#this isnt Jews vs. Muslims | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

diarrheaworldstarhiphop · 8 years ago

Note

Show me a time and place where blacks and whites coexisted as equals (ie without the white man imposing order by force) that didn't devolve into a third world shithole.

This is a flawed questions because yes, there have been societies that have functioned with guaranteed equality among it’s subjects of various origins.

but that doesn’t ever come without ethnic strife, which is about as old as civic order itself, as once order comes apart, tribalism appears via people anxious to find something stable to stand upon. Plus every society rises and falls and falls prey to it.

But in any case, I could say the various arab caliphates, the ottoman empire, the various ancient kingdoms of egypt (black africans were common along the nile, and especially further south along it), persia (frequently one of the most egalitarian societies in history, which had territory in southern arabia at periods of time and maintained trade along the african coast, which wouldve resulted in black people settling in port cities throughout the empire) and even rome, since they (excluding rome) would fit the bill of being a place where they all functioned as equals without a white man imposing that order. Though id be ehh with rome as an example, given the white male imposed order stipulation, but i throw it down because the romans were brutal on ANYONE and EVERYONE who impeded on the state’s structure of order regardless of ethnicity because they didnt consider themselves as white, but as citizens of the city and power of rome.

For most of those aforementioned societies, either they existed before a concept of modern race (white vs black) or they have a unifying identity to rally around, such as civic nationality or religion (islam).

Why your question is flawed is that it is not actually a question but constructed to be a rhetorical statement that deliberately excludes any examples to the contrary and persuade people who don’t know any better (see: history) into thinking in terms of “black and white people can never live peacefully”.

You have three active elements in it to impress it’s rhetorical intent:

1. blacks and whites coexisting as equals, which is extremely limited prior to European domination of the world because historical record that goes at any length to stratify people by ethnicity is a rather recent concept. Even prior to the dissolution of monarchy in Europe (see: white man), whoever lived within those lands were often unimportant to the ruling and clerical classes as long as they were adherents of the faith (christianity).

And once you enter that span of time, you find that ethnicity is hardly if ever tracked and the only way we can identify the ethnicity of people is from analysis of their bodies. And with that, there are factors of limited and expensive transportation, so the level of admixture is going to be reduced to trade routes and more southerly locations. And even though travelling was looong and expensive, it wouldnt have prevented people from travelling and resettling. Ethiopia’s ancestral society, Axum, after all was the first christian nation in the world, and that alone would prove a great deal of movement and resettlement.

but yea, the only credible evidence we have (and it isnt by glancing at art, you can fuck off on that Medieval PoC) is with studies of the remains of ancient peoples such as the Ivory bangle lady who was found buried in an high class sarcophagus in York, Britain. Studies revealed that she (along with other skeletons studied) had african heritage:

Isotope evidence suggests that up to 20% were probably long distance migrants. Some were African or had African ancestors, including the woman dubbed “the ivory bangle lady”, whose bone analysis shows she was brought up in a warmer climate, and whose skull shape suggests mixed ancestry including black features.

The authors point out that Roman North Africa was noted for its mixed populations, with Phoenician, Berber and Mediterranean influences.

“This skull is particularly interesting, because the stone sarcophagus she was buried in, and the richness of the grave goods, means she was a very wealthy woman, absolutely from the top end of York society,” Eckhardt said.

“We can’t tell if she was independently wealthy, or the wife or daughter of a wealthy man — but the bones show that she was young, between 18 and 23, and healthy with no obvious sign of disease or cause of death.”

The ivory bangle lady came from a group of graves excavated in 1901, on what would have been the approaches to the Roman city of Eboracum, modern York. The burials were dated to the second half of the fourth century AD, and many had rich grave goods.

One of the richest was the woman’s, buried with her treasures including the jewellery and glass, and a piece of bone carved with an inscription translated as “Hail sister, may you live in God” — suggesting she may have been a Christian.

The most poignant symbol of multi-cultural Britain was her bracelets, one of African ivory, one of Yorkshire jet which probably came from Whitby.

The authors comment: “The case of the ‘ivory bangle lady’ contradicts assumptions that may derive from more recent historical experience, namely that immigrants are low status and male, and that African invdividuals are likely to have been slaves. Instead, it is clear that both women and children moved across the Empire, often associated with the military.”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/feb/26/roman-york-skeleton

So the fact she was mixed race black AND a local noble goes a great length to show how peacefully people of various ethnicities coexisted in Roman england.

But none of this matters to the question because its /white/ and black people coexisting BUT ONLY with the stipulation of being……..

2. without the white man imposing order by force, which simply limits the relevant locations to outside northern europe and the ENTIRE colonial era, which we have comparatively little evidence of, which makes the following stipulation difficult to work around, as it ALSO requires that these ancient societies -

3. didn’t devolve into a third world shithole.

The issue with ancient societies is that they ALL devolved into 3rd world shit holes for one reason or another. But in the case of say, ethnically coexistent Roman britain, it devolved into a 3rd world shit hole from anglo saxon (the backbone of anglo-american white supremacy) invasion. But alas, it was a white ruled society, so it’s omitted from being a credible example.

The intended implication in the 3rd stipulation, in conjunction with 1 and 3, is that any and all societies devolve into a third world shitholes from its black population. Which is only apparent if you’re predisposed to finding examples to fit a prejudiced world view and you dont understand or have studied human history. It’s simply comical.

So to the question, I think the best case to address it would be to cite Al-Andalus, or muslim ruled hispania, which had a multicultural society of moors, north africans, garamantians, native latin and visigothic germans and jews. When the umayyad armies swept the roman exarchate of africa and the various germanic kingdoms in spain, they brought with them an army of various ethnicities from their westward conquests. The soldiers of these armies and the baggage trains following them came to settle in Spain, providing an immediate multiethnic heritage to pre-reconquista spain (muslims were either expelled, killed or forced into conversion - but by just looking at contemporary spaniards, you can see they carry a general admixture of various ethnicities from the past the way other europeans dont). The major notable difference to the stipulations in your question was that it were arabs who had to impose order, not on the black population, but primarily on the white christian visigothic/roman population. But otherwise, al andalus was a fantastically tolerant (with some dynastic exceptions), scholarly and wealthy society immune from the civil strife that reduced eastern muslim successor states to ruin and thrived for centuries until it’s eventual ruin that came from christian military conquest.

Additionally, everyone from medieval racists to contemporary SJW historical revisionists wield the term “moors” to describe black people of the medieval period. The moors were simply the arab and berber ruling classes of the muslim societies of north africa and al andalus but the term came to be affiliated with black people because al andalus itself was ethnically mixed and in many cases the only black people many of these people would meet would be in the armies or trade caravans from muslim spain.

Hence, the association of black people as moors. And therefore, an answer to your question.

23 notes · View notes