“This is fortified by a religious faith of intense force, amounting often to primitive intolerance. But it should be not be impossible to convince the Moors that neither their independence nor their religion is threatened, and that it will be worth their while to live on terms of friendship with their neighbors. That the French are precisely the right people to convey this message has not been made clear. They’re not unnatural desire to appropriate portions of Moorish territory exposes them more particularly than any other people to the suspicion of the Moors. Moreover, their repeated failures in attempts at colonization reveal them as anything but ideal negotiators with a dusky race.” See Saturday Review of Politics, Literature, Science and Art, Volume 106
“A comparison between British and French Somaliland will illustrate our point. At Berbera or Zaila the natives are respectful, well behaved and contended. Proceed a few miles further u the cast to Jibuti and you find men of the selfsame race, even of this very same tribes, insolent, dishonest and mutinous. The difference is due to the fact the British know and the solely due to the fact that the British know and the French do not know how to manage natives. And if the French have failed to manage natives.”
“And if the French have failed so consciously with so elementary a type as the Somali, how can they exact to succeed in pacifying the Moors. We have always said the Act of Algeciras was a mistake, and that the only hoe of satisfactory settlement in Morocco is to be found in the selection of another emissary of European civilization. The policy of Europe, which has accepted the somewhat sudden, surprising call of Turkey for the Turks, must go a little further and accustom itself to the sound of Morocco for the Moors.” See Saturday Review of Politics, Literature, Science and Art, Volume 106
“They have not the knack of civilization, and their errors of tact are certain to cause incessant friction, The French have their own, entirely their own, ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity at home, but they have never succeeded in giving any meaning to the words when dealing with native races.” See Saturday Review of Politics, Literature, Science and Art, Volume 106Read More
“Britons began their seaborne trade in the Mediterranean basin and the east Atlantic during the reign of Queen Elizabeth and repeatedly found themselves, merchants and sailors alike, clashing with Turks and Moors. At the end of the sixteenth century, numerous Britons were taken captive in regions extending from the Ottoman Levant and the North African regencies to Morocco, all the way to the Atlantic half a century later (1640), there were “thousands” of captives in Algiers and Sale, according to an Act of Parliament. But by the beginning of the eighteenth century, Britain had succeeded in establishing its control over the major commercial and maritime zones, and although captives continued to be taken (mainly as a result of the ship wreck), their numbers declined dramatically, ending completely at the beginning of the nineteenth century.” (Page 1)
“Numerous literary critics have written about the impact of captivity on British “identity,” “hybridity”, “multiculturalism,” and “performativity,” while others have interpreted Elizabethan and Jacobean literature (drama in particular) in the light of captivity. Historians have studied the captivity of Europeans in the early modern Mediterranean and Atlantic, emphasizing its violence and anti-Christian motivations, and extrapolating from the seizure of Britons (and Continental Europeans) a casus belli that resulted in the European commercial and maritime domination of the basin.” (Page 1)
“Notwithstanding the pillage committed by all parties, Christian and Muslim alike, and notwithstanding the indiscriminate nature of captivity in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic the scholarly and popular focus has been chiefly on North Africans and their Islamic anti-christian design. Such focus has led to parallels with recent events in the Middle East and elsewhere thus the baginos of the seventeenth century in North Africa have been compared to the Stalinist Gulag, while the Muslim pirates of early modernity have been seen as precursors of modern day Middle Eastern terrorist and of Somali pirates.”(Page 1)
“It’s unfortunate that the study of North African and Mediterranean captivity has been underpinned, as Gordan M. Sayre has noted, by geopolitical events since 2008. For, allusions to contemporary geopolitical events ignore historical specificity and invoke the Orientalist doctrine, described by Edward said, that all Muslims are alike in their position to the West, that their actions never change, and that the piracy of the Mediterranean Algerians in 1608 continues among the Somalis of the Indian Ocean in 2008. (Page 1)
Such comparisons raise serious historiographical concerns about the ideological motives of captivity scholarship since those motives do not remain confined to the ivory towers of academic agreement or disagreement Muslim piracy, slavery, and terrorism serve in stoking contemporary Islamaphobia because they ignore completely ‘Christian piracy, slavery, and “terrorism” (per Janice E. Thomson) that occurred at the same time in the same waters. With the exception of a few careful historians whose work I will be citing frequently, scholars and popular authors continue to demonize the “Barbary Corsairs,” and by extension Muslims, at the same time that the media entertainment industry romanticize ‘Christian’ corsairs.” (Page 1)
“The pirates of the Caribbean, who were contemporaries’ o the “Barbary Corsairs,” have been celebrated in theme parks in Disney Worked, in “Pirates’ Dinner Adventure” in Orlando, Florida, and in the Johnny Depp film sequence Pirates of the Caribbean. No denunciation of the ‘Christianity’ of those pirates is on record, neither now or in the early modern period when numerous reasons were presented t the King Charles II in 1670 why “privateers should not be wholly discontinued in the West Indies. The focus on captivity and piracy by the Barbary Corsairs’ that excludes the concurrent captivity and piracy by the ‘Christian Corsairs’ serves to confirm a binary between evil and good, Muslim and Christian, African and European.”(Page 1)
Captivity of ‘Christians’ by ‘Muslims’ has become one the dominate motifs in the study of early modern relations between the ‘West’ and ‘Islam’ in the same manner that the accounts of captivity of English colonist by Indians in Cotton Mather’s Decennium Luctuosum (1699) became, as Louise K. Barnett has observed, “the central experience of white-Indian relations. Although the white colonist forced Indians out of their lands, theological and scholarly studies have remained focused on the whites who were captured by the Indians and on their ordeals and tribulations. As Pauline Turner Strong has argued, the number of Indians captured by the Colonist was by far higher than the number of colonist captured by the Indians, and that “it is in large part through….the suppression of the colonist’ role as captors of Indians that the selective tradition of captivity has gained its ideological force” in American studies.” (Page 1)
A similar suppression has dominated the study of British and other European captives in North Africa, and as in scholarship on North America where the “heathenism” and “savagery” of the Indian precipitated suppression of the Indian perspective, so in the prevailing scholarship on ‘Muslim’ captors and ‘Christian” captives. From R.L. Playfair’s work about North Africa with its ominous title, The Scourge of Christendom, to the many book blurbs and titles about “Christian slaves” and “Muslim masters,” there is emphasis on irreconcilable religious polarization that captives shape to much of the critical body of literature on the “Barbary Corsairs” and allows for the continued use of the term “Barbary coast” in contemporary scholarship, a term that was never used by the North Africans themselves and that does not appear on any modern atlas.” (Page 1)
First the Euro Christian did not see only Muslims as their adversaries to be captured, tortured, and enslaved. Jews too were captured, making the Muslim and the Jew fellow victims of the ‘Christian Master.’ In their piracy and privateering, Western Europeans captured Jews from North Africa, selling or exchanging hem in the manner they did Muslims. After, all in the early modern Islamic world lived the largest number of Jews in the world, spread from the interior of Morocco all the way to the Ottoman Levant and beyond. In North Africa, Jews were employed at court, were sent as diplomatic emissaries and a Jew serving the Moroccan ruler (Mulay Zaydan) turned pirate and captured three Spanish ships.”
There were many occasions when Jews appealed to Muslim authorities to help them against Europeans: Mulay Ismail (reg. 1672-1727) defended and supported their causes in Morocco, as did the Beys and Deys of the regencies. Actually, when Ismail sent Hayyim Tulidanu as ambassador to England, he indicated clearly that the Jew was a “dhimmi of our house,” and because he was of “our house,” he was to receive all honor due to an ambassador. A letter from the British consul in Algiers described how “Turks, Moors and Jews” demanded justice from the Dey “on score of a British Satia freighted by their friends from Tunis to this place.
In 1751, and at the signing of a treaty between the British Consul-General, William Petticrew and Sidi Muhammad of Morocco (reg. 1757-1790), the latter insisted on an article that his “Subjects, whether Jewish or Muslim, should not be prohibited from living and working in Gibraltar.” In December 1715, George Paddon, the British ambassador to Morocco, wrote from Gibralter: In this Garrison [Gibraltar] of Moors and Jews about the Number of our Captives in Mequiness, Subjects of Mulay Ismail & some of those Jews Principals who have the handling of the Emperors Money and pay him yearly use for the same. The only way to make them weary…is to use the Jews here as the poor Christians are used in Barbary rather worse…to seize on their Goods, they being all belonging to the Moors, to put in Prison the Chief, making the others work at the fortifications, to keep all manner of Trade from them, in ships to hover on the Coasts and what should strictly examined & under pretext be brought in & rummaged well for contraband Goods… the Jews at Mequiness fr the sake of their Brethren here would help in procuring a lasting Peace. I wish the Jews in my Power I have & am well assured that the Chief of the Jews at Salee & one Pettet a French broken Merchant have been the sole occasion of our Rupture.” (Page 5-6)
The capture and enslavement of Jews by Europeans encouraged an English resident in Morocco to inquire in 1716 from secretary of state, after an English ship had been seized by pirates, “whether he may not size the Moors & Jews Inhabitants of Gibraltar by way of Reprisal for the cruel usages of British Captives. Because Jews were part o the North African politics, they were viewed by Europeans as part of the enemy and therefore legitimate slaves. Secondly, the Christian slaves on board the Muslim galleys were rarely Easter Christian Arabs or Greeks-unless they were living in west European countries. In the period under study and in the eastern Mediterranean of the Ottoman Empire lived the largest indigenous Christian population outside Western Europe. A French captive in Algiers in 1619 wrote that 3,000 families of free Christian merchants (presumably Catholic) and 179 Greek (Orthodox) families were living in the city and over 20,000 free Christians in other parts of North Africa, outside the Spanish and Portuguese colonies.” (Page 5-6)Read More
WHEREAS, The Supreme Court of the United States has solemnly declared its opinion that the congressional enactment known as the civil rights law, of February 27, 1875, is not in accordance with the United States Constitution, and consequently inoperative as a measure for the protection of the negro in his manhood rights; and whereas, the customs and traditions of many of the States in the Union are inimical to the negro as a man and as a citizen, he finds neither in the common law nor in the sentiments of his white fellow citizens, [See Introduction To Moorish Treaties 1662-1856] that full protection which he has earned by his loyalty and devotion to the nation in its hour of extreme peril; Page 44 THE RESOLUTIONS. See Henry McNeal Turner, 1834-1915. The Barbarous Decision of the United States Supreme Court Declaring the Civil Rights Act Unconstitutional and Disrobing the Colored Race of All Civil Protection.
A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a “citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. 5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its “people or citizens.” Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being “citizens” within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, [See Introduction To Moorish Treaties 1662-1856] and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.
He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. [See Introduction to Moorish Race and Nationality.]”And in no nation was this opinion more firmly fixed or more [p408] uniformly acted upon than by the English Government and English people. They not only seized them on the [West] coast of Africa and sold them or held them in slavery for their own use, but they took them as ordinary articles of merchandise to every country where they could make a profit on them, and were far more extensively engaged in this commerce than any other nation in the world. The opinion thus entertained and acted upon in England was naturally impressed upon the colonies they founded on this side of the Atlantic.
“And, accordingly, a negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property, and held, and bought and sold as such, in every one of the thirteen colonies which united in the Declaration of Independence and afterwards formed the Constitution of the United States. The slaves were more or less numerous in the different colonies as slave labor (Study the History of the U.S. Department of Labor) was found more or less profitable. But no one seems to have doubted the correctness of the prevailing opinion of the time. The legislation of the different colonies furnishes positive and indisputable proof of this fact. Taney left out the legal understanding as to Moors demonstrating a legal distinction because he was well aware of the treaties between Great Britian and Morocco, that Moors were in the United States and that the Constitution to which he himself as a White man was bound to respect has a Supremacey Clause making treaties the Supreme Law of the United States i.e. Federal law. [See Introduction To Moorish Treaties 1662-1856] Click here to read Scott v. Sandford
Abraham Lincoln Represented a Moorish plaintiff from Portugal in William Dungey (plaintiff) v. Joseph Spencer (defendant). The newspapers referred to William as “Black Bill”. Lincoln Successfully argued: “My client is not a Negro, though it is a crime to be a Negro–no crime to be born with a black skin. But my client is not a Negro. His skin may not be as white as ours, but I say he is not a Negro, though he may be a Moore.”
“Mr. Lincoln,” interrupted Judge Davis, scarcely able to restrain a smile, “you mean a Moor, not Moore.” “Well, your Honor, Moor, not C.H. Moore,” replied Mr. Lincoln, with a sweep of his long arm toward the table where Moore and I sat. “I say my client may be a Moor, but he is not a Negro.” On October 18, 1855, the jury returned a verdict of guilty and granted Dungey $600 in damages plus court costs of $137.50. Lincoln charged a $25 fee, which Lawrence Weldon considered minimal. See Introduction to Moorish Nationality and Status.
The Negro in the New World By Sir Harry Hamilton Johnston states: “When the Portuguese discovers, urged on by Prince Henry of Portugal, had rounded Cape Bojador, and after reaching Rio d’Ouro in 1435……” In his Footnotes it says “This is the reason why blackamoor in English, Morioan in Dutch, Morian in German, Moro in Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian and Moriaud in French were early names for Negroes. “Negro”, a Spanish word, did not come into common use in England till the nineteenth century.” Here the author clearly acknowledges that Moors were given the name Negroes during the era beginning the Atlantic Slave Trade.
The Ancient Moors were indeed black as coal or brown as wood or tree bark complexion(s) and color(s), however the term itself does not mean Black or Negro, as English dictionaries would give the untrained mind the delusion of or as your so called scholars and teachers may have taught you. What they have done is replaced the true meaning of the term with the complexion or skin color description as to the people in thier efforts to implement White Supremacy into literature which requires the duty to Blacken or strip dark skin people of their Moorish heritage i.e. continuing Massa’s Religious Conversion which requires Name and Heritage stripping aka Denationalization.
They want you to feel comfortable identifying under badges of Slavery branded upon Moors starting in 1441 A.D. such as Negro and Black, when these two terms that are only found on Slave Records and revisionist history books written in effort to create Black Pride in those learning about the history, heritage and culture of the Moors, who claim it as Black History instead of Moorish History, it was Black authors who accepted the badges of slavery as a suitable Political i.e. Racial Identity following behind White Supremacist authors. These same Black authors chose to ignore the use of the “Black Caste/Badge of Slavery” as only being employed in Slave Records and accepted it as an identifier for various Indigenous and Ancient Nations, Kingdoms and Tribes. However, the truth can be colored over but it cannot be removed. The reason you see Negro and Black in dictionaries defining Moor is because the authors of the dictionaries were on board with branding Moors as Negro and Black.
The first source I present that Moor means Westerner is Philip Khuri Hitti (فيليب خوري حتي in Arabic), (Shimlan 1886 – Princeton 1978) was a Lebanese American scholar and authority on Arab and Middle Eastern history, Islam, andSemitic languages. He almost single-handedly created the discipline of Arabic Studies in the United States. In his work History of the Arabs first published in 1937, contended that the term “Moor” has a geographic designation meaning Western.
Hitti spent 10 years writing this book he provided that “The Romans called Western Africa “Mauretania” and its inhabitants Mauri (presumably of Phoenician origin meaning ‘Western’) whence [the] Spanish Moor [and the] English Moor. The Berbers, therefore, were the Moors proper, but the term was conventionally applied to all Moslems of Spain and North-western Africa.”
I’ve just read your excellent article “MOOR MEANS WESTERNER NOT “BLACK, NEGRO OR COLORED”. A small point, it’s a pity it is illustrated with a picture of an Assyrian Geni which has nothing at all to do with the Amorites or Phoenicians. The Assyrian and Babylonian word for ancient Syria and the Mediterranean coast was Amuru (I’m an ex-Assyriologist) and I think your description of it’s misuse good. However, the picture is not of a Phoenician or an Amorite, but definitely originates from an Assyrian relief, i.e., in the East. The Assyrians lived in Iraq near modern day Mosul and they certainly originated the word. Just trying to be helpful. If you research Assyrian reliefs you’ll see where I’m coming from. Thanks. – John Bruce.
The origins of the term is not elusive like most claim and do not go back to Death and all these frivolous notions many people have come up with today on Youtube. The arrogance within the ignorance is remarkable, among some of these bogus scholars and educators, you even have people on the Hidden Colors video purporting to be educators telling people that Moors means Black, this is because they do not deal with technicalities, the fact that English Dictionaries from the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and early 19th century use Black and Negro and sometimes Black man merely demonstrates who it applied to versus specifically meaning that Moor means Black or Negro, what it shows is that the writers of the English Dictionaries were on board with the Stripping of Name and Heritage Scheme, they branded Moors as Negroes and Blacks, thus it was significant to define Moor as Negro and Black in their dictionaries so the English descendants would not forget who the term Moor applies too i.e. the People now identified as Negros and Blacks.
The Second Source provides that its derivation from the Semitic etymon Mahourím, “People of the West,” those who say that source is questionable are usually unaware as to the Phoenician/Canaanite origin to the term Roman “Maure”, and the Greek “Mavros” whcih gave birth to the Romance languages (German, English, French, Spanish, etc), the Arabic al-Mar is extremely rare and is alleged to not occur in Andalusi Arabic sources which I think is irrelevant because the Moors (Maures) were a Nation composed of many tribes before the Andalusian Era in general. Mauroi is late Greek and may have been derived from the Latin ethnic name Mauri. Following the destruction of Carthage in 146 B.C.E., the term mauri was used to indicate the tribes inhabiting the Roman provinces established in Ancient Mauretania, corresponding to modern-day western Algeria and northeastern Morocco.
In the Latin Middle Ages, Mauri referred to a mixture of Berbers and Arabs inhabiting the coastal regions of Northwest Africa. In Spain, Portugal, and Italy, Mauri became Moros (Maures in French). More commonly, however, it was a racial designation for dark-skinned or black skin peoples, as in its English usage, which is seen as early as the fourteenth century. The source article explained the term “Moor” as background to Menocal’s Ornament of the World and Maalouf’s Leo Africanus. See the article by David Assouline reprinted from The Oxford Encyclopedia …
Now as to my Third Source demonstrating the relationship between “Moor” and “Westerner”. The Normans re-took Sicily in 1061, establishes trading relationships with northern Africa, and employed Africans in their armies. Fredrick II, for example no only used such warriors but placed them in his bodyguard. These African guards, together with African musicians and animal keepers, as well as the Emperor’s African personal attendants, formed part of the imperial processions. An African Johannes Morus, was appointed vizier of the Kingdom of Sicily. (The etymology of the word Moor is uncertain, it can be traced to the Phoenician term “Mahurin” meaning “Westerners”; See Encyclopedia of the World’s Minorities By Carl Skutsch The fact that the West is called the Maghrib should also ring a bell.
Finally for the Fourth Source: “The the Mediterranean and south-western European ports. They were the foremost among the ancient merchants. They inhabited only a narrow strip of the northern coastline of Palestine. The area was originally settled by Amorites (meaning “Westerners”), who were not necessarily Hebrews, but were a kindred people. They were Semitic, or Shemitic people, that is, they claimed descent from Shem. Although they later became very mixed with the descendants of Ham, such as the Canaanites, they had a high proportion of fair skinned, fair-haired Shemitic peoples, from whom Abraham and his family came. When Israel later settled in the Promised Land, many Israelite’s, mostly from the tribes of Dan and Zebulun, joined with them in their seafaring enterprises. In this way the forerunners of the later Israelitish migrations reached the British Isles, and they had settlements in Spain and Portugal. The Phoenicians had included Canaanites and Jebusites, as well as Israelites, but the rulers of the Phoenician and Carthaginian nations were of the Semitic stock, as we may guess from the story of Hiram, King of Tyre, in Phoenicia. He was of great assistance to King Solomon of Israel in his temple building operations of the Temple. If Hiram had not been of the original Amoritic or Shemitic stock, it is unlikely that he would have been so friendly and helpful to a king of Israel. http://www.ensignmessage.com/phoenicians.html See WHO WERE THE PHOENICIANS AND CARTHAGINIANS? By Valerie Martlew, U.K.
In the last few chapters of El Hajj Malik Shabazz’s autobiography he made a statement about the Moorish Empire. Elijah Muhammad also made a statement about the Moors in the Theology of time.
“Now then, once you see that the condition that we’re in is directly related to our lack of knowledge concerning the history of the Black man, only then can you realize the importance of knowing something about the history of the Black man. The Black man’s history—when you refer to him as the Black man you go way back, but when you refer to him as a Negro, you can only go as far back as the Negro goes. And when you go beyond the shores of America you can’t find a Negro.”
“So if you go beyond the shores of America in history, looking for the history of the Black man, and you’re looking for him under the term Negro, you won’t find him. He doesn’t exist. So you end up thinking that you didn’t play any role in history. But if you want to take the time to do research for yourself, I think you’ll find that on the African continent there was always, prior to the discovery of America, there was always a higher level of history, rather a higher level of culture and civilization, than that which existed in Europe at the same time.At least five thousand years ago they had a Black civilization in the Middle East called the Sumerians.”
“Now when they show you pictures of the Sumerians they try and make you think that they were white people. But if you go and read some of the ancient manuscripts or even read between the lines of some of the current writers, you’ll find that the Sumerian civilization was a very dark-skinned civilization, and it existed prior even to the existence of the Babylonian empire, right in the same area where you find Iraq and the Tigris-Euphrates rivers there.”
“It was a black-skinned people who lived there, who had a high state of culture way back then.And at a time even beyond this there was a black-skinned people in India, who were Black, just as Black as you and I, called Dravidian’s. They inhabited the subcontinent of India even before the present people that you see living there today, and they had a high state of culture. The present people of India even looked upon them as gods; most of their statues, if you’ll notice, have pronounced African features.”
“You go right to India today—in their religion, which is called Buddhism, they give all their Buddhas the image of a Black man, with his lips and his nose, and even show his hair all curled up on his head; they didn’t curl it up, he was born that way. And these people lived in that area before the present people of India lived there.The Black man lived in the Middle East before the present people who are now living there. And he had a high culture and a high civilization, to say nothing about the oldest civilization of all that he had in Egypt along the banks of the Nile. And in Carthage in northwest Africa, another part of the continent, and at a later date in Mali and Ghana and Songhai and Moorish civilization—all of these civilizations existed on the African continent before America was discovered.”
“This is why you find many Italians dark—some of that Hannibal blood. No Italian will ever jump up in my face and start putting bad mouth on me, because I know his history. I tell him when you talk about me, you’re talking about your pappy, [Laughter] your father. He knows his history, he knows how he got that color.”
“Don’t you know that just a handful of Black American troops spent a couple of years in England during World War II and left more brown babies back there—just a handful of Black American soldiers in England and in Paris and in Germany messed up the whole country. Now what do you think ninety thousand Africans are going to do in Italy for twenty years? [Laughter] It’s good to know this because when you know it, you don’t have to get a club to fight the man—put truth on him. Even the Irish got a dose of your and my blood when the Spanish Armada was defeated off the coast of Ireland, I think around about the seventeenth or eighteenth century; I forget exactly, you can check it out. The Spanish in those days were dark. They were the remnants of the Moors, and they went ashore and settled down in Ireland and right to this very day you’ve got what’s known as the Black Irish. And it’s not an accident that they call them Black Irish. If you look at them, they’ve got dark hair, dark features, and they’ve got Spanish names—like Eamon De Valera, the president, and there used to be another one called Costello.”
“These names came from the Iberian Peninsula, which is the Spanish-Portuguese peninsula, and they came there through these seamen, who were dark in those days. Don’t let any Irishman jump up in your face and start telling you about you—why, he’s got some of your blood too. You’ve spread your blood everywhere. If you start to talk to any one of them, I don’t care where he is, if you know history, you can put him right in his place. In fact, he’ll stay in his place, if he knows that you know your history. West African cultures Also, at that same time or a little later was a civilization called the Moors. The Moors were also a dark-skinned people on the African continent, who had a highly developed civilization.”
“They were such magnificent warriors that they crossed the Straits of Gibraltar in, I think, the year 711, eighth century, conquered Portugal, what we today know as Portugal, Spain, and southern France, conquered it and ruled it for seven hundred years. And they admit that during this time Europe was in the Dark Ages, meaning darkness, ignorance. And it was the only light spot; the only light, the only light of learning, that existed on the European continent at that time were the universities that the Moors had erected in what we today know as Spain and Portugal.”
“These were African universities that they set up in that area. And they ruled throughout that area, up to a place known as Tours, where they were stopped by a Frenchman known in history as Charles Martel, or Charles the Hammer. He stopped the invasion of the Africans, and these were Africans. They try to confuse you and me by calling them Moors, so that you and I won’t know what they were. But when you go home, look in the dictionary. Look up the word M-o-o-r; it will tell you that Moor means black. Well, if Negro means black and Moor means black, then they’re talking about the same people all the time. But they don’t want you and me to know that we were warriors, that we conquered, that we had armies. They want you and me to think that we were always nonviolent, and passive, and peaceful, and forgiving. Sure, we forgave our enemies in those days—after we killed them, we forgave them. [Laughter and applause]”
To Read Moor Click HereRead More