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.
We all seem hung up on descriptve language that was used hundreds of years ago. We have little to go on as someone with brown skin might have been called "black" 700 years ago if they were the darkest skin person encountered at the time.
This reminds me of how Norsemen like the Angles, Franks and the Vikings stereotyped Celtic speaking British Islanders and Iberians as "swart", that is having dark hair and eyes along with skin that tans. Indigenous peoples were also tagged as swart when the Vikings reached the Americas.
So swart can be used to describe what the Strong Man of Physical Anthropology, C. Loring Brace, would call the Congo phenotype, the "true negro" of the Trans-Atlantic plantation economy but should not be thought of as exclusive to them, nor does that mean the people so described defined themselves in the same way either.
Terms like negroid, (or as the crack head nubian olmec would say) "black africoid", comes out of the plantation culture of the Americas (particularly the U.S. variant) which is what the globalists are trying to push throughout the world.
There is a reason why the Founding Fathers of Bandung were particularly scornful of getting too close to the NATO bloc outside of limited trade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunGrins
Contemporary portraits of people designated as Moors show darker skinned people sometimes -- but not always 'black'.
Arguing that there are no actual races and white people are not white or black people are not black and then demanding that the Moors were black is trying to have it both ways.
The paragraph quoted above is unhelpful in this discussion...which has been going in circles. This doesn't seem to be a History discussion any longer.
"And fourth, dentitions of Sub-Saharan/North African boundary groups (i.e., Senegambia (SEN), Tukulor (TUK), Chad (СНА)) indicate probable North African genetic input based on lower frequencies of LM1 deflecting wrinkle and LM1 cusp 7, and higher UM3 agenesis.
"By comparison, dental-based affinities (Figure 3) actually correspond to geographical provenance more closely than those based on craniometrics. As can be seen, the west (GHA, TOD, NIC), central (CNG, GAB), and east (KEN, ETH) sub-Saharan dental samples form separate subgroups. Egyptians (BAD, NAQ, HES, EGE, SAQ) also cluster together, although the Nubian samples are somewhat dispersed.
People who believe the Egyptians and Moors were black have been fed Afrocentric lies. You don't seem willing to admit it.
I wonder how far you go since you're trying to claim that you're not like that. What about say Phoenicians? Babylonians? How about Israel? Where do you stand on the "controversial" segments of history? How far does the delusion go.
You've made contradictions of this throughout your posts. You clearly do believe there are different races and they go far deeper than just skin color, it's ok, it's been proven scientifically. You can stop the far-left pretense.
Nothing you stated in this thread came close to proving the lie that the Moors were black.
Also you couldn't grab that race-card fast enough.
I'm neither white or black, thank you very much. I have no dog in this fight, I only care about historical truth and denounce propaganda.
Nobody is making anybody a race. We look at historical research and facts and base our conclusions on that. The conclusions are that the Moors(or Egyptians and others) were not black. They were the same people as the ones living there today: the North African Berbers.
Your arguments become more ridiclous with every post.
Define "brown". The Berbers(native Moors) range from pale to olive skinned to light brown. Again this is just skin color, race goes far deeper. They are not and have never been Sub Saharan blacks.
People conquer lands and migrate throughout history. Thinking they "must" have certain characteristics because of the lands they live in is ridiculous.
More victim-complex. Losing the argument=racism accusations.
If by "fighting" you mean afrocentric propaganda is trying to claim them(and failing) due to insecurity then sure.
It's not a matter of opinion and no they were not. Same as with the Berbers/Moors, go to Egypt today and you will see what type of people the ancient Egyptians looked like.
The only connection they can make is slavery in Egypt, and those were East African slaves for the most part. Most African Americans have west african roots.
Berberiscs, people from the Rif, Moorish (descendants of Spanish moors expelled from Spain 400 years ago, Jews -not many left are all Caucasic. There are blacks that are descendants of slaves that arrived 300 to 400 years ago that are a different ethnicity with their own music, and there are people mixed with blacks.
But Morroco is a caucasic country, and if they would have not been invaded by Islam around 660, they would not be very different from Europe.
"By comparison, dental-based affinities (Figure 3) actually correspond to geographical provenance more closely than those based on craniometrics. As can be seen, the west (GHA, TOD, NIC), central (CNG, GAB), and east (KEN, ETH) sub-Saharan dental samples form separate subgroups. Egyptians (BAD, NAQ, HES, EGE, SAQ) also cluster together, although the Nubian samples are somewhat dispersed.
And of course many Americans think of Africa as it relates to the Trans-Atlantic trade which the plantation culture grew out of, and again American plantation history IS NOT GLOBAL HISTORY (THOUGH I'M WELL AWARE THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT THE GLOBALISTS WANT, TO TURN THE WORLD INTO THEIR OWN PRIVATE PLANTATION). Africa is a continent and yes there are links between the Sahara, its oasises like the Tell and along the Nile, as well as connections with the Sahel, the Horn, and parts of Eastern Africa. NASSER and Qaddafi recognized that and tried to build a future outside of the NATO man's plantation, the crack head nubian olmec's sole desire is to pull as many down with him as he can. Big difference.
The description of the Nouba south of Sennar by Burckhardt (Travels in Nubia, p. 311) seems to be reminiscent of Irish’s description of the Jebel Moya samples, like Blumenbach notes gradations. I presume these Nouba had some connection to Alwa/Alodia.
Although Prichard did not travel or write based on actual skeletal samples like Blumenbach & his students, he did provide other travel reports, with linguistics & history to put physical anthropological works of cats like Blumenbach into context (Researches Into the Physical History of Man, p.28, ibid p. 535). At the least he would have 1st hand experience with his fellow Britons & neighboring continentals.
Regarding Prichard's comments keep in mind this was before hard core industrialization when the (not exclusively but particularly) tawny & swart peasantry were pushed off their lands into the "counterfeit" category.
Bottom line is races don't stop at a link, there is a zone with different levels of mixing. Scandinavia is 100% White, by the time you get to the Mediterranean coast many people have some North African and Sub Sah African ancestry. North Africa is a mix of Arab, White, and Black.
To get a visual on this here is a documentary about the land occupied by Morocco: Western Sahara. Those people are range from White with dark hair to very Black.
Natives of Western Sahara, former Spanish Sahara, are as caucasian or more than Swedish, that have a strong Siberian component. Blacks there are descendants of slaves brought by slave traders a few centuries ago.
Your post is as ignorant as posting a pic of Harlem and saying that all Americans are black.
LOL. You are really "into" this I see. I already said that people from Africa are "brown" and not "white." Also that Europeans (self proclaimed "white" people) labeled Moors as "black." That is why I consider them "black" (socially constructed racial category BTW. Please learn to follow. "Black" was made up by "white" people/Europeans. So them saying Moors were "black" means the Moors where "black" lol).
I don't even understand where your "Afrocentric" accusations are coming into play. I can only infer that it is because I said I'm black and you think all black people are Afrocentric.
Your delusion runs very far it seems (in my Yoda voice lol). I said nothing of either of those countries either.
So you are now accusing me of being an Afrocentric AND of being a "left" leaning person . Very odd....
There is only one race - the human race. The color caste system created by Europeans is a socially constructed "race" of which both you and I are speaking. Europeans socially labeled the Moors as "black." You should believe your own people.
You should go post in the political forum....
Then why are you being so hostile because I agree with Europeans from 700-1600 who said that Moors were "black".....?
You are making it about "race." You are not looking at any historical "facts." If you did, you would see "historically" Europeans labeled Moors as "black." Which is my only point in this whole matter.
LOL.
LOL at the bold. Go back to preschool and learn your colors. I shouldn't have to "define brown." LOL.
How am I a victim? Maybe a victim of your obsession at the moment lol.
That is an interesting comment, since people in Egypt are still brown lol.
FWIW, "Upper" Egypt has always been and is still inhabited by people who are darker skinned versus "Lower" Egypt. There is no one particular type of Egyptian. They have different looks/appearances. FWIW, my grandmother looks like a blue eyed white woman. She says she is "black." I bet you would try to argue with her and tell her that she isn't lol. You are coming off as pretty ridiculous and juvenile, the whole "define brown" thing will be a highlight of my day!
Duh!
On the bold.
You are a piece of work. Thanks for the laugh for the day.
You may not want to bother--keymaker is drinking at a fount of nascent white nationalism. That's where his/her single-minded obsession with a "pure" black/white race dichotomy is coming from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by keymaker221
Before we discuss this further, you still have yet to provide sources for these decriptions as I asked since the beginning, and they would only be valid if their understanding of black at that point in history was the same as ours is today, and that it's not a case of darkest skin they had ever seen=black.
There are millions of people in India with the same shade of color as sub saharan blacks. If they were encountered by others centuries ago and were called 'black', would you then claim today's Indians?
LOL. See residinghere2007, now that statement is actually funny, not a passive aggressive attempt at a juvenile jab.
"WE ARE ALL ONE! There is no such thing as white or black! Just...let me call all these great civilizations BLACK though 'cause it validates me and and my afrocentrists"
Carry on.
There is a certain kind of anti-scientific argument that tries to cloak itself in scientificness. It, virtually always, is propaganda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by censusdata
Bottom line is races don't stop at a link, there is a zone with different levels of mixing. Scandinavia is 100% White, by the time you get to the Mediterranean coast many people have some North African and Sub Sah African ancestry. North Africa is a mix of Arab, White, and Black.
To get a visual on this here is a documentary about the land occupied by Morocco: Western Sahara. Those people are range from White with dark hair to very Black.
Human population movements, populations, and adaptations are complex subjects. Residing Here is correct that race is a social construct. That doesn't mean it's not real, but that it is made socially--not genetically. Scandinavia is not 100% white, whatever that is supposed to mean. Early Scandinavian peoples mostly had light skin. That's not the same thing.
North Africa is a mix of many people. Arabs, Berbers, Bedouins, Jews, Copts, Nubians, Greeks, Tuaregs, and a wide range of lesser known ethnic groups. All of those people have a range of genetic forebears.
As to the question...were Vikings black? No, but there were black Vikings. Viking captured blacks in slave markets and many became Vikings. Vikings were pirates that made a living terrorizing people, and having blacks helped them.
You may not want to bother--keymaker is drinking at a fount of nascent white nationalism. That's where his/her single-minded obsession with a "pure" black/white race dichotomy is coming from.
Unfortunately, I could tell this from that particular poster and quite a few others who frequent this very forum.
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.
. Very odd....
