the moors were black africans not ara...

“DANGER!!”

Level 8

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#13262 Feb 17, 2013
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
Says you, not African specialists.
<quoted text>
More garbage.
Cushitic was in Ethiopia before Semitic.
Deal with it.
There's absolutely no logic to your statement about some alleged and imaginary 'Cushitic' being here or there, or even 'Semitic' for that matter.

You DON'T have any actual proof and neither does that silly little Ethiopian blog sheet that you 'think' will take the place of actual proof.

Just because it says it's so doesn't actually make it so, or didn't you know!?

I've been talking about REAL Peoples that have been tracked anthropologically, and the only thing with which YOU can come up to counter this is some alleged and misconstrued nonsense about linguistics that don't mean a dámned thing with out the corresponding convergence of the right Peoples at the right time, and YOU just don't have that.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#13263 Feb 17, 2013
Neelix and Kes wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't compare those "kingdoms" to Technotchtitlan, Machu Picu, or anything on that scale. Blacks did NOT have ANYTHING sea worthy, they did not have metal weapons. They may have obtained iron pots from trading with Arabs. They would trade salt, beads and other goods.
Please read a book before sprouting bullshyt. Metal weapons and swords were found at sights in Nubia,Axum, the Somali kingdoms. Both the Nubians and people of Axum used chain mail armor
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Medie...
Neelix and Kes wrote:
<quoted text>The race for Africa was in the South, West, East and interior of the continent. The French wanted Egypt because it is in a strategic position. They could trade with the Arabs and control much of the Mediterranean from Egypt. The French could build a Naval base in Egypt without having to fight and die for a naval base like they would if they decided to build one in Italy, Spain etc.
The race for Africa involved both North and South Africa, the Europeans took control of Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria.

“Y-DNA * E1b1a / mtDNA * L1c4b”

Level 2

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#13265 Feb 18, 2013
Jola Atika wrote:
http://blog.britishmuseum.org/ 2012/07/11/when-the-world-came -to-london/
http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/drawings-w...
http://www.lib-art.com/artgallery/1952-head-s...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Head_o...
http://www.thirdeyemax.com/2012_10_01_archive...
Now, last but not least, have a look at the below link. In this link is two pics of the same multiple head study, one describes it as a Moor and the other a Negro. LOL, this is a great example of what they did throughout history, whereby changing Moors to Negros. SMH.
Bump, lets get back on topic, as they love distractions, smoke screened with unsubstantiated rubbish.

“Y-DNA * E1b1a / mtDNA * L1c4b”

Level 2

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#13266 Feb 18, 2013
Noble Free-El

United States

#13267 Feb 18, 2013
Peace and Love...my comment is UNIVERSAL. There is no such thing as a BLACK man, first off, so we must refrain from referring to ANY people as colored. FACT...the people came before the land was given attribute. Like chinese are from....the africans are from....the indians are from....and the AMERICANS are from....the land is tied to the people as the people are tied to the land. So, where are the BLACKS from? Nowhere, just like the united states. Not a people tied to any land ABORIGINALLY. We tend to get confused by the controversy of HISTORY simply because there are so many damn stories and we lose sight of simple LOGIC. ONE CAN NOT DENY BLOOD THAT TIES U TO A LAND THAT IS TIED TO A PEOPLE. HISTORY SAYS A MILLION DIFFERENT STORIES BUT THE ONE CREATOR, OUR FATHER GOD TELLS ONLY ONE STORY. THE TRUE STORY WHICH IS HIS-STORY. 1 earth 1 land and one man was the beginning. PANGEA....1 man became many as did the land...1 land became 6 one of which was the greatest of all in size and people. So great in size and diverse in complexion that it was LATER classified as two lands. Ask yourself why is EVERY CONTINENT not RECOGNIZED two? North America...South America? No...its just one Ameica and one distinct people tied to this land ABORIGINALLY. ONE GOD...OUR FATHER WHOM CREATED US ALL IN HIS IMAGE WITHIN THE REALMS OF A BODY CONSISTING OF AN A.L.L.A.H..

“Y-DNA * E1b1a / mtDNA * L1c4b”

Level 2

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#13268 Feb 18, 2013
The Moors Sundry Act of 1790 was passed by South Carolina legislature, granting special status to the subjects of Sultan of Morocco, Mohammed ben Abdallah. It recognized Moors as white people with Jury duty as a privilege. Moors were not to be subjected to laws governing blacks and slaves.

On January 20, 1790, a petition was presented to the South Carolina House of Representatives from a group of eight individuals who were subjects of the Moroccan emperor and residents of the colony. They desired that if they happened to commit any fault amenable to be brought to justice, that as subjects to a prince allied with the United States through the Moroccan-American Treaty of Friendship, they would be tried as citizens instead of under the Negro Act of 1740.

The Free Moors, Francis, Daniel, Hammond and Samuel petitioned on behalf of themselves and their wives Fatima, Flora, Sarah and Clarinda. They explained how some years ago while fighting in defense of their country, they and their wives were captured and made prisoners of war by the Portuguese. After this a certain Captain Clark had them delivered to him, promising they would be redeemed by the Moroccan ambassador residing in England, and returned to their country. Instead, he transported them to South Carolina, and sold them for slaves. Since then, "by the greatest industry," they purchased freedom from their respective masters: They requested that as free born subjects of a Prince in alliance with the U.S., that they should not be considered subject to a State Law (then in force) known as the negro law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors_Sundry_Act...

Questions:

1. Why would South Carolina legislature grant special status to the subjects of the Sultan of Morocco, in the form of an Act?

2. Why did the Moors Sundry Act of 1790 recognize Moors as ‘white’ people with Jury duty as a privilege? In this context of ‘white’, this isn’t about skin color, this is about a ‘legal status’, as is the below link, that is rather recent.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/09/07/egyptian-...

3. Why did the act state “Moors were not to be subjected to laws governing blacks and slaves?”

4. Why is it that on January 20, 1790, a petition was presented to the South Carolina House of Representatives from a group of eight individuals who were subjects of the Moroccan emperor and residents of the colony, they desired that if they happened to commit any fault amenable to be brought to justice, that as subjects to a prince allied with the United States through the ‘Moroccan-American Treaty of Friendship’, they would be tried as citizens instead of under the Negro Act of 1740.

5. And, last, but certainly not least for reiteration; why were those eight individuals who were subjects of the Moroccan emperor concerned about being tried as citizens instead of under the ‘Negro Act of 1740’?

Once we’ve academically addressed and answered the aforementioned questions in an undistorted and unbiased way, all will be very clear.

“Y-DNA * E1b1a / mtDNA * L1c4b”

Level 2

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#13269 Feb 18, 2013
Chapter One: The Status of the Negro, his Rights and Disabilities

SECTION 4 The term Negro is confined to slave Africans (The ancient Berbers) and their descendants. It does not embrace the free inhabitants of Africa, such as the Egyptians, Moors, or the Negro Asiatics, such as Lascars.

http://genealogytrails.com/scar/negro_law.htm

“Y-DNA * E1b1a / mtDNA * L1c4b”

Level 2

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#13270 Feb 18, 2013
Moroccan–American Treaty of Friendship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan-America...
KiloEcho

Kinshasa, Congo, The Democratic Republic of the

#13271 Feb 18, 2013
emperorjohn said

While I agree the Moors were not black

KiloEcho replies

You agree that the Moors were not black!!???; then you are in serious denial.

The Moors were dark brown skinned Africans, aboriginal to Northwestern Africa.

They were called Moors by ancient Romans and Greeks because of their dark brown skin color.

Dark brown skin color is what defines us first and foremost all Black people.

Our blackness, that is our dark brown skin, is what everybody sees in us FIRST regardless of your DNA or continent of origin.

Colonial rhetoric of NON BLACK Caucasian Moors developed in the wake of racial theories of 18C Europe is in

STARK CONTRAST with old European traditions about, expressions on and representations of the Moors.

Old European traditions remember the Moors, as dark brown skinned Africans, that is, Black Africans, particularly the Moor’s head.

The Moor’s head is the head of a Black man or a woman as heraldic symbol. Many of the heads are crowned. Europeans explain the presence of Black men and women on coats of arms of cities, dioceses and noble families differently.

1) Some say that the heads represent defeated Moorish leaders killed during a crusade.
2) Others say that the heads represent Black African saints, patron saints of the cities they live in like the legendary and iconic Saint Maurice, a Black African saint from Egypt, the Patron Saint of the Holy Roman Empire.
3) Finally, others say that they use the heads as puns of their names (like the Morrison of England, the Morandi of Italy, the Mauriac of France etc.) or in loving memory of the founders of city or the family who had Moorish ancestry (Mortain, Mortagne, Morance, all cities in France)

Old European expressions about the Moors ONLY refer to people with black or dark brown skin like the following:

1) Black as a Moor, hence, Blackamoor;
2) The blackfaced Moor;
3) The Black Madonna aka La Madonna Mora;
4) Othello, the Moor of Venice;
5) Gannibal, the Moor of Peter the Great;
6) The Moor has done his duty, the Moor may go.

Old European representations of the Moors are ONLY of dark brown skin or black Africans like the following

1) The Morcic: a medieval jewel representing a Black man dressed in oriental style
2) The Moretti: artistic representations of Black Africans (sculptures, paintings, etc.)
3) Moresca dancers: medieval weapon dance during which the Black King Moro, along his black army is challenged and defeated in a love triangle. The Moresca dancers blacken their faces to better represent the Moors.

The so called Whites who refuse to accept that the Moors are black people are mostly the descendents of Euro-slavers or invaders who enslaved or colonized Black Africans they stereotype as low IQ jungle/bush Negroes.

The only thought of Black Africans ruling or excelling in North Africa or in Europe like the Moors did for centuries is unacceptable or inimaginable.

The Moors not only ruled and excelled in North Africa and in Europe for centuries, they also enslaved millions of Europeans and dozens of American sailors during their golden age.

They attacked and pillaged ships and coast towns as far as Iceland. They levied blackmain for the release of European and American slaves.

For a negrophobic White, the Moors should be written out of history books in the West or whitewashed as dark brown skinned Caucasians but NEVER as Black Africans

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#13272 Feb 18, 2013
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>
F you.. you bigot... you will deal with pagans when we say so.
You're not a Moor, boy! You're an Afro-whitey Yank with an attitude problem and identity crisis.
DNA is real science... but what would you know about that, dropout?
I never said i was a moor..........i was just saying you cant overlook that most were black.
Jake

Springfield, NJ

#13273 Feb 18, 2013
KiloEcho wrote:
ple.
Our blackness, that is our dark brown skin, is what everybody sees in us FIRST regardless of your DNA or continent of origin.
Colonial rhetoric of NON BLACK Caucasian Moors developed in the wake of racial theories of 18C Europe is in
STARK CONTRAST with old European traditions about, expressions on and
Old European representations of the Moors are ONLY of dark brown skin or black
The so called Whites who refuse to accept that the Moors are black people are mostly the descendents of Euro-slavers or invaders who enslaved or colonized Black Africans they stereotype as low IQ jungle/bush Negroes.
The only thought of Black Africans ruling or excelling in North Africa or in Europe like the Moors did for centuries is unacceptable or inimaginable.
The Moors not only ruled and excelled in North Africa and in Europe for centuries, they also enslaved millions of Europeans and dozens of American sailors during their golden age.
They attacked and pillaged ships and coast towns as far as Iceland.
For a negrophobic White, the Moors should be written out of history books in the West or whitewashed as dark brown skinned Caucasians but NEVER as Black Africans
Kkknnneeeee ggggrrrroooo shut the hell up with your lies. You kkknnneeeegggrrrrooossss  do not have the intelligence to rule modern advance countries cause you played shit in advancing in the world, while's YTs Europeans ancestors evovled to give the world the modern ages you kkknnnneeee gggrrooosss still live like primitives in shithole undeveloped Africa, that is why every place you infest are undeveloped shitholes like Haiti or black Africa where you primitives still live like you are stuck in the stoneages.

You knneegrooos talk about being so great and powerful outside of Africa in countries where you kneegroos never really had a presence but in your kneegroos lands in Africa you kneegroos still live in mud huts. What's wrong, you can't do shit to pull shithole Black Africa into the modern ages? 
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
What happened, kneegrooo, you were-supposedly so "great" outside of Africa but forgot everything when it comes to your own knnnegrrooo 
homelands? Did you get stuck on stupid or something, kneegroo? Dumb kneegroo always blaming your black failures on YT and playing the victimhood, typical black mentality. Europe is an advance developed modern region cause it's always been YTs homeland. It was never ruled by any kkkknnnnneeee gggggrrrrroooosss cause if it ever was then Europe would be like the undeveloped shithole knnnneeee ggggrrroooo Africa is to this day infested jungle hoodrats living in undeveloped shit holes mud huts like you knneegroos do in shit hole Africa.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
You Kneegroos like to claim you are the "oldest" humans around and that Europeans are the youngest humans on Earth yet the industrial revolution that ushered in the modern ages was all YTs doing. YTs have colonized most of the planets and YTs descendants walked on the Moon. ALL major modern mathematical, technological and scientific accomplishments in the last few hundred years have come from our European ancestors and their YT descendants. Knneeegroos were in the stone age when we found you and many still are today. Africa is the only continent where you can go almost anywhere and still find people living in mud huts and unable to feed themselves. Blacks achieve NOTHING of any consequence in the world today. You kneegroos still are primitives living in mud huts, the modern ages has passed you kneegroos right by. Shithole black Africa always a shithole, OoooongaNoooognaaaBamboon. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#13274 Feb 18, 2013
BWL AE is back wrote:
First Fact, boy...Most Moors were African, but here the kicker that you mofos just cannot grasp...NORTH AFRICA HAS NEVER BEEN BLACK AFRICAN BOY!!!
SECONDLY, THE MOORS HAD LITTLE OR NO INFLUENCE ON EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION...NADA.
MOORS WERE FROM NORTH AFRICA, BERBER CONVERTS....
Here let me settle this...We will let actual MOORS state their side of the story.
Al-Maqdisi [tenth century] wrote,“... As for the Zanji, they are people of black color, flat noses, kinky hair, and little understanding or intelligence.”
Ibn Khaldun(A MOOR)(d. 1406CE) added that blacks are “only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings.”
Ibn Hazam(A MOOR)(eleventh century) Wrote. "Negroes in africa neither have books, nor sciences or histories"
Berbers=Moors and there is NO DOUBT ABOUT IT
The Berbers belong to a powerful, formidable, and numerous people; a true people like so many others, the world has seen - like the Arabs, the Persians, the Greeks and the Romans.-- Ibn Khaldun(A MOOR), 14th century scholar
The only people who accept slavery are the Negroes, owing to their low degree of humanity and proximity to the animal stage. Other persons who accept the status of slave do so as a means of attaining high rank, or power, or wealth, as is the case with the Mameluke Turks in the East and with those Franks and Galicians who enter the service of the state [in Spain]-Ibn Khaldun(A MOOR), 14th century scholar
signed,
Reality
P.S.
I'm calling
Good info but what you posted comes from racist, one sided people. A dirty arab calling an african dumb is not good enough proof for me. Youre going to need a lot more than that. And can you really take these ppl seriously?

For example, you posted "Negroes in africa neither have books, nor sciences or histories."
Seriously? Was the west african civilization not the best and richest civilization ever? So how could you take that retard who said that seriously. Anyone with common sense, and just a little bit of historical knowlegde could debunk that. Obviously the man hated blacks so hes no better than a retarded klansman calling a black man a dumb monkey, knowing its a lie.

North africa was never black african? Are you for real? Historically we know ancient egyptians were ppl of color. Biblically we know Ham was black, and one of his seeds were Mizraim(egypt). Meaning they are black too. So theres no way around it! They didnt lighten up until the ptolmaic era and other foreign invasions.

There are a lot of things wrong with what you posted buddy. I need more evidence that the moors werent black from you buddy.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#13275 Feb 18, 2013
Jola Atika wrote:
The Moors Sundry Act of 1790 was passed by South Carolina legislature, granting special status to the subjects of Sultan of Morocco, Mohammed ben Abdallah. It recognized Moors as white people with Jury duty as a privilege. Moors were not to be subjected to laws governing blacks and slaves.
On January 20, 1790, a petition was presented to the South Carolina House of Representatives from a group of eight individuals who were subjects of the Moroccan emperor and residents of the colony. They desired that if they happened to commit any fault amenable to be brought to justice, that as subjects to a prince allied with the United States through the Moroccan-American Treaty of Friendship, they would be tried as citizens instead of under the Negro Act of 1740.
The Free Moors, Francis, Daniel, Hammond and Samuel petitioned on behalf of themselves and their wives Fatima, Flora, Sarah and Clarinda. They explained how some years ago while fighting in defense of their country, they and their wives were captured and made prisoners of war by the Portuguese. After this a certain Captain Clark had them delivered to him, promising they would be redeemed by the Moroccan ambassador residing in England, and returned to their country. Instead, he transported them to South Carolina, and sold them for slaves. Since then, "by the greatest industry," they purchased freedom from their respective masters: They requested that as free born subjects of a Prince in alliance with the U.S., that they should not be considered subject to a State Law (then in force) known as the negro law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors_Sundry_Act...
Questions:
1. Why would South Carolina legislature grant special status to the subjects of the Sultan of Morocco, in the form of an Act?
2. Why did the Moors Sundry Act of 1790 recognize Moors as ‘white’ people with Jury duty as a privilege? In this context of ‘white’, this isn’t about skin color, this is about a ‘legal status’, as is the below link, that is rather recent.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/09/07/egyptian-...
3. Why did the act state “Moors were not to be subjected to laws governing blacks and slaves?”
4. Why is it that on January 20, 1790, a petition was presented to the South Carolina House of Representatives from a group of eight individuals who were subjects of the Moroccan emperor and residents of the colony, they desired that if they happened to commit any fault amenable to be brought to justice, that as subjects to a prince allied with the United States through the ‘Moroccan-American Treaty of Friendship’, they would be tried as citizens instead of under the Negro Act of 1740.
5. And, last, but certainly not least for reiteration; why were those eight individuals who were subjects of the Moroccan emperor concerned about being tried as citizens instead of under the ‘Negro Act of 1740’?
Once we’ve academically addressed and answered the aforementioned questions in an undistorted and unbiased way, all will be very clear.
While I agree with you that the Moors were not black, the law seems to emphasize more on their rights as free citizens of an allied nation then what it considers the true race of the people in question. Often times, wealthy and foreign black diplomats were treated as honorary whites even during the height of segregation.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#13276 Feb 18, 2013
KiloEcho wrote:
emperorjohn said
While I agree the Moors were not black
KiloEcho replies
You agree that the Moors were not black!!???; then you are in serious denial.
The Moors were dark brown skinned Africans, aboriginal to Northwestern Africa.
They were called Moors by ancient Romans and Greeks because of their dark brown skin color.
Dark brown skin color is what defines us first and foremost all Black people.
Our blackness, that is our dark brown skin, is what everybody sees in us FIRST regardless of your DNA or continent of origin.
Colonial rhetoric of NON BLACK Caucasian Moors developed in the wake of racial theories of 18C Europe is in
STARK CONTRAST with old European traditions about, expressions on and representations of the Moors.
Old European traditions remember the Moors, as dark brown skinned Africans, that is, Black Africans, particularly the Moor’s head.
The Moor’s head is the head of a Black man or a woman as heraldic symbol. Many of the heads are crowned. Europeans explain the presence of Black men and women on coats of arms of cities, dioceses and noble families differently.
1) Some say that the heads represent defeated Moorish leaders killed during a crusade.
2) Others say that the heads represent Black African saints, patron saints of the cities they live in like the legendary and iconic Saint Maurice, a Black African saint from Egypt, the Patron Saint of the Holy Roman Empire.
3) Finally, others say that they use the heads as puns of their names (like the Morrison of England, the Morandi of Italy, the Mauriac of France etc.) or in loving memory of the founders of city or the family who had Moorish ancestry (Mortain, Mortagne, Morance, all cities in France)
Old European expressions about the Moors ONLY refer to people with black or dark brown skin like the following:
1) Black as a Moor, hence, Blackamoor;
2) The blackfaced Moor;
3) The Black Madonna aka La Madonna Mora;
4) Othello, the Moor of Venice;
5) Gannibal, the Moor of Peter the Great;
6) The Moor has done his duty, the Moor may go.
Old European representations of the Moors are ONLY of dark brown skin or black Africans like the following
1) The Morcic: a medieval jewel representing a Black man dressed in oriental style
2) The Moretti: artistic representations of Black Africans (sculptures, paintings, etc.)
3) Moresca dancers: medieval weapon dance during which the Black King Moro, along his black army is challenged and defeated in a love triangle. The Moresca dancers blacken their faces to better represent the Moors.
The so called Whites who refuse to accept that the Moors are black people are mostly the descendents of Euro-slavers or invaders who enslaved or colonized Black Africans they stereotype as low IQ jungle/bush Negroes.
The only thought of Black Africans ruling or excelling in North Africa or in Europe like the Moors did for centuries is unacceptable or inimaginable.
The Moors not only ruled and excelled in North Africa and in Europe for centuries, they also enslaved millions of Europeans and dozens of American sailors during their golden age.
They attacked and pillaged ships and coast towns as far as Iceland. They levied blackmain for the release of European and American slaves.
For a negrophobic White, the Moors should be written out of history books in the West or whitewashed as dark brown skinned Caucasians but NEVER as Black Africans
For the most part the moors were not black and their pics show them as mostly non black.

“Y-DNA * E1b1a / mtDNA * L1c4b”

Level 2

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#13277 Feb 18, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
For the most part the moors were not black and their pics show them as mostly non black.
Please provide links to the pics that show Moors as so called 'non black'.

I await your supportive links with patience and bated breath.

“Y-DNA * E1b1a / mtDNA * L1c4b”

Level 2

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#13278 Feb 18, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
While I agree with you that the Moors were not black, the law seems to emphasize more on their rights as free citizens of an allied nation then what it considers the true race of the people in question. Often times, wealthy and foreign black diplomats were treated as honorary whites even during the height of segregation.
Correction, you're agreeing with the wrong person, as I never stated the Moors were not black! In fact, in this instance pertaining to the Moors Sundry Act of 1790, the term 'white' denotes a legal term and not skin color, as seen in the real life recent example, found in the link immediately below.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/09/07/egyptian-...

Also, by you stating "Often times, wealthy and foreign black diplomats were treated as honorary whites even during the height of segregation.", this actually inadvertantly agrees with me. Thank you for your support!:-)
Barros Serrano

United States

#13279 Feb 18, 2013
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
What times are you referring to and who substantiates this?
<quoted text>
Yes, which suggests that REFLUX populations would have been apart of these migrations. It doesn't mean that AA languages came from Asia.
<quoted text>
Most likely, ultimately, from the reflux populations.
<quoted text>
What non African plants are you talking about?
<quoted text>
The fact that it's older than any other candidate.
<quoted text>
Most likely near the southern Ethiopian highlands.
<quoted text>
There's nowhere in Asia that proto AA would seem to have spawned from, since all the possible candidates are younger.
<quoted text>
And who determined this?
Did they determine it between now and January of this year?
None of this is conclusive.

Reflex populations... postulated. Yet we have Eurasian DNA with every occurrence. So why would Ethiopia be the source of AA languages? There also there is Eurasian DNA! I would think it more likely that the original languages of Ethiopia were Nilotic.

I'd have to find the study... but words pertinent to the northern Mideast appear in AA languages. This is added to the other evidence that many of the AA language groups in Africa entered with the Neolithic.

Capsians and Neolithics, and in the case of Semitic and Cushitic, came in through Yemen. And the DNA is there.

There is African DNA in southern Arabia, but how does that explain Semitic so old in the northern Mideast?

The likeliest origin for proto-AA in the Mideast would be in the north, adjacent to Indoeuropean.

Since any origin place for AA is not certain at this point, naturally different scholars will come to different conclusions about it.
Barros Serrano

United States

#13280 Feb 18, 2013
Jola Atika wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide links to the pics that show Moors as so called 'non black'.
I await your supportive links with patience and bated breath.
Depictions by contemporary Iberians are found in the Cantigas, Alfonso's Book of Games and other sources.

They are clearly labelled as “moros” or “mouros”, and show Eurasian types. There is a small minority of black Moors shown with them. And that is the situation... most Moors in Iberia were non-black Berbers, with Arab and black minorities.
Barros Serrano

United States

#13281 Feb 18, 2013
Jola Atika wrote:
The Moors Sundry Act of 1790 was passed by South Carolina legislature, granting special status to the subjects of Sultan of Morocco, Mohammed ben Abdallah. It recognized Moors as white people with Jury duty as a privilege. Moors were not to be subjected to laws governing blacks and slaves.
On January 20, 1790, a petition was presented to the South Carolina House of Representatives from a group of eight individuals who were subjects of the Moroccan emperor and residents of the colony. They desired that if they happened to commit any fault amenable to be brought to justice, that as subjects to a prince allied with the United States through the Moroccan-American Treaty of Friendship, they would be tried as citizens instead of under the Negro Act of 1740.
The Free Moors, Francis, Daniel, Hammond and Samuel petitioned on behalf of themselves and their wives Fatima, Flora, Sarah and Clarinda. They explained how some years ago while fighting in defense of their country, they and their wives were captured and made prisoners of war by the Portuguese. After this a certain Captain Clark had them delivered to him, promising they would be redeemed by the Moroccan ambassador residing in England, and returned to their country. Instead, he transported them to South Carolina, and sold them for slaves. Since then, "by the greatest industry," they purchased freedom from their respective masters: They requested that as free born subjects of a Prince in alliance with the U.S., that they should not be considered subject to a State Law (then in force) known as the negro law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors_Sundry_Act...
Questions:
1. Why would South Carolina legislature grant special status to the subjects of the Sultan of Morocco, in the form of an Act?
2. Why did the Moors Sundry Act of 1790 recognize Moors as ‘white’ people with Jury duty as a privilege? In this context of ‘white’, this isn’t about skin color, this is about a ‘legal status’, as is the below link, that is rather recent.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/09/07/egyptian-...
3. Why did the act state “Moors were not to be subjected to laws governing blacks and slaves?”
4. Why is it that on January 20, 1790, a petition was presented to the South Carolina House of Representatives from a group of eight individuals who were subjects of the Moroccan emperor and residents of the colony, they desired that if they happened to commit any fault amenable to be brought to justice, that as subjects to a prince allied with the United States through the ‘Moroccan-American Treaty of Friendship’, they would be tried as citizens instead of under the Negro Act of 1740.
5. And, last, but certainly not least for reiteration; why were those eight individuals who were subjects of the Moroccan emperor concerned about being tried as citizens instead of under the ‘Negro Act of 1740’?
Once we’ve academically addressed and answered the aforementioned questions in an undistorted and unbiased way, all will be very clear.
You are using an example from long after the Moors were expelled from Iberia, not specifying the territory ruled by the Sultan of Morocco, and ignoring PRIMARY sources from Iberia which clearly show the Moors mostly to be non-black Berbers.

Furthermore, archaeological and genetic evidence from the Maghreb clearly proves that the region has been predominantly Eurasian for 30,000 years.

You Afronazis desperately scrape together 17th-century parlor paintings and other barely related “evidence” yet you cannot counter the direct evidence which has already proven you wrong.

This yet again confirms that you are pseudo-intellectuals and cult racists, frauds, clowns.
Barros Serrano

United States

#13282 Feb 18, 2013
Jola Atika wrote:
Chapter One: The Status of the Negro, his Rights and Disabilities
SECTION 4 The term Negro is confined to slave Africans (The ancient Berbers) and their descendants. It does not embrace the free inhabitants of Africa, such as the Egyptians, Moors, or the Negro Asiatics, such as Lascars.
http://genealogytrails.com/scar/negro_law.htm
Slave Africans were “original Berbers”? LOL!!!

Clearly you have no idea what the map of Africa is like. Berbers are from the Maghreb, and are proven predominantly Eurasian for 30,000 years. Slave Africans were sub-Saharan, and were slaved by other W Africans, Arabs, Tuareg, Berbers, etc., before the Europeans joined in.

Berbers, some of them, had been enslaved by the Romans, it is true... that doesn't make them black.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min cathy1691823 1,395,159
News Donald Trump Is Unfit to Lead 7 min serfs up 66
I need proof that the Ancient Egyptians Were No... (Oct '07) 11 min Moses 32,613
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 14 min Moses 136,006
News Dueling groups to rally at Confederate landmark 18 min Hillbilly 2,063
Why Are East Indians Racist Towards Blacks (Jun '13) 34 min Youngloa 285
5 stabbed @ white nationalist trump rally 36 min Marcus Washington 76
News African-Americans should start voting for Repub... 1 hr Sara 273
Human Sexuality forum CLOSED - guess whos next 4 hr Truth Hurts 8
How Fkn dumb can Republicans get? 2.0 9 hr Fukanig 69
More from around the web