European vs North American description of the Moors

[Swagnificent]

@ArtaXerXes lol at thinking the enslaving of a people can change the way a population looks like.

Europeans enslaved black people for centuries but the majority of them remained white. Why would you think Berbers would all of a sudden become mixed due to their enslaving of white people? If i used your logic then Europeans living in America should look mixed themselves.

You guys make no sense whatsoever, think about what you type before posting it. Wishing that the Moors were strickly black won't make it happen. The current population of North Africa is still Berber and only Arab by name.

America isn't a good example for this. And you know why. There were ANTI-MISCEGENATION laws in many of the southern states that outlawed whites from having children with blacks. That still didn't stop white slave masters from raping black women hence the large amount of light skin and mixed black people in America compared to many native African populations. However, the laws against interbreeding as well as the ideology of racial supremacy is the reason Americans whites aren't very mixed.

In countries like Brazil where there weren't those laws, you saw alot more mixing between the races. And the face of the average Brazilian does look very different than the white colonial masters that came there.

In fact Brazil is the best example of how a nation can change rapidly in just 500 years.

 

[Ikwa]

I was just about to say dude acting like he has never heard of Brazil

Smh do you even read the contents of posts or do you just block off the bits you don't like?

 

[Swagnificent]

You don't understand what I'm saying. You said that the 1.25 million white slaves that went through North Africa could have changed the looks of the natives, i'm saying if that's the case then the larger number of sub-saharan slaves that went through NA should have also made a change on the natives' looks.

I'm just using your logic against you.

Also you can't compare the slave trade of South America were the natives were killed in great numbers to the conquest of North Africa by Arabs who didn't have much affect on the people.

Listen I don't doubt that you are Moroccan and I know some North Africans are black but saying that the Moors who took over Spain were strictly black is false.

Why did Ibn Khaldun (one of the brightest minds of his time and recognised by the whole world) praise the Berbers so much yet at the same time made borderline racist comments on Sub-saharan Africans? Doesn't that show that Berbers and Black people are different?

Most posters on the last few pages speak without knowledge on the topic, I'm sure they haven't even set foot in Africa but are acting like experts on the subject. Don't follow their way of thinking which isn't based on evidence.

Your double talk knows no bounds. Didn't we just finish a page long debate on Ibn Battuta (a contemporary of Khaldun's) calling the natives of Somalia "Berbers" and the Horn of Africa "Land of the Berbers." You didn't dispute that you just made it seem like it was a nickname given by one man. Then I showed how it was a historical term used by not only the Arabs but the Greeks. It was on damn maps for goodness sakes.

You can't import the 21st century notions of race we live with today onto the past. People in the past didn't think in terms of race but more in terms of nations. There are countless writing of the Greeks making similar demeaning racist comments about the Germanic tribes to the north of them. Where do think the term dumb blonde comes from? The Greeks felt they were superior to the Germanic tribes and that they were fundamentally different people. Are the Greeks a different race than the Germans? To the Greeks they were, but under todays notions of race? No.

I know about Khaldun's views very well. But unlike you, I know that the two groups he was talking about are both black. They're different but both would be black under current views on race.

 

[Ikwa]

@Swagnificent

1. Millions of indigenous people were killed in Brazil.

2. That did not happen in North Africa where the indigenous people adopted the Arab culture.

3. A lot more sub-saharan slaves went through NA compared to white slaves. Why would the white slaves affect the indigenous population's looks but not the black slaves?

Yall just picking and choosing the bits and pieces you like.

Black people in West Africa have had a rich history, from the Kingdom of Ghana to Mansa Musa of Mali. There's no need to claim the history of others.

 

[MostReal]

@Swagnificent

1. Millions of indigenous people were killed in Brazil.

2. That did not happen in North Africa where the indigenous people adopted the Arab culture.

3. A lot more sub-saharan slaves went through NA compared to white slaves. Why would the white slaves affect the indigenous population's looks but not the black slaves?

Yall just picking and choosing the bits and pieces you like.

Black people in West Africa have had a rich history, from the Kingdom of Ghana to Mansa Musa of Mali. There's no need to claim the history of others.

you're an idiot

 

[Swagnificent]

You don't understand what I'm saying. You said that the 1.25 million white slaves that went through North Africa could have changed the looks of the natives, i'm saying if that's the case then the larger number of sub-saharan slaves that went through NA should have also made a change on the natives' looks.

I'm just using your logic against you.

Also you can't compare the slave trade of South America were the natives were killed in great numbers to the conquest of North Africa by Arabs who didn't have much affect on the people.

Are you being serious? Like I really hope this is just some big joke to you. Cause if you really believe this you are an idiot. Have you ever traveled to Brazil, Cuba, Venezuela, etc? Black folks have changed the face of the average American.

Look at the Brazilian soccer team. You can see the mix of black, white, and american indian genes in there easily.

Listen I don't doubt that you are Moroccan and I know some North Africans are black but saying that the Moors who took over Spain were strictly black is false.

I doubt anyone said every single person in the moorish armies was black. All we're saying is they were fundamentally black and that the leadership/origins/power behind it were black. If you really are black, then you'll know why this is important. Because the #1 strategy of cacs is once they can make a population mixed, they can then say that the whites were in charge and blacks were slaves.

What we're saying is that the Moors probably did absorb many whites. I mean they had a penchant for Turkish women and they were marauders. I'm sure they took in foreigners as part of their army. But the leadership was fundamentally black. Their origins were black. And they were fundamentally look upon by europeans as black.

Why did Ibn Khaldun (one of the brightest minds of his time and recognised by the whole world) praise the Berbers so much yet at the same time made borderline racist comments on Sub-saharan Africans? Doesn't that show that Berbers and Black people are different?

Most posters on the last few pages speak without knowledge on the topic, I'm sure they haven't even set foot in Africa but are acting like experts on the subject. Don't follow their way of thinking which isn't based on evidence.

Why did the Greeks praise the Egyptians and make racist comments about the Germanic tribes up north? Are the Greeks now not white? I mean you claim you are black but everything you said reads like the mind of a cac reading history.

Ibn Khaldun was praising one group of people we would now consider black while disparaging another just like the Greeks disparaged the Germanic tribes in the north eventhough they were white like them under our current conceptions of race.

 

[Ikwa]

Your double talk knows no bounds. Didn't we just finish a page long debate on Ibn Battuta (a contemporary of Khaldun's) calling the natives of Somalia "Berbers" and the Horn of Africa "Land of the Berbers." You didn't dispute that you just made it seem like it was a nickname given by one man. Then I showed how it was a historical term used by not only the Arabs but the Greeks. It was on damn maps for goodness sakes.

You can't import the 21st century notions of race we live with today onto the past. People in the past didn't think in terms of race but more in terms of nations. There are countless writing of the Greeks making similar demeaning racist comments about the Germanic tribes to the north of them. Where do think the term dumb blonde comes from? The Greeks felt they were superior to the Germanic tribes and that they were fundamentally different people. Are the Greeks a different race than the Germans? To the Greeks they were, but under todays notions of race? No.

I know about Khaldun's views very well. But unlike you, I know that the two groups he was talking about are both black. They're different but both would be black under current views on race.

Do you have any common sense?

Ibn Khaldun highly and constantly praised berbers while referring to sub-saharan africans as negros and sub-humans with animalistic features.

Why would he praise a group of supposedly black people while insulting another in the worst way?

Cotdamn what goes through your thinking process?

And you're the same person that thinks persians are white and filipinos black. It doesn't get any dumber than that, needless to say you're understanding of the world is extremelly limited.

 

[Swagnificent]

@Swagnificent

1. Millions of indigenous people were killed in Brazil.

2. That did not happen in North Africa where the indigenous people adopted the Arab culture.

3. A lot more sub-saharan slaves went through NA compared to white slaves. Why would the white slaves affect the indigenous population's looks but not the black slaves?

Yall just picking and choosing the bits and pieces you like.

Black people in West Africa have had a rich history, from the Kingdom of Ghana to Mansa Musa of Mali. There's no need to claim the history of others.

Please read my posts more closely cause I clearly answered that point. American chattel slavery was especially evil compared to slavery at almost any other time in human history, because it associated the mark of enslavement with SKIN COLOR. That had never happened before. In Greece and Rome there were slaves of every ethnicity. After a few generations of freedom, you didn't know who was slave or free. American slavery was demonic in the sense that the badge of enslavement would stick even if the slaves descendants were freed for generations.

It was this notion of racial superiority and inferiority when American whites didn't mix with the slave population or even the native populations like they did in other time at other places where there were slaves imported. Obviously in North Africa, there was not the same badge of racial animace so the slave master didn't have a problem producing kids with the slaves. Once the kids were born, they'd be treated like any other child in the society. That wasn't the case in America. Hell it still isn't the case and its been over 200 years.

 

[Swagnificent]

@Swagnificent

1. Millions of indigenous people were killed in Brazil.

2. That did not happen in North Africa where the indigenous people adopted the Arab culture.

3. A lot more sub-saharan slaves went through NA compared to white slaves. Why would the white slaves affect the indigenous population's looks but not the black slaves?

Yall just picking and choosing the bits and pieces you like.

Black people in West Africa have had a rich history, from the Kingdom of Ghana to Mansa Musa of Mali. There's no need to claim the history of others.

and there it is

the cacness will always come out no matter how hard they try

who the hell said anything about being a Berber or north african here? all we said is they were black. if you tried to convince me that the greeks weren't white and I said they were, would that mean I was trying to claim their history?

I'm just correcting the false lies spread by white supremacy.

 

[Swagnificent]

Do you have any common sense?

Ibn Khaldun highly and constantly praised berbers while referring to sub-saharan africans as negros and sub-humans with animalistic features.

Why would he praise a group of supposedly black people while insulting another in the worst way?

Cotdamn what goes through your thinking process?

And you're the same person that thinks persians are white and filipinos black. It doesn't get any dumber than that, needless to say you're understanding of the world is extremelly limited.

Romans scholars also referred to the Germanic tribes as subhuman, animals. Hell the term BARBARIAN specifically comes in reference to the blonde hair blue eyed cacs that today rule the world. Are the Romans now some other race? Are the Germans not white?

As I keep saying, you can't assume that because Ibn Khaldun spoke badly about one group of black people in Africa, that the other group he praised was not also black. I know this is hard for your mind that has been infected by white supremacy to believe, but there were black peoples that were respected just like there were some that were disparaged.

The Arabs also had horrible things to says about the Eastern Europeans. Are they a different race than other Europeans?

 

[Ikwa]

Are you being serious? Like I really hope this is just some big joke to you. Cause if you really believe this you are an idiot. Have you ever traveled to Brazil, Cuba, Venezuela, etc? Black folks have changed the face of the average American.

Look at the Brazilian soccer team. You can see the mix of black, white, and american indian genes in there easily.

What on earth are you talking about? Millions of sub-saharan africans went throught North Africa as slaves, what does that have to do with Brazil or South America? You're all over the place and been misquoting my posts from the beginning. This is my post you misquoted:

You said that the 1.25 million white slaves that went through North Africa could have changed the looks of the natives, i'm saying if that's the case then the larger number of sub-saharan slaves that went through NA should have also made a change on the natives' looks.

What has that got to do with Brazil?

I doubt anyone said every single person in the moorish armies was black. All we're saying is they were fundamentally black and that the leadership/origins/power behind it were black. If you really are black, then you'll know why this is important. Because the #1 strategy of cacs is once they can make a population mixed, they can then say that the whites were in charge and blacks were slaves.

What we're saying is that the Moors probably did absorb many whites. I mean they had a penchant for Turkish women and they were marauders. I'm sure they took in foreigners as part of their army. But the leadership was fundamentally black. Their origins were black. And they were fundamentally look upon by europeans as black.

When did I say Moors or Berbers were white? Again your reading comprehension proves to be mediocre. In one of my early posts I said that Moors were a mix of Berbers (tanned people) and Black Africans.

Why did the Greeks praise the Egyptians and make racist comments about the Germanic tribes up north? Are the Greeks now not white? I mean you claim you are black but everything you said reads like the mind of a cac reading history.

Ibn Khaldun was praising one group of people we would now consider black while disparaging another just like the Greeks disparaged the Germanic tribes in the north eventhough they were white like them under our current conceptions of race.

You obviously have a limited understanding of the world were you separate people into either white or black. That isn't the case for me nor is it for most people out there. I do not consider Egyptians as white, why don't you go to one and tell him he is white and let us know his reaction?

Seriously have you ever traveled outside the USA?

It was this notion of racial superiority and inferiority when American whites didn't mix with the slave population or even the native populations like they did in other time at other places where there were slaves imported. Obviously in North Africa, there was not the same badge of racial animace so the slave master didn't have a problem producing kids with the slaves. Once the kids were born, they'd be treated like any other child in the society. That wasn't the case in America. Hell it still isn't the case and its been over 200 years.

First of all you need to stop comparing the slave trade of North Africa to the one of South America.
Secondly, logic would have it that a lot more modern day Berbers should be black if North Africans didn't mind reproducing with black people.

What you fail to understand is that more black people went through the slave ports of North Africa than white people. If you believe that the white slaves had an affect on the looks of North Africans then so should the black slaves since they numbered more.

You guys don't even know what you're saying now

Romans scholars also referred to the Germanic tribes as subhuman, animals. Hell the term BARBARIAN specifically comes in reference to the blonde hair blue eyed cacs that today rule the world. Are the Romans now some other race? Are the Germans not white?

Germanic tribes posed a thread to Rome and were in constant conflict with them, it's called propaganda.
Ibn Khaldun was the descendant of an Andalusian family, the Berbers were not in conflict with sub-saharan tribes so why would Ibn Khaldun insult them in such ways?

The Arabs also had horrible things to says about the Eastern Europeans. Are they a different race than other Europeans?

Here we go again with the 2-bit view of the world, what school did you go to breh? Let me check something with you. Based on your dumbed down version of the world, would you say Taiwanese people are black or white? What about Pakistanis? Bengalis?

 

[SkillClash]

what is with the majority of people on this forum that view race as only 2 races "black" and "white" so ignorant

 

[IronFist]

Indeed OP all to make the truth harder to find for their "free Blacks" to keep us a beggar nation.

 

[Swagnificent]

What on earth are you talking about? Millions of sub-saharan africans went throught North Africa as slaves, what does that have to do with Brazil or South America? You're all over the place and been misquoting my posts from the beginning. This is my post you misquoted:

What has that got to do with Brazil?

NA? How the hell was I supposed to know that was North Africa when we were just talking about North America and why Americans whites aren't mixed. You got schooled for trying to suggest black slaves didn't change the face of America so you changed the topic.

 

[Ikwa]

NA? How the hell was I supposed to know that was North Africa when we were just talking about North America and why Americans whites aren't mixed. You got schooled for trying to suggest black slaves didn't change the face of America so you changed the topic.

Here is the quote you fool. Can't you see North Africa being mentioned in the same sentence? On top of that in a few times prior between me the other breh.

You said that the 1.25 million white slaves that went through North Africa could have changed the looks of the natives, i'm saying if that's the case then the larger number of sub-saharan slaves that went through NA should have also made a change on the natives' looks.

And how did I get schooled on South America when its scenario was completely different than the one in North Africa, something which you're still ignoring.