World History And Anthropology: Why are modern North Africans not black (in general) Part 1 Reader Response The Ancient Greeks were black, world history and anthropology ~~~~

Wednesday, 19 February 2014

Why are modern North Africans not black (in general) Part 1 Reader Response

A Reader emailed me and asked why if the Phoenicians, Carthigians, Egyptians and Lybians were black, then why aren't the modern ones black. Good question. First we must explore the history of North Africa going back to the begin of human history. The white race is only 5000 years old based out of the most recent studies coming from Scandinavian scientist. The ancient North Africans and all Africans were black. Whites only started arriving into Europe with the expansion of the Indo-europeans. In India this starts around 1500 BC. The whites true homeland is near modern Kazakhstan and Northern Afghanistan. In Iran they started showing up in small tribes in 1000 bc. In europe the latins and dorians start showing up around 800 b.c. in Rome and Greece respectively. Prior to this period, all of europe, the near east, india and north africa was black. The whites don't start showing up in small numbers into the near east until the arrival of the Romans and Greeks as mercenaries around 300 bc to 3 ad.



Often you will find Eurocentricks (trademark) trying to claim that the Barbary slave trade was proof blacks enslaved whites. Nothing could be further from the truth. White Ottoman Turks controling north african states bringing in largely white east european slaves and white east european sex slaves for the ottoman turk ruling elite. It has nothing to do with black people, its a white on white crime like WW1, WW2, yugoslavia and all the other white race wars.


The Ottoman turks who were in charge of the slave trade. The Ottoman's had all the money, they were doing all the kidnapping of white people because they had pretty much conquered half of Europe with the mongols. It was white on white crime because the turks consider themselves to be white people. The berbers for the most part did not have much slaves, they were just there get all their money stolen from them by the ottomans. If you know what a country like Libya or Algeria looks like there is not purpose for a berber to have so many slaves.


The average person in this period did not travel more than 10 miles in their entire lifetime. There is more information in a newspaper today, than all the information a man in the 1800s would receive in his entire life time. Determining the specific ethnicity of a pirate can be difficult mainly because the Ottomans were in charge and the Ottoman empire was multiethnic. They could bring an all black, turko-arab, iraqi, saudi etc battalion into serbia to kidnap white people. What is relevent is who is in charge. If those soldiers try to disobey they are killed, there is not a choice. The choice was at the level of the ottoman elite, the kidnappers, the heads, the organizers of the missions were ottoman turks. Berbers from North Africa did not know the land scape, they would not know where to go to kidnap people in serbia or former yugoslavia.


Top Turkish historian and expert makes it clear that the turk population was 50% of Algeria during the 1800s and dropped down to 25% (because of all the influx from white french and jews) by 1950. Dr. Sabri HİzMETLİ makes it clear through several books, the books are in turkish but one quote translates as


"One of the documents it is switched on, the break despite a half-century history of the colonial period, Turkish Algerians and Tunisian's of Turkish origin, constitute 25% of the population of these two nations today. To say that 25% of the social and cultural life, the existence of the Turkish culture continue to be felt, colloquially thousands Turkish word and expressions continue to exist... Bazaar and market, the administration, the military, education and training, now, the people living in the Turkish words in the language of 3000 and 6000 words and expressions of Turkish origin"


In another Essay he writes that 50% of the population of Tunisia and Algeria was turk until French invasion and the arrival of the pied noirs and jews.


It is true there were some black or berber pirates, but they generally were not the ones running the slave trade. The ottoman's didn't really need berbers, they were half of the population and when you throw in all the Kouloughlis its clear the whole elite were mostly non black except some of the sultans who had no real power or influence over the slave trade and white ottomans with their Kouloughlis conspirators were the main white slavers and enslaving whites


Not according to professor Sabri HİzMETLİ who makes it quiet clear this was the case and lays out the entire historical context. Provide a professor who specifically refutes the proof, using facts and evidence from Professor Sabri with evidence. Its not enough to bald allegations. Arab is a linguistic group not a race, and many of the Ottoman's would probably have the J haplogroup by virture of the fact J is very high in turkey and neighbouring nations. Turkey is 35% J and so is Tunisia. Where as yemen is 85% J. And those numbers are unseen in north africa. This is more indicative of turk ancestry than true "Arab" ancestry. And J originates in a region around the arabia plate which does include Eastern and southern Turkey. Your claim of ancestry is not reliable because north africans deny their ancestry. Claiming they are 99% arab on the census when every encyclopedia shows they are lying because that many arabs never entered africa. South europe would include spain, portugal and italy, most of them were coming from east europe like romania and yugoslavia. Accept that Algeria and tunisia are turkic nations, they even still use the turkish flag in tunisia! just look at it.



Turkish flag


Tunisian flag


Same damn flag just made to look different
Dummy, i never said i was egyptian. I said i have ancestries from there which is different.i have ancestries from the same ethnic group of @ababda and from the nubians.. i have ancestries from East, North and West Africa, the Middle East and Europe. Algerians and Tunisians are mostly of arab/berber admixture. Algiers Eyalet's population in 1837: total population : 3,520,000 kouloughlis: 200,000 (thus 0,56 % of the total population) http://books.google.fr/books?id=_61X...lis%20&f=false Turks and Arabs doesnt even have the same phenotype to begin with. Most tunisians looks like arabs and berbers, not like turks and berbers. In the case of the euro slaves http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm Quote: “Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland,” http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Othe...iteSlavery.htm Quote: What is most striking about Barbary slaving raids is their scale and reach. Pirates took most of their slaves from ships, but they also organized huge, amphibious assaults that practically depopulated parts of the Italian coast. Italy was the most popular target, partly because Sicily is only 125 miles from Tunis, but also because it did not have strong central rulers who could resist invasion. Large raiding parties might be essentially unopposed. When pirates sacked Vieste in southern Italy in 1554, for example, they took an astonishing 6,000 captives. Algerians took 7,000 slaves in the Bay of Naples in 1544, in a raid that drove the price of slaves so low it was said you could "swap a Christian for an onion." Spain, too, suffered large-scale attacks. After a raid on Granada in 1566 netted 4,000 men, women, and children, it was said to be "raining Christians in Algiers." For every large-scale raid of this kind there would have been dozens of smaller ones. East europe? nope. I have italian, ashkenazi & british in me. i know a lot of algerians and tunisians who have italian ancestries aswell.
Written by Rackbaboon@hotmail.com Response: No one cares about your ancestors. Algerians and Tunisians have virtually no true arab ancestors and have nothing to do with berbers unless they are black or mixed with black which many of the former are. All those turko-arabs are imposters from turkey. Turks and turko-Arabs do have the same phenotype, do you forget who took over the turko-arab countries for the last 1000 years? turks and mongols and huns, which are all neighbouring tribes in far east asia/china/mongolia. Turks and turko-arabs look exactly. Further your source does not contradict my source but actually SUPPORTS IT. I have always said there was a large influx of turks into algeirs and algeria during the mid to late 1800s. Your source just supports my theory that most of them are new arrivals. Further, we need to know how your source comes about its claims. Because the people of the turk ancestry in algeria deny and lie about their ancestry falsly claiming to be arabs when virtually every encycopedia shows they are lying. As well your source leaves out the number of janiessers from turkey who were essentially turkish soldiers with large hareems of women. Naturally the soldiers are not going to stick around after the french take over, but they are going to leave behind children and harem women who want to deny their turk ancestry and involvement and call themselves natives and berbers and arabs anythingt o deny the truth. Then you have the issue with your source seemingly using turk and arab interchangeably like many sources of that time particularly in french do! For instance right above Algeria it says there are 2.3 million berbers and tauriks in morocco, without distinguishing the two. This is because the turks started calling themselves berbers by this period in morocco and algeria already. For instance there are years when as many as 500,000 to 1 million turk soldiers were in algeria to put down unrest. Taurik = tauri > crimean tatars A turkic tribe of people who are basically a sub branch of the ottoman turks. Tarik come from greek name of the region tauri and then later taurika. Your source doesn't say berbers but berbers AND schellouchs. Schellouchs are white people who came from france and germany into north africa during the roman period like the vandals. Your source doesn't distinguish white foreign invaders from actual berbers because by this point in history they became one and the same once the whites started calling themself berbers making it impossible to know the mix. Your next source only confirms what I said, where does it deny slaves came from east europe? Does the Mediterrean not touch east european nations like yugoslavia? Your talking about barbary slaves captured by barbary pirates, I am talking about whites slaves brought into the barbary coast by turk elite.



 Crackbaboon claimed:


Listen kid, dont patronize me ok? My ass is from there, yours is not dont teach me anything about North Africa.

Listen old lady, you cliam your from everywhere, get your nation right when you find your father.



Quote:
Majority of the algerians and tunisians carry the native african marker EM81, so how the hell they have nothing to do with the berber when DNA says otherwise?
http://www.thegeneticatlas.com/World_Y-DNA.htm
Majority of people carrying native indian dna look like miley cyrus, by your logic white nordics are the true cherokee and the indians are imposters.

Quote:
Turks and Arab do NOT have the same phenotype. Arabs are from the arabian peninsula and have darker features than turks. i dont even wanna debate on this mess because its just useless.
Because you know your wrong. All those hook nose clowns look alike. There are plenty of dark turks, turks are more diverse than you realize.





































2 comments :

  1. >>The white race is only 5000 years old based out of the most recent studies coming from Scandinavian scientist. The ancient North Africans and all Africans were black.<<

    False. Was OTZI the iceman black as well (G2a2b haplogrouping) But IF it were true, then everything is a moot point, because if all men were black in both africa, asia and europe only 6000 years ago, then all of history is black. actually then white people are also black, just light ones, by that logic. I guess race doesnt really exist. Noone to blame for slavery huh? it was light skinned black men who slaved blacker people!!!!!

    >>Whites only started arriving into Europe with the expansion of the Indo-europeans.<<

    No such thing as whites, racist! but for sake of question, prove it! plus language isnt the same as people.

    >>In India this starts around 1500 BC. The whites true homeland is near modern Kazakhstan and Northern Afghanistan.<<

    Can you prove this? IF so, id like to see the facts for this proof please.

    >> In europe the latins and dorians start showing up around 800 b.c. in Rome and Greece respectively.<<

    THESE ARE ONLY ETHNIC NAMES. YOU DONT KNOW WHO WAS LIVING THERE BEFORE THESE TRIBAL NAMES BECAME KNOWN, DO YOU?

    >>Prior to this period, all of europe, the near east, india and north africa was black<<

    SO WHY MAKE A FUSS. EVERYONE WAS BLACK THEN!!!!!! SOME JUST GOT LIGHTER AND NOW THEY ARE LIGHTER BLACKS IN EUROPE AND DARKER IN AFRICA.



    >>The whites don't start showing up in small numbers into the near east until the arrival of the Romans and Greeks as mercenaries around 300 bc to 3 ad.<<

    Proof? Really just prove it! with hard facts to bear all of this claims out!

    -Duttamachandro Illamahal Xianshan



    ReplyDelete
  2. >>The white race is only 5000 years old based out of the most recent studies coming from Scandinavian scientist. The ancient North Africans and all Africans were black.<<

    “False. Was OTZI the iceman black as well (G2a2b haplogrouping) But IF it were true, then everything is a moot point, because if all men were black in both africa, asia and europe only 6000 years ago, then all of history is black. actually then white people are also black, just light ones, by that logic. I guess race doesnt really exist. Noone to blame for slavery huh? it was light skinned black men who slaved blacker people!!!!! “”

    Yes Otzi was black. Again you’d know that there are black people in plenty of haplogroups and haplogroup G does occur in Africa albeit at low levels due to founder effect. I agree, all of ancient history is black save for kazakstan region and the early Chinese/mongol civilizations which were influenced by blacks and had many blacks in leadership laying the ground work but was not black “per se”. I agree that race is a social construct and white people are albino people. I have not reached that part of posting but it is coming and I will demonstrate that white people are still albino black today and examples of black people having white albino children. The peer reviewed studies from Scandinavia, the most recent ones show this, so its not really debatable. If white race is 5000 years old, am I to believe that slavery of black people is 6000 years old by whites? According to your logic it is.

    >>Whites only started arriving into Europe with the expansion of the Indo-europeans.<<

    “No such thing as whites, racist! but for sake of question, prove it! plus language isnt the same as people. “
    I did prove it, read the blog, read through the part where I did prove it.

    >>In India this starts around 1500 BC. The whites true homeland is near modern Kazakhstan and Northern Afghanistan.<<

    “Can you prove this? IF so, id like to see the facts for this proof please.”
    The proof is on the blog, I did prove it, read the blog. If you read 1 page then just start asking me to prove it, I will end up posting the entire blog in the comments section.

    >> In europe the latins and dorians start showing up around 800 b.c. in Rome and Greece respectively.<<

    “THESE ARE ONLY ETHNIC NAMES. YOU DONT KNOW WHO WAS LIVING THERE BEFORE THESE TRIBAL NAMES BECAME KNOWN, DO YOU?”

    Yes black Greeks, Black Minoans, Black Creteans and black eto-creteans and black Etruscans.

    >>Prior to this period, all of europe, the near east, india and north africa was black<<

    “SO WHY MAKE A FUSS. EVERYONE WAS BLACK THEN!!!!!! SOME JUST GOT LIGHTER AND NOW THEY ARE LIGHTER BLACKS IN EUROPE AND DARKER IN AFRICA.”

    I agree every civilization in antiquity save for the Chinese was a black one and the Chinese one did have substantial influence from blacks in the early period. But I would not characterize it as black because at its height it was a Han peopled civilization, just the foundation involved black. Well race is a social construct. I would not consider the modern whites of Europe as blacks, they are multigenerational albinos



    >>The whites don't start showing up in small numbers into the near east until the arrival of the Romans and Greeks as mercenaries around 300 bc to 3 ad.<<

    “Proof? Really just prove it! with hard facts to bear all of this claims out!”
    Read the blog, the proof is there, I cannot save you from your own laziness and post the entire 160+ page blog in the comments section and spoon feed you. The information is there for you to read.

    -Duttamachandro Illamahal Xianshan

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.