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.
Neither the Moors nor any Arabs ever invaded Italy. Italy did not exist until the 19th
century. What is now the Italian peninsula, still, never was invaded on land.
Sicily, however, was.
That's actually not true. The city of Bari, in Apulia, was captured by a Muslim army in 847 and remained the site of the Emirate of Bari for 25 years. Taranto was also in Muslim hands around the same time. Several other towns in southern Italy were under Muslim control at one time or another. In 1480, a Turkish fleet captured Otranto in southern Italy, killing thousands, including martyring by beheading 800 men for refusing to convert. They were ousted about a year later.
Obviously we are all African too. ALL hominids were descended from primates with origins in Africa, and most definitely homo sapiens was one of them.
Arguing about whether a group is "black" or not is meaningless. These groups would have all had varying degrees of admixture with groups from Europe, others from South West Asia, and yet others who migrated from sub Saharan Africa, as did several groups before the Sahara dried up. They would not have had a distinct "racial" identity as we understand it today.
Many Africans reject the term sub-Saharan. Stop trying to divide Africa.
Eurocentrists should go repent for all the lies they have spewed throughout history.
Ask yourself how many Algerians really identify with Congolese as fellow Africans. No they look to SW Asia for their identity.
Africa is divided by the Sahara, though it WAS NOT before it dried up. Not all of what we would now call sub Saharan African ancestry present in North Africa comes from slaves brought in. This region was NOT empty when migrants from south west Asia began to arrive.
The problem is that there is too little study of the ancient movements of people within the African continent, as the focus is almost always on those who left Africa.
Artistic descriptions show that they came in all phenotypes, including black, white and in between.
There is an Afrocentric myth out there that all Africa was "black" in historical times. This is just a myth. Arabs.
There is also another myth which suggests that North Africa had no ties to sub Saharan Africa and therefore people, who today would be considered black, played no role in the ancient history of this region. THAT myth is more damaging than the Afrocentric one as it is way more pervasive and usually accept as the "truth". So Egypt is tied to Greece and not to Nubia. Nubians were unmistakably black, and were referred to as such by the ancient Egyptians.
One of the bishops at the first Synod was what we would quite easily call black. He came from one of the North African regions of the Roman Empire.
There is also another myth which suggests that North Africa had no ties to sub Saharan Africa and therefore people, who today would be considered black, played no role in the ancient history of this region.
True to an extent. I don't know of anyone interested in ancient history who does not know about the Nubians and the role the played in Egypt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny
THAT myth is more damaging than the Afrocentric one as it is way more pervasive and usually accept as the "truth".
Here is where you are going WAY off the rails. Afrocentrists routinely try to re-write history by claiming Cleopatra, Hannibal, Scipio, and a host of others as "black." This is far more incorrect and damaging than the fact that most white people might not know that Nubians trained Hannibal's elephants, or might not know about the 25th Dynasty. Usually when white people discover these facts they are duly impressed. It is not the same as trying to co-opt peoples and entire cultures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny
So Egypt is tied to Greece and not to Nubia. Nubians were unmistakably black, and were referred to as such by the ancient Egyptians.
The Egyptians differentiated themselves from the Nubians, and yet we still see the"black Egypt" nonsense being taught in some African history classes. This is what I am talking about. This is the danger. No one is teaching that the Egyptians were white Aryans in any university anywhere. The standard position is that they largely are the same people that they have always been. This is being challenged by Afrocentric "scholars."
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny
One of the bishops at the first Synod was what we would quite easily call black. He came from one of the North African regions of the Roman Empire.
And this proves...? What exactly does it prove? Virtually every poster on this thread agrees that there were always some phenotypically black people in North Africa, most echoing that known fact that most were not.
The problem is that there is too little study of the ancient movements of people within the African continent, as the focus is almost always on those who left Africa.
I agree, there's not enough study on the people who stayed on the continent.
True to an extent. I don't know of anyone interested in ancient history who does not know about the Nubians and the role the played in Egypt.
Here is where you are going WAY off the rails. Afrocentrists routinely try to re-write history by claiming Cleopatra, Hannibal, Scipio, and a host of others as "black." .
Tell me something. Which version of history is taught in high schools, and colleges? The one where the primary links that Egyptians had were with peoples outside of Africa, with limited mention of those within Africa, or the version that the Afrocentrists write? How many non scholars know who the Nubians were, or the fact that they fit any definition of being "black" that some one can concoct?
Ask your average American what they think that the ancient Egyptians looked like and they will mention Elizabeth Taylor, not even Halle Berry, although it is likely that she more closely resembles them. They certainly don't think that Cicely Tyson represents what an ancient Egyptian looked like.
I understand that you have a personal beef with Afrocentrists, but they aren't a very influential group.
And this proves...? What exactly does it prove? Virtually every poster on this thread agrees that there were always some phenotypically black people in North Africa, most echoing that known fact that most were not.
How many people know that among the early leaders within the Christian faith were people who were obviously what we would today call black. Even certain Afrocentrists damn Christianity as the "white man's religion" because they are ignorant of that fact.
This is not what is normally told in the histories which are available to most people. You think that were this known the Afrikaners and those who endorsed Jim Crow would have justified their belief systems based on some notion of black inferiority? Indeed how could they when these "black" people encountered Christianity before those of Anglo Saxon origin? That is if this fact were known beyond certain intellectual circles.
Given that ancient peoples seemed less obsessed with race than we are today, I don't know whether any one can truly determine whether Hannibal would or wouldn't have been considered "black" if he took a stroll down some American street in 2015. I find these arguments senseless.
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.
