the moors were black africans not ara...

“I have a brain,I try to use it”

Since: Jan 14

<3London<3 <3Denmark<3

#20195 Jan 9, 2014
African AE wrote:
<quoted text>Modern Moors:
www.youtube.com/watch...
How the hell did they turn from pitch black into white in 500 years????? Chameleons??????
no basically what they want to do is:

use the word moor as it was used before the Moorish invasion of Iberia during the moors invasion when they used the word differently :for Berbers, Iberian converts, Arabs and blacks who were a minority, who were slaves, and compared to animals)
so Black people can think they ruled Spain and Portugal for 800 years Africans can think the ruled Iberia for 800 years! hahahahahahahahahahaha

PA
THE
TIC

Ish Tov
Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#20196 Jan 9, 2014
African AE wrote:
<quoted text>There are NO ancient anatomically correct Africans outside Africa! Prove me wrong !!!!!!!!!!
These discussions become muddled because of terminology.

What you mean is that there were no Africans of the most modern type, carrying Y-DNA E, mtDNA L2 or L3, in Arabia or the Mideast.

This is true for the period following OOA. The first Africans I've seen evidence for in Eurasia are the Natufians, tens of millenia after OOA, and long after the Cro-Magnon had populated Europe.

However... as I already mentioned, there is increasing evidence for H. sapiens in Eurasia BEFORE OOA. 125K Nubian-style tools found in Oman. Several finds in Israel from around 100k bp. H. sapiens tools in India before Toba.

So, just to be semantically accurate, there WERE Africans in Eurasia, but they were not of the latest types, they were those genetically lumped with Khoisan.

“I have a brain,I try to use it”

Since: Jan 14

<3London<3 <3Denmark<3

#20197 Jan 9, 2014
Ish Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
These discussions become muddled because of terminology.
What you mean is that there were no Africans of the most modern type, carrying Y-DNA E, mtDNA L2 or L3, in Arabia or the Mideast.
This is true for the period following OOA. The first Africans I've seen evidence for in Eurasia are the Natufians, tens of millenia after OOA, and long after the Cro-Magnon had populated Europe.
However... as I already mentioned, there is increasing evidence for H. sapiens in Eurasia BEFORE OOA. 125K Nubian-style tools found in Oman. Several finds in Israel from around 100k bp. H. sapiens tools in India before Toba.
So, just to be semantically accurate, there WERE Africans in Eurasia, but they were not of the latest types, they were those genetically lumped with Khoisan.
Haplogroup E came from Asia, haplogroup e1b1b originates from the near east and split, 1 group in europe 1, group in coastal north africa (med) and 1 group in east africa
Citizen 1986

UK

#20198 Jan 9, 2014
TheKingIam wrote:
<quoted text>
no basically what they want to do is:
use the word moor as it was used before the Moorish invasion of Iberia during the moors invasion when they used the word differently :for Berbers, Iberian converts, Arabs and blacks who were a minority, who were slaves, and compared to animals)
so Black people can think they ruled Spain and Portugal for 800 years Africans can think the ruled Iberia for 800 years! hahahahahahahahahahaha
PA
THE
TIC
You do know some of the moorish rulers in iberia were former slaves both mixed and pure black. If they were treated as animals where would they get the chance to be of importance. The moors who conquered Iberia as you said included Indigenous Africans berbers and West Africans who were black. Berbers who had been in Iberia for years who had mixed with the population, Arabs and Muslim converts from Iberia. Even after the conquest this different fractions still fought amongst themselves for superiority. This is when we see different fractions/Families emerging carrying different banners some depict black Africans the others depict Iberians. To claim the black Africans were a minority and slaves is a lie any unbiased historian would know this.

“I have a brain,I try to use it”

Since: Jan 14

<3London<3 <3Denmark<3

#20199 Jan 9, 2014
Citizen 1986 wrote:
<quoted text>
You do know some of the moorish rulers in iberia were former slaves both mixed and pure black. If they were treated as animals where would they get the chance to be of importance. The moors who conquered Iberia as you said included Indigenous Africans berbers and West Africans who were black. Berbers who had been in Iberia for years who had mixed with the population, Arabs and Muslim converts from Iberia. Even after the conquest this different fractions still fought amongst themselves for superiority. This is when we see different fractions/Families emerging carrying different banners some depict black Africans the others depict Iberians. To claim the black Africans were a minority and slaves is a lie any unbiased historian would know this.
Unbiased historians ACKNOWLEDGE that they were a few, I'm being nice when I say around 10% it was probably way lower.

And yes in old Berber texts they were compared to animals, No Moorish RULER was ever black.btw
African AE

Durban, South Africa

#20200 Jan 9, 2014
Ish Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
These discussions become muddled because of terminology.
What you mean is that there were no Africans of the most modern type, carrying Y-DNA E, mtDNA L2 or L3, in Arabia or the Mideast.
This is true for the period following OOA. The first Africans I've seen evidence for in Eurasia are the Natufians, tens of millenia after OOA, and long after the Cro-Magnon had populated Europe.
However... as I already mentioned, there is increasing evidence for H. sapiens in Eurasia BEFORE OOA. 125K Nubian-style tools found in Oman. Several finds in Israel from around 100k bp. H. sapiens tools in India before Toba.
So, just to be semantically accurate, there WERE Africans in Eurasia, but they were not of the latest types, they were those genetically lumped with Khoisan.
Ancient skeletons found in Israel show the people were hominids.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qafzeh
So yes they were not like modern Africans. I think modern Africans came much much later out of Africa because I just cant find any anatomically correct ancient Africans at the time of the neanderthals.
A Child Of AHAYAH

New York, NY

#20201 Jan 9, 2014
African AE wrote:
<quoted text>Ancient skeletons found in Israel show the people were hominids.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qafzeh
So yes they were not like modern Africans. I think modern Africans came much much later out of Africa because I just cant find any anatomically correct ancient Africans at the time of the neanderthals.
Lol, looks like the two of you ran out of ammo again?????
motts

Bridgetown, Barbados

#20202 Jan 9, 2014
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know about you, but I was always taught that the natives were here first, hence the term native American.
I was taught that Columbus discovered the Americas but that was a lie since Africans were in the Americas before that clown, and the so-called native americans.

I was also taught being gay IS a choice and a SIN….I don't know about you.
motts

Bridgetown, Barbados

#20203 Jan 9, 2014
Citizen 1986 wrote:
<quoted text>
You do know some of the moorish rulers in iberia were former slaves both mixed and pure black. If they were treated as animals where would they get the chance to be of importance. The moors who conquered Iberia as you said included Indigenous Africans berbers and West Africans who were black. Berbers who had been in Iberia for years who had mixed with the population, Arabs and Muslim converts from Iberia. Even after the conquest this different fractions still fought amongst themselves for superiority. This is when we see different fractions/Families emerging carrying different banners some depict black Africans the others depict Iberians. To claim the black Africans were a minority and slaves is a lie any unbiased historian would know this.
These Euronuts don't seem to get that we don't give a toss for their interpretations of history. When they are finished their verbal masturbation on here these facts still remain:

The Moors were Black

Black people are indigenous to North Africa

The white/mongrel population in North Africa now are descendants of slaves.
motts

Bridgetown, Barbados

#20204 Jan 9, 2014
"The anthropological examination of skeletons found in tombs in Carthage proves that there is no racial unity [...] The so called Semitic type, characterized by the long, perfectly oval face, the thin aquiline nose and the lengthened cranium, enlarged over the nape of the neck has not been found in Carthage. On the other hand, another cranial form, with a fairly short face, prominent parietal bumps, farther forward and lower down than is usual is common [...] most of the Punic population in Carthage had African and even Negro ancestors" - Charles Picard "Daily Life in Carthage at the time of Hannibal"

Appian relates that the figurative Ethiopians "extend from eastern Ethiopia westward to the Mauritanian Mount Atlas."

Cambridge History of Africa: "The Soninke, the people of ancient Ghana, are the northernmost Sudanic people. Before the arrival of the Berbers, their ancestors had occupied the Sahara, as is suggested by the survival of black groups in Walata, Nema, Tichit, and as far Shinqit, who speak Azer, which is a Soninke dialect." 80% of Berber Y-chromosomes originate in east Africa, south of Egypt.

"Snowden (1970) and Desanges (1981) reference various writers’ physical descriptions of the ancient Maghreb’s inhabitants. In various writers’ physical descriptions of the ancient Maghreb’s inhabitants. In addition to the presence of fair-skinned blonds, various “Ethiopian” or “part-Ethiopian” groups are described, near the coast and on the southern slopes of the Atlas mountains.“Ethiopians,” meaning dark-skinned peoples usually having “ulotrichous”(wooly) hair, are noted in various Greek accounts and European coinage (Snowden, 1970). Hiernaux (1975) interprets the finding of “subsaharan” population affinities in living Maghrebans as being solely the result of the medieval transsaharan slave trade; it is clear that this is not the case. Furthermore, the blacks of the ancient Maghreb were apparently not foreign or a caste." (S.O.Y Keita, "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa," American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 83:35-48 (1990).

 Joseph Vogel stressed: "Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north." (Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California, 1997, pp. 465-472).

"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 ... 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.

Ish Tov
Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#20207 Jan 9, 2014
Citizen 1986 wrote:
<quoted text>
You do know some of the moorish rulers in iberia were former slaves both mixed and pure black. If they were treated as animals where would they get the chance to be of importance. The moors who conquered Iberia as you said included Indigenous Africans berbers and West Africans who were black. Berbers who had been in Iberia for years who had mixed with the population, Arabs and Muslim converts from Iberia. Even after the conquest this different fractions still fought amongst themselves for superiority. This is when we see different fractions/Families emerging carrying different banners some depict black Africans the others depict Iberians. To claim the black Africans were a minority and slaves is a lie any unbiased historian would know this.
Wrong. The Berbers who conquered Iberia were not black. Black Moors were from W Africa, not the Maghreb.

Learn history and log off of www.afronazisgonewild.com .

Ish Tov
Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#20209 Jan 9, 2014
motts wrote:
<quoted text>
I was taught that Columbus discovered the Americas but that was a lie since Africans were in the Americas before that clown, and the so-called native americans.
I was also taught being gay IS a choice and a SIN….I don't know about you.
Native Americans discovered America. There were no Africans here until 1492. There is no evidence of them anywhere.

Native Americans migrated in from northeastern Eurasia, and were 100% Eurasians.

Nobody cares about your religious prejudices. If you are opposed to being gay, then don't be gay. Leave other people alone.

Also, get an education.

Ish Tov
Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#20210 Jan 9, 2014
motts wrote:
<quoted text>
These Euronuts don't seem to get that we don't give a toss for their interpretations of history. When they are finished their verbal masturbation on here these facts still remain:
The Moors were Black
Black people are indigenous to North Africa
The white/mongrel population in North Africa now are descendants of slaves.
Wrong as always.

My links prove you wrong. Eurasians have been in the Maghreb for over 30k years. The Moors in Iberia were mostly Eurasians.

Medieval Iberians depicted these Moors, and showed them as Eurasian types.

Also, you are not a Hebrew.
motts

Bridgetown, Barbados

#20211 Jan 9, 2014
WHERE DO MANY OF THESE MONGRELISED LIGHT-SKINNED NORTH AFRICANS COME FROM??

WHEN EUROPEANS WERE SLAVES: RESEARCH SUGGESTS WHITE SLAVERY WAS MUCH MORE COMMON THAN PREVIOUSLY BELIEVED

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.
motts

Bridgetown, Barbados

#20212 Jan 9, 2014
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.”
motts

Bridgetown, Barbados

#20213 Jan 9, 2014
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.”

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.h...

SLAVERY OF ALL FORMS IS TO BE ABHORRED, HOWEVER WHITE SLAVERY APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN OBSCURED FROM MAINSTREAM HISTORY.

I WONDER WHY?
Citizen 1986

UK

#20214 Jan 9, 2014
People believe whatever they choose but there's only factual history and that can't be denied. The Moors were black and everyone knows it. Arguing here won't change it sorry if it makes you feel sad but its the truth.
Citizen 1986

UK

#20215 Jan 9, 2014
TheKingIam wrote:
<quoted text>
Unbiased historians ACKNOWLEDGE that they were a few, I'm being nice when I say around 10% it was probably way lower.
And yes in old Berber texts they were compared to animals, No Moorish RULER was ever black.btw
Old berber text, do I look stupid to you .if you can't find any black rulers that's good for you. Believe what ever you want to won't change anything. Your opinions are yours and won't add anything to history but you can contuine in your ignorance.
motts

Bridgetown, Barbados

#20217 Jan 9, 2014
Ish Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong as always.
My links prove you wrong. Eurasians have been in the Maghreb for over 30k years. The Moors in Iberia were mostly Eurasians.
Medieval Iberians depicted these Moors, and showed them as Eurasian types.
Also, you are not a Hebrew.
When you are finished your verbal masturbation these facts still remain:

The Moors were Black

Black people are indigenous to North Africa

The white/mongrel population in North Africa now are descendants of slaves.

weep weep weep

Ish Tov
Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#20218 Jan 9, 2014
motts wrote:
<quoted text>
When you are finished your verbal masturbation these facts still remain:
The Moors were Black
Black people are indigenous to North Africa
The white/mongrel population in North Africa now are descendants of slaves.
weep weep weep
Then why are Moors in Iberia depicted as Eurasians?

Then why is the DNA of the Maghreb for 30k years mostly Eurasian?

Then why weren't the Guanches black?

You have no answers which will explain away this solid EVIDENCE???

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
White Men are Ugly 1 min A Perm For BM 17
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Grey Ghost 1,521,635
Why do all black women love Justin Timberlake? 3 min SlayWithTheTruth 16
Black british vs afro-americans? (Mar '11) 6 min diversity 522
why are mexican women jealous of black women (Feb '13) 7 min Dumb dumb 13
SlayWithTheTruth = Melanin_Fail 9 min SlayWithTheTruth 20
Being political correct=Uncle Sam 14 min Justsaying 1
NEGROES -- what would be your preferred method... 1 hr SlayWithTheTruth 36
Thank you white people for the Internet 1 hr SlayWithTheTruth 23
'Happy Days' actress Erin Moran DEAD 2 hr The Power Of Mast... 19
IRBW And Their Fantasies. 3 hr Ben 596
More from around the web