Talk:Moors (race)

This is one sloppy, and slightly misinformed, article, I must say. I know it is tricky dealing is race and color, and I think where this article may go wrong is in thinking of races as discrete, originally unrelated populations, when genetics shows more of a gradient in the frequency of genetic markers. If one is to discuss Moors as Berbers, yet say that most are "mulatto," one really is discussing Berbers. Berbers may be defined linguistically, in which case a wide variety of skin tones exist, with the lighter skin tones existing farther north and darker ones farther south. One should, of course, discuss the genetic contribution of 'black' slaves to Berber populations. 69.111.165.246 05:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, the genetic contributions of Romans and other Europeans to Berber populations should also be discussed ; the Berbers who live in formerly Roman ruled areas tend to have a more European appearance than those who live in areas which were never part of the Roman Empire, such as Marrakech.

Move to 'Moors (race)'?

Yes, this article is very poor. It also has a stupid title. Would anyone protest if I moved it to something like Moors (race)? The Singing Badger 00:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, I came to this page intending to suggest exactly the same thing. At the minimum this article should be renamed Moors (race). In fact I'd prefer to merge the two Moors articles. If the articles are conjoined into a substantial one, rather than separated as two stubby ones, the reader will get a clearer sense of the inconnection between the various overlapping meanings of "Moor".

It looks to me as though there has been some sort of race-related edit war between Afrocentrists, keen to present the Moors as "black", and Arab/Berber contributors keen to emphasise the separate "non-black" identity of North Africans. Hence the fact that bizarre claims about the etymology of Mauro have been dumped here. Indeed, this article seems to be a dumping ground for unwanted material added to the Moors page. It's a pity. Paul B 14:21, 30 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well there were black Moors (even before the Almoravide dynasty), what people are doing is trying to make it seems as if ALL Moors were light-skinned and the only black ones were the fierce, warmongering ones (disgusting).

What on earth are you on about? The "war mongering ones" were the ones who spread over notrth Africa and invaded Europe, they are more likely to have been lightish skinned than darkish. Paul B 08:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect Revisionism

This artical seems very inconsistent, and when compared with others I have read, appears lacking and bias. There is a lot of emphasis on distinguishing the "Moor" from black Africans (in fact, if I did not know better I would believe this was the entire theme of the artical?). As far as I have learned, the Moor were a mixed race of people, with roots in Mauritania. As well, I have also learned that the "Moor" are a distinct group people; owing much of their genealogy to black African and Arab ancestry (By African ancestry, I am not necessarily referring to contributions made by an African slave population; because blacks were not all slaves, period).

It is very sad to see that a neutral artical about "Moorish" history and culture can not be found on this site. Even worse, the article's title, which is enough to arouse anybody's suspicion, and cause an eyebrow to raise.

The roots of the Moors were in the ancient kingdom of Mauretania (the modern Morocco and western Algeria), not the present day country of Mauritania. It should also be mentioned that referring to living people as Moors is considered an ethnic slur ; the term is perfectly legitimate in an historical context but not appropriate to use to describe modern day Maghrebins (the direct descendants of the Moors ; it should be said however that many Europeans and European descended peoples in the Americas and elsewhere have Moorish ancestry)

(Wikipedia is a very questionable source for information in general, and I believe there needs to be a heading on top of every page that reads, "Information found here may not be factual." This will make the site a lot easier to digest, for everybody.)

Merge

Moors (race?) If Moor is about the people, then why is there a "Moors (race)" article? That's self-contradictory. The latter is a stub anyway, so merge the content. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would object to only the label Moors (race) as the term Moor isnot a race. Being a Moor or Moorish has more to do with culture. Same as being Jewish isn't a race. You have (white jews) (black jews etc...) The main point is toget away from racism and remain NPOV. Therefore Moors (race) would be irrelevant. My suggestion from the beginning was to remove the terms white and black from the article because Moors were and are comprised of various groups of people. In addition no one in this world has a pure white or black bloodlines as it doesn't exist anymore. I would be be skepticalof those who want to make this article more related to a social conceptas opposed to a group of people. Just as stated above many people have Moorish ancestry who consider themselves white. This doesn't make it true though. There are no such things as a white, black yellow, red or brown person. We need to getaway from using these racist terms.--68.161.16.31 01:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article Moors (race) has been merged into Moors and now redirects there. Brad T. Cordeiro 02:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]