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.
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.
How can a generalization be made to 3 different groups, separate groups? The fact that there are not called Moors today is telling that they wasn't called Moors by many. Yet Europeans were mostly olive-toned and became such by interacting with the Moors, there was Moors throughout Europe before, during and after their Renaissance. Italy also had a major history with the Moors, but that's a whole 'nother thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Thinking too hard is preferable to not thinking at all.
So define Black.
Black = Anybody with an abundance of melanin, that means people described as yellow-boned fall under this because they have an abundance of melanin, in comparison/relation to Europeans.
Black = Anybody with an abundance of melanin, that means people described as yellow-boned fall under this because they have an abundance of melanin, in comparison/relation to Europeans.
Well that is a pretty meaningless definition because under your terms that would include anyone from the Aborigines of Australia to the Inuit of the Arctic Circle.
Well that is a pretty meaningless definition because under your terms that would include anyone from the Aborigines of Australia to the Inuit of the Arctic Circle.
Obviously, but think about it socially-wise Amerikkka would agree with that definition .
Back to the topic though, Moor does mean dark-skinned one, obviously not all of them were nubian-toned but most, if not all were considered "dark." You see what I'm saying. The etymology of the word should have been the end of the discussion. In all historic depiction they are dark-skinned to copper-toned.
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.
I agree and also find this to be a topic I am rather deficient in. My frustration is most likely similar to yours. It was painfully obvious that the work by men like Diop was needed to place things into proper context and Diop was largely proven right through later genetic studies and migration patterns. However, it seems many who want to discuss these issues are not simply satisfied with setting the record straight, but are basically looking to re-write history simply replacing a "white wash" with a "black wash".
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoodsofATL
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"
Tell me based on this von Luschan skin color chart where "white" ends and "black" begins...
Personally I have pretty dark skin for a white guy, possibly from my Native American ancestors, or perhaps even African American relatives I am not aware of in the past. On this chart I'm pretty much around a 24. Does that make me black? How about in the summer when I tan? At that point I'm almost like a 29. Am I black in the summer?
Quote:
Regarding the Olmecs, who are they, if not Afrikan?
They were an indigenous Mesoamerican people, at least according to virtually every researcher that studies them for a living. They evolved their civilization in Mesoamerica and were not influenced by Africans, Chinese, "Jaredites" or Nordic peoples. Why is it so impossible for you to believe that a Mesoamerican culture evolved a more advanced civilization independently? Is it because they made statues that when you look at them a certain way they kind of resemble African (or Chinese) features? The issue was pretty much put to rest when genetic studies were done that proved there was absolutely no link to any other people, save other Mesoamerican cultures. At this point, the entire "alternative origin" for the Olmecs is far more pop culture then science.
Quote:
How can a generalization be made to 3 different groups, separate groups? The fact that there are not called Moors today is telling that they wasn't called Moors by many. Yet Europeans were mostly olive-toned and became such by interacting with the Moors, there was Moors throughout Europe before, during and after their Renaissance. Italy also had a major history with the Moors, but that's a whole 'nother thread.
You posted the etymology of the word yourself, it had a broad and varied meaning over time. At the time we are specifically talking about in this thread, the word referred to "dark people" and/or non-Christians. While the modern use of the word has a more narrow scope, in the Middle Ages it had a broader meaning. That meaning is the one that is important.
As for European skin color variation. The research would hold that as humans migrated north from Africa they began to lose their dark pigmentation as they no longer needed higher resistance to UV light and needed to synthesize more vitamin D. Here is the "skin color map" of the world based on the chart posted above from von Luschan...
While there is certainly some degree of influence from mixture, the general impact of admixture on populations is generally rather small. Skin color is simply a reflection of where ones ancestors evolved over the short term meaning the past 20,000-40,000 years and of course we are all originally Africans. So, "olive" Europeans didn't get that way from mixing with the Moors, their ancestors simply retained higher melanin concentrations owing to their Mediteranean climate.
Outside of all that, this entire line of discussion is rather ridiculous, here we are applying 19th century racial stereotypes to people that lived thousands of years ago. Whether the Moors were as black as coal or as white as snow in physical appearance really doesn't matter. We do know that they were an indigenous African people and we also know that their general physical appearance varied greatly. Beyond curiosity, what does knowing what the Moors looked like do to advance our understanding of who they are or what they did? I understand how history was distorted in the past by a white racial lense, Eurocentric thought if you will. However, why counter that with equally foolish stereotypes instead of just seeking the truth about who those people were? No one is denying they are African and the evidence says that they had a wide-ranging phenotype owing to natural diversity as is present in much of Africa. Whether they looked like African Americans or not (some certainly did) is immaterial and that seems to be what you are chasing. I won't even get into the irony of you arguing over how the term Moor was generalized to mean a broad cross-section of people while you are trying to apply the blanket term "black" to anyone with a certain gradient of skin pigment. I thought we were beyond idiotic generalizations?
Count me in with ovcatto on wanting a better definition of "black". If the best you can do is skin color, again tell me on that chart where white ends and black begins, then we don't have much to go on.
Obviously, but think about it socially-wise Amerikkka would agree with that definition .
Back to the topic though, Moor does mean dark-skinned one, obviously not all of them were nubian-toned but most, if not all were considered "dark." You see what I'm saying. The etymology of the word should have been the end of the discussion. In all historic depiction they are dark-skinned to copper-toned.
Except they aren't all depicted as "dark to copper-toned" in ALL historic sources...
Now, those are all period produced images, paintings, etc. They all depict Moors and not all of them are "dark or copper" or even what would generally be considered "black" in appearance. If you want to argue that Europeans of the time would call them all "black", as they would have per the etymology of Moor, then the discusison is just running in circles and takes us back to defining "black". I posted dozens of other images on the first page showing "black" Moors in historical art, but here is the other side, showing the variability in physical appearance that existed.
Except they aren't all depicted as "dark to copper-toned" in ALL historic sources...
Now, those are all period produced images, paintings, etc. They all depict Moors and not all of them are "dark or copper" or even what would generally be considered "black" in appearance. If you want to argue that Europeans of the time would call them all "black", as they would have per the etymology of Moor, then the discusison is just running in circles and takes us back to defining "black". I posted dozens of other images on the first page showing "black" Moors in hsitorical art, but here is the other side, showing the variability in physical appearance that existed.
Those were the kind of pictures I was looking to put. Spain and Portugal have a lot of medieval pictures, statues and coats of arms related with Moors, probably more than any other European country, and only a few were what is currently considered black.
I agree and also find this to be a topic I am rather deficient in. My frustration is most likely similar to yours...
You don't know the half of it. As you point out:
Why is it so impossible for you to believe that a Mesoamerican culture evolved a more advanced civilization independently?
what is the upshot? Falsely crediting the one group at the expense of another? Is this how people of the African Diaspora want to stake their claim on history. Personally, I don't want any part of it. There is more than enough factual history to bais a significant and factual history of African people's without a need to manufacture one out of whole cloth.
Why is it so impossible for you to believe that a Mesoamerican culture evolved a more advanced civilization independently?
what is the upshot? Falsely crediting the one group at the expense of another? Is this how people of the African Diaspora want to stake their claim on history. Personally, I don't want any part of it. There is more than enough factual history to bais a significant and factual history of African people's without a need to manufacture one out of whole cloth.
I'm sure my frustration is far less then yours. My exposure to the worst aspects of Afroncentrism have been rather limited. The irony to me in terms of things like arguing that the Olmec were Africans is that the root of Afrocentrism is arguing and fighting against the classicist/Eurocentric "hijacking" of African cultures. Why engage in the same behavior you are railing against? Like you said, there is plenty of actual African history, much of it fascinating and glorious, to study and admire without having to invent one.
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.
.
.