European vs North American description of the Moors
- Thread starter Deluuxe
- Start date
In Islamic society they used slaves for different things, they obviously considered Africans the best soldiers so its why you had those that were militant. But they did all kinds of shyt within Moorish society, which in itself was nothing more than an extension of the greater Islamic world of that time. Think of it this way, the Moorish rulers had access to those fire sticks because China was a part of the extensive trade network that was dominated by the Arab/Muslim world. So naturally, in Muslim China there were Black slaves so it was all within the ebb and flow of a huge market dominated by the Islamic world in particular. The Moors fell off for a lot of reasons not just guns, it had its high point and then the leadership betrayed the very liberal nature of Moorish society in favor of stricter interpretation of sharia law. So the state gradually eroded and finally died off completely.
Besides, it was really the beginning of the shift from Eastern influence to Western influence by the end of the Moors. In fact, you can thank the Moors in particular for planting the seeds of the Atlantic slave trade cuz the same year Grenada fell to the Spanish crown and the Moors were eliminated Columbus went and took Hispaniola, the leftover slaves of al-Andalus were sent to Hispaniola and they sent for more slaves. So begins several hundred years of Western fukkery.
Did you even try to take anything I posted into consideration? Even the sources? I'm not talking about the Arab slave trade that involved East Africans. That's another topic. I'm talking about the Trans Sahara Slave trade which you mentioned. The TSS and Arab slave trade are both two very different subjects. Like I said Europeans were the primary slaves taken in the Trans Sahara slave trade, even up to the 19th century. The sources I posted state that, they also stated that black slaves came later during the 19th century which was long after the Moors. But you have to explain away African E-M81 which is predominate in North African males which obviously shows that the slave owners were NOT Arabs or any non Africans but black Africans themselves. To reiterate:
Before I answer that(since I have to look for and scan pages out of a book
), let me ask you a question. What exactly makes you think that Black people were the rulers of Moorish society at any point in time?Before I answer that(since I have to look for and scan pages out of a book
"Moor" is a loose word. The Moors(Berbers/black Africans) were people lead by Arabs who invaded southern Europe. So technically blacks were not rulers of Moorish society until later. But the original Moors were Black Berber invaders along with a minority of Western Sudanese soldiers.
I really want you all to debate this because this is what Eurocentrist and even some blacks still deny when IMO its obvious that Blacks were the rulers in Spain
Well you have to keep in mind that the term "Moor" predates Muslims. It was actually used by the Romans to describe blacks. Even in the medieval times the word still was meant to describe blacks of Africa. It wasn't until after the period of the Almoravid's that the word Moor was used to describe Muslim's in general. That's the period where we really start to see non-black Berbers. This is why you have to show me non-black Berbers prior to the 14th/15th century to prove your argument credible about there always being lighter toned Berbers.
As for mixing the irony is that there really wasn't mixing; or its just that people put too much emphasize's on it in discussion like this. What most people do not know is that the area of Northwest Africa(Morocco/Algeria) was sparsely populated during the early period of the Moors. People also forget that converted European Muslims from Europe were expelled and flooded the coastal part of Northern Africa. Remember the term Moor soon meant all Muslim's in general. Non black Moors soon outnumbered the original black Moors.
To give you an example Christian renegades (Spanish, Italian, French, Albanian, etc. who would eventually convert to Islam) and the medieval slave trade had a major impact on places like Tlemcen, Oran, Bejaia (Bougie - Kabyle central) and especially Alger. Jacques Heers argues in "Les barbaresques" (2001, pg 227) at the time of Turkish rule in Algeria, something like 50% of the population in the capital was composed of European-Christian slaves (even Italian slaves by the seventeenth century). Saqalibas from the Balkans were also well represented. Besides, Arab excursions displaced many of the ancestral populations of the Maghreb between the 12th-15th centuries.
So again it really wasn't mixing but a large population from Europe displacing an already smaller population in an already sparsely populated area. The Berber's were also spread out. Which is also why they were displaced. You have to understand that the original Berbers did not really live on the coastal part of North Africa but in the Sahara and near the Senegal river. They were nomadic people for the most part. The origins of modern day lighter skinned North Africans is not all due to mixing but also European migrates after post-Moorish Iberia who easily displaced a population. Much similar to how Bantu migrates displaced the very small Khoisan population of South Africa.
But...Earlier in this thread I read some post of yours trying to de-credit the mixture of nonsense. You're going to have to explain away why multiple genetic studies show that modern day North Africans are a result of European female in their mtDNA(slavery) and African male in their Y-DNA(slave master). Modern day North African males carry African E-M81 around 80% which shows significant African ancestry mind you:
And then you have their admixture which is 40%+
You're going to have to explain these things.
great post. and for @Van Taak benefit, he should know that E-M81 is most highly concentrated in Somalian males. the only difference between the East Africans and North Africans genetically is in the mtDNA. while East African carry predominantly African L mtDNA, the North African carry the european mtDNA.
and here is Somalian reporter Rageh Omaar.
well here are his kids.
his wife is obviously a European woman. and as you can see his kids look 100% arab/white north african.
this is what happened in North Africa when the Moors went into Europe and brought white women back as sex slaves. they fukked them till they changed the entire complexion of the region.
observe
Banned
Before I answer that(since I have to look for and scan pages out of a book
I know they were under the caliphate regime...they held high positions ..I think they ruled for a few years..not enough info in Afrocentric sources,,I think it would be wise to look at Spanish history books from their perspective..
great post. and for @Van Taak benefit, he should know that E-M81 is most highly concentrated in Somalian males. the only difference between the East Africans and North Africans genetically is in the mtDNA. while East African carry predominantly African L mtDNA, the North African carry the european mtDNA.
and here is Somalian reporter Rageh Omaar.looks like your typical east african.
well here are his kids.
his wife is obviously a European woman. and as you can see his kids look 100% arab/white north african.
this is what happened in North Africa when the Moors went into Europe and brought white women back as sex slaves. they fukked them till they changed the entire complexion of the region.
Somali males do not carry high rates of E-M81. E-M81 is a Berber signature clade. Somalis carry high rates of E-V32 not E-M81:
Im Kemet Rocky & I like penis
googling gay porn :ahh:
shyts interesting..
Do you think these were willing soldiers?
Mind you, that same point you're making about the looseness of the term Moor can also be applied to berber as it was a word Arabs used a lot. Black Berbers actually is in reference to Somalis if your thinkin in those times, I'm not saying there couldn't be darker toned Berbers but in general they were different from Black Africans and took liberties in making them slaves for their military, harem, or castrate them so they can cover their finances or some shyt. When you really think about it, we've been celebrating a slave society only because its nature was so radically different from the slave society of the Americas. Make no mistake, these "Black" Berbers are the same ones that served a death blow to the Empire of Ghana and exploited their once vast gold resources. Them and other invaders in the Maghrib altered and even killed off a lot of old African customs much like the Europeans did.
Why should anyone keep gettin it twisted? Moors was a sand cac influenced society that kept Black Africans in bondage. I'm not sayin al-Andalus wasn't a brilliant society or that Blacks didn't hold important positions within Moorish society. But it was what it was.
Last edited:
Somali males do not carry high rates of E-M81. E-M81 is a Berber signature clade. Somalis carry high rates of E-V32 not E-M81:
my bad. but you know what i mean. the e1b1b haplogroup is shared in both east and north africa. its just the mtDNA thats different.
I think their perspective is quite evident. They have black males with crowns on their coat of arms.
That's like the slaves making a representation of Americas oppression being a white man. If it was a white man & black people put other black people to illustrate the oppression wouldn't that be kinda retarded? Its common sense.
observe
Banned
Did you even try to take anything I posted into consideration? Even the sources? I'm not talking about the Arab slave trade that involved East Africans. That's another topic. I'm talking about the Trans Sahara Slave trade which you mentioned. The TSS and Arab slave trade are both two very different subjects. Like I said Europeans were the primary slaves taken in the Trans Sahara slave trade, even up to the 19th century. The sources I posted state that, they also stated that black slaves came later during the 19th century which was long after the Moors. But you have to explain away African E-M81 which is predominate in North African males which obviously shows that the slave owners were NOT Arabs or any non Africans but black Africans themselves. To reiterate:
19th century...the Trans Sahara slave trade has been happening since about 7th century..if I'm mistaken..
observe
Banned
I think their perspective is quite evident. They have black males with crowns on their coat of arms.
That's like the slaves making a representation of Americas oppression being a white man. If it was a white man & black people put other black people to illustrate the oppression wouldn't that be kinda retarded? Its common sense.
Coat of arms..show me a painting with a black male on the throne