Europe was civilized by Black, Muslim Africans

[wwhy]

The Moors were a group of Muslim tribes native to parts of North and North Western Africa, spanning the parts of now modern day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, and Egypt. The Moors invasion and occupation of Western Europe began in the 8th century and lasted 700 years until 1500.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, it was Africans that brought civilization to Spain and large parts of Europe and not the other way around. Half of man's recorded history had passed before anyone in Europe could read or write. The priests of Egypt started to keep records written between 4000 and 3000 BC, but more than two thousand years later the poems of Homer were still circulated in the Greek city-states by word of mouth... while the Pharaohs were constructing pyramids, the Greeks were making nothing more distinguished than large garbage heaps.

The first civilization of Europe was established on the Greek island of Crete in 1700 BC and the Greeks were primarily civilized by the Black Africans of the Nile Valley. The Greeks then passed on this acquired culture to the Romans who ultimately lost it; thus, initiating the Dark Ages that lasted for five centuries. Civilization was once again reintroduced to Europe when another group of Black Africans, The Moors, brought the Dark Ages to an end.

During its peak, Cordova, the center of Moorish territory in Spain, was the most modern city in all of Europe. The streets were well-paved and pedestrians could walk on the raised sidewalks. At nighttime, several streets were often illuminated with lamps. Cities like London or Paris featured paved streets and lamps only centuries later. Cordova also boasted about 900 public baths.

The Moors created a huge impact in the field of education. Europe at that time only had two prominent universities. But within the Moorish territory of Spain alone, almost 17 universities existed. Education was universal in Muslim Spain, while in Christian Europe, 99 percent of the population was illiterate, and even kings could neither read nor write. The Moors boasted a remarkably high literacy rate for a pre-modern society. The founders of Oxford University were inspired to form the institution after visiting universities in Spain. According to the United Nations’ Education body, the oldest university operating in the world today, is the University of Al-Karaouine of Morocco founded during the height of the Moorish Empire in 859 A.D. by a woman named Fatima al-Fihri. During the 10th and 11th centuries, Moorish Spain also had almost seventy libraries. This was at a time when public libraries in Europe were non-existent.

After the collapse of the Roman Empire multitudes of white warring tribes from the Caucasus were pushed into Western Europe by the invading Huns. The Moors invaded Spanish shores in 711 AD and African Muslims literally civilized the wild, white tribes from the Caucus. The Moors eventually ruled over Spain, Portugal, North Africa and southern France for over seven hundred years.

https://culturewhiz.org/articles/moors-europe

 

This post is mainly in response to a xenophobic comment I read in another thread:

"When you look at the ACTUAL statistics, it is clear that, for example, Germany (my home country) will develop into an Islamic state in the next 50 years, just based on birth rates. This will set the country back to stage blue, congrats." @Robi Steel

The assumption here is that people of different races/religions are inherently more backward. That how civilized/intelligent/peaceful/enlightened etc is something that is hard coded into a human beings DNA. History and science has proven this wrong time and time again, yet this mentality still persists. Do not confuse culture and DNA. Race itself is a social construct. You will not find it in your genes or DNA. A pale white ginger European man can be genetically closer to some black african woman than he is to his white blond girlfriend. Infact... In a very real sense, all people alive today are Africans!

The comment is xenophobic because it assumes that Germany will automatically regress just because the majority race/religion changes. Race and religion has nothing to do with advancement, it is all about culture. Culture is learnt. And a culture can regress, regardless race. Nazi Germany and Isis being great modern examples of how quickly that can happen, regardless of the racial composition of a populace. Germany may actually emerge stronger and greater as a melting pot of cultures... isn't that what made America great to begin with?

There is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve your culture or way of life, even though its futile in the end, as the only constant in human history and life is change. What is harmful, using choosing fear over love in how you go about preserving it. For example, nationalism is choosing fear (by hating other nationalities) while patriotism is choosing love (the love of your country). You can love your country and culture without being hateful of "the other". And love is much more powerful than fear. The best way to preserve the German culture and way of life is through the inclusion and integration of "the other". Fear does not work.  If you think fear works, look at Trumps America. Do you think the big backlash over George Floyd against racism and police brutality would have happened under an Obama presidency? Trumps hate, in a funny way is actually accelerating the demise of what he is trying to preserve. So go ahead and vote for him again @Robi from Germany, the effects of another 4 years of Trump on the conservatives may be even worse.

[commie]

You are trying to fight racism with easily-debunked racist falsehoods.

[wwhy]

Go ahead and easily debunk them then. Don't be shy...

[commie]

What would be the point?

[wwhy]

To prove how easy it is for example.

Especially since you've obviously been triggered. How exactly is history racist?

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, wwhy said:

Race and religion has nothing to do with advancement, it is all about culture.

I disagree that is is *all* about culture. For example, geography and climate are factors. A culture that lives in a geography / climate ideal for agriculture has an advantage over a culture that lives in a remote, frozen area of the arctic or a culture that lives in an arid desert. 

Luck is another factor. A culture that gets decimated by tornadoes is at a disadvantage relative to a nearby culture that did not get hit by the tornados. 

[wwhy]

Just now, Forestluv said:

I disagree that is is *all* about culture. For example, geography and climate are factors. A culture that lives in a geography / climate ideal for agriculture has an advantage over a culture that lives remote, frozen areas of the arctic or a culture that lives in an arid desert. 

I actually also disagree with my own comment. Religion is actually part of culture. And geography and climate shape a culture.

So a revised statement would be Race has nothing to do with advancement, it is all about culture.

[Forestluv]

2 minutes ago, wwhy said:

Race has nothing to do with advancement, it is all about culture.

If a culture is 90% destroyed by severe tornados, wouldn’t that impact the advancement of that culture?

[wwhy]

Yes, and that why I said

6 minutes ago, wwhy said:

And geography and climate shape a culture.

 

[Forestluv]

Is geography /climate ‘shaping’ culture exclusive to the ‘advancement’ of that culture? Can we really make a clean distinction?

If a culture is 90% destroyed by severe tornados, is that simply ‘shaping’ the culture without an impact on the ‘advancement’ of that culture?

To me, that seems like odd usage of the terms, ‘shape’ and ‘advancement’. To me, the two are tightly intertwined to the point that the distinctions break down upon inspection. 

The problem I see with that is ‘advancement’ will be considered separate from geographical / climatic ‘shaping‘ - yet they are inter-dependent. Leaving out the ‘shaping’, gives a distorted view of the ‘advancement’ imo. 

[wwhy]

Advancement is a type of shaping.

Or replace shaping with changing. Same thing.

Edited July 7, 2020 by wwhy

[Forestluv]

18 minutes ago, wwhy said:

Race has nothing to do with advancement, it is all about culture.

 

18 minutes ago, wwhy said:

geography and climate shape a culture.

 

5 minutes ago, wwhy said:

Advancement is a type of shaping.

An internal logical contradiction.  . . 

[wwhy]

Last comment about that sentence, as I am not that interested in playing semantic gymnastics about the words used to convey my point, which is:

the level of advancement of a people has nothing to do with race.

 

[Forestluv]

15 hours ago, wwhy said:

Last comment about that sentence, as I am not that interested in playing semantic gymnastics about the words used to convey my point, which is:

the level of advancement of a people has nothing to do with race.

It’s fine to say that the level of advancement has nothing to do with race.

Yet it’s not semantics to point out the limitation of saying “advancement is *all* about culture”. That is a loaded statement and in my view is misleading without qualifiers. People are not going to assume that geography, climate and rare cataclysmic events count as a form of “advancement”.

I don’t understand your framing. It would be like saying “winning a marathon is *all* about running lots of miles”. Then someone points out “Actually, diet is also really important” and then saying “Diet is a form of winning”. . .It’s a convoluted dance to me. 

[Epikur]

25 minutes ago, wwhy said:

Last comment about that sentence, as I am not that interested in playing semantic gymnastics about the words used to convey my point, which is:

the level of advancement of a people has nothing to do with race.

 

I guess you are not familiar how to use the terms in a way that is more common.
 

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, wwhy said:

the level of advancement of a people has nothing to do with race.

Surely there must be some obscure and inconsequent example out there that invalidates your statement, but that is just a hunch I have as a contrarian at 4:45 am

Actually, when I think about it, white skin increases vitamin D absorption and historically lead to the advancement of people living in colder areas. Of course this alone isn't an advancement relative to some other race, but if the movement of people into colder areas did actually confer some relative advantage to advancement, then maybe race has something to say after all?

Now, what I am NOT saying is that this matters to anyone alive today haha

Edited July 8, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Robi Steel]

15 hours ago, wwhy said:

The assumption here is that people of different races/religions are inherently more backward. That how civilized/intelligent/peaceful/enlightened etc is something that is hard coded into a human beings DNA

Thats not what I was saying and to assume that I was talking about DNA differences is ignorant. I was clearly talking about the current state of Islam and how that would manifest in the german state. Thats RELIGION which is part of CULTURE. So I was talking about culture.

Your argument doesnt work because it equates religion and race, thats a false premise. I was clearly not assigning any inherent quality to any race, Muslims can come in all shapes and sizes and colors unless you have a different opinion on that (apparently?)

15 hours ago, wwhy said:

The best way to preserve the German culture and way of life is through the inclusion and integration of "the other"

That works if both parties are inclusive and tolerant. If one party abuses the tolerance of the other party to further its own low tier culture and get rid of the tolerant one, then the tolerant party will cease to exist at some point and were back to square one. We should focus on making the people that come in more tolerant, so that its balanced. Not because of their race but because they come from very different cultures. 

 

15 hours ago, wwhy said:

So go ahead and vote for him again @Robi from Germany, the effects of another 4 years of Trump on the conservatives may be even worse.

I will, thank you.

Edited July 8, 2020 by Robi Steel

[Robi Steel]

 

16 hours ago, wwhy said:

The Moors created a huge impact in the field of education. Europe at that time only had two prominent universities. But within the Moorish territory of Spain alone, almost 17 universities existed. Education was universal in Muslim Spain, while in Christian Europe, 99 percent of the population was illiterate, and even kings could neither read nor write. The Moors boasted a remarkably high literacy rate for a pre-modern society. The founders of Oxford University were inspired to form the institution after visiting universities in Spain. According to the United Nations’ Education body, the oldest university operating in the world today, is the University of Al-Karaouine of Morocco founded during the height of the Moorish Empire in 859 A.D. by a woman named Fatima al-Fihri. During the 10th and 11th centuries, Moorish Spain also had almost seventy libraries. This was at a time when public libraries in Europe were non-existent.

If Im not mistaken, that was during the times of the Islamic golden age? Thats great, thats a cool story. It has nothing to do with my argumention about present-day cultural differences though, so yeah. All cultures have many peaks and downfalls, it just so happens that our culture is peaking or was peaking for the last 200 years. It isnt inherit to our genes or geographical position, its based on culture

[wwhy]

On 7/8/2020 at 0:44 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Actually, when I think about it, white skin increases vitamin D absorption and historically lead to the advancement of people living in colder areas.

Vitamin D is great for the bones! That must be how the vikings did it..

Geography did play a big role in the rise of Europe and the British empire.

 

 

 

 

[wwhy]

On 7/8/2020 at 10:55 PM, Robi Steel said:

It has nothing to do with my argumention about present-day cultural differences though, so yeah.

Yes, present cultural tensions exist today. Can they be solved? If you are worried about how Germany will look in 50 years, what policies today will make for a better future Germany? And are they based on love and inclusion of Merkel, or the hate and division of Trump?