“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.
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
How the Arabization of Persians, Slavs and Turks led to the demise of the Original Arab…
A long time after the Prophet (sA’a&s) lived, and after the 15th century when historian Ibn Khaldun and others spoke of them being zones of the Sudan, Hijaz and the Nejd (Central Arabia) came under the rule by the Turks and became a region mainly settled by bedouin of biologically “white Syrian” affinity, much modified through intermixture.
But, due to greater awareness among 19th century Europeans of the relatively recent influx of Arabicized Syrians, Persians, Turks and others into the Arabian peninsula, it would seem it was at least in that period evidently easier to imagine that the Khudar or darker-skinned Arabs -now universally scorned for their blackness – were remnants of those men of whom myths were made – the peoples of Danaus, Minos, Egyptos, Cepheus, Epaphus, Daris and Cadmus, i.e. the populations who introduced many of the elements of civilization, arts and culture to the Mediterranean, Aegean, and in fact the Middle East.
Supporting this rather unenlightened view of the ancient and early aborigines of the Middle East is the fact that since the 1700s the trend in the slave trade of the Islamic world was to make use of slaves of sub-Saharan descent, as the Black Sea trade had been all but cut off. Consequently, many Middle Eastern individuals and regions have developed their own master-slave narrative where descendants of the real or originally black Arabs are now presumed the descendants of slaves, or else peoples of low-caste and outcast status. Those that live amongst fair-skinned Middle Easterners, like descendants of recent slaves brought into the Near East within the last few centuries are treated like pariahs. Even the Quraysh of the modern Israel complain that they “are too black” and need to stay out of the sun! (This was told to me by a personal acquaintance).
And that stuff, sad to say, will probably remain much to the chagrin, or more likely the worst nightmare of many of those now engaged in its study. For, if we are to believe certain 21st century “historians” on Africa, “there were few blacks” either slave or otherwise “outside Africa in the ancient world”(Wright, 2007, p. 13). Furthermore apparently the layman should feel relieved to be informed that even if they were black like the Ethiopians of Herodotus, it can be adduced that “the Ethiopians Herodotus mentions were probably black, but not negro” (Wright, J., p. 13). (As you might want to notice “but not negro” is unfortunately one of the misleading phrases some in Western academia still like to employ when it comes to Africans who’ve made an unwanted appearance in historical texts.)
The nearly proverbial Zanj slave rebellion itself is a good example of another apparently unwarranted fabrication that has taken place as a result of the current white master/ black slave i.e. “Negro” narrative (see National Geographic for official definition and a “Tarzan” episode for more details on “Negro”) that tends to view every population of sub-Saharan African as the receiver of civilization – or, as in the case lately with some African American historians, of victimization and colonial oppression.
M.A. Shaban, specialist in Abbasid history, had to say this to his peers – “To equate Negro with slave is a reflection of nineteenth-century racial theories; it could only apply to the American South before the Civil War.” He had to remind them that, “in Islamic society there were white as well as black slaves”and that slave labor was in fact, not an important “factor in the economy” of this period like it had been in Roman society.
From Addendum to The African Heritage and Ethnohistory of the Moors published 1991 in Golden age of the Moor D. W. Reynolds-Marniche 2013. Retrieved 19.05.1435 from http://www.afroasiatics.blogspot.com/2014/03/addendum-to-african-heritage-and_14.html
Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish.
However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.
Irish slaves were marked off from their free White kinsmen through a branding of the owner’s initials applied to the forearm for women and on the buttocks for men by a red-hot iron.
It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.
White female slaves, often as young as 12, were used as “breeders” to be forcibly mated with Black men.
The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.
Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white. From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves.
Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade.