Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Tue 20 Feb 2007 01:23 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Well in actuality it does not, but Omar seems to think that these are not SubSaharan African countries...now I believe he is trying to imply the pepole are not black, but mixed or non-black.
That is hardly the case...blacks are the overwealming majority in these nations, none blacks are a small minority in the Northern parts.
Well, those are not the Moors that went to Spain, anyways. At least not the majority
Well in actuality it does not, but Omar seems to think that these are not SubSaharan African countries...now I believe he is trying to imply the pepole are not black, but mixed or non-black.
That is hardly the case...blacks are the overwealming majority in these nations, none blacks are a small minority in the Northern parts.
Oh I know what Omar implies all the time. I was just making a point that those countries are smack in the Sahara, hardly "Sub" Saharan.
Well in actuality it does not, but Omar seems to think that these are not SubSaharan African countries...now I believe he is trying to imply the pepole are not black, but mixed or non-black.
That is hardly the case...blacks are the overwealming majority in these nations, none blacks are a small minority in the Northern parts.
Well, those are not the Moors that went to Spain, anyways. At least not the majority
I just proved to you that there were. What does majority have to do with it?
By your logic Omar whenever Americans are remembered they will be remembered as white. For example if Barack Obama became the first black president- someone who thinks like you centuries from now could say that saying he's black is Afrocentric because most Americans during this time were not black and therefore Barack Obama was probably not black. Black americans are only 13% of the US population.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Mon 19 Mar 2007 01:07 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Well in actuality it does not, but Omar seems to think that these are not SubSaharan African countries...now I believe he is trying to imply the pepole are not black, but mixed or non-black.
That is hardly the case...blacks are the overwealming majority in these nations, none blacks are a small minority in the Northern parts.
No. I know those are Subsaharan countries. I always have deffended the fact, though, that the Berbers exist! They are Africans, but they are not Subsaharans or "Blacks". Yes, there are some Berbers that look more Subsaharans than others, like the Tuareg, but most people of North Africa, particularly of Morocco, Tunez, Algiers and Lybia, look like this:
And in Spain people don't call them "Blacks" but MOOR. That's my point.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Mon 19 Mar 2007 01:13 Post subject:
histgirl wrote:
...I just proved to you that there were. What does majority have to do with it?
By your logic Omar whenever Americans are remembered they will be remembered as white. For example if Barack Obama became the first black president- someone who thinks like you centuries from now could say that saying he's black is Afrocentric because most Americans during this time were not black and therefore Barack Obama was probably not black. Black americans are only 13% of the US population.
If you ask me, I would say there are not differences between Black and White Americans. They are both "gringos" for me .
Yes, I was a friend of a Brazilian Black lady (that didn't consider black herself, curiously), because she had EXACTLY the same culture I have, the same sense of humour and looking in life. For me Americans, both Whites and Blacks, are like people of another planet. No kidding.
You guys don't realize how close are you both groups in culture.
...
They were a people long before that. According to 1st century Roman writings Moors came in a variety of colors from Caucasian to what you consider black. Shakespeare always used Moor to mean black as he describes Othello as "black as a stove". Moors were also called black during the middle ages in Europe. The original Oxford dictionary definition of Moor is black or swarthy. The knight Morien was described as all black and in The Song of Roland in France the Moors were described as "black as ink". The Moorish emperor Yusuf ben Tachfin was described by Arab writers as "a brown man with wooly hair". The description of wooly hair puts him in your definition of black. As well as all of the black soldiers recruited throughout Europe were called Moors by Europeans.
.
I have a theory and that is maybe Moors were like ancient Egyptians. A mixed population of Europeans, Africans and the in between. Surely Shakespierre and other English writers saw what they saw.
Pretty bad sources you got, fellow. Shakespeare was never in Spain and all the other sources you have are from Northern Europe, where they don't have a clue.
In Spain, from where the term Moor come from, it is impossible to pass a Black person as a Moor. The distinction between both group was always clear. That's all. So, the "confusion" between Blacks and Moors exist in Northern Europe, not in the South were they are better known.
And you know why? Because the people of the Magreb has always been in contact with Portugal, Spain, Southern France and Italy, from the very beginning. And the people of the Magreb are not South Saharan Africans.
So, who could know Moors better that Southern Europeans? Shakespeare? Ha. He was a gringo
Yes, Afrocentrism is not a replacement of Education, indeed.
Regards,
Omar
I have a theory and it might be that Moors might have been like Ancient Egyptians. Mixed peoples of European and African descent. After all people migrated all over and there seems to have been fewer barriers to interracial miscegenation than than now. So maybe some Morrs were "white" and some were peopls of mixed race who might have appears black and non European in appearance to a 15th century English man.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Mon 19 Mar 2007 17:50 Post subject:
The Roman's stated clearly that in North Africa there were light skinned and what they described as "black" people living in what is now Libya and Morocco, before the Romans, the Phonecians who founded Carthage made similar comments about people to the south of them.
I don't think the Sahara was ever a complete barrier, it was a bottleneck but it did not stop small groups of blacks from migrating in and out of the area since prehistoric times.
Omar when I was in England I knew some Berbers with kinky hair, and others with kinky hair, negroid features and dar brown skin color. The Berbers were a mixed people. Given that teh Sahara wasnt always a desert, hence a barrier to movement its quite conceivable taht there might have been much movement between North Africa and the present day Sahelian region. In fact even when the Sahara became a desert people moved from Mali to Morocco.
The Roman's stated clearly that in North Africa there were light skinned and what they described as "black" people living in what is now Libya and Morocco, before the Romans, the Phonecians who founded Carthage made similar comments about people to the south of them.
I don't think the Sahara was ever a complete barrier, it was a bottleneck but it did not stop small groups of blacks from migrating in and out of the area since prehistoric times.
[ad hominem remark removed -- FWS] So what if some Moors looked black when accounts by the English and others suggest that at least some were. He condemns the absolutism of US racial classifications but then becomes guilty of the same.
...
And you know why? Because the people of the Magreb has always been in contact with Portugal, Spain, Southern France and Italy, from the very beginning. And the people of the Magreb are not South Saharan Africans.
,
Omar
True and they were also in contact with the peoples who lived in and south of the Sahara. Its likely that they were a mixed people. Not all white, not all black, but containing elements of both and mixtures of both.
they were also in contact with the peoples who lived in and south of the Sahara. Its likely that they were a mixed people. Not all white, not all black, but containing elements of both and mixtures of both.
Molecular studies confirm this. Looking only a mtDNA haplotypes, most Berbers are a population that has been in situ since the begining of the Neolithic. But many have definite subSaharan haplotypes and some have European haplotypes.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Mon 19 Mar 2007 21:29 Post subject:
caribj wrote:
Omar when I was in England I knew some Berbers with kinky hair, and others with kinky hair, negroid features and dar brown skin color. The Berbers were a mixed people. Given that teh Sahara wasnt always a desert, hence a barrier to movement its quite conceivable taht there might have been much movement between North Africa and the present day Sahelian region. In fact even when the Sahara became a desert people moved from Mali to Morocco.
Dear,
In Spain and Latin America, we know some Berbers have negroid features, and we don't care. That's part of the common knowledge. We also know many have blue eyes.
That's not the point.
The point is just that the people of Mali IS NOT the people of the Maghreb. And we only call Moor to the people of the Maghreb. We only call Moor to people of Berber stock of the coastal regions of Morocco, Lybia, Tunicia and Algiers.
Now, those are the Moors that show in our history books, not the people of Mali. The ancient Cartagians like Hannibal were Moors as well (people of the Maghreb). Ancient Canarians were also Moors.
I am not concerned of how many markers of this or that stock the Moors have. I am concerned that a people is not confussed with other just for a matter of rewriting history. That's all.
After all, they are our Moors. Perhaps in English the term is different, but our Moors have a very definite geographical location: the coastal regions of North Africa.
Posted: Thu 26 Apr 2007 05:39 Post subject: This debate is laughable
I really dont see what the problem here is. Some of you, for people who supposedly care little for racial and ethnic classifications, go to great lengths to define people in precisely those sorts of terms - rediculous! Try this out for size, I am sure you will find my logic impeccable, and my system of classification - or should we say, non-classification, accurate and highly consistant with observable facts.
Africans: people whose ancestors from before the rennaisance, are nearly totally or entirely from the continent of Africa.
Blacks: people who look negro - "negroid", or some other appearance that is similar. Or conversely, simpley people with black or nearly black skin.
Now, then, it follows that not all people living in Africa today, or descended from people who were living in Africa in recent centuries, are truly Africans. For example, white south Africans. They are recent immigrants to the continent. This may be arbitrary, but it makes sense.
It also follows that not all Africans, whether recent or native, are Black. Some appear white, others colored, etc etc etc.
Really, I would love to see you guys explain why my approach isnt superior to understanding this topic.
Posted: Thu 26 Apr 2007 09:44 Post subject: Re: This debate is laughable
TheMulattoKid wrote:
Blacks: people who look negro - "negroid", or some other appearance that is similar. Or conversely, simply people with black or nearly black skin.
Like Andaman Islanders, Native Australians, Papua-New Guineans, and Melanesians, for instance?
TheMulattoKid wrote:
I would love to see you guys explain why my approach isnt superior to understanding this topic.
Your approach to classifying populations into groups is no better or worse than anyone else's as an abstraction. The question is how useful is it for your purposes? To opine on its usefulness to you, I would have to know your purpose. Do you want to track Paleolithic migrations?, Neolithic migrations?, the impact of Phoenician colonization? (Carthage was a Phoenician colony), Roman colonization?, Vandal colonization?, Islamic colonization, the trans-Saharan slave trade?, the Almoravid empire, European colonization since 1500?, current U.S. government "racial" classifications? What purpose does your classification serve?
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 26 Apr 2007 15:20 Post subject: Re: This debate is laughable
TheMulattoKid wrote:
I really dont see what the problem here is. Some of you, for people who supposedly care little for racial and ethnic classifications, go to great lengths to define people in precisely those sorts of terms - rediculous! Try this out for size, I am sure you will find my logic impeccable, and my system of classification - or should we say, non-classification, accurate and highly consistant with observable facts.
Africans: people whose ancestors from before the rennaisance, are nearly totally or entirely from the continent of Africa.
Asians are also people that live in the continent of Asia. So what's the point?
TheMulattoKid wrote:
Blacks: people who look negro - "negroid", or some other appearance that is similar. Or conversely, simpley people with black or nearly black skin.
Who does not? How do you define a set that is fuzzy by nature? How do you define a fat or tall person?
TheMulattoKid wrote:
Now, then, it follows that not all people living in Africa today, or descended from people who were living in Africa in recent centuries, are truly Africans. For example, white south Africans. They are recent immigrants to the continent. This may be arbitrary, but it makes sense.
It also follows that not all Africans, whether recent or native, are Black. Some appear white, others colored, etc etc etc.
Really, I would love to see you guys explain why my approach isnt superior to understanding this topic.
Kid
I agree with you. Indeed. Africans are the people living in Africa. Nothing else.
What I don't agree is that you tend to forget that the people that surround the Mediterranean sea have more in common between THEMSELVES that with people of Northern Europe, Asia or Africa!
That's my point. Don't divide the world in Europe, Africa and Asia. Consider the Mediterranean Sea as an important area as well. After all it was there were the Roman Empire was build, and not in Europe, Asia or Africa by themselves. In the Mediterranean there are more things in common than in large continents like Asia, Africa or Europe.
Think in Asia, and you'll find in there people very diverse live: from Palestineans and Syrians to Persians, East Indians and East Asians.
In the same way in Africa there are lots of people with different genetic, but more important, with different ethnic or cultural backgrounds.
My only complain has always being that the people of the Maghred, called Moors by Spanish speaking people, are a distinct people with its own traditions and history, and that deserve respect for that. And they are a people with strong links to the Mediterranean, even more than Africa. That's all.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 26 Apr 2007 16:04 Post subject:
caribj on Mar. 19 wrote:
True and they were also in contact with the peoples who lived in and south of the Sahara. Its likely that they were a mixed people. Not all white, not all black, but containing elements of both and mixtures of both.
Forgive me, but I'm getting to the point where I cringe when I see the world's populations viewed through red-white-and-blue-colored glasses, if you catch my drift. North Africans are largely just that -- North African. Yes, they are phenotypically and genetically somewhat diverse, but the bulk of their ancestors have been there for thousands of years. There is sub-Saharan admixture and there is European admixture (keeping in mind that these two broad groups are also diverse genetically and physically).
TheMulattoKid wrote:
Blacks: people who look negro - "negroid", or some other appearance that is similar. Or conversely, simpley people with black or nearly black skin.
Who exactly looks "negroid"? What traits are you using to define "negroid" appearance? There are so many ways to answer this, that there is really no way to answer this, if this makes sense. Are dark Indians included? What about Khoi-San? Ethiopians? Dark Arabs? Europeans with frizzly hair and broad noses?
TheMulattoKid wrote:
Now, then, it follows that not all people living in Africa today, or descended from people who were living in Africa in recent centuries, are truly Africans. For example, white south Africans. They are recent immigrants to the continent. This may be arbitrary, but it makes sense.
When one considers that everyone on earth is descended from Africans, the debate about who "truly" is African and who is not suddenly becomes blurred.
...
And you know why? Because the people of the Magreb has always been in contact with Portugal, Spain, Southern France and Italy, from the very beginning. And the people of the Magreb are not South Saharan Africans.
Regards,
Omar
Omar is this a yes or no question? There has always been contact between the peoples of North Africa and subSaharan Africa. So why cant it be that the socalled Berbers are comprised, in part, of peoples of BOTH Mediterranean and subSaharan stock. I have met several Berbers from Morocco who clearly represented this. In fact one of them look so much like me that people thought we were brothers.
I think that as black as a stove is quite clear unless you suggest that Shakespeare didnt know his colors.
No, not like you. Most Imazhigen are a product of clinal diversity with some admixture. But they always looked in that in between range. People of mixed ancestry in the Americas are straight up crossing of Europeans and West Africans and Native Americans, Just because some resemblance occurs does not mean they are products of the same ancestry.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
.