reply to post by plumranch
There are a lot of sites on the Melungeons with conflicting results on their ancestry. I think it also depends on what the study is trying to prove,
and what qualifies the subject as a descendent of the Melungeons. Many sites do conclude that they had middle-eastern ancestry. One should also bear
in mind that Portugal and Spain had a large middle-eastern segment of the population at the time of Columbus. So "European" could mean a lot of
things.
www.mediamonitors.net... comes to the conclusion that the DNA does point to middle-eastern sources. Furthermore, a disease
common in Arab, North African and Berber populations called sarcoidosis is common amongst Americans of Melungeon descent. I heard of someone surnamed
"Moor" who only became aware of her Melungeon descent when a family member got this disease.
I don't think people have to stick to my general introduction to the letter, and the ancestry of Columbus is relevant. It appears that before the
spread of Islam amongst African Americans, the earlier history is a fascinating and obscure topic.
I was reading a biased Christian book by Peter Hammond: "Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The historical roots and contemporary threat" (2005,
Christian Liberty Books, see www.frontline.org.za). The information in it is not so much wrong or inaccurate, as selective (it focuses on Islamic
crimes while ignoring those of Christians). Nevertheless, it does challenge the notion that historical Islam was tolerant and advanced in its
treatment of other faiths and races. Hammond claims that: "Much has been made by Muslim apologists of the 'freedom of religion' and the toleration
of Christians as 'protected persons'. In fact freedom of religion in Muslim areas only meant the freedom of Jews and Christians to convert to Islam,
never the other way round. Christians and Jews were encouraged to convert to Islam, but Muslims were forbidden - on pain of death - to change their
Islamic religion" (Hammond p.70). Christians were further oppressed by the Pact of Umar, which imposed crippling poll and land taxes, forbade
Christians to carry weapons or display and build Christian symbols and places of worship, to ride with saddles and countless other humiliating
restrictions. The enslavement of Africans is well-known, but what is less spoken about is the Barbery Slavery between the 16-19th centuries, which
enslaved over 1 million Europeans, including Britains and Americans in North Africa. So I probably agree with the posters who argue that the conquest
of America would have been much the same under Islam. The question is: why wasn't it? It appears that Islam was a bit under siege at the time of
Columbus - it is said that Spain expelled its entire Jewish and Muslim poulation the day after he landed in the Bahamas.
Of course many would argue that there would have been significant differences. Perhaps both Christians and Muslims had been dehumaized and brutalized
by their long conflict with each other by 1492.
It is for example asserted that a certain interpretation of Islam allowed treachery for the sake of Jihadic conquest. Cortez and Pizarro certainly
employed treachery, especially in their use of native enemies of the autocratic Incan and Aztec states. Post-conquest the Indian allies were treated
as badly as the conquered states.
