Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Lounge' started by guttaperk, Nov 2, 2018.
I thought blackamoors were black moors? Dark skinned?
They were darker than the average European, hence they were called "dark" or "black" but they weren't black as we know the term in America, meaning they were not AFRICAN black.
The Moores were in actuality more brown, white, and black.
I think this is a more credible source than some black nationalist on Quora.
Moor, in English usage, a Moroccan or, formerly, a member of the Muslim population of what is now Spain and Portugal. Of mixed Arab, Spanish, and Amazigh (Berber) origins, the Moors created the Arab Andalusian civilization and subsequently settled as refugees in North Africa between the 11th and 17th centuries.
The slaves and soldiers of the Moores were often black, and sometimes even royalty were black. But to say that the Moorish empire was black...as in the "black" we define today in America would be beyond ridiculous.
I had no idea about the history of this word, when we started out designing the first Blackmoor game, we drew a ton of material and mood from the world of Fighting Fantasy books from the 80's, in particular the Talisman of Death. When looking through their titles for ideas for our own game name, we liked one called Deathmoor, and thats where we came up with the name Blackmoor.
We later found out Blackmoor had even deeper historical significance in the world of Dungeons and Dragons, as it was the name of their first expansion for the original D&D game. Fate huh?
Perhaps. But your Brittanica quote doesn't actually refute anything that I said or quoted.
I dunno, man. To my understanding, ancient paintings generally represent them as dark-skinned with curly hair. Though, as you note, exceptions exist.
And although you're right that Moors were “mixed-race”… the reality is that most “black” people outside of Africa are mixed-race as well.
I guess I'd ask that instead of simply trying to squash me with condescending references that don't refute me, why not take another look and see whether or not there's an aspect of truth to what I'm saying?
I'm not here to score any points on you. But I'm not here to have you win empty points on me either.
I guess, to restate:
I am NOT trying to claim that Moors were universally as dark-skinned or as kinky-haired as sub-Saharan Africans.
But it seems disingenuous to claim that they weren't significantly darker-skinned than Europeans, given that most images depict them as such. The word “Moor”, for much of European history, essentially meant “North African black”.
They did occasionally speak of “White Moors”, to refer to Christians and the light-skinned, and “Black Moors or “Blackamoors” to refer to those who were particularly dark.
But the issue is tainted by various symbolic considerations.
I hope this can clarify. I'm not really interested in an extended exchange about this. My position is pretty uncontroversial among historians, as far as I know.
I'm not trying to win points on you either, and I thank you for the clarification. I don't have any major issue with what you said, however the link you posted was what I found to be troublesome.
The Moorish empire spanned over 700 years and it was infamously multicultural, and multiracial. Most of the Moors were probably Spanish by a certain time; given that it was essentially a colonization of Spain. I just hate seeing historical revisionism by those with their own agendas.
I hear you, but the unfortunate norm is for only some agendas to be critiqued.
The sadly revisionist Afrocentric agenda is perpetually demonised; but the common (and often often equally revisionist) tendency to whiten ancient peoples is not.
Thus my original comment.