term was a reference to black skin. Since West Africans are the blackest people close to Europe, it would only make sense for Moors to be thus depicted as West African types. This goes along with the fact that by the 1800s many of the original Moors had long been displaced from their original positions in Morocco and Mauretania and those who remained were mainly mixed mulattoes. Therefore, to find a true Moor (black person), one would have to go further South, as in West Africa.

"Exotic" flamboyant Nigerians, inspiration behind the European "Moorish" portaits being posted.

And note they do not have the stereotypical "negroid" features that you claim they do:





(in fact, many of these Africans remind me more of old kingdom portraits then anything else.)

Note the batik glyphs worn in this photo, which are ancient West African symbols found all over North Africa, going back to ancient kingdoms of Northern Africa, including Tunisia, Morocco, Libya and Algeria:

Nike Davies: foremost batik artist of West Africa
http://www.nikeart.com/

The symbols are called adinkra and the one I am referring to is called "Kramo bone amma yeannhu kramo pa" and means
"We cannot separate the good from the bad because of pretence and hypocrisy. "
or
"The bad moslem makes it difficult for the good one to be noticed) Symbol of a WARNING AGAINST DECEPTION and HYPOCRACY.
"

From: http://www.hlcjewelry.com/HLCstore/symbols/define/adinkraView.htm

West African basis of "Moorish" images in European art:









Not to mention the inspiration for the shiny fabrics and textiles that you see in many modern fashion stores including loose fitting sweatsuits .....

Something that is not lost on contemporary artists like Kehinde Wiley(half nigerian) and exhibitions featuring his work:

http://www.npg.si.edu/exhibit/recognize/paintings.html


 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 

quote:

---

And note they do not have the stereotypical "negroid" features that you claim they do:
[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The only one claiming African ancestry for Abraham Lincoln and African features of European white royalty is YOU Edmond.

---

quote:

---

[170] In the sixteenth century, Negro, Moorish, and Morisco slaves made up a sizable and conspicuous part of the population of Seville. Throughout the century slaves abounded among the crowds that filled the streets of this teeming metropolis. They could be found in all the focal points of the city -- along the wharves, in the Arenal, and in the public squares and market places. To many contemporaries, the presence of so many slaves did much to create the cosmopolitan atmosphere for which the city was well known. Some observers even claimed that there were almost as many Negro and Moorish slaves as free citizens. Others compared the city to a giant chessboard containing an equal number of white and black chessmen. (1)

[171] People usually referred to the Moorish and Morisco slaves as esclavos blancos. The Moors were most often North African prisoners of war. The conflict in the Mediterranean between Spain and the Turks and their allies, the Barbary pirates, brought a steady stream of North African slaves into Seville during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In 1508, for example, the Spaniards took eight thousand prisoners at Oran, and in 1535 Charles V's campaign against Tunis netted eighteen thousand captives. Most of the Moriscos came from Granada. The wars against Granada at the end of the fifteenth century resulted in the seizure of many prisoners who were eventually enslaved. In addition, an undetermined number of Moriscos became slaves during the course of the sixteenth century, mainly after the uprisings of 1500 and1568-1570. (2)

Some information about Morisco slaves in Seville appears in the census of 1580. In that year there were 148 such slaves in the five parishes of San Pedro, San Ildefonso, San Gil, San Andrés, and San Marcos. The largest contingent was in San Andrés (47), followed by San Ildefonso (43); the smallest number were in San Gil which, as has been noted, contained a large free Morisco population. In general, female slaves outnumbered males, and there were few captive children. The overwhelming majority of slaves -- male and female -- were between twenty and forty years of age. There were almost none over the age of sixty and a very small number of youths and older children, clearly a reflection of the low birth rate and limited life span among slaves. The frequent practice of manumission also helped [172] to reduce the numbers of slaves in the older group (forty to sixty years) and among the children. Most Morisco slaves in Seville were women between the ages of twenty and forty years.(3)

While contemporary writers often exaggerated the size of the unfree population of Seville, there is no doubt that in the sixteenth century Seville harbored the largest slave community in Spain. We can never know their exact numbers throughout the century, but we do have fairly satisfactory statistics from a census taken by church officials in 1565. In that year Seville had 6,327 slaves out of a total population of 85,538 people, that is, one slave for every fourteen inhabitants. (4) Although this account does not tell what proportion of these slaves were Negroes, Moors, or Moriscos, other sources indicate that Negroes outnumbered the other two groups, especially in the second half of the century. (5) The majority of slaves in Seville, therefore, would appear to have been Negroes.

Sixteenth-century Sevillians found nothing new or unusual about the existence of numerous slaves in their city. Negro slavery, especially, had been a part of its life for many centuries. We do not know when the first Africans were introduced into Seville after its reconquest from the Moslems in 1248, but the chroniclers state that by the end [173] of the fourteenth century many Negro slaves had been brought there by merchants engaged in the trans-Saharian trade. During this period the municipal authorities tried to ease the rigors of servile life by allowing the Negroes certain privileges, such as the right to gather together on feast days and perform their own dances and songs. Eventually it became customary for one of them to be named by city officials as mayoral (steward) over the rest, with authority to protect them against their masters, defend them before the courts of law, and settle their quarrels. (6) In a similar manner the church, although primarily interested in conversion, also tried to ameliorate the physical conditions of slavery. During the last years of the fourteenth century the church expressed its charitable intentions by establishing the Hospital of Our Lady of the Angels in the parish of San Bernardo to serve the Negro population. A short time later the church made a further gesture toward incorporating Negroes into the spiritual fold by creating a Negro religious confraternity to run this hospital. In subsequent years many wealthy Sevillians helped to maintain Our Lady of the Angels; a notable donor was the Duke of Medina Sidonia, who at his death in 1463 left 1,000 maravedís for the poor of this institution. (7)

The duke's donation to the Hospital of Our Lady of [174] the Angels came at a time when Seville had already begun to feel the effects of the opening of West Africa by the Portuguese. Greater numbers of Negro slaves were entering the river port, as Andalusian shipowners, including members of the highest nobility, competed with the Portuguese in organizing raiding expeditions on the West African coast. It was not until 1479 that the Spaniards finally recognized the Portuguese monopoly, and even then they did so reluctantly. Throughout the second half of the fifteenth century, Negroes were brought directly into the ports of southern Spain by Spanish shippers. Others were transported overland from Lisbon by Spanish and Portuguese merchants, a practice which accounts for the presence of Negro slaves in such frontier towns as Huelva, Badajoz, and Jerez de los Caballeros. By the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, the Negro population of Seville had grown so large that the Catholic kings decided to place them under greater royal supervision and control. In 1475 Juan de Valladolid, a royal servant, who was known popularly as the "Negro count," was appointed mayoral of the Seville Negro community. (8)

After the discovery of the New World the constant demand for a source of cheap labor to work the mines and plantations of America increased the flow of Negroes into Seville during the sixteenth century. The city soon became one of the most important slave centers in Western Europe, second only to Lisbon. In fact the first Negro [175] slaves introduced into the New World came from Seville, and some of them had been born in that city. During the first decades of the sixteenth century, the Spanish monarchs, anxious to keep the colonies free from religious taint, insisted that the slaves sent to America be Christians -- that they should have been born in Spain or have resided there long enough to be baptized. In 1510, for example, King Ferdinand gave permission to ship as many as two hundred slaves from Seville for sale to the settlers of Hispaniola or for work on the royal properties there. (9) Eventually slaves were shipped directly from Africa to America, though they continued to come to Seville as well. (10) Throughout the century, merchants, sea captains, and others brought slaves to the Sevillian market, located in the heart of the business district. Here slaves were bought and sold amidst the noise and bustle of street vendors hawking their wares and future conquistadors recruiting men for their New World expeditions. Apparently they were not exhibited and sold at the block as was the custom elsewhere. Instead a group of slaves and their owner would go about the streets accompanied by an auctioneer who called out to onlookers offering them for sale. According to Cervantes [176] in El trato de Argel, Christian slaves were sold in this same manner in Morocco.
(11)
...
Among the Negroes who assembled in the Plaza de Santa María la Blanca were many freedmen and women. Although most Sevillian Negroes were slaves, the city also contained a significant free Negro population. Enfranchisement was not a step toward economic and social betterment, however, for Negroes and mulattoes, whether slaves or freedmen, remained on the lowest rungs of the social ladder. Ex-slaves continued to work in unskilled and menial jobs and to reside in the same neighborhoods as before their emancipation. A combination of discrimination and unfavorable economic conditions prevented freedmen from rising in society. The artisans feared Negro competition and jealously excluded them from the few skilled positions which the inadequate Sevillian industry afforded. Even unskilled jobs were at a premium in Seville because of the steady flow of landless peasants from the countryside into the town. Chronic unemployment and severe food shortages were the realities of life for the majority of Sevillians throughout the sixteenth century. (33)

Competition for jobs strained relations between freedmen and the white Sevilhian laborers. The whites showed [188] their contempt for Negroes with the customary sidewalk jeer (estornudo). (34) On the individual level, however, Negroes and whites mixed freely, and contacts were friendly. Miscegenation and common-law unions were frequent. Many Sevillians, including members of the clergy, maintained illicit relations with female household slaves and in some instances recognized their illegitimate children. Among the servant class miscegenation was common practice, and mixed marriages were not unknown.(35)


Although Negro freedmen and slaves lived on the fringe of Sevillian life socially and economically, they enjoyed full membership in the church. True religious conversion among newly baptized Negroes was unusual, but by the second generation many had become sincere and pious Christians. The very willingness of Negroes to become Christians and to remain faithful to their new religion facilitated their popular acceptance. In addition, their incorporation into the social and ritual activities of the church accelerated the process of their Hispanization. Through their parish churches and their confraternities slaves and freedmen took part in all the city-wide religious celebrations of the period. The Negro and mulatto brotherhoods marched in full regalia in the many religious processions, including those of Holy Week. On one such occasion, the dress and the insignias of the Negro brotherhood were [189] so elaborate and costly as to draw censure from the clergy. In another instance, according to the chronicler Ortiz de Zúñiga, a member of the Negro confraternity sold himself as a slave in order to cover the high cost of his group's participation in a religious festival. Negro performers also took part in the autos connected with the festival of Corpus Christi. In 1590 the city government paid eight ducats to Leonor Rija, a mulatto, to appear on a float in the Corpus Christi celebration and to sing, dance, and play the guitar, together with four other mulatto women and two men. (36)

If it was difficult for freedmen to improve their status in Seville, they might seize the opportunity to emigrate to the New World. The registers of the Casa de Contratación indicate that many Negro freedmen crossed the ocean to America during the sixteenth century. (37) Most of these emigrants were single men and women, but we can also find instances of women with young children and of family groups. A good example was the Bonilla family -- husband, wife, and two children -- who signed up at the Casa de Contratación in 1555. Many freedmen accompanied their former masters to the New World as servants. In 1538, for instance, the freedman Bernardo declared that he was traveling to Florida as a valet of his ex-master Captain Pedro Calderón. A year later another freedman by the name of Domingo went to Peru with his former owner, the adventurer [190] Lope de Aguirre, whose later exploits in the Amazon region won him the unfortunate epithet of "the tyrant." Many newly freed women came to America as ladies' maids or as members of the large and varied entourages that customarily accompanied wealthy families emigrating to the colonies. Such was the position of Quiteria Gómez, a former slave, who with three other servants -- one white male and two white females -- traveled with the widow Francisca de Carrera and her seven children to Peru during 1555. Doña Francisca's two sisters made up the rest of the party-, fourteen persons in all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The only one claiming African ancestry for Abraham Lincoln and African features of European white royalty is YOU Edmond.

---

These things usually start with one person, before you have lightbulps all over the world.

---

LOL.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
More Moroccans:















From: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pjwar/sets/72157601811591288/
 

---

Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
DougM that can't be. Because according to the slant eyed shitty filopeeeno everyone in America came from "central" Africa. There were no enslaved Moroccans, Algerians or other North Africans in America.


What you wrote is bound to make `_` aka Djehuti the dirty filopeeeno quite upset.


I won't comment on the rest of what she-male Jenkins (aka Doug) wrote because I don't have the time to set it straight.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
And to REALLY put things into perspective:

What the original Arabs looked like:

(Jordan)
















http://www.flickr.com/groups/joite/pool/

As I said earlier, Moorish Spain was but the western end of the Islamic world that contained many black populations from West Africa to the Sahara to the Levant, Arabia, Persia into Afghanistan, India and South Asia. It is impossible to pretend that all these people were Arabs, when in fact most were NOT Arabs.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Arabians:











Tihama:







From: http://www.flickr.com/photos/waltercallens/sets/72157594527969265/
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
And while on the subject of influence, let me say that Mr. Kehinde Wiley, the part Nigerian, has been very influential himself on contemporary art and fashion:













From: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=kehinde&z=t
 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The only one claiming African ancestry for Abraham Lincoln and African features of European white royalty is YOU Edmond.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
And while on the subject of influence, let me say that Mr. Kehinde Wiley, the part Nigerian, has been very influential himself on contemporary art and fashion:













From: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=kehinde&z=t

---

quote:

---

Edmund, you are mixing up your facts and making up false conclusions. Yes, concepts of European nobility and aristocracy were heavily influenced by Africans and others during the middle ages. This is beyond doubt. However, the images of the "Moors" you are referring to have more to do with the Europeans portraying the "exotic" black West Africans they encountered as they became more involved in West Africa through slavery, trade and later colonialism. But these are not Moors in the sense of Muslim Africans in Spain, but Africans labelled as Moors because the term was a reference to black skin. Since West Africans are the blackest people close to Europe, it would only make sense for Moors to be thus depicted as West African types. This goes along with the fact that by the 1800s many of the original Moors had long been displaced from their original positions in Morocco and Mauretania and those who remained were mainly mixed mulattoes. Therefore, to find a true Moor (black person), one would have to go further South, as in West Africa.

"Exotic" flamboyant Nigerians, inspiration behind the European "Moorish" portaits being posted.

And note they do not have the stereotypical "negroid" features that you claim they do:

---

It's not clear how you came to these conclusions. Did you researched sources or are you repeating conclusion of other people? Or are you offering hypotheses, which is not a crime. I have read these explanations written in important looking books, and rejected them because they do not sit well with what I encounter. Personally those Spanish Moors do not figure in my research, because I find little trace of them in West Europe. Studies which deny Europe being populated by Blacks as well as White's are out to show that Black's did not contribute to civilization. But Van Sertima writes about Egyptian mining colonies in Spain, from classical times, before the Muslims arrived. The Grimaldi Human, even older Africans in Europe. So when they find Blacks building the pyramids, they come up with a ploy which says that East Africans are in fact Caucasians, so they are White's.
Suddenly between 1300-1400, way before the slavery era which started in 1444, Europeans in the south of Germany started using Black Herald’s, Black Page’s and Black Kings in religious and secular imagery, and that needs to be explained. Paul Kaplan did great research, but he mentions that The De Medici family was White, so I know he is a eurocentric and prevents himself for finding the truth. Charles IV of Luxembourg must have been a Black man and started to put a Black King in the middle. After 1500 all the European Kings were of colour, citing a pitch black, Classical Moor as their ancestor and source of Blue Blood. My research starts with personal descriptions, mainly 18th century which describes nobles and kings as black and brown people. Still they are shown as White’s. Why? That’s the basis of my research.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
As for the idea of African influence on the concepts and imagery surrounding the Madonnas and saints of Europe, there is no question that Africa and elsewhere has had a profound impact:





Just as they also had a profound impact on many other aspects of European royalty and custom, including horse culture, which is DIRECTLY influenced by the cultures of Africa and Asia:

(Moorish Saddle the progenitor of American western cowboy saddles and traditions)


And again, going back to the inner African connections of the ancient Moors, Marrakesch, which was FOUNDED by African Almoravids from the South, is STILL the largest souk in Africa. This is a testament to the ancient trade caravans and exchanges of culture and know how from South to North and vice versa.







From: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pjwar/1138713561/in/set-72157601811591288/

And Marrakesch is just one of the surviving examples of an ancient African market and trading center based around Saharan caravans and founded by Africans. Others, like Sijilmasa, have not survived. And not only is this city testament to the ancient ties to inner Africa in terms of culture, but it also is reflected in the name itself, which is believed by some to be a reflection of the blackness of the inhabitants. This could be looked at in two ways. One is by the root "mar" or "maure" meaning black and the other is in the term Kesh or Kech which some feel is derived from Kush (as in son of Ham). Either way, this city is from where the name of the country Morocco derives.

quote:

---

The origins of the city's name have been argued over for centuries. The most current belief is that the name is of Berber derivation referring to "The Sons of Kutch" or "Land of the Sons of Kutch" which may well relate to the Biblical figure Kutch, son of Sham who lived in Upper Egypt, Ethiopia and southern Arabia.

Others believe Marrakech is derived from the Masmooda dialect meaning "Do not linger", a warning to travellers that the area prior to the establishment of the city was notorious for highwaymen.

Regardless of the origins of the word, Marrakech gave its name to the whole country of Morocco in all its many foreign versions -- Morocco, Maroc, Morokko, Marruecos, etc. All these names come from the Latin "Morroch" which derives from the medieval name for Marrakech.

The Almoravides made Marrakech the capital of an empire that covered most of the Magreb (North West Africa) and extended well into Europe. With the Almoravide conquest of Southern Spain, Marrakech was invested with the exquisite cosmopolitan culture of Andalucia. This cross-fertilization is rare indeed for a remote desert enclave.

Under the Almoravides Marrakech became a bastion of Islamic civilization and an intellectual centre where the most famous scholars and philosophers of the age converged. The power of the Almoravides also made Marrakech into a great commercial centre and wealth flowed into the city, further transforming its architecture.

Lavish buildings were constructed and splendid gardens were designed. The ancient ramparts and gates of the city are monuments to the city's medieval pre-eminence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:

quote:

---

Edmund, you are mixing up your facts and making up false conclusions. Yes, concepts of European nobility and aristocracy were heavily influenced by Africans and others during the middle ages. This is beyond doubt. However, the images of the "Moors" you are referring to have more to do with the Europeans portraying the "exotic" black West Africans they encountered as they became more involved in West Africa through slavery, trade and later colonialism. But these are not Moors in the sense of Muslim Africans in Spain, but Africans labelled as Moors because the term was a reference to black skin. Since West Africans are the blackest people close to Europe, it would only make sense for Moors to be thus depicted as West African types. This goes along with the fact that by the 1800s many of the original Moors had long been displaced from their original positions in Morocco and Mauretania and those who remained were mainly mixed mulattoes. Therefore, to find a true Moor (black person), one would have to go further South, as in West Africa.

"Exotic" flamboyant Nigerians, inspiration behind the European "Moorish" portaits being posted.

And note they do not have the stereotypical "negroid" features that you claim they do:

---

It's not clear how you came to these conclusions. Did you researched sources or are you repeating conclusion of other people? Or are you offering hypotheses, which is not a crime. I have read these explanations written in important looking books, and rejected them because they do not sit well with what I encounter. Personally those Spanish Moors do not figure in my research, because I find little trace of them in West Europe. Studies which deny Europe being populated by Blacks as well as White's are out to show that Black's did not contribute to civilization. But Van Sertima writes about Egyptian mining colonies in Spain, from classical times, before the Muslims arrived. The Grimaldi Human, even older Africans in Europe. So when they find Blacks building the pyramids, they come up with a ploy which says that East Africans are in fact Caucasians, so they are White's.
Suddenly between 1300-1400, way before the slavery era which started in 1444, Europeans in the south of Germany started using Black Herald’s, Black Page’s and Black Kings in religious and secular imagery, and that needs to be explained. Paul Kaplan did great research, but he mentions that The De Medici family was White, so I know he is a eurocentric and prevents himself for finding the truth. Charles IV of Luxembourg must have been a Black man and started to put a Black King in the middle. After 1500 all the European Kings were of colour, citing a pitch black, Classical Moor as their ancestor and source of Blue Blood. My research starts with personal descriptions, mainly 18th century which describes nobles and kings as black and brown people. Still they are shown as White’s. Why? That’s the basis of my research.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
As for the idea of African influence on the concepts and imagery surrounding the Madonnas and saints of Europe, there is no question that Africa and elsewhere has had a profound impact:
Just as they also had a profound impact on many other aspects of European royalty and custom, including horse culture, which is DIRECTLY influenced by the cultures of Africa and Asia:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Edmund, it is not shocking or amazing that some European royal families had black blood. That is a known fact. This is not really a secret either. Yes, some of these mixed bloods are distorted in European art, but most are not, as even Russia had black generals and royalty. But to take that and say that MOST European royalty in the Middle Ages or in Western Europe was black or had black blood is RIDICULOUS and NOT supported by the facts.

---

Madame de Staël. Writer. Politician.
Germaine baroness de Staël-Holstein.
Daughter of De Necker, Minister of Finance of Louis XVI

Dear,

I can tell that you have no clue what scientific research is all about. For example: Are you familiar with any particular kind of research after say (fictional); breeding practises of a largely unknown, microscopic sand hopper, living in some deserted landscape. Well, there is somebody out there researching it, writing a paper and graduating, earning a title.

So the criteria is not, oh this is interesting to me so I consider this a worthy subject. It does not work like this. People choose a subject they like and get busy with it. Sometimes starting from scratch. Research is not the same as reading other peoples books, and accepting these as facts for all times. Because they are in books.

What I have found are descriptions of black and pitch black elite person, and NO EXPLANATION where they came from. Anybody with a little curiosity will ask where they came from and how they entered the elite. I found they themselves were the elite. Is not like some White guy took pity and married some Black slave girl. They were Black, Nobility started with Blacks in Europe.

Like someone else on this forum, this deaf and speech impaired homophobic gay guy, you seem to regard yourself as the fountain of all knowledge. You and only you know what is true and worthy.

Well, that strike's me as RIDICULOUS. The more one researches the more one realises how little we know.
 

---

Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
Moors were, for the most part, Arabs involved in the Muslim conquest of North Africa. This nis really a closed issue and has been for years. Obviously there may have been some black Africans involved but not many.
 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Question: What do you mean by "negro"??...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
Moors were, for the most part, Arabs involved in the Muslim conquest of North Africa. This nis really a closed issue and has been for years. Obviously there may have been some black Africans involved but not many.

---

Actually the Moors were NOT Arabs for the most part, otherwise they would have simply been called Arabs. Arabs were and have ALWAYS been a minority in the Islamic world and Arabs are MOST DEFINITELY the minority in Islamic Africa today. Africa is a significant part of the Islamic world.


http://www.factbook.net/muslim_pop.php



And these images of the percentages of Muslim populations by country reflect the fact that those you claim as "Arab" are really simply mixed Asian and Africans to begin with, as Islam straddles Africa and Asia, with a large number of Muslims historically coming from Central Asia. And as shown earlier, the first arabians were Africans to begin with.
 

---

Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
Doug, You can believe that if you wish but it is never going to be mainstream scholarship. keep in mind that Europeans did not have the data we have today. Any Muslim invader would have been a Moor to them and , in fact, most of them were from Arabia. You can trace the campaign all across north Africa.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
The fact is that most of the armies in Spain were Africans. No scholar disputes this. Therefore, you need to check your facts. And no scholar claims that most Moors in Spain were Arabs. Please check your sources and show me a modern scholar who claims that most invaders of Spain were Arabs. I doubt you will find any. But I will wait patiently. And, while you are at it, look up what an Arab is, because many of them actually are mixed with Africans to begin with. Most Arabs that we see in the imagery of the West are really Turks, who were the major power behind Islam during most of the Middle Ages right up until WWI.
 

---

Posted by JMT (Member # 12050) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
Doug, You can believe that if you wish but it is never going to be mainstream scholarship. keep in mind that Europeans did not have the data we have today. Any Muslim invader would have been a Moor to them and , in fact, most of them were from Arabia. You can trace the campaign all across north Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JMT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
Doug, You can believe that if you wish but it is never going to be mainstream scholarship. keep in mind that Europeans did not have the data we have today. Any Muslim invader would have been a Moor to them and , in fact, most of them were from Arabia. You can trace the campaign all across north Africa.

---

You failed to present one shred of evidence to back up your bogus claims when asked to do so. You're an insecure troll looking for attention. Your idea of "mainstream" scholarship is the eurocentric viewpoint which is laced with nothing but distortions and lies. Bug off!

---

 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
More examples of the African traditions that were part of the Moorish legacy:











[IMG]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3123/2563615493_76e1c4cca8_o.jpg[/IMG}



From: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pietroz/sets/72157605392411249/
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

TheAmericanPatriot wrote:

Every history book known to man backs up my point. Educate yourself on the Arabian conquest of north africa istead of putting out racist bigoted propaganda.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Most of the books I have read going back to grade school says that they were predominantly Africans who invaded Spain. Care to tell me what books you are referring to?

---

quote:

---

Gaygoyle99<-- wrote:

Interesting waffle, yet again. Considering how a simple search of your posting history shows you saying the opposite. You are on record as saying that the invasion "consisted of Arabs and Berbers with a few blacks from sub-saharan West Africa".

---

quote:

---

Folks note in his statement how he divides up Africans between "Arabs", "Berbers", and "black sub-saharan west Africans". Again this is something from discredited people like Coon and Howell that you will see the above demented mentality and terminology.

---

quote:

---

Djehuti, what does an arab look like? What does a berber look like? Why do you use racial pseudoscience terms like "black sub-saharan west Africans"? What do they look like?

---

quote:

---

Again people this boy is on the lower end of the keyboard scholar pack which is why he waffles and contradicts himself so much. He has to agree with what his more respected pack members say. Even though his past statements disagree with what his pack members say.

---

I never contradict myself because I know what I'm talking about, and don't even bother appealing to the intelligent people of this forum who know that you are a lying Euro-nut who projects his racist guilt on to me.

quote:

---

Wako-Ako wrote:

Mary learn't at her white school that Will Smith doesn't look like a Kushite and Greek clasical philosophy was "home grown". LOL

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:

Black african populations would have been unable at the time to sustain such a major operation on their own. The leadership and organization of the North African invasion was arabian.

---

quote:

---

akobem, Mary's school was correct. The idea of African influence in Greece is radical nonsense and is not being taught by any Classical scholar.

---

Don't even try to plea with wako-ako because not only is he against Lefkowitz, but he suffers from the same mental condition of bigottry as you only the object of his denigration are Jews and not blacks.
 

---

Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
Black african populations would have been unable at the time to sustain such a major operation on their own. The leadership and organization of the North African invasion was arabian.

akobem, Mary's school was correct. The idea of African influence in Greece is radical nonsense and is not being taught by any Classical scholar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
What is an ARAB? A TRUE Arabian is someone who is part African to begin with. Some could be confused with Ethiopians. So what on earth are you talking about? In fact, there was (and still is) an African presence in the Levant all the way into Syria and in Iran. So some of these people were DARK to begin with. The early rulers of Andalus were a mixture of Syrians, Saracens (Baghdad) and Arabians along with Africans. Arabs were the MINORITY in the Islamic world at the time and still are. The only thing that they had to maintain power was the tradition of Arab ancestry being used to determine descent from Mohommed. Many people only having the slightest amount of Arab blood but claim to be Arab. It is exactly that form of Arab supremacy that caused so many wars and divisions among Muslims to begin with and ultimately is the reason why Moorish Spain was defeated by the Christians.

---

Arab is anyone who is decendant from an Arab tribe. That is to say an off spring of Qahtan or Adnan that is what is meant by Arab. Arab can also be someone who speaks Arabic and identifies themselves as Arab and has some degree of Arab culture.

The first rulers of Andalus were the Ummayad Qureaish Arabs. Futhermore you cannot seperate Islam from it's Arab roots.

The only Muslims who belive in the idea of rulership being reseave rights of the prophets family are the shia, most arabs are not shia.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Correct. What 'Patriot' fails to realize is that the Qahtani of southern Arabia were the original Arabs and they themselves were black!! An Arab by definition is someone who is native to Arabia and speaks the Arabic language, such persons vary in color and features with many Arabians having African ancestry. Today the definition of 'Arab' is extended to anyone who speaks Arabic and practices Arab culture regardless of whether they are Arabian or not, including many Africans.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Anyway, you guys just waste your time and energy arguing with someone like Hore (american patriot). It was already explained to him countless times not only in this thread but others that Moors were NOT Arabs but Africans! The word Moor itself is derived from the Greek maure meaning 'black' as in inhabitant of Africa.

But then what do you expect from a bigot? He even sent me this private message:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:

every text on the subject shows the invasion of spain as a part of the arabian Muslim conquest of north africa. I have never seen such a bunch of nutty assertions in my life as a put forward on this board. **Black Africans have no seminal acomplishments to their name in the history of the human race. When the industrial age opened they were, for the most part, still in the neolithic era. They have low IQ's relative to the rest of the world and have been a cultural mess for centuries.
As individuals they can acomplish a great deal. As a group of people they simply do not have the capacity to make an impact.**[QUOTE]

 

---

Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Look at the filopeeeno piece of **** waffling again as to Arabs. This dumb ass has bauling like a baby about Africans and Arabs being separate.


Your slant eyed ass is a walking lying contradiction if there ever was one.


Worry about the supply of Tarantula Chitlins that your island is running short of due to high demand. LOL : )
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

gaygoyle9<-- :

Look at the filopeeeno piece of **** waffling again as to Arabs. This dumb ass has bauling like a baby about Africans and Arabs being separate.

---

quote:

---

Your slant eyed ass is a walking lying contradiction if there ever was one.

---

quote:

---

Worry about the supply of Tarantula Chitlins that your island is running short of due to high demand. LOL : )

---

LOL I'd rather eat that any day than the d*cks YOU eat.
 

---

Posted by ArabianArab (Member # 15626) on :
 
No Djehuti, the Qahtan were never black, maybe dark but never black or negroid.
 

---

Posted by Ebony Allen (Member # 12771) on :
 
I think Moor may just mean someone with a swarthy complexion, but not only black people. I do know that many of them were black.
 

---

Posted by ArabianArab (Member # 15626) on :
 
How were many of them black and how do you know this? What is your prove? The Moorish elite were Arabs and the peseans were Berbers.
 

---

Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
There very few who were black. Any darker complected person was called black in that time. That is where these crazy ideas come from. If the arabian invasion of North Africa hhad not taken place there would not have been a muslim in Spain. These guys all know that.
 

---

Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
Black african populations would have been unable at the time to sustain such a major operation on their own. The leadership and organization of the North African invasion was arabian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
There very few who were black. Any darker complected person was called black in that time. That is where these crazy ideas come from. If the arabian invasion of North Africa hhad not taken place there would not have been a muslim in Spain. These guys all know that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
They bwere arab owned. The communication and command line stetched from Spain back to arabia.

---

No they weren't. The self proclaimed Caliph of Islam was in Baghdad and Syria not Arabia. In fact, the Caliphate was never located in Arabia and after the overthrow of the Abbassids the various caliphs became independent and most were NOT Arab and Al Andalus was one of the first to declare its independence. But even under the Abbassids MOST of the Islamic world at the time was not made up of Arabs:



And many of these places in the Arab world from Africa, to Al Andalus to the Levant, Arabia, Persia, Afghanistan and India had BLACKS who were a significant part of the community. In fact, many of the traders and explorers who sailed and participated in the trade of spices and other commodities from Africa to Asia were blacks and there are many communities in South Asia to this day who call themselves Moors. The spread of Islam did not turn everyone into Arabs no matter how much you want to pretend it did.
 

---

Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
You guys are making things up and twing other information out of context. African negroids were not, under any set of circumstances, the people we think of as Moors. You can presch this nonsense all you want but it never goes beyond this board and other afrocentric sites.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ArabianArab:

No Djehuti, the Qahtan were never black, maybe dark but never black or negroid.

---

Incorrect. The Qahtani peoples of southern Arabia like the Mahra and Seba were black people either of African ancestry and/or aboriginal ancestry.

I don't know about the Qur'an, but it's the reason why Biblical as well as other ancient historical texts describe South Arabians as Arabian 'Kushites'.

Even modern anthropological studies from Westerners call many indigenous southern Arabians 'Hamitic' in appearance. We've discussed this several times before in this board.

As an 'Arabian Arab' I thought you would know better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ebony Allen:

I think Moor may just mean someone with a swarthy complexion, but not only black people. I do know that many of them were black.

---

No. Again the word moor comes from the Greek word maure which means black. It was a word the Greeks used to describe the indigenous (black) populations of Africa from Egyptians to Libyans etc. The word can be found in the modern day African countries of not only Morrocco but also Mauretania.

Have you heard of the Christian Saint 'Maurice'? He was member of the Coptic Church of Egypt and is from Thebes Upper Egypt.

Europeans gave him the name Maurice for a reason



The non-black Muslims were called Saracen by Europeans. It was only in later times that 'Moor' became extended to all darker Muslims despite their actual color.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Doug, you waste your time arguing with someone like Hore. This is the same man who wrote the message below!

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:

every text on the subject shows the invasion of spain as a part of the arabian Muslim conquest of north africa. I have never seen such a bunch of nutty assertions in my life as a put forward on this board. **Black Africans have no seminal acomplishments to their name in the history of the human race. When the industrial age opened they were, for the most part, still in the neolithic era. They have low IQ's relative to the rest of the world and have been a cultural mess for centuries.
As individuals they can acomplish a great deal. As a group of people they simply do not have the capacity to make an impact.**

---

quote:

---

You guys are making things up and twing other information out of context. African negroids were not, under any set of circumstances, the people we think of as Moors. You can presch this nonsense all you want but it never goes beyond this board and other afrocentric sites.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
You guys are making things up and twing other information out of context. African negroids were not, under any set of circumstances, the people we think of as Moors. You can presch this nonsense all you want but it never goes beyond this board and other afrocentric sites.

---

quote:

---

To them anyone who was not white in a European sense was black.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

Now if this is not racist I don't know what is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by a formerly banned member, the Professor / AmericanHammer:

Black Africans have no seminal acomplishments to their name in the history of the human race.

---

quote:

---

When the industrial age opened they were, for the most part, still in the neolithic era.

---

Proof?

Your scholarship-illiterate anti-scientific and anti-intellectual 'responses', grunts, and rants will be taken as admition to the fact that you don't have any, save for possibly some Texas white-folk gossip.

quote:

---

They have low IQ's relative to the rest of the world

---

quote:

---

As individuals they can acomplish a great deal. As a group of people they simply do not have the capacity to make an impact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:

King loves to thrown the racist charge around. My guess is that anyone who does not agree with his demented, wild views of history is a racist.
I have always observed that people who are quick to use that term are in fact racists themselves.

---

LOL First of all what you fail to realize is that what we agree with is the mainstream historical view!! 'Moor' as derived from the Greek word maure means BLACK!! Most of the invaders of Iberia were indigenous (black) North Africans. The lighter-skinned non-black Muslims were called Saracen.

And second of all, it is racist to espouse the ridiculous the view that black Africans were a low IQ people who accomplished nothing of historical value and were still living in the stone age during the rise of the industrial revolution!! These statements are all false as proven by the very mainstream history you keep relying on!

We discussed your allegations of IQ among African populations several times before and have debunked them every time. I suggest you read the book below by Dr. Stephen Jay Gould



And your historical allegations are just as if not more ridiculous as black Africans have been at the forefront of history. Not only did all of humanity originate in Africa in the first place, but Africans have been continuing to make history long after that. The spread of Afrasian languages including Semitic which birthed the great monotheistic religions of the world, the invention and spread of agriculture in the so-called 'Near East' as well as Europe was also the workd of peoples of African descent. The civilization of the Nile Valley, particularly Egypt which this whole forum is about, is black African! AND YOU KNOW THIS! Even during Medieval times while Europe was in its so-called "Dark Ages", The continent of Africa was thriving and was even involved in the first global economy via trade relations with Arabia, India, and China before Marco Polo, let alone Europe in general! Africans were even involved with trade with Europeans, essentially supporting Europe's broke economy since the fall of Rome with its own supply of gold! etc. etc. There is so much Africa has done historically even an entire thread dedicated to the topic fails to convey it all.

Yet YOU are denial of this? Why? Because you are red-neck who has been mentally bankrupt by racism!
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Oh and since I can't edit, I forgot to add:

It was these very same Moors (blacks) of Africa who after invading Iberia, advanced the Iberians technologically and economically enough for them to begin the Columbus Voyage!
 

---

Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
Djehuti, Black africans do have a low IQ as a group. Obviously there are exceptions that prove the rule. Og the almost two hundred nations that comprise the globe they are among the most destitute and backward in the world. These cultures have simply had a difficult time adjusting to the modern world.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ And where is this evidence of this 'collective' low IQ among Africans?! Again, we have debunked your Hernstein and Murray Bell Curve studies many times before. And since what does having a broke or destitute economy have to do with IQ??! Most of the economies of Africa are destitute in the first place because of European colonialism!! Before Europeans, Africans were the wealthiest not only among themselves in their continent, but even in the entire globe! Did you forget the part of Africa's role in the first global economic network??
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Of course you don't have any [valid] answers for the above, do you?

So enough of the red herring crap.

Let's cut back to the topic at hand:

Look up the etymology of the word 'moor'

Look up the actual Islamic dysnasties that controlled Spain:

Almoravid

and

Almohad
 

---

Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
Obviously the Europeans were far superior or they would not have been able to put black African nations in that positions. You cannot have it both ways. There is a reason why history has turned out the way it has. Simply ignoring reality is not an adequate thesis.
Even in America black children have measured low IQ's and make up a segment of special education and 504 children all oout of line with their population. The same is true of the prison population, out of wedlock children etc.
When Europeans found black Africans they found them in a neolithic state. If what you say is true the historical roles should have been reversed.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Again, you produce no evidence or any type of studies to back up your claims about low-IQ blacks.

You speak of the silly non-sequitor that just because Europeans subdued Africans, that it must mean they had low IQs. Yet Europeans also subdued many nations in Asia as well yet I never hear you say Asians have low IQs.

You talk about the plight of black children in American education, yet it seems you forgot about the fact we presented to you several times before about how African immigrants and their children surpass whites in education and careers both in America and in Europe!! Obviously if IQ is a factor, then they must have higher IQs then so so-called superior whites.

So perhaps you'll have better luck getting back to the topic of this thread...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

Look up the etymology of the word 'moor'

Look up the actual Islamic dysnasties that controlled Spain:

Almoravid

and

Almohad

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
Obviously the Europeans were far superior or they would not have been able to put black African nations in that positions. You cannot have it both ways. There is a reason why history has turned out the way it has. Simply ignoring reality is not an adequate thesis.
Even in America black children have measured low IQ's and make up a segment of special education and 504 children all oout of line with their population. The same is true of the prison population, out of wedlock children etc.
When Europeans found black Africans they found them in a neolithic state. If what you say is true the historical roles should have been reversed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

the etymology of the word 'moor'

Look up the actual Islamic dysnasties that controlled Spain:

Almoravid

and

Almohad

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Biased as well as stupid. All Hore does is repeat irrelevant conclusions about the economic situations of some blacks. Yes it's true blacks who live in low income communities or ghettos have the high rates of arrest and incarceration as well as out-of-wedlock children, but the same can be said of whites from low income areas or Hispanics, or Asians.

Non of this addresses his issue of 'IQ', and it certainly does not address the topic at hand:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

the etymology of the word 'moor'

Look up the actual Islamic dysnasties that controlled Spain:

Almoravid

and

Almohad

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
How were the evil whites able to that to these people if what you are say is correct Djehuti. Should it not be the other way around. Your position simply defies all logic.
African Shakespeare? pray tell, who is that?
African Newton? We could go on and on here. Africa is a cultural backwater and has been since the dawn of history and continues thus today. The contient is being over run now by Chinese and Indian immigrants and in the end they will dominate the landscape there.

Western Civilization created the modern world we all live in. All of you guys are speaking english here for a reason. I suppose we can contrast Oxford and MIT with Somalia and the Sudan.
Hati is a text book case. Not a white man in it and it is run like a dog pound by it's own people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
Though the Asante don't seem as ferocious/ruthless an empire as .. say .. the Inca or the Zulu, vassal states are never too happy:

quote:

---

The visit of the trading delegation in 1817 convinced the British government that Asante was a rich source of trade, and the government took over the coastal forts from private trading companies in 1821. The Asante quickly found cause to resent British policies along the coast; the British made their own arrangements with Asante's subject states, thus weakoning the control of the empire.

Nevertheless, the Asante initially tried to tolerate the intruders. As Basil Davidson wrote, "The general approach ... was to show enought strength to contain European ambitions within what were regarded as reasonable or inevitable limits, and then to make treaties of trade and friendship which, it was hoped, the Europeans would keep. Useful variations on this policy were found in playing off one set of Europeans against another. [<-- sound familiar?] The kings only fought when all else failed."

The Asante were forced to go to war in 1824, when the British governor, Sir Charles McCarthy, launched a campaign intended to break their grip on the region. The Asante soundly defeated the British, sending McCarthy to his death. For the next half century, the British government steered clear of direct involvement in Asante, while British merchants kept peace with the empire and made vast sums from their holdings along the coast.

Ultimately, the competing empires of Britain and Asante were bound to face each other down. In 1872, the king of Asante sent an expedition to the coast to subdue the defiant vassal states allied with the British. General Tia, the commander of the expedition, at first attempted to negotiate with the British governor, Sir Garnet Wolseley. Tia assured Wolseley that there could be peace between Asante and Britain, if only the British would stop supporting the vassal states (including the always-troublesome Denkyira). Wolseley's response, in 1874, was to being a full-scale invasion of Asante, which the battle-hardened veteran later called "the most horrible war I ever took part in."With great difficulty, the British forces finally occupied Kumasi and forced the Asante to sign the Treaty of Fomena, which guaranteed the British a free hand along the coast. The Asante rebuilt their empire, but their efforts were finally ended by another British invasion in 1900. The Asante then became subjects of teh British Empire and did not regain their independence until the nation of Ghana was formed in 1957.

---

From Centuries of Greatness - The West African Kingdoms 750 - 1900 by Philip Koslow.

Truth brings clarity unless one has an agenda.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by a formerly banned member, the Professor / AmericanHammer:

Black Africans have no seminal acomplishments to their name in the history of the human race.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Habari:
East African Iron Technology
Iron technology has a long history in Africa. Steel is an alloy of iron. A high quality carbon steel was produced by the Bahaya people nearly 2000 thousand years ago. The Bahaya people are from the north-west area of what is now Tanzania, in East Africa.
This quality of steel was not found in Europe until about the year 1800. The iron ore used by the Bahaya people had the formula Fe304.This was added to the top of the furnace with charcoal, as the source of carbon. The air entered the furnace through blow-pipes at the bottom. In this way the air was preheated, which improved the yield and quality of the iron. The temperature reached in the furnace was 1800°C.


Iron Technology in East Africa: Symbolism, Science, and Archaeology
by Peter R. Schmidt

Peter R. Schmidt distills more than twenty years of research and scholarship into this major work on the history and culture of iron technology in East Africa from ancient times to the present. Although archaeologists have long held that ironmaking spread from a single point of origin in Europe, Schmidt shows that African iron smelting developed independently, based on the use of indigenous natural resources and local invention. Schmidt recounts the reenactment of traditional iron smelting by elders of the Haya people in northwestern Tanzania. Through analysis of the chemistry and metallurgy of the smelting process, he demonstrates the genius of African iron technology. The rich symbolism surrounding traditional methods of iron production sheds light on the history of iron technology and reveals its central cultural role.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

By 4,000 BC: Ancestors of contemporary coastal Northwest African Afrasan/"Berber" speakers arrive in coastal Northwest Africa, Sahara and the Sahel.

Between 4000 BC and 1000 BC: At Tichitt-Walata - "Before 2000 BC, what is today the southern Sahara was inhabited by significant numbers of herders and farmers. On the rocky promontories of the Tichitt-Walata (Birou) and Tagant Plateaus in modern day Mauritania, they built what are considered among the earliest known civilizations in western Africa. Composed of more than 400 stone masonry settlements, with clear street layouts, some settlements had massive surrounding walls while others were less fortified. In a deteriorating environment, where arable land and pasturage were at a premium, the population grew and relatively large-scale political organizations emerged - factors which no doubt explain the homogeneity of architecture, settlement patterns, and material culture (e.g., lithic and ceramic traditions). This agro-pastoral society traded in jewelry and semi-precious stones from distant parts of the Sahara and Sahel, while crafts, hunting, and fishing were also important economic pursuits...Their elites built funerary monuments for themselves over a period extending from 4000 to 1000 BC." [sources: see Ray A. Kea, and Mauny, R. (1971), “The Western Sudan” in Shinnie: 66-87. Monteil, Charles (1953), “La Légende du Ouagadou et l’Origine des Soninke” in Mélanges Ethnologiques (Dakar: Bulletin del’Institut Francais del’Afrique Noir)]


By 3,000 BC: Evidence of iron working and production in West Africa.

"In fact, only in Africa do you find such a range of practices in the process of direct reduction [a method in which metal is obtained in a single operation without smelting],and metal workers who were so inventive that they could extract iron in furnaces made out of the trunks of banana trees," says Hamady Bocoum, one of the authors. [references: The Origins of Iron Metallurgy in Africa, 2002; "Iron Roads in Africa" project c/o UNESCO]

"by" 11,000 years BP ~ by 13,000 BC:

"The age of the sediment in which they were found suggests that the six ceramic fragments discovered between 2002 and 2005 are at least 11,400 years old. Most ancient ceramics from the Middle East and the central and eastern Sahara regions are 10,000 and between 9-10,000 years old, respectively." [see: Human population and paleoenvironment in West Africa]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:

They have low IQ's relative to the rest of the world

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
^ I can verify what Sundiata has stated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Examination of the volumes in the context of total cranial volume
indicated that, whereas in men there was a proportionate increase of GM
and WM as a function of cranial volume, in women the slope of increase of
WM was significantly shallower than that for GM. This sex difference in
intracranial tissue composition may reflect adaptation to the smaller
cranial volumes of women. Sexual anatomic dimorphism has been comparable
at least since the Middle Pleistocene hominids (Arsuaga et al., 1997).
Because GM is the somatodendritic tissue where computation is done whereas
WM is the myelinated connective tissue needed for information transfer
across distant regions, a higher percentage of GM in women increases the
proportion of tissue available for computational processes. This is a
reasonable evolutionary strategy because smaller crania require shorter
distances for information transfer; hence there could be relatively less
need for WM.

---

^Djehuti's citation from a study concerned with sex relationships with white matter and gray matter brain composition. It was originally claimed to have been a study about brain functionality and sex [in favor of males, which was incorrect].

The context was different, but it's gives people who haven't thought about this whole matter (or have no idea of what they are talking about) a little insight.

A snippet from a site not running at the moment:

quote:

---

The presented information above strongly suggests that African born blacks residing in western countries, as a group may possess IQs that are between 5 points and a full standard deviation (15 IQ points) above that of whites living in these countries (see, Gottfredson, 1998; Ostrowsky, 1999; Richardson, 2002; Cross, 1994; Williams, 2005) – This is especially true for those living in the United States and in the UK. One may also expect to find, according to much of the corroborative literature that relates IQ with education, approximately twice the number of African born immigrants with IQs in the 115 range, than among the general white American population (Gottfredson, 1998; Ostrowsky, 1999; Williams, 2005), and “more” than twice the number of African immigrants in the 125 IQ range (Gottfredson, 1998; The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 1999-2000).
Race, Intelligence and IQ: Are Blacks Smarter?
By Bernie Douglas (April 10, 2008)
What is IQ and Why the Racial Controversy?
IQ is a culturally, socially, and ideologically rooted concept; an index intended to predict success (i.e., to predict outcomes that are valued as success by some people) in a given society. The items on these tests are largely measures of achievement at various levels of competency (Sternberg et al, 1998a, 1999, 2003a) and are devised impressionistically by psychologists to simply mimic the psycholinguistic structures of schooling and middle class clerical/administrative occupations (Richardson, 2002). Alfred Binet, the IQ’s inventor, originally devised the IQ test to screen children for educational difficulties, and made clear its conceptual foundations (See Richardson, 2002). IQ tests are, and were originally designed to be nothing more than devices for generating numbers that are useful in assessing academic aptitude with in a given culture.

Most traditional Intelligence tests measure specific forms of cognitive ability that are said to be predictive of school functioning, but do not measure the many forms of intelligence that are beyond these more specific skills, such as music, creativity, art, interpersonal and intrapersonal abilities (Braaten and Norman, 2006). IQ and similar tests are also unable to measure potential, are not independent from what is measured by achievement tests, and are not powerful predictors of low reading performance (Siegel, 1989, Bradshaw, 2001). Test results in one child can vary according to mood, motivation, and fatigue, while the tests themselves show prominent rehearsal/learning effects, generally assume a degree of literacy, and are largely framed to suit Western cultural requirements (O’Brien, 2001). For these reasons, many argue that the use of IQ tests should be abandoned (Siegel, 1989, 1992; Vellutino et al, 2000, Bradshaw, 2001; Schonemann, 1997c). In addition, no tests except dynamic tests (see Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002a) that require learning at the time of the test, directly measure ability to learn. Traditional tests focus much more on measuring past learning, which can be the result of differences in many factors, including motivation and available opportunities to learn.

To date there is no serious evidence demonstrating IQ tests to measure either an inborn property (see Hirsch 1970, 2004; Schonemann, 1997c, 2005; Kempthorn 1978, 1997, Capron et al, 1999) or what is commonly understood to mean “intelligence.” Intelligence is a highly subjective and culturally confound concept which is largely undefined (see Schonemann, 1997c; Sternberg, 1998; Cole et al, 1971; Guttman, 1955). The twin and adoption studies used to report heritability estimates in relationship to IQ tests have been shown repeatedly to be highly suspicious in nature. For example, statistical models used in twin studies and inferences from them relating to IQ tests tend to lack statistical validity (Capron et al., 1999; Kempthorn, 1997). The biometrical school of scientists who fit models to IQ data traces their intellectual ancestry to R. Fisher (1918), but their genetic models have no predictive value (See Vetta, 2002; Vetta, 1976; Capron and Vetta, 2006; Capron et al, 1999). Fisher himself was critical of the concept of heritability, because assortative mating, such as for IQ, introduces complexities into the study of a genetic trait (ibid). Schonemann (1997c) has shown that conventional heritability estimates often produce absurdly high values for variables that cannot possibly be genetic. For example, if one applies the traditional heritability arithmetic to the twin data collected by Loehlin and Nichols (1976), one finds that the answer to the question “Did you take a bubble bath last year” is 90% genetic (Schonemann, 1997c).

---

quote:

---

[...]

An example of this phenomenon can be seen in a study by Serpell R. (1979), in which Zambian and English children were asked to reproduce patterns in three media: wire models, clay models, or pencil and paper. The Zambian children excelled in the wire medium with which they were familiar, while the English children were best with pencil and paper. Both groups performed equally well with clay. Thus, children performed better with materials that were more familiar to them, from their own environments. Carraher, Carraher, and Schliemann (1985) studied a group of Brazilian children and found that the same children who were able to do the mathematics needed to run their street businesses were little able to do the same mathematics when presented in a formal schooling context.

[...]

---

quote:

---

African Blacks Significantly Exceed Whites in Educational Attainment and Professional Employment
African-born blacks comprise 16 percent of the U.S. foreign-born black population and are considerably more educated than other black immigrants (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). The vast majority of these immigrants come from minority white countries in East and West Africa (e.g. Kenya and Nigeria), and less than 2 percent originate from North or South Africa (World Factbook, 2004; Yearbook of immigration Statistics, 2003). In an analysis of Census Bureau data by the Journal of Blacks in higher education, African immigrants to the United States were found more likely to be college educated than any other immigrant group, which included those from Europe, North America and Asia (also see U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). African immigrants have also been shown to be more highly educated than any native-born ethnic group including white and Asian Americans (see also, Logan & Deane, 2003; Williams, 2005; The Economist, 1996; Arthur, 2000; Selassie, 1998).

Most current data suggest that between 43.8 and 48.9 percent of all African immigrants in the United States hold a college diploma (Charles, 2007; U.S. Census, 2000). This is slightly more than the percentage of Asian immigrants to the U.S., nearly “double” the rate of native-born white Americans, and nearly four times the rate of native-born African Americans (Williams, 2005; The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 1999-2000). Black immigrants from Africa have also been shown to have rates of college graduation that are “more” than double that of the U.S.-born population, in general (Williams, 2005). For example, in 1997, 19.4 percent of all adult African immigrants in the United States held a “graduate degree”, compared to 8.1 percent of adult whites (a difference of “more than” double) and 3.8 percent of adult blacks in the United States, respectively (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 1999-2000). This shows that America has an equally large achievement gap between white Americans and African born immigrants as between native born white and black Americans.

In the UK, 1988, the Commission for Racial Equality conducted an investigation on the admissions practices of St. George's, and other medical colleges, who set aside a certain number of places for minority students. This informal quota system reflected the percentage of minorities in the general population. However, minority students with Chinese, Indian, or black African heritage had higher academic qualifications for university admission than did whites (Blacks in Britain from the West Indies had lower academic credentials than did whites). In fact, blacks with African origins over the age of 30 had the highest educational qualifications of any ethnic group in the British Isles. Thus, the evidence pointed to the fact that minority quotas for University admissions were actually working against students from these ethnic groups who were on average more qualified for higher education than their white peers (Cross, 1994; Also see, Dustmann, Theodoropoulos, 2006).

---

Boring sh*yt on brain sizes and neurons:

quote:

---

Race and Brain Size
The majority of empirical studies on the matter of racial differences in brain size suggest that blacks from comparable environments will have larger brains than do others. Brain sizes vary considerably within any species, but this variation is not usually related to intelligence. Instead, it correlates loosely with body size: large people tend to have larger brains (Gould, 1981, 1999). As a result, women on average will have smaller brains than men (Peters, 1991). However, this does not indicate that the level of male intelligence is higher than female intelligence; Neanderthals had on average larger brains than anatomically modern humans (Tattersall, 1995; Gould, 1981) but most would agree that they were considerably less intelligent than Homo sapiens (Tattersal, 1995, 2004; Gould, 1981; Mithen 1998). In addition, female brains are structured in a way that would more than make up for any size differences.

Tobias (1970) compared 7 racial and national groups in a study on brain size, in which he reported that the brain size of American blacks was larger than any white group, (which included American, English and French whites) except those from the Swedish sub sample (who had the largest brains of any of the groups measured), and American blacks were also estimated to have some 200 million more neurons than American whites (See Tobias 1970; Weizmann et al. 1990). Gould (1981, 1996) discovered upon recalculating Morton’s skull data that the crania of blacks in his sample were on average larger than those of whites. Morton included in his sample of black skulls more females than he included in the white sample. For example, in his analysis of Hottentotts (black tribe from South Africa) all measured crania were of females; the Englishmen were all mature men. Morton had eliminated especially large brains from the African group and especially small brains from the European. Also, Morton did some early measurements with seed instead of shot. When he discovered that this method gave inconsistent results, he re did the Caucasian values with shot, but not the blacks (See Gould, 1981, 1996). After correcting these errors it was shown that the black sample had larger crania (and presumably, larger brains) than did whites (ibid).

Interestingly, during the time periods in which the data for the above mentioned studies were collected anthropomorphic research has shown that blacks were on average physically smaller in stature than whites and received poorer nutrition (e.g. Alan, 2006). Indicating that in spite of relatively lower anthropomorphic measurements and poorer nutritional intake, blacks still demonstrated larger brain volume.

Friedrich Tiedemann (a famous 17th century craniometrist) noted that many anthropologists in his time simply chose the smallest-brained and biggest-jawed African ‘skull’ they could find and then published a single drawing as "proof" of what every (Caucasian) observer already "knew" in any case! Tiedemann labored to produce the largest compilation of data ever assembled, with all items based entirely on his own measurements of skulls for all races. From his extensive tables (38 male African and 101 male Caucasian skulls), Tiedemann concludes that no differences in brain sizes can distinguish human races (See Gould, 1999). In some instances the favor was actually in the direction of blacks.

Most contemporary evidence shows that there is virtually no correlation between the intensity of different selective force gradients and cranial morphology (Harvati and Weaver, 2006; Keita, 2004; Roseman and Weaver, 2004; Roseman, 2004; Gould, 1981, 1996; Brace, 2001). Indeed, positive geographic selective force correlations relating to craniometric variables are usually only (vaguely) observed when samples from extreme cold (arctic) environments, such as Inuit types and Siberians, are included in analysis (Roseman, 2004; Harvati and Weaver, 2006). For example, Harvati and Weaver (2006) found a weak association between cranial centroid sizes and climatic variables, which approached, but did not reach, significance. This effect disappeared when an Inugsuk (a group from Greenland similar to Eskimos) sample was removed from the analysis (ibid). Roseman (2004) observed similar findings with a Siberian sample – once the Serbian sample was removed from the analysis, there was no indication that environmental temperature or latitude played ‘any’ role in cranial morphology. In sum, recent studies comparing craniometric and neutral genetic affinity matrices have concluded that, on average, human cranial variation fits a model of neutral expectation.

Keita (2004) in his principal components analysis on male crania from the northeast quadrant of Africa and selected European and other African series found no consistent ‘size differences’ between regional groups, as all samples showed marked variation in size. There were however some distinguishing differences in relationship to cranial shape between European and African samples, particularly with respect to nasal aperture and changes in the maxilla (part of the upper jaw from which the teeth grow). The primary goal of this study was to assess the anatomical basis of patterns of craniofacial variation along an African–European continuum, with special focus on North Africa. There was Interest in whether there was a sharp boundary separating any of these groups from each other (see Keita, 2004). In terms of overall cranial size, tropical African groups were found in many instances to have larger crania than European groups. For example, on close inspection of the 2 dimensional PC scatter plots, designating cranial size/shape, the Zulu sample appeared to have the largest crania of any group in the analysis, followed by Norse (Norway) and then Teita (Kenya). African crania were also found to be broader (wider) than European crania on average. Surprisingly, one European sample, Berg (Hungarian), correlated more closely with African samples in this respect than with other European samples. Tremendous overlap between all groups was observed in this study, for most variables (see Keita, 2004).

Other physical anthropological research has also shown the crania of Sub-Saharan Africans to be generally wider, exhibiting greater cranial breath than European and North African samples, verbatim. For example sub-Saharan specimens show a generalized vertical facial flattening, with consequent widening of the entire structure (Bruner and Manzi, 2004). This pattern involves interorbital and orbital enlargement, widening and flattening of the nasal bones and aperture, maxillary development and upper rotation, and a general widening and lowering of the face. The face shortens vertically and this flattening leads to a relative lateral enlargement of the whole morphology and maxillary frontward rotation (see Bruner and Manzi, 2004). The pattern toward the other extreme shows the opposite processes, with a general vertical stretching related to a lateral narrowing, as seen in European and North African samples (ibid).

Despite certain trends observed among African crania, Roseman and Weaver (2007) found that the amount of phenotypic variation in human cranial morphology decreases at the population level the further one travels from Sub-Saharan Africa. African populations tend to exhibit more cranial variation than do other world populations (Hanihara et al, 2003; Hiernaux, 1975; Keita, 2004; Roseman and Weaver, 2007). Relethford (1994) and Relethford and Harpending (1994) found that the amount of morphological variation among major geographic groups is relatively low, and is compatible with those based on the genetic data, where Africa shows the most variation. Manica et al (2007) note a smooth loss of genetic diversity with increasing distance from Africa, and along with this, using a large data set of skull measurements and an analytical framework equivalent to that used for genetic data, also show that the loss in genetic diversity is mirrored by a loss in phenotypic variability.

Extensive research in human genetics on ‘presumably’ neutral loci has shown that the overwhelming majority of human diversity is found among individuals within local populations. Previous studies of craniometric diversity are similar to these genetic apportionments, implying that interregionally differing selection pressures have played a limited role in producing contemporary human cranial diversity (Roseman and Weaver, 2004; Brace, 2001).

Genetic studies of human brainsize have discovered two genes that when mutated can result in severely

[...]

---

I think nuture definitely trumps nature, but he (Ssshaun002) isopen to his own popinions.

---