Moors: explain this ? to me

24

Comments

  • Black Boy King
    Black Boy King Members Posts: 6,984 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2013
    http://books.google.com/books?id=r9lBAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

    30l2zif.jpg

    v78708.png

    70dkiv.png


    We're the ancient Berbers...
    Moor [moor] Show IPA
    noun
    1.
    a Muslim of the mixed Berber and Arab people inhabiting NW Africa.
    2.
    a member of this group that invaded Spain in the 8th century a.d. and occupied it until 1492.
    Origin:
    1350–1400; Middle English More < Middle French, variant of Maure < Latin Maurus < Greek Maûros
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Ziryab wrote: »
    janklow wrote: »
    we're not talking about the "sovereign citizen" scam-type Moors, i hope
    Therefore, Moors are sovereign. Same with any other nationality (Irish, German, Saudi Arabian, etc.). There are "? Moors" that trick people into buying nationality packages and ? , as well as agents of COINTELPRO that go into temples and create chaos (like they did with the Black Panthers). Truth is nationality is FREE...! And the Prophet Noble Drew Ali established the Moorish Science Temple of America for Blacks cut off from their ancestors can reclaim their identity.
    ...so you ARE trying to run with the "sovereign citizen" scammers. well, enjoy co-signing white supremacists and doing jail time for tax crimes
  • Black Boy King
    Black Boy King Members Posts: 6,984 ✭✭✭✭✭
    janklow wrote: »
    Ziryab wrote: »
    janklow wrote: »
    we're not talking about the "sovereign citizen" scam-type Moors, i hope
    Therefore, Moors are sovereign. Same with any other nationality (Irish, German, Saudi Arabian, etc.). There are "? Moors" that trick people into buying nationality packages and ? , as well as agents of COINTELPRO that go into temples and create chaos (like they did with the Black Panthers). Truth is nationality is FREE...! And the Prophet Noble Drew Ali established the Moorish Science Temple of America for Blacks cut off from their ancestors can reclaim their identity.
    ...so you ARE trying to run with the "sovereign citizen" scammers. well, enjoy co-signing white supremacists and doing jail time for tax crimes

    I'm sorry that you think the mission of Drew Ali's Moorish Divine and National Movement is a "sovereign citizen scam". Nationality does not cost any money. It's yours. It's YOU. All it requires is that you know thy self (just as they wrote on the walls in the Egyptian Mystery Schools) and continue to study and learn about civics and economics so that we ("Blacks") can once again be major players in international politics (much less, legitimate players in AMERICAN politics). Your ? leaders are not and cannot do anything for you except fight the emotional endless argument of "prejudice"/"racism". NAACP, CP meaning Colored People, Color under in BLACK"S LAW DICTIONARY means something ARTIFICIAL, FRAUD, MAKE-BELIEVE.


    Law Dictionary: definition of COLOR (Black's Law Dictionary Online (THOUGH ONLINE SOURCES NEVER GIVE ALL THE INFORMATION, CHECK OUT A 3RD OR 4TH EDITION OF BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY. START READING, ? ) http://thelawdictionary.org/color/#ixzz2aoZl7Z7i
    What is COLOR?

    An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that which Is real. A prima facie or apparent right. Hence, a deceptive appearance; a plausible, assumed exterior, concealing a lack of reality ; a disguise or pretext.





    If you have any facts to refute any of the evidence I've presented regarding us being considered Moors (<---pronoun, meaning it identifies something, unlike "black") then by all means, please enlighten me. I'm not out here trying to make everyone think I'm right. I'm out here sharing facts and information I have uncovered. If they can be disputed/disproved, then so be it. Bring me out of darkness. That's what a discussion is for, exchange information and views so that we can use rational standards to decide what we have more reason to believe.

    Please disprove what I said with legitimate facts/sources backing your statements. Otherwise, you are a typical G&S poster that throws out 1 or 2-liners, with no valid premises, just to look clever or smart.
  • jono
    jono Members Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    What facts?
    1) there is nothing that ties you to an 18th century Moroccan king

    2) there is nothin that proves any claim you are suggesting

    3) Moor is an ethnic group not a nationality and as such there is no Moor "nation" and if there were you can't tie yourself to it

    4) Noble Drew Ali has you cats brainwashed. Those documents don't mean a damn thing lol. You think a treaty with the king of Morocco from the 1700s mean you are a "sovereign citizen"? So your a citizen of what country then?

    5) your are more likely less Moorish than I am Japanese. You can't and I mean can not join an ethnic group! Do you speak the language? Know the culture? Know the customs? Can you trace your family there?
    Most likely the answer to all those questions is NO.

    6) it's illogical to even claim to be a Moor. That's like me saying I'm Yoruba just because someone can't prove I'm not.

    7) unless you are actually African or the direct descendant of an African you don't know where in Africa you are from and when you got here. So that means you don't know when you crossed the ocean. May have been before your "documents" may have been after.

    8) The moors conquering west Africa is the only tie to a possible link between Moors/Berbers (of North Africa) and those people's on the west coast where we are most likely from

    9) if I wanted to claim to be a Native American I would have to prove it, not just sign up. This ain't the Mickey Mouse club or the AV club in high school, you can't just sign up and claim benefits.

    10) you just another Afrocentric huckster claiming any ethnic group you can. Time and time again people like you pop up with ideas of being part or parcel to any African kingdom. Yours is just Moor, there are those claiming Egypt, Ethiopia etc and just about none of you cats have any damn proof.

    That's the sad thing to me. As I actually feel the same as you do, we have heritage, languages, and all that but it's been lost. All we can do is learn about them and hope science can start tying us to particular countries and groups.

    Africa is a continent of 54 nations and has existed for thousands of years. Hundreds of kings and kingdoms, incredible structures and beautiful people. Who wouldn't want to identify with that? But that doesn't mean we can just hijack other people's ethnicity as our own for some selfish purpose.

    We could be Ahsante, Moorish, Yoruba or any other group from any part of the continent but proof of who YOU are is necessary. Someone else can't tell you to just sign up because you are this.
  • Ajackson17
    Ajackson17 Members Posts: 22,501 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Cookies and Cream makes for good ice cream.
  • jono
    jono Members Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ajackson17 wrote: »
    Cookies and Cream makes for good ice cream.

    Cookies and cream is GOAT but that's off topic
  • indyman87
    indyman87 Members Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭✭
    if the treaty with Morocco doesn't mean anything then why do the Unite States resign it every 50 years? I really would like to know?
  • indyman87
    indyman87 Members Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭✭
    http://moroccoonthemove.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/225-years-counting-americas-longest-standing-treaty-of-peace-friendship-with-morocco/
    Morocco-US ‘Treaty of Peace & Friendship’│Congress ratifies 1787

    Moroccan American Cultural Center/MACC (Washington, DC, July 18, 2012) — Today marks the 225th anniversary of the US Senate’s 1787 vote to ratify what is now the longest standing treaty in America’s history — the US-Morocco “Treaty of Peace and Friendship.” More than two centuries later, the treaty continues to define the special and strategic relationship between two of the oldest and closest allies across the Atlantic.

    Formal relations between Morocco and the US began in 1777, when Morocco became the first country to recognize the American colonies as a nation. As George Washington and his troops took the field to make good on the Continental Congress’ Declaration of Independence, the Sultan of Morocco, Mohammed III, granted American ships recognition and safe passage through the Straits of Gibraltar and in Moroccan ports.
  • jono
    jono Members Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    indyman87 wrote: »
    if the treaty with Morocco doesn't mean anything then why do the Unite States resign it every 50 years? I really would like to know?

    It's a treaty. The US has treaties with how many DOZENS of nations?
  • Black Boy King
    Black Boy King Members Posts: 6,984 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2013
    1 by 1... Thanks for the love, famo. Peace.
    jono wrote: »
    What facts?
    1) there is nothing that ties you to an 18th century Moroccan king

    Yes, there is. The Europeans view "blacks" as Moors. If you look up the word "blackamoor" in the dictionary, they still do.
    black·a·moor [blak-uh-moor] Show IPA
    noun Now Usually Offensive.
    1.
    a black person.
    2.
    any dark-skinned person.
    Origin:
    1540–50; unexplained variant of phrase black Moor

    Europeans run this country currently. The Treaty of Morroco has direct ties to the US Constitution, and the US knew that. That is why George Washington (the appointed chief commander) notified the Sultan of Morroco in the letter I posted above. The Moors helped write the Constitution! Some of the Presidents had Moorish blood! Thomas Jefferson was a Moor (considered "tawny Moor")! Abe Lincoln had Moorish blood!

    2) there is nothin that proves any claim you are suggesting

    I have made various claims and have provided various pieces of evidence, please be more specific so that I can respond and (re)post the evidence you need.
    3) Moor is an ethnic group not a nationality and as such there is no Moor "nation" and if there were you can't tie yourself to it

    I apologize, let me clear that up. Moorish is a nationality. You can tie yourself to it by looking at your family's history. If you know your ancestors are from America (North, Central or South) or Africa, then you are considered a Moor. They know this. Proof of them knowing this can be found in many places. One example I have posted is the ? Law of South Carolina.

    v78708.png

    This is misleading if you chose to skip through the information I posted. Here is the definition of "Moor" in the dictionary. It includes MOORS as free inhabitants (as well as Egyptains, etc), because that is their PROPER name. Forget nationality for a minute, PROPER name. They only saw the world from their perspective so to them Africa was:
    Moor [moor] Show IPA
    noun
    1. a Muslim of the mixed Berber and Arab people inhabiting NW Africa.

    That is in today's society. The ancient Berbers/Moabites were black. South Carolina law clearly says that. It is the Negroes fault for not realizing that he is the father of these present-day North Africans aka mixed Berber and Arab people aka MOORS.

    How can the son be something the father is not? The son would not exist without the father.
    4) Noble Drew Ali has you cats brainwashed. Those documents don't mean a damn thing lol. You think a treaty with the king of Morocco from the 1700s mean you are a "sovereign citizen"? So your a citizen of what country then?
    And America has you thinking you're Black/African American/? , or whatever you call yourself. What's worse? A legitimate name recognized in the English language as proper, or a name that was used (and is used) to signify chattel property?

    I did not state the bolded. I said if you claim your Moorish nationality then you are sovereign. The Treaty is to allow the US to operate on their land for fifty years. Proof? *sigh* I'll repost the link to the Treaty:

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1786t.asp


    Then, look at George Washington's letter to the Sultan of Morocco IN RESPONSE to the Treaty I posted in the last page. I will only repost pertinent excerpts here:
    The encouragement which Your Majesty has been pleased, generously, to give to our commerce with your dominions, the punctuality with which you have caused the Treaty with us to be observed, and the just and generous measures taken in the case of Captain Proctor, make a deep impression on the United States and confirm their respect for and attachment to Your Imperial Majesty.

    Moors were present when the Constitution was written, this is why it was important for them to notify the Sultan of Morocco of the government change and ensure that it went along with the Constitution (the Supreme Law):

    "The United States of America have thought proper to change their government and institute a new one, agreeable to the Constitution, of which I have the honor, herewith, to enclose a copy."

    Again, the full letter is on the previous page. Please stop questioning my ability to provide sources for my claims.
    5) your are more likely less Moorish than I am Japanese. You can't and I mean can not join an ethnic group! Do you speak the language? Know the culture? Know the customs? Can you trace your family there?
    Most likely the answer to all those questions is NO.

    We're talking about nationality here. If one is to join the Moorish Divine and National Movement, it is expected that they abide by Moorish law and code of conduct which is, by way of Prophet Noble Drew Ali, Islamic law. This can be found in the Circle 7 Koran (posted by @bambu in this forum) and various other documents that SHOULD be located in a LEGITIMATE temple run by TRUE MOORS and not COINTELPRO operators getting paid off.
  • Black Boy King
    Black Boy King Members Posts: 6,984 ✭✭✭✭✭
    6) it's illogical to even claim to be a Moor. That's like me saying I'm Yoruba just because someone can't prove I'm not.

    It is illogical to say you're Yoruba because someone can't prove you are not. That is correct! That is an invalid argument form called modus ponens. Yes sir, I know how to make proper arguments. I have posted several sources. I am not just making a random claim.
    7) unless you are actually African or the direct descendant of an African you don't know where in Africa you are from and when you got here. So that means you don't know when you crossed the ocean. May have been before your "documents" may have been after.
    You can attempt to go through official US marriage/divorce/birth/death/etc documents to find your family history if your family did not keep it. Some people end up finding when one of their first ancestors came off the boat by reviewing slave registers. That immediately disproves your notion that you said so matter-of-factly "you dont know when you crossed the ocean".

    I'm not sure what you mean by "before your documents". And then you quoted "documents", I'm not sure if you are saying the Treaty of Morocco is fictitious or what. Clarify and I will respond further.

    8) The moors conquering west Africa is the only tie to a possible link between Moors/Berbers (of North Africa) and those people's on the west coast where we are most likely from
    *Moors, not "moors". Blame the dictionary, not me. It's a pronoun.

    This is false. There is proof that Moors had already knew the geography of the Americas. Columbus wrote in his diaries that he saw Moors settled here when he came. How could the Moors bring such advanced science, mathematics, philosophy, etc. to Europe in 711 A.D. if they couldn't build a boat to cross the ocean? Columbus even said in his diaries the journey wasn't ? . Only some grade school history books and the History Channel exaggerate it.
    9) if I wanted to claim to be a Native American I would have to prove it, not just sign up. This ain't the Mickey Mouse club or the AV club in high school, you can't just sign up and claim benefits.



    lol..... son... Native American is not a nationality.............native means tied to land by birth.... if you're born here, you are a native american lol...... see where the govt tries to ? you up with this whole Race/Class system

    No, you can't sign up for a tribe or nation. You be yourself and proclaim your nationality. Learn your history. Participate in cultural activities. BE that, whatever you are.

    If you want proclaim your Cherokee nationality (if you discover you are in fact Cherokee) I'm sure leaders of the nation would expect you to prove it. The Moorish Divine and National Movement is for all Blacks, i.e. ? that have no national status. Some "temples" may run things in different ways but as long as they aren't taking advantage of you, they should be teaching you the knowledge then issue nationality cards. Watch out for COINTELPRO or scam artists that are just looking to keep the people enslaved and make a quick buck.

    10) you just another Afrocentric huckster claiming any ethnic group you can. Time and time again people like you pop up with ideas of being part or parcel to any African kingdom. Yours is just Moor, there are those claiming Egypt, Ethiopia etc and just about none of you cats have any damn proof.

    It's OK, I'm not offended... You continue to ask for proof, and I post proof. You making indirect slights at my proof but don't call any of it out specifically. Please tell me which documents you believe are colored aka fictitious.
    That's the sad thing to me. As I actually feel the same as you do, we have heritage, languages, and all that but it's been lost. All we can do is learn about them and hope science can start tying us to particular countries and groups.

    Africa is a continent of 54 nations and has existed for thousands of years. Hundreds of kings and kingdoms, incredible structures and beautiful people. Who wouldn't want to identify with that? But that doesn't mean we can just hijack other people's ethnicity as our own for some selfish purpose.

    We could be Ahsante, Moorish, Yoruba or any other group from any part of the continent but proof of who YOU are is necessary. Someone else can't tell you to just sign up because you are this.

    Do you honestly believe that the Europeans honored our nations borders? They took over our ish. Some nations are resprouting but without their original resources (Europeans are keeping them in debt). Ethiopia never folded. But that's the only original nation left.


    The Moorish Divine and National Movement is meant to enlighten the lost Moors that considered themselves the fictitious ? /? /Black/Colored/AfroAmerican, aka bring them out of mental darkness, and provide them an avenue to proclaim their nationality. The world knows we're out to lunch. That's why they only talk that color argument with you. No one really believes people are divided into colors of the rainbow. The Chinese aren't going to show up to the UN and say "yeah we're the light skinned orange guys" because they know thats totally asinine.
  • Black Boy King
    Black Boy King Members Posts: 6,984 ✭✭✭✭✭
    jono wrote: »
    indyman87 wrote: »
    if the treaty with Morocco doesn't mean anything then why do the Unite States resign it every 50 years? I really would like to know?

    It's a treaty. The US has treaties with how many DOZENS of nations?

    I can't tell if you're doing it on purpose or not, but you aren't disproving anything by saying "the US has lots of treaties".


    It sounds as if you have a guard up (ego) and are just programmed to reject information. You asked in a disrespectful way, for the Moorish National and Divine Movement to be explained to you. Why are you rejecting it? This is the question of the hour...
  • jono
    jono Members Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'm not rejecting anything. Thousands of black scholars have spent years of their lives trying to find ties to Africa lol.

    You keep saying your a Moor but there's no proof. Those documents do not prove you are a moor or have ever been a moor.

    v78708.png

    Doesn't prove you or anyone else are moors. It only says moors are not negroes to them but free people. And LOL at thinking an old S. Carolina legal book holds any weight. Even if it were law it has no jurisdiction in Georgia, Alabama etc

    Moors were present when the Constitution was written, this is why it was important for them to notify the Sultan of Morocco of the government change and ensure that it went along with the Constitution (the Supreme Law)

    moors being "present" (rather true or untrue ) does not mean you or any one else is one...and LOL at the King of Morocco having he ability to do anything in the Americas. When has a king ever let his subjects be ruled by someone else, oh yeah he didnt right? Lol like White folks could be trusted to let any random black person call himself a "Moor" and free himself from ? . That's ludicrous, it's not even remotely logical.

    The Moorish Divine and National Movement is for all Black

    And herein is the issue. There's no proof that every black person is a moor or of moorish descent. Remember "moor" is a general term...

    Moorish is a nationality. You can tie yourself to it by looking at your family's history. If you know your ancestors are from America (North, Central or South) or Africa, then you are considered a Moor.

    So it's both a nationality and a general term? So what's the purpose of the nationality if every one is one regardless? Again makes no sense.

    Moor as a general term for blacks, all blacks in fact is just a title placed on you by some ol dead white folks just like ? ...all blacks were called negroes too at one point and that point is far more recent than any of these documents brought forth today. So even if you want to use legal terms the word "Moor" does not even apply today. Laws are written in the political language of the day. Laws for or against blacks have several synonyms. "African-American", "Black", "? " etc. "Moor" was most likely the term of the day.

    The Treaty is to allow the US to operate on their land for fifty years.

    No it doesn't. Lol it's a treaty, not one time did they ask for permission to do anything. Moors did not "own" Americas if so, once again, when has a King ever allowed his subjects to be ruled by another?
  • jono
    jono Members Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    So let me get this straight: the Moroccan king who owns vast amounts of land and is probably generating money from the inhabitants here (much like the King of England was) is going to let some Europeans come in and change his system?

    Doesn't sound like much of a king to me.

    "Thought proper to change" means a Government already existed and that was the Articles of Confederation. The King of Morocco retained dominion over HIS subjects but once again who are these people?

    Of course this isn't true. The treaty is a commerce treaty not "permission" to operate in "his" lands, it's literally no different than any other treaty two nations would engage in.

    http://morocco.usembassy.gov/mobile//early.html

  • Black Boy King
    Black Boy King Members Posts: 6,984 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2013
    jono wrote: »
    I'm not rejecting anything. Thousands of black scholars have spent years of their lives trying to find ties to Africa lol.

    You keep saying your a Moor but there's no proof. Those documents do not prove you are a moor or have ever been a moor.

    v78708.png

    Doesn't prove you or anyone else are moors. It only says moors are not negroes to them but free people. And LOL at thinking an old S. Carolina legal book holds any weight. Even if it were law it has no jurisdiction in Georgia, Alabama etc

    Moors were present when the Constitution was written, this is why it was important for them to notify the Sultan of Morocco of the government change and ensure that it went along with the Constitution (the Supreme Law)

    moors being "present" (rather true or untrue ) does not mean you or any one else is one...and LOL at the King of Morocco having he ability to do anything in the Americas. When has a king ever let his subjects be ruled by someone else, oh yeah he didnt right? Lol like White folks could be trusted to let any random black person call himself a "Moor" and free himself from ? . That's ludicrous, it's not even remotely logical.

    The Moorish Divine and National Movement is for all Black

    And herein is the issue. There's no proof that every black person is a moor or of moorish descent. Remember "moor" is a general term...

    Moorish is a nationality. You can tie yourself to it by looking at your family's history. If you know your ancestors are from America (North, Central or South) or Africa, then you are considered a Moor.

    So it's both a nationality and a general term? So what's the purpose of the nationality if every one is one regardless? Again makes no sense.

    Moor as a general term for blacks, all blacks in fact is just a title placed on you by some ol dead white folks just like ? ...all blacks were called negroes too at one point and that point is far more recent than any of these documents brought forth today. So even if you want to use legal terms the word "Moor" does not even apply today. Laws are written in the political language of the day. Laws for or against blacks have several synonyms. "African-American", "Black", "? " etc. "Moor" was most likely the term of the day.

    The Treaty is to allow the US to operate on their land for fifty years.

    No it doesn't. Lol it's a treaty, not one time did they ask for permission to do anything. Moors did not "own" Americas if so, once again, when has a King ever allowed his subjects to be ruled by another?

    Fam.... First off... Not all Moors are Negros............ This is beyond obvious.......... ALL NEGROS ARE MOORS.......... This is in the dictionary.............. look up the word "blackamoor"....



    it means........ "a ? "........................ coming from the phrase......... "black Moor"..................


    you say you aren't rejecting the information................. but you are rejecting it........... clearly.......what is wrong with you....?





    .....South Carolina state legislature may not mean anything to you....... but it was the law of the land (and i have no real reason to believe it isn't now besides how people "feeeeel" things are changing) in SC..............



    you say "Moors being present during the making of the Constitution doesn't make you one"....... Duh........ It means that Moors have direct ties to this land........... and have authority in this land along side the European sovereigns.................




    Moor is not synonymous to "Black"..... that doesn't make sense.................. what would be the use for the English word "blackamoor"? it means "blackablack" ? "a black Black"..........?



    You may choose to dismiss the information........... but if you choose to refute it, please use valid arguments........... slandering a valid source is a bad way to start..............
  • Black Boy King
    Black Boy King Members Posts: 6,984 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2013
    jono wrote: »
    So let me get this straight: the Moroccan king who owns vast amounts of land and is probably generating money from the inhabitants here (much like the King of England was) is going to let some Europeans come in and change his system?

    Doesn't sound like much of a king to me.

    "....let some Europeans come in and change his system"


    "let"


    lol.....


    African-European relations were/are much deeper than that...... lol @ "not much of a king to me".... More irrelevant opinions...


    The Articles of Confederation is not a government....... a government is made up of people that rule over a land enclosed in boundaries.... the government was the US Republic, which had 8 Presidents before GW....for which George Washington said they are "giving commerce with your (Sultan of Morocco) dominions"..... Trading with your land..... Farming with your land..... dominions is land


    you're attempting to change definitions of words but I have both a well renown Oxford dictionary set and a 4th edition Black's Law dictionary at my disposal... you can't shake me from the truth.... your feelings and opinions cannot deter me...


    dominions means land in this instance.... you say "retained dominion over his subjects"... implying dominion = authority, here... that does not make sense... he said
    The encouragement which Your Majesty has been pleased, generously, to give to our commerce with your dominions...make a deep impression on the United States and confirm their respect for and attachment to Your Imperial Majesty.

    give commerce with your dominions... i guess you need to look up what "commerce" means? or what "with" means? idk dude.... it's pretty blatant
  • jono
    jono Members Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    .....South Carolina state legislature may not mean anything to you....... but it was the law of the land (and i have no real reason to believe it isn't now besides how people "feeeeel" things are changing) in SC..............

    No it literally means nothing. I live in Michigan and we don't have to follow any laws S. Carolina writes lol. Provide an updated version....and it still wouldn't be relevant outside S. Carolina. Lol

    Moor is not synonymous to "Black"..... that doesn't make sense.................. what would be the use for the English word "blackamoor"? it means "blackablack" ? "a black Black"..........?

    Lol whatever bruh. Nobody even uses "blackamoor", its an old term. But take a look at this definition from Oxford:

    noun
    dated offensive
    a black African; a very dark-skinned person.

    http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/blackamoor


    you say "Moors being present during the making of the Constitution doesn't make you one"....... Duh........ It means that Moors are direct ties to this land........... and have authority in this land along side the European sovereigns.................


    No they don't. Provide a document saying they do. You posted a treaty that allows free trade between nations not any "authority" lol. There are no European sovereigns either for the record.

    Fam.... First off... Not all Moors are Negros............ This is beyond obvious.......... ALL NEGROS ARE MOORS.......... This is in the dictionary.............. look up the word "blackamoor"....

    Okay then lol

    You may choose to dismiss the information........... but if you choose to refute it, please use valid arguments........... slandering a valid source is a bad way to start...........

    What source was valid? Your treaty is bunk, and the S. Carolina legal book is old and not relevant to all states. Those are facts. So if you wanna call that "rejecting" then consider it rejected.


  • jono
    jono Members Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    From the link I posted:

    Faced with serious economic and political difficulties, he was searching for a new method of governing which required changes in his economy. Instead of relying on a standing professional army to collect taxes and enforce his authority, he wanted to establish state-controlled maritime trade as a new, more reliable, and regular source of income which would free him from dependency on the services of the standing army. The opening of his ports to America and other states was part of that new policy.

    Later on:

    The Sultan issued a declaration on December 20, 1777, announcing that all vessels sailing under the American flag could freely enter Moroccan ports. The Sultan stated that orders had been given to his corsairs to let the ship "des Americains" and those of other European states with which Morocco had no treaties-Russia Malta, Sardinia, Prussia, Naples, Hungary, Leghorn, Genoa, and Germany-pass freely into Moroccan ports.

    From your link:

    To all Persons to whom these Presents shall come or be made known- Whereas the United States of America in Congress assembled by their Commission bearing date the twelvth day of May One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty four thought proper to constitute John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson their Ministers Plenipotentiary, giving to them or a Majority of them full Powers to confer, treat & negotiate with the Ambassador, Minister or Commissioner of His Majesty the Emperor of Morocco concerning a Treaty of Amity and Commerce, to make & receive propositions for such Treaty and to conclude and sign the same, transmitting it to the United States in Congress assembled for their final Ratification, And by one other (commission bearing date the Eleventh day of March One thousand Seven hundred & Eighty five did further empower the said Ministers Plenipotentiary or a majority of them, by writing under the* hands and Seals to appoint such Agent in the said Business as they might think proper with Authority under the directions and Instructions of the said Ministers to commence & prosecute the said Negotiations & Conferences for the said Treaty provided that the said Treaty should be signed by the said Ministers: And Whereas, We the said John Adams & Thomas Jefferson two of the said Ministers Plenipotentiary (the said Benjamin Franklin being absent) by writing under the Hand and Seal of the said John Adams at London October the fifth, One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty five, & of the said Thomas Jefferson at Paris October the Eleventh of the same Year, did appoint Thomas Barclay, Agent in the Business aforesaid, giving him the Powers therein, which by the said second Commission we were authorized to give, and the said Thomas Barclay in pursuance thereof, hath arranged Articles for a Treaty of Amity and Commerce between the United States of America and His Majesty the Emperor of Morocco, which Articles written in the Arabic Language, confirmed by His said Majesty the Emperor of Morocco & seal'd with His Royal Seal, being translated into the Language of the said United States of America, together with the Attestations thereto annexed are in the following Words, To Wit.


    From my link:
    Barclay and the Moroccans quickly reached agreement on the Treaty of Friendship and Amity. Also called the Treaty of Marrakech, it was sealed by the Emperor on June 23 and delivered to Barclay to sign on June 28. In addition, a separate ship seals agreement, providing for the identification at sea of American and Moroccan vessels, was signed at Marrakech on July 6,1786. Binding for 50 years, the Treaty was signed by Thomas Jefferson at Paris on January 1, 1787, and John Adams at London on January 25, 1787, and was ratified by Congress on July 18, 1787. The negotiation of this treaty marked the beginning of diplomatic relations between the two countries and it was the first treaty between any Arab, Muslim, or African State and the United States.

    I guess they just conveniently left out all the "dominion" the king held?
  • jono
    jono Members Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ziryab wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    So let me get this straight: the Moroccan king who owns vast amounts of land and is probably generating money from the inhabitants here (much like the King of England was) is going to let some Europeans come in and change his system?

    Doesn't sound like much of a king to me.

    "....let some Europeans come in and change his system"


    "let"


    lol.....


    African-European relations were/are much deeper than that...... lol @ "not much of a king to me".... More irrelevant opinions...


    The Articles of Confederation is not a government....... a government is made up of people that rule over a land enclosed in boundaries.... the government was the US Republic, which had 8 Presidents before GW....for which George Washington said they are "giving commerce with your (Sultan of Morocco) dominions"..... Trading with your land..... Farming with your land..... dominions is land


    you're attempting to change definitions of words but I have both a well renown Oxford dictionary set and a 4th edition Black's Law dictionary at my disposal... you can't shake me from the truth.... your feelings and opinions cannot deter me...


    dominions means land in this instance.... you say "retained dominion over his subjects"... implying dominion = authority, here... that does not make sense... he said
    The encouragement which Your Majesty has been pleased, generously, to give to our commerce with your dominions...make a deep impression on the United States and confirm their respect for and attachment to Your Imperial Majesty.

    give commerce with your dominions... i guess you need to look up what "commerce" means? or what "with" means? idk dude.... it's pretty blatant

    To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

    Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

    I.

    The Stile of this Confederacy shall be

    "The United States of America".

    II.

    Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

    III.

    The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.


    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp
  • Black Boy King
    Black Boy King Members Posts: 6,984 ✭✭✭✭✭
    lol you say you live in Michigan so old SC law means nothing to you.... fine.... but South Carolina state officials at the time knew Blacks were the ancient Berbers. That was written in State law. Not the news. Not an editorial. Not some blog from an anonymous government official. Not some guy's post in a hip hop message board. It was written in State law. And mind you, this is just one example I had in reach of the government knowing who you really are.


    There's no point in continuing this exchange with you, bro. I can't lie, I stopped reading after you dispelled blackamoor as an old term (subjective) as if that has anything to do with if its a real English word or not. That's a fool's argument. You even proved it with the definition that it means ? but then just said "lol nah whatever i dont believe that". What? lol... "lead a horse to water but can't make him drink". Maybe one of the other conscious Moors will come and continue to spread the knowledge; I'm done repeating the same thing over and over again.

  • kzzl
    kzzl Members Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ziryab wrote: »
    janklow wrote: »
    we're not talking about the "sovereign citizen" scam-type Moors, i hope

    If you proclaim your nationality, you are 'sovereign'.


    Moorish is a nationality.
    The Moors Sundry Act of 1790 was passed by South Carolina legislature, granting special status to the subjects of Sultan of Morocco, Mohammed ben Abdallah. It recognized Moors as white people with Jury duty as a privilege. Moors were not to be subjected to laws governing blacks and slaves.


    Therefore, Moors are sovereign. Same with any other nationality (Irish, German, Saudi Arabian, etc.). There are "? Moors" that trick people into buying nationality packages and ? , as well as agents of COINTELPRO that go into temples and create chaos (like they did with the Black Panthers). Truth is nationality is FREE...! And the Prophet Noble Drew Ali established the Moorish Science Temple of America for Blacks cut off from their ancestors can reclaim their identity.


    That's why you have (oh no, dare I say it) do your own research. Know thy self.

    So I'm I understanding this right?

    If we're to let this treaty define it, this seems to make Moors distinct of blacks and slaves. Therefore, those of us that are not servants, or descendants of servants, of the sultan couldn't claim Moor.They would not be allowed the privileges of being recognized as white and would still be subject to ? laws. Which leads me to assume the moors nation is Morocco as well.

    If that's how it is, it's just a bunch of foreigners that get a pass while the rest still get thrown in chains. If a black person can't proof they're of the nation, if theirs not Moor identity to reclaim, what then? Covert or be infidels?


  • Black Boy King
    Black Boy King Members Posts: 6,984 ✭✭✭✭✭
    For those reading, I'll drop one more gem for this thread... The United States is the only nation to have ever had a "dual seal". No longer do we use the coin anymore, but if you look on the back of your classic $1 dollar bill, you will find both seals.


    Every US official speaks under that bird you see with the Star of David over it. It the US's seal.

    Have you ever seen anyone speak under that pyramid?

    Hell no.

    Hell muthafuckin no.

    Because it's not their's, it's yours. And there is loads of symbolism in it. It represents the Al Moroccan empire. Contrary to what you may have been led to believe, ain't no gotdamn pyramids in Europe (where these "Americans" came from).


    With that, I'm through here.
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The only law that means anything is the law of the gun it the law that holds everything together. You think the people who rule this world today give a ? about some treaty that was signed in seventeen-whenever -the ? with a kingdom that no longer exist hell the ? no.
  • jono
    jono Members Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ziryab wrote: »
    lol you say you live in Michigan so old SC law means nothing to you.... fine.... but South Carolina state officials at the time knew Blacks were the ancient Berbers. That was written in State law. Not the news. Not an editorial. Not some blog from an anonymous government official. Not some guy's post in a hip hop message board. It was written in State law. And mind you, this is just one example I had in reach of the government knowing who you really are.


    There's no point in continuing this exchange with you, bro. I can't lie, I stopped reading after you dispelled blackamoor as an old term (subjective) as if that has anything to do with if its a real English word or not. That's a fool's argument. You even proved it with the definition that it means ? but then just said "lol nah whatever i dont believe that". What? lol... "lead a horse to water but can't make him drink". Maybe one of the other conscious Moors will come and continue to spread the knowledge; I'm done repeating the same thing over and over again.

    National laws > State laws (it's in the Constitution).

    Laws of S. Carolina have no place anywhere else in the nation. I don't see how you can't accept that, it's very clear. It's clear in every document that puts this country together and that is each state governs itself and no other, it writes its own laws to which citizens under its jurisdiction are obligated to follow said laws.

    There's 50 states in the United State of America as you come with one legal book from one state and that book is over 100 years old. Sorry but that just doesn't fly.

    But to make it even more damning check this out;
    ? LAW OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
    CHAPTER I.
    The Status of the ? , his Rights and Disabilities.
    Section 1. The Act of 1740, sec. I, declares all negroes and Indians, (free Indians in amity with this Government, negroes, mu-P L lattoes and mestizoes, who now are free, excepted) to be slaves:—7Sls the offspring to follow the condition of the mother: and that such slaves are chattels personal.
    Sec. 2. Under this provision it has been uniformly held, that color is prima facie evidence, that the party bearing the color of a ? , Han mulatto or mestizo, is a slave: but the same prima facie result does not follow from the Indian color.
    g^r<
    Sec. 3. Indians, and descendants of Indians are regarded as free
    Indians, in amity with this government, until the contrary be shown. MH](
    In the second proviso of Sec. 1, of the Act of 1740, it is declared son T ,. , , ... , Dud
    that "every ? , Indian, mulatto and mestizo is a slave unless 174.
    the contrary can be made to appear"—
    yet, in the same it is immedi- more ately thereafter provided—" the Indians in amity with this government, excepted, in which case the burden of proof shall lie on the £• * defendant," that is, on the person claiming the Indian plaintiff to be a slave. This latter clause of the proviso is now regardedas furnishing the rule. The race of slave Indians, or of Indians not in amity to this government, (the State,) is extinct, and hence the previous part of the proviso has no application.
    Sec. 4. The term ? is confined to slave Africans, (the ancient St,' Berbers) and their descendants. It does not embrace the free in- *nd
    'Con
    habitants of Africa,
    such as the Egyptians, Moors, or the ? MUl Asiatics, such as the Lascars. scoi

    Stat
    Sec. 5. Mulatto is the issue of the white and the ? . 1 B<
    b The
    Sec. 6. When the mulatto ceases, and a party bearing some Scot
    slight taint of the African blood. ranks as white, is a question for thei'av
    solution of a Jury. Stat
    2 Hi

    So not only is it old and invalid in other states it doesn't even say what you think it says. It says "inhabitants of Africa" are exempt. Clearly it would be difficult to prove you are an inhabitant of Africa but that also collides with your belief that the King of Morocco held court in the Americas.

    Both statement are patently false. The King of Morocco held no dominion and had no authority in the United States and only inhabitants of Africa were considered free people in S. Carolina.

    Good thing you quit, that's a helluva hole to dig out of. But I owe it to people who are lurking to give them all the info I came across.