Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Tue 08 Apr 2008 16:50 Post subject:
Maya wrote:
I have been pretty busy lately but this thread is just great. I am learning so much and resurrecting some information I had forgotten about.
I agree. These two guys (ArabianKnight and sirius2008) are great, aren't they? I'm learning (or re-learning) so much by reading their posts.
Maya wrote:
I took a culture and religion class in college from a feminist scholar who laid out the cultural/religious similarities in the treatment of women in varous Mediterranean areas, including North Africa. I can't remember the author or name of the article but we read a fascinating piece on Andalusian male perceptions of women that sounded like it was written by the Taliban! Her name was Dr. Malamud - still one of the best teachers I have ever had.
I recall reading something similar on Calabrian and Sicilian male perceptions of women, and they were strikingly similar to what you describe. Speaking of good teachers, my favorite was Dr. Battista. She instilled in me a love for history, and her enthusiasm was contagious.
Maya wrote:
No kidding! My paternal great-great grandfather was also Alsatian. His surname was Carre'. I've always wanted to find out more about that line since he is the only one of his siblings who left home. He was a merchant marine who traveled to Haiti and died there, after marrying my great-great grandmother and having a bunch of kids.
Wow! Maybe we are 7th cousins, or something similar! We are not quite sure what town Jakob Fillip was born in, though. The three possibilities are Verdun, Colmar, and Strasbourg (or in German, Strassburg). My grandmother recalled his singing a song about Strassburg -- Strassburg, Strassburg, wunderschoener Stadt. However, this could just be because it was the closest large city. Some documents point to Verdun, and others to Colmar. My grandmother was never certain. When she got interested in family history, it was too late to ask him! The whole Alsace region is beautiful. I can't wait to visit it again.
Carré was the surname of one of my elementary school teachers. Her husband was from Toulouse, though.
Last edited by William on Tue 08 Apr 2008 19:10; edited 1 time in total
Incidentally (and sirius2008 will find this to be of interest), I spoke with a history professor (friend of mine), who specializes in European history. I mentioned that I could find no data claiming a Saracen invasion of the Peloponnese, but did see one map that showed the region as having been conquered. He said there is no data pointing to any long-term control of the Peloponnese by Saracens, but that it is certain that they raided it. There is data on raids and occupations of some of the small islands very close to the peninsula. This, and the fact that the Saracens were active in the region, makes it clear that raids on the mainland occurred, but they were either unsuccessful, or very brief, with the Saracens burning a town or two, engaging in "R, P, and P" (rape, plunder, and pillage), then leaving, merely to show the Greeks that they would be a thorn in their side.
Yes, it is not possible to know exactly historical facts that were short-lived, plus many were not even reported.
Maghrebi and Mediterranean European troops raided each other in coastal towns and islands many times during the period of intense mutual slavery I mentioned earlier (early 16th century to early 19th century), but it is never mentioned as occupations because it was only furtive raids to terrorise the population as you described above, there was no official rule and the invaders didn't remain on the ennemy's soil.
An interesting anecdote, during the reigns of Louis XIV (France) and Mulay Ismail (Morocco), the 2 most powerful heads of state of their respective countries, both enslaved and humiliated each other but still had very good relationships. They offered gifts to each other, and Mulay Ismail even asked to marry Louis XIV's daughter (he immediately refused of course lol).
Mulay Ismail had his Christian European slaves build a magnificent palace in Meknes (emulating the wonderful Chateau of Versailles), while Louis XIV officially ordered Muslim Algerian slaves from his Ministry of Marine for his galleys.
The most ironical is since French authorities wanted to have a good image towards the Ottoman Empire, they also bought many Muslim slaves in Europe to free them and give them back to their countries. I read this on the works of European historians who are specialised in Mediterranean history.
Speaking of this period, I am curious about the genetic composition of Maltese people, who speak an Arabic dialect (not intellegible from Arabs though, due to intense changes and European contributions through centuries) as I said above. This island was not particularily European in history, it was owned by Middle-Eastern Phoenicians, Carthaginian and Muslim Northwestern Africans , Romans, Byzantines, French, British, etc
A huge number of Muslim slaves (captured in Maghreb and as far as Egypt and Anatolia) was there in the past. According to Anne Brogini (historian teaching in Nice, France), in 1599 slaves represented about 5.4 % of a total population of about 33.000 people. 80% were Muslim and Jewish, 20% were Christian, mainly Arab Christians and Greeks. In 1548, they represented only 2% of the population, the author says they dramatically grew up. While most slaves were males, there were also women and children who were reported living as slaves in Malta, some of the children could have been born from rapes or from a relationship bewteen a female slave and her master, meaning people mixed.
Although her articles are in French unfortunately, the beginning is also in English:
"During the 17th century, the maltese population grows up very quickly, owing to the economic development of the island which had become an important christian corsair state in the Mediterranean. On account of ransom trade, Malta is opening to muslim and christian shores. The new wealth of the island draws many christian corsairs and merchants and improves life conditions of the population. Moreover, the population is protected by the Knights of St John who exercise a medical control about epidemics and looks after poors."
I wonder what is the current racial composition of the Maltese, the CIA World Fact Book says:
Ethnic groups: Maltese (descendants of ancient Carthaginians and Phoenicians, with strong elements of Italian and other Mediterranean stock)
I have never been to Malta, and the only Maltese I personally met was a man in Algiers in 2003. He looked Southern European but not necessarilly North-African.
Quote:
Regarding the name, it was known as Morea from the early 1200s, but the ancient name was Peloponnesos.
I didn't know. So Greeks took the former name back.
Quote:
It was mentioned that the German town of Speyer (ancient Nemetum) was taken by the Romans from the inhabitants (the Celto-Germanic Nemetes tribe) around 100 B.C. This is a blunder, since no Roman army set foot in the region until Caesar's Gallic Wars of 58-52 B.C.
Ridiculous...
Quote:
Everything one reads must be taken with a grain of salt, I suppose.
How true. I also read an article one day that said Muslims captured Maghreb from the Byzantines in the 8th century, although everyone knows it occured in the 600s.
Quote:
Sirius, do you live in the Alsace? I have ancestry from that region. My maternal grandmother's father was from there. His surname was Fillip. He spoke German and French fluently, and considered himself neither of these ethnicities, but always an Alsatian.
Yes, it is my native region, it is at the border of Southern Germany, I live about 5 minutes from it.
How interesting that your ancestors are from Elsass. Your great grandfather probably lived in a period Alsace was still very Germanic in culture and language, but after France took Alsace back in 1918, the authorities Frenchified the region and outlawed German and what reminded German culture. Hence, the majority of Alsatians feel very French now, but many of them detest France and feel they're either German or simply Alsatian as your forefather. A large part of them speak German (especially the elders) and I hear them every day, strangely I also have an Alsatian accent sometimes, but it is unconscious and almost inaudible unlike many Alsatians who have such a very strong Germanic accent when they speak French. Rural Alsatians are the least Frenchified, some don't even speak French correctly and can't understand it entirely.
When France took Alsace-Lorraine back in 1918, the region had declared its independence a few weeks ago. Germany had legally ruled Alsace since its victory in 1871, it was previously ruled by France after the terrible German defeat in the 30 Years War that ended with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, about half of Alsace's population and Germany's population in general had died as a direct result of the famines and massacres caused by this war.
However, Strasbourg (where I live) and Mulhouse the 2 main cities of the region, only became French respectively in 1681 (Louis XIV's annexion) and 1798 (Revolutionary France's annexion). They were both independent republican micro-states. Germany had been divided into hundreds of states after 1648 in order to weaken it forever, which worked very well until its reunification in the second half of the 19th centyury.
Germany officially became a united country in 1871, Emperor William II himself proclaimed the Reich in the Galerie des Glaces of the Chateau of Versailles (near Paris) in order to humiliate France after its defeat in the war of 1870-71. This is why France wanted to sign the treaty that humiliated defeated Germany after WWI in the same gallery...
Hitler also wanted France to sign the Armistice of 1940 in the same wagon Germany had to sign in 1918 in Rethondes...
Quote:
Your are correct about what you said in an earlier post regarding German dialects differing from one another. I am much more comfortable with the Austrian and Bavarian dialects (even though these differ from one another, and, indeed, there are differences from town to town!). I have to concentrate if I want to speak Hochdeutsch, and I have a hard time understanding Berliners. Schweizerdeutsch, or as they say, Schwyzerdütsch, may as well be a completely different language, because I can hardly understand any of it. In fact, I can understand more Dutch than Swiss German. I had an easier time with the Walser dialect of Liechtenstein, when I was there.
Very funny experience. Arabic is not as diverse though, people of different countries can understand each other very easily but the problem is the Arab Middle-East and the Arab Maghreb do not understand each other (although they understand a lot) unless they use standard Arabic. The other difference is also people of a same Arabic country always speak the same dialect, while Germany is one unique country and has many different dialects. Perhaps it is due to its past, it was divided in more than 300 countries for centuries.
My aunts all speak Alsatian and they have no difficulty to communicate with neighbooring Southern Germans, and I often see Alsatians talking to Germans in Kehl (in 2007 in a bus, 2 German policemen have messed in German with an Alsatian man who had no Identity Card), I wish I could understand their conversations and speak in German too. I don't want to be rude but during my childhood I was always extremely disgusted by the German language because French medias always give us a very bad image of Germany and Germans, my siblings and I were so scared to be alone in Germany when our father left us in the car! The only image of Germans we see on tv is brutal and cruel people who slay children and women heartlessly and constantly scream and give orders. But since I grew up I began to be interested and fascinated by German, it is a very beautiful language.
By the way, if you come to Alsace (welcome), you can visit the national archives to learn about your forefathers. They have such very old documents, you may trace back as early as the 16th century.
A last thing. While Strasbourg and Colmar are Alsatian cities, Verdun is located in the region of Lorraine, but not in the district of Moselle, the part of Lorraine that was ruled by Germany in 1871-1918.
Verdun was a German city too (but not German-speaking), but it became French after Henri II invaded it in 1552 with Toul and Metz. Unlike the invasion of Alsace in the 17th century, it was a peaceful invasion as the local Protestant princes had allied with France and asked it to occupy those cities. An alliance against Charles V, the Catholic Emperor of the Holy Roman Germanic Empire (Germany), also King of Spain and monarch of many other states in Europe.
This also might explain they look like transition between Gulf Arabs and Iranians.
I really have no clue about their exact genetical composition besides that they're mainly descendents of the Assyro-Babylonians and their predecessors, and of the Sumerians for Southern Iraqis. As for phenotype, as I told you we probably have a different method to analyse them.
My personal opinion is Iraqis are almost the same as Levantine Arabs (except ethnic Jordanians) in term of physical apparence while all people of the Arabian peninsula plus Jordan have a specific look, a darker skin I mean. In the end, those differences still seem minor and all those populations have basically the same features to me.
Quote:
All Arabic dailects are very close
however I can not understand the Maghrabi dailect because its probably influnced by Tamazight, and French it compeletly different from the Levant and Gulf Arab dailects.
Indeed, they're all derived from classic Arabic. The areas of intelligibility are divided in 2 parts I think, the Arab Middle-East (except Iraq) and Arab Maghreb (although Libya and Mauritania are a bit different). Maghrebis and Middle-East Arabs can still communicate by using standard Arabic or classic Arabic.
It is noy only a matter of foreign influence, the pronounciation and other factors make it harder to understand too. I will explain.
While classic Arabic uses the sound "a" for the first person singular at the present tense (for instance "I go" is "aroH)", many Middle-East countries use the "b" sound (baroH) or even "H" and "h" for Egyptians (haroH, HaroH).
In contrast, Maghrebis use the sound "n" (nroH), which is a double problem of comprehension because Middle-Easterners use the "n" only for the fisrt person plural, Maghrebis use the "n" for the first person plural too but they always add the suffix "ou" as in clasic Arabic to mark the difference, while Middle-Easterners don't: Maghrebi Arabic for "we go" is "nroHou", Middle-Eastern Arabic is "nroH".
An other difference in pronounciations is the second person plural at the present tense. While a Middle-Easterner would follow the original pronounciation Maghrebis often make a little inversion. Example: "You know" is "ta3arfou" in Maghrebi Arabic while it is "ta3rafou" in Middle-Eastern Arabic. "You strike", " taDordbou", "taDrobou". I can't cite all verbs but you understood the logic.
There are many other differences like this, Maghrebis always mark the "q" sound (some make it g as many non-Egyptian Middle-Eastern Arabs) while Egyptians do not have the "q" sound, it is mute. So sometimes it is not understandable: "read" would be a'ra in Egyptian while it would be aqra in Maghrebi Arabic, Egyptians would say a'3ad' for aq3ad, and I believe the only word thay have that inludes the sound "q" is Quran.
So lets summarise, "I say" is "aqol", so an Egyptian would say "Ha'ol" or "ha'ol" or "ba'ol", it would be 2 differences that would not be understood by Maghrebis in a first conversation.
Basically, it is the same verbs and the same language, and when you understand the local pronouciation it is easy to understand the phrases then.
Sorry for those long explanations, I hope they helped you to understand more since I have a big experience with talking to Middle-Eastern Arabs in Arabic.
As for Maghrebi Arabic's foreign influences, it is especially influenced by French due to the recent colonisation actually. However, it is only an influence of vocabulary, which means the structure of the language is still the same besides the slight differences I told above, Lebanese people use many French words such as the verb "monter" ("atla3" in Maghrebi Arabic) but they are still understood by their neighboors because it is only vocabulary, like U.S and U.K English.
By the way, the people from the mountainous Arabic-speaking area I went to in Algeria seem to have retained much more of the original Arabic vocabulary than people of the coastal cities where most of the million French settlers lived.
Quote:
The Levant and Gulf Arab dailects are mostly purely Arabian.
It is true that Arabian and Levantine Arabic seem to be the closest to classic Arabic, but don't you forget Egyptian? The most easy dialect to understand to Maghrebis is Egyptian Arabic, it seems much easier. It is also the way to pronounce words that seems soft and easy, unlike Moroccan Arabic (and thus, Western Algerian Arabic) for instance that has the reputation to be very inaudible, the same for French of Canada, it is almost identical to standard French but the pronounciation is so terrible that we don't always understand it. Personally, I understand much more the songs of Egyptian singers than those of Morocco and Western Algeria like Cheb Khaled, whose texts are totally unintelligible to me. But when he doesn't sing, it is easy for me to understand him.
As for Iraqi, it is a bit complicated to me and I usually ask Iraqis to speak Levantine or Egyptian Arabic to understand them because it seems different. For example they always use the suffix "aj" for the "ak" sound (Issmak - Issmaj).
I usually speak a personal version of Arabic that is a mixture of Maghrebi Arabic and classic Arabic, I baned all French words from my Arabic because it sounds unsophisticated, not refined, and not classy to make such a mixture, and I want to be understood from Middle-Eastern Arabs, which I managed. It is ironical but when I talk to Maghrebis they always think I am Middle-Eastern.
Quote:
Yes the Touregs are very intersting people, the guy looks typical North African, but not much of how the modern day Toureg looks like. Its intersting to see how much they vary from phenotype to phenotype.
Indeed he looks like a typical Northern Maghrebi, besides his skin tone is much darker. It is exactly what I said above, Saharan Maghrebis usually have the same features as Northerners besides skin colour. But Tuaregs are not typical Saharan Algerians, as you said they're a mixture and they are very various, I saw many who looked like him and many who were 100% Black, while a lot were mixed. Tuaregs are really an exception because they were not a part of historical Algeria before the French conquered them in the early 20th century and added their territiory to Algeria, that historically included only the Northern region (coastal plains, Atlas mountains, high plateaux) plus a few neighbooring Saharan areas below the Saharan Atlas range.
Quote:
They are one of the Berber tribes that did not get Arabized,
All the people of the region were Arabised and Islamised, but they were not all Arabised at the same degree. Tuaregs were Arabised in the sense they speak Arabic, the Tuaregs I knew didn't reject the Arab label by the way. The Tuareg man I showed you above is a French politician who calls himself an Arab in the medias.
Keep in mind that calling yourself an Arab in Maghreb doesn't imply to be a person from Arabia, the region has an Arab history for 14 centuries. Westerners also always called the inhabitants of the region Arabs for centuries including during the conquest of Algeria until they learnt about the linguistic differences and used it to divide.
Quote:
they even kept the Berber script known as Tingifa. I heard that some of the Touregs have kept their original Berber looks, around Central Algeria.
Yes they have very traditional clothes and are different, they ressemble the cute rural Yemenis I saw on a documentary who live in the past and didn't adopt "modernity". They have retained original Berber scripts, indeed, some of them can be seen in Northern Algeria too, in Kabylie:
Quote:
I heard that Moroccan Berbers were mo
I am sorry I did not understand, you probably forgot to complete this phrase.
Quote:
this also shows the majorty of Turks are Turkified people, since the original Turks were Mongoloid.
Yes, genetic analyses said Anatolian Turks are ethnic Anatolians and descend from the ancient Indo-European speaking populations of the area: Hittites, Lydians, Phrygians, and so on. Their ancestors only adopted the Turkish language and identity, their genome shows minor Central Asian influence.
However, original Turks, who still inhabit Central Asia, were not Mongoloid but Turkic. They were close to Mongols in history and have higher Mongoloid admixtures than other ethnic groups.
Quote:
The Moriscos are infact of mixed race of Moor-Spaniards. Their was Spaniard converts among them, however most of them were alien from Spain. The Moors were of both Arab-Berber ancestory with some Sub-Saharan admixture, who mixed with the converted Muslim Spainards.
May I ask where you have found your informations? We should make a comparison. I read several sources that tell they were mainly Spaniards, there were hundreds of thousands in the 1600s and it doesn't count the hundreds of thousands who died or fled in 1492. Just like Arab Maghrebis don't descend from allien Arabs, Moriscos are told to not descend from foreigners, but perhaps your sources tell differently.
By the way, a group of Spanish politicians recently proposed a law to grant Spanish citizenship to their descendents, it concerns many people in Northwestern Africa.
Quote:
Yes the original people of the Canary Islands were of Berber origins, sadly they got enslaved, and killed, its was brutal genicode that occured by the Spaniards in fact it was the first. The men were killed and women were taken as it seems, as the Gunache maternal lineages survives in modern day Canary Islanders who are mixture of Iberian and Berber roots today
.
I guess Canarians are mainly descended of alien Spaniards since the population is said to have been exctinct, I don't know the degree of native blood Canarians have. Native Canarians were a Northwestern African Berber group that were totally isolated from the North-African mainland and were not as civilised, they were not advanced in weaponry and were easily conquered although they resisted. Their religion was still Pagan.
Well, at this time (17th century) it was standard to massacre populations, Muslims did the same in the Ottoman Empire, it was religious wars. I don't think it was the Spaniards who committed the first genocide in history, remember the Crusades, the mainly French army committed the genocide of the entire Muslim-Jewish population of Jerusalem in 1099 and many massacres followed causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
Romans (the ancestors of Italians) were genocidal too, in particular in Palestine and in Northwestern Africa. When they captured the city of Carthage they have slayed the entire population to make sure this powerful empire (Carthage was the richest city of the world and controlled the whole Western Mediterranea) never raises back because it was the biggest threat and ennemy to their country and Carthage had already raised back after its previous defeats and sweared to destroy Roma. There were many Berber revolts in Roman Northwestern Africa and they were always followed by brutal repressions.
By the way, after the long European rule (Roman, Vandal, Byzantine) in Maghrebi lands that ended with the arrival of Muslim troops in the region, Northwestern African troops have also committed many massacres against the Iberian population, although it was not what we call a genocide and the slaughter of a whole nation. This occured exclusively after the 11th century Almoravid conquest of Muslim Iberia, Christians and Jews lost their statut and many were persecuted.
I really think that many other ethnic groups (including Christians and Muslims) mass massacred others long before Spain ever became a state, it is only an attempt of the Spanish author to emphase the act that Spain committed.
Quote:
Yes the Babary Slave trade, also brought a large number of Europeans into North Africa. Some even went to Iceland to bring captured slaves. This brought also the U.S into the battle with the Babary states. Very intersting part of history.
Well, The U.S.A didn't war because of slavery, it was itself enslaving millions Africans. Both of the Barbary Wars began after Libya (in the first war) and Algeria (in the second war) declared war on the U.S.A because it refused to accept to pay a higher tribute for the protection of its ships. Northwestern African leaders wanted to force Americans to give more money by warring them.
It is very ironical because the first countries that have recognised the United States in the 18th century were also the first that warred them. The USA has defeated Libya in the First Barbary War, and Ageria in the second with the final intervention of the U.K. It was not real wars but minor naval battles that resulted to the end of the tribute Americans had to pay to Maghrebi countries to avoid that their ships got attacked by local pirates who controlled Western Mediterranea for centuries until the European navies became superior in the early 19th century. Libya and Algeria, which were then tiny countries in term of population, thought the USA was only a very minor power in Mediterranea because it was distant. History told they were not easy to defeat, they quickly became a very strong power because their population and thus their economy dramatically grew up years after years thanks to the intense European immigration. When the Barbary Wars started the U.S had almost no navy to put in the battle, and it has quickly built a fleet capable to fight and defy the then invincible Barbary States as we call them in the West. Since you're interested I will tell you about the history of the region.
After those wars in 1801-05 and in 1812-16 , Europeans understood how weakened those countries were, and they felt they should defeat them before they become strong again. It was the beginning of the Western colonisation in this region that had been able to defend itself successfully from European powers for centuries despite its demographic weakness compared to the much larger European countries (France alone was 33 millions when it invaded Algeria's three millions of people).
During the European Congress of Vienna of 1815, European powers discussed about the need to eliminate the Algerian threat, Napoleon had already drawn plans to invade it in 1808 and they were later used. Colonisation of Arab countries began there, Algeria was slowly conquered by France in the decades following the 1830 capture of Algiers and Oran, Tunisia and Egypt were conquered in 1881 respectively by France and the U.K.
Libya, which was then directly ruled by the Turks as a result of the French invasion of Algeria that had declared itself a vassal country of the Ottoman Empire to get its protection since the 16th century, began to be conquered by Italy in 1911.
Morocco was defeated by both France and Spain in various wars of the 19th centuries, which caused the loss of some little Northern territories and of the big saharan area in the South. France and Spain conquered its historical centre in the North in the early 20th century, the Franco-Spanish protectorate on the Northern region officially began in 1912 and ended with the independence of 1956 after France badly needed to mobolise all of its troops in the then revolting Algeria in order to protect its citizens and to save this territory it considered to be a part of France. Ifni and the remaining Southern territories were taken back from Spain after Moroccan attacks and pressures in the following decades, but today there are still 2 cities and 5 other territories (islands and a tiny peninsula) that are administrated by Spain and claimed by Morocco. Tunisia also became independent in 1956, Libya was taken from Italy by the victorious Allies after WWII and was granted independence in 1951. Algeria became independent in 1962 after the war that started in 1954.
Quote:
This is infact very intersting, the more South you the more the admixture is, well the more north you go its smaller, however for East Asian admixture the more you go East the more common it becomes.
The explanation is Southern Europe is the closest European region to the Arab World, Spain is fourteen kilometres and Italy is about 140 km. As for Eastern Europe, it is directly linked to Asia, Europe and Asia are the same landmass, Europe as a continent is an arbitrary concept with no geographical basis but rather a cultural and ethnical entity that was and still is distinct in history.
Quote:
As for the Lebanese factions its mostly of the Christian Lebanes who don't want to identifay as Arabs but as Cannanites/Phonicieans, and they claim to speak Lebanese.
Yes, that is true, it is mostly Christian Lebanese who form this group. By the way there is no contradiction with being Arab, a citizen of an Arab country who talks Arabic and who is of Arabic culture, and claiming an earlier heritage (Canaanite Phoenicians' heritage). In France there are a lot of ethnic groups who have earlier heritages and who used to not be French, like people of Brittany or Alsatians in my region (a former German land), they are French and are proud of their original background, which is the same as almost all French people by the way if you trace back to the Celtic period before later entities evolved. The same is true for Lebanese, they are the same population as Arabia's people in term of Semitic ancestry, not to mention the theories that tell ancient Semites were immigrants from Arabia.
Speaking of Christian Arabs, all Palestinian, Syrian, and Jordanian Christians I met identify as 100% Arab. However, many Egyptian, Iraqi, and Lebanese Christians reject this label. It is really a fact I noticed, they tell me they're not Arab but they aknowledge that they're the same civilisation, and they seem to be culturally identical to Arabs to me, so it is really confusing, it is not like a French and a French-speaking Belgian, who don't feel they're the same people although they have similarities. By the way, Jordan was always an Arabic-speaking country in history so it explains why its Christians identify as Arabs, but Palestine and Western Syria (where the core of the Syrian population lives) had the same statut as Lebanon and were Aramaic speaking and under foreign Byzantine rule for centuries before Muslim armies captured those lands and Islamised them, so I wonder why Palestinian and Syrian Christians are never involved in the concept of rejecting Arab identity. It may be because of colonial propaganda, the U.K also tried to divide Muslim and Coptic Egyptians.
My former teacher of Arabic in France was a Christian Jordanian and wore a necklace with a very big Christian cross, she seemed to be extremely nationalistic and proud of her Arab heritage, I discovered Oum Kalthoum and Gamal Abdel Nasser in her classroom.
Few people know it in the West but Christianity was present in Arab lands long before Islam, and long before it was ever present in the West. Christianity actually originates from Palestine and early Christians were the ancestors of today Arabs in the Levant, Egypt, Iraq, and Northern Arabia. This religion then spread into Europe via Greece, and later into the New World and Sub-Saharan Africa after European colonisation.
Quote:
The Lebanese is Arabic but with some French influnces. The French put the theory that the Maronites decent from the Phonicieans, however recent DNA testing proofs that the Maronites are collection of ethinc groups that came to Lebanon. About 25% of them have Western European Y-DNA R1b which might have been brought to Lebanon probably during the Crusades. Lebanese DNA shows they are very close to Yemenis on the paternal line, but on the maternal line they are closer to Palestinians.
Well, all Lebanese descend from Canaanite Phoenicians, not only the Maronites. There are also Muslims, and non-Maronite Catholic Christian, such as the members of the Greek Orthodox church or Protestants. Christian Lebanese look the same as all other Arabs. Not all Christian Lebanese are hostile to Arabs, and even those who are, are not really hostile but only have an identity crises that wouldn't change the fact they're culturally identical to those they want to be separated from. The founder of the Arab American Institute is a Catholic Christian Maronite of Lebanese ancestry by the way:
French colonialists' goal was to divide and rule, although they had a lot of minorities who were much more different from other French than Maronites from Muslim Lebanese people, they used this method as all invaders always do in the territory of the ennemy. Muslims used this tactic to maintain in Iberia for centuries because the Northern Christian states were rivals and fought each other, Muslims used it too when they invaded today France, they have allied to the Southern rulers against the Franks.
In Malta, whose language is an Arabic dialect evolved from Maghrebi Arabic (although it is totally unintellegible today because of centuries of changes and Italian/English contributions), nationalists of the 19th century gave Maltese a Phoenician origin because Arabic is seen as a symbol of Islamic identity.
As for Lebanese Arabic, it doesn't have much more French than Egyptian Arabic has English (and French, such as "piscine" for waterpool for instance). By the way, Northwestern Africans gave hundreds of Arab words to the French language. For example, a familiar word to say doctor in French is "toubib", in Maghrebi Arabic it is "Tabeeb" (the word "daktour" is also used by Maghrebi Arabs but it rather came from Greek).
As for Spanish, it has more than 100.000 words from Maghrebi Arabic, its grammary is also influenced. Thousands of names of major towns and sites such as Madrid have Middle-Eastern roots. The name Spain itself is Semitic.
Quote:
I never knew the Chuais prefer Arabization is their any reasons for it?
There is no specific reason, they usually say they're Arab because to them it is a synonym of "Maghrebi" or of "Algerian". The Berber-speaking groups are not all the same, they're not united under a Berber nation. As for Moroccan Berbers most of them (most of those I knew, if not all) would not reject the Arab label because Arab is like a synonym of Moroccan to them, and they're identitcal to Moroccan Arabs all ways so it sounds senseless to make a distinction that doesn't exist in reality. While some of them reject the Arab label for the same reasons as Maronites I told above, Chaouis are different and do not have any feeling of Berber nationalism.
It is interesting to note that just like Lebanon, such identity issues were created by French colonialism, which realised a policy of division and created many differences between those groups who never had such debates before. Colonial policy told that Berbers were very intelligent and smart while Arabs were lazy and ignorant. However, during the Algerian War of Liberation there were no differences between those groups and they fought together, the fight started in Aures Mountains by the way, the homeland of the Chaouis, and Kabylie mountains were also a big centre of resistance.
There is also an other factor that caused Arab nationalism in a higher way than in neighbooring countries, which were only "protectorates" under French rule and not declared French disctricts by France as Algeria. Since in 1962 the country was totally Frenchified in term of language, architecture, administration, society, and so on (the only signs of Arabic identity were the natives, their language and culture), the politicians of independent Algeria wanted to symbolise the total destruction of any French symbol and it was also made through a higher claim that Algerians are Arab people and Algeria is an Arab land, and not French people in a French land as the colonial authorities imposed in their official laws and in their anti-Arab propaganda. That explains the famous speech of the first Algerian president, Ahmed Ben Bella: "We are Arabs, Arabs, Arabs". He was himself originally from a Berber-speaking family of Morocco, he was born in Algeria though. Arabic was also intensely imposed in schools over Berber dialects to give it its pre-colonial statut, in the 1930s French deputies declared Arabic to be a foreign language in Algeria, whose unique language was declared to be French as an other attempt to annihilate the original identity of the country. Finally, the experience of occupation also made people feel even more Arab in the sense the occupiers constantly told Algerians "True Algerians are not Arabs", or "Arabs [including Berber-speaking people who were seen as Arabs too] invaded Algeria in the 7th century and stole it from Christians, they need to go back to Arabia and leave the French natives in their legitimate land", etc.
All this aroggance and denial of history contributed to make people express their Arabism in an ostentatious way, it also led to the expulsion of almost 100% of the French settlers (who were born there and considered it as their homeland) after the victory of 1962 because of their initial intention to maintain Algeria under Western rule before to lose the war.
This is true in many other nations, particularily in France. After it was freed from Nazi Germany that occupied and pillaged the country from 1940 to 1945, the natives felt so angry and extremely anti-Germans. They wanted to "clean" France from anything that would remind the 4 years occupation (5 years in Alsace) and the humiliation of those who had literally enslaved them and caused the deaths of thousands of them. Hence, the German language that was imposed in the streets and that was to replace French, was seen as a disgusting tongue that had to disappear, the German flags and logos were also removed from the country.
Algeria felt the same about France, all the cities, streets, and places including those that were renamed after French officers who had conquered the country, were Arabised and renamed after Algerian heroes. However while Arabic officially became the principal and first language of the country, French was not totally removed and is still important among educated people. At this time of Maghrebi solidarity, there was even a project of fusion between the 3 countries of Maghreb to form one unique state, which failed because of rivalry between the leaders, there was even a brief war between Morocco and Algeria in 1963, Morocco attempted to capture the desertic Southwestern Algeria, that was once its lands before France had conquered it and incorporated it into its Algerian colony, like it did with the lands of the Tuaregs. Algeria considered that it had expelled the French from this land and thus had a legal right to own it, while Morocco mentioned its historical presence there before the French colonisation (Algeria never included this part of its modern territory before French colonisation). Algeria won the war and kept this piece of desert, this event caused the Algerian support of the Polisario movement in Western Sahara against Morocco.
Quote:
The Berber groups that claim to reject Islam are joke, since I know many Berbers are proud to be Muslims and even very devout, so it is seneless.
They have seen Islam intertwine with their culture.
Those extremist groups, which are a very tiny minority like neo-nazis among Westerners, are also extremely hostile to Arabism not only to Islam, many also like to identify themselves with Westerners or to invent European origins to Maghrebis, they also insist about the Christian past of the region before the arrival of Islam in the 600s.
Well, It is not only "many Berbers" who are proud Muslims, trust me it is really the vast majority like in Saudi Arabia. As for myself, I am not particularily religious and prefer to pride myself through my ethnic background rather than through religious ideas, but I am also proud of the Islamic civiliation for its scientific achievements just like non-religious French Christians or even atheist French who feel very proud of their Christian heritage because it represents a rich history and civilisation before to be religious beliefs.
Northwestern Africans have a very different interpretation of Islam however, all Islamic and Christian regions of the world seem to have theirs, Arab Maghreb is of Sunni rite but it predominantly follows the Maliki jurisprudence. For instance, wearing a veil for women is not considered as a total religious requirement (except by some local theologists), hence women can freely choose to wear it or not without feeling they violate their religion, which I think is not the same in KSA. Today, about half Algerian women wear a veil. Early Christians also wore a veil, and Arab Christians still do, even in France, older Iraqi Christians were shown with a veil on tv for Esther, which is rare because the medias often insist that it is only Islamic. But today in Europe only Orthodox Christians from Eastern Europe follow this rule, same for the beard of the clerics. Very religious Jews also wear a veil and Rabbis have a beard too, especially fanatical religious Jewish settlers. Apparently, whether they are Jewish or Muslims, fanatics like this look of wearing a beard.
Oh and, there is also a funny thing. All the sea food is totally Halal (allowed) in Maghreb, while in your country I guess it is seen as a big sin to eat crustaceans, Jews follow this rule too and feel it is as sick as eating pig meat (I am a vegatarian and all meat or sea food disgust me anyway).
Quote:
This means alot of North Africans can pass as local Spaniards and some French. Thus its not easy racialy profling them, maybe unless they have some siginicant sub-Saharan admixture, or they look Bedouins which some North Africans can look like.
It is usually extremely easy to distinguish Northwestern Africans from the natives, because most native French look European, and most Northwestern African look Maghrebi (many Moroccans even look partly Sub-Saharan). Not only because of their physical features but also because they have a special culture that includes a part of their original Arab background even if their culture is mostly Western. Hence, even a blue eyed and blonde Algerian can be easily dinstinguished from a local ethnic French by talking to him/her. As for those who are foreigners who recently moved and were not born here, their Arabic accent is also a factor that immediately identifies them.
Well, any European born Northwestern African who tells he/she is Portugese, Spanish, or Italian, will be believed with no difficulty, because although not all Southern Europeans look non-European, they're stereotyped as having a "Latin" look. As for myself, people think I am Italian sometimes, some of my siblings are thought to be native French by some people.
However, unless to really look European, it is not possible for a Northwestern African to pass as a French, unless if he/she pretends to be from the South. But even the South is mainly White looking, although many people do not look White as I showed.
In Southern European countries it is different because it is not "many" or "a few" who look non-White, it is a very large part of the population, and in Greece it may be the majority.
The Iraqis manily don't decent from the Sumerians. The Sumerians are an extinct people. They heavily mixed with the Akkadians who originaly came from Arabia, and later with the Babylonians who originaly came from Arabia, and ofcourse the Lakhmid Arabs, who pretty much Arabized Iraq to an extenet. Persian invasions and making their capital in Iraq, brought siginifcant Persian genetic influnces upon the people of Iraq. The Y-DNA is similar to Persian men, but the maternal ancestory is different.
Most Iraqis are transition to Gulf-Arabs and Iranians. Their is some Levantine looking Iraqis, but the majorty looks like Gulf-Arab mixed with Iranians. Its usually hard somtimes to tell an Iranian from an Iraqi or Saudi from an Iraqi. Ofcourse Iraqis are one of the darkest people in the Levant that is if they are included as Levantine Arabs.
Yes original Jordanians are very dark, the Bedouins are their direct decendants. Although today most Jordanians decent from Palestinian immigrants, and their is large Cricassian miniorty. Cricassians are basicaly people from the Caucasus that came with the Ottomans. Sometimes you find dark Cricassians because they mixed with the locals, but most look very Nordic.
The closest Arabic dailect to Classical Arabic is infact Iraqi more so than the Gulf Arab dailects are often close to classical Arabic. The Saudi dailect is being the closest, but not so. Its intersting that Iraqi dailect is the closest to it.
Ofcourse I understand Levantine dailects, but the North African dailects sound very alien to me. However I only understand some of the Egyptian dailects. It usually the synatex of how to use certian letters and words thanks for explaning the dailects.
Is Maghrabi Arabic different from the Darja ? I have heard Darja is mixture of Arabic and Tamazigh languages
The Egyptian dailect is infact universal thus all Arabs can understand it, its not much different from Levantine Arabic dailects.
Its good to clean the langauge from the foregin influnces and kept purely as Arabic as you can.
That true all North Africans have the same fetures some are darker and some are lighter. This probably has to do with the climates. The more the heat is the darker the skin, the more its cold the lighter. Sun color is an adaptation to the hot climates. Its also intersting to know that the Touregs were not native to Algeria until the French annexed their territory to Algeria. Yes its very intersting to see the Touregs. Yes I have seen some light Saharans who looked typical North African, and I have seen some that were mixed and some looked as if they are 100% sub-Saharan.
Ofcourse it does not mean you came from Arabia, since many of the people are Arabized native North Africans. But its intersting to see that some people who have complete Amazigh hertiage such as the Chauis claim Arab hertiage.
Yes the French created the theory that the Maronites especially decent from the ancient Phonicieans, but recent DNA has show to be false. Since many of the Maronites have many bloodlines, about 25% of their Y-DNA comes from Western Europe, some of them even decent from the Frankish Crusaders. Such familes are like Al-Frangie. Not all Lebanese Christians claim to decent from the Phonicieans. The Greek Orthodox Lebanese calim Arab Ghassanid decent and proud of their origin. Even some Maronite families claim Ghassanid decent.
Yes that what the French did in Lebanon to they said that the Arabs are inferior, to the Phonicieans and so on
Most Lebanese decent from the original population of the land, In fact their existed pre-Islamic Arab populations such as Nabateans, Ghassanids, and even Lakhmids.
Its also intersting how the French also belived that the Berbers came from Arabia and stole the land of the "Christians". However most of the Berbers were in fact multi-religouse. It also intersting to see that reistance came from both ethinc groups, but the colonial divide have made some anomisty between them.
Yes the Algerian suffered alot under the French colonial rule.
From my experince the Palestinian,Jordanian, some Lebanese and Iraqi Christians do identify as Arabs. However Egyptian Christians don't identifay as Arabs because they see themselves as decendants of the Ancient Egyptians and they became called Copt.
Some of the Berbe groups they belive that Islam was imposed on them by the invading Arabs, and its an Arab concept alien. However they are very small and often hiddden and ironicaly live in the West and not in their countries of origin.
The founder of modern day Arab nationalism is Michael Afliaq a Syrian of Greek Orthodox tradition. He was proud of his Arab ethincity.
Well yes ofcourse Arabs are proud of their achivements weather their Muslims or even non-Muslims. I myself identify as Arab rather than Muslim. I take pride in my ethincity.
It depends on what are of Saudi Arabia is but yes its more strict than other nations. Uusually conservatism is very high in the Mecca and Medina which are the holy cities, but in the north and other parts usually its more liberal, but they are in fact getting liberal these days.
Nice info on the Barbary wars.
But it seems the Gunaches did not die, because their maternal lineages are very common among Canary Islanders.
Also very intersting on the Berber writing.
Well I mean not all North Africans can be possibly racial profiled like I said unless they look Bedouin or have some sub-Saharan admixture of course, but many North African can pass natives.
However its intersting how colonial polcies created ethinc tension which in somways continues to this day in North Africa and other parts of the Middle East. Hopefully people will learn from their mistakes of divide and rule.
The Arabs raided all of Italy, Corsica, Southern France, Sardina, and even Bulgaria. The Arabs even sacked Rome. Southern mainland Italian Pensiula was ruled by the Arabs and the same with Sicily, Sardnia, and Corsia. However the Arabs were unsuccessful in capturing Greece of Bulgaria, to do to Greek Fire. Greek Fire was in fact invented by Syrians but the Greeks adopted, this made the Arabs retreated, until the Turkic Ottomans conquered the region and the whole Balkan area. Which did bring with it a Mongol influnce to the regions.
Yes, that is all correct. The Ottomans also had many sub-Saharan types in their ranks, and many such slaves existed in the Ottoman world, including Greece. Interestingly, here is what anthropologist J. L. Angel had to say:
Quote:
In my own skeletal samples from Greece I note apparent negroid nose and mouth traits in two of fourteen Early Neolithic (sixth millenium B.C.), only two or three more among 364 from fifth to second millenium B.C., one among 113 Early Iron Age, one or two among 233 Classic and Hellenistic skeletons, but four clear Negroids (all from one area of Early Christian Corinth) among ninety-five Roman period, two among eighty-five Medieval, and of course ten among fifty-two Turkish period Greeks, yet none among 202 of Romantic (nineteenth century) date.
Incidentally (and sirius2008 will find this to be of interest), I spoke with a history professor (friend of mine), who specializes in European history. I mentioned that I could find no data claiming a Saracen invasion of the Peloponnese, but did see one map that showed the region as having been conquered. He said there is no data pointing to any long-term control of the Peloponnese by Saracens, but that it is certain that they raided it. There is data on raids and occupations of some of the small islands very close to the peninsula. This, and the fact that the Saracens were active in the region, makes it clear that raids on the mainland occurred, but they were either unsuccessful, or very brief, with the Saracens burning a town or two, engaging in "R, P, and P" (rape, plunder, and pillage), then leaving, merely to show the Greeks that they would be a thorn in their side. Regarding the name, it was known as Morea from the early 1200s, but the ancient name was Peloponnesos.
Sirius, the professor also said that Crete was certainly under Saracen control steadily from the 820s (exact date is in dispute) until 961. Raids occurred for about 150 years before this. My encyclopedia is wrong. As you pointed out, newer ones are not free from errors either. I saw a blunder in a new Encyclopedia Britannica. It was mentioned that the German town of Speyer (ancient Nemetum) was taken by the Romans from the inhabitants (the Celto-Germanic Nemetes tribe) around 100 B.C. The date is a blunder, since no Roman army set foot in the region until Caesar's Gallic Wars of 58-52 B.C. Everything one reads must be taken with a grain of salt, I suppose.
Sirius, do you live in the Alsace? I have ancestry from that region. My maternal grandmother's father was from there. His surname was Fillip. He spoke German and French fluently, and considered himself neither of these ethnicities, but always an Alsatian.
Your are correct about what you said in an earlier post regarding German dialects differing from one another. I am much more comfortable with the Austrian and Bavarian dialects (even though these differ from one another, and, indeed, there are differences from town to town!). I have to concentrate if I want to speak Hochdeutsch, and I have a hard time understanding Berliners. Schweizerdeutsch, or as they say, Schwyzerdütsch, may as well be a completely different language, because I can hardly understand any of it. In fact, I can understand more Dutch than Swiss German. I had an easier time with the Walser dialect of Liechtenstein, when I was there.
Yes the Ottomans did in fact use Sub-Saharans. Many of them came from Sudan, and East Africa they were loosely called Hibshia, which in Arabic means Ethiopian, but then it came to be applied to all Blacks. Many of these people were used as soliders in the European front. Not all were slaves, some were slaves that are in Turkey. Today their decednants do still live their
The Negroid element in Greece pre-dates the Turks and the Arab invasions into the region. This because the Greeks had interacted with the Africans espcially those of East Africa. You can also see some people who appear to be of African decent in some of the Greek paintings.
Some of the islands were ruled very berifely by the Arabs, but the Turks ruled all of Greece including its Islands. Thus some of the lineages might be traced to the Ottoman soliders who came from various racial and ethinc backgrounds.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Wed 09 Apr 2008 16:54 Post subject:
sirius2008 wrote:
An interesting anecdote, during the reigns of Louis XIV (France) and Mulay Ismail (Morocco), the 2 most powerful heads of state of their respective countries, both enslaved and humiliated each other but still had very good relationships. They offered gifts to each other, and Mulay Ismail even asked to marry Louis XIV's daughter (he immediately refused of course lol).
Mulay Ismail had his Christian European slaves build a magnificent palace in Meknes (emulating the wonderful Chateau of Versailles), while Louis XIV officially ordered Muslim Algerian slaves from his Ministry of Marine for his galleys.
The most ironical is since French authorities wanted to have a good image towards the Ottoman Empire, they also bought many Muslim slaves in Europe to free them and give them back to their countries. I read this on the works of European historians who are specialised in Mediterranean history.
All interesting data. Thanks very much. Incidentally, I read (in a book review) of raids made on the French - Italian border and the French Riviera, with some Muslims settling amongst the population:
Chapt. 21: The French Riviera Campaign: St. Tropez 898-973 (pp. 135-139)
Muslim sailors landed at St. Tropez and began a disjointed pattern of conquest. All throughout the Riviera, in the Alps, cutting off France from Italy. Many settled and intermarried. Slowly the tide began to turn and in places Muslims were being pushed out. But a weak and divided Christendom was singularly unfit for the task.
sirius2008 wrote:
Speaking of this period, I am curious about the genetic composition of Maltese people, who speak an Arabic dialect (not intellegible from Arabs though, due to intense changes and European contributions through centuries) as I said above. This island was not particularily European in history, it was owned by Middle-Eastern Phoenicians, Carthaginian and Muslim Northwestern Africans , Romans, Byzantines, French, British, etc.
I have a nice big book on Malta, which describes the history. When I dig it out during my spring cleaning in a few weeks, I'll let you know what I find. Also, I have a full study on paper (I had the PDF on my hard-drive before the blasted thing crashed, but thankfully I had the presence of mind to print it out before) that deals with different Mediterranean populations, including Maltese. At the time, I was researching sub-Saharan DNA, so I do recall some sub-Saharan markers being found in Malta, mainly Y-group E(xE3b) (which means the E haplogroup excluding E3b; E3b and its descendants are also sub-Saharan originating, and found in many Mediterraneans, but they exited East Africa many millennia ago).
sirius2008 wrote:
A huge number of Muslim slaves (captured in Maghreb and as far as Egypt and Anatolia) was there in the past. According to Anne Brogini (historian teaching in Nice, France), in 1599 slaves represented about 5.4 % of a total population of about 33.000 people. 80% were Muslim and Jewish, 20% were Christian, mainly Arab Christians and Greeks. In 1548, they represented only 2% of the population, the author says they dramatically grew up. While most slaves were males, there were also women and children who were reported living as slaves in Malta, some of the children could have been born from rapes or from a relationship bewteen a female slave and her master, meaning people mixed.
Although her articles are in French unfortunately, the beginning is also in English:
"During the 17th century, the maltese population grows up very quickly, owing to the economic development of the island which had become an important christian corsair state in the Mediterranean. On account of ransom trade, Malta is opening to muslim and christian shores. The new wealth of the island draws many christian corsairs and merchants and improves life conditions of the population. Moreover, the population is protected by the Knights of St John who exercise a medical control about epidemics and looks after poors."
That is very interesting data. Thanks again very much. For some reason, many sources want to minimize the Arabic contribution to the Maltese population and language, and claim the language, Semitic features, etc. can be explained solely by the Phoenician/Carthaginian settlements. This, as what you wrote above shows, is clearly wrong.
sirius2008 wrote:
I wonder what is the current racial composition of the Maltese, the CIA World Fact Book says:
Ethnic groups: Maltese (descendants of ancient Carthaginians and Phoenicians, with strong elements of Italian and other Mediterranean stock)
I have never been to Malta, and the only Maltese I personally met was a man in Algiers in 2003. He looked Southern European but not necessarilly North-African.
Unfortunately, the CIA World Fact Book is untrustworthy, as no one has ever been able to figure out what their sources are (althought what they say about the Maltese is largely correct). I was in Malta, but only briefly.
Here is what the famous/infamous 1911 version of Britannica says (take with a grain of salt, as there are clearly prejudices present):
In appearance the Maltese are a handsome, well-formed race, about the middle height, and well set up; they have escaped the negroid contamination noticeable in Sicily, and their features are less dark than the southern Italians. The women are generally smaller than the men, with black eyes, fine hair and graceful carriage. They are a thrifty and industrious people, prolific and devoted to their offspring, good-humoured, quick-tempered and impressionable. The food of the working classes is principally bread, with oil, olives, cheese and fruit, sometimes fish, but seldom meat; common wine is largely imported from southern Europe. The Maltese are strict adherents to the Roman Catholic religion, and enthusiastic observers of festivals, fasts and ceremonials.
sirius2008 wrote:
Yes, it is my native region, it is at the border of Southern Germany, I live about 5 minutes from it.
How interesting that your ancestors are from Elsass. Your great grandfather probably lived in a period Alsace was still very Germanic in culture and language, but after France took Alsace back in 1918, the authorities Frenchified the region and outlawed German and what reminded German culture. Hence, the majority of Alsatians feel very French now, but many of them detest France and feel they're either German or simply Alsatian as your forefather. A large part of them speak German (especially the elders) and I hear them every day, strangely I also have an Alsatian accent sometimes, but it is unconscious and almost inaudible unlike many Alsatians who have such a very strong Germanic accent when they speak French. Rural Alsatians are the least Frenchified, some don't even speak French correctly and can't understand it entirely.
The Alsatian dialect of German is largely Alemannic, and because of this, has similarities with other Alemannic dialects of German, like Swiss German, the German spoken in the Black Forest (where my grandmother's mother came from, and some of my dad's ancestors), the German spoken in Voralberg, Austria (different from the Bavarian dialects spoken in other parts of Austria), etc. Interesting about how modern Alsatians feel. I was under the impression, correct, apparently, that most feel French, but acknowledge their German ancestry. It makes sense that the rural ones are the least Frenchified.
Interestingly, the Alemannic dialect arrived in Elsass with the Alemanni and associated tribes after the fall of Rome. But even before Rome ever set foot in the region, there were Germanic tribes there. In fact, the German advance into the region in about 72 B.C., with Ariovistus and his Suebi (and associated Germanic and Celto-Germanic tribes), is partly what caused Caesar to invade the region, to protect the tribes allied with Rome. Caesar defeated Ariovistus, but certainly some remained and were absorbed, like the Celto-Germanic Triboci, where Strasbourg is now. There was probably a Germanic advance well before this, as Germanic peoples had been crossing the Rhine for centuries (mainly further north), but most of these were culturally and linguistically absorbed by the Celtic Gauls.
sirius2008 wrote:
When France took Alsace-Lorraine back in 1918, the region had declared its independence a few weeks ago. Germany had legally ruled Alsace since its victory in 1871, it was previously ruled by France after the terrible German defeat in the 30 Years War that ended with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, about half of Alsace's population and Germany's population in general had died as a direct result of the famines and massacres caused by this war.
Yes, indeed. According to what I read, when the region was first annexed by France in 1648, the population refused to consider themselves as French, and resisted all attempts to become Frenchified. They all retained their German ethnicities until the Revolution, when some became French at heart.
The 30 Years War was brutal. It decimated parts of Germany so badly that some areas were completely abandoned, causing wolves to enter the region! Over time, though, some of the German population returned, with some Germans from other regions joining them. But people from other regions, including Dutch folks and French Huguenots from the French interior, also settled in Germany at this time. Some towns (Frankenthal, if I recall correctly, is one of them) were almost entirely repopulated by such foreigners. The town of Krefeld, from which the first Germans officially emigrated to America in 1683 (there had been others along with the Swedes and Dutch earlier), was populated by Germans and Dutch immigrants, and so some of the people who emigrated to Germantown, Pennsylvania, in 1683, from Krefeld were ethnically Dutch, while the rest were German.
Interestingly, the French Huguenot immigration to Germany caused French surnames to be established in Germany, and they remained even after their descendants had been absorbed and became German. Astor (like emigrant and future millionaire Johann Jakob Astor) is one such name; Vidal is another; Vaillant is still another.
sirius2008 wrote:
However, Strasbourg (where I live) and Mulhouse the 2 main cities of the region, only became French respectively in 1681 (Louis XIV's annexion) and 1798 (Revolutionary France's annexion). They were both independent republican micro-states. Germany had been divided into hundreds of states after 1648 in order to weaken it forever, which worked very well until its reunification in the second half of the 19th centyury.
I didn't have this specific data, so thanks again. Mulhouse's German name is Mülhausen. I visited the Alsace in 1984, with my family, when I was 14. We visited many towns, including Mulhouse. We wanted to see the famous Fritz Schlumpf car collection, but the museum was not yet open.
sirius2008 wrote:
Germany officially became a united country in 1871, Emperor William II himself proclaimed the Reich in the Galerie des Glaces of the Chateau of Versailles (near Paris) in order to humiliate France after its defeat in the war of 1870-71. This is why France wanted to sign the treaty that humiliated defeated Germany after WWI in the same gallery...
Yes, indeed.
sirius2008 wrote:
Hitler also wanted France to sign the Armistice of 1940 in the same wagon Germany had to sign in 1918 in Rethondes...
Yes, that is amusing.
sirius2008 wrote:
Very funny experience. Arabic is not as diverse though, people of different countries can understand each other very easily but the problem is the Arab Middle-East and the Arab Maghreb do not understand each other (although they understand a lot) unless they use standard Arabic. The other difference is also people of a same Arabic country always speak the same dialect, while Germany is one unique country and has many different dialects. Perhaps it is due to its past, it was divided in more than 300 countries for centuries.
That is interesting. I've always wondered how mutually intelligible the various Arabic dialects are.
sirius2008 wrote:
My aunts all speak Alsatian and they have no difficulty to communicate with neighbooring Southern Germans, and I often see Alsatians talking to Germans in Kehl (in 2007 in a bus, 2 German policemen have messed in German with an Alsatian man who had no Identity Card), I wish I could understand their conversations and speak in German too. I don't want to be rude but during my childhood I was always extremely disgusted by the German language because French medias always give us a very bad image of Germany and Germans, my siblings and I were so scared to be alone in Germany when our father left us in the car! The only image of Germans we see on tv is brutal and cruel people who slay children and women heartlessly and constantly scream and give orders. But since I grew up I began to be interested and fascinated by German, it is a very beautiful language.
I'm not surprised about the anti-German publicity. Some German dialects can be guttural and not very nice, but the Bavarian and Austrian dialects are quite friendly sounding, in my opinion.
sirius2008 wrote:
By the way, if you come to Alsace (welcome), you can visit the national archives to learn about your forefathers. They have such very old documents, you may trace back as early as the 16th century.
I'd love to see that region again. We can meet for lunch. What is that lovely little section of Strasbourg called with the half-timber houses -- La Petite France?
sirius2008 wrote:
A last thing. While Strasbourg and Colmar are Alsatian cities, Verdun is located in the region of Lorraine, but not in the district of Moselle, the part of Lorraine that was ruled by Germany in 1871-1918.
Verdun was a German city too (but not German-speaking), but it became French after Henri II invaded it in 1552 with Toul and Metz. Unlike the invasion of Alsace in the 17th century, it was a peaceful invasion as the local Protestant princes had allied with France and asked it to occupy those cities. An alliance against Charles V, the Catholic Emperor of the Holy Roman Germanic Empire (Germany), also King of Spain and monarch of many other states in Europe.
Yes, indeed. Sometimes I still think in terms of Alsace-Lorraine as a single unit. Incidentally, I spoke with my mom, who said her cousin (who has done research) said my great-grandfather was born in Colmar, lived in Verdun for a while, and then lived in Strasbourg.
ArabianKnight wrote:
Yes the Ottomans did in fact use Sub-Saharans. Many of them came from Sudan, and East Africa they were loosely called Hibshia, which in Arabic means Ethiopian, but then it came to be applied to all Blacks. Many of these people were used as soliders in the European front. Not all were slaves, some were slaves that are in Turkey. Today their decednants do still live their.
That is interesting. Thanks. I would imagine the majority were absorbed, with only small pockets remaining.
ArabianKnight wrote:
The Negroid element in Greece pre-dates the Turks and the Arab invasions into the region. This because the Greeks had interacted with the Africans espcially those of East Africa. You can also see some people who appear to be of African decent in some of the Greek paintings.
Yes, indeed. Frank Snowden's books and articles give good accounts and depictions.
ArabianKnight wrote:
Some of the islands were ruled very berifely by the Arabs, but the Turks ruled all of Greece including its Islands. Thus some of the lineages might be traced to the Ottoman soliders who came from various racial and ethinc backgrounds.
Yes, that's correct. Being an Ottoman was kind of like being a Roman, I guess -- one could be of any background.
Most of them were abosrbed, their is very few African communities in Turkey, their is even an African communities in the Caucasus. Some of them are called Afro-Cricassians, they decent primarly from Cricassian men and African women. It seems that the Cricassian were also involved in the slave trade. The Slave trade in the Muslim world was very different from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. The decendants of the slave women often inhertied their roles of their fathers, and were often adopted into the ethincity this probably what led to their aborbtion. The slaves were also often freed, or sometimes incorparated into the family. In the Muslim world slavery was in fact never a race issue it was mainly economic.
Yes the Ottoman was just like the Romans, they came from many different backgrounds.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 10 Apr 2008 23:26 Post subject:
ArabianKnight wrote:
Most of them were abosrbed, their is very few African communities in Turkey, their is even an African communities in the Caucasus. Some of them are called Afro-Cricassians, they decent primarly from Cricassian men and African women. It seems that the Cricassian were also involved in the slave trade.
That can explain the sporadic presence of the East African mtDNA lineage of M1 in the Caucasus (the farthest east it has ever been found)! Fascinating! Thanks once again. I've learned so much in the past few days from you and sirius2008!
ArabianKnight wrote:
The Slave trade in the Muslim world was very different from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. The decendants of the slave women often inhertied their roles of their fathers, and were often adopted into the ethincity this probably what led to their aborbtion. The slaves were also often freed, or sometimes incorparated into the family. In the Muslim world slavery was in fact never a race issue it was mainly economic.
Yes, I do recall reading this in the Gates and Appiah encyclopedia. Very interesting to learn. Thanks for the confirmation.
Most of them were abosrbed, their is very few African communities in Turkey, their is even an African communities in the Caucasus. Some of them are called Afro-Cricassians, they decent primarly from Cricassian men and African women. It seems that the Cricassian were also involved in the slave trade.
That can explain the sporadic presence of the East African mtDNA lineage of M1 in the Caucasus (the farthest east it has ever been found)! Fascinating! Thanks once again. I've learned so much in the past few days from you and sirius2008!
ArabianKnight wrote:
The Slave trade in the Muslim world was very different from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. The decendants of the slave women often inhertied their roles of their fathers, and were often adopted into the ethincity this probably what led to their aborbtion. The slaves were also often freed, or sometimes incorparated into the family. In the Muslim world slavery was in fact never a race issue it was mainly economic.
Yes, I do recall reading this in the Gates and Appiah encyclopedia. Very interesting to learn. Thanks for the confirmation.
Yes remeber most of the slaves in the Muslim world were from the East African coasts, they were also loosely called Habisha which means Ethiopian or Zanj named after the island of Zanzibar. Yes both M1 and the L mtDNA halgroups have been found in the Caucasus region.
Can you post the readings from Gates and Appiah's encyclopedias
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Fri 11 Apr 2008 17:57 Post subject:
ArabianKnight wrote:
Yes remeber most of the slaves in the Muslim world were from the East African coasts, they were also loosely called Habisha which means Ethiopian or Zanj named after the island of Zanzibar. Yes both M1 and the L mtDNA halgroups have been found in the Caucasus region.
Yes, indeed, thanks for the confirmation. Now that you mention it, I do recall reading of L haplotypes (along with M1) in that region. It all makes sense.
ArabianKnight wrote:
Can you post the readings from Gates and Appiah's encyclopedias.
This is a big, heavy, and unwieldy encyclopedia, and it has a glue-only binding, so I'm a bit afraid to open it flat and press it down on my scanner, and I don't think I can scan a single page (because of size) in one shot. I will check it out to see if I can scan it. If not, I'll give you the page numbers and the the encyclopedia details, so you can look it up in a library.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Mon 14 Apr 2008 02:15 Post subject:
ArabianKnight:
I had a look at the encyclopedia. The pages would fit the scanner, but I'd have to press down hard on binding to get the inner portions of the pages, and with the glue-only "perfect" binding (what a misnomer that is!), it may split. So, here are the details, and you can have a look in a library. The article is quite good.
Africana: The Encyclopedia of African and African American Experience, Kwame Anthony Appiah and Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Basic Civitas Books, 1999.
The Middle East article begins on page 1300 and concludes on page 1302.
The Trans-Saharan and Red Sea Slave Trade article is also very good, and is on pages 1879-1880.
Indian Ocean Slave Trade is an article worth reading, too, and is on page 995.
Wow! Maybe we are 7th cousins, or something similar!
LOL that would be a hoot, and probably not that unlikely since the Alsace is not that large. But it has been well-traveled. The question is are we both descendants of William the Conqueror?
Wow! Maybe we are 7th cousins, or something similar!
LOL that would be a hoot, and probably not that unlikely since the Alsace is not that large. But it has been well-traveled. The question is are we both descendants of William the Conqueror?
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Tue 13 May 2008 15:02 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
William wrote:
Wow! Maybe we are 7th cousins, or something similar!
LOL that would be a hoot, and probably not that unlikely since the Alsace is not that large. But it has been well-traveled. The question is are we both descendants of William the Conqueror?
Sorry, Maya, missed this one before. I think it may be easier to ask how many folks who have European ancestry are not descended from William the Conquerer (or any other such historical figure)! I recall a program on the Vikings on which it was said that if anyone asks you what a Viking looked like, ask them to look in the mirror. While the Vikings started out in Scandinavia, they mixed and mingled all over the place, and those who settled readily intermarried with the local population. The same could be said if someone asks what a Roman, Ottoman, etc. looked like, I suppose.
The Nomadic Arabs of Northern Yemen and Southern Arabia, are probably the purest Arabs in thr world, this is because they don't marry with other peoples. Geneticaly they have been isolated from other nations.
Intrestingly enough I noticed the concentration on the map, I used to think North africans were also Arabids in genes also....the Concentration of 50%+ Arabids
Its 98% + in the tribal Northern Yemen-Southeastern inland regions
New book reopens old arguments about slave raids on Europe
US scholar claims more than 1m people were captured by African piratesRory Carroll, Africa correspondent The Guardian, Thursday March 11 2004
North African pirates abducted and enslaved more than 1 million Europeans between 1530 and 1780 in a series of raids which depopulated coastal towns from Sicily to Cornwall, according to new research.
Thousands of white Christians were seized every year to work as galley slaves, labourers and concubines for Muslim overlords in what is today Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya, it is claimed.
Scholars have long known of the slave raids on Europe. But American historian Robert Davis has calculated that the total number captured - although small compared with the 12 million Africans shipped to the Americas in later years - was far higher than previously recognised.
His new book, Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800, concluded that 1 million to 1.25 million ended up in bondage.
Prof Davis's unorthodox methodology split historians over whether his estimates were plausible but they welcomed any attempt to fill a gap in the little-known story of Africans subjugating Europeans.
By collating different sources of information from Europe over three centuries, the University of Ohio professor has painted a picture of a continent at the mercy of pirates from the Barbary Coast, known as corsairs, who sailed in lateen-rigged xebecs and oared galleys.
Villages and towns on the coast of Italy, Spain, Portugal and France were hardest hit but the raiders also seized people in Britain, Ireland and Iceland. According to one account they even captured 130 American seamen from ships that they boarded in the Atlantic and Mediterranean between 1785 and 1793.
In the absence of detailed written records such as customs forms Prof Davis decided to extrapolate from the best records available indicating how many slaves were at a particular location at a single time and calculate how many new slaves were needed to replace those who died, escaped or were freed.
To keep the slave population stable, around one quarter had to be replaced each year, which for the period 1580 to 1680 meant around 8,500 new slaves per annum, totalling 850,000.
The same methodology would suggest 475,000 were abducted in the previous and following centuries.
"Much of what has been written gives the impression that there were not many slaves and minimises the impact that slavery had on Europe," Prof Davis said in a statement this week.
"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."
Prof Davis conceded his methodology was not ideal but Ian Blanchard, professor of economic history at the University of Edinburgh and an authority on trade in Africa, said yesterday that the numbers appeared to add up.
"We are talking about statistics which are not real, all the figures are estimates. But I don't find that absolute figure of 1 million at all surprising. It makes total sense."
The arrival of gold from the Americas and the shipping of slaves from west Africa squeezed the traditional business of the Barbary merchant fleet which was transporting gold and slaves from southern to northern Africa, so they turned their gaze to Europe, said Prof Blanchard.
Slaving
However David Earle, author of The Corsairs of Malta and Barbary and The Pirate Wars, said that Prof Davis may have erred in extrapolating from 1580-1680 because that was the most intense slaving period: "His figures sound a bit dodgy and I think he may be exaggerating."
Dr Earle also cautioned that the picture was clouded by the fact the corsairs also seized non-Christian whites from eastern Europe and black people from west Africa. "I wouldn't hazard a guess about the total."
According to one estimate, 7,000 English people were abducted between 1622-1644, many of them ships' crews and passengers. But the corsairs also landed on unguarded beaches, often at night, to snatch the unwary.
Almost all the inhabitants of the village of Baltimore, in Ireland, were captured in 1631, and there were other raids in Devon and Cornwall.
Reverend Devereux Spratt recorded being captured by "Algerines" while crossing the Irish sea from Cork to England in April 1641 and in 1661 Samuel Pepys wrote about two men, Captain Mootham and Mr Dawes, who were also abducted.
Last year it was announced that one of the richest treasure wrecks found off the coast of Devon was a 16th-century Barbary ship en route to catch English slaves.
Although the black Africans enslaved and shipped to North and South America over four centuries outnumbered Prof Davis's estimates of white European taken to Africa by 12-1, it is probable they shared the same grim conditions.
"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," said the author.
In comments which may stoke controversy, he said that white slavery had been minimised or ignored because academics preferred to treat Europeans as evil colonialists rather than as victims.
While Africans laboured on sugar and cotton plantations the European slaves were put to work in quarries, building sites and galleys and endured malnutrition, disease and maltreatment.
Ruling pashas, entitled to an eighth of all captured Christians, housed them in overcrowded baths known as baños and used them for public works such as building harbours and cutting trees. They were given loaves of black bread and water.
The pasha's female captives were more likely to be regarded as hostages to be bargained for ransom but many worked as attendants in the palace harem while awaiting payment and freedom, which in some cases never came. Some slaves bought by private individuals were well treated and became companions, others were overworked and beaten.
"The most unlucky ended up stuck and forgotten out in the desert, in some sleepy town such as Suez, or in the Turkish sultan's galleys, where some slaves rowed for decades without ever setting foot on shore," said Prof Davis, whose book is published in the US by Palgrave Macmillan.
The Stolen Village: Baltimore and the Barbary Pirates by Des Ekin (Amazon U.K.)
"In June 1631 pirates from Algiers and armed troops of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, led by the notorious pirate captain Morat Rais, stormed ashore at the little harbour village of Baltimore in West Cork. They captured almost all the villagers and bore them away to a life of slavery in North Africa. The prisoners were destined for a variety of fates - some would live out their days chained to the oars as galley slaves, while others would spend long years in the scented seclusion of the harem or within the walls of the Sultan's palace. The old city of Algiers, with its narrow streets, intense heat and lively trade, was a melting pot where the villagers would join slaves and freemen of many nationalities. Only two of them ever saw Ireland again.
The Sack of Baltimore was the most devastating invasion ever mounted by Islamist forces on Ireland or England. Des Ekin's exhaustive research illuminates the political intrigues that ensured the captives were left to their fate, and provides a vivid insight into the kind of life that would have awaited the slaves amid the souks and seraglios of old Algiers.
'The Stolen Village' is a fascinating tale of international piracy and culture clash nearly 400 years ago and is the first book to cover this relatively unknown and under-researched incident in Irish history."
Joined: 07 Oct 2007 {Posts: 248 } Location: United States
Posted: Tue 02 Sep 2008 05:32 Post subject:
YDNA wrote:
ArabianKnight wrote:
The Nomadic Arabs of Northern Yemen and Southern Arabia, are probably the purest Arabs in thr world, this is because they don't marry with other peoples. Geneticaly they have been isolated from other nations.
Intrestingly enough I noticed the concentration on the map, I used to think North africans were also Arabids in genes also....the Concentration of 50%+ Arabids
Its 98% + in the tribal Northern Yemen-Southeastern inland regions
J Y-DNA distribution
What in the world is an "Arabid"? Interesting map, btw.
The Nomadic Arabs of Northern Yemen and Southern Arabia, are probably the purest Arabs in thr world, this is because they don't marry with other peoples. Geneticaly they have been isolated from other nations.
Intrestingly enough I noticed the concentration on the map, I used to think North africans were also Arabids in genes also....the Concentration of 50%+ Arabids . It is 98% + in the tribal Northern Yemen-Southeastern inland regions
To clarify (and I think that this has been mentioned already): Although the middle-eastern Y haplotypes in southern Arabia and Yemen are relatively "pure" (in the sense of little inflow from immigrant males), the mtDNA hapolypes show a sub-saharan component larger than most Old World regions outside of Africa. Male lineages in this region show little inflow from outside, but female lineages in this same region show very large (over one-third of the population) sub-saharan inflow. See Richards, et al. (2003).
The Nomadic Arabs of Northern Yemen and Southern Arabia, are probably the purest Arabs in thr world, this is because they don't marry with other peoples. Geneticaly they have been isolated from other nations.
Intrestingly enough I noticed the concentration on the map, I used to think North africans were also Arabids in genes also....the Concentration of 50%+ Arabids
Its 98% + in the tribal Northern Yemen-Southeastern inland regions
J Y-DNA distribution
What in the world is an "Arabid"? Interesting map, btw.
Arabid is a Caucasoid race, and evolved Mediteranean type that is adapted to desert climates. Their often dark skined.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
What is that lovely little section of Strasbourg called with the half-timber houses -- La Petite France?
