283 réponses à ce sujet

[Zkyire]

Random Jerkface wrote...

The Moors were black.

Some were, not all, many were North African who aesthetically look completely Middle-Eastern, not "black" at all.

Modifié par Zkyire, 05 mars 2013 - 01:55 .

[Lennard Testarossa]

Random Jerkface wrote...
The Moors were black.

Nope. There were Moors that were black, but the majority of Moors wasn't black. I'm guessing the same might be true of Rivain.

[What a Succulent Ass]

Youth4Ever wrote...

I didn't say they weren't black. They were indigenous Africans, but not exactly Sub-Saharan black -- which is how I interpret the Rivaini. From my understanding, the Moors shared North East African, East African,  West African, and West Asian lineages. They were indigenous people who received gene flow from the surrounding areas including but not only Sub-Sahara black Africa.

Zkyire wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

The Moors were black.

Some were, not all, many were North African who aesthetically look completely Middle-Eastern, not "black" at all.

North Africans do not look "Middle Eastern" (for whatever that is even worth). There is no real delineation between "sub-Saharan" Africans and Northerners except as a carry-over from prejudiced anthropological studies. Similarly, there isn't a concrete phenotypical delineation either, as features vary along a spectrum. Africans have been travelling and trading with (and conquering) people across the globe for thousands of years, and of course North Africa saw much of this by merit of proximity. Indigenous peoples, though, were and are black, which can be observed in the Tuareg and isolated Amazigh. It wasn't until the late first millennium that phenotypic demography began changing significantly due to waves of Arab conquest.

It's why Arab supremacy in the North is such a thorny issue. It's why Azawad is seeking independence, and why South Sudan was compelled to do the same.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 05 mars 2013 - 02:11 .

[Heimdall]

I'm losing my conception of what exactly people mean when they say "black" in this thread...

[What a Succulent Ass]

If you have a preconception of what "black" is, you're probably wrong anyway.

[Zkyire]

Random Jerkface wrote...

If you have a preconception of what "black" is, you're probably wrong anyway.

Same can be said about you apparantly.

[Lennard Testarossa]

Random Jerkface wrote...
North Africans do not look "Middle Eastern" (for whatever that is even worth). There is no real delineation between "sub-Saharan" Africans and Northerners except as a carry-over from prejudiced anthropological studies. Similarly, there isn't a concrete phenotypical delineation either, as features vary along a spectrum. Africans have been travelling and trading with (and conquering) people across the globe for thousands of years, and of course North Africa saw much of this by merit of proximity. Indigenous people's, though, were and are black, which can be observed in the Tuareg and isolated Amazigh. It wasn't until the late first millennium that phenotypic demography began changing significantly due to waves of Arab conquest.

Most people who inhabit Northern Africa right now would be considered Middle-eastern looking. That's what Zkyire was likely referring to. Furthermore, I don't see what this has to do with the Moore's ethnicity.

[What a Succulent Ass]

Zkyire wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

If you have a preconception of what "black" is, you're probably wrong anyway.

Same can be said about you apparantly.

K.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 05 mars 2013 - 02:28 .

[What a Succulent Ass]

Define "Middle Eastern-looking".

Has anyone here actually been to Africa, least of all North Africa?

[Lennard Testarossa]

Random Jerkface wrote...
Has anyone here actually been to Africa, least of all North Africa?

Yes.

Random Jerkface wrote...
Define "Middle Eastern-looking".

Having skin color, hair color, hair texture and facial features strongly resemblant to the ones found in the Middle East.

[What a Succulent Ass]

Lennard Testarossa wrote...

Yes.

So whereabouts are you from?

Having skin color, hair color, hair texture and facial features strongly resemblant to the ones found in the Middle East.

Which are?

[Volus Warlord]

Random Jerkface wrote...

Lennard Testarossa wrote...

Yes.

So whereabouts are you from?

Having skin color, hair color, hair texture and facial features strongly resemblant to the ones found in the Middle East.

Which are?

Black hair, green eyes, olive skin.

[Darth Death]

I think this topic has been overly complicated & misdirected. The only thing I'll say is, if Gaider has stated black people exist in Thedas, then they exist in Thedas. If he says Isabela is black, then she's black. Debating about it is pointless.

[The Hierophant]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

Lennard Testarossa wrote...

Having skin color, hair color, hair texture and facial features strongly resemblant to the ones found in the Middle East.

Which are?

Black hair, green eyes, olive skin.

Puerto Rican?

[imbs]

Random Jerkface wrote...

If you have a preconception of what "black" is, you're probably wrong anyway.

Your pretentious one-liners are by far the most amusing part of this thread thus far. +1

[The Hierophant]

I just remembered my favorite Orlesian...



Hubert.

[lil yonce]

Random Jerkface wrote...
North Africans do not look "Middle Eastern" (for whatever that is even worth). There is no real delineation between "sub-Saharan" Africans and Northerners except as a carry-over from prejudiced anthropological studies. Similarly, there isn't a concrete phenotypical delineation either, as features vary along a spectrum. Africans have been travelling and trading with (and conquering) people across the globe for thousands of years, and of course North Africa saw much of this by merit of proximity. Indigenous peoples, though, were and are black, which can be observed in the Tuareg and isolated Amazigh. It wasn't until the late first millennium that phenotypic demography began changing significantly due to waves of Arab conquest.

It's why Arab supremacy in the North is such a thorny issue. It's why Azawad is seeking independence, and why South Sudan was compelled to do the same.

Going back much further than the middle ages it is believed North Africans received gene flow from West Asia.

[What a Succulent Ass]

Youth4Ever wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...
North Africans do not look "Middle Eastern" (for whatever that is even worth). There is no real delineation between "sub-Saharan" Africans and Northerners except as a carry-over from prejudiced anthropological studies. Similarly, there isn't a concrete phenotypical delineation either, as features vary along a spectrum. Africans have been travelling and trading with (and conquering) people across the globe for thousands of years, and of course North Africa saw much of this by merit of proximity. Indigenous peoples, though, were and are black, which can be observed in the Tuareg and isolated Amazigh. It wasn't until the late first millennium that phenotypic demography began changing significantly due to waves of Arab conquest.

It's why Arab supremacy in the North is such a thorny issue. It's why Azawad is seeking independence, and why South Sudan was compelled to do the same.

Going back much further than the middle ages it is believed North Africans received gene flow from West Asia.

Of course. I don't know what it is with people thinking that Africans sprouted out of the ground just in time for slavery and colonisation. The universities of West (esp. Those in present day Ghana and Mali, and the Nri Kingdom) and North Africa were in constant contact with Islamic scholars with whom they traded ideas (which is why the "Dark Ages" is a misnomer—it only applies to Europe), travellers, and products. There are trace amounts of West Asian in most West African populations, as there are trace West African genes found in West Asian populations (a lot of Saudi people, for example, are walking around with Yoruba in them).

The point: racial demographics of North Africa didn't experience a significant paradigm shift until the invasions and the rise of Arab supremacy, which brought anti-black regimes, anti-black pogroms, and anti-black legislation that is still continuing today. As in, right now, immediately. When the Moors conquered the Iberian peninsula and much of southern Europe, that paradigm shift had not yet occurred, but the Berber-Muslim dynasties and caliphates were completely informed by Islam and the cultural values therein...which set the stage for the current strife in the North with nations like Saudi Arabia and Qatar trying to use the region as a cultural foothold. It's also important to realise that current racial constructions (especially constructions of "whiteness" and "blackness") did not begin to formulate until the late 17th century when chattel slavery began in earnest and European colonisers needed methods to quell poor white and enslaved African alliances. There were no such things in the centuries preceding this. If you need evidence of this, observe how European Jews, Irishmen, and Italians only recently became "white" — and how West Asians are still considered "white" anthropologically. Not all Moors were black Africans, but all black Africans (regardless of actual ethnicity) were called "Moorish."

Ninety-eight percent of all human genetic variation is housed in Africa alone, and it's probably the most culturally dense place on Earth. This is both organic and the result of European colonisation and arbitrary borders. Our ethnic groups have ethnic groups have ethnic groups, and it's completely ludicrous to claim an entire region of the continent looks alike (least of all North Africa, which is likely the least homogeneous), especially that it looks "Middle Eastern," because it really doesn't.

"Middle Eastern" is a meaningless term anyway, because "Middle East" is a poorly defined area only conceived of Eurocentrism in the first place. They definitely don't all look alike, especially when you start crossing into South Asia.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 05 mars 2013 - 05:23 .

[Xilizhra]

(which is why the "Dark Ages" is a misnomer—it only applies to Europe)

Actually, it didn't really there either. It was a Renaissance term invented by Protestants to make themselves seem better than those terrible Catholics, who of course couldn't run a culture properly. Intellectual and technological progress continued; the main issue was the loss of one centralized empire controlling much of the territory, but honestly, its time had come by that point.

[What a Succulent Ass]

I know, but I'm speaking of Eurocentric history in general. All such "ages" (including the "Renaissance" itself) should be understood in the European context, not a global one.

[Xilizhra]

What I must wonder: does Africa really have more ethnic groups than anywhere else, or is it just the place that cares more about them than anywhere else? I suspect that there could, theoretically, be plenty of subtle European ethnic differences that may have been considered important at one time, but many people just no longer care, especially in the US (and then there are the ones people do still care about, like Basques).

[Lennard Testarossa]

does Africa really have more ethnic groups than anywhere else [...]?

Yes.

Edit: Africa having more genetic variation isn't all that surprising if you assume the "Out of Africa" theory to be correct. 

Modifié par Lennard Testarossa, 05 mars 2013 - 05:30 .

[What a Succulent Ass]

If you mean organically, I really couldn't say. There most definitely are/were a multitude of ethnic subgroups on other continents and regions, but their marginalisation and the organisation of the nation-state (especially in Europe) have caused endless amounts of cultural destruction.

Africa, on the other hand, had systems of governance that weren't quite like anywhere else in the world, and neither our social systems or political structures were all to similar, even in adjacent regions. When the Arabs invaded the North, they brought Islam and the caliphates with them, but it was more an extension of dynasty and resulted in the osmosis of West Asian religion and culture (which was destructive in its own way, but that's a different story). When the Europeans invaded, on the other hand, it was imperial subjugation, and they partitioned up the continent. Part of this strategy was to encourage or manufacture ethnic violence (the same thing done in South Asia), the most famous example of this being Hutu and Tutsi. Because of this geographic partitioning, ethnic groups splintered off into other ethnic groups, which splintered off into other ethnic groups, some of which developed into other ethnic groups all together. One single kingdom might have ended up being split into five different sub-groups, so it is very sectarian (though most of us nowadays more identify with our overarching group). As the African age of anti-colonial revolution started in the sixties and didn't really "end" until the nineties, and because those revolutions were subject to manipulation by the United States and European powers, it is STILL very sectarian, whether those delineations be by tribe or religion (or both).

It's why you can find Fula people (just as an example) literally everywhere on the continent, yet their cultures are almost unrecognisable. It's why there can be as many as five hundred or so ethnic groups in a single nation, and even more languages spoken. It's also why Africans end up being such polyglots. Speaking four or five languages isn't considered uncommon.

[lil yonce]

Random Jerkface wrote...

The point: racial demographics of North Africa didn't experience a significant paradigm shift until the invasions and the rise of Arab supremacy, which brought anti-black regimes, anti-black pogroms, and anti-black legislation that is still continuing today. As in, right now, immediately. When the Moors conquered the Iberian peninsula and much of southern Europe, that paradigm shift had not yet occurred, but the Berber-Muslim dynasties and caliphates were completely informed by Islam and the cultural values therein...which set the stage for the current strife in the North with nations like Saudi Arabia and Qatar trying to use the region as a cultural foothold. It's also important to realise that current racial constructions (especially constructions of "whiteness" and "blackness") did not begin to formulate until the late 17th century when chattel slavery began in earnest and European colonisers needed methods to quell poor white and enslaved African alliances. There were no such things in the centuries preceding this. If you need evidence of this, observe how European Jews, Irishmen, and Italians only recently became "white" — and how West Asians are still considered "white" anthropologically. Not all Moors were black Africans, but all black Africans (regardless of actual ethnicity) were called "Moorish."

This is likely cultural then. Black is the US generally refers to Africans Americans or those of Sub-Saharan African descent because of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Black in the US doesn't necessarily exclude Northern Africans, but it generally isn't referring them either. When I heard David Gaider say Isabela is black, I'm thinking Sub-Saharan African as a black American.

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 05 mars 2013 - 06:12 .

[King Cousland]

I do find this genuinely fascinating, but aren't we getting a tad off-topic?