The African Land of Spain
By Ogu-Eji-Ofo-Annu
According to the British Encyclopedia:
“Spain is shaped like a gigantic bull’s hide stretching in the sun between Europe and Africa. Spain’s large area of 195,379 square miles (506,030 square kilometers) covers about five sixths of the Iberian Peninsula. In Western Europe, only France is larger. At its widest Spain stretches some 635 miles (1,022 kilometers) from east to west. From north to south the country is about 550 miles (885 kilometers) long.”
Spain has a coastline which stretches in some parts for 1,700 miles (2,740 kilometers) along the Mediterranean Sea from the eastern end of the Pyrenees mountain chain to the Strait of Gibraltar. Spain shares with Portugal the peninsula’s coast which borders the Atlantic.
Since ancient times Spain has been physically and culturally a part of Africa because both land mass used to share a common land bridge across what is now the Strait of Gibraltar. Whereas Spain was physically connected with Africa in the ancient times and was only separated by an earth quake in relatively near antiquity, it was always separated physically and culturally from Europe by the Pyrenees Mountain.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Of all Europe’s mountain ranges, the jagged and often snowcapped Pyrenees, 270 miles (435 kilometers) long, have functioned most effectively as a barrier to human movement. Unlike the Alps, the Pyrenees have no low foothills or hospitable valleys to ease access into and through their heights. Rather, the Pyrenees rise abruptly from the flanking plains of France and Spain with only steep gorges and steep-walled natural amphitheaters that lead to almost impassable lofty summits. The French peasant’s adage, Africa begins with the Pyrenees, is not without a large measure of truth in emphasizing the historic significance of the Pyrenees as a barrier in the development of Spain. In the words of the U.S. historian Will Durant, Spain’s mountains, particularly the Pyrenees, “were her protection and tragedy: they gave her comparative security from external attack, but hindered her economic advance, her political unity, and her participation in European thought. The continued political independence of the tiny principality of Andorra is largely a result of its remote location amid the Pyrenees between France and Spain.” (Encyclopedia Britannica )
The Moorish Story:
The ancient Maghreb which spanned Morrocco and Algeria has been populated for longer than most of the rest of the world. There is evidence of people living there as far back as 200,000 BC, and cave paintings depict a fairly vibrant Neolithic culture living thriving around 6000 BC, when the climate of the Sahara was very different.
Then the area that is now Sahara had giant lakes, and lush savannah land teeming with wild life. Cultural complex were developed in that area and extended to nearby Iberia, onward across Southern Europe as far as Black sea. These people have been called various confusing names (such as Cro-Magnons, Aurignacians, Grimaldi, Celto-Iberians, etc) by European anthropologists to hide their African cultural roots. Eventually the various peoples who lived in the Central Sahara area formed the people now known as the Touaregs/Moors/Berbers.
At its shortest point to Africa, Spain is separated by a strait of water about 8 kilometers in width. It is possible to stand on one end of Africa and observe actions on the Spanish side of the coast. Racist Euro-centric scholars would want us to believe that for 100, 000 years, the Africans who lived on the opposite side of the Mediterranean coast were so incurious and incapable that they could not cross an 8 mile water strait, whereas the Cro-Magnon man could do a 10,000 kilometers trek crossing the impassable Mount Pyrenees, a mountain of barrier against ingress from Europe and successfully established themselves successfully in Spain. But the ridiculousness of such a thesis is self-evident. In full recognition of the fact that Africans were the first to establish communities on both side of the Mediterranean coast, classical scholars have used such moniker as “Ibero-maurisian†culture to describe the early inhabitants of Spain. Maurisian stands for Maures…Africans.
Since the earliest periods, the Moors(including the Berbers) had spread out from Central Sahara, Northern Africa, into Portugal Southern Spain, and Southern France. Those in North Africa are described as the Berber/Moors of North Africa while those in Spain are described as the ancient Iberians (Ibero-Maurisians). Those in the Mediterranean are called the pre-Hellenistic Aegean or Creteans. (See: Arnaiz-Villena A, Iliakis P, Gonzalez-Regueiro Hevilla M et al. The origin of Cretan populations as determined by characterization of HLA alleles. Tissue Antigens 1999 53:213-26. See further, E. Gomez-Casado, P. del Moral, J. Marti´nez-Laso, A. Garcia-Gomez, L. Allende, C. Silvera-Redondo, J. Longas, M. Gonzalez-Hevilla, M. Kandil, J. Zamora, A. Arnaiz-Villena; HLA genes in Arabic-speaking Moroccans: Close relatedness to Berbers and Iberians; Tissue Antigens 2000: 55: 239249.)
North Africa and the Mediterranean had in later antiquity fallen under the influence of the Black Carthaginians/Phoenicians sailors. Originally from the Horn of Africa, the Carthaginian/Phoenicians a sea faring migratory people, had settled in Canaan/Palestine and Syria. A group of them later journeyed back again to their original motherland Africa, but this time they settled along the coast of Tunisia.
The Phoenicians had arrived around 800 BC. They formed an alliance with the Berber groups which enabled them to gained power rapidly. They eventually became the most influential and strongest power in the Mediterranean partly due to their largely Berber-staffed army. They controlled the Northwest coast of Africa as well as the Iberia the regions where the Berbers have lived in since the earliest human records. They founded the Iberian city of Cadiz among many others.
Carthage and Roman were soon colliding since it was that the Romans had tried to muscle in on the lucrative maritime routes controlled exclusively by the Carthaginian Empire. The trade competition led to armed conflict known in history as the Punic wars. Carthage lost both of the Punic wars to regional upstart Rome.
After losing the first Punic War to Rome, many Berbers became disaffected with the regional power Carthage and thus rebelled and gained a large amount of independence. In modern-day Algeria, then called Numidia, two main kingdoms emerged. These eventually united under Masinissa, who teamed up with Rome (and especially with Scipio Africanus) to launch devastating attacks on Carthage.
It was also in the course of the second Punic wars that the great African General Hannibal mobilized in North Africa and Iberia and then marched into the Roman Empire and ceased most of its European territories. Hannibal actually ruled western European section of the Roman Empire with the exception of the city of Rome itself which gates he had reached several times before being fought off.
Eventually Carthage lost the Punic wars and Hannibal committed suicide after having been betrayed and disappointed by high-ranking officials of Carthage. Rome thereupon destroyed Carthage, took over possession of its territories including the Iberian Peninsula and shared out to its vassals and client states.
The Moors, the Romans and the Goths:
Roman administration continued with the age old cosmopolitan flavour of coastal North Africa and southern Iberia. Soon wide-flung persons were immigrating into North Africa and Iberia. Of these, were elements of the defunct Carthage, others were Jewish traders, Greek and Roman Christians, and some Nordic Vandals, Suebians, Alans, and Gothic guests, who later proved inimical to the political security of the region. These all lived with the traditional owners of the land the Maures (the Blacks) of Iberia and North Africa.
Following the disturbances created in areas of Europe outside the Roman Empire (central Europe) by the advancing armies of the oriental Huns in 4th century A.D. who destroyed virtually every resistance to their onslaught, many Danubian or Ostro Goths, Vandals and Alans migrated from central Europe to the relative safety of Northern and Central Spain. It was not long before those tribes were infiltrating the southern shores of Spain and France where the Berber/Moors had lived from time immemorial which was at that time under Roman administration. (Edward Gibbon: The History of the Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire – Vol 2. See XXV)
Sooner than one would have thought, those Nordic Vandals, Alans and Goths who were later called Visigoths (western Goths as opposed to the Ostrogoths, aka the eastern Goths) had become a dire security threat for the Roman administrators of the Berber principalities of old Iberia.
Spain was overrun by barbaric Vandals following the fall of the Iberian Roman administration in 409 AD. The Visigoths in turn defeated the Vandals and ran them out of Iberia into North Africa. The Visigoths quickly established an administration to fill in the void and chaos that marked the declining period of the Roman Empire about the fifth century AD. Though they were Christians, their brand of Christianity was cruel and unjust. For this reason, the people of Roman Spain, Maures/Berbers, Jews, serfs, and slaves looked hopefully for a time of liberation from such foul oppression. The Gothic kingdom of Spain lasted from 460 AD to 711 AD. (See:The Story of The Moors in Spain (1886) – Stanley Lane-Poole )
The Vandals who were booted out of Spain in the wake of the Visigoth advance then moved over to the Maghreb and seized control briefly. The Vandals were the unkindest sort of Arian barbarians, led by King Gaiseric. They persecuted orthodox Christians terribly until they themselves were booted out of the region in 533 by Justinian of the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire).
The Byzantines, however, were not very good administrators and it was not long before the area grew restive. Islamic Umayyad Caliphate was a rising power of this period and quickly took advantage of the popular disaffection to increase the number of Muslim converts. The Islamic penetration began in 642 AD, and by 711 AD, had converted a great many Berbers to Islam and conquered the whole of North Africa.
This led to a long and very confusing period of time of being ruled and fought over by various Islamic caliphates and related sects. The eastern part tended to come under the control of dynasties centered in Tunisia, such as the Aghlabids and the Zayanids, while the west fell under the sway of Morocco-based powers such as the Almoravids and the Almohads. The Fatimid dynasty, based out of Algeria, began their rise to power in the 10th century.
Africans, Moors and Arabs:
One must recall that the concept of Arab nationality/race (as a sub-race of the Caucasians) was non-existent until it was created by the western political powers in the late 19th and early 20th century as a ploy to undermine the Ottoman Turk Empire.
The concept of Arab as a racial identity different from the dominant black cultures of Middle East and the horn of Africa was also non-existent at the time of Mohammed and at the time when the so called Arab invasion of Africa (a term coined and promoted by European Aryan scholarship) occurred.
Arab refers to a language and culture not to racial origin. The Arabs are indeed a mixture of different peoples. Arabs themselves recognize to come from two unrelated patriarchs: Qahtan (Southern Arabs) and Adnan (Northern Arabs), to be respectively identified with a Sabean the Afro-Arabs, and the Ishmaelites pale-skin Arabs linked with Kurds and Turkish groups. (Encyclopedia Britanicca ‘Origin of the Arabs“, http://www.
britannica.com/eb/article-45294?hook=484896#484896.hook. Visited on 20/08/06)
Habib Hassan Touma in his book Music of the Arabs (1996, p.xviii) holds that “an ‘Arab’, in the modern sense of the word, is one who is a national of an Arab state, has command of the Arabic language, and possesses a fundamental knowledge of Arabian tradition, that is, of the manners, customs, and political and social systems of the culture.” Thus, contrary to the popular media representation of “Arab” this term does not denote any particular phenotype, race or colour. Rather it indicates a cultural system that evolved through cross-fertilization of thoughts across many centuries.
Geographically Africa is connected with Middle East through the Sinai. The land of North East Africa and Middle East share the similar type of climate, topography, fauna and flora. Moreover, the Red Sea has never been a barrier to communication and contact between the people that lived along its coast lines.
Thus, the Middle East was always an extension of Africa. One wonders why there is a middle-east region but no middle-west region of the earth defined by geography. It is further observed that the term central Asia is another way of saying middle east, yet the current geographically identified region of central Asia is not anywhere near middle east. One then wonders about the parameters that have been used in defining the region currently known as the middle-east.
In the beginning, early Africans peopled the Middle East. Those Africans introduced language, culture, agriculture, masonry, writing, and sciences into Middle East. For instance, the Semitic language is an East African language, first developed and spoken in Africa before being introduced into the Middle East. (Spencer Wells, The Journey of Man, 2002, p. 106)
Ancient historical accounts do not make any distinctions between Africa and Middle East. One of the earliest political principalities of Arabia was also called Kush, the name of the earliest political Empire in Africa, Ethiopia-Kush.
Scholars agree by implication that Africans had crossed over repeatedly into Arabia in different epochs, first as the Natufians (nick names coined by western scholars), then as the PPNA and PPNB culture (more false names) and then as the Yarmurkians (another name falsifying the contribution of black Africans to Middle East). They were the first settlers of Middle East, the first cultivators and the first builders. For example see: (Garfinkel, Y. 1993. The Yarmukian Culture in Israel. Paléorient 19:115–134.)
Then again Africans came into Middle East and settled. They came as immigrant groups like the Kushites, the Egyptians, the Punitians/Phoenicians (People of Punt). They blended together and became the later Black Israelites, the Black Syrians and Canaanites) They established themselves in the land and built many amazing cultures and civilizations. The builders of these civilizations maintained very close trade and cultural linkages with their African motherland. Accordingly, there have always been constant interchanges of cultural and commercial contact between the African peoples of East Africa and the African peoples of Middle East. (See, Hamito-Semitic Africa: )
Middle East is the centre of many of the world’s biggest religions. Undoubtedly the African continent and its people played significant roles in the formation of those religions. The literatures and liturgies of those religions recount the cultural centrality of Africa in their cosmogony. Ethiopia, Libya, Kush and Egypt feature constantly in the Torah, Bible, Koran and the Hadiths. This is another clear indication of the significance of Africa to the people of the Middle East. (See Kebra Negast, The Bible, The Koran, etc)
Furthermore, just as is testified by the currently living Black Palestinians, Iraqis, Iranians, Saudi Arabians, Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, etc, black people have always been the original population of Middle East and they remain an integral part of that geographical zone to this very day. The paler skinned Arabs who constitute the media definition of Arab are comparatively recent immigrants into the Middle East. Yet, those paler type Arabs have so inter-mixed with the original black owners of Middle East that they have become a sub-group of the black African race and culture. It is impossible to tell between a morphologically black Arab and a paler Arab, which is “more ethnically pure.
Archeological and skeletal analyses confirm that black Africans were the first and original inhabitants of Arabia. Genetic studies further confirm the close biological relationship between the people of Middle East and Africa. The fact is that the entire Middle East is virtually suffused with markers of African genetic imprints that it can be correctly described as a part of Africa which European imperialism pursuing religious bias have appropriated culturally. It is always interesting that there is a culturally and geographically defined place as Middle East but there is no Middle West.
The Muslim Moors:
In the aftermath of the fall of Rome, many of its former provinces and colonies were thrown into a state of insecurity and chaos. Material progress was in retrogression and the outlook on life across the territories of the former imperial power was not very bright.
In the beginning of the seventh century, the Arab prophet, Muhammad, began to preach the word of Islam. Consumed with religious fervor, Arabs both black and pale, sought to spread the message of Islam to the entire world.
By the year 708 AD, Islam had penetrated North Africa. North Africa was until then a province of the Byzantine Empire and hence under the influence of Christianity. Consequently, many African Moors accepted Islam in large numbers, and began using Arabic, the language of Islam as the national language.
As the Muslim administrators aspired to cosmopolitanism, many immigrants moved into the great centers of the Islamic religion. Many Arabs, (again both Afro and pale), moved from the Middle East to the better opportunities offered by North Africa, with its ancient connections to ancient Egypt and metropolitan Rome, as well as scientific, trade and administrative know-how. Moreover, there was the usual Jewish community found universally across North Africa and the Middle East, as well as Syrians, and some southern Europeans.
The Conquest of Iberia:
With order reigning again in the land of the Moors, and a re-flowering of culture and learning in its wake, it was inevitable that the chaotic condition that Spain had been turned into by the Nordic Goths would have to be redressed.
Preparations were soon put in place for the liberation of Iberia from the rule of the neo-paganic Christian Goths who had wrought great and terrible depredations on the land. Tarik, a great African general was chosen to lead the Moorish Islamic army sent to raid Spain.
On April 30, 711, Tarik landed on the Spanish Coast with 7,000 troops. His troops consisted of 300 Arabs and 6,700 native Africans (Moors). A muslim writer, Ibn Husayn (ca. 950) denoted these troops as “Sudanese”, an Arabic denotation for the citizens of the then dominant African Empire of the Central Sahara).
The Moors were unstoppable, and Visigothic Spain ceased to be. The few resisting Visigoths fled to the caves of the Cantabrian Mountains. It was only later in the ages that those people would venture out of the Cantabrian Mountains and reclaim parts of northern Spain. The Black African Moors established the most important Iberian principality and ruled Spain for 700 years thereafter.
The next installment of this series will demonstrate the most fundamental contributions the Moors made to the taming and civilization of Europe, and how their impact is still felt even 500 years later after their defeat and unjust expulsion from Spain.
Ogu-Eji-Ofo-Annu
25-August-2006
I just can’t believe the writer said that Moors were significant in the “taming and civilization of Europe, and how their impact is still felt even 500 years later after their defeat and unjust expulsion from Spain.”
The Moors had some nice advances in Southern Spain but they were invaders into Spanish/Christian land. What was so unjust about expelling people who had temporarily conquered your homeland? That biased slant makes it very difficult for me to take what the rest of the author said seriously.
“Thus The Egyptians were Egyptians not a “DNA stewâ€.
Indeed they were. You can see the features are a mixture of races.
As well, their own art work shows races, the colors – sometimes, there were Black Pharaohs – African in features – and yet – they considered themselves, Egyptians.
“The Middle Eastern people are a race, not the result of massive hybridization.”
The Middle Eastern Peoples are NOT a race. You brought up examples in history.
I’m talking in Neolithic times when tribes moved back and forth in the Continents – before the Modern States developed.
“Also, NEVER confuse someone who speaks a language with a race. Modern Egyptians are not Arabs, they are Egyptians. Arab-speaking Egyptians.”
Isn’t that what I said? I reiterate, the Egyptians in the lower strata are the same peoples as the Ancient Egyptians. THe upper strata is the veneer of the Arabic conquest.
Chris, I never said the “Moors were significant” in anything.
The islamics simply worked on what ancient cultures they conquered. The very religion of islam,disallows for evolution – they never developed anything – except perhaps “al-mohadas.”
Yes, there was extensive interbreeding in ancient times, from Europe to Asia. Scientists have found that the DNA of the people of Scotland and Ireland, is the same as the Ancient Egyptians, strangely enough.
Check out the Red-Headed mummies in China. just as one example.
Not only was there travel in the old world, but the new world as well. Since colonial farmers in the U.S., found bones in their land, skeletons of blond and red-haired giants, and wrote about it in their diaries. Estensive burials and mounds, even mapped out.
“The original Slavic peoples entered the Balkans circa 600 AD, where the Greeks lived. For more than 1300 years the Greeks and Slavs lived in the same land, were the same religion, and had common enemies, ie The Turks…”
What Greeks are those? There was no unity. Each fought against the other. The only Greeks as in “classical ” were the Athenians, who were xenophonobic. They considered the Macedonians barbarians; even the clothing were different. And the Spartans conquered the indigenous Messenians there, making then “helots,” and supressing them savagely.
Neither Greece nor Italy was a unit until the mid-1800s. And the countries had been changing borders before, and since. The peoples at the edges, even today, don’t even know where their allegance lie. Only that if they were allowed, the entire area, from dissolve back to tribals- from Kosovo, to Iraq, including the Kurds, to China – which has vast numbes of different peoples chained into one China. Even in Eurasia, especially there, are there a mixture of peoples, -Eurasians weren’t a sudden mxing of “races” from Englishmen and American men, who married poor little Asian girls,and had little mix bloods children. Eurasians have been there all these thousands upon thousands of years. Only the new children have been “taught” by the Europeans to feel they’re a brand new Peoples.
As to “1300 yrs of a common enemy, the Turks” – they only came in around the end of the 500s A.D. Before that the peninsula was Asia Minor, according to the Greeks and Romans who colonized the edges, and Anatolia to the natives in the interior.
And may I remind you that Celts settled all over Europe, from Greece, to Spain (Celti-Iberians before the even the classical Greeks and Romans) – even jumping across to the British Isles.
THAT is how mixed the whole “Stew pot” is.
“Lastly, the wheel would have come in very handy in Sub-Saharan Africa.”
I’m not talking about the Sub-Sahara, I’m talking about outright desert – such as North Africa – and Arabia.
CORRECTION. The word in the above posting should be “Xenophobic.”
Check out the History of Macedonia- they were NOT Greeks. The ancient Greeks did not accept them, and the Macedonians knew it:
http://vlib.iue.it/history/europe/Macedonia/index.html
Y’all talking about the same thing,whether black or African , we ,just out of the 20th century, are still referred to as such(even those in America),but modern day Egyptians, as Egyptians and not African, almost all of northern(arab) Africa refer to themselves by their State,and not African with the exception of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi. Wheel or none,bell or not, people moved about and communicated one way or another.One fact remains amidst all this debate,argument,agreeing to disagree or call it whatever you may,East Africa was, is, and will always be the motherland(Early Man Remains). All that a majority of the posters/writers are doing is argue based one someone else’s thesis turned book. Truth is ,two African(black) people can give birth to white(Albino),they can also bear yellow- what in relatively darker skinned states/tribes/countries is incorrectly known as Brown(meaning light-skin, but not quite Albino). Most of the “Browns” are actually born “Red” until after a few weeks .So there, Messrs White,Dunn & Relatives,embrace Black, y’know Africans as Brothers and dey will love ya even widdout de tan
Just briefly, but you are all once again placing your modern social values on ancient peoples who would have probabaly killed you if you suggested such things to them. Some simple fatcs:
1)There are no “black” Egyptians. The correct colour is brown or, even better, tan. Notice how the outdoors Egyptians are depicted as swarthy, while the indoor Egyptians could “pass” for “European”. If you live in a snowy climate then you don’t get that Caucasoid people get darker when they spend time in the sun. It’s hardly rocket science.
2)The Greeks were different states and “nationalities” as such, but they all knew that they were all Greek, bonded by language, religion, culture, and most importantly, bonded by blood. In fact the modern ethno-nation state is just that, modern. The same way that the various tribes of the Britons may have fought each other, had different kings etc., they still knew they were all Britons. Pople have fought their own kind as long as there has been humankind. The largest war of the Ancient world was the Peloponnesian War, which was the Inter-Greek War, Greeks fighting Greeks, but they were all Greeks.
3)The Macedonians were Greeks. The modern “Macedonian” thing dates from the 1940s and Communist propaganda in the hopes of bringing northern Greece and the coastal city of Thessalonica into the Eastern Bloc. There are literally THOUSANDS of books, websites etc which refute the “Macedonians weren’t Greek” lies and show them for what they really are.
4) If two “black” people had an albino kid, would ANYBODY seriously consider that person to be “white”? No, they’d see the nose, lips, skull shape etc and realise that he/she was the same race as his/her parents. Anybody who thinks race is just about visible skin colour needs to get a clue. Also, non-Sub-Saharans came out of an Ethiopian population. The people who were already in West/Centra;/Southern Africa were already there. In other words “whites” and “browns” as you call them are descended from East Africans, West Africans etc are NOT.
5)North Africans are not, and have never been, the same race as Sub-Saharans(who are very far from being a single race themselves, to say the least). Any argument that uses a broader “African” term to denote all the peoples of Africa as a single uniform race can not possibly be taken seriously.
6)I never said theTurks were in the Balkans all along, in fact the Turks only entered Anatolia in the Middle Ages. The point is that despite common religion, and a common goal, the Greeks and Slavs seldom interbred, and tended to marry within their respective communities.
7)Also, the whole “Mediterranean race doesn’t exist” fallacy is to make 3 different groups of people happy:
a)Nordicists/Neo-Nazis who like to think that the Greeks and Romasn were Aryans who mixed with black slaves.
b)Afrocentrics who like to think that the Egyptians and Moors were black and mixed with white slaves.
(sense a pattern?)
c)Multiculturalists who like to show how differnt groups working togetehr can create a greater state, and that Mediterraneasn are a massive blending.
Howver actually read up what the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Arabs, etc had to say about both paler people to the North, and darker people to the South, and you’ll see how ludicrous this “mixing pot” idea is. The sad fact is that all three of the above-mentioned groups desperately NEED to cling to a fictitious “glorious past” whether it’s Nordic Romans, Black Egyptians, or Multicutural Greeks. Sadly, that’s all it is, fictitious. The Mediterranean people were always, well, Mediterranean.
8)”Celts” settled in certain parts of the Caucasoid world, but how many Celts were there? And what did they look like? Are “celts” the red-haired Irish, or the black-haired, brown-eyed Welshmen? Even then Celtic, like “Arabic” today meant people who spoke forms of the language, not a “race”. And before you get all excited, what that means was that an original Celtic people conquered various tribes, forcing their language, and part of thier culture on those people. These “Celts” then spread outwards, while the original Celtic population was assimilated into these tribes leaving virtually no biological trace. And assimilating non-indigenous peoples over time doesn’t amount to a “stew”, when your people are still primarily descnded from original stock. Eg If Egyptians ahd absorbed trace amounts of Arabic, Greek, Israelite, Roman, and yes even “Black” peoples, they would still be Egyptian, as DNA testing has shown modern Egyptians to be more than 85% Ancient Egyptian. One-drop idiots may say this “proves” Egyptians are “black”, but to me it proves Egyptian continuity. All people assimilate small amounts of non-indigenous DNA over time, but as long as they don’t assimilate large amounts, and their phenotype does not change they remain the same. Only in the USA do we get the kind of rampant mongrelization that the Ancients would have found to be not only unnatural, but also a sin in the eyes of God or The Gods.
9)African does not mean “black”, or “dark-skinned”. End of story. Originally only modern-day Tunisia and Northwest Libya were Africa, ie Caucasoid peopls. Later, the whole “continent of Africa” a VERY diverse area was given the name “Africa”. To claim all Africans are one black race is either plain ignorance, or is being used for some sort of social or political cause that has nothing to do with biological reality.
10)Scots and Irish are the same BROADER race as the Egyptians(Caucasoid), but Egyptians are closer to Libyans and Berbers, whil the Scots and Irish are closer to other Northern Europeans than to the Egyptians, as anyone with any common sense could tell you.
Please stop spreading lies about the Moors, Egyptians, Arabs, Israelites, Greeks, Berbers, Romans, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, and all the other Mediterranean peoples of the past in order to make yourselves feel somehow more important in modern times.