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.
There is also a group of Africans in northwest Cameroon where haplogroup R1b is predominant. I guess that makes everyone from northwest Cameroon white. The most common group in India is R1a, which is also pretty common among Baltic people yet they look nothing alike one another.
At any rate, haplogroup E is among the most ancient of haplogroups, around 55,000 years old, modern humans only migrated out of Africa 70-100,00 years ago, and look at all the diversity that has produced. Anyway, the E3B subclade that is found in North Africa is only dominant in that region, not the rest of Africa. Where this argument really starts to fall apart is when you consider that the region's inhabitants have the same dominant haplogroup in Modern times and the vast majority of them share much more in common with the people of the near east than with other Africans, phenotypically speaking.
As for the "white washing" of history, no one is trying to whitewash anything. I'm not saying that North Africans are white, simply that they are not black. They look very similar to the people of the Arab peninsula, and have for thousands of years.
The Moorish people during the medieval period would look much like they do today, dominated by tan to brown people with the occasional black or fair skinned person. Most of the people at both ends of the skin color spectrum would have been brought to the region as slaves, though some could be the ancestors of earlier conquests/migrations.
Last edited by cascadian88; 06-18-2014 at 11:00 PM..
Yes, I have seen the photo Abd el Tarik, the man that disembarked in Gib al Tarik or Gibraltar. He was very similar to Sanford, from Sanford and son. When he landed, he said "ijktla mwnlik aljjak" (Elizabet, I'm coming to you).
The Moors were not negros. They had the typical Mediterranean complexion.
There were some light haired, light eyed people amongst them (very few indeed) being the results of slaves brought in from northern Europe. Around the Levant there are still some light haired, light eyed people who are the result of the Crusaders remaining there for various reasons. The Vikings also took Constantinople, after sailing up Russian rivers to the Black Sea, so there may be light hair influences from the Vikings. The Normans (from Scandinavian stock) ruled Sicily, again inducing some light hair into the region. Again the British dominated much of the region and would have made a small impact.
There is no firm evidence that blond haired, blue eyed people were in the Middle East in ancient times.
The Moors were not blacks. Blacks come from sub-Saharan Africa. Moors came from north of the Sahara (northwest Africa).
These people have been in contact for thousands of years , trading, sometimes launching military attacks against each other and once Islam reached the Sahal traveling accross the Sahara to reach The Middle East and complete the Haji (One of the 5 Pillars of Faith all should strive to do at least once in a lifetime) .
With all of the intercourse going on its easy to exchange a little DNA. yes.
The Moors were not negros. They had the typical Mediterranean complexion.
There were some light haired, light eyed people amongst them (very few indeed) being the results of slaves brought in from northern Europe. Around the Levant there are still some light haired, light eyed people who are the result of the Crusaders remaining there for various reasons. The Vikings also took Constantinople, after sailing up Russian rivers to the Black Sea, so there may be light hair influences from the Vikings. The Normans (from Scandinavian stock) ruled Sicily, again inducing some light hair into the region. Again the British dominated much of the region and would have made a small impact.
There is no firm evidence that blond haired, blue eyed people were in the Middle East in ancient times.
The is no reason to assume that there weren't. Parts of the Middle east were dominated by Persian related tribes such as the Scythians, Medes, Sarmatians, etc. who spoke Indo-European languages, and Persians today have blonde haired and blue eyed members.
These people have been in contact for thousands of years , trading, sometimes launching military attacks against each other and once Islam reached the Sahal traveling accross the Sahara to reach The Middle East and complete the Haji (One of the 5 Pillars of Faith all should strive to do at least once in a lifetime) .
With all of the intercourse going on its easy to exchange a little DNA. yes.
And no one is denying that some of them were phenotypically "black." Most were not.
There is also a group of Africans in northwest Cameroon where haplogroup R1b is predominant. I guess that makes everyone from northwest Cameroon white. The most common group in India is R1a, which is also pretty common among Baltic people yet they look nothing alike one another.
At any rate, haplogroup E is among the most ancient of haplogroups, around 55,000 years old, modern humans only migrated out of Africa 70-100,00 years ago, and look at all the diversity that has produced. Anyway, the E3B subclade that is found in North Africa is only dominant in that region, not the rest of Africa. Where this argument really starts to fall apart is when you consider that the region's inhabitants have the same dominant haplogroup in Modern times and the vast majority of them share much more in common with the people of the near east than with other Africans, phenotypically speaking.
As for the "white washing" of history, no one is trying to whitewash anything. I'm not saying that North Africans are white, simply that they are not black. They look very similar to the people of the Arab peninsula, and have for thousands of years.
The Moorish people during the medieval period would look much like they do today, dominated by tan to brown people with the occasional black or fair skinned person. Most of the people at both ends of the skin color spectrum would have been brought to the region as slaves, though some could be the ancestors of earlier conquests/migrations.
Most haplogroups have different subclades. The R1b in Cameroon is V88 and due to backflow into Africa from the Middle East. It is a different subclade than any R1b subclades in Europe for example.
To imply that Berbers were blacks because there were some blacks (and Vikings, Slavs and Franks) among them, amounts to say that Americans are blacks or Jews because there are a lot of blacks and Jews among them.
Those "Afrocentrists" should go to school and learn the difference between subsaharan Africa and north Africa.
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.
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.
What you mean to say is that many Afrocentrists reject the term sub-Saharan because by pretending that the Sahara desert does not exist, it makes it easier to try to steal the accomplishments of Egypt, the Moors, and several other people who have nothing to do with West and Central Africa.
Really, the Sahara desert is a real place, and part of Africa is below it. It is not a perfect division as cultures, languages, phenotypes and genotypes cross it, but it is an immensely useful concept. Historians do this all over the world- separating Europe from Asia, Southern Asia, the near east, far east and middle east, etc. To be blunt, Europe, Asia and Africa all for a super continent...what other useful sub divisions would you like to see done away with for political reasons? Frankly these subdivisions only become a problem when those with agendas enter into the picture.
As for "eurocentric lies," care to discuss them? I find that most of the time someone decries "Eurocentric lies" they start spouting lies of their own. Not saying you, but I would like to hear about these alleged lies.
Regardless of the skin color they were african. That's all that honestly should matter. What they did is a part of african history which every african, no matter what color they are, should take pride in.
Yes just like the Great Wall of China is something that all people inhabiting the Asian continent are proud of... or the Eiffel tower in France that all those inhabiting the European continent are proud of. C'mon... get real
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.
