“North Africa”- populated by brown-skinned, wavy-haired “mulattos”/”Semites”
“Sub-Saharan”/”Black” Africa- populated by dark-skinned, “nappy”-haired “Negroids
From that one would assume the following pictures are from “Sub-Saharan Africa”:
In fact they are all from Algeria in northern Africa.
Dark-skinned people with tightly-coiled hair are native to ALL of Africa and many other places.
Pale-skinned Hordes Central Asian Hordes (The Emergence of “White” People)
Above: Scheme of Asiatic migrations from ca. 4000 to 1000 BCE. The magenta area corresponds to the assumed homeland . The red area corresponds to the area settled up to ca. 2500 BCE; the orange area to 1000 BCE. (wikipedia)
Pale or “white” North Africans are remnants of Asiatic steppe hordes who have made various incursions into Africa throughout history (Hyksos, Turkic, Germanic, etc.):
The Alans (1st Century BCE onwards):
The Germanics (of whom the Vandals were a branch)
The Ottoman Empire was an empire founded in 1299 by Oghuz Turks.
What Happened to the Central Asians in Africa?
The fate of these Asiatic hordes was to:
remain unmixed as separate ethnicities, or sub-tribes,
to intermarry with the native Africans, or
to become enslaved or trafficked by native Africans
Unmixed Descendants of Asiatic Hordes in North Africa:
Unmixed Native North Africans:
North African Nomads Displaying Mixed Asiatic-African Phenotypical Traits:
Mixed Asiatic-African North Africans, Asiatic Features Dominant:
Asiatic Women in North African Slave Market:
Some of those who intermarried or got enslaved by native north Africans eventually made it across the Sahara to “Sub-Saharan Africa”. This was in very small numbers of course, but not too small to leave a mark on the phenotype. This is part of the reason why some “Black” Africans have relatively light skin (golden brown instead of dark brown) and even more rarely have (relatively) straight hair and light eyes: these are recessive traits from Asiatic ancestors.
Those who would argue that an ancient “white”, “Caucasian” presence in Africa was as an invading master race are delusional. There were some invasions, but Asiatic movement in Africa was not as some “master race”. They were either isolated, assimilated, or subdued, and always a minority.
Lank hair, epicanthic fold (eyes), relatively light skin:
Naturally-born child with Asiatic features (Not Albino)
Possible Residual Recessive Asiatic Influence on Phenotype?
Fulani (Nomadic group)
The fact that these ‘full-blooded’ Africans resemble African-Americans and other African diasporans who are known to have mixed with Asiatics (known as “Europeans” after settling in western Asia “Europe”) is sufficient testimony to the fact that they may, too, have acquired Asiatic ancestry in Africa.
Africa has never been isolated. It wasn’t ‘discovered’ by anybody, certainly not “Europeans” who’d just discovered civilization from Moors (who were from Africa). That’s why the question is so complicated: many features commonly associated with Asians (western included) and not with Africans actually are African:
Epicanthic Eye Fold:
Tightly-coiled (“coarse”, “nappy”) hair is usually associated with dark skin, but the ‘nappiest’ hair is found on people with light skin!
Africans have been moving around the globe- and around Africa- forever. People have been moving into Africa forever. The place with the most diverse genotype will have the most diverse phenotype as well. “Non-African” features could have come from another part of Africa just as easily as a place outside it.
“Every king springs from a race of slaves, and every slave had kings among his ancestors.” -Plato
It is reported that the Prophet Mohamed (pbuh) said, (In a dream) I saw myself following a herd of black sheep. Then a group of white sheep came (and mixed with the black sheep) until they (the white sheep) became so many that the black sheep could no longer be seen in the herd of sheep.” Abu Bakr, the companion of the Prophet (pbuh) and the interpreter of dreams, said, “Oh Messenger of Allah. As for the black sheep, they are the Arabs. They will accept Islam and become many. The white sheep are the non-Arab Persians, etc. They will accept Islam and become so many that the Arabs will not be noticed amongst them.” The Prophet Mohamed (pbuh) then said that an angel had interpreted the dream the same way.
Zaid ibn Aslam related that the prophet (SAWS) saw a vision and told his companions about it. He said, “I saw a group of black sheep and a group of white sheep then mixed with the black sheep. I interpreted it to mean that the non-Arab Persians will enter Islam and then share with you your genealogy and your wealth.” The companions became surprised by what he (SAWS) said. Then one said, “The non-Arab Persians will enter our land, Oh Messenger of Allah?!” The Prophet (SAWS) then said, “Yes. By He Who Has my soul in His Hand, if the religion was hanging on the distant star, men from the non-Arab Persians would reach it and the luckiest of them would be the people of Faris.
Do the above narrations and interpretations really prophecy a change in the phenotype (physical appearance) of the people of Arabia? Do they really imply that today’s Arabs are a foreign people who have overwhelmed the original populace?
Historians seem to think so:
Bertram Thomas, historian and former Prime Minister of Muscat and Oman, reported in his work ‘The Arabs’:
“The original inhabitants of Arabia…were not the familiar Arabs of our time but a very much darker people. A proto-negroid belt of mankind stretched across the ancient world from Africa to Malaya. This belt…(gave) rise to the Hamitic peoples of Africa, to the Dravidian peoples of India, and to an intermediate dark people inhabiting the Arabian peninsula. In the course of time two big migrations of fair-skinned peoples came from the north…to break through and transform the dark belt of man beyond India (and) to drive a wedge between India and Africa…The more virile invaders overcame the dark-skinned peoples, absorbing most of them, driving others southwards…The cultural condition of the newcomers is unknown. It is unlikely that they were more than wild hordes of adventurous hunters.”
the first certain fact on which to base our investigations is the ancient and undoubted division of the Arab race into two branches, the ‘Arab’ or pure; and the ‘Mostareb’ or adscititions…
A second fact is, that everything in pro-Islamitic literature and record…concurs in representing the first settlement of the ‘pure’ Arabs as made on the extreme south-western point of the peninsula, near Aden, and then spreading northward and eastward…
A third is the name Himyar, or ‘dusky’…a circumstance pointing, like the former, to African origin.
A fourth is the Himyaritic language…(The preserved words) are African in character, often in identity. Indeed, the dialect commonly used along the south-eastern coast hardly differs from that used by the (Somali) Africans on the opposite shore…
Fifthly, it is remarkable that where the grammar of the Arabic, now spoken by the ‘pure’ Arabs, differs from that of the north, it approaches to or coincides with the Abyssinian…
Sixthly, the pre-Islamitic institutions of Yemen and its allied provinces-its monarchies, courts, armies, and serfs-bear a marked resemblance to the historical Africao-Egyptian type, even to modern Abyssinian.
Seventhly, the physical conformation of the pure-blooded Arab inhabitants of Yemen, Hadramaut, Oman, and the adjoining districts-the shape and size of head, the slenderness of the lower limbs, the comparative scantiness of hair, and other particulars-point in an African rather than an Asiatic direction.
Eighthly, the general habits of the people,-given to sedentary rather than nomad occupations, fond of village life, of society, of dance and music; good cultivators of the soil, tolerable traders, moderate artisans, but averse to pastoral pursuits-have much more in common with those of the inhabitants of the African than with those of the western Asiatic continent.
Lastly, the extreme facility of marriage which exists in all classes of the southern Arabs with the African races; the fecundity of such unions; and the slightness or even absence of any caste feeling between the dusky ‘pure’ Arab and the still darker native of modern Africa…may be regarded as pointing in the direction of a community of origin.”
The dark-skinned South Arabian today is short and “extremely round-headed (brachycephalic)” but he was no doubt originally much taller and dolichocephalic (long-headed) like the so-called Hamites of East Africa.
In the 13th century CE the Muslim traveler Ibn al-Mujāwir described the Mahra as “tall, handsome folk” in his Tārīkh al-mustabsir, 271.1.17 and early pre-Christian skulls found in Hadramawt were markedly dolichocephalic.
It has been suggested that the ‘definite change’ in the racial constitution of the people of Hadramawt resulted from the invasion and inbreeding of brachycephalic whites such as Armenoids or Persians.
Henry Field suggested that Arabia’s current ethnography is the result of the mixing of two distinct basal stocks: The dolichocephalic (long-headed), dark-skinned Mediteranean/Eur-African and the brachycephalic (round-headed) fair-skinned Armenoid. See his “Ancient and Modern Inhabitants of Arabia,” The Open Court 46 (1932): 854 [art.=847-869].
These findings are corroborated by Persian sources describing their first impression of their Arab Muslim conquerors.
“When Fredon (mythical hero) came, they (the black people) fled from the lands of Iran and settled on the coast of the sea. Now, through the invasion of the Arabs, they (the Zing-i-Siak posht (i.e. the black skinned negroes)) are again diffused through the country of Iran.”
[Note: in these last sentences allusion is made to the Blackness of both the original inhabitants of Iran, and of the Arabs.]
You’re saying that the real Arabs are Black?! What do these historians know anyway? They’re not Arab or Muslim. They’re colonialists and Orientalists out to distort Islamic history.
True. Who better to ask than the Arabs themselves? How did the Arab historians, grammarians, linguists and pre-Islamic poets describe themselves? Let’s see:
“Red (al-hamra’) refers to non-Arabs due to their fair complexion which predominates amongthem. And the Arabs used to say about the non-Arabs with whom white skin was characteristic, such as the Romans, Persians, and their neighbors: ‘They are red-skinned (al-hamra’)…” al-hamra’ means the Persians and Romans…And the Arabs attribute white skin to the slaves.”
Al-Mubarrad (d. 898), the leading figure in the Basran grammatical tradition, claimed: “The Arabs used to take pride in their brown and black complexion (al-sumra wa al-sawād) and they had a distaste for a white and fair complexion (al-ḥumra waal-shaqra), and they used to say that such was the complexion of the non-Arabs.”
Lisan El-Arab (an old Arabic dictionary) mentions Shamar’s explanation of the hadiths that say that the prophet Mohamed (pbuh) said that he was sent to the blacks and the reds. Shamar explains the hadiths as follows:
قال شمر: يعنـي العرب والعجم والغالب علـى أَلوان العرب السُّمرة والأُدْمَة وعلـى أَلوان العجمالبـياض والـحمرة،
“He means (by the blacks and the reds) the Arabs and the non-Arabs and the complexion of most Arabs is brown and jet-black and the complexion of most non-Arabs is white and red.”
Shams El-Din Mohamed ibn Ahmed ibn Othman El-Dhahabi (died1374 A.D.) explains the hadith that mentions that a man was “red-skinned as if he was one of the slaves” as follows:
يريد ألقائل أنه في لون ألموالي ألذين سبوا من نصارى ألشام وألروم و ألعجم
“The speaker means that the man was the color of the slaves who were captured from the Christians of Syria and from the Romans and the Persians.”
Thus, it was common for the Arabs of the past to describe a light-skinned person as having the color of the slaves. This is a known fact. Ibn Mandhor (1232-1311 A.D.) says in his book Lisan El-Arab:
سبوطة الشعر هي الغالبة علـى شعور العجم من الروم والفرس. و جُعودة الشعر هي الغالبة علـى شعور العرب
“Non-kinky hair is the kind of hair that most non-Arabs like the Romans and Persians have while kinky hair is the kind of hair that most Arabs have.”
The Arabs of the past also used the word green to mean black. El-Fadl ibn El-Abbas ibn ‘Utba El-Lahabi said:
وأَنا الأَخْضَرُ، من يَعْرِفُنـي؟أَخْضَرُ الـجِلْدَةِ فـي بـيتِ العَرَبْ
I am the green one. Who knows me?My skin is green. I am from the family of the Arabs.
Ibn Mandhor, the author of Lisan El-Arab says this about the verse:
يقول: أَنا خالص لأَن أَلوان العرب السمرة
“He says that he is a pure Arab because the color of the Arabs is brown (dark).”
In Lisan El-Arab, Ibn Mandhor also quotes the author of El-Tahdhib, Saad El-Din Masud ibn Umar El-Taftaazaani (1312-1389 A.D.) as saying the following about the verse:
فـي هذا البـيت قولان: أَحدهما أَنه أَراد أَسود الـجلدة؛ قال: قاله أَبو طالب النـحوي، وقـيل: أَراد أَنه من خالص العرب وصميمهم لأَن الغالب علـى أَلوان العرب الأُدْمَةُ،
“There are two sayings about this verse. One is that he meant that he had black skin. This is what Abu Talib El-Nahwi said. It is also said that he meant that he is a pure unmixed Arab because most Arabs are black-skinned.”
Abdella ibn Berry (1106-1187 A.D.), the “King of the Grammarians” as he was called, said the following about the verse:
قال ابن بري: نسب الـجوهري هذا البـيت للهبـي، وهو الفضل بن العباس بن عُتْبَةَ بن أَبـي لَهَبٍ، وأَراد بالـخضرة سمرة لونه، وإِنما يريد بذلك خـلوص نسبه وأَنه عربـي مـحض، لأَن العرب تصف أَلوانها بالسواد وتصف أَلوان العجم بالـحمرة. وفـي الـحديث: بُعثت إِلـى الأَحمر والأَسود؛ وهذا الـمعنى بعينه هو الذي أَراده مسكين الدارمي فـي قولهأَنا مسكِينٌ لـمن يَعْرِفُنـي،لَوْنِـي السُّمْرَةُ أَلوانُ العَرَبْ
“El-Jawhari attributed this verse to El-Lahabi and he is El-Fadl ibn El-Abbas ibn ‘Utba ibn Abi Lahab and he meant by green the brownness (darkness) of his complexion and he meant by that the purity of his genealogy and that he was an unmixed Arab because the Arabs describe their color as black and they describe the color of the non-Arabs as red. Like the hadith says, ‘I was sent to the red and the black. And this is exactly what Miskeen El-Darimi meant when he said:‘I am Miskeen, for those who know me.My color is brown (dark), the color of the Arabs’”.
“When the Arabs said that a man or a woman was ‘white’, they meant that the person was honorable. They weren’t talking about his/her complexion. When they (the Arabs) said that a man or a woman was ‘red’, they meant that his/her complexion was white.
The famous, old Arabic dictionary Lisan El Arab also quotes the author of El-Tahdhib, Saad El-Din Masud ibn Umar El-Taftaazaani (1312-1389 A.D.) as saying:
التهذيب: إِذا قالت العرب فلان أَبْـيَضُ وفلانة بَـيْضاء فالـمعنى نَقاء العِرْض من الدنَس والعيوب… لا يريدون به بَـياضَ اللون ولكنهم يريدون الـمدح بالكرم ونَقاءِ العِرْض من العيوب، وإِذا قالوا: فلان أَبْـيَض الوجه وفلانة بَـيْضاءُ الوجه أَرادوا نقاءَ اللون من الكَلَفِ والسوادِ الشائن
“When the Arabs said that a man or a woman was white, they meant that the person had a faultless honor…they didn’t mean white skin. What they meant by this was to praise the person for his/her generosity and faultless honor. When they said that a man or woman had a white face, they meant that the person had a complexion free of blemishes and free of an unattractive blackness.”
Whatever. If the original Arabs were black, then how do you explain the predominance of light brown and white Arabs of today?
There are different ways that non-Arabs changed the dark-skinned, Negroid/Dravidian appearance of Arabia and the Middle East:
1. Intermarriage between non-Arab converts and slaves with Arabs.
“increasing intermarriage (between Arabs and non-Arabs) served to submerge the original distinctions, and increasing numbers of the conquered, having adopted the religion and language of the conquerors, took to assuming the identity as if Arabs themselves” (Segal 2001:22)
“In one important way … (the second caliph) Omar was unable to prevent the Moslems from mingling with the subject peoples … Since they were forbidden to own land, they used their wealth (from booty) chiefly to buy women … All the children born of these unions – and there were many thousands of them – called themselves Arabs, in order to identify with the ruling class. When they grew up and married, their offspring in turn called themselves Arabs. Thus it came about that the people of the Moslem world, many of them without a drop of Arab blood in their veins, became known as Arabs.”Such ‘conversion to Arabism’ is illustrated by the words of the Iranian poet Bashshar b. Barb (d. 783-4), who responded to the caliph al-Mahdi’s question, “Of whom do you reckon yourself, Bashshar”: “As for my language and dress, they are Arab; but as for my origin, it is non-Arab (ajam.)”” (Suskind 1972:37)
Ninth century poet Abu Al-Hasan Ali ibn Al-Abbas ibn Jurayj, known as Ibn Al-Rumi, wrote a long poem to the Abbasids blaming them for the way that they treated the family of the Prophet Mohamed (SAWS). It should be understood that at that time, the Abbasids had become very mixed with the Romans, Greeks, and Persians. Here is part of what Ibn Al-Rumi said in his famous poem called Al-Jeemia:
“You insulted them (the family of the Prophet Mohamed) because of their blackness while there are still pure-blooded black-skinned Arabs. However, you are blue (eyed) – the Romans have embellished your faces with their color.”
2. Assimilation (Arabization) and Empowerment of Non-Arabs
In the passage quoted below al-Maqrīzī discusses the influence on Islamic tradition of the Abbasid caliph al-Maʿmūn (reigned 813-833) and his successors al-Muʿtaṣim (r. 833-842), al-Mutawakkil (r. 847-861) and al-Mustaʿīn (r. 862-866).
“This fellow al-Maʿmūn …left one of the worst possible reputations in the whole history of Islam. This arose from the fact that he had books on philosophy translated into Arabic, to such a pitch that heretics and deviationists used them to pervert Islam and to trick the Muslims…He removed from the pay-registers the Arabs, the Messenger of God’s people, the race through whose agency God had established the religion of Islam…In their place, he relied on the Turks. He abandoned Arab dress and clothing, put a crown on his head and wore the dress of the Persians, that race which God had sent his prophet Muhammad to slay and to combat. With al-Muʿtaṣim, and through his deliberate agency, the rule of the Arabs came to an end; henceforth, during his reign and under his political regime, the Turks, upon whom the Messenger of God vowed to make war, assumed power. After him, they (viz. the Turks) secured an ascendency in all the lands. God gave the Turks dominion over al-Muʿtaṣim’s son, Jaʿfar al-Mutawakkil, so that they eventually murdered him. They also murdered al-Muʿtaṣim’s grandson, Aḥmad al-Mustaʿīn. They treated the religion of God as a plaything and established a reign of terror throughout all the provinces of the caliphate.”
Slave girls were favored as concubines, and certain of the wives of ʿAbbasid caliphs who gave birth to princes and future caliphs, being of the status of omm walad,are mentioned as being Iranian, e.g., Marājel, the concubine of Hārūn-al-Rašīd, said to be from Bāḏḡīs in northwestern Afghanistan, and the mother of the future caliph al-Maʾmūn, born in 170/787, and also Māreda, born in Kūfa but of Sogdian stock, slave of Hārūn al-Rašīd, who bore him the future caliph al-Moʿtaṣem, born in 179/795 or 180/796.
3. The changes the last two brought are minor in comparison to the next one. And this one’s going to be a huge shocker, because it’s a bit of covered-up history:
There was a massive white slave trade between Europe, Central Asia and the Middle that lasted over 1,000 years. This brought an enormous number of white Western and Eastern Europeans into the Middle East.
(The focus on African slaves in Arabia only came after access to white slave trade routes was lost.)
“In the Viking era starting c. 793, the Norse raiders often captured and enslaved militarily weaker peoples they encountered. In the Nordic countries the slaves were called thralls (Old Norse: þræll) The thralls were mostly from Western Europe [i.e. Far West Asia], among them many Franks, Anglo-Saxons and Celts… There is evidence of German, Baltic, Slavic and Latin slaves as well. The slave trade was one of the pillars of Norse commerce during the 6th through 11th centuries.”
“Slavery during the Early Middle Ages had several distinct sources. The Vikings raided across Europe, though their slave raids were the most destructive in the British Isles and Eastern Europe. While the Vikings kept some slaves for themselves as servants, known as thralls, most people captured by the Vikings would be sold on the Byzantine or Islamic markets. In the West the targets of Viking slavery were primarily English, Irish, and Scottish, while in the East they were mainly Slavs. The Viking slave trade slowly ended in the 1000s…”
“The Middle Ages form 1100 to 1500 saw a continuation of the European Slave trade, though with a shift form the Western Mediterranean Islamic nations (Andalusian Spain, modern day Morocco) to the Eastern, as Venice and Genoa, in firm control of the Eastern Mediterranean from the 12th century and the Black Sea from the 13th century sold both Slavic and Baltic slaves, as well as Georgians, Turks and other ethnic groups of the Black Sea and Caucasus, to the Muslim nations of the Middle East. The sale of European slaves by Europeans slowly ended as the Slavic and Baltic ethnic groups Christianized by the Late Middle Ages. European slaves in the Islamic World would, however, continue into the Modern time period as Muslim pirates, primarily Algerians, with the support of the Ottoman Empire, raided European coasts and shipping form the 16th to the 19th centuries…”
“Genoese merchants organized the slave trade from the Crimea to Mamluk Egypt.”
“For a long time [from declaring independence in1441] until the early 18th century, the [Crimean] khanate maintained a massive slave trade with the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East. In a process called the “harvesting of the steppe”, they enslaved many Slavic peasants.”
“The Byzantine-Ottoman wars [in or near modern Turkey] and the Ottoman wars in Europe brought large numbers of Christian slaves into the Islamic world too.”
Asaolu, Richard Oluseyi. Slavery. PediaPress. pp 4-7. http://books.google.com.sa/books?id=YTXuW0zptegC&dq=Asaolu,+Richard+Oluseyi+slavery&source=gbs_navlinks_s
In early Islamic times, parts of [Arab-ruled] Iran itself remained unislamized, and these infidel regions could be raided for slaves. This was the case with Daylam in northwestern Iran up to the time of the appearance there of the ʿAlid dāʿī Ḥasan b. Zayd b. Moḥammad (second half of the 3rd/9th century); while slaves were captured from the mountainous region of Ḡūr in central Afghanistan, a pagan enclave there till the early Ghaznavid period.
Slaves came into the Iranian world as captives of war from the Arab campaigns in the Caucasus against the Ḵazars and from the campaigns in central Asia against the local Iranian peoples and the Turks of the steppes beyond, from the end of the lst/7th century onward. Thus Naršaḵī mentions how in 87/706 the Arab governor Qotayba b. Moslem slew all the males in the town of Baykand in Sogdia and enslaved all the women and children.
From early in the Abbasid period the caliphs instituted a tradition of forming army contingents composed of slaves, mostly taken as captives in the course of frontier wars and raids into Central Asia, the Caucasus, and India, among other regions. There were also slave markets where young male slaves, along with female ones, captured as booty or procured by other means, were sold. The preferred slaves were Turkic ones, admired for their handsome features, their valor, and their martial gifts. The Samanids, who originated from Sogdiana and were neighbors to the Turkic khanates of Central Asia, adopted the practice of enlisting slaves in their army—a practice which continued under the succeeding dynasties, chiefly the Ghaznavids, the Seljuks, and theKʷārazmšāhs.
[Note: The Abbasids ruled Arabia, Iraq, the Levant (Sham) and North Africa for 500 years, from 750 to 1258. The Seljuks ruled Oman, and parts Iraq and the Levant from 1037-1194.]
The love poetry of these periods is generally addressed to such adolescent soldiers or pages. That these Turks were ‘white’ or pale-skinned is made clear in these poems:
They are of musky facial hair, sweet of speech, with perfumed tresses / Silver-bodied, gold-girded, and narrow-waisted( Kāfi Ẓafar of Hamadān, cited by ʿAwfi in his Lobāb al-albāb (pp. 210-13))
I love silver-bodied, ruby-lipped children. / Wherever you see one of them, call me there (Farroḵi, Divān, p. 5).
O beautifully clad child, silver-bodied and ruby-lipped, / the substance of charm and gaiety, envious houries in pain from you! (Anvari, apud Šamisā, p. 80).
Attar (ʿAṭṭār [d. 1221] uses in his ghazals, which vibrate with profound and passionate, amorous feelings, the imagery developed by earlier poets: he sings of the beloved’s moon-like face, ruby lips, narrow, hair-like waist, cypress-like figure, the lasso of the beloved’s tresses, the chain of his curls…
Of course there were slaves of other origins as well, e.g., Indian and Slav (generally termed bolḡār “Bulgarian,” known for their fair skin).
The Seljuk Turks ruled parts of Iraq and the Levant from 1037-1194. The settlement of Turkic tribes in the northwestern peripheral parts of the empire, for the strategic military purpose of fending off invasions from neighboring states, led to the progressive Turkicization of those areas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seljuks
The Oghuz Turkic Zangids ruled the Levant from 1127-1250.
The Kurdish Ayyubids ruled the Arabian Peninsula and North Africa from 1171-1341.
The Mamluk Sultanate ruled the western Arabian Peninsula, Egypt and Libya from 1250-1517. The sultanate’s ruling caste was composed of Mamluks- soldiers of predominantly Kipchak Turk, Cumans, Circassian, and Georgian slave origin. By the late fourteenth century, Circassians from the North Caucasus region had become the majority in the Mamluk ranks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk_Sultanate_(Cairo)
On top of being “white”, all of these dynasties, and the many others not mentioned here, were involved in trading and capturing white slaves, in addition to settlement of peoples of their respective ethnicities. Who can doubt the enormous changes this would have brought to the phenotype and color of these Arab lands? And as all of these people would be in some degree Arabized (particularly in language) they are now known as Arabs.
Thus it seems that the Black & White Sheep” Prophecy would indeed come to pass, and that it was a reference to skin color and phenotype.
The view of the ancient Arabs holds true today: visible European features or ancestry is a sign of foreign, slave ancestry.
This shouldn’t be a problem. African-Americans, Afro-Caribbeans and Afro-Latinos openly acknowledge slave ancestry as an explanation of their presence in the Americas, and they are expected to. Why shouldn’t white and light-skinned Arabs feel comfortable doing the same? Why shouldn’t they be expected to? Why not anybody?
They were supreme and righteous- establishing spiritual, intellectual, cultural, and physical empires across the globe- so where did they go wrong?
Asians- Eastern & Western (“European”)- knew about Africa’s wealth and riches (physical & metaphysical) from time immemorial, yet no conqueror- not Alexander the Greek, not Genghis Khan, not Cyrus- dared to attempt to invade.
But one day they did.
One day they knew the door that had been closed, was now open.
Slavery in Africa was part of a united caste system unlike any other in the world. It does not justify the Jewish-led Trans-Atlantic slave trade. On the other hand, denying it ignores a valuable model for democracy and peace.
Africans enslaved other Africans.
“White” nationalists and supremacists use the fact to try to excuse the genocidal horrors of west Asian enslavement of Africans.
Some “Black” nationalists and Afro-centrists deny it.
Both are wrong, for oversimplifying the issue. For example, both ignore the fact that for most of human history, most slaves have been “white”. In fact the very word slave comes from Slav, the name of a “white” west Asian (“European”) people. There were even “white” slaves in pre-colonial Sub-Saharan (“Black”) Africa. The first few minutes of this BBC Radio special on Mansa Musa, Emperor of Mali, quote Arab historians who saw them in his court: Mansa Musa BBC Documentary
The worldwide practice named “slavery” in English existed in many forms. In west Africa, slaves were part of a caste system, where all castes had rights and privileges over the others. Far from the horrors of the chattel slavery of the Americas, they formed a contented class that enjoyed power, wealth and freedom of movement. Slavery was basically a way to incorporate conquered foes into the victor’s society. It was a matter of mercy, forgiveness, tolerance and progress in the world’s most genetically, phenotypically and linguistically diverse continent.
This excerpt from Cheikh Anta Diop’s Pre-Colonial Black Africa shows that you can’t look at everything from the eyes of the west Asian. Too many African diasporans, even ‘conscious’ ones, fall into that trap, failing to see that you can’t produce arguments against the west Asian paradigm from within the west Asian point-of-view.
Analysis of the Concept of Caste
The originality of the [west African caste] system resides in the fact that the dynamic elements of society, whose discontent might have engendered revolution, are really satisfied with their social condition and do not seek to change it: a man of so-called “inferior caste” would categorically refuse to enter a so-called “superior” one. In Africa, it is not rare for members of the lower caste to refuse to enter in to conjugal relations with those of the higher caste, even though the reverse would seem more normal.
The present territory of Senegal will be used here as a model for study: nevertheless, the conclusions which are drawn from it hold true for the whole of detribalized Sudanese Africa. In Senegal, society is divided into slaves and freemen, the latter being gor, including both gér and ñéño.
The ñéño comprise all artisans: shoemakers, blacksmiths, goldsmiths, etc. These are hereditary professions.
The djam, or slaves, include the djam-bur, who are slaves of the king’ the djam neg nday, slaves of one’s mother’ and the djam neg bây, slaves of one’s father.
African Caste System: Know Justice, Know Peace
The gér formed the superior caste. But-and herein lay the real originality of the system-unlike the attitude of the nobles toward the bourgeoisie, the lords toward the serfs, or the Brahmans toward the other Indian castes the gér could not materially exploit the lower castes without losing face in the eyes of others, as well as their own. On the contrary, they were obliged to assist lower caste members in every way possible: even if less wealthy, they had to “give” to a man of lower caste if so requested. In exchange the latter had to allow them social precedence.
The specific feature of this system therefore consisted in the fact that the manual laborer, instead of being deprived of the fruits of his labor, as was the artisan or the serf of the Middle Ages, could, on the contrary, add to it wealth given him by the “lord”.
Consequently, if a revolution were to occur, it would be initiated from above and not from below. But that is not all, as we shall see: members of all castes including slaves were closely associated to power, as de facto ministers; which resulted in constitutional monarchies governed by councils of ministers, made up of authentic representatives of all the people. We can understand from this why there were no revolutions in Africa against the regime, but only against those who administered it poorly, i.e., unworthy princes.
For every caste, advantages and disadvantages, deprivations of rights and compensations balanced out… it can be understood why Africa’s societies remained relatively stable.
Conditions of the Slaves
Djam-bur: Slaves of the King- Slaves in Name Only
In this aristocratic regime, the nobles formed the cavalry of the army (the chivalry). The infantry was composed of slaves, former prisoners of war taken from outside the national territory. The slaves of the king formed the greater part of his forces and in consequence their condition was greatly improved. They were now slaves in name only… they shared in the booty after an expedition; under protection of the king, during periods of unrest, they could even indulge in discreet pillage within the national territory, against the bâ-dolo [“those without power”, the poor peasants]-but never against the artisans who [could]… go directly to the prince… The slaves were commanded by one of their own, the infantry general, who was a pseudo-prince in that he might rule over a fief inhabited by freemen. Such was the case, in the monarchy of Cayor (Senegal), of the djarâf Bunt Keur, the representative of the slaves within the government and commander-in-chief of the army. His power and authority were so great that the day of his betrayal brought an end to the kingdom of Cayor.
Djam neg Nday: Slaves of the Mother- Beloved Family Member
The slave of the mother’s household was the captive of our mother, as opposed to the slave of our father. He might have been bought on the open market, come from an inheritance, or be a gift. Once established in the family he became almost an integral part of it; he was the loyal domestic, respected, feared, and consulted by the children. Due to the matriarchal and polygamous regime, we feel him closer to us, because he belongs to our mother, than the slave of the father, who is at an equal distance, socially speaking, from all the children of the same father and different mothers. As can easily be seen, the slave of the father would become the scapegoat for the society. Therefore, the slave of the mother could not be a revolutionary.
Djam neg Bây: Slaves of the Father- No Man’s Slave
The slaves of the father’s household, by contrast, considering his anonymous position (our father is everyone’s, so to speak, while our mother is truly our own), will be of no interest to anyone and have no special protection in society. He may be disposed of without compensation. However, his condition is not comparable to that of the plebeian of ancient Rome, the thete of Athens, or the sudra of India. The condition of the sudra was based on a religious significance. Contact with them was considered impure; society had been structured without taking their existence into account; they could not even live in the cities nor participate in religious ceremonies, nor at the outset have a religion of their own… However, the alienation of the slaves of the father’s household in Africa was great enough, on the moral and material plane, that their minds could be truly revolutionary. But for reasons connected to the preindustrial nature of Africa, such as the dispersion of the population into villages, for example, they could not effect a revolution. We must also add that they were really intruders in a hostile society which watched them day and night, and would never have allowed them time to plot a rebellion with their peers. It made it even less possible for them to acquire economic position and moral and intellectual education, in short, any social strength comparable to that of the bourgeoisie of the West when it overthrew the aristocracy.
For blacks to deny the existence of slavery in Africa is reactionary Afro-centrism that in reality just parrots the arguments of “white” nationalists: whatever they say, we say the opposite. This isn’t an ideology- it’s “defensive racism”: Adopting the enemy’s values in order to compete against the enemy ie. conceding to play the enemy’s game.
To try to conflate African caste slavery with “New World” chattel slavery is a ploy by “white” nationalists to justify their claim that “everybody’s evil but us, and that’s why they want to destroy us”, a word-for-word repeat of the Zionist argument, the same “Jews”/Zionists they claim to oppose.
Quality, not Ethnicity- Unity through Nobility
No one is going to get anywhere with either of the three groups. Common sense and real-life experience make it clear that there are good people and bad people of all ethnic backgrounds.
“Every king springs from a race of slaves, and every slave had kings among his ancestors.” (Plato)
In 1863 and 1864, eight former slaves toured the northern states to raise money for impoverished African-American schools in New Orleans; four white children were deliberately included to evoke sympathy from white northerners. Photographs of Charles Taylor, Rebecca Huger, Rosina Downs, and Augusta Broujey were mass-produced and sold as part of the campaign.
Serf. Middle French serf from Latin servus (“slave”). 1. a person in a condition of servitude, required to render services to a lord, commonly attached to the lord’s land and transferred with it from one owner to another. 2. a European* enslaved to another European
On March 3, 1861, an event of seismic significance occurred in the history of international emancipation. With the stroke of a pen, Tsar Alexander II freed 23 million Russian serfs. It always has been a point of pride for Russians that their great emancipation preceded the one in the United States and occurred largely without bloodshed. Adam Goodheart has written a nice piece on this event in yesterday’s Disunion in the New York Times. I heartily recommend it, although I wish Goodheart had said more about the limitations of Russia’s 1861 Emancipation Manifesto.
First, the decree only freed serfs on private land. Imperial serfs, on land controlled directly by the Tsar, were not freed until 1866. Second, Russians landlords were compensated handsomely by the Tsar’s government for the loss of their land, which was given to peasant mir communities who in turn were required to make regular payments to the government for it plus…
Contrary to conventional thought, Slavery was NOT only endured by Blacks, all peoples have at one time or another been enslaved.
The irony is that it is Blacks who appear to have created the institution of Slavery. As the creators of civilization, and the builders of the worlds first cities, Blacks logically were the first to have a need for slaves, as a source of free labor. Slavery in ancient cultures was known to occur in civilizations as old as Sumer, and it was found in every civilization, including Ancient Egypt, the Akkadian Empire, Assyria, Ancient Greece, Rome and parts of its empire.
Such institutions were a mixture of debt-slavery, punishment for crime, the enslavement of prisoners of war, child abandonment, and the birth of slave children to slaves. In the Roman Empire, probably over 25% of the empire’s population, and 30 to 40% of the population of Italy was enslaved. Records of slavery in Ancient Greece go as far back as Mycenaean Greece. It is often said that the Greeks as well as philosophers such as Aristotle accepted the theory of natural slavery i.e. that some men are slaves by nature. At the time of Plato and Socrates, slavery was so accepted by the Greeks (including philosophers) that few people indeed protested it as an institution.
In the Viking era starting c. 793, the Norse raiders often captured and enslaved militarily weaker peoples they encountered. In the Nordic countries the slaves were called thralls. The thralls were mostly from Western Europe, among them many Franks, Anglo-Saxons, and Celts. Many Irish slaves participated in the colonization of Iceland. There is evidence of German, Baltic, Slavic and Latin slaves as well. The slave trade was one of the pillars of Norse commerce during the 6th through 11th centuries. The Persian traveler Ibn Rustah described how Swedish Vikings, the Varangians or Rus, terrorized and enslaved the Slavs, (thus the word Slave).
The Vikings raided across Europe, though their slave raids were the most destructive in the British Isles and Eastern Europe. While the Vikings kept some slaves for themselves as servants, known as thralls, most people captured by the Vikings would be sold on the Byzantine or Islamic markets. In the West the targets of Viking slavery were primarily English, Irish, and Scottish, while in the East they were mainly Slavs. The Viking slave trade slowly ended in the 1000s, as the Vikings settled in the European territories they once raided.
The Mongol invasions and conquests in the 13th century made the situation worse. The Mongols enslaved skilled individuals, women and children and marched them to Karakorum or Sarai, whence they were sold throughout Eurasia. Many of these slaves were shipped to the slave market in Novgorod, (near Moscow in Russia).
Slave commerce during the Late Middle Ages was mainly in the hands of Venetian and Genoese merchants and cartels, who were involved in the slave trade with the Golden Horde. In 1382 the Golden Horde under Khan Tokhtamysh sacked Moscow, burning the city and carrying off thousands of inhabitants as slaves. Between 1414 and 1423, some 10,000 eastern European slaves were sold in Venice. Genoese merchants organized the slave trade from the Crimea to Mamluk Egypt. For years the Khanates of Kazan and Astrakhan routinely made raids on Russian principalities for slaves and to plunder towns. Russian chronicles record about 40 raids of Kazan Khans on the Russian territories in the first half of the 16th century. In 1521, the combined forces of Crimean Khan Mehmed Giray and his Kazan allies attacked Moscow and captured thousands of slaves.
In 1441, Haci I Giray declared independence from the Golden Horde and established the Crimean Khanate. For a long time, until the early 18th century, the khanate maintained a massive slave trade with the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East. In a process called the “harvesting of the steppe”, they enslaved many Slavic peasants. About 30 major Tatar raids were recorded into Muscovite territories between 1558-1596. In 1571, the Crimean Tatars attacked and sacked Moscow, burning everything but the Kremlin and taking thousands of captives as slaves. In Crimea, about 75% of the population consisted of slaves.
Read More at http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/True_Negros/Assorted/The_History_of_Slavery.htm
For more than 20 years, some of Baltimore’s wealthiest and most established families had been helping themselves to the institutionalized patients at Rosewood. They’d been “adopting” these mentally challenged girls and women only to turn them into their own private slaves.
Kanner found that an astonishing 166 patients left Rosewood under habeas corpus writs from 1911 to 1933, with nothing at all to indicate the oddly obliging judges’ criteria for their decisions. And when Kanner and a diligent social worker named Mabel Kraus looked into the matter further, they confirmed that these girls, women, and a few boys had not only been legally snatched from Rosewood right under everyone’s noses, but they’d been bought by the rich as unpaid laborers and indentured servants. It was a well-oiled human trafficking operation.
The shocking revelations didn’t end there. Kanner and Kraus tracked down most of the former residents of Rosewood to determine what had become of them since their releases. It wasn’t a pretty picture. The vast majority had indeed gone to reside with those “society matrons” who, under the pretense of providing them with a loving home, had in fact paid Wolf or the other unscrupulous lawyers to obtain a resident of their choosing. Most got more than they bargained for. “Many of the women soon became dissatisfied with their maids and expressed great astonishment that the girls seemed ‘stupid’ and ‘slow,’ ” Kanner told his colleagues in Pittsburgh. “This discovery, however, did not deter them from ordering another girl from Lawyer I when they got rid of the one they had.” One lady had a change of mind about a particular Rosewood girl the moment she left the courtroom, leaving her confused new charge in the parking lot. Another intended her adoptee to be a personal housemaid for just two months, kicking her out when the family left for a European vacation.
Others fell victim to abuse in these high-society homes. “A few of the women so overworked and underfed their imbecile maids,” Kanner reported, “that several of them died within two or three years after their release, mostly of acute pulmonary tuberculosis.” One woman who collected no fewer than 35 Rosewood girls had an especially mean-spirited young daughter who would spit in the maids’ faces and tip over their buckets while they did backbreaking work. Those who complained about her behavior were simply replaced by new girls. Some were sexually abused. “One girl placed in the home of a physician under his wife’s supervision was so poorly supervised,” Kanner told of another deplorable story, “that she went through nine months of an illegitimate pregnancy and gave birth to a child without anyone noticing it; the ‘supervising’ wife of the doctor … found the newborn baby in her cupboard.”
Once they proved poor housekeepers, the women were eventually tossed out on the streets. And here, things got even grimmer—the former Rosewood girls saw “a sad peregrination through the whorehouses and flophouses of the slums,” as a student of Kanner’s would write many years later. For the original 1937 report, social worker Kraus had managed to track down 102 of the 166 habeas corpus cases on record. She found that 11 women (all of whom had been in perfect health when they left Rosewood) had died of illness or neglect; 17 were plagued by infectious diseases such as syphilis, gonorrhea, or tuberculosis; 29 were prostitutes; eight had been reinstitutionalized in mental hospitals; and six were in prison for serious crimes. Overall, Kanner wrote, 89 had “failed miserably and inflicted grave harm and perils on themselves and the communities in which they live.”
A typical case was that of “Edna May H.”
In 1924, a judge released [her] to a woman who wanted a maid. Edna May became a prostitute and, at least on one occasion, had sexual intercourse with her own brother. [She] now has four feebleminded, neglected, malnourished children who are often covered with scabies and live in dirty, vermin-infested quarters.