You said white privilege was a thing and denied that black privilege was a thing. Enough said.

I don't know what race invented spelling, but you better hope one of them travels to your area.

Anyways, if we're talking REAL historical and actual impact of invention, then it'd be hard to really have any stance on the matter. But what I'm talking about is technological advancements, and there's not really a discussion in that aspect. The only reason is because the side of the world which murdered and colonised the world had a vast white majority, kept other races as slaves, and had all the wealth and motivation to make those technological advancements.

I'm not implying anything, I'm giving the reasoning behind someone who might use "white invention vs black invention" as some sort of valid statistic to prove intelligence and ingenuity. You can't compare that level when one in the side of the world with wealth and motivation to invent, other races weren't being given the ability or platform to create anything.

It's a bit different now because of the Asian domination in technological advancements. I'm not sure if there would be more or less Asian people than white people in high ends of their respective fields but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a huge gulf in the way of Asians. Black people continue to grow towards high positions in every field and it's becoming more and more common.

You calling me racist though, it really shows why people like Rain's initial opinion exists. You so quickly prefer to jump to that angle rather than have a discussion. What did I even say that was racist? Where have I even projected a tone of racism in this thread? You can go out and wave a Black Lives Matter flag and follow some totally not racist youtuber who talks about how black people can't be racist and cultural appropriation is the worst thing ever.

You're just making up shit. I've never even discussed "black privilege" here, let alone denying it.

Nice to see you using WHITE font... hypocrite.

I think you've been to. And you bring up stupidity.LOL

Arabs had a far greater number of African slaves than the Europeans And the Arabs had hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of white slaves too. They also kept slaves until the 1900s. While Europeans outlawed slavery and became the dominate culture after doing so. So European's dominance was from more than just oppressing people.

Technology and advancements in tech were usually first seen in areas with lot of trading. That's why the Arabs were so advanced prior to the European Renaissance. They controlled the known trading routes. The silk road and all that. The Renaissance was possible due to what Europeans learned by interacting with Muslims. Yet, one civilization prospered while the other fell off. The latter one utilizing slavery till the end.

European advancements in banking, business and industry is what gave them the edge. Along with usery. It's haram in Islam to get or give loans with interest. This gave Europeans an advantage in war and economics. It allowed them to wage wars and do business without the money in hand. Something Muslims couldnt do. It was also a sin for Christians but Christians used Jews to do their banking to get out of it. That's a big reason why Jews are in banking now and were always targeted when blame needed to be placed. When really, it was the European aristocracy at fault for building up huge debts.

Regardless, white people were all over the world and not just in Europe. White people can be found all throughout Africa, the middle East, central Asia and even India. White people were not the creators of slavery and every race benefited from slavery.

I'll admit it's hard to distinguish Moors from Arabs because even the term "Arab" is often used to describe people who would be considered black in today's perspective. North Sudanese and Somalians, for example, are people who are sometimes included under "Arab." Somalia is even a member of the Arab League. But the average Somalian today would be considered black, and the average North Sudanese looks no different from an Ethiopian, who would also be considered black. Let's put it this way. Moors of today are like so-called "Latinos" in the sense that they are of mixed ancestry but may phenotypically resemble one of their ancestors more than the others depending on which region they're from. An Argentinian and a Dominican are both Latinos, but the average Dominican looks a lot more African while the average Argentinian looks a lot more European. There are Tuaregs (a Berber group) living all across North Africa and even some Sub-Saharan countries like Nigeria, Burkina Faso and The Gambia. A Tuareg from Burkina Faso looks a lot different than one from Libya. With that being said, I think it's worth noting that Africans who are very dark-skinned or who may be considered "black" aren't limited to sub-Saharan regions. There are many Sahelian people who are very dark-skinned. Fulanis, another Berber people, live in countries like Nigeria and Senegal, and they look no different than the average Somalian. Going back to the Moors who ruled Spain and much of southern Europe at a certain period, they were specifically from Mauretania, a state that spanned modern Morocco, Mauritania, Niger, and parts of Chad. Going back to that time period, people from that region would more so resemble what today we'd call black even though a lot of them look more Arab or mixed today. It's just like if you asked what did a Mexican look like 500 years ago. They'd look a lot more Native and Azteca than Spanish, because the Spanish admixture hadn't taken place with as much force as is present today. The Arab conquest of North Africa can be dated, so even though your wife who is Kabyle may look "white" , that doesn't necessarily mean her ancestors from 2,000 years ago, or 1,400 years ago, or 600 years looked the same. Many of the indigenous people who inhabited North Africa pre-Arab conquest did not look Arab. The final clue as to the identity of the Moors of Spain was their religion. Believe it or not, it wasn't Islam. The Moors practiced what is called Maraboutism, a syncretic religion based on Islam and traditional West African beliefs. It has a similar relationship to Islam as the Santeria or Lukumi practiced in Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Brazil has to Catholicism. The slave masters were forcing the African slaves they brought to Puerto Rico to convert to Catholicism, so the slaves found an ingenious way to practice their traditional religion under the guise of Christianity. The various African gods became the different Catholic saints. They were practicing voodoo while appearing to practice Christianity. The same thing happened during the Arab conquest of North Africa. They were often being forced to convert to Islam, so they hid traditional beliefs under Maraboutism. How do I know the Moors were Marabouts? They actually went as far as to name themselves after their religion! There were two dynasties of Moors in Spain and southern Europe, the Almoravids and the Almohads. Almoravid comes from Arabic مُرابِط‎ (al murabit), a term which the Marabout Moors used to denote their syncretic religion. They were burned at the stake during the Inquisitions along with Sephardi Jews for practicing "witchcraft." If the Moors of Spain were Arabs, why would Arabs be practicing a syncretic religion rather than the original Islam itself? Also, if you look at the depictions of Moors in Medieval art, it is almost always of a black person. Shakesperes Othello, for example, is almost always played by a black actor. Research some images of the Moor Head in Medieval and Renaissance art. Till today, the Spanish word "Moreno", which is derived from "moor" is used to describe blacks in endearing terms as opposed to "negro" which has a more negative connotation. I have never heard of Spanish speakers referring to Arabs as "Morenos."

I'd have to vehemently disagree Berbers were black. I've studied at Islamic centers and the conquest of North Africa and Europe is quite detailed and historically accurate. Not to mention there's depictions of ancient Berbers that Egyptians made thousands of years ago showing the 4 types of man. Berbers were white according to Ancient Egyptian accounts. Berbers were darkened by Arab expansion. Also Arabs are Semitic, like Sephardic Jews . Not African. Any Africans claiming to be Arab would be due to Arab expansionism. The Moors were also a Muslim Kingdom. And 100% Muslim. Moors were the second Muslims to conquer Europe. As Madrid and other cities in Europe were founded by Muslims well before Moors came. And Moors were a coalition of Muslims of all races that fell in the moorish empire. The reason, once again why Moors were veiewed as black is simple, because black Moors, recent converts to Islam reconquered parts of Europe when the moderate muslim empire collapsed. I've taken many college courses that dealt with the occupation of Spain. It's a gigantic misconception Moors were black. There were black Moors tho.

---------- Post added at 11:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 AM ----------

"A marabout (Arabic: مُرابِط‎, translit. murābiṭ, lit. 'one who is attached/garrisoned') is a Muslim religious leader and teacher in West Africa, and (historically) in the Maghreb. The marabout is often a scholar of the Qur'an, or religious teacher.'

---------- Post added at 11:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 AM ----------

"Moor, in English usage, a Moroccan or, formerly, a member of the Muslim population of what is now Spain and Portugal. Of mixed Arab, Spanish, and Amazigh (Berber) origins, the Moors created the Arab Andalusian civilization and subsequently settled as refugees in North Africa between the 11th and 17th centuries."

---------- Post added at 11:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 AM ----------

"The term "Moors" refers primarily to the Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages. The Moors initially were the Berber autochthones of the Maghreb.[1] The name was later also applied to Arabs.[2][3]

Moors are not a distinct or self-defined people,[4] and the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica observed that "The term 'Moors' has no real ethnological value."[5] Medieval and early modern Europeans variously applied the name to Arabs, North African Berbers, and Muslim Europeans"

---------- Post added at 12:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 AM ----------

The Egyptian Book of Gates is around 3 or 4 thousand years old and depicts Berbers (Libyans) as white. Find an older more reliable source and I'll believe you Berbers were black.

Lyve science is on point with the cultural knowledge, dope conversation

Do you know what a paragraph is?

I’ve cut any type of racism out of my life. I can be called the N word, or any black related joke, it doesn’t bother me. And I have friends all different Colours and races

Race is too broad anyways. People who believe race is important think they have connections with people based on race. I'm white, I'm European, and American white supremacists can fuck right off claiming to be that shit too. I have no connection to them. "European" is too broad as well. Like how the fuck do I have a connection to France or Germany?

In other news, it's officially fucking Christmas cause the holidays are coming advert just played as I typed this.