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

[WhodatWhoadi]

Because telling the truth here will get you ganged up on

lol...Aint the moors, muslims of arab and berber orgin (north african)

most of the Berber people live in Northern African countries such as Algeria and Morocco; a large Berber population is also found in Tunisia,[6] Libya, Mauritania, Mali and Niger, as well as large migrant communities living in France, Turkey and other countries of Europe.[7][8]

The Berber identity is usually wider than language and ethnicity, and encompasses the entire history and geography of North Africa. Berbers are not an entirely homogeneous ethnicity and they encompass a range of phenotypes, societies and ancestries. The unifying forces for the Berber people may be their shared language, belonging to the Berber homeland, or a collective identification with the Berber heritage and history.
]

 

[WhodatWhoadi]

A few is three. I think you need to do more research. Arabs were taking a large number of african women as concubines and having children with them that they then had working for their interests. Arabs were buying millions of slaves, having them guard their trade outposts in Africa, serving them domestically and putting them in their armies for battle. A few, is wrong. What they did though, in the service of arabs is all real.

 

[KOohbt]

Why is it when ever black folks talk about moors. White folks come out the woodwork. Like y'all not Arab or black you have nothing to do with them either way.

 

[Sensei]

Wheres your proof???


That was because those East Indians had the same dark skin(sometimes darker) than Africans on the continent. But that doesn't dismiss what the word Moors mean, which was used exclusively for dark skinned Africans on the CONTINENT by Greeks/Romans. Who else did the Romans/Greeks mean by Moors??



And I said the word MOOR PREDATES Muslims in general. Show me proof that the label Moor is inaccurate for black Africans. You and @Sensei haven't posted squat to back up your cases. Saying that the word does not even correlate with African(to even dismiss black for that matter) is retarded. The word "Moor" comes from the Greek word Maur/mauro which not only meant black, but described the people of Mauritania(Morroco/Northern Algeria) province of Rome.

One century before the Islamic conquest of the Maghreb, Procopius' History 3.13.29 reports:


The first Moors named by the Greeks/Romans were North African Imazighen, aka "Berbers," notably darker than
the north Mediterraneans...

But heres where it gets WORSE for you and @Sensei !!!!!

Moor:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Moor&searchmode=none

Sorry.


@isthisreallife

There isn't even any proof of the Moors even importing large volumes of slaves from Africa, but we do know about them importing large amounts of European female slaves. Which had an impact on their DNA.

But more importantly after the Moors lost and were kicked out of Iberia, how can they help Europeans enslave Africans when they too were enslaved by the Europeans???? After they were conquered...

Black slaves have been coming from Africa ever since the Roman times.

Perfect account of black slaves imported from Africa.

http://books.google.com/books?id=a1... imported into al andalus from africa&f=false


http://books.google.com/books?id=fd...age&q=slaves imported into al andalus&f=false

And your wrong the Name don't correlate with meaning Africa even from your own post you stated that Moor originally came from the word Mauri which was used to denote people of the Roman province of Maurentania. The equivalent word for black at in the Roman period was Ethiopian not Moor.

Who the hell said the Ummayyyads were black!???? You're throwing in things no one said.

The Ummayyads were a Caliphate of different diverse Muslims mainly Western Asians(Arabs), but also blacks(Berber/Moors) from the Maghreb.

No one bought of the Ummayyads, this thread is about the Moors specifically. The Moors who predates the Ummayyads and Muslims.

its funny you want to make a distinction of Moors from the Ummayads ,when you dared to include the Mali Empire as Moors. And you must select your statements carefully because not all Berbers were black especially during the period of Islam's introduction into Africa.

 

[WheresWallace]

The moors were muslims and muslims in that time were either arabs or africans who converted to Islam, all @Sensei is saying is that it's stupid to categorize the moors as exclusively black. You don't even need a book to understand something that simple, it's common sense.

The only reason people say the Moors were Muslim (or mixed groups of ethnicities) is the same reason they say the Pyramids in Egypt were built by anybody EXCEPT Africans...smh...

Your comment doesn't make sense because it is the mis-information that portrayed the Moors to be Muslim even though journals of explorers, artifacts, and all types of ancient documents clearly show that the Moors were black. Not only that...it is shown in multiple languages that the word Moor and Black were basically synonymous. Why is that not the case with the word Muslim.

What other language interchanges the word Moor with Muslim?
Multipl language interchange the word Moor (or its root word) with Black.

 

[WheresWallace]

Maybe that's why those Spanish señoritas tend to have dat ass and that body african sisters are wrk known for. They seem to have more booty than the average cac.

I don't know if you kow this but there are a bunch of hybrid races like that. The Italians (sicilian) have black blood in them. Puerto Rican's are basically bi-racials, ect.

That's why you have some of those characteristics in them. THat's also why they used to be treated un-fairly also because they weren't considered white. Matter of fact, the Jews were also considered a mulatto race and that's part of the reason they were discriminated against also. The only cacs that were considered to be true cacs were the WASPs (White Anglo Saxon Protestant).

 

[GetInTheTruck]

The only reason people say the Moors were Muslim (or mixed groups of ethnicities) is the same reason they say the Pyramids in Egypt were built by anybody EXCEPT Africans...smh...

Your comment doesn't make sense because it is the mis-information that portrayed the Moors to be Muslim even though journals of explorers, artifacts, and all types of ancient documents clearly show that the Moors were black. Not only that...it is shown in multiple languages that the word Moor and Black were basically synonymous. Why is that not the case with the word Muslim.

What other language interchanges the word Moor with Muslim?
Multipl language interchange the word Moor (or its root word) with Black.

You're saying nothing with this post.

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

The only reason people say the Moors were Muslim (or mixed groups of ethnicities) is the same reason they say the Pyramids in Egypt were built by anybody EXCEPT Africans...smh...

Your comment doesn't make sense because it is the mis-information that portrayed the Moors to be Muslim even though journals of explorers, artifacts, and all types of ancient documents clearly show that the Moors were black. Not only that...it is shown in multiple languages that the word Moor and Black were basically synonymous. Why is that not the case with the word Muslim.

What other language interchanges the word Moor with Muslim?
Multipl language interchange the word Moor (or its root word) with Black.

The Moors were muslim tho

 

[Bawon Samedi]

@Sensei

Your links from books on slave trade don't even touch base on Roman period like you suggested but Medieval period, but more importantly you should read the things you link:

It is possible that some black slaves were among them, but few others are likely to have been brought there for other parts of Islam

http://books.google.com/books?id=fd...age&q=slaves imported into al andalus&f=false

The author is not even sure if blacks slaves were even imported to Iberia in large numbers nor does he/she give any significant numbers, but more importantly in the link they talk about white slaves.

 

[Sensei]

@Sensei

Your links from books on slave trade don't even touch base on Roman period like you suggested but Medieval period, but more importantly you should read the things you link:

nikka you´re reaching, the Moors were in Europe during the Medieval period so I don´t see your point.You said none of the slaves in Europe were black and you also said the Moors didn´t have black slaves.

Indeed there were black slaves imported to Europe during Roman times but I´m not even going to talk about that now.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

nikka you´re reaching, the Moors were in Europe during the Medieval period so I don´t see your point.You said none of the slaves in Europe were black and you also said the Moors didn´t have black slaves.

No you're the who's been reaching this ENTIRE thread; even going as far as lying and trolling. No one said there were no black slaves in Europe during the Medieval period, I said they were insignificant compared to white slaves for reasons ALREADY STATED.

You stated this:
Perfect account of black slaves imported from Africa.

Yet neither authors in both links give no detailed numbers or anything, but the author in the second link makes it clear that is was only a "possibility" that black slaves were among white slaves in Iberia. You still have not proven that large volumes of slaves were imported into Iberia. We already know why:

"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

Indeed there were black slaves imported to Europe during Roman times but I´m not even going to talk about that now.

Yet you have posted single squat of evidence to support this. I already told you the blacks in Rome were due to CONQUEST like EVERY OTHER non-Roman ethnic group in the Roman empire dum dum.

Of course your not going to talk about it now, because you can't.

 

[KOohbt]

These cacs never quit. Lmao. You weren't the moors nikka they were black. Get over it.

 

[The D-List Vet]

I need to do more research on this. Very interesting they never covered this in history class

why would they teach us about our history?

 

[Bawon Samedi]

This @Sensei can't give me a detailed number of black slaves imported to Europe by Moors/Arabs during the medieval period, but I sure as hell can give you detailed numbers of white slaves imported to Africa by people who would be considered the "post-Moors".

COLUMBUS, Ohio – A new study suggests that a million or more European Christians were enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780 – a far greater number than had ever been estimated before.

In a new book, Robert Davis, professor of history at Ohio State University, developed a unique methodology to calculate the number of white Christians who were enslaved along Africa’s Barbary Coast, arriving at much higher slave population estimates than any previous studies had found.

Most other accounts of slavery along the Barbary coast didn’t try to estimate the number of slaves, or only looked at the number of slaves in particular cities, Davis said.
Most previously estimated slave counts have thus tended to be in the thousands, or at most in the tens of thousands. Davis, by contrast, has calculated that between 1 million and 1.25 million European Christians were captured and forced to work in North Africa from the 16th to 18th centuries.

Davis’s new estimates appear in the book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 (Palgrave Macmillan).

“Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland.”

“Much of what has been written gives the impression that there were not many slaves and minimizes the impact that slavery had on Europe,” Davis said. “Most accounts only look at slavery in one place, or only for a short period of time. But when you take a broader, longer view, the massive scope of this slavery and its powerful impact become clear.”

Davis said it is useful to compare this Mediterranean slavery to the Atlantic slave trade that brought black Africans to the Americas. Over the course of four centuries, the Atlantic slave trade was much larger – about 10 to 12 million black Africans were brought to the Americas. But from 1500 to 1650, when trans-Atlantic slaving was still in its infancy, more white Christian slaves were probably taken to Barbary than black African slaves to the Americas, according to Davis.

“One of the things that both the public and many scholars have tended to take as given is that slavery was always racial in nature – that only blacks have been slaves. But that is not true,” Davis said. “We cannot think of slavery as something that only white people did to black people.”

During the time period Davis studied, it was religion and ethnicity, as much as race, that determined who became slaves.

“Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland,” he said.

Pirates (called corsairs) from cities along the Barbary Coast in north Africa – cities such as Tunis and Algiers – would raid ships in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, as well as seaside villages to capture men, women and children. The impact of these attacks were devastating – France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. At its peak, the destruction and depopulation of some areas probably exceeded what European slavers would later inflict on the African interior.

Although hundreds of thousands of Christian slaves were taken from Mediterranean countries, Davis noted, the effects of Muslim slave raids was felt much further away: it appears, for example, that through most of the 17th century the English lost at least 400 sailors a year to the slavers.

Even Americans were not immune. For example, one American slave reported that 130 other American seamen had been enslaved by the Algerians in the Mediterranean and Atlantic just between 1785 and 1793.

Davis said the vast scope of slavery in North Africa has been ignored and minimized, in large part because it is on no one’s agenda to discuss what happened.

The enslavement of Europeans doesn’t fit the general theme of European world conquest and colonialism that is central to scholarship on the early modern era, he said. Many of the countries that were victims of slavery, such as France and Spain, would later conquer and colonize the areas of North Africa where their citizens were once held as slaves. Maybe because of this history, Western scholars have thought of the Europeans primarily as “evil colonialists” and not as the victims they sometimes were, Davis said.

Davis said another reason that Mediterranean slavery has been ignored or minimized has been that there have not been good estimates of the total number of people enslaved. People of the time – both Europeans and the Barbary Coast slave owners – did not keep detailed, trustworthy records of the number of slaves. In contrast, there are extensive records that document the number of Africans brought to the Americas as slaves.

So Davis developed a new methodology to come up with reasonable estimates of the number of slaves along the Barbary Coast. Davis found the best records available indicating how many slaves were at a particular location at a single time. He then estimated how many new slaves it would take to replace slaves as they died, escaped or were ransomed.

“The only way I could come up with hard numbers is to turn the whole problem upside down – figure out how many slaves they would have to capture to maintain a certain level,” he said. “It is not the best way to make population estimates, but it is the only way with the limited records available.”

Putting together such sources of attrition as deaths, escapes, ransomings, and conversions, Davis calculated that about one-fourth of slaves had to be replaced each year to keep the slave population stable, as it apparently was between 1580 and 1680. That meant about 8,500 new slaves had to be captured each year. Overall, this suggests nearly a million slaves would have been taken captive during this period. Using the same methodology, Davis has estimated as many as 475,000 additional slaves were taken in the previous and following centuries.

The result is that between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as 1.25 million white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast.

Davis said his research into the treatment of these slaves suggests that, for most of them, their lives were every bit as difficult as that of slaves in America.

“As far as daily living conditions, the Mediterranean slaves certainly didn’t have it better,” he said.

While African slaves did grueling labor on sugar and cotton plantations in the Americas, European Christian slaves were often worked just as hard and as lethally – in quarries, in heavy construction, and above all rowing the corsair galleys themselves.

Davis said his findings suggest that this invisible slavery of European Christians deserves more attention from scholars.

“We have lost the sense of how large enslavement could loom for those who lived around the Mediterranean and the threat they were under,” he said. “Slaves were still slaves, whether they are black or white, and whether they suffered in America or North Africa.”

Source:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/09/o...-christians-kidnapped-and-enslaved-by-muslims



Slavers:

HA!!!!!!

Show me black slaves imported by the Moors/Arabs via Sahara trade coming close to those numbers! We already know white slavery/muslim converted Europeans had a big impact on the demographic of Northwest Africa. So much that it has even influenced modern day Northwest Africans mtDNA. While modern Northwest Africans hardly have any West African/Sudanic lineages on their maternal side(showing that black slaves were hardly imported), while their Y-DNA(slave master) is predominately East African E-M81!!!

 

[Sensei]

Most people forget that the Moors themselves were enslaved by the Europeans after they were conquered. So how could they "help" Europeans in enslaving Africans. The Europeans that first found out lower West Africa were the Portuguese after they wanted to migrate more into the interior from coastal North Africa via sailing. When they did and wanted to raid for slaves, they were WHOOPED the Mali Empire(which was PASSED its prime) who WOULD NOT allow slave rading from foreigners whether it be Europeans, Moors, Arabs,etc.

This is why its ridiculous to think Moors took "black slaves" in large number. They the Moors and Arabs were under the thumb of these Sahelian kingdoms.

The Moors selling black slaves in large volume is a myth that just wont go away on here and I have debunked it many times.

No you're the who's been reaching this ENTIRE thread; even going as far as lying and trolling. No one said there were no black slaves in Europe during the Medieval period, I said they were insignificant compared to white slaves for reasons ALREADY STATED.

You stated this:
Perfect account of black slaves imported from Africa.

Yet neither authors in both links give no detailed numbers or anything, but the author in the second link makes it clear that is was only a "possibility" that black slaves were among white slaves in Iberia. You still have not proven that large volumes of slaves were imported into Iberia. We already know why:

"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



Yet you have posted single squat of evidence to support this. I already told you the blacks in Rome were due to CONQUEST like EVERY OTHER non-Roman ethnic group in the Roman empire dum dum.

Of course your not going to talk about it now, because you can't.

Listen you geek ass nikka I have given you proof among proof you clown,then you try to sidetrack the thread by saying something dumb of Black Slaves being imported to Europe during the Roman period, Are you serious? What does that have to do with the Moors when they clearly weren´t of the Roman era. I already gave evidence of the Moors importing black slaves, you guys use weak ass revisionist sites and think you stand on something solid.

These cacs never quit. Lmao. You weren't the moors nikka they were black. Get over it.

So you were the Moors ? Read history and read it from some real sources not dumb wikischolars that are feeding other mentally starved ninjas for knowledge like you.