MAD
Arsenal FC, Detroit Lions
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 56,537
- Likes
- 144,662
No. You're the one who is wrong. There was no mass displacement of people. There was simply the Arabization of those populations. Much of Northern Sudan is considered Arab today. Yet if you look at the people they look black. Many look no different than populations in neighboring countries like Ethiopia and South Sudan. Why are they considered Arabs? Because they adopted the Arabic language and customs. Same thing happened in much of Northern Africa where it was mostly Berbers but they now speak Arabic and are considered Arabs. The same thing happened in the middle east. This Arabization is just not as obvious as it is in a place like Sudan because the Assyrians and Chaldeans for example probably looked very similar to the early Arabs. So when they got Arabized it was not as obvious as when the Sudanese were Arabized.
This is why genetically that whole region is so similar. The majority of Semitic speaking populations outside of Africa carry Y-DNA haplogroup J while the Afro-Asiatic speaking populations within Africa carry Y-DNA haplogroup E. If there was this mass spread of Arabs displacing these native non-Arab populations we would see it in the genetics. But instead what the genetics show is that the Arab world is very distinct genetically with clear separation between the African populations and the non-African populations.
Weren't you the guy that was previously claiming that the white Arabs replaced the Black Egyptians? Kind of arguing against yourself now.
Go read about the Assyrians, their DNA and ethnicity is different from modern Iraqi Arabs.
Aren't Muslim Iraqis, Egyptians, etc. descended from Assyrians, Copts, etc.?Wrong. Take Iraq and the Assyrians as an example. They were the majority population in Northern Iraq pre-Islamic conquest, now there is less than a million of then left in Iraq. The ethnicity of the areas conquered by Muslims has mostly changed. This is why you don't have Babylonians/Chaldeans, Egyptians (Coptics), Phoenicians, Assyrians, etc. still around or majority in their formal homelands. They are primary Arab today.
Christianity did not spread by war. Read Acts. The events you are talking about are well past 1000 AD and over 1000 years past Christ.
Aren't Muslim Iraqis, Egyptians, etc. descended from Assyrians, Copts, etc.?
Christianity absolutely spread by conquest.
No. The people in modern Egypt carry the same paternal Y-DNA haplogroup as East Africans. Both are mostly E1b1b. The difference is in North Africa you have significant Eurasian admixture in the mitochondrial DNA which is passed from mother to daughter. And that's because millions of European slaves were imported into North Africa during the Barbary Slave Trade. Most of these slaves were female sex slaves. The indigenous North Africans mixed with these women to create the modern mixed population of North Africa. You can find the details of this Slave trade in this book:
View attachment 772713
White Slavery in the Barbary States: Lord Charles Sumner: 9781389865947: Amazon.com: Books
White Slavery in the Barbary States [Lord Charles Sumner] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. White Slavery in the Barbary Stateswww.amazon.com
So yes there was race mixing in North Africa but it wasn’t Arab males invading the region. It was white female slaves being brought in by the Moors.
I have. Many are.Nope, look it up.
And the Roman Empire spread Christianity to their conquered lands.Christianity converted the Roman Empire via Missionary work. Show me examples of Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc. leading armies into battle? Mohammad and his successors did that. In fact, every land that is Muslim today outside of Indonesia and Pacific area, saw Islam spread by the sword.
I have. Many are.
And the Roman Empire spread Christianity to their conquered lands.
Followers of Jesus et al spread Christianity through conquest and coercion. Why differentiate between OG and follower? Spread by conquest is spread by conquest.
You left out East Africa, Sub Saharan areas and the Sahel, and Central, East, and Southeast Asia.
How's the comparison on forced conversions in conquered areas?
Read it again and you should get the meaning.Roman Empire did not take a single new region after Trajan. If you disagree, show me the area they took on the map that wasn't already a part of Pagan Rome and conquered/Romanised by Pagan Rome.
That's rich coming from you, whose version of history always slants toward your favored groups and whose timelines always stop at your ideal scenario. You're a dilettante the same as most of us here.You literally don't know history... why not be silent until you study up and learn.
Nope, look it up.
Christianity converted the Roman Empire via Missionary work. Show me examples of Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc. leading armies into battle? Mohammad and his successors did that. In fact, every land that is Muslim today outside of Indonesia and Pacific area, saw Islam spread by the sword.
Yeah, you are full of it and no credible historian would buy your nonsense.
The "white" slave trade was too tiny to have any major population impact. The Arab world brought tons of black slaves in via Timbuktu and Gao and Sahara slave roughs. Also through East Africa via Mogadishu, Zanzibar, and the Silwa Kingdom. In fact, Islamic states in Africa were the first major states that engaged in the slave trades in 1000 A.D. The Portuguese that arrived in 1500s started buying slaves from a system that was already well-established with the Arab world.