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.
If there wasn't so much at stake this would be an easy issue to resolve, unfortunately the ethos of western history depends on this phenological taxonomy as a justification for exploitation, self-aggrandizement, and more recently a sense of both collective and individual self-worth.
Very true and well said. I don't think I've heard it explain in a more complete, yet succinct manner. The above makes it that much more disgusting to me...
Would those be the theories that got Ivan van Sertima laughed at? Those are usually the theories that Afrocentrics try to avoid when these discussions come up.
I'd love a definition too. I've stupidly gotten engaged in these debates a few times and they always tend to revolve around a semantical argument over "black". "Black" is a social construct and what I have often seen people in these debates do is pull a "Diop" and simply interchangably use the term "African" and "black" as if they are one in the same, they are not. One can be "African" and at the same time not be "black" per the social definition.
So, one group says they are "African, as in from the continent of Africa, but not black per the social definition" and the other starts howling that they are "black", period.
The same Ivan van Sertima whose work is honored and used by UNESCO? Yeah, that guy! It's a known practice in the scientific/historic community to always denounce Afrikan scholars or works that show Afrikans in a historic light as grand or magnificent, case in point this thread. That claim "afrocentrist" comes up to dismiss the scholars in question the same way that people may call somebody's ideals as radical or crazy. Miss me with that term ole Goat one!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
My brother, that is soooo... '70's!
Well the US hasn't changed their practices of Afrikans since the 70's I don't see nothing wrong with that.
"North African, Berber," late 14c., from Old French More, from Medieval Latin Morus, from Latin Maurus "inhabitant of Mauritania" (northwest Africa, a region now corresponding to northern Algeria and Morocco), from Greek Mauros, perhaps a native name, or else cognate with mauros "black" (but this adjective only appears in late Greek and may as well be from the people's name as the reverse). Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;" later (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India.
If there wasn't so much at stake this would be an easy issue to resolve, unfortunately the ethos of western history depends on this phenological taxonomy as a justification for exploitation, self-aggrandizement, and more recently a sense of both collective and individual self-worth.
Very well stated ovcatto. I agree that it is important in terms of understanding history, because of the role of the concept of race within that history.
However, I think we are both in agreement over needing to define the terms we want to use. Like I said, "black" has a different connotation to some people then it does to others. I find that one of those, oddly the ones most interested in promoting the role of Africans, is the one that is most resistent to applying a clear definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoodsofATL
The same Ivan van Sertima whose work is honored and used by UNESCO? Yeah, that guy! It's a known practice in the scientific/historic community to always denounce Afrikan scholars or works that show Afrikans in a historic light as grand or magnificent, case in point this thread. That claim "afrocentrist" comes up to dismiss the scholars in question the same way that people may call somebody's ideals as radical or crazy. Miss me with that term ole Goat one!
I am familiar with van Sertima's work and I have found a lot of what he has to say very interesting. However, his theory about the Olmec's having African roots has been roundly criticized, even by other "Afrocentric" scholars of African history and has been completely disproven in terms of genetic and immunological records. The fact that you would even make the statement that "Olmecs were African" and state it in such a way as if it was unassailable fact, despite the fact that any such assertion has long been disproven, leads me to question your motives.
I hate entering into these discussions because I feel as if I ultimately end up lost in a sea of semantical battles and people trying to rail against "white washing" by simply "black washing". I am interested in the truth and have nothing to prove in this fight, other then trying to learn what the truth is.
I attempted to disprove people that were attempting to assert that the Moors were not black. Indeed many Moors were black, but not all of them were. Yes, they were an indiginous African people, but that does not make them all black in the social sense of the word. If you want to twist that argument as many Afrocentrics do that African = black and use the words interchangably, then feel free to have the debate without me, or at least inform me what your definition of black is. Last I checked all of the evidence supports the notion that Berbers/Moors had/have a wide-ranging phenotype going from "white" to "black" and have for much of known history at least as far back as 1500BC.
I have no problem challenging the "classicist/eurocentric" view of things related to African history and the Egyptian dynasties and attempting to reach a greater understanding about who those people were. However, I am not going to share in the "black washing" of the same so that "Afrocentrics" can feel better about themselves. Just the way many of the topics go they end up more about social/racial therapy then anything else; For instance, Wild Style's insistence on talking about white slavery in North Africa almost with a smile about how "blacks enslaved whites first" while completely ignoring the well known and documented Trans-Saharan Arab slave trade that brought millions upon millions of sub-Saharan Africans into slavery from the 7th to 20th century, not even counting what they were doing in other African lands at the same time with exporting slaves to the Middle East, India and even China. It may make Wild Style feel better that a million or so white Christians were enslaved by the Barbary pirates, but vastly larger numbers of Africans were enslaved at the same time from other areas of Africa. Do you think it was a coincidence the Portugese went to the "slave coast" when they wanted slaves? Of course not, that's where the Arab traders had been getting them for centuries.
If you want to discuss the truth then I'm all for it and find many of these topics interesting. If you are discussing these topics as some form of social/racial therapy then count me out. You are free to believe whatever makes you feel better. If looking at the pyramids and saying they were built by black men, stating that the sum of western civilization is derived from "black civilization", believing that the Olmecs were Africans, etc. makes you feel better about your ancestors in the US having been slaves then have at it, I'm not here to argue with zealots.
Would those be the theories that got Ivan van Sertima laughed at? Those are usually the theories that Afrocentrics try to avoid when these discussions come up.
I'd love a definition too. I've stupidly gotten engaged in these debates a few times and they always tend to revolve around a semantical argument over "black". "Black" is a social construct and what I have often seen people in these debates do is pull a "Diop" and simply interchangably use the term "African" and "black" as if they are one in the same, they are not. One can be "African" and at the same time not be "black" per the social definition.
So, one group says they are "African, as in from the continent of Africa, but not black per the social definition" and the other starts howling that they are "black", period.
It's simply very difficult for Americans, in particular African Americans, to comprehend that Black is an all encompassing term outside of the USA that has been used to describe people who are not Sub- Saharan African.
Thus when you engage in debates with them they will insist this group is black because some historical reference noted them as such. Not realizing that the black of antiquity is a lot different than the black of the Antebellum South.
However, I think we are both in agreement over needing to define the terms we want to use. Like I said, "black" has a different connotation to some people then it does to others. I find that one of those, oddly the ones most interested in promoting the role of Africans, is the one that is most resistent to applying a clear definition.
Yeah, but on the other hand we have the constantly move-the-goal-post crowd who moved Egypt out of Africa and placed it instead in the middle east. This along with redefining African as only referring to the people below the Sahara which in turn gave birth to the extreme afro-centrist (who I have been fighting with since the early 70's).
Luckily for us, we are living in a time where the guess work of who did what by whom has been virtually eliminated thanks to the vast knowledge compiled by human migration studies, an area that much to my regret is one that I find myself deficient in understanding at a level that I would like. Either way this conversation amply demonstrates the utter deficiencies of attempting to credit or discredit any civilization by 19th century concepts about race.
"North African, Berber," late 14c., from Old French More, from Medieval Latin Morus, from Latin Maurus "inhabitant of Mauritania" (northwest Africa, a region now corresponding to northern Algeria and Morocco), from Greek Mauros, perhaps a native name, or else cognate with mauros "black" (but this adjective only appears in late Greek and may as well be from the people's name as the reverse). Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;" later (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India.
So what have you left us other than the etymology of the word Moor, what does it tell us about who the Moors were or their origins as a people, not much.
Very well stated ovcatto. I agree that it is important in terms of understanding history, because of the role of the concept of race within that history.
However, I think we are both in agreement over needing to define the terms we want to use. Like I said, "black" has a different connotation to some people then it does to others. I find that one of those, oddly the ones most interested in promoting the role of Africans, is the one that is most resistent to applying a clear definition.
I am familiar with van Sertima's work and I have found a lot of what he has to say very interesting. However, his theory about the Olmec's having African roots has been roundly criticized, even by other "Afrocentric" scholars of African history and has been completely disproven in terms of genetic and immunological records. The fact that you would even make the statement that "Olmecs were African" and state it in such a way as if it was unassailable fact, despite the fact that any such assertion has long been disproven, leads me to question your motives.
I hate entering into these discussions because I feel as if I ultimately end up lost in a sea of semantical battles and people trying to rail against "white washing" by simply "black washing". I am interested in the truth and have nothing to prove in this fight, other then trying to learn what the truth is.
I attempted to disprove people that were attempting to assert that the Moors were not black. Indeed many Moors were black, but not all of them were. Yes, they were an indiginous African people, but that does not make them all black in the social sense of the word. If you want to twist that argument as many Afrocentrics do that African = black and use the words interchangably, then feel free to have the debate without me, or at least inform me what your definition of black is. Last I checked all of the evidence supports the notion that Berbers/Moors had/have a wide-ranging phenotype going from "white" to "black" and have for much of known history at least as far back as 1500BC.
I have no problem challenging the "classicist/eurocentric" view of things related to African history and the Egyptian dynasties and attempting to reach a greater understanding about who those people were. However, I am not going to share in the "black washing" of the same so that "Afrocentrics" can feel better about themselves. Just the way many of the topics go they end up more about social/racial therapy then anything else; For instance, Wild Style's insistence on talking about white slavery in North Africa almost with a smile about how "blacks enslaved whites first" while completely ignoring the well known and documented Trans-Saharan Arab slave trade that brought millions upon millions of sub-Saharan Africans into slavery from the 7th to 20th century, not even counting what they were doing in other African lands at the same time with exporting slaves to the Middle East, India and even China. It may make Wild Style feel better that a million or so white Christians were enslaved by the Barbary pirates, but vastly larger numbers of Africans were enslaved at the same time from other areas of Africa. Do you think it was a coincidence the Portugese went to the "slave coast" when they wanted slaves? Of course not, that's where the Arab traders had been getting them for centuries.
If you want to discuss the truth then I'm all for it and find many of these topics interesting. If you are discussing these topics as some form of social/racial therapy then count me out. You are free to believe whatever makes you feel better. If looking at the pyramids and saying they were built by black men, stating that the sum of western civilization is derived from "black civilization", believing that the Olmecs were Africans, etc. makes you feel better about your ancestors in the US having been slaves then have at it, I'm not here to argue with zealots.
So you're basically agreeing with me. But tell me if Afrikans aren't black what are they? I'll tell you to start reading on melanin because this is where this debate will lead to discussing Afrikans and "blackness". You can be light-skinned, olive-toned, caramel-brown, dark-brown with a reddish hue, Nubian-black and stilll be considered "Black" Regarding the Olmecs, who are they, if not Afrikan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA
It's simply very difficult for Americans, in particular African Americans, to comprehend that Black is an all encompassing term outside of the USA that has been used to describe people who are not Sub- Saharan African.
Thus when you engage in debates with them they will insist this group is black because some historical reference noted them as such. Not realizing that the black of antiquity is a lot different than the black of the Antebellum South.
So what have you left us other than the etymology of the word Moor, what does it tell us about who the Moors were or their origins as a people, not much.
Either you're thinking too hard are blind to the truth. Moor = Black
"North African, Berber," late 14c., from Old French More, from Medieval Latin Morus, from Latin Maurus "inhabitant of Mauritania" (northwest Africa, a region now corresponding to northern Algeria and Morocco), from Greek Mauros, perhaps a native name, or else cognate with mauros "black" (but this adjective only appears in late Greek and may as well be from the people's name as the reverse). Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;" later (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India.
The fact that Moor was used indiscriminately for Persians, Arabs, and Indian Muslims sort of ruins your point... And "a dark people in relation to Europeans" can mean a range of things considering the demographics of Europe at the time--everyone from Syrian Arabs to Sicilians to would've been darker than the average European in most of the continent.
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.
