Talk:Moors/Archive 2

Shakespeare and 'The Moor'
The sentence at the heart of the current dispute is, 'The description Moors has referred to several historic and modern populations of Berber and Arab descent from Northern Africa, some of whom came to conquer and occupy the Iberian Peninsula for nearly 800 years.'

Some editors have removed the term 'black African' of course, such editors are not motivated by racial hatred. Far from it. But here is the reality. The term 'Moors' is an English word that has historically been applied to various of people. Among those categories are 'black Africans'. A primary example of this description is the use by William Shakespeare, one of the most highly regarded writers in world history. The question is not whether all moors were 'black Africans', nor whether all Arabs or Berbers are black Africans. The question is whether black Africans were ever referred to by English speakers using the word 'Moors'. And, as we all know, they were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackees (talk • contribs) 15:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Make an article chapter (entitled, for example, "Race aspects") and bring forth pertinent arguments and references. I bet some editors will happily counter-argue if given the chance. And for the future, don`t simply insert content into the lead paragraph only because you think Shakespeare would agree. ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand that editors with a poor grasp of literary history may not regard Shakespeare as a useful source on the useage of the English word 'Moor'. They might fail to understand why such a highly-educated and sophisticated writer would identify the term 'moor' with the term 'black'. But frankly I don't buy it. The reality is, wikipedia is populated by hordes of racist trolls that simply hate black people.Ackees (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The term "Moor" originally was one of the several name of the Berber peoples (Moors of Mauritania Tigintania i.e modernday Morocco). It is only after the Arab invasion of the 17th centry, that this word was introduced into European languags as a synonym of Arab and Berber descent people from Northern Africa living there and/or in Spain. Laterly the term "Moor" became a basic synonym of "Muslim" , and this term was used for much of Muslim people (example : Sri-Lankans Muslim were called "Moors" by Portuguese settlers , same goes for Muslims of Filipino Islands , some Muslims of West-Africa were also classified as "Moors". In some European texts , Turk sailors are described as "Moors of Turkey" (i.e Muslims of Turkey). However the original "Moor" term was basically limited to North Africa and to a less extent Spain during the Moorish period. Ekarfi13 19:52 30 July 2010 (UTC)

OED ref
About the question whether "Moor" could historically also refer to black Africans in general: Shakespeare is of course not the suitable reference, but the OED is. Here's the definition:
 * Originally: a native or inhabitant of ancient Mauretania, a region of North Africa corresponding to parts of present-day Morocco and Algeria. Later usually: a member of a Muslim people of mixed Berber and Arab descent inhabiting north-western Africa (now mainly present-day Mauritania), who in the 8th cent. conquered Spain. In the Middle Ages, and as late as the 17th cent., the Moors were widely supposed to be mostly black or very dark-skinned, although the existence of ‘white Moors’ was recognized [...]. Thus the term was often used, even into the 20th cent., with the sense ‘black person’.

So, yes, certainly North Africa as the primary and proper meaning, but occasional extension to the whole of Africa is well documented. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly!Ackees (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Tanned?!?!
This article has virtually no credibility. At no point did "Moor" ever denote "tanned". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrish Smith (talk • contribs) 08:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The reference is to a meaning of 'moreno' in Spanish and Portuguese. Do you speak either of these languages? Paul B (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't speak either language, but both are derived from Latin, and it doesn't take a speaker to see that rather than giving a clear definition - "tanned" is a deliberate obfuscation. "Tanned" in Portuguese translates as curtir, while in Spanish it is bronceado. The website etymonline.com defines "Moor" as such:


 * "North African, Berber," late 14c., from O.Fr. More, from M.L. Morus, from L. Maurus "inhabitant of Mauritania" (northwest Africa, a region now corresponding to northern Algeria and Morocco), from Gk. Mauros, perhaps a native name, or else cognate with mauros "black" (but this adj. only appears in late Gk. and may as well be from the people's name as the reverse). Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;" later (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India.

The above definition isn't entirely correct because the term "Moor" was applied indiscriminately to all Muslims, at least in Spanish, from as early as the 12th century. But still, it comes closer than the article, which doesn't even bother to provide a source. Again, this passage has virtually no credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrish Smith (talk • contribs) 17:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You are making absolutely no sense whatever. The etymology of the word has no relevance to how one of its derivatives is now used. None of this stuff has any relevance to the sentence in question, which is not about usage in the 12th century or ancient times, but is 'one sentence in a long article describing the various usages of the word. "Tanned" is one of the modern meanings 'moreno' . Why is this a problem for you? Paul B (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What is it you don't understand? The etymology is relevant because the passage outlines 'modern' interpretations without first establishing the ancient or pre-modern meaning, leaving the impression contemporary usages of the term reflect its original application - beginning with "tanned". Hence the paragraph, going on to say " ... moro ("Moor") came to have a broader meaning ..." - suggests not only that 'tanned' predates the other interpretations, but also that it naturally follows from the root. That maurus in modern terms can be conflated with 'tan' or 'tawny' is irrelevant to the root, which concerns why the term was applied to NW Africans in the first place. The passage appears to be deliberately confusing, to disassociate the semantic underpinnings of the term altogether. This can even be said of the example in Ludovico Sforza. A better example would be Alessandro de' Medici. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrish Smith (talk • contribs) 32:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I said "The etymology of the word has no relevance to how one of its derivatives is now used.". You write "That maurus in modern terms can be conflated with 'tan' or 'tawny' is irrelevant to the root". That seems to be consistent with what I said, but you contradict yourself by saying "The etymology is relevant because the passage outlines 'modern' interpretations without first establishing the ancient or pre-modern meaning". As a matter of fact it does establish the historical meaning and then gives various modern usages. It does not have to be rigidly chronological, though I don't see anything ambiguous about it, since the connection between related connotations of the word Moor is already there is the lede: muslim/north african/african/dark skin/pagan. First you claimed that the word has never been used to mean tanned, now you say something different. It is entirely proper to outline modern uses and then give detail on the full evolution of the word. In fact the only really confusing and dubious part of this section is the paragraph claiming that there is an unrelated Celtic etymology linked to Gallician Korrigans that somehow became merged with the mainstream one. That's cited to the fringe continuitas website. I've no idea what your comment about Ludovico il Moro Sforza and Alessandro de Medici is supposed to convey. Why is Alessandro a "better" example? Paul B (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The leap from a geographic to color designated meaning is unaccounted for and shows that, if anything, semantic accuracy isn't much of a priority. For that alone the article lacks credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrish Smith (talk • contribs) 00:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any sign that you care about "semantic accuracy", since none of your comments so far are have pointed out any errors whatever. It lists meanings and then explains them. I see nothing wrong with that. The reader would have to be rather obtuse not to get the message. Paul B (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I speak Portuguese and Spanish fluently. "Moor", in pt "Mouro" and in sp "Moro", can and often is apllied metaphorically to someone who is quite tanned. As such it is an ironic equivalent to someone who is "Moreno". By the way, tanned, when refering to skin colour, does NOT translate in pt as "curtir", but as "bronzeado" (literally, the colour of bronze). "Curtir" refers primarily to tanning (as a process to produce leather), even if it has other meanings, such as partying or even snogging. The Ogre (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I figured that out ogre. Thanks anyway. As for Paul Barlow, actually, I think I was pretty effective in demonstrating the article fails in that regard. Moor didn't mean 'tanned' in pre-modern times, and the article's attempt to leap from a geographic to color designated meaning without explaining this exposes the intentions of the authors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrish Smith (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody ever said it meant tanned in "pre-modern times". The section is about the various modern usages. I have absolutely no idea what intentions are "exposed" here. It's true that every so often there appears some African-American editor who attempts to prove it means black, and is indignant by denials that it meant that in ancient times. Then every so often we get Arabic or Berber editors who indignantly deny it has anything to with being black. You appear to be of the latter indignant faction. Well, sorry, but that happens to be one of the meanings the word acquired in European usage. There is overwhelming evidence of this. There is no agenda or any evil plan to be "exposed". As far as this article is concerned, it's just a matter of the effective arrangement of information. The irony is that the only utter nonsense here is the Galician korrigan stuff with a preposterous Celtic etymology. Yet no-one seems to get indignant about that! Paul B (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The etymology listed is false, the word originates in Greek because of the Mauri tribe, not because of 'tanned' color whatever that means 90.205.203.179 (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The etymology, I also agree with Parrish Smith, is deliberately confusing. Why on earth, in the 1st paragraph, do they begin with the Latin meaning or application of the word, when the Greeks were the first to use the word, "μαυρο" or "mavro" which means dark or black, a fact listed at the end of the first paragraph. Then the article gives us a full and detailed account of the meaning of the words in modern and younger European languages. Why on earth are they not more chronological about it?

Ahmedbaba (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)66.165.164.68 (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The Duke of Cologne (Köln)
The Duke of Cologne/ written and illustrated by km kupper Check out this book, saw it at Frankfurt Airport book store. Amusing insite into the mind of a "modern Moor" (Great illustrations too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.72.14 (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

St. James the Moor Slayer
...Why is that even there? Do we have Billie Jean the Anglo-Saxon Killer on their respective page? Or on any other page?

I'm not even close to being Moorish, and I just find the inclusion of that picture to be wrong. What does it add to the article? People have hated just about every group of people at one point in history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.246.7 (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Think yourself lucky. There used to be four pictures of James slaying Moors . Someone really liked images of Moor-smiting. Paul B (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm getting rid of it. Don't really care if I get e-martyred, it's for a good cause D= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.246.7 (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Just kidding, I apparently can't. Still I call bullshit. MODS COME CLEAN UP THIS MESS. speaking of strange things on Wikipedia, why is there a picture of the dead corpse of saddam's relatively "nice" son who's never concretely done anything terrible, while his bastard brother and the big man himself have relatively clean pages? that's honestly moronic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRDX! (talk • contribs) 23:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. I am a novice editor, please bear with me.
 * 2. Does anyone else find it funny that in this painting James has a distinctly darker complexion than the decapitated Moor at his feet? I am not black, or African-American, just for the record. I think what the picture adds to the article is that the term "Moor" was clearly not always applied to specific racial or ethnic stereotypes but also to Muslims of any race, possibly specifically to those of North African origin, before becoming generalized and more muddled. Art can reflect prevailing attitudes or help to shape them, but it seems clear that within the span of a century or two the image of a light-skinned Moor was supplanted by Shakespeare's dark-skinned Moor. I think what many Westerners fail to appreciate is that throughout history many prejudices and conflicts that originated as tribal, territorial/geographic/regional, ethnic, religious AND racial, got mixed up and lumped together. In particular, the association of so-called "heathens" (i.e. non-Christians) with non-whites. One example of how these boundaries have become muddled in the extreme is exemplified by Westerner's confusion over conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, which are often described as "ethnic" but in fact are rooted in religion: Croatians who are predominantly Catholic were favored by the old Austro-Hungarian overlords, who fought the primarily Eastern Orthodox Serbs, who both fought against the Ottoman (heathen) conquest of their territories, and who both continue to fight the Muslims families who stayed after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (my favorite reference is Balkan Ghosts, by Robert Kaplan). Which came first, religious hatred or racial? The chicken or the egg? The debate is pointless. What we are left with is the fact that these two hatreds have become muddled, and smell just as foul by any other name. The messiness is part of the story.Beadmatrix (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Images
Some of them are too small and need enlargeing, for exsampel: --Wipsenade (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)



Sadly, I am not a Admin, and thus can't do it my self!--Wipsenade (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No need for an admin, just change the image parameters. You might find reading WP:IMAGE to be useful. --Ashanda (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Just remove the image size forcing, it should just be a thumb. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It reallyshouldn't be here at all. It has next to no connection with the topic. Yes, Macrinus was a Berber, but so what? Are we to have pictures of anyone from north Africa here? Paul B (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the major issue here with these Images is the abvious and absurd attempt to downplay the essential meaning of the word Moor--which is any black African encountered by the historical European World. Be it Moslem or Christian. They have deleiberately refused to provide a single image of a Christian Moor because it woould expose the fallacy of Moors simply meaning populations of Moslems made up of Berbers;black africans, Arabs or converted local Iberians. This article definitely has a quite transparent racialist agenda.

Ahmedbaba (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Link to disambiguation?
Would it be appropriate to include a link to the 'moor' disambiguation page? I ended up here when looking for information on moorlands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.194.142 (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Berber clergymen"
Augustine may have been of partly Berber ancestry, according to one source I found (through his mother Monica), but that does not mean he himself was a "Berber clergyman" - he was also of Roman and presumably Punic origin. About Tertullian, I can't find any claim of specifically Berber ancestry at all. These statements should be amended, but I can't do that, since the page is protected even for registered users - I really doubt that such an extreme measure was necessary because of just two or three users edit warring; they should have been blocked instead.--Anonymous44 (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 38.100.109.3, 22 March 2011
We are doing a project about Moors, so this article better be freakin good.

38.100.109.3 (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Huh? — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 15:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible confusion
A hatnote would be useful here to point to Moor for other meanings of this word.Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A link to the disambiguation page would be useful, or something similar in place of the existing hatnote. Peter E. James (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. JohnCD (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

False claim about the number of Arabs and Berbers in Iberia
The article claims that " Aline Angoustures[18] says that the Berbers were about 900,000 and the Arabs about 90,000 in Iberia.." A look at that source quickly reveals the false claim. On page 17 it actually says this:

"Il faut cependant nuancer l'influence "ethnique": les conquérants étaient peu nombreux, leur occupation n'etait pas massive. Al-Andalus est peuplée de facon composite, avec nombre de Berberes eux-memes récemment islamisés (environ 300 a 400000), des Arabes (30 a 40000), mais aussi des chrétiens convertis a l'Islam, des Juifs, présents depuis l'époque romaine, et des chrétiens non convertis, appelés mozarabes. Au X siecle, les Espagnols (convertis ou non) representent sans doute encore les trois quarts de la population d'Alandalus. L'originalité profonde de cette societé est son isolement relatif du reste du monde musulman et les contacts qu'elle permet entre populations islamique, chretienne et juive."

http://books.google.com/books?id=MuaCOe7zdsIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=L'Espagne+Aline+Angoustures&hl=en&ei=gxPLTZzmJInn0QGl4cmbCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

So the actual number according to this source is much lower than whoever inserted that section in the article. You can easily multiply such sources stating pretty much the same well-established fact that the "Moors" in Iberia were only a small minorty of the population, and that the bulk of Muslims were just native people who had converted to Islam. Professor Richard Hitchcock ("Mozarabs in medieval and early modern Spain", 2008, page 2), for example, puts their numbers at less than 5% of the population of medieval Iberia:

"It is assumed that the Arabs who settled the Peninsula were numerically far fewer than the Berbers. Whatever their respective proportions, both groups would have been outnumbered by the indigenous population by a figure of perhaps thirty or forty to one. The immense majority of the indigenous inhabitants may be divided amongst those who became Muslims and those who did not."

http://books.google.com/books?id=CPAopjXXF4AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mozarabs+in+medieval&hl=en&ei=uFbLTaTWAsTu0gGFs7SSCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Please, allow to edit this obvious misrepresentation of Angoustures' statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis sinneD (talk • contribs) 03:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

berber, arab, and " black " ?
do you know that an arab can be black ? and also berbers( tuareg for example ) ? why the need to insist on the term " black " in the  definition ?

the term moors never referred to any non-arabic or non-berber speaking people. it referred to berbers and arabs collectively regardless of their outward appearance. the " black " moors were arab / berber speaking people from north africa with high sub-saharan admixture ( e1b1a ), they were still arabs  and/or berbers  , and should be included in the same category with them.

as far as i know, europeans never used the term " moor " to refer to the slaves that they imported from west africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.166.246 (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know if the term "Moor" was ever used for slaves from West Africa or anywhere else, but that's beside the point. In several European languages the word "moor" meant "dark skinned". That usage became less significant from the 18th century on - it's mainly associated with thr Early Modern period. But there is overwheling evidence of this, so I don't know why some editors here continue to try to deny the undeniable. Paul B (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's interesting to note that in German there are two etymologically related translations for "moor": Maure and Mohr. While Maure refers to any of the Islamic people of North African descent who for some time ruled over the Iberian peninsula (and many of them were not black), the term Mohr nowadays appears only in heraldic and similar contexts, such as the Sarotti moor, and is generally considered to imply that the person is (or rather was) extremely dark-skinned, male, and wearing a turban.
 * While our article says that the term moors comes from Mauretania, it fails to mention that the term Mauretania comes from Greek μαῦρος (black, dark, dark-skinned, dark-haired). As an example for how strong and common the association moor–black is in German when the second translation is used, the traditional (no longer politically correct) German term for chocolate-coated marshmallow treats is Mohrenkopf ("moor's kiss").
 * The distinction between the two terms is that it is the Mauren who conquered the Iberian peninsula and were later expelled from there, while it is individual Mohren who appear on pub signs and such (if any of these still exist) or as individuals such as Othello, the Mohr of Venice, in literature. Hans Adler 16:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with some of what's been said. The lead is currently a bit misleading; that is it presents the moors as being either Black, Berber or Arab. An unassuming reader would think that it's 33% each. The reality however is that, if there were any Black moors, very few North Africans are "Black" (maybe less than 1%). Old sources speak of the moors rather ambiguously; the term referred to any person from North Africa. If we want to be ethnically correct that would be: Berbers, Arabs, Blacks, Jews and Europeans (Christian "renegades"). I propose we just drop "The blacks" since their percentage is insignificant. Also, as the IP pointed out, there are Black Berbers and Black Arabs (In insignificant numbers as well). IMHO, this mixing comes from many western Black African nationalist who used the term Moor to designate themselves; I've even seen serious "US Black community" websites claiming that the Almoravids (and pretty much every dynasty that ruled N.Africa) were Black.
 * Also old sources, spoke of the moors, the Blacks and the Jews separately.
 * Other point, today the term "moor" is still used in countries like Mauritania and Mali; it exclusively designates non-Blacks v.s Sub-Saharan Blacks.
 * Other point, Today in Spain the term (Moro) is pejorative exclusively for North Africans (and not the Blacks). Tachfin (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Blacks" is not a term with any clear definition. There is no rigid distinction between 'black' and 'non-black' Africans. The only relevant point as far as the article is concerned is that the term "moor" was used historically in several ways and that one of those usages was a synonym for "dark skinned person". It's still used in the way in heraldry, for example (see Black Morrow). Obviously more detail on these shifting usages would be desirable. IMO, expanding rather than censoring content is generally the best was to go. Paul B (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If someone would say that there are black Arabs or black Berbers then that someone is very uninformed, Arabs are Semites, Berbers are white people "their nomads" the "Tuareg" are black only due to marrying black female slaves, and not all of them are to be fallen in this category. Arabs and Berbers too have always had black and/or European white slaves that spoke, lived, and practiced their masters cultural and linguistic habits, but they were never to be considered Arabs or Berbers they were always looked upon as "Clients". for more please check the Arabic term "Mawali". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.106.244 (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You undermine your own argument. If the Tuareg - or some of them - are black from marrying slaves, they are still black! It does not matter how they got that way. In any case this is all irrelevant, since we are discussing the historical usage of the word Paul B (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

the definition in this article is misleading. the average joe will come to the conclusion that the " moors " are the result of intermarying between berbers, blacks ,and arabs .the average joe will also conclude that the people who invaded spain were 33 % arab , 33 % berber , 33 % black since the article jumped directly from the board generic definition and use of the term " moor "  to the conquest of iberia. i'm not suggesting censorship, but the first sentence should be rephrased so that uninformed people understand that " arab " " black " and " berber " are three seperate entities. because of this article, most people think that moor = mix of berber , black, and arab. just google it and see how many people give this as a definition of " moor " ( forums, yahoo answers, responses to afrocentrism )

how about this definition " in ancient history, the term moor refered to the berbers inhabitants of north africa west of the nile valley .the term changed it's meaning during various periods of time , in the middle ages  it was used as a generic reference to any muslim in the iberian peninsula and north africa ,including arabs   .in the early modern period , it was used to refer to an extremely dark person , and was used interchangeably with the term  " black " in Elizabethan england etc... "

something like that, with a timeline. a detailed definition should be the first thing that the reader finds in this article.

ST Maurice was a moor. He was black. He was not a muslim, nor was he a berber, nor was he a part of any moorish dyansty. But because he was black he was a moor. His name meant "like a moor." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Moors are not a specific race of people. The word has never been clearly defined and remains ambiguous and confusing. This term has been broadly used to denote various people in North Africa, people who came from Morocco or simply to describe Muslims in general. Christians in the 13th century also referred to the Moors as "Moriscos" and "Mudejares".

The word MOORS may have evolved from the Greek 'Mauros' which means 'dark'. The Greeks were in Spain around 500 BC, 300 years before the Romans. The Romans probably pinched it from the Greeks, complete with its original connotation of 'dark'.

This might explain why the Latin 'Maurus' translates literally into 'Moors', with no further definition. Borrowing directly from the Greek meaning, this would have been good enough for the Romans to describe the 'dark' skinned people of North Africa. This is all conjecture of course, but its close enough for me.

In any case, the word was first applied officially to the indigenous people of a Roman province in North Africa called Mauretania (Latin ='land of the Moors'). This roughly corresponds to present day North Morocco and Algeria. The name Morocco is another reminder of the region's "Moorish" past.

http://herso.freeservers.com/moors.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the Moors, as early as the Middle Ages and as late as the seventeenth century were,“commonly supposed to be black or very swarthy, and the word often used for Negro.” James E. Brunson and Runoko Rashidi, authors of The Moors of Antiquity wrote,“There is considerable difficulty in determining the ethnicity of the early Moors through terminology alone.”

There are several terms that have been used to identify the Moors. Arabic texts, for example, rarely used the word Moor and instead applied the term Berber (a word thought by some to be pejorative) to the early non-Arab peoples of Northwest Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

http://introspectiveinternet.yolasite.com/introspective-internet-articles/moors-and-feeding-the-long-term-memory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC) AGain, why is there not one mideast looking moor in any early literature? Not one writer ever wrote of a nonblack moor.

Nagaymath Turquio

Othello Aaron the moor Merchant of veneice Song of Roland Morein the moorish knight

They were all black and close to or during the time of the moors. Where are the mideast looking moors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Wheres your proof. Where are the documents describing what these people look like. Where are the documents stating these people where not black but arab. Where are the countless images of these white arabs you called berbers or amaizgh. Cause fact we have countless images and documents from multiple sources. If you can bring these to the table then maybe just maybe you will have a chance. Your word against the POPE HERALDRY that has been around longer then your last﻿ name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I get the impression there is some deliberate cofusion being sown about the meaning of the word Moor in this article. Why doesnt the article properly establish the original meaning and use of the word moor? From what I undertand, the word moor was used originally by the Ancient Greeks and Romans to refer to the Berbers of North Africa; especially because these Berbers were black. The literal meaning of the Greek word Moor i believe is black. Here is Proscobius on the skin color of these Moors: "And I have heard this man say that beyond the country which he ruled there was no habitation of men, but desert land extending to a great distance, and that beyond that there are men, not black-skinned like the Moors, but very white in body and fair-haired. So much, then, for these things." Procopius. History of the Wars, Books III and IV / The Vandalic War (Kindle Locations 1921-1923). Why do the writers make a distinction between black Africans and Berbers? I thought Berber was a language not a race or complexion. One of the most famous Berber--groups to me are the Tuareg, who continue a traditional Nomadic lifestyle; who speak a Berberic language and who continue to use the indigenous Berber language script--Tiffinagh. They range from the darkest Africans to very light skin. This seems to ne a needless injection of antequated racialism here. We know that the vast majority of moors or islamic invaders of Spain were Berbers. And we also know or ought to know that the universal consesus of the ancients both Graeco-roman and Arabs is that the Moors were dark-skinned. Here is a moslem scholar on the skin complexion of Moors. Arabs regularly classed the Berbers as being anomg the children of Ham right there alongside the Sudanese. And Ham was black as result of being cursed: "the blacks include the Zanj, Ethiopians, the people of Fazzan, the Berbers, the Copts, and Nubians, the people of Zaghawa....." AlJahiz The article nedds to make the original use and meaning of the word moor abundantly clear.Because form the greek and Roman era, the word has been used to denote largely Berberic Africans with Black skin. And later extended to include all the black African associated with the islamic conquest of Spain; but laterit was used to denote all moslems at least from a cultural point of view. However the word continued to ne used to denote the ethnicity of dark skin Africans, regardless of their religion. The best example woould be St Maurice or the Moor Magi; or Allessandro the Moor de Medici. Most of the most fammous Moors of Europe are black Christians or blacks associated with Christianity like the Magi Moor. And I aslo find it strange that none of the classic images of the Moors are produced in this article, such as the that of St. Maurice or the Magi Moor. The vast majority of images are that of white Moors. The job of Wikipedia should be education not confusion.

Ahmedbaba (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

18. Moors in Spain by John Henrik Clarke & Phillip True, Jr.

During the Arab invasion of Morocco, there was a great general known as Gibril Tarik. The African Tarik, now governor of Mauritania, entered into friendly relations with Count Julian, governor of Ceuta who was on very bad terms with his master, Roderic, the King of Spain. Count Julian urged the African Tarik to invade Spain.

In 711 A.D., General Tarik, accompanied by 100 horses and 400 African soldiers, crossed over into Spain on an exploratory mission. Tarik's small army ravaged several Spanish towns and returned to Africa laden with spoils. Later that same year, Tarik took an army of 7000 Africans, crossing from Africa to Gilbraltar (named after him), defeating King Roderic and conquering most of the Iberian Peninsula. Thus began the Moorish domination of Spain, which was not fully ended until 1492.

The Moors built magnificent cities in Spain. Cordoba, in the tenth century was much like a modern metropolis. The streets were paved, and there were sidewalks for pedestrians. At night it was said that one could travel for ten miles by the light of lamps along a continuous strip of buildings. This was several hundred years before there was a paved street in Paris or a street lamp in London. The population of the city was over one million. There were 200,000 homes, 800 public schools, a number of colleges and universities, and many royal places surrounded by beautiful gardens.

The Tanneries of Cordoba and Morocco City were the best in the world. Cordoba was the most wonderful city of the tenth century. It was served by 4,000 public markets and 5,000 mills. Public baths numbered in the hundreds. This amenity was present at a time when cleanliness in Christian Europe was regarded as a sin.

The mineral wealth of the land was not disregarded. Copper, gold, tin, silver, lead, iron, quicksilver, and alum were extensively mined. The sword blades of Toledo were the best in Europe, and the factories in Murcia turned out the finest of brass and iron instruments.

Education was universal in Moorish Spain, available to the most humble, while 99% of Christian Europe was illiterate�not even the kings could read or write. In the tenth and eleventh centuries, public libraries did not exist in Christian Europe, while Moorish Spain had more than seventy, of which the one in Cordoba contained over six hundred thousand manuscripts. There were more than seventeen great universities in Moorish Spain, while Christian Europe had only two universities of any value.

Scientific progress in astronomy, chemistry, geography, mathematics, physics, and philosophy flourished in Moorish Spain. Scholars, artist and scientists formed learning societies, while scientific congresses were organized to promote research and to facilitate the spread of knowledge. A brisk intellectual life flourished in all Islamic dominated societies.

The moors also introduce the manufacture of gunpowder into Europe, which their enemies later adopted, using this explosive to drive them back to Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

.Eduard Charlemont, Austrian, 1848 - 1906

Standing in front of an arch that closely resembles the architecture of the Alhambra in Spain, the Moorish chief exudes power and mystery. This painting was probably shown at the Paris Salon exhibition of 1878 with the title Le Gardien du serail (The Harem Guard).

Charlemont was a Viennese artist known primarily for his nudes and portraits. While this subject was unusual for him, it was very popular in Europe at the time.

Eduard Charlemont, Austrian, 1848 - 1906

Standing in front of an arch that closely resembles the architecture of the Alhambra in Spain, the Moorish chief exudes power and mystery. This painting was probably shown at the Paris Salon exhibition of 1878 with the title Le Gardien du serail (The Harem Guard).

Charlemont was a Viennese artist known primarily for his nudes and portraits. While this subject was unusual for him, it was very popular in Europe at the time.

this is proof that wiki is racist!

Okay. Explain why all early moorish characters of early literature are black and not mideast types? Othello Merchant of vienece Aaron the moor Nagaymath Turquio Morein the knight Song Of Roland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

why was

1.morien

2.alessandro de medeci

3.st maurice

all called﻿ moors????

when i﻿ Google Moorish kings I only get black kings why is that? r

According to Abu Shama, a teacher from Damscus,﻿ durign the era, the masmuda berbers were black africans who ruled several parts of spain and all of portuguel. They were the almohad moors.

According to educator and journalist Druislla Houston, the original Arabs were and Ethiopian colony. These black Ethiopian Arabs would later become known as the sarcaean moors.

Why was st maurice called a moor if he was﻿ not muslim nor berber? HIs name mean "like a moor" in latin

Why did 17th century oxford dictionary described the moors as negroes and not mideast muslims?

How come most Moorish﻿ coat of arms only depict black Negro types and not Mideast types?

Why is there not one Mideast Moorish character in early literature? If the moors were not black then﻿ why did all the early writers only wrote of black moors?

According to Abu Shama, a teacher from Damscus, durign the era, the masmuda berbers were black africans who ruled several parts of spain and all of portuguel. They were the almohad moors.

According to educator and﻿ journalist Druislla Houston, the original Arabs were and Ethiopian colony. These black Ethiopian Arabs would later become known as the sarcaean moors.

Why was De Medici (duke of florence) called a moor when he was not a muslim nor a﻿ berber? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Moors self-depicted mostly as Arabs with brown to very light skin; there is evidence that some Moors had sub-Saharan black heritage, but the overwhelming majority are shown as Berbers, Arabs, and also other Muslims, which are all mostly Caucasians. The Tuareg people, mentioned above, live in the middle zone between the extreme north of Africa and sub-Saharan Africa, i.e., they live in the Sahara. Some appear Negroid, others more Caucasian features, but the Tuareg as a whole are not typical of the Berber population, which is overwhelmingly Caucasian. The Moors ruled parts of Spain for over 600 years, intermixing with the local population; if most of them were black, we would expect to see at least some percentage of southern Spain to have black African (sub-Saharan African) features, but we don't. Southern Spain looks white, and only slightly darker than the north, which is consistent with intermixing of Arabs and Berbers, but not with blacks. Furthermore, the present day northern Africans are mostly Caucasian, not black; this is not what we would expect if the Moors, who were largely based in northern Africa, were indeed mostly black. The evidence is in favor of the Moors being Caucasians, not sub-Saharan blacks. Stating to the contrary is nothing more than Afrocentrist, racist propaganda, much like the claim that the ancient Egyptians were black, which has been definitively disproven.ElliotJoyce (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of Vost

then it should be easy for you to show documentation of light skin moors! where is your proof? If they are so white how come you can't answer any of my questions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

why does not wiki talk about the abovee subjects? how come wiki does not show any black moor paintings that are found in european museums? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

How come wiki is not showing any black coat of arms? If the moors were white it should be easy for you to answer my questions. You claim to be an expert on moors so you be able to answer my questions and not side step them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Was St. Benedict The Moor Muslim or a Berber? If he isn't so why is he called a moor? why does wiki not talk about t. Benedict The Moor? or even have his picture is wiki racist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 06:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

those northern Moors are Caucasians how did they get there in the first place?where is all your written documentation why did shapespare write about white Caucasians moors. How come most Moorish﻿ coat of arms are not depict  as Caucasians types and not Mideast types? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Look at some of the images in the article itself- you see self-depiction by Moors as light-skinned individuals, not to mention my arguments regarding the current population in Northern Africa and in Spain (light skinned) completely destroys your propagandist arguments.ElliotJoyce (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of Vost
 * And for the record, the only one who is "side-stepping" arguments here is you- the fact that Northern Africa has been Caucasian in the entirety of its recorded history, the fact that the Moors painted themselves light skinned, the fact that the Spanish all look white even though they mixed with the Moors, all adds up to your argument being utter garbage.ElliotJoyce (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of Vost

How come your not not answering the questions??? your an expert on moors ant they are white but when I read books they say they are black like Othello!

So are you suggesting that Othello is white and Benedict The Moor the moors is white. So are you saying shakespear got it all wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I already answered your questions- the paintings show them as white; when the Europeans called them "black" it does not mean they are referring to the black people of today. Look at the pictures in the article- there are people there that have really dark skin but are not black (the Moorish man, for example). But tell me: why are the Spaniards still white since they mixed with the Moors? Why are the Northern Africans mostly Caucasians and not black? Exactly- all you have is propaganda.ElliotJoyce (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of Vost

So are you suggesting that Othello is white and Benedict The Moor the moors is white. So are you saying Shakespeare got it all wrong?

So are you saying the the black man on the popes shield is all wrong too? are you saying that there should be a white man on the popes shield?


 * Like I said, look at the picture in the article of the "Moorish man" dressed in blue- he looks "black", but he is not of the black "race", get it? Thanks for playing- bye bye now. Your arguments hold no water. The Moors were Caucasian- period. The evidence weighs against you. ElliotJoyce (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of Vost

Are you also suggesting all paintings of black moors are fake too? are you saying that they should be white? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 06:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you also suggesting all paintings of black moors are fake too? are you saying that they should be white? OK so your saying he has dark skin full lips curly hair and he is not black?

Here is another question how wiki does not show any fo them dark Caucasian pictures I eman you say they are white? why is wiki so afriad of showing them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

so where is your documentations that the moors are white?? lol oh right thy are very dark skinned Caucasians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

So paintings like Abram Petrovich Gannibal that looks black is really a very very dark skin Caucasian???


 * You don't seem to get it; just because someone refers to someone else as "black", it does not mean that they are referring to the same thing we mean today by black. Plenty of Arabs have very dark skin, but that doesn't make them black. The populations of North Africa today are not black- they are Caucasian, and some are very light. These people are the direct descendants of the Moors. Conclusion? The Moors were Caucasians, not Negros. Period. I bet you also believe the ancient Egyptians were black and that the original Jews were black. LOL- typical Afrocentrist propaganda.ElliotJoyce (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of Vost

Wheres your proof. Where are the documents describing what these people look like. Where are the documents stating these people where﻿ not black but arab. Where are the countless images of these white arabs you called berbers﻿ or amaizgh. Cause fact we have countless images and documents from multiple sources. If you can bring these to the table then maybe just maybe you will have a﻿ chance. Your word against the POPE HERALDRY that has been around longer then your last name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

yeah your argument is very weak seeing how we judge based on the amount melonin skin pigment and that pigment is developed in regions that a very hot like africa or more specificly central africa were what we call the human species began which is a fact so technically every human is related to a black ancestor but because﻿ of migration and adaptation the white race came about some other races came through mixing like arabs who are also black anyway you really need to get your facts straight — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Moors depicted themselves as light-skinned: proof # 1; modern day North Africans are not black: proof # 2; Southern Spain is white: proof # 3; the possibility that humans first came from Africa does not mean that all people are black- different groups of people evolved differently: proof # 4. OWNED. ElliotJoyce (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of Vost

Learn your history you, the berbers are not white, they are Moorish Mulatto's and the Arabs are just invaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Berbers are Caucasians, and some of them are also white- look at the Berbers page- the pictures are on the right. Most of them look WHITE. And who said the Arabs were not invaders? Of course they are, but they are the ones who made up the bulk of the Moors, and mixed with the Berbers. You don't know what you're talking about.ElliotJoyce (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of Vost

Spanish﻿ language comes from Latin, which has its origins in Classical Greek. Them Spanish﻿ and Europeans wouldn't have called them moors because it means black! again all historical documentation talks about dark skins people. It says nothing about white people in africa if so show your documentation I recall some scholars on the subject that that the original moors was as black as ink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * False; the word actually means "dark-skinned" or tanned; the fact that it may come from an original word meaning "black" does not mean that it meant the same thing. You seem to have trouble with basic logic. Furthermore, the Berbers, who are Caucasian, are indigenous to North Africa, and recorded history is replete with mentions of them. You literally have no argument lol; the Moors were North Africans and their descendants today are CAUCASIAN, not BLACK- OWNED AGAIN.ElliotJoyce (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of Vost

Really??? the last time i checked the greeks called tanned people "Aribi"earlier Greek historian Herodotus records, Akkadian and Assyrian sources that mention the "Aribi"Arabs are the most recent of all Semitic peoples according to their appearance in history. In fact, it is not possible to speak about Arabs in ancient times, but only about their ancestors. Most of the Middle East is now formed by conventionally called "Arab countries", recently invented by the British and French rulers after having defeated and dismembered the Ottoman Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, "really"; you have no argument; the Moors painted themselves as light-skinned; their descendants, the North Africans, are not black; Southern Spain is all white; "Moor" referred to dark-skinned people, which is exactly what the North Africans are, but they're not black lol. Your entire argument is complete garbage. Look in the article- look at the first picture on the right. That's how the Moors painted THEMSELVES- it's not Europeans painting them, it's the Moors painting THEMSELVES. O W N E D. ElliotJoyce (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of Vost

If I had no argument then why cant you answer my questions why do you avoid them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

north Africa was "black" before it was called Africa. How do we know this? not because a so called "black" man said so but because "white" historians wrote so (more important right) and called the whole of the region "The Land of the Blacks". They were attracted to the land due﻿ to its rich soil and more importantly for them, its large deposits of gold. They were tent dwelling nomads who traveled to the region and befriended the locals producing mixed race kids b4 the mass Europe invasion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

moors are black not arab
The Arabs first come into Spain around 1000 A.D..300 years after the africans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the picture of "Saint. James the moor slayer"

Why is it even there? Its like placing the picture of Cromwell in the article "Catholicism" or in the article "Irish people".

Hitler killed many jews and had huge influence in their modern history (Israel was created). Should we place a picture of him in the article about Jewish people???

So please don't add that stupid picture again. :) --Arsaces (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Alas for the loss of the last Moor slayer. There used to be a veritable orgy of moor killing on the page until i removed all the others. Someone loved the idea. Paul B (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

moors are black I've removed a bit supported by this since this author clearly is not a historian and does not know what he's talking about, here are some approximative material from that book:
 * "The Almoravids ruling in Spain were identically the same race as that which moving from the west established kingdoms along the courses of the Niger and the Senegal" What race? the Almoravids were Saharan nomadic Berbers much like the Tuaregs, there isn't even a shadow of a doubt over that.
 * "Yusuf's son being inexperienced, lost the thrine and the African dominion was overthrown in 1142." really? no it was Ali's son who lost a part of the territory, they didn't fell until 1147.
 * "The Spanish dominion fell three years later in 1145. This gave rise to the second great African dynasty to rule Spain and the fourth and last Moorish Dynasty - The Almohade...The Almohades who also hailed from the western fringes of Africa.." Ugh...no the "Spanish" (approximation) dominion did not fall on this date, the Almohads weren't the Last Moorish dynasty and why not say precisely from where did they came instead of that vague West Africa? They were Berbers from the High-Atlas region around Marrakesh. Clearly the author has a superficial knowledge or is intentionally being deceptive and so cannot be accepted as a reliable source.

Furthermore the author of this book holds the belief that Ancient Egyptians were Black, needless to say that this is an outlandish fringe theory. Here is another quote from the book:
 * "Another tactic of European historians bent on affirming the superiority of their civilization is used in those cases where the origin of a culture has already been acknowledged as being black African. This tactic involves the denigration of the accomplishments of this black African civilization."

Fringe theory proponent+non expert opinion+racially motivated articulation of a theory=WP:UNDUE Tachfin (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not know that saying the Ancient Egypt were what you call black people was a Fringe theory. Now the problem with that argument is "Black Africans", "Black people", Sub-Africa and all these terms are modern European created terms. So as someone in Ethiopia i am not sure what these Black Africans you talk about look like. So already we have a problem esp when black people can also mean even Indians. The debate about who KMT was should not go on here, or disqualify any reference because they take a position (hardly a strange position). I do think the other points do have merit and the mistakes might prove Van Sertima is not an expert on the region.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 04:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Bold text== moors are not arab they are african ==

moors are not arab they are african nice link right here. TA-SETI'AN: THE BLACK MOORS IN SPAIN & EUROPE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGGAEnJlhSw&feature=channel_video_title — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

100's of BLACK negro Moors Images in Europe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8M1ey6U5io&feature=related

Black Africans on the MOORS Coats of Arms in Europe pt 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qakNFdpEZI&feature=related

Absolute PROOF: The True MOORS who Invaded Spain WERE Black! pt 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBb2jD5YJEk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6wuc2R1_Mo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adiy46F4UEo&feature=channel_video_title — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The Moor Empire

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcULWaFeLA4&feature=channel_video_title — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * People be serious now Youtube is not a Reliable Source of historical (or any) information. LOL Please try and understand Wikipedia to better develop the articles. We have rules because without them it would be impossible to develop stuff.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Reliable Source of historical (or any) information but those youtube videos are ducmenties have more weight than Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Even shakespear admits that the moors were black ever read Othello? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

WHITES in BLACKface portray MOORS in Europe: Festival of Moors & Christians

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7frbDr6Cbtk&feature=channel_video_title

The Heralded Moors http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4Xd9N67xNs&feature=fvsr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The Moors [They Know the Truth In Hollywood] Moorish Truth come to Light.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1LhCzQDoXA

the ancient berbers that invaded sicily were black

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1SxMHC6nzU&feature=related — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

THE BLACK IN SICILIANS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8BrfmGrkzo&feature=related — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

When the Moors Ruled in Spain (7 of 11)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8XCmGZJQ-M&feature=feedlik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The rules of Youtube apply on youtube the rules of Wiki apply on Wikipedia. i didnt make these rules. Here is what you need to do, read the rules, create an account on wikipedia and find sources from reliable books. Put your energy there if you want a good result. You can put a good video on youtube which is the truth, the problem Youtube has so much JUNK no one is even going to consider it serious. You would not go to university and put Youtube as a source would you? actually you cannot even put wikipedia as a source in university but at least it is better than Youtube--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

In court case video is the best source of evidence by the way I have used credible Youtube sources to enhanced my thesis and presentation. At university level they use video to help teach or instruct a an entire class do they not? It's a matter of finding creditable in formation. There is a lot of books,professors,scholars,Media that are dishonest ever here about Climate gate global warming environmental sandal or News Corporation scandal? Un like you that has not even provided the sorce of information The fact is I have proof the way I present my case should not be a problem because the is more than one way to communicate. If you choose not to look at the evidence is not my problem, However spreading misinformation or misinformation is another topic which wiki clearly does. I see wiki as nonfactual or misleading European proganda, For exmaple moors being Arabs please!

BLACKS HAVE NO HISTORY? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S168Vbha1U&feature=fe%AD%AD%ADedrec_grec_index

AFRICA BEFORE SLAVERY! DR.CLARKE PT. 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9QB_-vlUno

"We live in a European-conceived intellectual universe'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5hLOGt9CCc

Return to Glory - The Truth About Black History

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCjp2kPP7sA&feature=related — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure who is the YOU you are referring and suggest you check your facts, I am an editor on wiki, i have not edited this article. Wikiepedia does not use YouTube I do not understand how many ways you need that said. If you dont have any books with references from scholars then make then take this argument of yours to youtube. Not one University will take youtube as a reference.

http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/102792.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Create and account
 * Learn the rules
 * Use reliable sources

If you are really sincere about all the above you will follow these steps. If not you will continue in your current state. However next time it will be removed per SPAM.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Truth speaks for it self, my link speak for them self take the time to watch them and you will see my sincerity as for wiki it's not creditable. Frankly I know a lot more than wiki can provide but I would never use it as source for all my information. I use wiki a very light source information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

pease don't changing my title I don't change other peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

wow you delte facts and again wiki not racist my foot! wiki will always be a garbage site. Clearly you not into truth full history. clearly you want to control the argument for bias reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You have been reported, un-constructive behavior is not welcomed. Contribute to this article or just take your links back to YouTube. If wikipedia is racist then ask how is your youtube and rants going to fix that fact? Truth is not in a Youtube link, but in serious articles and sources. Bring a reference from a scholarly book Asante, Karenga, Mazrui something which shows quality African positions.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

no offense but I did not lose any sleep if some one reports at the end of the no one really cares for a creditable proganda site like wiki, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC) <!--Autosigned by SineBot--

unconstructive behaver is when you go you go around deleting or altering other peoples post, links or comments!!! wiki creditability is garbage.

Edit War has gone on Long enough Please use talk page per Moor
Ok people, this has been going on for sometime. i have decided to step in. In the first instance:


 * Moor until recently did mean Black people, we see this in the depictions of the Blacker Moors in Shakespeare etc. Even now Africans are cast as Moors
 * Early accounts on the Slave trade by the Portuguese used the term Moor to mean everyone down there. "We set upon the moors and captured them" (Henry Navigator sorties into Africa)
 * I am not Sure the late Ivan Van Sertima is a R.S I think we should test the validity of the statement in the proper forum on wikipedia. |See R.S Check].
 * Van Sertima can be crossed check on this point by others also, I am sure many books talk about Who is a Moor if we search. I agree with User:Tachfin that Van Seritima is not really an authority on the subject, (per the numerous mistakes), so the question is can he be trusted in this opinion?
 * Obviously in West Africa people are absorbed into other identities, so that in itself is not suspicious. Tuareg being a classic example.
 * In the records of Islamic history in West Africa there is a "difference" and reference to so-called Moorish superiority which points to the fact that by that time Moor might not have meant Sub-Saharan African people. But the term is an exonym so Sanhaja did not say " I am Moor and proud"

I am just trying some dialectics here. Awaiting all the ip editors who are edit warring to use this talk page.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedia Britannica says: Moor, in English usage, a Moroccan or, formerly, a member of the Muslim population of what is now Spain and Portugal. Of mixed Arab, Spanish, and Amazigh (Berber) origins, the Moors created the Arab Andalusian civilization and subsequently settled as refugees in North Africa between the 11th and 17th centuries This directly supports the section challenged by the IP. Afrocentrists view on the meaning of the term "Moors" is largely debunked and rejected by scholars (and common sens). IP should read WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Don't know why this fixation on the skin tone when it has no ethnic/cultural meaning. --Tachfin (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldnt go so far as to say it was WP:FRINGE and I would wait for the R.S check and my own cross check. I agree Moor does not have an ethnic attachment, It is a term used to describe many types of people. The issue here is Does that definition exclude Sub-Saharan African Muslim people? (the focus of the dispute). And I dont think we can deny Depictions of moors in popular culture has 9/10 been so-called Black people (per that broad categorization of people). Request for comments would also be good since I dont those ip editors are the talk page type.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can check the archives of this discussions and see that what basically happens is a number of American based Afrocentrists for whom "Moor" means "Black" (see Moorish Science Temple of America). Re Van Sertima, he is a well known afrocentrist dismissed by mainstream scholarship and his book basically articulates a theory that the "great" Moors who conquered Iberia were actually "Black" but the "evil" Europeans hid out this "fact" and claimed they were "white". Which is equally as nonsensical as 19th-century scientific racism.
 * Regarding depictions, well only some depicted them as "dark-skinned" and Shakespeare depicting Othello as dark-skinned/tanned/Black (whatever that means) say as much about their actual appearance as some Medieval painter depicting Jesus as a blue-eyed blond. Medieval Europeans also depicted Jews as having big noses does that mean we should go add that as a proven fact to the Jews article?
 * There is no exclusion of nobody, but only predominant groups are cited (Arabs and Berbers who come in all shades lighter to darker) and supported by EB. If we want to be pointy about trivialities then a number of other ethnic groups should be added, for example the Saqaliba (eastern Europeans whose presence is actually proven and reported by numerous contemporary sources), the Jews, the Turks, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Phoenicians...etc. Moor is only a medieval term that had and has as much sens as the Saracens and applied by medieval Europeans who didn't know better since they had no knowledge of the ethnic divisions of those Muslims. Similarly, from the other side, all the European Christians were referred to simply as the "Rom" (from Ancient Romans). --Tachfin (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with Van Sertima (and some of the problems therein)as well as the Moorish people whatever they call themselves these days. I am trying to be neutral. Per Van Sertima, It could be a problem using that particular source cuz it does border on typical Afrocentric therapy Race-history (not that all Afrocentrics are dismissed by the fact they are Afrocentric). I have always taken issue with Black people (in a historical or ethnic sense) and Black African. I have no idea how a modern term can be applied to ancient people- So that objection stand regardless of the above verdict. It has no place in an scholarly zone per NPOV, because it has no real meaning. If we have to discuss people lets deal with region West Africa or by ethnic group . I would not be shocked if the people who are called Moors went to Brazil were (pardos), then in South Africa another thing(colored) and in America during Jim Crow again another thingBlack people. And in Ethiopia Habesha in Rwanda Tutsi. Thats my 5 cents, awaiting other remarks hopefully from ip editors. But i think we must try to accommodate within reason. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That is why I said "American-based Afrocentrists", usually they are the ones who make the most outlandish claims e.g. the Black Hebrew Israelites. --Tachfin (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Van Sertima is out, moving on to the next issue. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Because they were black. Do you even know why its called the MOORS? During the Moorish occupation of the Iberian Peninsula the very word "MOOR" was a description of black peoples from North Africa.

"Moor from Greek. MAUROS "black" Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "KNEEGRO;" .... LATER,(16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India."

- Online Etymology Dictionary.

Some MOORS:

Legendary Christian St. Maurice (MOOR-IS): http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/h2/h2_2006.469.jpg http://www.wga.hu/art/g/grunewal/3/04erasm.jpg

Othello, the MOOR of Venice:

http://www.micro-mosaic.com/images/othello_micromosaic.jpg

http://www.revealinghistories.org.uk/inc/img.php/tpl/uploads/Othello.jpg/371/1/fill

St. Benedict the MOOR

http://www.stbenedictofdc.org/St.%20Benedict%20pic.bmp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_the_Moor

MOOR-ish king Mulay Ahmed:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/191/518500195_cc5d7e0fb6.jpg

Abdul Rahman the Moorish Prince

http://www.royalark.net/Morocco/morocco-AbdulRahman.jpg

It's sad, you don't even know the reason why Southern Europeans use these terms and whom they are used for bcuz you're blinded by racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

show me proof that the anceint hebrews are white? have you you ever Zephaniah 3 it talks about his people found beyond the rivers of cush.Cush is only found in africa.Nahum 3:9 Ethiopia and Egypt were﻿ her﻿﻿ strength, and it﻿ was infinite; Put and Lubim were﻿ thy helpers.Amos 9:7:﻿ Are ye not﻿ as children﻿ of the﻿ Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. those taken right out of the torha or bible. They look and sound black to me.

Ethiopian Hebrew Black Face of Jesus FOUND In Roman Crypts.avi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNvUoV6ytDo&feature=related — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1XmIDnqEic

WHO CREATED JESUS CHRIST ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5JnnWvgRjg&feature=re%AD%ADlated

African Jews may have the lost Ark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d39-MdCL0IE&feature=fvsr

The Lemba: Israelites in Zimbabwe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT-c86Zp_Jo&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU2r8OMgKZo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Zephaniah 3 (with text - press on more info.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Gahth_lFiM

Zephaniah 3﻿ :10

From beyond the rivers of Cush my worshipers, my scattered people, will bring me offerings.

From beyond﻿ the﻿ rivers of Ethiopia﻿ my suppliants,[even] the daughter﻿﻿ of my dispersed, shall bring mine﻿﻿ offering.

Zephaniah 3

so cush is in europe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Exd 2:19 And they said, An﻿ Egyptian(speakin of Moses) delivered us out of﻿ the hand of the shepherds, and also drew [water] enough for us, and watered the flock.

Explain how an ISRAELITE is mistaken as a son of﻿ HAM if they didn't﻿ look alike?

Then 2000+ years later Acts 21:37-38 Shaul(Paul) a Hebrew mistaken as an Egyptian... So explain how SHEM's seed and HAM's didn't look alike?

Amos 9:7: Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of﻿ Israel? saith the﻿ LORD.

Lamentations 4:8 & 5:10 which reads; Their visage (face) was black as a coal...Our skin was black like an oven...This gives us confirmation that when Moses was instructed by Yah to place his hand in his blossom﻿ and it became white as snow he was indeed a black man. Exodus 4:6-7. The scriptures use color to help us identify israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

to add more weight I am going to add these right here

The Swahili part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsoPMbt5CZM&feature=re%AD%AD%AD%AD%ADlated

Myth of foreign origin or domination of Mali culture - Also Myth of Arabs﻿ bringing Mali architecture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op3qQ2z3h9k

365 - NOIR: Ahmed Baba

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JlW_fBhw4g — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

oh one more thing clearly wiki does not beleive in facts, true or freedom of speech in all it's forms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

he Greeks referred to all blacks as Ethiopians and became Mauros for black later. Negro is a European construct that does not exist. So your argument does not hold water.

So what? Mauros means black thats what, and Moor is derived from Mauros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

http://members.fortunecity.com/squaredmc/ancient/moors/home.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ibn Khaldum spoke of a particular group of people, but not all black (moors). There are numerous quotes of moors being decribed as black. There is not one quote of an early moor beign descsribed as nonblack. IF the moors were not black then how come there is not one writer who wrote of nonblack moors (fiction or nonfiction)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hidden Colors- The Moors

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asRjC654DHE&feature=g-all-lik&context=G2688bc3FAAAAAHgAAAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

then it should be easy for you to show documentation of light skin moors! where is your proof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 06:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

How come wiki is not showing any black coat of arms? If the moors were white it should be easy for you to answer my questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

you claim to be an expert on the topic of the moors then you should be able to answer my questions and not side step them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Broad application of term Moor in History
I have started a new section as Van has failed R.S. So now per that tiny debate here is a R.S which states: As critics  have established,  the term "Moor"  was used interchangeably with  such similarly ambiguous terms as "African,"  "Ethiopian,"  "Negro,"  and even  "Indian" to  designate  a figure from different parts or the whole  of  Africa  (or beyond) who was either black or Moslem,  neither,  or both. so the lead should be able to accommodate so summarized version, because i do not think it would be accurate to exclude certain groups from the varied definition of who is a Moor, esp since it has always had a broad usage. As I stated it is a exonym of "the other (non-White). and most depictions of moors in popular culture have been Black people (supported by the above) or associated with black face see BBC notes on Racist images of African people Where the word Moor is used--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead already covers that ambiguity without giving a void statement such the one you've provided which reads like "The Moors does not mean anything" and would be, in our context, factually inaccurate because of course it has a meaning and some ill-informed medieval men misapplying it does not change this fact.
 * Again this is not about exclusion but about giving an accurate general description of the people designated by this term. Cf my response above re depictions; adding a section about depictions and popular culture maybe a good idea but is not relevant to the question of who are the Moors which this article is ought to answer. Tachfin (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want a word with a precise and modern meaning, use Moroccan, North African, Mauretanian. The only problem with Halaqah definition is that it's not broad enough; Ludovico il Moro was not from Africa. The OED gives two definitions in one: Originally: a native or inhabitant of ancient Mauretania, a region of North Africa corresponding to parts of present-day Morocco and Algeria. Later usually: a member of a Muslim people of mixed Berber and Arab descent inhabiting north-western Africa (now mainly present-day Mauritania), who in the 8th cent. conquered Spain and notes also  a semantic shift " from ‘inhabitant of North Africa’ to ‘dark brown, black’" which goes back at least to Late Latin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well maybe we need a summarized section about other usages in the lead. Also in other languages the term evolved to designate other people, as in French "Maure" for the white-Arabic speaking inhabitants of modern Mauritania. --Tachfin (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

At least as used in Iberia, "Moor" is as broad as "Saracen". From the perspective of (pre-Islamic) Hispania, the "Moors" were synonymous with "Africans", as the Maures were the only Africans Hispanics were likely to come across. After the Islamic conquest, it retained that meaning. From the local Hispanic perspective, a "Moor" was a conqueror/colonist "from Africa", whether Arab, Berber or Black mattered not. And since these African colonists were all Muslim, and Hispanics had never seen a non-Muslim African, then there was no point of differentiaton. "Moor", "African" and "Muslim" were all synonymous terms. (Weird note: Christian Ethiopians, who were known, were not called "Moors", but "Indians"). It is only in the 15th C., when pagan Africans below the Sahara line were encountered for the first time, that there begins to be a difference. In Portuguese sources, "Moor" becomes firmly and wholly a religious term, not an ethnic one. Every Muslim is referred to as a "Moor", whether he is an Arab, Berber, Senegalese, or is half way across the continent in Mozambique, or as far as India. All were referred to as Moors. A non-Muslim black African would be called a gentio ("gentile"), never, ever, ever called a "Moor". At least in Portuguese usage, "Moor" does not connote racial differences - for that there were other terms, e.g. a Berber would be called a "Azenegue" (Sanhaja) and a Black a "Guineu" (Guinean). In East Africa, the terms of choice were "Moors" (black Muslims) and "Cafres" (black pagans).Walrasiad (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Walrasiad now we need to include this in the definition in the lead how would you suggest phrasing it to be more inclusive that it currently is? I am familar with what you are mentioning I would actually say the "narrow" understanding of Moor from my reading is recent. When you read the European missions down the coast if someone was Muslim they were a Moor. Hence the Fulani, Turaeg (who might be so-called black or so-called Berber) would all be Moors.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Walrasiad, what you're saying is true. I've also drawn the comparison with the term "Saracen" above.
 * There used to be an article called "Moors (meaning)" where all of this was included. This article is, however, about the modern English usage which in turn is mainly about the ancient Muslim inhabitants of Iberia, the ethnic background of whom is known and undisputed (cf. the Britannica reference). No one, in their right mind, said or is saying that these people were from Mozambique or Ethiopia as the medieval broad application of the term could have meant. I'm well aware that the meaning may have shifted through time or may have other meanings in other languages but these is duly covered in a different section of the article and can certainly be expanded.
 * The article says "...who came to conquer and rule the Iberian Peninsula for nearly 800 years. At that time they were Muslim, although earlier the people had followed other religions. They called the territory Al Andalus, comprising most of what is now Spain and Portugal." Now wouldn't we look ridiculous if we implied that the people who came to conquer and rule parts of Iberia for 800 years were Senegalese/Mozambique/Ethiopian?
 * The issue is that there seem to be a number of users (or just one using multiple accounts/IPs) who keep adding some Afro-centrists fringe theories about the Moors; which I presume some users to be familiar with. If you look at their accounts contribs you'd notice that they solely edit this article. The ethnic background bit is sourced to Encyclopedia Britannica (more sources stating the same can be added) and if anyone is challenging this, they should at least bring a source of equal quality stating otherwise, as exceptional claims require exceptional sources. --Tachfin (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Tachfin, all the primary sources are unequivocally clear about the ethnic backgrond of the moors both the Graeco-Roman sources and the Arabic sources. If by Moors we are referring to largely the ethnic Berbers we associate with Numidia and other parts of Africa during the Greek-Roman era or the Berbers we associate with the conquest of Iberia. It is clear the primary souces claim that they were mostly dark skinned.

What we have here is a situation where people are relying on the appearance of selective coastal modern day Berbers to argue in favor of this nonsensical idea of white Moors, not minding the fact that the word moor literally means dark.

And you said this--

"Now wouldn't we look ridiculous if we implied that the people who came to conquer and rule parts of Iberia for 800 years were Senegalese/Mozambique/Ethiopian?"

Am not sure about Mozambique and Ethiopia, but I know that The Almorhavid dynasty was a movement which was based in Senegal and which developed in Senegal. There is nothing extraordinary about expecting that the Senegalese groups, like the Fulani were among the Moors who made up the Almoravid dynasties.

And again the word Moor does not exclusively refer to Berbers but to any other group of dark skinned africans who accomapanied them during the conquest of Spain.

Ahmedbaba (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC) 20:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Berbers were Not White Africans!
Very often when people think of Berbers they think of white or light skin coastal Berbers found today in North Africa, like the Kabiles or the Rif etc. There is no reason of any sort whatsoever to believe that this is how Berbers have always looked historically. Ancient Greek Roman Scholars frequently protray indigenous Africans as dark skinned; it is also true that the ancient scholars often refer to the mixed nature or appearance of these North Africans. Recent DNA and other biological evidence also points out to the varied and hetereogenous nature of North Africa. It can safely be assumed that the populations of North Africa throoughout ancient times have been largely indigenous and dark-skinned Africans, affected by varying degrees by intermarriage with neighbouring Europeans across the mediterranean, although remaining primarily dark skinned:

Shomarka keita sums it up best when he refutes the very common idea that Berbers got " black genes" from enslaving the black female victims of some Medieval Trans--saharan Slave Trade:

"Snowden (1970) and Desanges (1981) reference various writers’ physical descriptions of the ancient Maghreb’s inhabitants. In various writers’ physical descriptions of the ancient Maghreb’s inhabitants. In addition to the presence of fair-skinned blonds, various “Ethiopian” or “part-Ethiopian” groups are described, near the coast and on the southern slopes of the Atlas mountains. “Ethiopians,” meaning dark-skinned peoples usually having “ulotrichous” (wooly) hair, are noted in various Greek accounts and European coinage (Snowden, 1970). Hiernaux (1975) interprets the finding of “subsaharan” population affinities in living Maghrebans as being solely the result of the medieval transsaharan slave trade; it is clear that this is not the case. Furthermore, the blacks of the ancient Maghreb were apparently not foreign or a caste." (S.O.Y Keita, "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa," American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 83:35-48 (1990)"

The word Ethiopian in Greek means black or burnt face. Strabo is clear that Ethiopians dominated North Africa:

"Ephorus says the Tartessians report that Ethiopians overran Libya as far as Dyris, and that some of them stayed in Dyris, while others occupied a great part of the sea-board; and he conjectures it was from this circumstance that Homer spoke as he did: 'Ethiopians that are sundered in twain, the farthermost of men.'" - Strabo, Geography

Also the Graeco-Roman Ancients unequivocally describe the Moors as black skinned:

"And I have heard this man say that beyond the country which he ruled there was no habitation of men, but desert land extending to a great distance, and that beyond that there are men, not black-skinned like the Moors, but very white in body and fair-haired. So much, then, for these things." Procopius. History of the Wars, Books III and IV / The Vandalic War (Kindle Locations 1921-1923).

The Arabs were equally clear if you read them properly. Al Jahiz (776--869 AD:

"The whites at most consist of the people of Persia, Jibal, and Khurasan, the Greeks, Slavs, Franks, and Avars, and some few others, not very numerous; the blacks include the Zanj, Ethiopians, the people of Fazzan, the Berbers, the Copts, and Nubians, the people of Zaghawa...."

It was commomly held among the Arabs that the Berbers were among the children of Ham, who suffered from the curse of black skin. Here is Al Dimashqi (d.1327)on the issue:

“The Fifth Secton [of the Ninth Chapter] Concerning the Sons of Ham, Son of Nuh (peace be upon him!) Namely the Copts, the Nabateans, the Berbers and the Sudan with their Numerous Divisions”...... It is said that Ham begat three sons qift, Kan'an, and Kush. Qift is the ancestor fo the Copts, Kush of the Sudan and Kan'an of the Berbers..." Hopkins and Levtzion, 2000, ). Corpus of early Arabic sources for West African history. p. 213."

But I think the source of confusion about the complexion that the Arabs attributed to the Berbers are those Arabs who visited or wrote about Berbers in the Western Sudanic Kingdoms, namely Ibn Battuta and Al Umari:

"At length we arrived among the Bardama. They are a Berber tribe. [...] The Bardama women are the most perfect in beauty, most remarkable in their appearance, of the purest white in their complexion and very fat." ibn battuta

"In the north of the country of Mali, there are Berber tribes who are white and are under [the Sultan of Mali's] dominion .... They are: the Yatansir, the Shagharasan, the Maddusa and the Lamtuna." al umari

"The country of the Blacks also contains three independent kings, white Muslims, belonging to the Berber race: the sultan of Aïr, the sultan of Damushuh and the sultan of Tadmakka. These three white Muslim kings are in the southwest area ranging between the Barr al 'Adwa, empire of the sultan Abu l-Hasan, and the country of Mali and its dependencies." al umari

This can be explained well enough. The word white does not always mean color in ancient Arabic:

"The Arabs draw glory from the black color. If an objector advances; “On what is that based, as they say: Such is of a pure white, bursting of whiteness, white and of clear face? We will answer: By this, the Arabs do not mean the whiteness of the skin, but rather the nobility and purity of character." Al-Jahiz (776-869): Superiority Of The Blacks To The Whites

"...the word abya or abyad meaning white can be used to describe the color of coal " Boullata, Issa et al (2000). Tradition Modernity and Postmodernity in Arabic literature p. 302.

The bottomline is that Arabs recognized the Berbers as children of Ham, having dark skin as a result of a curse. In the case of Ibn Battuta he may well have been referring to a particular group of light skin Berber women; however there is no reason to believe that he referred generally to all Berbers.

In a matter of fact the most recent DNA research establishes that North African populations are derived from the Subsaharan region and that the Eurasian maternal DNA of many North African groups are the result of intermarriage with Iberians. Some believe this intermarriage may have included the enslavement of light skinned Iberian women across the Mediterranean Sea from Africa. Others believe that the Balkans region may have been a source of white christian slaves for the Moslems of north Africa as it has been also for the Ottoman Turks.

"The sub-Saharan origin of North African populations have been proposed on the basis of results indicating local evolution of Y chromosome and mtDNA African haplogroups (Ennafaa et al. 2009; Frigi et al. 2010). The much later transaharan trade in enslaved persons no doubt played a role in genetic contributions, but the emigres from a dessicating Sahara with subsequent population formations would explain some of the “sub-Saharan” variation be it from western or eastern Africa.......

Taken together, results on Y chromosome, mtDNA and Alu Insertions in North Africa allow to propose a scenario for this region. The ancient sub-Saharan settlement would have been followed by admixture with Iberian populations. But, as the North African Y chromosome remained dominant in the region, we could argue that this admixture have been realized in one direction: North African men and Eurasian women, explaining the gene flow from Europe and high frequency of European types of mtDNA in North Africa as compared with Y chromosome. This situation would not be the result of drift toward Eurasian mtDNA. Our results on Alu insertions interestingly confirm that this gene flow happened several times probably always on the same direction. These matrimonial exchanges between North Africa and Europe should be considered in a context of patriarchal societies with men attached to territory and women from different regions including Europe. Hence, genetic diversity on one hand and relationship with Europe should have been due to women. This result supports the important role that migratory movements have played in North African populations, at least since the Neolithic period and suggests their diverse origins." (keita, 2010) Human Alu insertion polymorphisms in North African populations (2011) Laboratory of Molecular genetics, Immunology and Human Pathology at the Faculty of Sciences of Tunis, University El Manar, 2092 Tunis, Tunisia.

The entire article was written based on this false and ahistorical premise of White Berbers. Drastic and radical changes need to be made and fast! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedbaba (talk • contribs) 05:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just so that anyone reading the propaganda essay above does not get confused, it is a classical piece of "Afrocentrist" historical revisionism. The Berbers are the people that are indigenous to North Africa, and they are overwhelmingly Caucasian, with many qualifying as what is normally called "white." A quick look at the pictures of the Berbers on the Berbers page demonstrates this. ElliotJoyce (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of Vost

Distortion or Deliberate Misinformation on Berber Genetics.
In the Population Genetic section of this article you find this:

"The Y chromosome p49a,f TaqI Haplotype V, which corresponds to Y haplogroup E1b1b1b (M81) —formerly E3b1b, E3b2 and colloquially referred to as the "Berber marker"— has been found among 68.9% of modern Berbers in North Africa and as high as 80% in one group. It is believed to be about 5,600 years old,[32] and to have arrived with the Neolithic expansion from the Near East. M81 is not found in Sub-Saharan Africa. This haplotype has also been observed in as high as 40% of one small group of Andalusians tested. Generally it appears at much lower frequencies among Iberian populations, and lower as distance from North Africa increases."

First off, Keita maintains that the Berber Marker is originally from the Horn of Africa not the Middle East. And the Berber Marker is associated with The Tuareg who are found in Subsaharan populations; so i dont understand the claim that this specific Berber marker is not found in Subsaharan Africa. Some of the highest frequencies are found in Subsahran Africa. For instance 77% in Goro-Goro, Burkina Faso and 81.8% in Gori, Mali.(Pereira et al. (2010)) In a matter of fact recent studies show the tuareg are related to the Beja, an east African Nomnadic group, who range fron the sudan to the Horn of Africa. This would support Keita's Horn of African Origin for this Berber Marker.

Ahmedbaba (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Etymology
This part is wrong:
 * "Some derive the word from the ancient Greek mauros, meaning "dark"."

"Mauros" in Greek is not from any ancient Greek word. "Mauros" entered the Greek lexicon in later times, i.e. POST Roman times. The word came from Latin into the modern Greek language. No such word existed in ancient Greek to describe people who were dark. Ancient Greeks applied the term "Aethiopian" for dark skinned people. (Angar432 (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)).


 * No, that is incorrect. "Mauros" is Greek for "Black or Dark". "Ethiops" means "Burnt face".