yep, just saw this on a documentary. This is where & when a great deal of European looking Muslims settled into Northern Africa. It explains everything really
European vs North American description of the Moors
- Thread starter Deluuxe
- Start date
yep, just saw this on a documentary. This is where & when a great deal of European looking Muslims settled into Northern Africa. It explains everything really
It really does but people tend to overlook it and focus on slavery/mixing when discussing the origins of modern day North Africans.
Anyway's back to the term "Moor", again it predates Muslims. The Greeks called the Moors, Mauri which means dark-skinned or black, the word "Moor" is a derivative of this. The Romans called the land Mauritania which means "Land of the blacks".
@KidStranglehold so what happened to the displaced Europeans in NA/ where are they?
What do you mean displaced European population in North Africa? I said Europeans and Middle Eastern(and other Muslim renegades) displaced the indigenous Berber population of North Africa. Not the other way around. That's really the origins of modern day North Africans a result of European females and and African males. You can see there are some slight mixtures in the population. But it depends on which part of North Africa. Not even Northwest Africa alone is monolithic in origins or looks. I'll give you an example:
On average a Northwest African looks like this, in the upper part:
In middle Northwest Africa, most appear like this:
More to the South Northwest Africans appear like this:
Like I said foreign migrates mostly stayed in the coastal part(and pushed the indignous Berbers south), but overall you can still see African genetic influence in them all..
But since you @Poitier I believe specifically asked where the European descendants in North Africa are. If we're talking about slaves. Some of the more recent Berber groups like the Kabyle descend from European foreigners mainly from the Balkans. Just look at their clothing alone.
Kabyle:
Balkans:
They retained the traditions of their ancestors. Remember Berbers are NOT one homogeneous group. The only thing they share in common is the Berber language. However thats not how the original Berbers would have dressed, but more importantly there were still a significant number of black Kabyles around that time of the 19th century.
890 –“The Kabyles or Kabaily of Algerian and Tunisian territories…besides tillage, work the mines contained in their mountains…They live in huts made of branches of trees and covered with clay which resemble the Magalia of the old Numidians…They are of middle stature, their complexion brown and sometimes nearly black.” Written in The Encyclopedia Britannica: Dictionary of Arts, Sciences and General Literature Henry G. Allen Company p. 261 Volume I 1890.
The white Kabyles are the more recent ones. Also you have to remember that whites were still being enslaved even in the 19th century. Believe someone posted this?
So one can definitely see that the white kabyles are recent.
This is why @Van Taak will have to show us lighter toned Berbers prior to the 14/15th century. Berbers are the ones that determined this debate. Most people overlook them in Moorish debates, but they are the determining factor.
Kabyle:
Balkans:
They retained the traditions of their ancestors. Remember Berbers are NOT one homogeneous group. The only thing they share in common is the Berber language. However thats not how the original Berbers would have dressed, but more importantly there were still a significant number of black Kabyles around that time of the 19th century.
890 –“The Kabyles or Kabaily of Algerian and Tunisian territories…besides tillage, work the mines contained in their mountains…They live in huts made of branches of trees and covered with clay which resemble the Magalia of the old Numidians…They are of middle stature, their complexion brown and sometimes nearly black.” Written in The Encyclopedia Britannica: Dictionary of Arts, Sciences and General Literature Henry G. Allen Company p. 261 Volume I 1890.
The white Kabyles are the more recent ones. Also you have to remember that whites were still being enslaved even in the 19th century. Believe someone posted this?
So one can definitely see that the white kabyles are recent.
This is why @Van Taak will have to show us lighter toned Berbers prior to the 14/15th century. Berbers are the ones that determined this debate. Most people overlook them in Moorish debates, but they are the determining factor.
observe
Banned
The Trans Sahara trade did involve blacks,,all the enslaven were taking from the sub Sahara..and not North Africa..
To be honest I don't know why we put the Moors on such a pedestal, a great deal of the blacks in Moorish society were slaves. If anything the Siddis of Mughal India should be stanned way tougher than the Moors since the real influence was either wielded by Berbers or Arabs in al-Andalus whereas my Habshi nikkaz was uniting and puttin opponents on they asses by land and sea. Running they own territories and coasts n shyt, lettin them Hindus breathe n shyt cuz Mughals had to fall back. Moors wasn't fukkin with my Siddi nikkaz nann day. 
I'm all for big upping black people but we gotta be honest about Moorish society, it was very much a slave holding society and yes they had plantations also, the agricultural industry was major in al-Andalus. Keep big upping them sand cacs tho...
I'm all for big upping black people but we gotta be honest about Moorish society, it was very much a slave holding society and yes they had plantations also, the agricultural industry was major in al-Andalus. Keep big upping them sand cacs tho...
observe
Banned
It's like this..the moors were black but they didn't rule Europe like people say..they had high positions and were under the Arabs..
So when people say moors ruled Europe ..they're referring to the Arabs cuz they think moors = Arabs..so they're right and they're wrong..
When we say moors ruled Europe,,we are referring to black Africans ruling Europe,,yes we know blacks are moors but they didn't rule Europe..
It's a lot of mixed up shyt..but if you take both views you'll come to the truth
So when people say moors ruled Europe ..they're referring to the Arabs cuz they think moors = Arabs..so they're right and they're wrong..
When we say moors ruled Europe,,we are referring to black Africans ruling Europe,,yes we know blacks are moors but they didn't rule Europe..
It's a lot of mixed up shyt..but if you take both views you'll come to the truth
observe
Banned
To be honest I don't know why we put the Moors on such a pedestal, a great deal of the blacks in Moorish society were slaves. If anything the Siddis of Mughal India should be stanned way tougher than the Moors since the real influence was either wielded by Berbers or Arabs in al-Andalus whereas my Habshi nikkaz was uniting and puttin opponents on they asses by land and sea. Moors wasn't fukkin with my Siddi nikkaz nann day.
I'm all for big upping black people but we gotta be honest about Moorish society, it was very much a slave holding society and yes they had plantations also, the agricultural industry was major in al-Andalus. Keep big upping them sand cacs tho...
Yeah those were slaves who became militant..but if you look at moor warfare they brought rifle like devices into Spain called fire sticks,,that's how they were gaining wins..then later on Europe upgraded the idea and came up with rifles..that's how they got the moors,.but the moors came in with these pipes filled with gun powder that would shoot foreign objects
Incorrect. And I don't why people keep mentioning this myth. I was even about to tell Van Taak this when if he bought this up. Again its a myth that blacks were the prime slaves in the trans Sahara trade. Like I said many times the slaves in the Trans Sahara slave trade were mostly Europeans from Central or Southeast Europe or sometimes Southern Europe. The black slaves at the time were a minority and only went to the Middle East. But those black slaves were from non Muslim areas of East Africa.
There is no evidence the more westerly Sahelian kingdoms (Ghana, Mali and Songhai) relied on any trans-Saharan slave trading.
The Sahelian and Savannah kingdoms are falsely associated with slave-trading across the Sahara. Even when, fundamentally, they didn't need to slave trade. They relied mostly on gold, salt, ivory and controlling the flow of goods across the Sahara. And also most of the people of the Sahel were Muslims and Islam forbids Muslims enslaving other Muslims.
Black slaves only came later very later...Mind you.
The Middle Ages was clearly the age of the most common slaves of the previous Greco-Roman ecumenon, from central and eastern Europe, from where we get the term slave. Then: "Deprived of most of their sources of white slaves, the Ottomans turned more and more to Africa, which in the course of the nineteenth century came to provide the overwhelming majority of slaves used in Muslim countries from Morocco to Asia” (Lewis, 1990, Race and Slavery in the Middle East, p. 12)
Bathily and Meillassoux (1988) summarize:
"Except for the Zandj (black slaves) from lower Iraq, no large body of blacks historically linked to the trans-Saharan slave trade existed anywhere in the Arab world ... The high costs of slaves, because of the risks inherent in the desert crossing, which would have not permitted such a massive exodus ... In this connection, it is significant that in the Arabic iconography of the period, the slave merchant was often depicted as a man with a hole in his purse. Until the Crusades the Muslim world drew its slaves from two main sources: Eastern and Central Europe (Slavs) and Turkestan. The Sudan only came third. "Africa from the seventh to the eleventh century
Even if there blacks were the ones who were mostly enslaved, it still wont help either yours or Van Taaks claims/arguments. Again one only has to look at their Y-DNA. The blacks that would have been enslaved would have carried E1b1a since they would have been taken from areas where that linage is predominate, but that's not the case because most Berber's today carry high frequencies of E-M81(which is not from the area of E1b1a carriers)which shows that their male ancestors were actually male African slavers themselves and not the other way around. While their mtDNA shows their ancestors were female European slaves. Genetics correlates with historical events. Just like how some African Americans paternal ancestry is that of a European slave master and their mtDNA a African slave women.
To be honest I don't know why we put the Moors on such a pedestal, a great deal of the blacks in Moorish society were slaves. If anything the Siddis of Mughal India should be stanned way tougher than the Moors since the real influence was either wielded by Berbers or Arabs in al-Andalus whereas my Habshi nikkaz was uniting and puttin opponents on they asses by land and sea. Running they own territories and coasts n shyt, lettin them Hindus breathe n shyt cuz Mughals had to fall back. Moors wasn't fukkin with my Siddi nikkaz nann day.
I'm all for big upping black people but we gotta be honest about Moorish society, it was very much a slave holding society and yes they had plantations also, the agricultural industry was major in al-Andalus. Keep big upping them sand cacs tho...
Do you have source for such a claim?
observe
Banned
I don't know what you're talking about Europeans being slaves..the Arab slave trade involved black Africans..there is enough evidence on the net to support it..it's still going on..Arabs are still illegally talking slaves from the sub Sahara till this day..it's not a myth