Was Slavery and the Oppression of Blacks revenge for The Moors?

[Mowgli]

Imhotep was from the priestly class and was affluent in the 4th Dynasty during 2700 BC to 2600.Way before 1700s BC.

Hebrews are believed to be called the Haibru who were Shepard Nomads who the Egyptians knew of, since they always bordered them. Some of them were used as mercenaries and used to labor on some farms. But they are believed to have been in the period of 17th Dynasty or maybe even the 19th Dynasty.

The whole Hebrew and Isarlite stuff is bogus any way, because history doesn't agree with the Bible in any kind of events that occurred in the course of time,

It was actually around the 13th dynasty because they came down before the hyksos, another group of Shepard herders who were the ones that took over the Egyptian dynasties until the africans booted them outta there and took back their throne

 

[J-Nice]

Okay, I think it's time to break this down so nothing is left in translation.

Moors are an African people period, whether light or black. When we're talking about the Moors, we have to specify the time period. Greco-Roman era Moors were littoral North Africans from Tunisia westward.

Early Islamic Moors were Northern Algerians and Moroccans. Mid Islamic Moors expanded to include western Saharans. For Christian Europe in the early and mid Islamic eras, Moors were any Muslims included in the invasion, conquest, and occupation of Al ~Andalus (Moorish Spain) including any Iberian converts to Islam.

For Christian Europe, on many occasion any African regardless of religion was considered a Moor (black). In modern times, the term Moor is more associated with Mauritanians, Moroccans, and other western Saharans.

Like I said, it really comes down to the era of the Moors in question. But the term itself was used to describe African people first and foremost (light or black makes no difference). But we need to also understand that this term was not what they used to describe themselves. It was a term applied to them by Europeans. External identification is one thing while self defined is another.

 

[Sensei]

I meant amenhotep

Imma just say it again history does not agree with the Bible , I think its a bit unscholarly to justify history with the Bibles accounts.

 

[Mowgli]

Imma just say it again history does not agree with the Bible , I think its a bit unscholarly to justify history with the Bibles accounts.

I'm not going off the bible

 

[Sensei]

It was actually around the 13th dynasty because they came down before the hyksos, another group of Shepard herders who were the ones that took over the Egyptian dynasties until the africans booted them outta there and took back their throne

The Haiburu were never a distinct people either it was a random title to people who roamed the desert.Most scholars agree if the Hebrews existed it would be the 17th or 19th Dynasty,Hyksos and Haburus could very well be the same people. Since no one really knows where the Hyksos originated from.

I'm not going off the bible

Then I don't get the point about the Hebrews, Moors and all the other shyt,all that stuff has nothing to do with nikkas.

I think alot of you are reading too much propaganda on the internet.

 

[fscballin]

No.

PS: Stop derailing this thread with your Israelite nonsense.

stop spreading false knowledge, the moors were black muslims who came from "people of the book"


just stop lying or spreading false info

 

[Mowgli]

The Haiburu were never a distinct people either it was a random title to people who roamed the desert.Most scholars agree if the Hebrews existed it would be the 17th or 19th Dynasty,Hyksos and Haburus could very well be the same people. Since no one really knows where the Hyksos originated from.


Then I don't get the point about the Hebrews, Moors and all the other shyt,all that stuff has nothing to do with nikkas.

I think alot of you are reading too much propaganda on the internet.

Please don't use the n word

It has alot to do with black people if it's taking place in africa. Also that wasn't a convo I was having with you. History of Hebrews can be found outside the bible and I was talking to another poster regarding the Hebrews role in working with western asians against african people. You chimed in but that convo doesn't really hinder on You getting it.

 

[fscballin]

I'm talking before that.

Hebrews came into africa from western asia in the 1700s bc. At that time they were escaping famine, needing shelter and were welcomed by africans. I dont even think they were technically hebrews when they got to africa but by the time they got the boot they were....

Invaders touched down in the 1600s from Western asia. Being familiar with these people the Hebrews worked with them against africans transferring the dynasty of egypt to western asians.

It took centuries for the africans to get them out of there which ultimately led to the greatest african dynasties with imenhotep and pals giving them relative peace.

I believe the africans that taught these groups how to be Hebrews and the people who got booted out were two different people phenotypically but as time went on they all got lumped together.

the hyksos were the hebrew israelites and according to Egyptian sources, they left africa and established Jerusalem. They ruled in Egypt with the blessing of the Holy One whom they were worshipped, and the Egyptians say they were expelled because of the plagues they caused in the country.

 

[fscballin]

The whole Hebrew and Isarlite stuff is bogus any way, because history doesn't agree with the Bible in any kind of events that occurred in the course of time,

The writings of Manetho, Tacitus, Josephus and others prove your statement to be 100% FALSE

 

[J-Nice]

Since this thread stopped being about Moors, I'll leave this book title here.

If you're interested in the PDF, just shoot me a pm. Deuces.

 

[fscballin]

What is this dude talking about the Moors were Jews, (I know you really mean Israelites), but where did that come from? And where is your proof or some more of evidence supporting your claim?

Leo Africanus

 

[Mowgli]

the hyksos were the hebrew israelites and according to Egyptian sources, they left africa and established Jerusalem. They ruled in Egypt with the blessing of the Holy One whom they were worshipped, and the Egyptians say they were expelled because of the plagues they caused in the country.

They were expelled because they worked with other west asians to dispose african leadership. The bible doesn't really completely jive with real history.

 

[fscballin]

They were expelled because they worked with other west asians to dispose african leadership. The bible doesn't really completely jive with real history.

Manetho states "during the reign of Tutimaos a blast of God smote us, and unexpectedly from the regions of the East, invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land. By main force they easily seized it without striking a blow; and having overpowered the rulers of the land they then burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the gods, and treated all the natives with a cruel hostility, massacring some and leading into slavery the wives and children of others

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Yo my dude, like WTF!???? You're randomly throwing in arguments I NEVER even bought up...

The Region of North Africa wasn't even conquered by Europeans until 18th Century around the time Napolean invaded Egypt and other areas.

Who the f*ck mentioned anything about Europeans conquering North Africa??? Again you're randomly throwing in sh*t.

The Mali did not clash with the Portuguese Empire nor did any Berber Kingdom or any Arab-Berber kingdom of North Africa.

A simple Google search would show you this...

The first unfamiliar threat to Mali came not from the jungles or even the desert but the sea. The Portuguese arrived on the Senegambian coast in 1444,[61] and they were not coming in peace. Using caravels to launch slave raids on coastal inhabitants,[62] the Malian vassal territories were caught off guard by both vessels and the white skins within them. However, the Mali Empire countered the Portuguese raids with shallow-draught watercraft. The Mandekalu inflicted a series of defeats against the Portuguese due to the former’s expert use of poison arrows. The defeats forced Portugal’s king to dispatch his courtier Diogo Gomes in 1456 to secure peace. The effort was a success by 1462, and trade became Portugal’s focus along the Senegambia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_Mali_Empire#The_Portuguese

And like I said there were no true powerful Berber kingdom's besides the Almoravids. Like said Arabs and Berbers were under the thumb of Western Sudanic kingdoms like Ghana, Mali and Songhai. Since those Western Sudanic kingdoms CONTROLLED the Saharan trade, which the Berbers and Arabs did not.

Here's another good example:

the authority of the sultan of Kanim extended over Kawar and Fazzan, and the Berbers were slaves of the king of Kanim. He confirmed that during period of strength Kanim expanded northward into the Sahara, rather than southward.

P. 43 According to Ibn Sa’id,

Berbers did NOT get their way in the Sahara.

There were a great many slaves transported into Africa ever since the Roman times, people forgot when places get colonized there is massive migration from the colonizers countries and territories. This was the case with Roman provinces in North Africa.

A Trans Sahara Trade during the Roman period is myth that is no longer accepted by historians.

The slave economy was big in all places in Africa thats including Moors, although slavery was different from that of Chattel European slavery ,it was very much widespread in West Africa. Empires like the Ghanaian Empire were definitely selling slaves towards Vandals and other people this is how some black slaves ended up in ancient Roman Gladiator Games. TransSaharan Trade biggest trade commodities were salt,gold,and slaves.

Do you even have proof that the Ghana Empire traded slaves to the Vandals. You guys keep bringing up slavery. Okay? Almost every state in history was involved in slavery, but the point is "slaves" were the blowest commodities of exportation from those Sudanic kingdoms like Ghana and Mali. They mostly exported Gold and salt. Which is why we know this:

"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 Eleventh Century, UNESCO, 1988

For the millionth time, there was NEVER any large volume of black slaves exported from the Saharan trade; until later around the 19th century, which was AFTER the Moors. Stop bringing up tired arguments.

You guys may not be aware that many Arabs and Semitic Middle Easterners came into North Africa during the time periods of Islamic caliphates. Wars like Char Bouba didn't involve European powers or anything of the sort.

Who the hell dismissed such things?????

1)Western Sudanese and North Africans both were called Moors by Europeans at time but they are definitely not the same.

Um...Yeah they were.

Here's how the Vikings described the North African Moors:

"They attacked Nekur off the coast Morocco. There was fierce fighting with the Moors but in the end the Vikings were victorious, and many of the "Blue-men," as they called Moors, were ultimately carried off prisoners to Ireland, where we hear of their fate the Fragments of Irish Annals."

- Cambridge Medieval History

But more importantly, "With the exception of the bedouins, who were not part of the permanent military organization of the state, the Fatimid army was largely an infantry force composed of blacks. (Nasir-i Khusrau included the Masamida among the blacks)." - Yaacov Lev, "State and Society in Fatimid Egypt", 1987, pp 94

The "Masamida" were the MAIN "North African" Berber group of the Moors(they were literally the Moors), they were BLACK just as my source suggest:

Fatimid infantry included "sudani or 'black' African and even Masmuda Berbers from the western Sahara ..." - See David Nicholle'sThe Third Crusade 1191: Richard the Lionheart, Saladin and the Struggle for ... - David Nicolle - Google Books

Fatimid infantry consisted of "20,000 Moroccans (Masmudi Berbers), 30,000 Sudanese, 10,000 'easterners..." - Terrence Wise, The Wars of the Crusades, 1096-1291, 1974, pp 52

Ha!

2)if the Western Sudanese were part of the Berber realm how was Western Sudanic kingdom not conquered.

What are you talking about???

3)But slaves were exported in the Transaharan trade. You had slaves of all kinds Berber slaves came into the Sahel , and West Africans made their way to North Africa.

No one is dismissing this. What I am saying is that there is no evidence to suggest there were large volumes of slaves being exported from the Sahel until later periods.

4)E-M81 does not correspond to a Arabic origin neither a European origin, its completely indigenous to North Africa.

No sh*t? Who said I was arguing that??? I was arguing the opposite. And E-M81 has ROOTS in East Africa like the Berber language and people do. So the people carrying that clade would have been no different from "black Africans".

5)Not true slavery was big in West African kingdoms. I think it was only Ghana who possessed the abundance in Gold not the Malu and Songhai empire.

Evidence?

Oh really what were Moors called by Europeans then? The Europeans did not make the distinction between Arabs and Moors.

Simple research would tell you prior to the 14th/15th century that Moors soley meant people with "black skin". Arabs were not included as Moors until later times.

Despite the expressions of horror at the invasion, what is perhaps surprising is that the chronicler’s attitude to the Moors is generally even handed. Musa and one or two others are heavily criticised, but others are praised for bringing peace to the land. Perhaps this is because the chronicler does not evaluate the leaders in religious terms, but according to their contribution to political life. Nor does he question their legitimacy as governors. The chronicler also refrains from talking about the invaders’ religion, and does not call them Muslims, or infidels or pagans; rather he refers to them in ethnic terms: Arabs (Arabes), Moors (Mauri), Saracens (Saraceni).

http://www.spainthenandnow.com/spanish-history/8th-c-al-andalus-invasion/default_134.aspx

Saracens was a general Muslim term and sometimes called Saracens. Moor was exclusive to BLACKS. The word "Moor" PREDATES Muslims and was meant to just mean the black people of Africa by the Romans. Heck we already know there were internal struggles between the Berbers(Moors) and various other Arab/Syrian/Spanish Muslim. So how the hell wasn't there a distinction.

Research try it.

 

[TNC]

subs for later