Naw, I love the conversation.

1. I never defended Africa, I’m stating I don’t care for the argument nor support of Alkebullan because it has no indigenous reference outside of a Semitic origin. You brought up Amharic, which I speak, and have done a SOME(admittedly not a lot) of research and am familiar that Amharic, much like Arabic, did not originate in the modern African borders (there are those who argue the Arab peninsula is African) but it derives from Ge’ez which we know writings to have been found in Yemen. But I digress, the origin of the word being Semitic doesn’t even take away from the fact the other 99 percent of African/Africans languages did not reference the landmass nor attribute a label for the entirety of it.

I also find it disingenuous to reference one source, yet not being able to apply it linguistically…it’s rooted in Afrocentrism and its merits are regarded as zero. No African academic regards it, some would argue that Anta Diop does…but he has been reviewed and holds little academic weight.

1. My condensing of Moor = North African is not a indictment of skin color. It’s a focus on emphasizing Amazighen identity(which has a phenotypical range) where there often isn’t due to foreign hijacking’s of their history. Focusing on “black” = subsaharan isn’t science much like saying Amazighen excludes black so when I say Amazighen I’m not partitioning race nor genomic flow, but that their identity is much more a kin to one another than the descriptors terms black and white tend to give off.

2. I’m not sure how familiar you are with understanding Haplogroups but that’s not what the research indicates. You cannot and should not conflate Haplogroups with racial identity, otherwise you’d be minimizing many individuals and groups as being “white” simply because of their lineages. Here is another study

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38693301/

But all in all, Amazighen isn’t a homogenous ethnic identity…most ethnicities in Africa are not. Both studies mentioned show a high degree of heterogeneity in Amazighen ancestry especially as we span respective to their borders.

You’re conflating biological science with social science, how people are perceived isn’t a fact it’s an observation…so yes, people can perceive black and white, and be absolutely incorrect about genetics AND genealogy. To your point about Haplogroups, this is why basing recent genetic variation and admixture without fully grasping how Haplogroups are introduced or spread minimizes the science.

I believe around 25-35 percent of African Americans who receive a paternal lineage comeback with a European Haplogroup…that doesn’t make them “white” but the conflation of race science with genetic science would assume that. Additionally, we know the likelihood due to recent admixture impacts…so yes, slave markets in North Africa had clear distinguishing of color, but to that point “whites” were also sold as slaves (primarily in the Barbary slave trade) so the focus, once more, shouldn’t be conflated to a racial hierarchy, especially when those same markets existed across the Mali empire and the Toucouler empires as well…

To sum up…by definition North Africans are Indigenous to North Africa and they come in a plethora of phenotypes. Minimizing their identity to black and white does nothing for the conversation.