The Moors: Black history or Black mythology?

[vc_row][vc_column]

Also, see African Race and  Race in Ancient Egypt

[ppp_non_patron_only]

Generations of Spanish rulers and European historians have tried to expunge this era from the historical record, recent archaeology and scholarship conclusively show the so-called  Moors flourished in Al-Andalus for more than 700 years – from 711 AD until 1492. They were not a unified group, and sometimes mortal enemies of each other. They generally comprised of Umayyad Emirate rule, Caliphate of Córdoba, Almoravids, Almohads, and Marinids.

Berbers is an exonym they call themselves Ishawiyen. Berber means Barbarian in Arabic.Berbers did not refer to themselves as Berbers/Amazigh but had their own terms to refer to themselves. For example, the Kabyles use the term “Leqbayel” to refer to their own people, while the Chaouis identified themselves as “Ishawiyen” instead of Berber/Amazigh (Wikipedia) Historically, Berbers across the region did not see themselves as a single cultural or linguistic unit, nor was there a greater “Berber community”, due to their differing cultures. That idenity, like African identity, only came about after the 7th century with the arrival of Arabs. The Maghreb region in northwestern Africa is believed to have been inhabited by Berbers from at least 10,000 BC

At no stage in their entire history did they refer to themselves as Moors. Moor, like Saracen, is a disparaging term, like saying Nigger today. Moor was also not racial in the modern sense. History (despite the efforts of revisionists on sites like Wikipedia) shows conclusively that the people who occupied this part of Spain were ethnically heterogeneous: West Africans and Whites mixed with Berbers, Jews, Berbers, and Arabs. ((Berbers being the significant majority, followed by Arabs or Arabized Berbers, or an Arab-Berber mix. And we must always remember how we see race today is not how they saw race. They had their complex ethnic outlook that had definitions for admixtures between Berber and European))

Their significant contributions in mathematics, astronomy, art, and agriculture helped propel Europe out of the Dark Ages and into the Renaissance. Someone said victory has 1000 fathers while failure is an orphan. Everyone wants to claim the history of what we view as advanced civilizations. But just because we want it, does not make it so.

On a deeper note, why do we need to claim anything if today we are content not to build again? The past only means something if you plan to build on it. So if you are truly from the Ancient Egyptians or children of Moorish empires then go into the world and build civilizations; be mathematicians, be scholars, be archaeologist. ((sentiment taking from Claiming the past that did not claim you))

[/ppp_non_patron_only]

---

TURNING POINT

[vc_row][vc_column]

In 1492 Muslims (also known as Moors) were expelled from Spain. And this single event was one of the single greatest turning points in world history. Because had that defeat not taken place they would be no Columbus to set sail looking to circumvent the Muslim trade in the Middle East, and if no Columbus no “discovery” of the New World. No New world no Transatlantic slave trade, no genocide of Native Americans. No New world would mean no wealth to make Western Europe into a super power. No Western Europe no America. One event changed everything.

---

IGNORANCE IN AGE OF INFO

[vc_row][vc_column]

Where does this Moorish fetish come from? All of a sudden we have gone from being Egyptians to Moors. Everything is about these so-called Moors. Yet it is amazing how in the era of information the discussion of Moors can be divided into rigid camps. There is obvious history which just states the facts: The people who ruled Spain for 500 years ending in 1492 were Muslims of mainly North African origin and were named the Almohad, Almoravid. Then there is the history popular among “‘Black” people where this entire civilization was a BLACK African civilization as depicted in the popular photos. This debate may seem to echo that of Ancient Egypt but there is a serious difference since the history of the so-called Moors is closer to modern times and there is no paucity of evidence on the history of Andalusia.((https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAYcQWL27hM)) For the garden variety Afrocentics no volume of text will change their minds, this article is not for them so makes no difference.

Appropriating other people’s contribution, in this case Islamic history, is wrong. If it is wrong when Europeans do it how does it become right when Africans do it? It becomes vulgar when the very people who plant the black flag are largely Islamophobic. There is no magic that will separate Islam from so-called Moorish civilization. And know that the very same people who swept through North Africa in the 7th century conquering Egypt and all of North Africa under the banner of Islam, are the exact same polity (Arab Muslims and converted Berber Muslims) who created Andalusia. The same, in their words,  slave trading sword swinging Moslems.

[ppp_non_patron_only]I just read an article by a popular Afrocentric online sensational site where it claimed the Moorish civilization was a Black civilization.  In the brief text it did not mention the word Muslim once, and considering that is the most defining quality of the so-called Moors in Spain it is suspect that it was eliminated, the same way Whites eliminated the contributions of Muslims to the Renascence. Yet on the same site is an article about the Arab Slave Trade where the word Muslim was lavished in every crevice. They cherrypick selective quotes from Islamophobic Chancellor Williams ((Chancellor Williams is one of the first Black Orientalist who demonized Muslims as being agents in the destruction of African civilizations, it is ironic how quickly his followers claims Islamic accomplishment when it suits their race-centric agenda. No wonder they avoid mentioning that Andalusia was an Islamic civilization especially when his work heavily features the Arab conquest of Egypt. )) So the very same people who conquered and destroyed Egypt are now heroes in Spain. I think that is the problem when history stops being about discovery of truth and weaponized to serve the hungry race god.[/ppp_non_patron_only]

 

Many are caught up in this culture of ignorance and they do not look beyond YouTube, memes, and orphan quotes. They do not care for truth, sound arguments, critical thinking, research, scholarship or anything that contradicts what makes them feel good about themselves.  They do not even read the work of Afrocentric scholars like Van Sertima or John Jackson. They will reference Stanley Poole but have they read his book? It is ironic that the very thing that has happened to African history (at the hands of Eurocentric racist) is the very same thing they do by twisting and bending history.  Can any of them make any sort of references to scholarship? Can any of them read Arabic, Latin or Greek sources? And why are all the arguments so binary? With little nuance or dialectic reasoning?

---

RACE-CENTRICKS

[vc_row][vc_column]

The history of what I like? What suits my politics? Will never reconcile with what happened, or what the evidence shows happened. YouTube videos and shock race-centric channels are not historical sources. They appeal to the lazy, the weak those who are unsure about their identity and need large flamboyant claims of their historical greatness over everyone to restore some much needed self-pride. They are terrified of discovering unflattering truths. All such truths are therefore Whitewashing done by Negro sellouts and Eurocentrics (anyone who is disagrees with pseudohistory).

There is a person going by the name of Othello man on Wikipedia who tried to extend the definition of Moors to include West African Muslims and Africans in general as being part of Moorish dynasties. All of his edits were reverted by White admins (as is common on Wikipedia which is largely a Eurocentric outpost). They appear rational and scholarly by  using terms like neutral point of view and reliable sources to secure Eurocentrism as solid scholarship. Now Othello man is correct, but also wrong. And this is the state many Africans find themselves in. He is 100% correct that native Africans made up a percentage of the Almoravid Dynasty but where he is failing is in understanding a belief or an opinion–even when correct is not scholarship. It must meet scholarly standards. The sources do not say this, so you need to do deeper research to prove your case. And this is why Europeans are able to run circles around African history and keep us on the outside because we do not understand rigorous scholarship. In addition we do we have the dispassion or patience to adhere to its methods. It is no longer enough to say Ivan Van Setima says they was an African component because where did Van Setima get his information from?

Did he have a time-machine? Did he conduct a seance and speak with them? So while we can respect his scholarship ultimately we need to read his work and look at his primary sources and the methodologies he used to get to this conclusion. If all we have is European paintings of Moors and we want to make our case by measuring big lips and thick noses I think we are in bad shape. Picture comparison is not the bases for serious scholarship. And in our absences of serious work, White revisionist have been bleaching the population of Islamic Spain to suit their race-centric agenda. Simply stating the opposite —they were a black kingdom–is not enough. It is a disservice to authentic African scholarship and downright insulting.

---

EVIDENCE

[vc_row][vc_column]

A show called Time Team did visit Spain and in a grave discovered side by side both the skulls of Africans and Arabs. ((It is important to note that this skull science is not serious scholarship because if you look at the skull of Ethiopians they can easily be mistaken for Arabs, the same is true for Somali people and Tutsi people as well as many groups in the Sahel like the Tuareg. This Skull science in this instance only serves the purpose of illustrating that skulls were found that could only be African.))Clearly showing the population of “Moorish” Spain was mixed. We do not know the exact percentage of the mixture nor are we clear of the roles Africans played in the society from this Time Team evidence. We do know everyone was Muslim and equal since in theory Islam is very egalitarian in structure. Further research does show that at different periods Africans did rule over Islamic Spain according to Dr. Hakim Quick.((As soon as a reference is ready we will post it))

---

MOORS = BLACK PEOPLE?

[vc_row][vc_column]

See African Race

If you study every piece of argument for Moors being black people then you find that every argument comes down to one paper thin support. Moor = Modern Black people. If this is the single structure holding up the stadium what happens once it breaks? But for them blackness is so flexible it seems to twist its hands around any people with a hint of melanin.

For Shakespeare to establish and be a reliable source that Moor means Black, as in modern Black people without any disclaimer that Shakespeare could be referring to any non-White group is dishonest scholarship. Black here is relative to being White. In this case the ”non-white’ Islamic other. The term is relative not specific to any modern group. To suggest this is anachronistic.

Now Moor did mean Black or dark, but here is what you need to know: Black does not mean only African people the people called Black in America and South Africa. Europeans used the term Moor for non-Whites particularly non-White and Muslim; like the term Saracen. Even people on Sri Lanka were called Moors, and I do not think we include them in the so-called Black race. Historically we see the word come up in Greek and Latin sources, ((οἰκοῦσι δ᾽ ἐνταῦθα Μαυρούσιοι μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων λεγόμενοι, Μαῦροι δ᾽ ὑπὸ τῶν Ῥωμαίων καὶ τῶν ἐπιχωρίων “Here dwell a people called by the Greeks Maurusii, and by the Romans and the natives Mauri” Strabo, Geographica 17.3.2. Lewis and Short, Latin Dictionary, 1879 s.v. “Mauri”))((http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DMauri))and while it may mean black, black does not mean exclusive to modern day African people. In later usage it was like Negro and Nigger it was used disparagingly (quoting John Jackson). (( Introduction to The Story of the Moors in Spain (1990)))((Menocal, María Rosa (2002). Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain. Little, Brown))

We need to then clear up some identity politics before we go on. The native people of Africa are called Africans, not Sub-Saharan Africans or Black Africans–just Africans. ((African Race))This generally excludes modern day Arabs and Berber groups, it obviously excludes Europeans in Kenya and South Africa. We need to secure this definition so it does not float around to serve any race-centric cause (may that cause by Afrocentic or Eurocentric). Because the word Moor can mean Africans, does not mean the European reference to Moor meant that Islamic Spain was an African empire. When it is historically shown that Berbers–in this case brown to white skinned non-Africans–were also called Moors. (see photo). They made up the majority of the so-called Moorish civilization, and were more often than not non-Africans. And for those who highlight that the modern Berber populations are mixed, well this mixing did not happen recently. It happened long before Muslims conquered Spain, it predates Islam and goes way back to Ancient times (50,000 years ago). ((Loosdrecht, Marieke van de; Bouzouggar, Abdeljalil; Humphrey, Louise; Posth, Cosimo; Barton, Nick; Aximu-Petri, Ayinuer; Nickel, Birgit; Nagel, Sarah; Talbi, El Hassan (2018-03-15). “Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations”)) With 12.5%  mitochondrial contributions from Native African populations. ((http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/~vincent/papers/980656.web.pdf))

It is necessary to understand who these people were so that when we see references to them by the Romans and the Greeks we must realize what Moor meant to them (the people using it in the period) not what it means to us living in the 21st century. We cannot simply transplant our modern understanding of race into antiquity and make it suit our modern politics. The word Moor, for most of history has had a broad application but has never been specific in identifying Native African populations while excluding non-African Berbers. It is therefore impossible to suggest Moor means modern day Black people exclusively at any point in the historical record.

---

HISTORY IS HIDDEN WHEN YOU HIDE IT

[vc_row][vc_column]

History is not hidden anymore, the only people hiding it is the people who refuse to read.

The history of Abd al-Rahman, Yusuf ibn Tashfin, Abdallah ibn Yasin and Ishaq ibn Ali is not hidden. It is detailed in English, Arabic and many languages. And this new trend of sensation myth-ridden clickbait is a travesty against true African scholarship. The people behind this are exploitative (even if they have good intentions). They operate without any responsibility to pursue history. History  for them is a tool to make themselves famous by being loud and appealing to our ignorance of self. As opposed to elevating Africans with the wondrous scholarship of our ancestors they choose to push loud myths. And Amos Wilson warned against this. 

---

CONCLUSION

[vc_row][vc_column]

You do nothing for your race by echoing inaccuracies. You cannot honor the work of Diop, Van Sertima, Asante, Karenga, Obenga, or any of them by not continuing to extend their scholarship and being rigorous about how you do it. All of us make errors it is hoped that the person who reads this work can add it to it, make it better, make it more solid for the next generation. Not one honest scholar wants us to discover their errors, and repeat them.

---

African history is full of glory we do not need to make up stuff, claim Buddha was black and Ancient Chinese empires were black/African to be great. We already have Ancient Egypt, Axum, Sokoto, Nubia on and on. Why not spend time learning more about these places than grabbing what is not ours? And why do we need to claim anything if today we are content not to build again? If you are from the Ancient Egyptians then go into the world and build civilizations, be mathematicians, be scholars, be archaeologist. Then you are like the Ancient Egyptians. For me it is useless going on about any ancient accomplishment while satisfied to be a failed group right now. The past is our motivator, if it does not motivate you to be add to greatness of the past then it has no use in our present.

 

---

FURTHER READING

[vc_row][vc_column]

• Ivan Van Sertima, ed. The Golden Age of the Moor. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1992. (Journal of African civilizations, vol. 11).
• Stanley Lane-Poole, The History of the Moors in Spain.
• Tracing Past Human Male Movements in Northern/Eastern Africa and Western Eurasia
• The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain (This book is about the general history, it does not deal with issues of race only religion and ethnicity)
• Bernard Lewis. The Muslim Discovery of Europe. NY: Norton, 1982