Talk:Blackamoor (decorative arts)

Why moved from Maure
I am not an expert on this topic, and the facts I have posted have been gained through my personal experience in art and design (as well a reading lots of W magazine), so when Blackamoor was moved to "Maure," I merely assumed whoever did so, knew more about it than I did. However, after a little more investigation I can find no instance where the jewelry or figurines I describe are referred to as "Maure." So, I ask your advice. Should I move to have Blackamoor returned to its own entry, Blackamoor (jewelry)? What is really needed is an expert in the field to tell us what to do. Lacking that, I've only been able to say what isn't right (when is not constructive). --Jhlynes 00:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm goldsmith and knowlegable but not expert on jewelry history. IMO this is a fine little article in just the right place. Blackamoor is a jewelry form and righfully so. Again, IMO Jjdon (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blackamoors (decorative arts). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://myclan.com/clans/MacLellan_258/default.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080318203445/http://www.celticstudio.com/CelticStudio/database/clans/095.htm to http://www.celticstudio.com/celticstudio/database/clans/095.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Potential source for Jewellery
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42462724

©Geni (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

What Is A Non-European Race?
"usually African males but sometimes other non-European races" - considering there are no races of modern humans, and considering that people of African and Asian phenotypes have been moving to what we call Europe since 50,000 years ago, this phrase seems confusing and out of date. Just to add, African haplogroups are part of the European genetic landscape, most recently being the East African E1b1b, especially in Southern Europe and North Africa. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We observe a difference in those who originate from different continents and regions as being of different races. This comment reaks of POV pushing, but in case you have been absent from society for the past two-thousand years: Africans are generally understood to be those whose ancestors originate from Sub-Sahara Africa and Non-Europeans are generally thought to be those whose ancestors have not been native to the European continent since the Crucifixion of Christ. Results may vary, exceptions may apply. – Conservatrix (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Africans are generally understood to be those whose ancestors originate from Sub-Sahara Africa and Non-Europeans are generally thought to be those whose ancestors have not been native to the European continent since the Crucifixion of Christ." Those are completely arbitrary 'definitions'. First of all, 'Sub-Saharan' is just code, and based on a 19th century belief that Black people originated in West Africa, along with the Bantu language. Is anyone from the Nile Valley, say the Dinka or Nuer not African? Is the Nile Valley 'Sub-Saharan'? How about Ethiopians and Somalis - are they 'Sub-Saharan'? How about Black North Africans, which are at least 40% of the population of Libya? At least 2 of the Moorish dynasties were of Senegalese origin. Does that mean that Senegal is now not 'Sub-Saharan'? Then, your strange definition of Europeans starting with the crucifixion of Jesus... The Gypsies came out of India during the middle Middle Ages. Does that mean Gypsies aren't European? Most of the Germanic population today is there because of population movements that followed the collapse of the Roman Empire. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Blackamoor jewelry
It is not racist. Slavory was abolished in venise around 640 ad. They were slaves but the laws made people who had servents at this time it was a punishment for not being Christian. There were servents of all races. Blackamoor. Is a more recent term the white pendants with black onyx and precious and precious stones was worn to ward off pirates. This history predates african american. Which is not the correct term. Servants were actually given dowry to get married and join into society. The slave art depicted slaves in chains and beatings. This artform depicts woman and men aforned with golden robes and jewelry gold and precious stones. Some early Blackamoor jewerly and art shows black men and woman created by blacksmiths who had never even seen a black person but had heard stories of princes from egypt and africa. These pre 16 century pieces actually have very European features because they were made from imagionation. Pendants were not just worn to actualy ward off pirates but were worn to show status. You have to remember history. They were concord by the moors and had a moor king at one time. Please stop making things racist that are not. Even shakespear talked about black soldiers. People also immagrated to the Mediterranean of all races. These pieces of beautiful art are and have nothing to do with america. This is venician art. They are highly collectable. I was gifted a ring by my native american sister. Im irish by dna. Her mother full native. My son is mixed and i will gidt this to my little beautiful granddaughter one day. We want to make everything racist. The ring is a white semi previous stone qith black onux and adorned in diamonds. History needs to be out there correct. This is not racist. This was respectful. Blacks were not the only blackamoor art people depicted anyone of non European features was thought to be exotic and beautiful during this time. Vsbyrnea (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I added this in the summary but it gets undone. Gualtherus (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Added an article from NYU clearly saying it is not racism but somehow some people only want to see racism. Gualtherus (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding this, this and this, it "got undone" because, like I stated, the WP:Lead is meant to summarize the article. We do not need all of that in the lead. We need a summary of the issue in the lead, and the rest should be lower. The lead should not include material not discussed lower. It also "got undone" because your text engage engages in WP:Weasel wording "some" and WP:Editorializing. It is not subjective that blackamoor is now widely viewed as racist and culturally insensitive. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is still produced in Venice to this day, has no historical connotation to racism or slavery.Gualtherus (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Coming back to this - has anyone got any references, and I mean proper references, that explain blackamoor's connotations with racism, exoticism and the othering of dark skinned people? And by proper, I mean sources beyond just stating "it's not racist because slavery doesn't exist". --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)