were the Moors black? (Mexico, slave, ancestors, contribution)
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 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".
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?
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.
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.
To the von Luschan I have never seen a person's skin color on the 1 - 11 range, 12 - 16 would be Anglo/Eurasian based people, everything else would be considered fair to dark skinned, yet why is this scale still not used? Its seems false given the fact that multiple of those colors can all be on one person at one time. I never said that the Olmecs were not indigenous to the Amerikkkas, I'm saying they came from Afrika and that is all, even their spiritual practices are similar to many Afrikan spiritualities, that can't just be by chance or coincidence, their cultures are similar. If people look back and see African Americans are different from those who are South Afro-Americans is the same because of their cultural backgrounds are similar and they came here the same way and from the same continent, so is it not too far-fetched that history was repeating itself as in the Afrikan migration to the American continents, though it being different ways and reasons.
You follow me?
What I'm saying is that their cultures are similar, pyramid building, keloid markings, spiritual systems. You make it seem like I have no basis behind this reasoning other than race,
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
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.
Of course you have revision back then as well, you've seen that yourself and how far back that goes...
I never said that the Olmecs were not indigenous to the Amerikkkas, I'm saying they came from Afrika
Quote:
What I'm saying is that their cultures are similar, pyramid building, keloid markings, spiritual systems. You make it seem like I have no basis behind this reasoning other than race,
Painting with such a broad brush one would might as well, and correctly, state that all humans have the same basic culture. Pyramids can be found throughout the globe (about the most logical way for primitive cultures to build tall structures), using scar tissue as decorative art is another global cultural adoption. Your problem as I see it is that you have a very narrow and uninformed view of the plethora of cultures that exist on this planet whose similarities would cause you to question these simplistic arguments that you insist on putting forward.
Painting with such a broad brush one would might as well, and correctly, state that all humans have the same basic culture. Pyramids can be found throughout the globe (about the most logical way for primitive cultures to build tall structures), using scar tissue as decorative art is another global cultural adoption. Your problem as I see it is that you have a very narrow and uninformed view of the plethora of cultures that exist on this planet whose similarities would cause you to question these simplistic arguments that you insist on putting forward.
Well let me ask you this:
If we were to look back at all the Afrikan cultures in the Western Hemisphere in the year 2879, would all the "Afrikan-American", Afrikan-Caribbeans, South Afro-Amerikans be known as indigenous to the Amerikas even though it is known (or maybe not known in that time) that majority of those people came from Afrika during the Maafa?
Why do you have this narrow view of history as if these people couldn't have gone overseas in their time?
If we were to look back at all the Afrikan cultures in the Western Hemisphere in the year 2879, would all the "Afrikan-American", Afrikan-Caribbeans, South Afro-Amerikans be known as indigenous to the Amerikas even though it is known (or maybe not known in that time) that majority of those people came from Afrika during the Maafa?
Why do you have this narrow view of history as if these people couldn't have gone overseas in their time?
If we were to look back at all the Afrikan cultures in the Western Hemisphere in the year 2879, would all the "Afrikan-American", Afrikan-Caribbeans, South Afro-Amerikans be known as indigenous to the Amerikas even though it is known (or maybe not known in that time) that majority of those people came from Afrika during the Maafa?
Assuming that I am reading the question correctly, if we were having a conversation in 2879 on the population of the South American the answer would be the same, the title of indigenous would still go to the original inhabitants, unless you want to erase the history of the when and why of the African diaspora. So, here's your dilemma, either the Americas were populated by globe trotting Africans or they were the object of a forced migration. Which do want?
Quote:
Why do you have this narrow view of history as if these people couldn't have gone overseas in their time?
Because it isn't history, certainly nothing based upon any reliable evidence to support the hypothesis. That doesn't mean that some prehistoric modern human from Africa couldn't have set sail and landed somewhere on the eastern coast of South America, but in sufficient numbers to sustain a population? The DNA evidence simply doesn't support that possibility. As for the purported evidence... when you selectively pick those elements that support your argument you can come up with virtually any argument. So perhaps you can explain why these Olmec artifacts never show up on the Olmecs as African websites?
Painting with such a broad brush one would might as well, and correctly, state that all humans have the same basic culture. Pyramids can be found throughout the globe (about the most logical way for primitive cultures to build tall structures), using scar tissue as decorative art is another global cultural adoption. Your problem as I see it is that you have a very narrow and uninformed view of the plethora of cultures that exist on this planet whose similarities would cause you to question these simplistic arguments that you insist on putting forward.
Where are the pyramids in Europe, in western Europe and the area of the caucus mountains, show me those pyramids and how the relate in structure to those in Afrika and the ones in Amerikkka.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Assuming that I am reading the question correctly, if we were having a conversation in 2879 on the population of the South American the answer would be the same, the title of indigenous would still go to the original inhabitants, unless you want to erase the history of the when and why of the African diaspora. So, here's your dilemma, either the Americas were populated by globe trotting Africans or they were the object of a forced migration. Which do want?
Because it isn't history, certainly nothing based upon any reliable evidence to support the hypothesis. That doesn't mean that some prehistoric modern human from Africa couldn't have set sail and landed somewhere on the eastern coast of South America, but in sufficient numbers to sustain a population? The DNA evidence simply doesn't support that possibility. As for the purported evidence... when you selectively pick those elements that support your argument you can come up with virtually any argument. So perhaps you can explain why these Olmec artifacts never show up on the Olmecs as African websites?
For one Afrikans had been over here before the maafa, they established cultures, a plethora of highly advanced civilizations and they were Afrikan. Now this contradicts the current revised whitewashed history today, which is why they [current history books and some scholars] refer to these people as the indigenous. See there is no this or that. We came over here first, then the Afrikan moors brought the savage Christopher Columbus over here, this is evidenced by historical portraits of the genocidal slave trader with Afrikan moors in the background. This is why Afrikan history is world history.
To the von Luschan I have never seen a person's skin color on the 1 - 11 range, 12 - 16 would be Anglo/Eurasian based people, everything else would be considered fair to dark skinned, yet why is this scale still not used? Its seems false given the fact that multiple of those colors can all be on one person at one time.
The chart was widely used until 1950 when it was replaced by spectrophotometry. It is not that the scale was "wrong" it was just that as an intstrument it left too much variability as two different people may come up with two different readings for the same patient. My point was not to "prove" anything with it, merely ask you based on that where "white ends and black begins", basically poking fun of the idea of using melanin as a definition. In 1975 a Harvard dermatologist broke them down into general bands of tanning behavior, with no racial classifications. His scale:
1-5 = Very light or white Celtic type.
6-10 = Light or light-skinned European.
11-15 = Light intermediate or dark-skinned European.
16-21 = Dark intermediate, Mediterranean or Olive-skinned.
22-28 = Dark or brown type.
29-39 = Very dark or black type.
Quote:
I never said that the Olmecs were not indigenous to the Amerikkkas, I'm saying they came from Afrika and that is all, even their spiritual practices are similar to many Afrikan spiritualities, that can't just be by chance or coincidence, their cultures are similar. If people look back and see African Americans are different from those who are South Afro-Americans is the same because of their cultural backgrounds are similar and they came here the same way and from the same continent, so is it not too far-fetched that history was repeating itself as in the Afrikan migration to the American continents, though it being different ways and reasons.
You follow me?
What I'm saying is that their cultures are similar, pyramid building, keloid markings, spiritual systems. You make it seem like I have no basis behind this reasoning other than race,
Well, all people at some point came from Africa. However, I doubt you are basing your claim on that. What you are presenting is coincidental evidence. There is no hard evidence that Africans ever migrated or travelled to pre-Columbian America, let alone spawned civilization there. The absolute lack of any genetic evidence to tie the peoples together, is far more proof then coincidental evidence of spiritual practices and how they stacked rocks.
Quote:
Of course you have revision back then as well, you've seen that yourself and how far back that goes...
So, images of whiter appearing Moors are "revision" but images of blacker appearing Moors are "unassailable proof"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoodsofATL
Well let me ask you this:
If we were to look back at all the Afrikan cultures in the Western Hemisphere in the year 2879, would all the "Afrikan-American", Afrikan-Caribbeans, South Afro-Amerikans be known as indigenous to the Amerikas even though it is known (or maybe not known in that time) that majority of those people came from Afrika during the Maafa?
Why do you have this narrow view of history as if these people couldn't have gone overseas in their time?
ovcatto already provided the counter and I agree with him. In 2879 the historical record will show that the African cultures in the Western Hemisphere were not "indigenous" as in they were the original occupants of the land, but that they were brought here via the slave trade.
As for "narrow views", there is a difference between accepting that things are possible, but not believing them until sufficient evidence is found and simply believing in the possible and then trying to find evidence, wherever and however, to support it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perception
Where are the pyramids in Europe, in western Europe and the area of the caucus mountains, show me those pyramids and how the relate in structure to those in Afrika and the ones in Amerikkka.
There is evidence of pyramid building all over the world. From Europe to China to the Pacific Rim to the Americas to Africa to the Middle East. It seems that at some point most cultures built pyramids of some form, generally starting with dirt mounds and then progressing. However, each takes on their own unique flavor or is abandoned all together after a certain point. There are of course similarities with pyramid construction in Central/South America and in Egypt. Of course, one needs to ask themselves, exactly how many ways are there to pile up rocks? That all pyramids share some basic features is more related to the fact that there was really only one way for these cultures to build such large structures. Once you get beyond the basics, the pyramids have many differences in terms of form, design and function.
Right off the bat we have the fact that Mesoamerican pyramids are roughly 2,000 years younger then the Egyptian pyramids. So, assuming that there was contact, why the extensive time lag before Mesoamericans started building pyramids? By the time they started, the people of Africa had long since abanonded the practice.
Then we have the construction method. Egyptian pyramids are composed entirely of fitted cut stone blocks. The pyramids have a very strong core and were designed to last forever. Mesoamerican pyramids, feature a "rubble" core of large rocks and other debris dumped inside. They then placed rough cut stone to form the outer-layer "tiers" and this was then often finished in a layer of stucco.
Egyptian and other African pyramids were used as tombs and had nothing on top. Mesoamerican pyramids were used as temples and the temple was housed at the top of the structure. Egyptian pyramids were meant to house the bodies of the pharoah's for eternity. Mesoamerican pyramids in their function as temples were often torn down and rebuilt according to their comsological cycle beliefs.
Arches are a critical part of any structure. The Egyptians had knowledge of how to construct a "true arch" with a keystone providing great strength and allowing larger rooms and tunnels to be built in the pyramids. Mesoamericans only had knowledge of "corbelled arches" leading to their interior tunnels and rooms to be much smaller and far less stable. Why would one diffusing the knowledge of pyramid or any other building, fail to diffuse the secrets of the arch that is, oh so critical to strength and stability?
Mesoamerican pyramids were the centerpieces of their cities and served a public function as a place of worship. They were also accessible to people. Egpytian pyramids in their role as tombs were located outside the cities and were not meant to be accessed by anyone once the pharoah had been entombed, hence why they were sealed.
Egyptian pyramids are nearly true geometric pyramids, the goal of the Egpytian builders. The Mesoamerican pyramids are truncated and "squatter" do to how they were built and what their intended function was. Mesoamerican pyramids are heavily adorned and decorated with various sculptures and features. Egyptian and other African pyramids have no exterior decoration other then polished cut stone.
So, other then being what we consider in the shape of a pyramid, exactly how are they similar?
Quote:
For one Afrikans had been over here before the maafa, they established cultures, a plethora of highly advanced civilizations and they were Afrikan. Now this contradicts the current revised whitewashed history today, which is why they [current history books and some scholars] refer to these people as the indigenous. See there is no this or that. We came over here first, then the Afrikan moors brought the savage Christopher Columbus over here, this is evidenced by historical portraits of the genocidal slave trader with Afrikan moors in the background. This is why Afrikan history is world history.
Stated with such absolute conviction, yet completely absent evidence to support the statement.
Yes, the Moors were a "Black". They showed you exactly who they were. Why would they depict themselves in such a manner if they didn't look this way? The Aboriginal Arabs were what we now refer to as Black and look no different from today's African American that you ride next to on the bus (quite literally). This has been written about in many books by scholars both Black and European (so called White). The White Arab that you see dominating North African (aka Middle East) today conquered the land from the Original people there (Blacks). It is the White Arab that dominates the region today however it was not always this way. Black Arabs were in Arabia thousands of years before White got there and assimilated into the culture and religion (Islam). Even White Arab scholars know this.
Would you like some references to where you could find out this information for yourself?
I don't understand how you can have a serious history discussion with someone who spells africa afrika, and america amerikkka. How about I put on a clown nose, womens panties on my head, and make fart sounds with my arm pit as I am speaking? It will have a similar effect on my message.
I don't understand how you can have a serious history discussion with someone who spells africa afrika, and america amerikkka.
It is possible, but unlikely because the author has already cast the discussion as being part of a polemic.
The funny thing is that is thread so reminiscent of the arguments that I had with the adherents of the Ketenga/Ture school of pan-africanistin in the late 60's-70's-ish that it is giving me flashbacks. Outside of the rare encounters with Black Hebrews or Rastafarians I really wasn't aware that these archaic arguments still held sway with anybody.
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.
