Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know why so many people have a hard time accepting the fact that Berber are African people. W's so ironic about it is that most Berbers see themselves as indigenous people of Africa and do not consider themselves Arab.
International borders and laws do not exist. They are a social construct.
I think you know what I mean, there is no scientific basis for race it just came about with colonialism when they decided to lump people together and seperate themselves from them, the "almighty white race" and then the "dumb negroes", "savage indians" and "those dastardly slanted eye people", among others, but just because it's a stupid social construct doesn't mean people don't make a big deal out of it and it's irrelevant in today's society. Unfortunately we have a a huge problem with discrimination and conflict based on something that doesn't even exist, but I'm merely pointing out the fact that race does not definitively exist and it is a stupid and outdated concept that we should move past. Of course we must address the issues that racism has caused and not just dismiss them claiming to be colorblind because there are structural oppressions that will still be kept in place if we dismiss the concept of race without working on racism's effect on the society, but just because it has very real effects doesn't mean it isn't an imaginary concept.
My point missed you. The terms white/black are recent categorizations, based on European scientific theories. You are so seeped into racial thinking that you cannot grasp a worldview outside of that.
I didn't miss your point, I just disagree with you, based on historical facts.
The Greeks called blacks "Aethiops", a term that literally means burned of skin. Such a word clearly shows that the ancient world had a concept of physiology and used it to differentiate various people of the world. We also see this categorization of people based on color in Herodotus' book The Histories. He referred to Africans (North of the Sahara and below it), part of the Persian population, Phoenicians, and some European populations in the Caucasus as "Aethiops". In the Greek world it meant anyone who was black skinned.
They had the same brains you and I do right now. They were not retards, they could distinguish between white and black and did so often! However, the idea of being "Aethiop" back then didn't have the negative connotation it does today, but that is because the super powers back then were generally black, as described by Herodotus. Herodotus' book was written in the 500s B.C. Strabo, Pliny the Elder and many other Europeans up until the 1800s also used the same terminology.
The ancient "Egyptians" called themselves Kemu which means blacks. Some "scholars" say it referred to the soil, but that makes no sense. Why would they call themselves black in relation to dirt. Secondly, when they wrote the word kemu in mtu ntr (what we call hieroglyphics) they used it with the determinate to denote people, not land.
Africa was called Bilad Al Sudan (land of the blacks) by the Arabs. African's also referred to it as Al Sudan, which we see in books like Tarikh al Fattash, written in the 1700s. This particular book chronicles the history of many of the early West African empires, like Ancient Ghana, Songhai etc.
So, your assertion that the designation of people into categories such as "white and black", is of recent origin, is just untrue.
This new Eurocentric push, to try and promote the idea that the ancient world didn't know color or "race" is nonsense. I personally believe this attempt to declassify race in the ancient world is the Eurocentric thinkers new attempt to lessen the impact of the role Africans played in the past. Africans had a far greater role in the ancient world than they (Eurocentrist) feel comfortable with admitting.
You should also try and find books from the 1700s and 1800s about who the Moors were. Those Europeans clearly made a distinction based on physiology, saying things like "they were black as pitch, and only the whites of their eyes and teeth were distinguishable in their facial features".
So my point still stands. North Africa until about 700 A.D. was overwhelmingly Black. You did have some non native whites that came in, such as Greeks, Romans, and other Europeans. However, in no way were they indigenous and no whites were not present in any real numbers prior to that time. We have to many eye witness accounts to say otherwise, such as the above mentioned books and writers. Then when black amazighs start enslaving whites, in vast numbers into North Africa and even parts of west Africa and east Africa, you start to see the population changing/shifting. The vast majority of them were settled in the North, though you did get some being used as soldiers in the Bagam and Songhai kingdom.
From what my understanding is, linguistically they are completely seperate from Bantu speakers, and genetically they are a seperate haplo group as well. They probably have more genetic similarities to meditreneans and other Caucasian groups across the penninsula. But they do without a doubt have some genetic similarities to "black" groups within proximity of them in sub sahara Africa that other Caucasian groups usually lack altogether.
I didn't miss your point, I just disagree with you, based on historical facts.
The Greeks called blacks "Aethiops", a term that literally means burned of skin. Such a word clearly shows that the ancient world had a concept of physiology and used it to differentiate various people of the world. We also see this categorization of people based on color in Herodotus' book The Histories. He referred to Africans (North of the Sahara and below it), part of the Persian population, Phoenicians, and some European populations in the Caucasus as "Aethiops". In the Greek world it meant anyone who was black skinned.
They had the same brains you and I do right now. They were not retards, they could distinguish between white and black and did so often! However, the idea of being "Aethiop" back then didn't have the negative connotation it does today, but that is because the super powers back then were generally black, as described by Herodotus. Herodotus' book was written in the 500s B.C. Strabo, Pliny the Elder and many other Europeans up until the 1800s also used the same terminology.
The ancient "Egyptians" called themselves Kemu which means blacks. Some "scholars" say it referred to the soil, but that makes no sense. Why would they call themselves black in relation to dirt. Secondly, when they wrote the word kemu in mtu ntr (what we call hieroglyphics) they used it with the determinate to denote people, not land.
Africa was called Bilad Al Sudan (land of the blacks) by the Arabs. African's also referred to it as Al Sudan, which we see in books like Tarikh al Fattash, written in the 1700s. This particular book chronicles the history of many of the early West African empires, like Ancient Ghana, Songhai etc.
So, your assertion that the designation of people into categories such as "white and black", is of recent origin, is just untrue.
This new Eurocentric push, to try and promote the idea that the ancient world didn't know color or "race" is nonsense. I personally believe this attempt to declassify race in the ancient world is the Eurocentric thinkers new attempt to lessen the impact of the role Africans played in the past. Africans had a far greater role in the ancient world than they (Eurocentrist) feel comfortable with admitting.
You should also try and find books from the 1700s and 1800s about who the Moors were. Those Europeans clearly made a distinction based on physiology, saying things like "they were black as pitch, and only the whites of their eyes and teeth were distinguishable in their facial features".
So my point still stands. North Africa until about 700 A.D. was overwhelmingly Black. You did have some non native whites that came in, such as Greeks, Romans, and other Europeans. However, in no way were they indigenous and no whites were not present in any real numbers prior to that time. We have to many eye witness accounts to say otherwise, such as the above mentioned books and writers. Then when black amazighs start enslaving whites, in vast numbers into North Africa and even parts of west Africa and east Africa, you start to see the population changing/shifting. The vast majority of them were settled in the North, though you did get some being used as soldiers in the Bagam and Songhai kingdom.
Nonsense. No one said that the ancient world did not see color. The concept of race is still recent as is the labels of mass individuals by color, not culture/ethnicity. Africans were cultured peoples and recognized themselves accordingly. IMO, all the above does is aid European racial ideology.
outside of wikipedia, stormfront and that blog you referenced no where else do i see that picture associated with north africa.
As for the rest of what you said, do actual research, don't rely on wikipedia, any know nothing can post there
and mathilda's blog doesn't trump actual professors like the one I posted. Hate to break that too you. As stated I have provided a number of RELIABLE sources while you have posted suspect information from the likes of wikipedia.
Well I do admit I never met a Berber in my life so my topic is very limited in it. Yet I did not just quote wikpedia as I am aware it is not 100% reliable. I do know that in North Africa did get Phonecian settlement in ancient times and they established a city which was known as Carthage and it was destroyed by the Romans.
Nonsense. No one said that the ancient world did not see color. The concept of race is still recent as is the labels of mass individuals by color, not culture/ethnicity. Africans were cultured peoples and recognized themselves accordingly. IMO, all the above does is aid European racial ideology.
There are writings from Herodotus, Starbo, Pliny etc. who clearly divided people up by physiology. For example, in book IV of the Histories by Herodotus, he clearly says that there were two groups of "Aethiopians" (burnt faced people) and then he goes on to say the names of the two groups i.e. the Asian Aethiopians and the ones in Libya (which is what the Greeks called Africa when they didn't seem to know the name of the Kingdom they were dealing with). He then says the only difference being, that the ones in Libya had "wholly hair" and the ones in Asia had (straight or curly hair). he also said there were a group of "Aethiopians" living in the Caucasus mountains area and he calls them the Colchians. He says they look like Egyptians because of their dress, manners/customs and their "wholly hair".
We see similar divisions of people based on physiology by Strabo and Pliny. See, people like yourself buy into this silly notion that the ancients didn't know race. Such a idea serves the purpose of the Eurocentrist. See, what they tried to do is, deny Africa its true place in history. Anything that was advanced they tried to "white wash" it. When that stopped working, then they said "oh well, what does it matter, the ancients didn't know race" and that's a lie. They clearly differentiated people based on physiology.
Stop googling stuff and just go get the books, they aren't expensive. Go see for yourself.
Now, I think where you are getting into trouble is, you are confusing two issues. Did people group themselves in terms of continental groupings i.e. "Africans", "Europeans" and "Asians", well no. They didn't do that. People related themselves to their kingdoms. But to say that the ancient wouldn't have looked at the world in terms of "we are black, and they are white" is wrong. We can read their writings and its very clear that they did.
Well I do admit I never met a Berber in my life so my topic is very limited in it. Yet I did not just quote wikpedia as I am aware it is not 100% reliable. I do know that in North Africa did get Phonecian settlement in ancient times and they established a city which was known as Carthage and it was destroyed by the Romans.
You are 100% right, Phoenicians were in North Africa at one point. However, the Phoenicians were not described as white or tan people, by eye witnesses. Herodotus described them as "Aethiops" and that means black. You don't get whites or mulattoes in Africa in any significant numbers, until 700 A.D., those be the facts. People have to understand, blacks are not just in Africa. You get blacks in the middle east, Iran, the Caucasus mountain area, the Philippines etc. People didn't leave Africa thousands or hundreds of years a go and magically turn white. You go to Iran today and middle Iran and Southern Iran is unmistakably black and mulatto. Parts of the middle east are still unmistakably black, as well and these are populations that have been there since ancient times. You also have to understand, other people moved into areas that may have been traditionally black and mixed in as well. For example, we know in Saudi Arabia you get large numbers of turks and other groups moving in and mixing with the local population. The Arabs were also VERY fond of slave women from eastern Europe in ancient times. All this plays a part. We can't look at people today and think "yep, they looked like that thousands of years ago" nor can we think that people were living in one particular area and never lived else where, populations are not fixed, they move. 1,000 years ago, America would have looked a LOT different ethnically.
From what my understanding is, linguistically they are completely seperate from Bantu speakers, and genetically they are a seperate haplo group as well. They probably have more genetic similarities to meditreneans and other Caucasian groups across the penninsula. But they do without a doubt have some genetic similarities to "black" groups within proximity of them in sub sahara Africa that other Caucasian groups usually lack altogether.
Here is a world renowned geneticist talking about Berber genetics:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
