European vs North American description of the Moors

[Ikwa]

@Swagnificent I love the way you're escaping the question. Let me repeat myself:

I'm still waiting for you to tell me when the whitewashing (with dates) of the Berber happened. I gave you detailed evidence of the Berber Dynasties from the time they ruled Southern Spain to present day. Dates, sources, everything. Even cross checking them with quotes by the explorer Ibn Battuta. Bring me theevidence, real evidence, not the BS you've been posting about Germanic tribes. I want to know when and what caused the whitewashing of the Berbers.

Why are you having difficulties answering that simple question? Is it because you're whole argument will crumble and you'll let down all the simple nikkas who've been believing your ducktales?

EDIT: just seen this from swagnificent.

the white berbers are descendants of the europeans from the balkans, greece, and the vandals. the original black berbers resemble and are similar culturally to the ethiopians and eritereans. when did the absorption of whites into north africa happen? I don't know exactly but it was definitely before the 1800s and probably no earlier than the middle of the first millennium (mainly because of all those quotes from the Romans and Greeks I posted a couple of pages back describing the berbers as black during the 1-4 century AD).

First of all if you can't put a date on this then it is useless, that mixing could have happened at any time, before or after the Moors conquest of Spain.

Secondly when you say the white Berbers descended from Balkan, Greek and Vandal people are you saying that this was due to the North Africa slave trade? I've already crushed this argument of yours since more Black people went through the NA markets than White people. The White slavery lasted 3 centuries while the Black slavery was already happening during the Roman occupation of NA. That's 9 centuries (if not more) of sub-saharan folk going through NA markets vs 3 centuries of white folk going through the same markets. Are you telling me white blood is so strong that it managed to change the look of Berbers in just 3 centuries while 9 centuries of black blood couldn't have an effect on Berbers?

@Chesirecatdaddy you've basically resumed what I've been saying from the beginning of this thread in one post

genetically they have very little arab blood from what recent findings show

This is what I said on page 15

the conquest of North Africa by Arabs who didn't have much affect on the people.

More from Chesirecatdaddy

Being that they are berbers you can find many different colors...it's a mixed bag since the kingdom has been united forr a very very long time... and that would've included Mauritania (lots of black looking folks) as well but it doesn't thanks to the Spanish (this is why it's in such disarry today). Most People are tan

I said this on page 5 and on page 21

Moors were a mix of West Africans (black skin) and North Africans (tanned skin) which were united by their common belief in Islam. (page 5)

I've been saying the Moors were a mixture of people, tanned skinned from North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Libya) and black skinned further south (Mali, Niger). Mauritania would be a good example of what the Moors looked like, they came in many shades. (page 21)

Finally this quote

The thing you also gotta understand is the poltical climate... King Hassan 2 and Mohammed 6 pushed Arabic culture hard to keep shyt in line... but as a result the original Amazigh/berber culture suffered... it wasn't taught in school anymore .

Again I said this (can't remember which page) that Arab culture has affected the Berbers more in the 20th century.

I have one more question for you, would you say the mixing of Berbers happened before or after the conquest of Spain? And who affected the Berbers most?

 

[Swagnificent]

@Swagnificent

First of all if you can't put a date on this then it is useless, that mixing could have happened at any time, before or after the Moors conquest of Spain.

Secondly when you say the white Berbers descended from Balkan, Greek and Vandal people are you saying that this was due to the North Africa slave trade? I've already crushed this argument of yours since more Black people went through the NA markets than White people. The White slavery lasted 3 centuries while the Black slavery was already happening during the Roman occupation of NA. That's 9 centuries (if not more) of sub-saharan folk going through NA markets vs 3 centuries of white folk going through the same markets. Are you telling me white blood is so strong that it managed to change the look of Berbers in just 3 centuries while 9 centuries of black blood couldn't have an effect on Berbers?

Unlike you when I don't know something, I admit it. I don't make up shyt like you did with the 10 million slaves. Whether the mixing started before the Moors took over Spain, whether it took off around then, whether it happened afterwards, I simply don't know. I don't claim to know things for which I lack data.

I doubt it was totally just the slave trade. People in the Mediterranean were always moving from place to place and had alot of close contact. There were black african tribes that settled in europe as well ( see the Colchians). I'm gonna guess that the whitening of SOME of the berbers happened much like the whitening of Egypt. It was gradual, over many centuries, and probably included a few mass migrations.

None of that however changes my fundamental point. The Moors were essentially black during the time of the Spanish conquest. Their roots were from the black peoples of Africa. And they were described as black skinned by the Europeans they conquered. These are all supported by extensive records.

 

[Knicksman20]

crazy that he'd pick the name pappa dock too lol

LOL! I didn't catch his name till you said that.

 

[Ikwa]

Unlike you when I don't know something, I admit it. I don't make up shyt like you did with the 10 million slaves. Whether the mixing started before the Moors took over Spain, whether it took off around then, whether it happened afterwards, I simply don't know. I don't claim to know things for which I lack data.

I doubt it was totally just the slave trade. People in the Mediterranean were always moving from place to place and had alot of close contact. There were black african tribes that settled in europe as well ( see the Colchians). I'm gonna guess that the whitening of SOME of the berbers happened much like the whitening of Egypt. It was gradual, over many centuries, and probably included a few mass migrations.

None of that however changes my fundamental point. The Moors were essentially black during the time of the Spanish conquest. Their roots were from the black peoples of Africa. And they were described as black skinned by the Europeans they conquered. These are all supported by extensive records.

That settles it then. You don't know when the mixing of Berbers took place therefore you can't say that the Moors were an essentially Black force.

Your view is extreme (Moors were pretty much just Black) and ducktales while mine makes more sense and has been backed by evidence (Moors were a mix of various groups).

I dropped the history of Berbers from the time they took over Southern Spain to present day, there was no way back for you after that

You gave a good fight though and for that I respect you

 

[Chesirecatdaddy]

@Swagnificent I love the way you're escaping the question. Let me repeat myself:

Why are you having difficulties answering that simple question? Is it because you're whole argument will crumble and you'll let down all the simple nikkas who've been believing your ducktales?

EDIT: just seen this from swagnificent.

First of all if you can't put a date on this then it is useless, that mixing could have happened at any time, before or after the Moors conquest of Spain.

Secondly when you say the white Berbers descended from Balkan, Greek and Vandal people are you saying that this was due to the North Africa slave trade? I've already crushed this argument of yours since more Black people went through the NA markets than White people. The White slavery lasted 3 centuries while the Black slavery was already happening during the Roman occupation of NA. That's 9 centuries (if not more) of sub-saharan folk going through NA markets vs 3 centuries of white folk going through the same markets. Are you telling me white blood is so strong that it managed to change the look of Berbers in just 3 centuries while 9 centuries of black blood couldn't have an effect on Berbers?

@Chesirecatdaddy you've basically resumed what I've been saying from the beginning of this thread in one post

This is what I said on page 15


More from Chesirecatdaddy

I said this on page 5 and on page 21

Finally this quote

Again I said this (can't remember which page) that Arab culture has affected the Berbers more in the 20th century.

I have one more question for you, would you say the mixing of Berbers happened before or after the conquest of Spain? And who affected the Berbers most?

The truth is some where in the middle... It makes more sense that the Berbers were mostly black at first due to the fact that for a huge amount of Europeans to enter Africa on the west from Europe there would have been some major transportation via ships involved... so they would have come thru little by little in waves first settling north.. this is why "Hercules' cave" is in northern morocco. Obviously that means this would've happened eons ago...way before Islam.The moors/Bedouin are ancient...they descend from the Hebrews maybe even older...u can see it in their clothing and customs.

The south would've had a lot more black people BC it extended well past what we call Mauritania today... BTW Mauritanians are still dark...darker than moroccans in general they range from the darker tan to black. The kingdom of Morocco lost Mauritania due to Spain.

All of these things are not exclusive to morocco since the Bedouin crossed from east to west thru Libya Algeria Tunisia etc and kept mixing.

I wanna make a correction for some reason I saw it said that Mohammed 6 promoted arabism...but that's not true it was Mohammed 5 and Hassan 2 his son..Mohammed 6 promotes berberism.


Also saharawites were thought to have numbered in the 300k range in the western Sahara region...but they found out that number is 95k and is inflated by the polisario separatist group.

Most saharawites have been integrated for hundreds of years and consider themselves morrocan ..there are more Moroccan saharawites than separatists..they've also lightened BC of this.

The bulk of these people would never be considered white in america unless they looked line zinedine zedain... Even then its iffy BC that's rare to find ppl that look like him...btw hes non arabized.

So yeah the moors at their height were black...w some Arabs sprinkled here n there for good measure...of course we're using European and american concepts here

 

[GhettoTeK]

but look what happen after that

WEAK

 

[Swagnificent]

That settles it then. You don't know when the mixing of Berbers took place therefore you can't say that the Moors were an essentially Black force.

Your view is extreme (Moors were pretty much just Black) and ducktales while mine makes more sense and has been backed by evidence (Moors were a mix of various groups).

I dropped the history of Berbers from the time they took over Southern Spain to present day, there was no way back for you after that

You gave a good fight though and for that I respect you

smh. my view is in line with what the Europeans of that time said. You were pushing me on when the mixing started. Unlike you, I don't just make up shyt to suit what I want. I look at the evidence objectively. For all I know, the Moors were fukkin with white women before they went up into Spain. However, just like most American black are "mixed" right now, we are still racially black in America. The same woulda been true for the mixed Moors. The root of the Moorish empire was still black AND THAT IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT.

Now tell me, if the Moors were "mixed" why was the word Moor used as a synonym for negro in europe until the 1700s, and why do almost all the European paintings about Moors show them as almost entirely black?

I think this picture is shows typical Moorish demographics. 4 of the 5 men in the picture are definitely black with the final one being a mulatoo. he doesn't look much different from many modern middle easterners. probably the result of a moorish father and turkish slave mother.

 

[Ikwa]

@Swagnificent I think this thread has run its course. If you can't tell when the "mixing" happened then it's futile to go on. It could have been during the Roman times or even before that.

At the end of the day you're allowed to have your opinion just like I'm allowed to mine.

 

[Swagnificent]

@Swagnificent I think this thread has run its course. If you can't tell when the "mixing" happened then it's futile to go on. It could have been during the Roman times or even before that.

At the end of the day you're allowed to have your opinion just like I'm allowed to mine.

you want me to make up shyt? I highly doubt anyone anywhere would know when "mixing" started. And anyways its beside the point.

The real issue is whether Moorish culture/civilization was AT ITS ROOT a black civilization not whether the group that eventually took over Spain had mulatto elements in it. THAT IS IRRELEVANT. Which is why your focus on when mixing may have started is perplexing to me.

Everything I've learned about the Moors tells me that they were inherently a black african civilization and whatever non-black elements there were it was absorbed. Just like Ancient Egypt.

Egypt also became mixed in its later dynasties BUT the birth of Ancient Egypt was purely black. And the earliest dynasties and pharoahs were black. At its root it was a black african civilization, irregardless of whether later generations had non-black peoples among them.

 

[Batman]

This thread and conversation is.

 

[Swagnificent]

best approximation of the ancient berbers before being whitewashed...fyi they still in north africa

 

[lightskinjezebel]

The famous 9th-century Muslim author Al-Jahiz, an Afro-Arab and the grandson of a Zanj[38][39][60] slave, wrote a book entitled Risalat mufakharat al-Sudan 'ala al-bidan (Treatise on the Superiority of Blacks over Whites), in which he stated that Blacks:

...have conquered the country of the Arabs as far as Mecca and have governed them. We defeated Dhu Nowas (Jewish King of Yemen) and killed all the Himyariteprinces, but you, White people, have never conquered our country. Our people, the Zenghs (Negroes) revolted forty times in the Euphrates, driving the inhabitants from their homes and making Oballah a bath of blood.

—Joel Augustus Rogers and John Henrik Clarke, World's Great Men of Color[61]
And that:

Blacks are physically stronger than no matter what other people. A single one of them can lift stones of greater weight and carry burdens such as several Whites could not lift nor carry between them. [...] They are brave, strong, and generous as witness their nobility and general lack of wickedness.

—Yosef Ben-Jochannan, African Origins of Major Western Religions[62]
Al-Jahiz also stated in his Kitab al-Bukhala ("Avarice and the Avaricious") that:

"We know that the Zanj (blacks) are the least intelligent and the least discerning of mankind, and the least capable of understanding the consequences of their actions."

Jahiz' criticism however, was limited to the Zanj and not blacks in totality, likely as a result of the Zanji revolts in his native Iraq.

This sentiment was echoed in the following passage from Kitab al-Bad' wah-tarikh (vol.4) by the medieval Arab writer Al-Muqaddasi:

As for the Zanj, they are people of black color, flat noses, kinky hair, and little understanding or intelligence.[63]

Al-Dimashqi (Ibn al-Nafis), the Arab polymath, also described the inhabitants of the Sudan (region) and the Zanj coast, among others, as being of "dim" intelligence and that:

...the moral characteristics found in their mentality are close to the instinctive characteristics found naturally in animals.

—Andrew Reid and Paul J. Lane, African Historical Archaeologies[64]​

 

[TommyHilltrigga]

because all Europeans came from Africa...so if you want to be technical

Europeans can claim both African and European history while Africans can only claim African achievements

shut the actual fukk up

 

[TommyHilltrigga]

just as I thought. pulling shyt out ya ass and stating it like its a fact. give it up breh. you been annihilated in this thread. We cite facts. Your the one that made up 10 million to support your fallacious assertions.

instead of trying to make reality fit into your warped views, how bout you look at the evidence objectively and just accept the evidence as is. why would the arabs and greek call your countrymen berbers and the place you come from Land of the Berbers, if you and other black africans like the Beja, Tuareg, Nubians, etc. DID NOT resemble the pure ancient unmixed berbers of the past? why would the europeans use the word moor as a synonym for black if the moors were not essentially a black african group?

you have yet to answer either question with a reasonable responses. all you've done is claim that the arabs/greeks and other ancient sources calling Somalians berbers and Somalia "Land of the Berbers" as just a "silly nickname." you have cited no evidence that the moors where anything but a black group.

all you've done is make assertions without any evidence. when confronted with actual facts, you responses have been conjecture or in the case we have here LIES.



If some guy who looks like Tiger Woods, Barack Obama or any mixed light skin black walk down the streets of America, he's treated as a black man. He can say he don't wanna be black and that he's cablasian. But in the end of the day, our race is determined by how the outside world perceives us not what we want. Sure it would be nice if we could decide. Hell I'm sure most black people in the past woulda chosen to be anything but black. Unfortunately thats not how it works here. No matter how light skin we were, in this country, we're all nikkas.

I'm just unwilling to let crakkkas play the game where anyone with any identifiable black heritage is black in America when it comes to discrimination. But when we look back through history, all of a sudden different rules apply. If you really are black, you can at least see why we have a problem with this? right?

that nikka slipped up...pullin numbers from the darkest corners of his ass

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Wanna bump this thread to debate @Van Taak on his claims on the Moors and North Africa not being indignous black/African. If he's up for it.