Interesting lecture by Dr. Jose Piementa-Bey. How much is legit and how much is bs? Sorry if I messed up the videos. Not used to uploading them. <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PQ-wV2YndyI&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PQ-wV2YndyI&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dY9UA2RpII8&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dY9UA2RpII8&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WHA33IOZzGI&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WHA33IOZzGI&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1IDI1vLiekM&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1IDI1vLiekM&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gKT5NtbxmWM&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gKT5NtbxmWM&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Uk6psAOeA0E&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Uk6psAOeA0E&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZTncYXNOjxc&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZTncYXNOjxc&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_c1NJnDQ3XA&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_c1NJnDQ3XA&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iaa5Pqfpj6Q&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iaa5Pqfpj6Q&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Icehouse, I've always had an interest in Moorish history. Could you give a brief summation of what he's saying?
Summary per the guy who posted it: My summary....he goes over the African presence in Spain and the Americas (pre Columbus), and gives his support. His lecture does have some racial and religious undertones, which is why I posted it here.
Cool! I'll bookmark this and listen to the lectures when I have a chance, using my own filter for any biases, which can sometimes be interesting anyway, even if I disagree. The Moors had a very high civilization. As T.E. Lawrence said in the flick when discussing the subject, "You were great once, my lord. Time to be great again."
From the liner notes of Piementa-Bey's book: [rquoter] Very few organizations in the history of the United States have sought to give African peoples in the Americas a historical reason to love and embrace their Africanity. [/rquoter] The fraction that I watched was more about "giving African people in the Americas reason to embrace their Africanity" than historical accuracy. Moors are essentially Berbers. These people historically had very negative racist views of the prototypical "Black African" and often were the middlemen in the slave trade. In other words, the Moors were the people selling slaves to Americans. They weren't the slaves on boats coming to the USA. I mean, certainly, that sort of thing happens in other contexts around the world, too. Specifically, I can think of the battle over whether Israelis are actually people who were kicked out of the Middle East and are returning or whether they are European interlopers colonizing the true Palestinians, and the battle between Greeks and Macedonian Slavs over who gets to use the name Macedonia. BTW: [rquoter] Many of us don't know that African (Moors) along with Arabs, ruled Spain from 711 A.D. to 1492 A.D. [/rquoter] Really? People don't know about El Cid and Charles Martel and the Battle of Tours and all that crap? That should be like the first thing you learn about medieval European history.
The lecture goes into this some, basically saying Berbers at that time were black (as far as how most looked) but have been whitewashed throughout history. The lecturer is arguing that his take is historically accurate. I'm not saying it is because I'm not a history buff and don't know. I have been googling and both sides seem to have experts, sources, etc to support their argument. For example: Since we do know whoever is in power gets to document history, and leave stuff out or include it, then what are we to believe? Again, I'm not saying who is wrong or right. But sometimes I do wonder how much has been left out or changed. That's why I asked how much of this is bs, because I'm sure I can find something from a "scholar" on either side. We have a recent example with the Texas Legislature changing how history is going to be taught in the state. I also saw this video from the 60's with Bill Cosby that does a good job of highlighting how easy it has been to not teach things or document things in a certain manner. <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/niqpkvyYMEY&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/niqpkvyYMEY&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Generally speaking, my experience is that you have a whole bunch of historians on one side of the argument and mostly people who would be better described as activists on the other. Though I do have to say I've read a whole lot more about the notion that Egyptian pharaohs were all dark "Nubian black", so some of what I'm saying carries over from that question. But with respect to that argument, the best analog I can think of is when I listen to very religious historian talk about the Shroud of Turin. You can really tell that they want it to be real, even when they are trying to talk about objective facts. You can tell that they are trying to be objective, and probably even believe they are, but it is just too close to something that is very important to them. I mean, from everything I've seen, this guy really wants what he is saying to be true. That is generally a poor starting point for someone looking to be an objective historian. And when you really get down to it, in some way the idea of whether they are black or not is a totally modern construct. Fundamentally, the Berbers were a distinct genetic heritage, separate from Arabs, Europeans, and Sub-Saharan Africans. In other words, when you ask whether the are "black" or not, you are framing the question in a way that would have not made sense to them. Certainly, from everything I've read, the average black American who is descended from slaves has more white European in his genome than he does Tuareg. I read somewhere that something like 30% of the average African-American's genome comes from white Europeans. Whether you want to call them black or Arab or white, the various Berbers were more likely to be selling the slaves that were sent to the Americas as opposed to actually being slaves. I guess I don't really see here where the advantage is in altering history to turn black people into Arabs. If anything, if the invaders of Europe were dark skinned, it would give the racists a pretense of motive for their racism. Sort of the way Christians spent centuries killing and oppressing Jews for "killing Jesus".
Ottomotan But the general argument of the activist is that the "historian" has been lying. That's why you have to look at the evidence. Since you seem up on this topic, what do you think about the evidence in his lecture? I think his main point is these folks were black, as far as skin color and where they descended from (parts of Africa). As far as "the point of changing history", why not change it if what's being reported isn't accurate and is "edited" instead? Is there any harm in reporting the truth (if that were the truth)? Our legislature just changed how history will be taught in Texas, right? If "blacks" do have more positive contributions to ancient civilization then it's important to report that and not have a bunch of black kids growing up thinking black history started with the slave trade. There is a big difference between saying that time period was the Dark Ages (what's reported) and blacks were a dominant and contributing force during that time period. Watch the Cosby link I posted for more on this.*
I learned all about this when I was a kid. One of my all time favorite movies. Here's one reason why: (Sorry for large, but worth it) Spoiler
Dubious, you ought to hide that beautiful image of Sophia with a spoiler tag. It's huge. And yes, they were huge!
Lawrence was speaking to King Faisal, and of Arabs in the Saudi peninsula, not the Moors, who were of North African origin.
Again, the activist seems to have a strong and vested interest in the subject. The historian doesn't. The "evidence" that the historian has been lying requires you to conflate William of Tyre with George Wallace. I mean, really, exactly how much do you know about medieval European history? Do you care about it at all, except with respect to how it interfaces with the subject of African-American pride? How much have you read on the subject? I guess I just find lying to create a sense of self-worth to be stupid. There are plenty of genuine strong black African cultures if you need that sort of personal affirmation.
How does one determine one from the other? When one is going against the 'weight of time' honored traditional interpretation which may have their one inate biases in them [sort of Grandfathered in biases or institutional biases] One can often be seen as more activistic. My question is where do we make this designation? How is it determined? By who? Rocket River
Through the body of their work. And when they preface their book stating that they are looking to give people "a reason to embrace and love their Africanity" as opposed to "providing the most accurate and detailed factual account of true history", one can generally figure these things out. As a general rule, if a historical dramas or story is going to fail, it does so primarily because after the authors meticulously and carefully get the details correct, they basically insert modern people with modern concerns and problems into those historical situations. Dr. Piementa-Bey is doing the same. He is trying to inject his modern search for an Afro-American identity into events in history. It doesn't belong. The concepts and modern delineations of race and identity don't even really apply. I mean, from the perspective of a modern search for racial identity maybe it makes sense. But if you are actually trying to get a genuine factual account of history above all else instead of providing yourself a cultural back-story, it fails. People like to turn things into concise narratives. But actual events don't neatly rearrange themselves into a story with a moral and a hero and a villain. Reality is much more complicated and contradictory. You see it all the time when people talk about "the founding fathers believed". In fact the "founding fathers" were a whole bunch of different men and they each believed something different and they disagreed with each other all the time and there was a whole lot of tension between them. You also see it in the modern American creation story that is WWII. People have this simplistic story, assisted by the movies who love a good clean narrative, that absolute good (America) triumphed over absolute evil and rocketed the world to freedom and democracy out of the goodness of American hearts. The truth is about 1,000,000 times more twisted up on itself.
This is true but also untrue. You are avoiding the main point (the point of his lecture, which I am not necessarily saying is true). You say the activist has a strong vested interest, but the historian doesn't. The activist is saying the historian is full of isht. If the "historian" whitewashed history, then they already put their vested interest down. The only difference is it's been recorded and is being taken as fact. Did you open up the Cosby link that I posted? It gives a perfect example of Pulitzer Prize historians and how they recorded slavery in The Growth of the American Republic (start at the 9:00 mark). Not much outside of what was taught in school. I care to know how much of what they taught me in school, and ultimately what they will teach my future children, is true or bs. For example, when I learned of Europe in that period, the Dark Ages were all they covered and never the stuff this dude is writing about. The specific reasons of why I care shouldn't matter as much as what should matter, which is why not tell the complete story....if that is the complete story. If Columbus "discovering America and being friendly to Indians" is not the truth, then I would like to be able to concretely tell my children what they just told you in class is bs. Is there anything wrong with that? Who is lying? That's what I'm asking. Are you saying the activist lecturer (who is a historian by the way) is lying? Have you looked at any of the things I posted? I posted it to get takes from others who may know more about the subject (biased and non-biased). But it seems like you aren't even taking the time to look at it. The only reasons I say that are because you mention lying to create self worth (ironic because that's exactly what the activist swears historians did...to create and take away self worth), or that there are plenty of other genuine strong black cultures. If the Moors were a genuine strong black culture (as the lecturer is noting), then what is wrong with noting that and reporting it? If that is the case then why not teach that when you are covering that part of European history? Especially since strong African cultures really aren't taught here.
Most of what you put in this post is stuff that I already talked about, and from the way you are asking some of the questions, I'm not sure you really understood what I was trying to say. Since I don't want to try and repeat all that, lets just leave it. We can just say that you and I have different views about what history is. But are you sure that he is a genuine historian? He is an associate professor of "African-American Studies" and "General Studies" at a small bible college. He does have a doctorate (from Temple, in Philly), but I can't figure out in what. In my experience, many of those positions are filled by people with degrees in Comparative Literature and other fields that aren't particularly historically rigorous. All of the other papers I can find deal with bizarro psudo-cults and mish-mash religions like The Moorish Science Temple of America in a very nonobjective and fawning way, such that I think he is probably a member. If he is a trained historian, he doesn't act very much like one. In fact, reading the Moorish Science Temple's dogma, if he is a member his lecture sounds more and more like a religious sermon of that group's theology, as opposed to the genuine work of a historian. I mean, read the Moorish Science Temple of America's wikipedia entry and compare that philosophy to his lecture.
