PDA

View Full Version : Was Europe (1500-1789) a black civilisation?


Pages : [1] 2 3

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 10:21 AM
http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Charles-Stuart-II-the-black-boy.jpg

[Charles II Stuart, named THe Black Boy]


My research after three years resulted in a theory named Blue blood is black blood (1500-1789) by Egmond Codfried. Blue blood is the highest European nobility, starting somewhere at the end of the medieval period. Blue blooded nobility typically have no diploma's given by a king, but were always considered nobles by their peers. From the highest nobles came the European kings, who were always bloodrelatives. Power was also based on marriages. Blue blood was symbolised by images of the Moor, a classical African in looks. This has by the way nothing to do with Islamic Moors, which study I consider utterly useless.
The Black Europeans I'm talking about are descendents of the first Europeans, the Grimaldi Human, which entered Europe 43.000 years ago. They lived on till way into the 19th century, their numbers augmented by the Garamante, who were brought in 50 BC to Europe by Caesar to fight Germanic peoples.
The first case I present is Charles II Stuart (1630-1685), King of England. Named The Black Boy, because he looked black. He was described as a tall black man. And James Boswell described him as The Swarthy Stuart. In google one finds portraits of a white man with black hair, but also prints which show dark skin. So we have four sources about his black looks. His skin was not white and there can be debate about how Classical African his facial features where. But white he was not.

Normally some people react irrational and with great panic and ignorance to the above statement. They do not ask question or study sources but ridicule and insult. Let's hope those kind of people ar not on this forum and moderation will call them to order. People should stop before they speak and look in google for what information and images I have posted under my name, which is also my real name. The images come straight from other sites, who I do not expect to be doctoring images of whites to look like blacks. Royal portraits are found in the site of The National Portrait Gallery, with like 27 pages of portraits of Charles II Stuart, either white looking or black. Off course black babies come from black couples, as intermarriage is part of the nobility.

Over the coming moths I will be posting more information and look forward to a pleasant, civil discussion.

SecondJudith
12-22-2009, 10:27 AM
Cool story, bro.

Bryan Ekers
12-22-2009, 10:29 AM
Well, I know moths can turn black over the span of a few generations....



Anyway, the royals were so inbred that their "blood" had little effect on the general population, insofar as with the exception of a few scattered illegitimate children, royal genetics were pretty much a dead end.

jayjay
12-22-2009, 10:32 AM
Tell us about how the Greek on all the single side of her family (since the Ptolemies adopted the ancient Pharaonic incest marriage pattern) Cleopatra was actually Nubian, grampa!

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 10:38 AM
Well, I know moths can turn black over the span of a few generations....
Anyway, the royals were so inbred that their "blood" had little effect on the general population, insofar as with the exception of a few scattered illegitimate children, royal genetics were pretty much a dead end.

My research is about the time when they were running the show (1500-1789). They were a social class which intermarried.

Not all European blacks were noble, some where normal citizens, but because of their black and coloured looks they were treated as superior. The structure during this period can be described as Reversed Apartheid, with a noble, black minority dominating a white and coloured majority. The French Revolution was the turning point. Hence racism can be deconstructed as an overwrought liberation ideology to free Europe from Black Superiority. Whites are still taught to fear blacks because they were despotically oppressed by blacks, the blue blood nobility and kings.

Whites do not make black babies, unless there is some recent black ancestry in both parents. But its important to arrive at some definition of who is white and who is black.

Another thread will be about human albinism in which I found a explanation for where whites come from.

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 10:42 AM
Tell us about how the Greek on all the single side of her family (since the Ptolemies adopted the ancient Pharaonic incest marriage pattern) Cleopatra was actually Nubian, grampa!


The period discussed here is 1500-1789

Cleopatra is described as black.
Some pieces at the Louvre Paris show her relatives as with classical black features: noses, lips, hair.

But lets not confuse the matter by mixing periods, please

jayjay
12-22-2009, 10:43 AM
Afrocentrism Comes To The Dope
Act I, Scene 1

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 10:44 AM
Cool story, bro.

Do you agree that Charles II Stuart looks black?

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 10:45 AM
Afrocentrism Comes To The Dope
Act I, Scene 1

Am I'm breaking new ground?
I'm from Surinam, SA, and live in The Hague, The Netherlands and in Surinam.

kaylasdad99
12-22-2009, 10:49 AM
Welcome to the SDMB.

Baron Greenback
12-22-2009, 10:49 AM
Do you agree that Charles II Stuart looks black?


Not really. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charles_II_of_England.jpeg)

jayjay
12-22-2009, 10:51 AM
Do you agree that Charles II Stuart looks black?

Even IF Charles II looked black (whatever that means), it doesn't even come close to making the idea of the entire European royal class being black plausible.

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 10:52 AM
http://collection.aucklandartgallery.govt.nz/collection/images/display/M1983-/M2001_32_21.jpg

Queen Henriette Maria de Bourbon, The mother of Charles II Stuart, The Black Boy.

She was a French Princess. We have to re-ajust our image of a European princess.
Sh was the daughter of Maria de Medici, Queen of France and second wife to King Henri IV of France.
She was the sister of king Louis XIII.
She was the aunt of Louis XIV, The Sun King. He and Charles II were cousins.
The well preserved mummy of Louis XIV was described in the 19th century as 'Black as ink.'
There is one black image in google thumpprints "codfried louis XIV" but it cannot be seen by itself due to censorship.

jayjay
12-22-2009, 10:58 AM
http://collection.aucklandartgallery.govt.nz/collection/images/display/M1983-/M2001_32_21.jpg

Queen Henriette Maria de Bourbon, The mother of Charles II Stuart, The Black Boy.

I don't see the supposedly African features.

She was a French Princess. We have to re-ajust our image of a European princess.

Why?

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 10:59 AM
Not really. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charles_II_of_England.jpeg)

http://www.kuteev.ru/2009/whiteobama.jpg

Here we have a image of Barack Obama looking white.
One can use any technic to show a black person to look white.
Obviously this is some joke as most people are aware that Obama is black. The whole noise is about Obama being black, right?

Now do we consider Obama white because there are some four or five images of a white Obama? No, because we look at descriptions which tell us he is black.
What would happen if in a hundred years Obama is only shown as a white person in Museums?
If you can relate to this question without hysterics you grasp the point of my research.

The whitened images of the European royals who are described as black or coloured should be seen as revisionist fakes. They are over paints or propoganidistic whitened images. To use them today without telling us they are whitened is a revisionism of history.

Alessan
12-22-2009, 11:00 AM
You know, this is the sort of thing that people would have noticed at the time.

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 11:04 AM
I don't see the supposedly African features.
Why?

Blacks and coloureds come in many shapes and forms, and not everyone has classical african features, not everyone has frizzy hair, thick lips, broad noses or subnasal prognasty. Yet they are not considered whites, they are blacks. Somalis and Ethiopians arriving in the US are not treated as fellow whites. They are looked upon as blacks, no matter how straight their hair or narrow their noses might be.

Now that you are given sources of the black looks of her son you might understand that his mother, Maria Henriette should have been black too.

We have to re-ajust our thinking of what a European princess (1500-1789) used to look like because of my reserch: blue blood is black blood (1500-1789)

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 11:09 AM
You know, this is the sort of thing that people would have noticed at the time.


O yes they did. But what you mean with 'people'? White people?
I never questioned my father or my family being blacks. We were just blacks. Actually going to Holland made me very aware of my blackness and if I belonged.
The whites who grew up with a black elite did not question this. And the ones which did were quickly made to understnd that this is how things were and were going to stay. The blackness of kings and nobles, the black superiority was questioned in the struggle towards the French revolution (1789-1794) when this system was overtrown. Just like how South Africa reverted to majority, black rule.

Baron Greenback
12-22-2009, 11:13 AM
Hey Egmond, could tell us about your devastating evidence that Jane Austen was black?

Bryan Ekers
12-22-2009, 11:15 AM
Hence racism can be deconstructed as an overwrought liberation ideology to free Europe from Black Superiority. Whites are still taught to fear blacks because they were despotically oppressed by blacks, the blue blood nobility and kings.

I prefer the more plausible route of deconstructing racism as a vestigial response to the fear of being attacked by saber-tooth tigers.

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 11:17 AM
Even IF Charles II looked black (whatever that means), it doesn't even come close to making the idea of the entire European royal class being black plausible.

Well, I have collected about twentyfive personal description of kings and nobles, which describes them as black, coloured and etnic looking. Because of internmarriage this can be multiplied by parents, grandparents, greatgrandparents, children, grandchildren and greatgrandchildren.
I consider this a good sample for my research purposes.
The identity was blue blood, which was black blood.
To determine whether a person was of noble descent the status of the greatgrandparents were also considerend. If a person had sixteen noble quarters, ancestors, he was a very high noble.
The highest nobility looked upon themselves as the only true nobles. The ennobled classes, were called 'new nobility.' Yet when there was money and positions to consider the highest nobility might marry a low noble or even a commoner.

Shodan
12-22-2009, 11:17 AM
Somalis and Ethiopians arriving in the US are not treated as fellow whites. I thought we were talking about European nobility c. 1500-1789,
We have to re-ajust our thinking of what a European princess (1500-1789) used to look like because of my reserch: blue blood is black blood (1500-1789)Why is that?

You haven't really produced much research - just some portraits. Now do we consider Obama white because there are some four or five images of a white Obama? No, because we look at descriptions which tell us he is black.Then wouldn't we need some descriptions - hell, a lot of descriptions - of people saying "Charles Stuart doth surely seem to bespeak one of the sons of Ham, by my codpiece!" or "by Gadfrey, Charles, thy mother be so black when she doth attend night school, the master doth mark her absent, in sooth" or likewise.

Regards,
Shodan

Marley23
12-22-2009, 11:18 AM
Now do we consider Obama white because there are some four or five images of a white Obama? No, because we look at descriptions which tell us he is black.
No, it's because we can see what he looks like.

If you want your argument to go anywhere, you have to show that "black" meant the same thing to Europeans in 1500 that it means to us today. You're asking us to take that for granted, which would be a huge leap of faith. Why does "black," as applied to Charles, refer to African ancestry rather than a dark (by white standards) complexion?

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 11:21 AM
I prefer the more plausible route of deconstructing racism as a vestigial response to the fear of being attacked by saber-tooth tigers.

Both fears are plausible, because humans were attacked by tigers. And whites in Europe were ruled and oppressed by blacks.

The question is: do we still need racism after all this time, is there still a need to keep blacks down, to fill our prisons with young black men, because of events so many years ago.

Important here is that people who will benefit from change will be more prepared to consider my theories.

People who benefit from the status quo will reject every point I make and even ridicule my views.

Alessan
12-22-2009, 11:24 AM
O yes they did. But what you mean with 'people'? White people?
I never questioned my father or my family being blacks. We were just blacks. Actually going to Holland made me very aware of my blackness and if I belonged.
The whites who grew up with a black elite did not question this.

Maybe. But I'd think someone would have said something about all their kings being several shades darker than everyone else in the throne room.

tomndebb
12-22-2009, 11:26 AM
Do you agree that Charles II Stuart looks black?Of course, not. He does not even look like someone from the sections of Africa settled by Phoenicians or Romans. He looks very much like a Northern European.

Blacks and coloureds come in many shapes and forms, and not everyone has classical african features, not everyone has frizzy hair, thick lips, broad noses or subnasal prognasty. Yet they are not considered whites, they are blacks. Somalis and Ethiopians arriving in the US are not treated as fellow whites. They are looked upon as blacks, no matter how straight their hair or narrow their noses might be.So, what you are saying is that he doesn't really look "black" because blacks and whites all have such widely divergent characteristics that there is no actual way to distinguish them--except when you make a declaration that someone looks the way you need to to look for your thesis.

Sorry. I am unpersuaded and unimpressed with your assertions. (I am not even really sure what you are setting out to prove, but I am pretty sure you have failed.)

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 11:28 AM
I thought we were talking about European nobility c. 1500-1789,Why is that?

I anticipated strange science about East Africans being whites, Black Caucasians or something. Some have found what I'm talking about and said these kings were 'black Caucasians.' So they were whites, but with black skin. I consider this B.S.

You haven't really produced much research - just some portraits. Then wouldn't we need some descriptions - hell, a lot of descriptions - of people saying "Charles Stuart doth surely seem to bespeak one of the sons of Ham, by my codpiece!" or "by Gadfrey, Charles, thy mother be so black when she doth attend night school, the master doth mark her absent, in sooth" or likewise.

Regards,
Shodan

I'm just getting started. Please read google if you are in a hurry. I have (self)published two books on these matters with sources etc.

Charles II Stuart was named The Black Boy, described as a tall black man and The swarty Stuart. Next we have three portraits of a black man. The wigged one is the blackest and the most afrocentric in my view.

Is this still too vague for you?

TGWATY
12-22-2009, 11:31 AM
http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Charles-Stuart-II-the-black-boy.jpg

[Charles II Stuart, named THe Black Boy]

In color.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Charles_II_of_England_Stuart_by_John_Riley.JPG

A few more pics are here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_England

John Mace
12-22-2009, 11:31 AM
Saw the thread title, and bet myself that the OP would have a join date of Dec '09. Self wins!

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 11:32 AM
Maybe. But I'd think someone would have said something about all their kings being several shades darker than everyone else in the throne room.

The kings and their nobles were black and coloured, members of a fixed mulatto race which identified as blue blood. Kingship started with this nation of original Europeans. White Europeans came only 6000 years ago from Central asia to Europe. The nobility looked down on whites, much like racist whites today look down on blacks, not even considering then humans.
Whites and Enlightened blacks ended this strange oppression with a great shout called The French Revoltution. Calls for equality were whites asking for equality.

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 11:34 AM
In color.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Charles_II_of_England_Stuart_by_John_Riley.JPG

A few more pics are here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_England

http://images.google.nl/images?hl=nl&source=hp&q=white%20obama&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Please consider images of a white Barack Obama.
Does these make him a white man?

Odesio
12-22-2009, 11:36 AM
Important here is that people who will benefit from change will be more prepared to consider my theories.


This is the big problem with Afrocentrist. Afrocentrism is more about making modern people feel better about themselves than it is about good scholarly work. You have not produced any convincing evidence in this thread that would lead anyone here to believe that Charles II was what we would describe as being black today.

If you're going to make extraordinary claims you're going to need better evidence than you've presented so far. I am curious to know what exactly your sources are for these claims.

Shodan
12-22-2009, 11:36 AM
Both fears are plausible, because humans were attacked by tigers. And whites in Europe were ruled and oppressed by blacks. I don't think that saber-tooth tigers were a major problem in Europe for the last few thousand years. Unless you mean that Richard the Lion-hearted was part feline on his mother's side.

And you haven't really demonstrated anything - just posted a couple of portraits and asserted that it proved there was an African in the woodpile of the European nobility. You have to do a lot better than that. How about tracing Charles Stuart's family tree back far enough to find how he turned up black?

The question is: do we still need racism after all this time, is there still a need to keep blacks down, to fill our prisons with young black men, because of events so many years ago.This has nothing to do with the assertion of the OP, obviously.

Important here is that people who will benefit from change will be more prepared to consider my theories.

People who benefit from the status quo will reject every point I make and even ridicule my views.
In order to make them worth consideration, they need to be fleshed out a little. So far, they fall a little short - like from here to Nairobi short.

As to the last, one need only quote our dear departed friend Carl Sagan -They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at Galileo. Of course, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Regards,
Shodan

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 11:36 AM
Saw the thread title, and bet myself that the OP would have a join date of Dec '09. Self wins!


I'm not American and not familiar with this shorthand. I'm sorry. What are you saying? Do not answer if it will take us outside the topic, please.

Marley23
12-22-2009, 11:38 AM
I'm just getting started. Please read google if you are in a hurry. I have (self)published two books on these matters with sources etc.
He doesn't look black in any of these paintings. Please provide a citation showing that "black" in 1500 referred only to African ancestry.

tomndebb
12-22-2009, 11:40 AM
And whites in Europe were ruled and oppressed by blacks.Piffle.

First, the claim is absurd, based not on a rejection of some grand conspiracy but simply on the fact that Europeans had so many different rulers from such widely different origins over so many years, that even if (as has not really happened), some group of people described as "black" happened to gain power in some part of Europe for some period of time, (despite no one actually recognizing it until now), they were hardly the dominant rulers throughout all of Europe for any length of time.

Beyond that, of course, is the fact that the "black" rulers--at last those you have thus far identified--were hardly any more despotic than any other European rulers.

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 11:41 AM
This is the big problem with Afrocentrist. Afrocentrism is more about making modern people feel better about themselves than it is about good scholarly work. You have not produced any convincing evidence in this thread that would lead anyone here to believe that Charles II was what we would describe as being black today.

If you're going to make extraordinary claims you're going to need better evidence than you've presented so far. I am curious to know what exactly your sources are for these claims.


What would you consider proof?
DNA is out of the question.
My theory is built on many pillars. Like:
Personal descriptions
black images
black described yet shown as whites. why?
many, many Moores in western art, which we still have to discuss.
archeological proof of The Grimaldi Man, there were blacks in Europe.
Garamante: their descendents were called Black Dutch arriving in the 17th century in the US
Most eurocentric studies were written by ideological racists

jayjay
12-22-2009, 11:42 AM
Important here is that people who will benefit from change will be more prepared to consider my theories.

People who benefit from the status quo will reject every point I make and even ridicule my views.

That's some first-rate well poison you got there...

Alessan
12-22-2009, 11:43 AM
The kings and their nobles were black and coloured, members of a fixed mulatto race which identified as blue blood. Kingship started with this nation of original Europeans. White Europeans came only 6000 years ago from Central asia to Europe. The nobility looked down on whites, much like racist whites today look down on blacks, not even considering then humans.
Whites and Enlightened blacks ended this strange oppression with a great shout called The French Revoltution. Calls for equality were whites asking for equality.

Yeah. Doesn't answer my question.

Incidentally - doesn't Charles II being referred to as "the Swarthy Stuart" imply that the other Stuarts weren't swarthy? Why note someone's darkness if his whole family is black?

http://images.google.nl/images?hl=nl&source=hp&q=white%20obama&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Please consider images of a white Barack Obama.
Does these make him a white man?

So your saying that Charlie sat for his portrait for hours, maybe days, and when he saw that the painter had depicted him as a white man, instead hanging the guy and burning the painting, he had it hung in his gallery?

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 11:45 AM
He doesn't look black in any of these paintings. Please provide a citation showing that "black" in 1500 referred only to African ancestry.

http://www.kipar.org/period-galleries/paintings/1660/kerouaille.jpg

[Louise de Kerouaille, french noble, mistress of Charles II Stuart: whitened, with a little Moorres, proof of her high noblity]

Blue blood was symbolised by the Moor in paintings, jewellery, heraldism.
The Moor was almost always a pitch black african, with subnasal prognatism, frizzy hair, thick lips and a flattened nose. The Moors we see in portraits with a whitened noble are not real persons, but symbols of the high birth of the noble.
The nobles and royals were more or less classical african in looks and had black or brown skin. Nobility could be seen in the face.
Thats why, up to the French revolution they started to paint themseves white. Why would people already white, paint themselves and wear blond wigs?

jayjay
12-22-2009, 11:47 AM
Thats why, up to the French revolution they started to paint themseves white. Why would people already white, paint themselves and wear blond wigs?

It's called "fashion". And all the world's its slave, even the nobility.

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 11:48 AM
That's some first-rate well poison you got there...
Racism exist, I did not invent it. I'm offering a solution.

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 11:49 AM
It's called "fashion". And all the world's its slave, even the nobility.

Can intelligent people look at different explanations?
The white make up was made with poisonous lead or arsenic. This made it a bleaching creme. Would whites use a bleaching creme?

Alessan
12-22-2009, 11:51 AM
Why would royalty want to hide their blackness? I'd expect the opposite - commoners walking around in blackface in order to look more "upper class".

Odesio
12-22-2009, 11:51 AM
My theory is built on many pillars. Like:
Personal descriptions
black images
black described yet shown as whites. why?


What, specifically, are you sources? More specifically I want to know what your primary sources are.


Most eurocentric studies were written by ideological racists

I'm finding the same to be true of Afrocentric studies.

Odesio

Shodan
12-22-2009, 11:51 AM
My theory is built on many pillars. Like:
Personal descriptions

You are kind of missing the point. A common term for what we would refer to as "Black" nowadays is "Moor". (Cite (http://www.artandpopularculture.com/Moors)). You have given a couple of places where the term used is "black", which is a bit ambiguous. Do you have some instances where some European noble is described as being "a Moor"?

black images
black described yet shown as whites. why?
I haven't seen any images that look obviously black. As we have seen, when the portrait of Stuart is in color, he appears rather pink rather than African. Your allegation (as far as I can tell) is that he was really black, but depicted as white in the portraits. But that is circular reasoning. You cannot assume that the portraits were faked until you know for certain that the subjects were black.

Most eurocentric studies were written by ideological racists
So why didn't these racists attack the black kings and nobility of Europe? Why would they perpetuate the hoax?

Regards,
Shodan

TGWATY
12-22-2009, 11:52 AM
http://images.google.nl/images?hl=nl&source=hp&q=white%20obama&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Please consider images of a white Barack Obama.
Does these make him a white man?

Does swarthy skin make him black?


And the 40,000 dollar question: what difference does it make?

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 11:55 AM
Yeah. Doesn't answer my question.

Incidentally - doesn't Charles II being referred to as "the Swarthy Stuart" imply that the other Stuarts weren't swarthy? Why note someone's darkness if his whole family is black?[quote]

His blackness was excessive. He resembled the very symbol of blue blood. His birth showed that the Stuarts were really of the highest nobility.


[quote]So your saying that Charlie sat for his portrait for hours, maybe days, and when he saw that the painter had depicted him as a white man, instead hanging the guy and burning the painting, he had it hung in his gallery?

The white majority needed to be placated, and the kings had propogandistic portraits made for this purpose. The black paintings have now dissapeared or are kept in hiding. Some authentic black portraits are repainted, you still can see the underpaint. Mauritshuis museum describes some under paints of white portraits as fully detailed portraits. Frans Hals Museum shows two 17th century portraits which have repainted faces and hands, with pigments in use after 1712. Both museums claim not to know what this means.

Bryan Ekers
12-22-2009, 11:56 AM
And the 40,000 dollar question: what difference does it make?

I'm prepared to cheerfully stipulate that long-dead royals were black, but I have to ask the same question.


Also, how (if at all) does the OP's theory account for racism among Asians?

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 11:57 AM
Does swarthy skin make him black? And the 40,000 dollar question: what difference does it make?

We are deconstructing racism. Some people want racism and white superiority to end, like some people look for a cure for cancer.
Swarthy skin means he did not look white. Yet we think of him as white, and museums show him as white. Why?

jayjay
12-22-2009, 11:58 AM
Racism exist, I did not invent it. I'm offering a solution.

No, you're not. Racially reversing factual history with no evidence does not solve the problem of racism, and that's the basis of Afrocentrism. About 90% of it just ain't so, no matter how much handwaving and "research" you do. Cleopatra was not black, and neither were the ruling families of Europe.

I find "alien astronaut" theories of things like the pyramids just as annoying as Afrocentrism, because they go the OTHER direction and assume that black and/or proto-Arab Africans could not have possibly created things like the pyramids or the Sphinx.

There's just no actual evidence for your theory, other than your interpretation of the worldview of long-dead people from what is (now) a totally different culture. Western culture may be the descendant of the culture of Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries, but it's not the same as that culture. Part of your error is that you're assuming that perceptions and the words used to describe them are the same as they were then. "Swarthy" is a word that would more likely be used to describe an Italian, or a Spaniard, than an African, at that time (or even into the early 20th Century).

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 11:59 AM
I'm prepared to cheerfully stipulate that long-dead royals were black, but I have to ask the same question.


Also, how (if at all) does the OP's theory account for racism among Asians?

What is OP?

When Europeans discovered asians and their riches, they found reason to declare them sub-humans.

Captain Amazing
12-22-2009, 12:01 PM
black images

The images you've shown are woodcuts, and woodcuts tend to make (http://img3.photographersdirect.com/img/262/wm/pd656957.jpg) people (http://typographia.oszk.hu/html/kepek/gutenberg/nagy/wolf01.jpg) look (http://www.levity.com/alchemy/images/paracelsus%20portrait%20woodcut.jpg) darker (http://img2.photographersdirect.com/img/19309/wm/pd2243830.jpg).

It's because it's two color printing, and so the way that woodcut printers tried to add definition to faces was by shading them. Combine that with poor quality printing, and you get darker images than you'd otherwise get.

Shodan
12-22-2009, 12:01 PM
What is OP?Original Post, or Original Poster. The post that started the thread.

When Europeans discovered asians and their riches, they found reason to declare them sub-humans.
I don't think that is what he meant. What I think he meant is, why do Asians have racist feelings towards blacks?

Regards,
Shodan

Bryan Ekers
12-22-2009, 12:03 PM
Yet we think of him as white

I daresay the vast majority of people don't think of Charles II at all. Occasionally his name gets dropped during a Jeopardy! episode, but as historical figures go, he's not the most popular.

What Exit?
12-22-2009, 12:04 PM
Seems like a simple look at history would show a mixing of nobles from different groups. Plenty of it nordic, germanic, slavic, celtic and some smaller part moorish. Your study appears to be flawed from the get go.

jjimm
12-22-2009, 12:06 PM
ridicule and insult.Goodness, I wonder why?

jayjay
12-22-2009, 12:06 PM
Original Post, or Original Poster. The post that started the thread.

I don't think that is what he meant. What I think he meant is, why do Asians have racist feelings towards blacks?

Regards,
Shodan

Actually, I read that as "Why do Asians have such racist feelings about other Asians?" Racism in east and southeast Asia is horrific. Japanese hate Koreans. Koreans hate Japanese. Everyone hates the Han Chinese, even all the way down into Singapore. Racism (against other Asians and also against Africans AND Europeans) is still enshrined in law in a lot of those countries. Japan is very polite about it, but they seriously dislike pretty much everyone who's not Japanese.

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 12:06 PM
No, you're not. Racially reversing factual history with no evidence does not solve the problem of racism, and that's the basis of Afrocentrism. About 90% of it just ain't so, no matter how much handwaving and "research" you do. Cleopatra was not black, and neither were the ruling families of Europe.

I find "alien astronaut" theories of things like the pyramids just as annoying as Afrocentrism, because they go the OTHER direction and assume that black and/or proto-Arab Africans could not have possibly created things like the pyramids or the Sphinx.

There's just no actual evidence for your theory, other than your interpretation of the worldview of long-dead people from what is (now) a totally different culture. Western culture may be the descendant of the culture of Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries, but it's not the same as that culture. Part of your error is that you're assuming that perceptions and the words used to describe them are the same as they were then. "Swarthy" is a word that would more likely be used to describe an Italian, or a Spaniard, than an African, at that time (or even into the early 20th Century).

http://www.shafe.co.uk/crystal/images/lshafe/Jones_Masque_of_Blackness_1605.jpg

[Anne of Denmark, grandmother of Charles II Stuart, The Black Boy]
A desing for The Masque of Blackness (1612), a play in praise of black beauty.
According to eurocentrism she is shown in black face.
I say she is not, this is what she looked like. Blue blood is black blood
The blindingly blond portraits are revisionist fakes.
NPG does not show her black images, but you can find those of her husband James I, her son, daughters and grandson.
I urge people who will benefit from a change to get into the discussion as I feel that you and I will disagree forever.
I just hope you will not repeat you disagreement over and over.
That would be annoying.

John Mace
12-22-2009, 12:08 PM
White Europeans came only 6000 years ago from Central asia to Europe.

Not true. The farming displacement hypothesis has been pretty much discredited by DNA studies showing that while farming techniques entered Europe around that time period from the Middle East, native populations were mostly left intact.

jayjay
12-22-2009, 12:09 PM
You cannot expect people to respect your ideas if the only thing you can offer as evidence of them is your personal interpretation of centuries-old portraiture and repeated assertions. "Blue blood is black blood" may work very well as your personal mantra, but it's not evidence.

If you can show evidence that doesn't insist on special pleading (especially special pleading that sounds an awful lot like a millennia-long conspiracy theory), you might get people here to listen to you.

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 12:10 PM
Actually, I read that as "Why do Asians have such racist feelings about other Asians?" Racism in east and southeast Asia is horrific. Japanese hate Koreans. Koreans hate Japanese. Everyone hates the Han Chinese, even all the way down into Singapore. Racism (against other Asians and also against Africans AND Europeans) is still enshrined in law in a lot of those countries. Japan is very polite about it, but they seriously dislike pretty much everyone who's not Japanese.


Thank you so much, as this brings us to the US Colorline which started in 1691 according to Frank W Sweet.
I say that racism started because the white Americans did not want to be dominated by black royals anymore. Queen Anne Stuart was ruling during this time. You can put a date and give a reason for racism, its all quite rational if you are a rational person. such a devastating system did not drop from heaven, it was thought out and implemented and enforced.

Shodan
12-22-2009, 12:12 PM
http://www.kipar.org/period-gallerie...kerouaille.jpgAgain, we see the problem.

There is no doubt that the Moorish servant in that portrait is black. The subject of the portrait doesn't have any of those features at all. IOW, when the artists wanted to show a black person, they made them appear far different than the European nobility.

Plus the idea that Stuart was too white to be painted black but too black to be described as white doesn't make any sense. If they wanted to cover up his blackness, why would they call him black?

Regards,
Shodan

Bryan Ekers
12-22-2009, 12:13 PM
According to eurocentrism she is shown in black face.
Well, eurocentrism and wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Masque_of_Blackness).

I say she is not, this is what she looked like.

I get that you want to believe this, but in lieu of photographs, how do you plan to prove it?

aruvqan
12-22-2009, 12:14 PM
Can intelligent people look at different explanations?
The white make up was made with poisonous lead or arsenic. This made it a bleaching creme. Would whites use a bleaching creme?

why do caucasion women now purchase whitening creams designed to bleach out freckles? I can assure you, I am not black in the slightest, but I have freckles and have been told I should use makeup to achieve an even skin tone ... and the lighter ones skin is [historically] the prettier one was considered because it meant that one did not have to labor in the fields. Even complection also meant covering up the scars left by the pretty much endemic smallpox that afflicted europe and america until we basically cured it out of activity. Much of that elizabethan makeup was essentially human spackle to fill in the pox scars and cover freckles and moles.

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 12:14 PM
Not true. The farming displacement hypothesis has been pretty much discredited by DNA studies showing that while farming techniques entered Europe around that time period from the Middle East, native populations were mostly left intact.

The reason why I shy away from DNA science is that both parties use the same data to come to vastly different conclusions. Look at the climate debate wether we are warming up or really are cooling down. In that case Surinam would be a dream, as its too hot at times.
Most studies agree that 6000 years ago something changed. Some even insist that black Europeans suddenly became white. BS. I have been 30 years in Holland and are not prepared to become white!

lemac
12-22-2009, 12:15 PM
Where did these descendants of the Grimaldi man live? They must have lived somewhere isolated if they remained visibly black for 45000 years on a continent full of white people. And why did they suddenly disappear two centuries ago? And how did they become the elite?

aruvqan
12-22-2009, 12:15 PM
wow an afrocentric kanicbird ...

pass the popcprn, this winter may be fascinating.

jjimm
12-22-2009, 12:16 PM
[
I urge people who will benefit from a change to get into the discussion as I feel that you and I will disagree forever.
I just hope you will not repeat you disagreement over and over.
That would be annoying.It would be annoying if you were to present weak evidence, plus your interpretation of anything that disagrees with your hypothesis as "revisionism".

Marley23
12-22-2009, 12:17 PM
[Louise de Kerouaille, french noble, mistress of Charles II Stuart: whitened, with a little Moorres, proof of her high noblity]
You're not providing the citation I asked for. This is the first painting you have provided that shows a person who might be nonwhite. And even so, it's a painting.

Why would people already white, paint themselves and wear blond wigs?
Because it was fashionable. Today, people with dark skin lighten their skin and people with light skin darken their skin. Hair gets dyed in both directions. Lightening white skin is not any less rational than any of that.

And if Europe was ruled by black monarchs (which it wasn't), why was fair skin associated with virtue?

jayjay
12-22-2009, 12:20 PM
Thank you so much, as this brings us to the US Colorline which started in 1691 according to Frank W Sweet.
I say that racism started because the white Americans did not want to be dominated by black royals anymore. Queen Anne Stuart was ruling during this time. You can put a date and give a reason for racism, its all quite rational if you are a rational person. such a devastating system did not drop from heaven, it was thought out and implemented and enforced.

You don't need a freaking system to explain racism. Racism is, at the root of it, "he looks different from what I'm used to". The Western world has been moving in the direction of including more and more under "what I'm used to". Xenophobia was a survival characteristic, back when people lived in tribes or family groups. Our culture has outstripped our evolution...xenophobia is in our genes. We are working on making end runs around it (like massive PR campaigns for racial tolerance), but it's going to be there for a long time.

There is absolutely no need for some convoluted, conspiracy-dependent theory to explain racism. Seriously.

ETA: Although there may be such a need if you're trying to explain racism in whites, as opposed to those tolerant but despotic black rulers there. No chance you're a "one-way racism" proponent, is there?

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 12:20 PM
why do caucasion women now purchase whitening creams designed to bleach out freckles? I can assure you, I am not black in the slightest, but I have freckles and have been told I should use makeup to achieve an even skin tone ... and the lighter ones skin is [historically] the prettier one was considered because it meant that one did not have to labor in the fields. Even complection also meant covering up the scars left by the pretty much endemic smallpox that afflicted europe and america until we basically cured it out of activity. Much of that elizabethan makeup was essentially human spackle to fill in the pox scars and cover freckles and moles.

Honey, these are called eurocentric lies.
They say that blue blood means blue veins!
Yeah, right, as if blue veins are some great merit.
'Small-pox' they perhaps derive from descriptions which say that king William or Elizabeth had 'bad complexion.'
In the 19th century, after the french revolution,
bad complexion was the euphemism for black skin
Germaine de Stael was described as 'bad complexion' and 'too swarthy.'
Anna Boleyn, Elizabeth I's mother was described as 'very dark, with black eyes and dark hair. Elizabeth was 'dark.'
Her niece Mary of Scots was the Black boys great-grandmother and look black of skin. Lovely woman, yet murderous.

Marley23
12-22-2009, 12:23 PM
Honey, these are called eurocentric lies.

In the 19th century, after the french revolution,
bad complexion was the euphemism for black skin
You should provide some examples. And you should also answer the question I have asked you repeatedly about the meaning of black.

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 12:25 PM
You're not providing the citation I asked for. This is the first painting you have provided that shows a person who might be nonwhite. And even so, it's a painting.


Because it was fashionable. Today, people with dark skin lighten their skin and people with light skin darken their skin. Hair gets dyed in both directions. Lightening white skin is not any less rational than any of that.

And if Europe was ruled by black monarchs (which it wasn't), why was fair skin associated with virtue?

The whites were the majority, the black kings showed deference, fake deference, to their white subjects. Kings and presidents still show fake deference to their poor, oppressed subjects.
There seems to be some adherence to greek ideals which consider white beautifull.
But they married black, blue blood.
In holland they used the word ''t graauw' to descripe the whites. An unappealing dishwater colour.
King Mohamed VI of Morocco looks on large billboards in the north white and in the south brown. He is brown, the elite is brown. The whiter berbers are oppressed.

jayjay
12-22-2009, 12:27 PM
So, you are not here to "discuss" this issue. You're here to lecture on this issue, regardless of what anyone else argues. You are providing evidence-free assertions, and when people do provide some evidence for the other side of this argument, you call them "white lies".

You are not debating honestly.

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 12:30 PM
You should provide some examples. And you should also answer the question I have asked you repeatedly about the meaning of black.

http://www.gebladerte.nl/z0152.bmp

[Germaine de Stael: bad complexion, too swarthy]

You sound belligerent. I'm trying my best to answer everyone. ten anaginst one, pe patient, I'm a person and have feelings too, I'm now tired, its 6 pm overhere, I will stop soon and take this up later in the week, if permitted.

ivan astikov
12-22-2009, 12:31 PM
You know, this is the sort of thing that people would have noticed at the time.

Yes, and I'm sure everyone was literate then and religiously recorded their thoughts and observations in little notebooks!

Marley23
12-22-2009, 12:32 PM
The whites were the majority, the black kings showed deference, fake deference, to their white subjects. Kings and presidents still show fake deference to their poor, oppressed subjects.
Fair enough. So when are you going to bring the evidence?

But they married black, blue blood.
Your attempted turn of phrase is becoming tiresome due to overuse. And you've provided no meaningful support for your idea.

http://www.gebladerte.nl/z0152.bmp

[Germaine de Stael: bad complexion, too swarthy]
I don't see how this helps. It's a sketch and does not describe her as having a bad complexion or being "too swarthy."

You sound belligerent. I'm trying my best to answer everyone.
I am not being belligerent. But you seem to be dodging my question and I don't intend to let you ignore it. You've responded to several of my posts, so your behavior indicates you don't have an answer. Again:

If you want your argument to go anywhere, you have to show that "black" meant the same thing to Europeans in 1500 that it means to us today. You're asking us to take that for granted, which would be a huge leap of faith. Why does "black," as applied to Charles, refer to African ancestry rather than a dark (by white standards) complexion?

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 12:33 PM
So, you are not here to "discuss" this issue. You're here to lecture on this issue, regardless of what anyone else argues. You are providing evidence-free assertions, and when people do provide some evidence for the other side of this argument, you call them "white lies".

You are not debating honestly.

Does this mean you will finally go?
I have written books and cannot be asked to reproduce them here.
To me its strange that some folks cannot even bring themselves to agree that Charles II Stuart, The Black boy seems black. What's the point of discussing other cases? These are the irrational types I warned for. They respond to the concept which they hate, and refuse to discuss the evidence I have presented.

Shodan
12-22-2009, 12:34 PM
They say that blue blood means blue veins!
Yeah, right, as if blue veins are some great merit.Well, blue blood does mean blue veins. That is to say, that the skin is pale enough that the veins show thru, and the non-oxygenated blood appears blue.

This is not because blue veins are so great, but they are a social marker. The idea is that the person is so rich that they never have to work in the fields, or in the sun, as aruvqan mentions. This puts one a cut or twelve above the agricultural worker who has a deep tan from working outdoors.

The Chinese had similar sorts of social markers. Rich people had excessively long fingernails, to show that they didn't have to lift a finger to live. Likewise, they could bind the feet of their women such that more than a few steps was painful, thus showing that their women could be kept around even when they couldn't work.

Many cultures, once they develop a leisure class, find ways to rub their superiority in the faces of the lesser classes. What fun, after all, is it to be on top unless you can remind others of that fact?

Which, again, is one of the (many, many) reasons your theory doesn't hold water. If the nobles of Europe were black, blackness would be a marker of nobility, not something to be ashamed of.

Regards,
Shodan

Bryan Ekers
12-22-2009, 12:34 PM
The whites were the majority, the black kings showed deference, fake deference, to their white subjects.

I guess in the case of Anne, this was negresse oblige.

jayjay
12-22-2009, 12:35 PM
Does this mean you will finally go?
I have written books and cannot be asked to reproduce them here.

There's a word for people who self-publish conspiracy theories and then try to claim them as primary sources.

StusBlues
12-22-2009, 12:35 PM
Yes, and I'm sure everyone was literate then and religiously recorded their thoughts and observations in little notebooks!

Well...a few did, certainly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepys)

Hard to respond to the OP without getting a warning or resorting to the Pit. I'd best hold my tongue and reiterate that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A few odd woodcuts ain't it.

And, to add a bit of snark, were the Olmec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmec) black too?

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 12:35 PM
Fair enough. So when are you going to bring the evidence? Your attempted turn of phrase is becoming tiresome due to overuse. And you've provided no meaningful support for your idea.


Be so kind to explain racism to me.
Be so kind to explain blue blood to me.
If you mean that I'm paraphrasing a existant study you are mistaken. But I follow J.A Rogers, Race and Sex.(1941) and Frank Snowden, Blacks In Antiquity (1971)

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 12:37 PM
Well...a few did, certainly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepys)

Hard to respond to the OP without getting a warning or resorting to the Pit. I'd best hold my tongue and reiterate that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A few odd woodcuts ain't it.

And, to add a bit of snark, were the Olmec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmec) black too?


What would you consider evidence?

jayjay
12-22-2009, 12:37 PM
I guess in the case of Anne, this was negresse oblige.

I'm pretty sure my authority is not recognized in Canada (not that it is here either...), but I'm still swearing out a warrant...

jayjay
12-22-2009, 12:38 PM
Be so kind to explain racism to me.

I did. You appear to have ignored it. Along with the question accompanying it.

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 12:39 PM
Well, blue blood does mean blue veins. That is to say, that the skin is pale enough that the veins show thru, and the non-oxygenated blood appears blue.

This is not because blue veins are so great, but they are a social marker. The idea is that the person is so rich that they never have to work in the fields, or in the sun, as aruvqan mentions. This puts one a cut or twelve above the agricultural worker who has a deep tan from working outdoors.

The Chinese had similar sorts of social markers. Rich people had excessively long fingernails, to show that they didn't have to lift a finger to live. Likewise, they could bind the feet of their women such that more than a few steps was painful, thus showing that their women could be kept around even when they couldn't work.

Many cultures, once they develop a leisure class, find ways to rub their superiority in the faces of the lesser classes. What fun, after all, is it to be on top unless you can remind others of that fact?

Which, again, is one of the (many, many) reasons your theory doesn't hold water. If the nobles of Europe were black, blackness would be a marker of nobility, not something to be ashamed of.

Regards,
Shodan


I have heard these eurocentric explanations and they do not satisfy me.
The Moors in western arts are conquered muslim Moors.
B.S.

http://jumamshabazi.webs.com/MOORS%20HEAD%20CUP.jpg

[ Gold and silver cup in the shape of a Moorehead by Jamnitzer, German Renaissance]

Used during marriages of the highest nobility to advertise there high nobility.
Moores are symbols of blue blood.

Shodan
12-22-2009, 12:40 PM
What would you consider evidence?
How about if you trace back the nobility's family tree and show where the black person got in?

Or, some descriptions where some nobles are described as being Moors.

Or something other than some woodcuts and vague references to racism.

Regards,
Shodan

Marley23
12-22-2009, 12:42 PM
Be so kind to explain racism to me.
Be so kind to explain blue blood to me.
jayjay explained racism in post 71, and Shodan explained the meaning of blue blood in post 80. Please provide citations that "black" referred only to African ancestry in the period we are discussing, or that Charles and others were believed to have African ancestry at the time.

StusBlues
12-22-2009, 12:42 PM
What would you consider evidence?

I'm tempted to reply "what would you consider pornography", but I'll play nice.

Lots of stuff. Geneologies, acknowledgement of African ancestry beyond the oblique reference. Any mention of this sort of thing by Tudor Stuart professionals would be good.

The Second Stone
12-22-2009, 12:45 PM
This is a put on, isn't it? We've got thousands of portraits from the Renaissance to Enlightenment of royals, aristocrats and many commoners. This Emperor has not only no clothes, but no darker skin shade.

StusBlues
12-22-2009, 12:45 PM
Well, blue blood does mean blue veins. That is to say, that the skin is pale enough that the veins show thru, and the non-oxygenated blood appears blue.

This is not because blue veins are so great, but they are a social marker. The idea is that the person is so rich that they never have to work in the fields, or in the sun, as aruvqan mentions. This puts one a cut or twelve above the agricultural worker who has a deep tan from working outdoors.

The Chinese had similar sorts of social markers. Rich people had excessively long fingernails, to show that they didn't have to lift a finger to live. Likewise, they could bind the feet of their women such that more than a few steps was painful, thus showing that their women could be kept around even when they couldn't work.

Many cultures, once they develop a leisure class, find ways to rub their superiority in the faces of the lesser classes. What fun, after all, is it to be on top unless you can remind others of that fact?

Which, again, is one of the (many, many) reasons your theory doesn't hold water. If the nobles of Europe were black, blackness would be a marker of nobility, not something to be ashamed of.



Thanks for this, mate. I guess it tracks with ideas of physical fitness. In older cultures, fatness was a sign of prosperity as one could afford the food and a leisurely existence. Today, it's a sign that you don't have time, money, or discipline to eat healthy and get to the gym.

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 12:46 PM
How about if you trace back the nobility's family tree and show where the black person got in?

Or, some descriptions where some nobles are described as being Moors.

Or something other than some woodcuts and vague references to racism.

Regards,
Shodan

Most scientific, credible geneologies go back to 1100 or 1200.
They do not mention looks.
There are some nicknames like The Black Prince
Royalty and nobility started with these black Europeans.
It was not whites inviting blacks in their noble midsts,
but blacks marrying white after the French Revolution.
whites are in no way superior to blacks.
Europe (1500-1789) a black civilisation.

Shodan
12-22-2009, 12:46 PM
I have heard these eurocentric explanations and they do not satisfy me.Well, I guess you told me.

Perhaps if I get a moment, I can respond later as appropriate. If you are still here.

Regards,
Shodan

StusBlues
12-22-2009, 12:47 PM
This is a put on, isn't it?

Are we allowed to say this here? If so, I concur.

jayjay
12-22-2009, 12:47 PM
How about if you trace back the nobility's family tree and show where the black person got in?

I almost missed this myself, actually. He seems to be claiming that the FIRST Europeans were Africans. Which is, technically, true..."Out of Africa" is the current winner of the human origins sweepstakes. But he seems to be claiming that these original Europeans were "modern" Africans, and that's why they were the royalty and nobility, while the white majority of Europe wandered onto the subcontinent later on.

In other words, no black person "got in"...they were the ones who began that family tree in the first place.

jayjay
12-22-2009, 12:48 PM
This is a put on, isn't it?

Not familiar with the Afrocentric movement, are you?

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 12:48 PM
jayjay explained racism in post 71, and Shodan explained the meaning of blue blood in post 80. Please provide citations that "black" referred only to African ancestry in the period we are discussing, or that Charles and others were believed to have African ancestry at the time.

http://images.google.nl/images?hl=nl&source=hp&q=black%20madonna&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

[Black Madonna's]


The images of the Moors show classical Africans.
They symbolised a black etnicity, a black and coloured race
The many, many black madonna's in Europe show maria as black, as well as Jesus.
There are many European images that show god as black. Why?
Because the elite was black and had no use for a white god, maria or jesus.

All blackness comes from Africa. Humanity started in Africa. whites are descendents of albino's, coming out of blacks and in no way superior. There are no races, just phenotypes. darker complexioned whites are just mixed with a darker etnicity. There are no black caucasians.

Shodan
12-22-2009, 12:51 PM
I almost missed this myself, actually. He seems to be claiming that the FIRST Europeans were Africans. Which is, technically, true..."Out of Africa" is the current winner of the human origins sweepstakes. But he seems to be claiming that these original Europeans were "modern" Africans, and that's why they were the royalty and nobility, while the white majority of Europe wandered onto the subcontinent later on.

In other words, no black person "got in"...they were the ones who began that family tree in the first place.Is that what it is? I thought the thread title was saying this all got started c. 1500.

Albeit coherence might be too much to expect from a thread like this.

Regards,
Shodan

jayjay
12-22-2009, 12:52 PM
Because the elite was black and had no use for a white god, maria or jesus.

And yet, by your "theory", they cowered in fear at the idea that their white subjects would overthrow and kill them because they were black. So they hid their blackness behind makeup and altered portraits.

Were they so proud of their heritage that they commissioned religious icons with their natural skintones, or were they so fearful of being found out to be black that they actually had portraits repainted with lighter skin?

jayjay
12-22-2009, 12:54 PM
All blackness comes from Africa. Humanity started in Africa. whites are descendents of albino's, coming out of blacks and in no way superior. There are no races, just phenotypes. darker complexioned whites are just mixed with a darker etnicity. There are no black caucasians.

Darwin just powered half of England with his spinning.

StusBlues
12-22-2009, 12:54 PM
Because the elite was black and had no use for a white god, maria or jesus.

Then why are the images in the Sistine Chapel so overwhelmingly white?

If you are suggesting a post-Renaissance infusion of Africans into the European ruling social strata, I'd think you would have some documentation other than some poor photos of less-than-masterful objets d'art that look like they might represent black people.

StusBlues
12-22-2009, 12:56 PM
Albeit coherence might be too much to expect from a thread like this.




Touche.

My God, why am I replying to this thread? Tell me, father, am I going to Hell?

Marley23
12-22-2009, 12:58 PM
They symbolised a black etnicity, a black and coloured race
The many, many black madonna's in Europe show maria as black, as well as Jesus.
There are many European images that show god as black. Why?
Because the elite was black and had no use for a white god, maria or jesus.
Paintings featuring Jesus from the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries by El Greco, Rembrandt, Rubens, and others. (http://www.squidoo.com/paintings-of-jesus) None of the Jesuses in these paintings look black.

whites are descendents of albino's
You're going to have to explain how white people can go to the beach, then.

in no way superior. There are no races, just phenotypes.
I agree on both of these points, but your interpretations of history don't make sense.

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 01:03 PM
I almost missed this myself, actually. He seems to be claiming that the FIRST Europeans were Africans. Which is, technically, true..."Out of Africa" is the current winner of the human origins sweepstakes. But he seems to be claiming that these original Europeans were "modern" Africans, and that's why they were the royalty and nobility, while the white majority of Europe wandered onto the subcontinent later on. In other words, no black person "got in"...they were the ones who began that family tree in the first place.


Yeah, like the Indians were the first Americans.
The black Europeans (43000 years ago), most likely a minority took power in 1500Why do I believe this?
I studied Paul Kaplan, The Rise of the Black Maji in Western Art. (1996)
I consider this work as ideologically racist, but I have no million dollars to do this research myself.

http://images.google.nl/images?hl=nl&source=hp&q=saint%20maurice&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

In 1120 Saint Maurice was suddenly shown as a classical African. Why?
One of the Maji became the black king Balthazar, young, well dressed and bringing gold. Why?
By 1500 this concept was all over Europe and the colonies, and had started between 1200-1300 in Southern Europe and Bohmenia. Why? Why there?
Some parts of europe had greater numbers black and coloured people.
Blacks somehow kept a connection to Africa and the Middle east and had science and civilisation. Returning knights had military prowess. This combination made them powerfull. This resulted in the renaissance.
The black king in Adoration scenes should be viewed as Morgan Freeman preparing us for barack Obama in movies.
Untill then black meant heathen and muslim, enemies of christian Europe.
There was a need to show blacks as good christians, hence yhe presence at the beginning of chrisyianity and the black saint maurice.
My theory is a theory and part hypothesis.
I do not claim to have all the answers.

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 01:06 PM
Paintings featuring Jesus from the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries by El Greco, Rembrandt, Rubens, and others. (http://www.squidoo.com/paintings-of-jesus) None of the Jesuses in these paintings look black.[quote]

Look for images of black Jesusses, dear.


[quote]You're going to have to explain how white people can go to the beach, then.

Some can't, unless they wear a strong sunblock. Those are closer to ther classical albino ancestors.

Others who are darker can face the sun, bare faced.


I agree on both of these points, but your interpretations of history don't make sense.

Dear, bless your heart, I could not believe my own findings. But after three years, I had to trust in myself. We need to end white supremacy and racism.

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 01:12 PM
Then why are the images in the Sistine Chapel so overwhelmingly white?

If you are suggesting a post-Renaissance infusion of Africans into the European ruling social strata, I'd think you would have some documentation other than some poor photos of less-than-masterful objets d'art that look like they might represent black people.

http://yeyeolade.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/3071692709_e891935144_b1.jpg

A black Jesus. There are many, I will show them. look for Russian Icons
There are also many blue Jesus'. blue blood is black blood
Sistine Chapel might have been overpainted. When did they add the loin clothes?
But whites had to be placated, to give legitimacy to black rule too.

Marley23
12-22-2009, 01:15 PM
Look for images of black Jesusses, dear.
You said the elite had no use for a white god or Jesus, so explain why there are white Jesuses from that period.

Some can't, unless they wear a strong sunblock. Those are closer to ther classical albino ancestors.
Again, if there were that many albinos it would be reflected in the historical record.

Dear, bless your heart, I could not believe my own findings.
That's because they're garbage. ;)

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 01:17 PM
And yet, by your "theory", they cowered in fear at the idea that their white subjects would overthrow and kill them because they were black. So they hid their blackness behind makeup and altered portraits.

Were they so proud of their heritage that they commissioned religious icons with their natural skintones, or were they so fearful of being found out to be black that they actually had portraits repainted with lighter skin?

Let the idea sink in.
Leading up to the french revolution when they struggled for dear life they resorted to paint themselves white. It was an older practice but now taken up by the lot. Suggesting equality while the citizins were gunning for them.

There was no tv, the few times the nation got to see the king, he painted himself white, and one was not allowed to look them in the eys. They appeared as deities in splendid gold and diamons, in gold carroages, sitting in golden rooms.

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 01:18 PM
That's because they're garbage. ;)
You are supposed to be the moderator yet you start with insults setting a standard for the rest.

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 01:20 PM
HUMAN ALBINISM

http://static.open.salon.com/files/snowflake_21239184887.jpg

[SNOWFLAKE: an albino gorilla]

white rose, dark rose
white digitales, red digitales
white mice, black mice
white cat, black cat
white gorilla, black gorilla,
white man, black man

whites are albino's and albino descendents. No disrespect intended. albino's are not sick, just have to stay out of the sun. we do not put a higher value on a white cat over a black cat. why do we do with humans?

Marley23
12-22-2009, 01:20 PM
You are supposed to be the moderator yet you start with insults setting a standard for the rest.
I did not insult you. I made a comment about your argument, and what I said has been obvious since your first few posts.

I encourage you to read the rules of this site and this forum.

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 01:25 PM
I did not insult you. I made a comment about your argument, and what I said has been obvious since your first few posts. I encourage you to read the rules of this site and this forum.

Dear, I feel insulted and ask you politely to sees from putting up this as an example. It greatly diminishes my pleasure in talking with all of you.

Egmond Codfried
12-22-2009, 01:27 PM
Have to go!

ivan astikov
12-22-2009, 01:31 PM
I did not insult you. I made a comment about your argument, and what I said has been obvious since your first few posts.

I encourage you to read the rules of this site and this forum.

I wouldn't have thought "Your argument is garbage" was an acceptable comment in GD myself.

I don't know what others think.

Marley23
12-22-2009, 01:32 PM
C'est la vie. Meanwhile please stop calling my dear. My girlfriend would not appreciate it and neither do I.

Marley23
12-22-2009, 01:34 PM
I wouldn't have thought "Your argument is garbage" was an acceptable comment in GD myself.

I don't know what others think.
Take it to ATMB if you want to discuss it.

John Mace
12-22-2009, 01:38 PM
whites are albino's and albino descendents.

Wrong. And I think at this point I'm going to let this thread die the death it deserves. I suggest others do as well. This guy isn't interested in any debate, and we've rebutted all of his claims many times over.

ivan astikov
12-22-2009, 01:40 PM
Take it to ATMB if you want to discuss it.

If I'd wanted to do that, I'd have took it to ATMB. I was just making a comment, as I am here.

Get all snarky about it, if that's how you feel - you know where the Pit is.

ElvisL1ves
12-22-2009, 01:41 PM
Have to go!

That would be my guess, too.

Marley23
12-22-2009, 01:42 PM
Get all snarky about it, if that's how you feel - you know where the Pit is.
I'm not getting snarky. I'm giving you an instruction as a moderator: it's a valid topic if you want to comment on it, but this thread is not the place for it. So either take it to ATMB or drop it now.

XT
12-22-2009, 01:46 PM
I'm sure someone has asked this up thread, but where is the DNA evidence that any of this bullshit is true? Afaik, there is no supporting scientific evidence at all...just speculation, supposition and interpretation. Going on wood cut prints and paintings to attempt to determine the relative 'blackness' of a person is pretty silly, all things considered. REAL evidence would be that showing African DNA types in prominent European families of the time. Where is that evidence?

Or, has it been suppressed by the white overlords...?

-XT

Telemark
12-22-2009, 01:48 PM
Let the idea sink in.
They could just as easily be space aliens. It covers the exact same issues, has the exact same amount of supporting evidence, and falls just barely behind your hypothesis in the plausibility scale.

You have yet to present any evidence that supports your case. The paintings don't show what you claim they show. The contemporary descriptions haven't been put in context. The fashions of the time are quite well explained by the desire to place the elite away from the working classes (and have been repeated many times in history). Your references to albinos are factually wrong. And you have mountains of evidence (including DNA which has been gathered from the descendants of the kings of Europe) that directly conflicts with your hypothesis.

And you refuse to answer as single direct question without posting another useless painting, hand waving about racism, or ignoring the question. On the SDMB we hold people presenting hypothesis to a higher standard.

silenus
12-22-2009, 01:48 PM
I thought the overlords were all black? :confused:

I'm so confused. Must come from being a sun-struck albino.

villa
12-22-2009, 01:57 PM
Well, I have collected about twentyfive personal description of kings and nobles, which describes them as black, coloured and etnic looking. Because of internmarriage this can be multiplied by parents, grandparents, greatgrandparents, children, grandchildren and greatgrandchildren.
I consider this a good sample for my research purposes.


Well the fact you consider 25 descriptions of kings and nobles to be "a good sample" tells me pretty much all I need to know about the quality of your "research."

Though your "theory" does, of course, explain Edward, the Black Prince (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward,_the_Black_Prince).

Deeg
12-22-2009, 01:58 PM
I say that racism started because the white Americans did not want to be dominated by black royals anymore. Queen Anne Stuart was ruling during this time. You can put a date and give a reason for racism, its all quite rational if you are a rational person. such a devastating system did not drop from heaven, it was thought out and implemented and enforced.
This makes no sense. You're saying white Americans didn't want to be dominated by black royals. This means that white Americans knew that the royals were (supposedly) black. However, there is no mention of this in any of the revolutionary propaganda at the time. Do you have a cite of some American decrying the European black nobility? Nothing would make the southern colonies rebel against England faster than the claim that the rulers were black.

Likewise, you say...
The structure during this period can be described as Reversed Apartheid, with a noble, black minority dominating a white and coloured majority. The French Revolution was the turning point. Hence racism can be deconstructed as an overwrought liberation ideology to free Europe from Black Superiority.
Do you have a cite of any French revolutionary leading the masses with allegations of black nobility?

jjimm
12-22-2009, 02:06 PM
Egmond, congratulations. For once, all political persuasions on this messageboard, people of many different races, creeds, nations, and countries, are united - in disagreeing with your tenuous "evidence" and hand-waving arguments.

It's a heartwarming tale, worthy of this holiday season. Thank you.

jayjay
12-22-2009, 02:10 PM
Egmond, congratulations. For once, all political persuasions on this messageboard, people of many different races, creeds, nations, and countries, are united - in disagreeing with your tenuous "evidence" and hand-waving arguments.

It's a heartwarming tale, worthy of this holiday season. Thank you.

That's because we're all white supremacist racists. Duh.

Superfluous Parentheses
12-22-2009, 02:13 PM
Important here is that people who will benefit from change will be more prepared to consider my theories.

People who benefit from the status quo will reject every point I make and even ridicule my views.

Considering that the US famously doesn't have royalty, I'm assuming your talking about Europeans?

villa
12-22-2009, 02:21 PM
Considering that the US famously doesn't have royalty, I'm assuming your talking about Europeans?

Well how do you explain Prince Fielder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Fielder)?

silenus
12-22-2009, 02:21 PM
The King of Pop used to be black, once.

Argent Towers
12-22-2009, 02:23 PM
I'm going to tell you something, Egmond Codfried - most people think these theories are ridiculously implausible already, but dishing out your arguments in a poorly-written, poorly-punctuated, ungrammatical, and horribly-arranged fashion is only going to hurt your cause and discredit you.

As to you "Afrocentrists" - stick to celebrating your own heritage. Stop trying to claim the heritage of others as your own.

The Jews were not black, the Greeks were not black, Beethoven was not black, Shakespeare was not black, Jesus was not black and the goddamn Houses of Tudor, Stuart and Hanover were most certainly not black, to say nothing of the Hapsburgs, Hohenzollerns, Guelphs, Medicis, Barberinis, the Valois and Bourbons, and the other illustrious dynasties that ruled over Renaissance and early modern Europe, who were NOT BLACK!

Stop trying to appropriate other peoples' history.

Attack from the 3rd dimension
12-22-2009, 02:27 PM
That's because we're all white supremacist racists. Duh.

Apparently, I'm not.

Based on the arguement presented by Egmond Codfried, and using an exhaustive analysis of family photos, I am, in fact, frequently a reddish / pinkish hue, suggesting that I am not of European ancestry as I had always believed, but rather that I am Native American, or First Nations Canadian.

Whodathunkit? Unfortunately, I can't use DNA evidence to sort this out, as it is, according to the OP, unreliable. Curiously, my eyes seem to emit red beams of hellish light in the nighttime photos- what ethnicity would that suggest?

Oh, and welcome to the Dope, Egmond Codfried. I hope you enjoy your time here as much as I do.

Vinyl Turnip
12-22-2009, 02:37 PM
I'm sure someone has asked this up thread, but where is the DNA evidence that any of this bullshit is true? Afaik, there is no supporting scientific evidence at all...just speculation, supposition and interpretation. Going on wood cut prints and paintings to attempt to determine the relative 'blackness' of a person is pretty silly, all things considered. REAL evidence would be that showing African DNA types in prominent European families of the time. Where is that evidence?

Well, like he said, DNA evidence is suspect. Two people can look at the same result and come to two different conclusions. Say the probability of a match is a hundred billion to one, well, that could still go either way, right?

Argent Towers
12-22-2009, 02:37 PM
Obviously black. (http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/img/King.Henry.VIII.jpg)

Another clearly black man. (http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/72/Henry-stuart-darnley.jpg)

Black city. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Francis1-1.jpg)

Another handsome specimen of African-French blood. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Antoine-de-bourbon.jpg)

Quite clearly of African descent. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Erik_XIV_%281533-1577%29_Domenicus_Verwildt.jpg)

Yet another African-European. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Charles_V%2C_Holy_Roman_Emperor_by_Tizian.jpg)

As black as Shaq. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Michiel_Jansz_van_Mierevelt_-_Maurits_van_Nassau,_prins_van_Oranje_en_Stadhouder.jpg)

A handsome bunch of Dutch-Africans. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Four_generations_Princes_of_Orange_-_William_I,_Maurice_and_Frederick_Henry,_William_II,_William_III_(Willem_van_Honthorst,_1662).jpg)

That's right. ALL BLACK!!!

jayjay
12-22-2009, 02:37 PM
As to you "Afrocentrists" - stick to celebrating your own heritage. Stop trying to claim the heritage of others as your own.


That's the sad part. Africa's own history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdoms_in_pre-colonial_Africa) is easily as long and as exciting as European/Middle Eastern history. Empires, kingdoms, wars, great civilizations, conflict, rivalries, cultures...African history is at least as complicated and epic as European history is. You don't find Europeans claiming that the rulers of ancient Mali, Songhai or Great Zimbabwe were white.

Shodan
12-22-2009, 02:40 PM
I'm sure someone has asked this up thread, but where is the DNA evidence that any of this bullshit is true? Our guest stated upthread that he does not believe in DNA because people disagree about global warming. Or something.

My God, why am I replying to this thread? Tell me, father, am I going to Hell?
You're not going to hell - you're in hell.

This is your punishment - for the rest of eternity, you are locked in a debate with Egmond Codfried.

And, as the old punch line goes, 'you are gonna hate Fridays (http://www.jokes.com/funny/whatever/fridays-in-hell).'

Regards,
Shodan

John Mace
12-22-2009, 02:40 PM
Well, like he said, DNA evidence is suspect. Two people can look at the same result and come to two different conclusions.

Unlike a painting, which everyone automatically agrees to one and only one interpretation.

Superfluous Parentheses
12-22-2009, 02:42 PM
Obviously black. (http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/img/King.Henry.VIII.jpg)

Hot Damn! I'm black! Good thing I don't have a wife, too. :)

I'm also interested to see what Egmond Codfried makes of anti-semitism. Does the fact that most of Europe was strongly anti-semitic mean that their rulers were Jewish? Semites tend to have black hair and darker complexion too.

I promise I'm not asking this just to throw fuel on the fire.

Kaio
12-22-2009, 02:43 PM
If you want your argument to go anywhere, you have to show that "black" meant the same thing to Europeans in 1500 that it means to us today. You're asking us to take that for granted, which would be a huge leap of faith. Why does "black," as applied to Charles, refer to African ancestry rather than a dark (by white standards) complexion?

As far as I'm aware, the use of the term "black" to refer to someone of African ancestry didn't come into common usage until the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people#United_States). Prior to that the common term was Negro. Prior to that, African, Moor, or the actual tribe name.

Argent Towers
12-22-2009, 02:50 PM
Hot Damn! I'm black! Good thing I don't have a wife, too. :)

I'm also interested to see what Egmond Codfried makes of anti-semitism. Does the fact that most of Europe was strongly anti-semitic mean that their rulers were Jewish? Semites tend to have black hair and darker complexion too.

I promise I'm not asking this just to throw fuel on the fire.

They weren't really anti-"Semitic", they were just against anyone who wasn't Catholic. Jews who converted to were generally just seen as no longer Jewish and treated like any other Catholic. Except for Spain's "purity of blood" laws (and even those were not always really enforced) the idea of being against Jews on "racial" grounds is a 20th century phenomenon.

I do have a hard time believing that Francis I of France (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Francis1-1.jpg) was not at least partially Jewish. :D

Enderw24
12-22-2009, 02:52 PM
So let's say I were to accept your hypothesis. Blue blood is black blood and racism in America started because we were tired of being ruled over by black nobles.

OK. so what's your contention? That we're still racist today because we have passed down from generation to generation the knowledge that blacks ruled us and we need to fight back? If so, why would we need reminding of who these rulers really were? Clearly we already know it!
Or perhaps your contention is that we're still racist today despite not remembering that our ancestor's rulers were black. And if so...how would reminding us of this fact actually help the situation? All you're going to end up doing is pissing people off. "Yeah, that's right. The black man DID keep us down!"

You seem to be making the claim that your research will actually solve racism. So...how?

Ludovic
12-22-2009, 02:53 PM
You don't find Europeans claiming that the rulers of ancient Mali, Songhai or Great Zimbabwe were white.

Well, there is Prester John (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prester_John).

jayjay
12-22-2009, 03:02 PM
Well, there is Prester John (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prester_John).

That was contemporary, though. No one today claims that Prester John or his kingdom actually existed.

Nzinga, Seated
12-22-2009, 03:18 PM
Have to go!

Noooo!!!! Man. You got them coming out of the woodwork in this thread.

Welcome to the dope!

Guinastasia
12-22-2009, 03:19 PM
In color.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Charles_II_of_England_Stuart_by_John_Riley.JPG


Huh. Kinda looks like Walter Mathau in that one. Kinda like a cross between Mathau and Captain Hook.


The identity was blue blood, which was black blood.



According to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_blood): "This is said to derive from the fact that the native Spanish had fairer skin, which displays veins more prominently, than people of Arab origin."

Italics MINE.

:dubious:

Oh, and by the way,

http://images.google.nl/images?hl=nl&source=hp&q=white%20obama&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Please consider images of a white Barack Obama.
Does these make him a white man?

I don't think they had Photoshop around in Charles's day.

Captain Amazing
12-22-2009, 03:21 PM
Just as an additional note, the trans-African slave trade started before 1789, and in fact, was on its way out in the 1780s. Actually, the first African slaves in the Americas got there around 1500. So it really doesn't make sense to say that the period of 1500-1789 was the time of black dominance over Europe and that racism in Europe and the US was a response to that (and I can find you a bunch of European and American texts from the 17th and 18th century claiming that Africans were naturally inferior . If anything, I'd say that European racism developed because of the slave trade and slavery system. As Africa became more and more a source of slaves, the people taking and owning those slaves developed racist ideas as a sort of justification for that slavery. Blacks are naturally inferior, the slave owners said, and we're doing them a favor by forcing them into slavery, because if they weren't inferior, then our enslaving them would make us bad people, and we know we're not.

StusBlues
12-22-2009, 03:27 PM
http://yeyeolade.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/3071692709_e891935144_b1.jpg

A black Jesus. There are many, I will show them. look for Russian Icons
There are also many blue Jesus'. blue blood is black blood
Sistine Chapel might have been overpainted. When did they add the loin clothes?
But whites had to be placated, to give legitimacy to black rule too.


All supposition. The "black Jesus" in your link is a choice of medium. I've seen sculptures of Abraham Lincoln in ebony as well. It's not an ethnic thing.

It has been demonstrated that "blue blood is black blood" is fallacious. To maintain that position without citation is asinine.

Daniele obscured the Sistine Chapel's genitalia in 1565, and was roundly criticized for doing so. This criticism did not extend to any lightening of the figures' flesh.

tacoloco
12-22-2009, 03:29 PM
So OP is saying that my white ancestors were oppressed by a nobility class that was secretly black.

Wow. The more you know, I guess. :P

StusBlues
12-22-2009, 03:34 PM
They weren't really anti-"Semitic", they were just against anyone who wasn't Catholic. Jews who converted to were generally just seen as no longer Jewish and treated like any other Catholic.


Oh, no. Persecution of conversos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converso)was rampant through the Renaissance era. The Spanish Inquisition wasn't known for its "live and let live" approach to life.

ivan astikov
12-22-2009, 03:42 PM
The most interesting thing* to come out of this thread is the idea that there might be paintings of black people that have been "redone" to represent a more "European appearance". Any info on whether this might have occurred or not?


* To me, at least.

StusBlues
12-22-2009, 03:48 PM
The most interesting thing* to come out of this thread is the idea that there might be paintings of black people that have been "redone" to represent a more "European appearance". Any info on whether this might have occurred or not?


* To me, at least.

I've heard that there are some portraits of Martin Luther King, Jr. that have been very consciously lightened. Don't have examples, though--sorry!

Kobal2
12-22-2009, 03:52 PM
Considering that the US famously doesn't have royalty, I'm assuming your talking about Europeans?

Forgetting your Emperor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton), are you ?

Alessan
12-22-2009, 03:54 PM
I'm also fascinated by the fact that the OP seems to believe that all European royalty - dozens and dozens of lineages - was suddenly deposed in 1789, instead of just the French branch of the Bourbon family, which itself was restored to the throne 25 years later. The current monarchs of Britain, Spain, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal and Monaco are all the direct descendants of the same people who were in power in 1789. The French Revolution was nothing more than a blip.

Voyager
12-22-2009, 04:01 PM
This makes no sense. You're saying white Americans didn't want to be dominated by black royals. This means that white Americans knew that the royals were (supposedly) black. However, there is no mention of this in any of the revolutionary propaganda at the time. Do you have a cite of some American decrying the European black nobility? Nothing would make the southern colonies rebel against England faster than the claim that the rulers were black.

Likewise, you say...

Do you have a cite of any French revolutionary leading the masses with allegations of black nobility?

Plus, there is a direct line of descent from the Georges (who must have been black ruling before 1789) and Queen Elizabeth. Perhaps all the TV cameras have a black to white filter? Prince Philip is of Greek royalty, so Charles should be black also. Maybe everyone got white treatments in 1789?

As for me, being Jewish, and coming from the same place as Jesus did, and with more tan skin than my more European wife, I must be black also. Pity I wasn't aware of it so I could have qualified for some affirmative action money or something.

I also wonder what this ancient black royalty was doing when the Romans ruled much of Europe.

ETA: Alessan beat me to it.

Guinastasia
12-22-2009, 04:32 PM
Shit, it looks like Ivan the Terrible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kremlinpic4.jpg) was actually Native American!!! Who'd a thunk it?!


Her niece Mary of Scots was the Black boys great-grandmother and look black of skin. Lovely woman, yet murderous.

Mary, Queen of Scots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_queen_of_scots), was a redhead. Redheads are anything BUT black. (Most have very light, very sensitive skin)


Portraits of Mary show that she had a small, well-shaped head, a long, graceful neck, bright auburn hair, hazel-brown eyes, under heavy lowered eyelids and finely arched brows, smooth lustrous skin, a high forehead, and regular, firm features.




(BTW, what sources did you use for your "books", and where might one obtain a copy? Do you have a link?)

Guinastasia
12-22-2009, 04:42 PM
Plus, there is a direct line of descent from the Georges (who must have been black ruling before 1789) and Queen Elizabeth. Perhaps all the TV cameras have a black to white filter? Prince Philip is of Greek royalty, so Charles should be black also. Maybe everyone got white treatments in 1789?

As for me, being Jewish, and coming from the same place as Jesus did, and with more tan skin than my more European wife, I must be black also. Pity I wasn't aware of it so I could have qualified for some affirmative action money or something.

I also wonder what this ancient black royalty was doing when the Romans ruled much of Europe.

ETA: Alessan beat me to it.

Sorry, I missed this before I posted:

Voyager -- actually, the Greek royal family was Danish/German/Russian. The first King of Greece, George I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_I_of_Greece), was Prince William of Denmark when he was asked to become King of the newly independent Greece. He then married Grand Duchess Olga Constaninovna of Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olga_Constantinovna_of_Russia), and the rest of the family married people from the various little German countries (there were duchies, grand duchies, principalities, kingdoms, you name it!)
Their son, Prince Andrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew_of_Greece_and_Denmark), was Phillip's father. His mother was Princess Alexandra of Battenberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Alice_of_Battenberg). And since most of the royal families of Europe are all German by blood, (all that intermarrying into those little countries), he'd be German.

So see, GERMANY is black!!! :p


God, I LOVE royal history!)

Der Trihs
12-22-2009, 04:44 PM
I'm also fascinated by the fact that the OP seems to believe that all European royalty - dozens and dozens of lineages - was suddenly deposed in 1789, instead of just the French branch of the Bourbon family, which itself was restored to the throne 25 years later. The current monarchs of Britain, Spain, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal and Monaco are all the direct descendants of the same people who were in power in 1789.Don't you understand? 1789 is when they were all secretly overthrown and replaced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke#Global_Elite) by lizards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilians). Racist lizards.

StusBlues
12-22-2009, 04:45 PM
Mary, Queen of Scots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_queen_of_scots), was a redhead. Redheads are anything BUT black. (Most have very light, very sensitive skin)







Ginger is the new black. Haven't you heard?

Guinastasia
12-22-2009, 04:53 PM
Forget Norton, once we had the Heir to the Russian Throne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ilyinsky) as the mayor of Palm Beach. What about that?

Ginger is the new black. Haven't you heard?

I thought cat hair was the new black?

Kobal2
12-22-2009, 04:57 PM
Shit, it looks like Ivan the Terrible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kremlinpic4.jpg) was actually Native American!!! Who'd a thunk it?

Hmmm, he looks more Jewish to me. The nose, the ears, the beard... more research is needed, but I think we can already infer from this picture that the Russian aristocracy (and by extension, all Slavs) were in reality the lost tribes of Israel. Of course, they were deposed in 1917, and after living for so long under Jewish tyranny it was only natural that antisemitism would be widespread in Soviet Russia...

BRB, self-publishing.

kidchameleon
12-22-2009, 04:58 PM
The King of Pop used to be black, once.

You go too far sir, too far!

marshmallow
12-22-2009, 05:03 PM
Awesome thread, 5/5. Do you have a newsletter?

As an aside, black people can be redheads. With freckles and everything.

Voyager
12-22-2009, 05:29 PM
So see, GERMANY is black!!! :p

Well, duh! I mentioned the Georges, right?

Oh noes - they were actually white, which is why the Revolution happened. Washington, Jefferson, Adams - all black, rebelling against the newly white English king. And slavery? Well, the slaves were actually white, and got painted on the ship. That's why so many died - pores closed up like in Goldfinger. I think I feel a (self published) book coming on.


God, I LOVE royal history!)
Me too. When I was 10 and living in Africa I read this massive history of the English kings and drew up a family tree which I gave to this Brit who lived in an apartment in our villa. I have to get around to reading the rest of Churchill's History of the English Speaking People some day. I read the War of the Roses part after reading Shakespeare so I could tell what actually went on.

Voyager
12-22-2009, 05:32 PM
Hmmm, he looks more Jewish to me. The nose, the ears, the beard... more research is needed, but I think we can already infer from this picture that the Russian aristocracy (and by extension, all Slavs) were in reality the lost tribes of Israel. Of course, they were deposed in 1917, and after living for so long under Jewish tyranny it was only natural that antisemitism would be widespread in Soviet Russia...

Jewish Indian? Right here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsj4s9z-EAE)

sqweels
12-22-2009, 05:46 PM
Not sure why, but I'm wishing that Kanicbird would weigh in here.

You go too far sir, too far!
I'm sure MJ's complexion has begun to darken once again.

Guinastasia
12-22-2009, 06:07 PM
Not sure why, but I'm wishing that Kanicbird would weigh in here.


I'm sure MJ's complexion has begun to darken once again.

Meh, I think he embalmed himself enough that it'll last a good ten years, at least.

ivan astikov
12-22-2009, 06:08 PM
Meh, I think he embalmed himself enough that it'll last a good ten years, at least.

I thought plastic was non-biodegradable?

Belowjob2.0
12-22-2009, 06:40 PM
I'm going to tell you something, Egmond Codfried - most people think these theories are ridiculously implausible already, but dishing out your arguments in a poorly-written, poorly-punctuated, ungrammatical, and horribly-arranged fashion is only going to hurt your cause and discredit you.

As to you "Afrocentrists" - stick to celebrating your own heritage. Stop trying to claim the heritage of others as your own.

The Jews were not black, the Greeks were not black, Beethoven was not black, Shakespeare was not black, Jesus was not black and the goddamn Houses of Tudor, Stuart and Hanover were most certainly not black, to say nothing of the Hapsburgs, Hohenzollerns, Guelphs, Medicis, Barberinis, the Valois and Bourbons, and the other illustrious dynasties that ruled over Renaissance and early modern Europe, who were NOT BLACK!

Stop trying to appropriate other peoples' history.

Oh yeah? How do you explain Jewfros? :p

Belowjob2.0
12-22-2009, 06:44 PM
Obviously black. (http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/img/King.Henry.VIII.jpg)

Another clearly black man. (http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/72/Henry-stuart-darnley.jpg)

Black city. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Francis1-1.jpg)

Another handsome specimen of African-French blood. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Antoine-de-bourbon.jpg)

Quite clearly of African descent. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Erik_XIV_%281533-1577%29_Domenicus_Verwildt.jpg)

Yet another African-European. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Charles_V%2C_Holy_Roman_Emperor_by_Tizian.jpg)

As black as Shaq. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Michiel_Jansz_van_Mierevelt_-_Maurits_van_Nassau,_prins_van_Oranje_en_Stadhouder.jpg)

A handsome bunch of Dutch-Africans. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Four_generations_Princes_of_Orange_-_William_I,_Maurice_and_Frederick_Henry,_William_II,_William_III_(Willem_van_Honthorst,_1662).jpg)

That's right. ALL BLACK!!!

Yeah, but they're all albinos, see.

Seriously, this guy gets under your skin enough to require extensive link posting? Don't you see that he's obviously nuts?

Bryan Ekers
12-22-2009, 06:48 PM
Racist lizards.

Well, that's what happens when you don't vote - the wrong lizards get in.

billfish678
12-22-2009, 06:53 PM
I've heard that there are some portraits of Martin Luther King, Jr. that have been very consciously lightened. Don't have examples, though--sorry!

Don't you mean enlightened? :)

hansel
12-22-2009, 06:58 PM
The same username and theory appear on the first page of google results, linking to Stormfront. Why are you all still arguing with the OP?

silenus
12-22-2009, 07:07 PM
We're not arguing with the OP. We're mocking him and arguing with each other. Big difference.

Dangerosa
12-22-2009, 07:09 PM
Forget Norton, once we had the Heir to the Russian Throne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ilyinsky) as the mayor of Palm Beach. What about that?

I always liked him. I think Maria is a pill.

tomndebb
12-22-2009, 07:15 PM
Don't you see that he's obviously nuts?You may note that he is obviously wrong, but you will not accuse him of being nuts in Great Debates.

[ /Moderating ]

Belowjob2.0
12-22-2009, 07:23 PM
You may note that he is obviously wrong, but you will not accuse him of being nuts in Great Debates.

[ /Moderating ]

True. Not okay for GD.

LouisB
12-22-2009, 08:25 PM
I think the guy is trying to sell his (self published) books since he doesn't really offer any cites or proofs. I don't have enough interest in his theory to "read google" or anything else; if he provided some cites I might be so desperate for entertainment to read a few. Otherwise, he's got nothin.

Guinastasia
12-22-2009, 10:00 PM
Well, that's what happens when you don't vote - the wrong lizards get in.

Chameleons?

LouisB, I don't think so. He hasn't mentioned the names of either book, nor any links of how to obtain them or whatever. If you google the guy, all you get is a bunch of the same stuff he's spewing here. (Although do NOT click on the first google link you get. I was bombarded by pop-ups so bad I had to shut down firefox. The kind that ask you to download this or that program, and won't let you take no for an answer. Total malaware site. If you want to read it, click on the "cached" link instead)


As for arguing with him, I'd say this is pretty entertaining.

Torgo ate my hamster
12-22-2009, 10:05 PM
Shit, it looks like Ivan the Terrible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kremlinpic4.jpg) was actually Native American!!! Who'd a thunk it?!

I don't know. He seems Klingon to me.

kidchameleon
12-22-2009, 10:21 PM
Chameleons?


Hey!

Guinastasia
12-22-2009, 10:29 PM
Oh, and the name "Stuart" means "household guardian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_%28name%29)", NOT "black boy", as your friend claims (http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:OsbtIqnDWLAJ:www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/king-charles-stuart-ii-king-of-england-aka-the-black-boy/+egmond+codfried+stuart+means&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us).

(Link safe -- it's a google cache)

I don't know WHERE people come up with this shit, but whatever it is, I want some! :p

Marley23
12-22-2009, 10:43 PM
Oh, and the name "Stuart" means "household guardian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_%28name%29)", NOT "black boy", as your friend claims (http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:OsbtIqnDWLAJ:www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/king-charles-stuart-ii-king-of-england-aka-the-black-boy/+egmond+codfried+stuart+means&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us).
Really? That's basic etymology right there. I thought everyone knew what a steward is. Certainly all of our Lord of the Rings fans could set him straight on that one.

Fear Itself
12-22-2009, 10:59 PM
Whites do not make black babies, unless there is some recent black ancestry in both parents. If that is true, which of Charles II's parents (Charles I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:King_Charles_I_by_Antoon_van_Dyck.jpg)& Henrietta Maria of France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Henrietta_Maria_01.jpg)) look black to you??

Argent Towers
12-22-2009, 11:13 PM
The site claims:

There was once a Stuart line of Kings in England. The name of the founding ancestor was Stuart which means Black man.

Yes, and that founding ancestor of the Stuart line is Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Henry-stuart-darnley.jpg) Yes, there's a black boy if I ever saw one. :rolleyes:

Chen019
12-22-2009, 11:26 PM
The period discussed here is 1500-1789

Cleopatra is described as black.
Some pieces at the Louvre Paris show her relatives as with classical black features: noses, lips, hair.

But lets not confuse the matter by mixing periods, please

Classics Professor Mary Lefkowitz has written a couple of books debunking Afrocentrist theories.

In the link below she addresses the idea that Cleopatra was black (also open the link to see the images of busts and coinage portraits which show she did not have black features). She also addresses much of the other nonsense Afrocentrists come up with.

Until recently, no one ever asked whether Cleopatra might have had an African ancestor, because our surviving ancient sources identify her as a Macedonian Greek. Her ancestors, the Ptolemies, were descended from one of Alexander's generals. After Alexander's death in 323 B. C., these generals divided up among themselves the territory in the Mediterranean that Alexander had conquered. The name Cleopatra was one of the names traditionally given to women in the royal family; officially our Cleopatra (69-30 BC) was Cleopatra VII, the daughter of Ptolemy XII and his sister. Cleopatra VII herself followed the family practice of marrying within the family. She married her two brothers (Ptolemy XIII and XIV) in succession (after the first died in suspicious circumstances, she had the second murdered). Her first language was Greek; but she was also the first member of the Ptolemaic line who was able to speak Egyptian. She also wore Egyptian dress, and was shown in art in the dress of the goddess Isis. She chose to portray herself as an Egyptian not because she was Egyptian, but because she was ambitious to stay in power. In her surviving portraits on coins and in sculpture she appears to be impressive rather than beautiful, Mediterranean in appearance, with straight hair and a hooked nose. Of course these portraits on metal and stone give no indication of the color of her skin.

The only possibility that she might not have been a full-blooded Macedonian Greek arises from the fact that we do not know the precise identity of one member of her family tree. We do not know who her grandmother was on her father's side. Her grandmother was the mistress (not the wife) of her grandfather, Ptolemy IX. Because nothing is known about this person, the assumption has always been that she was a Macedonian Greek, like the other members of Ptolemy's court. Like other Greeks, the Ptolemies were wary of foreigners. They kept themselves apart from the native population, with brothers usually marrying sisters, or uncles marrying nieces, or in one case a father marrying his daughter (Ptolemy IX and Cleopatra Berenice III). Because the Ptolemies seemed to prefer to marry among themselves, even incestuously, it has always been assumed that Cleopatra's grandmother was closely connected with the family. If she had been a foreigner, one of the Roman writers of the time would have mentioned it in their invectives against Cleopatra as an enemy of the Roman state. These writers were supporters of Octavian (later known as Augustus) who defeated Cleopatra's forces in the battle of Actium in 31 B.C.

http://www.wellesley.edu/CS/Mary/Not_Out_of_Africa.html

Mosier
12-22-2009, 11:59 PM
What would you consider proof?
DNA is out of the question.
My theory is built on many pillars. Like:
Personal descriptions

Whose descriptions? You've mentioned this several times, but you have yet to provide a cite showing exactly who described the European monarchs as black.

black images

Which black images? The only image of a black man you have shown is Barack Obama, edited to look white. You are showing us images of white Europeans, and claiming they were really black men.

black described yet shown as whites. why?

Described by who?

many, many Moores in western art, which we still have to discuss.

Moores? Do you mean Moors? If so, how would Moors in Europe lend credence to a theory of black European aristocracy?

archeological proof of The Grimaldi Man, there were blacks in Europe.

Of course there were blacks in Europe. I haven't heard of the Grimaldi Man, though. Who is he, and how does he support the idea that European nobility were black?

Garamante: their descendents were called Black Dutch arriving in the 17th century in the US

Cite? Garamantes were Saharan people who lived in Africa and never went to the Netherlands, according to every source I can find. If some Garamantes made it to Europe, where is the evidence they ended up as royalty?

Most eurocentric studies were written by ideological racists

You have yet to provide a single legitimate example proving your hypothesis. Even if Eurocentric historians are ideological racists, how does that support the idea that blacks dominated European royalty?

Attack from the 3rd dimension
12-23-2009, 12:15 AM
Shit, it looks like Ivan the Terrible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kremlinpic4.jpg) was actually Native American!!! Who'd a thunk it?!

Just like me!

goldmund
12-23-2009, 12:20 AM
If that is true, which of Charles II's parents (Charles I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:King_Charles_I_by_Antoon_van_Dyck.jpg)& Henrietta Maria of France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Henrietta_Maria_01.jpg)) look black to you??

Nevermind that his brother (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_II_of_England) was in charge of the Royal African Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_African_Company), which had a monopoly on England's African slave trade at the time...

Argent Towers
12-23-2009, 12:25 AM
That doesn't mean anything. There were plenty of blacks back in Africa involved in the slave trade too, remember. African blacks were buying and selling each other long before ol' Whitey ever stepped in, and, for that matter, long after Whitey abolished slavery in Whiteyland.

Jerseyman
12-23-2009, 12:40 AM
Where have these black royals gone? They have their pretender descendents and in some cases their ruling descendents, if with a side-step.

The simple answer is that blue blood is an English expression related partly to the dark purple blood of royalty afflicted with the congenital condition of Porphyry that turns the blood purple (and takes its name from that), partly from the idea of their protected skin being so thin and white that the blue veins showed through as they did not on thick-skinned peasantry.

Guinastasia
12-23-2009, 12:48 AM
The site claims:



Yes, and that founding ancestor of the Stuart line is Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Henry-stuart-darnley.jpg) Yes, there's a black boy if I ever saw one. :rolleyes:

No offense, but you're waaaaay off: try Robert II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_II_of_Scotland), grandson of the famous Robert the Bruce.

House of Stuart/Stewart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Stuart) (now our "dear" friend Egmond can analize the pictures of Stuart monarchs for signs of "blackness" all he wishes!)

They only changed the spelling to Stuart because of Darnley's French connections, it seems. But he was a cousin of Mary's, so he was already a member of the Stuart/Stewart dynasty.


Nevermind that his brother (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_II_of_England) was in charge of the Royal African Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_African_Company), which had a monopoly on England's African slave trade at the time...

ETA:
Fixed link: James II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_II_of_England)

Argent Towers
12-23-2009, 12:55 AM
Well, it was never specified exactly which Stuart ancestor the Stuart line of English monarchs was descended from, so I just went with the first immediate ancestor before the first Stuart king of England (James I) - the one who is responsible for bringing the Stuart line into the English monarchy - which was Darnley. Obviously it goes back much farther than that in Scotland.

Guinastasia
12-23-2009, 01:09 AM
Okay, that makes sense. Of course, since the OP tried to claim that Darnley's wife, Mary, was also black, I doubt he'll agree with you.


I'd also like to point out, that by his logic -- that the "black/blue bloods" wore white make-up to look white, wouldn't that basically mean that the whole powdered wig fashion was to make one look elderly?

Rucksinator
12-23-2009, 01:44 AM
http://images.google.nl/images?hl=nl&source=hp&q=white%20obama&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Please consider images of a white Barack Obama.
Does these make him a white man?

[Disclaimer: I haven't read the entire thread]

I'm not sure how photoshopped images of a man that is just as much "white" as he is "black" supports your argument. Did you know that Obama's mom was a white chick?

MrDibble
12-23-2009, 04:01 AM
If that is true, which of Charles II's parents (Charles I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:King_Charles_I_by_Antoon_van_Dyck.jpg)& Henrietta Maria of France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Henrietta_Maria_01.jpg)) look black to you??

Chuck 1 was rocking some serious shoes...


...man, why do I miss all the fun? Looking up Garibaldi Man has been a lot of fun for this half-Khoisan, I can tell you.

APB
12-23-2009, 06:21 AM
[url]The first case I present is Charles II Stuart (1630-1685), King of England. Named The Black Boy, because he looked black. He was described as a tall black man. And James Boswell described him as The Swarthy Stuart.

Mr. Codfried is presumably not going to return. But here goes anyhow...

None of these examples can be accepted at, well, face-value. Take the claim that he was described as a 'tall black man'. Well, you can indeed find dozens of online references to this claim, some from seemingly reputable printed sources. These are usually combined with the claim that it came from the wanted poster for him issued in 1651. But others instead give the quote as 'a tall man, above two yards high'. Actually the original quote comes from a letter sent by the Parliamentarian Council of State to customs officials. The printed calendared version gives the full quote.

For your better discovery of him, take notice of him to be a tall man, above two yards high, his hair a deep brown, near to black, and has been, as we hear, cut off since the destruction of his army at Worcester, so that it is not very long...

Mary Anne Everett Green (ed.), Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1651 (1877), 476.


So the genuine description issued by his Parliamentarian enemies, who wanted him captured as a matter of the greatest urgency, failed to mention that he had black skin.:smack:

The Boswell quote is even sillier. When Boswell wrote about 'the swarthy Stuart' being given '[t]he cream complexion of Hanover', he was satirising a decision to paint white the lead statue of Charles II (http://www.worldisround.com/articles/26441/photo15.html) in Parliament Square in Edinburgh.

LouisB
12-23-2009, 08:30 AM
Chameleons?

LouisB, I don't think so. He hasn't mentioned the names of either book, nor any links of how to obtain them or whatever. If you google the guy, all you get is a bunch of the same stuff he's spewing here. (Although do NOT click on the first google link you get. I was bombarded by pop-ups so bad I had to shut down firefox. The kind that ask you to download this or that program, and won't let you take no for an answer. Total malaware site. If you want to read it, click on the "cached" link instead)


As for arguing with him, I'd say this is pretty entertaining.I don't have enough time to waste with this guy IF he ever comes back and I wouldn't read his books if he gave them to me. If you win an argument with a person of his caliber, what have you accomplished?

42fish
12-23-2009, 08:49 AM
On the off chance that the OP does come back:

Is there any explanation for why the descendents of these black monarchs had become lily-white by the time photography had rolled around? I don't recall too many photos in which Queen Elizabeth II or King George V or Queen Victoria have 'black' featues.

Vorpal Blade
12-23-2009, 08:52 AM
...its important to arrive at some definition of who is white and who is black....

Why is that?

jayjay
12-23-2009, 08:54 AM
On the off chance that the OP does come back:

Is there any explanation for why the descendents of these black monarchs had become lily-white by the time photography had rolled around? I don't recall too many photos in which Queen Elizabeth II or King George V or Queen Victoria have 'black' featues.

Duh. They all became sparkly vampires and the dazzle of the sparkling fools the camera into seeing their skin color as the kind of off-beige that is the natural heritage of us normal descendants of albinos.

Shodan
12-23-2009, 09:24 AM
Plus that French woman in the picture with the black slave that he claims is black, is an ancestor of Princess Di, which is about as lily-white as could be found.

I doubt he will be back, so I guess we will never know The Truth.

Regards,
Shodan

Argent Towers
12-23-2009, 09:45 AM
Don't know about Victoria or George V, but the camera definitely captured the strong African features of Edward VIII. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/A030596.jpg)

In seriousness - Afrocentrism is, in my opinion, one of the most utterly arrogant, obnoxious and racist "historical" schools of thought. It absolutely smacks of envy, resentment and hostility. These people literally try to claim everyone important in history - they say the ancient Romans and the ancient Greeks were black, they say the ancient Egyptians were black, they say the Jews were black and the European Jews today are "impostors," they say Jesus and Moses were black, and now apparently they're saying that the greatness of the European Renaissance was all due to blacks - and evil whitey is trying to cover it all up!

Even the most politically-incorrect, nationalistic, old-fashioned historical movements of white academics never tried to claim that the ancient Egyptians and Greeks and the Arab empires and the Aztecs and Mayas and Incas and every other civilization were all actually white Anglo-Saxons! The only thing I can even think of that comes close is the absurd Nazi theories that the ancient Indians were all blue-eyed, blond Aryans...or something.

Seriously. If you want to be proud of your own culture and heritage, be proud of it. But trying to take credit for things that are not part of that culture and heritage is just the lowest of the low. There's also a strong current of what I call "black inventor-ism", which takes the form of claiming, as the United Negro College Fund did in a full-page ad in the New York Times last summer, that all kinds of ridiculous things were invented by blacks.

A mind is responsible for the traffic light, the blood bank, ice cream, peanut butter, the doorknob, the microphone, the elevator, clothes dryer, lawn mower, pacemaker, the typewriter, guided missile, mailbox, the air conditioner, automatic transmission, curtain rod, baby carriage, lawn sprinkler, fountain pen, dust pan, the hand stamp, first open-heart surgery, cataract laser, fire extinguisher, doorstop, home security camera, the golf tee, fire escape, potato chip, food preservation, synthesized cortisone, the guitar, railroad telegraphy, envelope seal, printing press, bicycle frame, rocket catapult, insect destroyer gun, ice cream scoop, window cleaner, laser fuels, folding chair, gas mask, mop, refrigerator, pressing comb, urinalysis machine, door lock, electric cutoff switch, telephone transmitter, stair-climbing wheelchair, hairbrush, egg beater, eye protector, electric lamp bulb, biscuit cutter, chamber commode, almanac, horse shoe, lunch pail, motor, lantern, key chain, furniture caster, ironing board, sugar-refining system, lemon squeezer, portable weighing scales, wrench, airplane propeller, ore bucket, steam boiler, spark plug, galoshes, casket-lowering device, clothes wringer, disrail car coupling, riding saddles, and so on and so on. The list is endless. Indeed, it’s time to stop and celebrate the fact that each and every one of the wonderful innovations mentioned here came from the mind. The mind of an African American.


I posted another thread about that, when I saw the ad, and though most people agreed with my distaste for it, some people said that while a black person (or any individual person) didn't necessarily invent things like horseshoes, biscuit cutters, ironing boards or doorknobs (!!!), certain black inventors improved those things into the forms that we now know them as today, which justifies the language and argument of that ridiculous ad. OK, someone else might have invented it originally, but black inventors improved it and refined it...so it's OK to say that it "came from their mind."

Alright. Fine. But by that reasoning, white people invented rock music. Chuck Berry and Little Richard were the ones who first started playing it in its crudest form, but groups like The Beatles were the ones who really innovated it, incorporating white music like string orchestras, brass bands, English dance hall tunes, synthesizers (invented by whites,) studio effects (invented by whites) - and more white groups refined it further. You can talk about the influence of the blues on rock and roll until hell freezes over, but there is absolutely NO "black" sound evident in Turn, Turn, Turn by The Byrds, You Didn't Have To Be So Nice by the Lovin' Spoonful, Good Vibrations by the Beach Boys, Miserlou or any of Dick Dale's dozens of innovative surf tunes (which were inspired by Lebanese music). There is not a single trace of the blues in Roundabout by Yes or The Immigrant Song by Led Zeppelin or Welcome to the Jungle by Guns 'n Roses or Space Oddity by Bowie or Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen or Tom Sawyer by Rush or any number of other songs that are recognized as being tremendously influential in creating the genre of rock.

Fine - ice cream, the doorknob, the gas mask and the hairbrush all came "from the mind of an African American." And rock and roll is white.

Nzinga, Seated
12-23-2009, 10:49 AM
Seriously. If you want to be proud of your own culture and heritage, be proud of it.

Good thing you give the permission to be, because there is plenty to be proud of. The black experience is quite unique. The fact that a nation can begin with putting a people down so low that the only way a black woman can make it into the white house is as actual, factual property, to coming to a point where she can sit at the head of the table as first lady of this great nation. That is a long way, baby. The fact that the most put down of a put down people can still offer so much to the world culture (hip-hop, jazz,) from the very bottom of the ghetto is also very telling, for anyone paying attention.

But I think what one would do well to think of, when they are getting worked up into an outrage over the ignorant claims of many Afrocentric people, is the why.

If you come from a place where your culture was stripped from you (or your ancestors, and by proxy, you) then you pretty much have to start from scratch. And if you have to trust white people as the writers of history, which you kinda do if you are educated in American public schools, then you are going to have a bit of a trust issue. See, no matter how much we talk about how Africans sold their own people, there is no comparing African slavery to American slavery. The absolute institutionalized, organized kind of slavery that takes away names, abilities to learn and grow, histories, prides, and legacies forevermore, from generation to generation...that is quite different from the kind of slavery that other people have endured. So I really don't understand why someone always makes a big production over pointing out that Africans sold slaves; it misses the point.

But, I'm digressing. The point is, when you culture was taken from you, and you have to start from scratch, you tend to be in a very difficult position.

When you grow up in the ghetto as a black person, you may go through some stages. Let me break them down:

1. You are born into a society and the game is already in motion. You are already a product of generations of blacks in this nation that has this huge history of slavery. Your parents come from an age of Jim Crow, you grandparents come from an age of something even harder, and it was their job to educate you. They teach you what they know. So you go to church and bow down to white jesus. Son of God. Basically, your black ass bows down to a white god every single night.

2. You accept images in the media that white is right, blue eyes are better, straight hair is great, booty-flat is where it's at. You begin to grow resentful. The truth is, you come from a people that believed in your beauty, but you were cut off from that love generations ago, and your people were taught that you were ugly. Resentment begins to build.

3. You come of age at about 15. You begin to get into some of the rebellious energy going on around you. Malcolm X, Minister Farrakhan, young black men come up to you and teach you to stop bowing to a white god. Aint no white god in the sky gonna save you, YOU are god, black man!

4. You begin to read everything you can get your hands on that gives that message. You don't have the kind of family that can send you to Ivy league universities, but you have some books that everyone in the hood passes around, and it tells you everything GOOD about being black, instead of all the bad things.

There you have the birth of a so-called Afrocentric. I went through the process myself, and I remember the pain of learning the truth about some of the lies I was taught (you mean, Jesus wasn't a black man???) but it doesn't compare the absolute joy of learning the truth about who my people really are, and all that we have to be proud of.

So, when you hear an Afrocentric person talking, (not the OP, I mean, a real one) try looking at them as someone on a journey. You can educate them and help them along on their journy. Or you can just go bananas and start seriously debating whether or not rock and roll is black or white. Either way.

What Exit?
12-23-2009, 11:06 AM
Man this thread was worth your post alone Nzinga, Seated.

Really a great post. It was 108 years ago the first Black Man was invited to dinner at the White House and that caused such an uproar that a sitting southern Senator openly declared they would have to lynch "1000 Niggers"* because of it.


* Sorry for the language, it is not mine. My cite is from the book Theodore Rex and the dinner guest was Booker T. Washington.

SecondJudith
12-23-2009, 11:11 AM
That was a brilliant post, Nzinga, thank you for writing and sharing it.

Argent Towers
12-23-2009, 11:12 AM
2. You accept images in the media that white is right, blue eyes are better, straight hair is great, booty-flat is where it's at. You begin to grow resentful. The truth is, you come from a people that believed in your beauty, but you were cut off from that love generations ago, and your people were taught that you were ugly. Resentment begins to build.


Maybe this is how it was for older generations. But the argument that the media presents white as being right does not fly with me. Right now the most popular kind of music in America is rap and hip-hop; rappers are the coolest of the cool; black basketball stars are treated like warrior-kings and given millions of dollars, their pick of the hottest women in the world, and more media exposure than World War II; black women are icons of sex appeal; the president of our country is black (well, bi-racial, but he's still seen as mostly black - you can't get more "right" than the president, and not just any president but one who's popular, successful and classy.) Seriously, it's literally at the point where "black" = "cool" - if you don't believe me, just think about all these memes about white people having no soul, white people can't dance, white people are nerds, "white" is a self-deprecating put-down or joke ("my white ass could never get into that nightclub" or whatever).

It's not 1962 anymore. Blacks may face a lot of problems in society, but I do not believe that media bias is one of them - at least not in the pop culture sphere, the importance of which cannot be overstated.

Shodan
12-23-2009, 11:15 AM
The black experience is quite unique. Just like everybody else's. :)

So, when you hear an Afrocentric person talking, (not the OP, I mean, a real one) try looking at them as someone on a journey. You can educate them and help them along on their journy. Or you can just go bananas and start seriously debating whether or not rock and roll is black or white. Either way.It's not an either/or. Just think of those of us who debunk the more outrageous claims of the Afrocentric crackpots as helping you along your journey.

Regards,
Shodan

Nzinga, Seated
12-23-2009, 11:18 AM
Just like everybody else's. :)
It's not an either/or. Just think of those of us who debunk the more outrageous claims of the Afrocentric crackpots as helping you along your journey.

Regards,
Shodan

My journey? What does debunking Afrocentric crackpots have to do with my journey?

ETA: Argent, good point.

Argent Towers
12-23-2009, 11:18 AM
So, when you hear an Afrocentric person talking, (not the OP, I mean, a real one) try looking at them as someone on a journey. You can educate them and help them along on their journy. Or you can just go bananas and start seriously debating whether or not rock and roll is black or white. Either way.

Nobody would ever suggest that if you encountered someone spewing white supremacist nonsense, you should "help them along on their journey." Never in a million years especially on this board. Never mind that this person might be the product of hundreds of years of poverty, descended from Scots-Irish indentured servants (white slaves) and still stuck in the same pathetic cycle of bad luck. He never had a single clue of what his culture or heritage was; he probably didn't even know his father; he was raised in a rough neighborhood, turned to dealing meth because there wasn't a single goddamn job and all the factories are closed; he goes to state prison, he gets beaten and raped by black inmates, he turns to the Aryan Brotherhood for protection, the image of the swastika and "white power" is the only kind of power that he has ever felt in his life - he becomes a white supremacist.

Is this guy worthy of being "helped along on his journey"? Or is he not oppressed enough to qualify for this special status?

Guinastasia
12-23-2009, 11:52 AM
She was the aunt of Louis XIV, The Sun King. He and Charles II were cousins.
The well preserved mummy of Louis XIV was described in the 19th century as 'Black as ink.'
There is one black image in google thumpprints "codfried louis XIV" but it cannot be seen by itself due to censorship.

You mean this dude (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Louis_XIV_of_France.jpg)? Um, he looks pretty white too me. I mean, he's pretty fly for a white guy* and all, but yeah, he's white.



*Although if you take off the wig and the bling and such, he looks like the kind of guy who'd wear wife-beaters and sandals with black socks. And then yell at the kids to get the hell off his lawn. Like Tom Anderson. Boy, I tellya what.

Shodan
12-23-2009, 12:01 PM
My journey? What does debunking Afrocentric crackpots have to do with my journey?
Generic 'you' - just like in your post.

Regards,
Shodan

Nzinga, Seated
12-23-2009, 12:05 PM
Generic 'you' - just like in your post.

Regards,
Shodan

Oh.

jayjay
12-23-2009, 12:07 PM
*Although if you take off the wig and the bling and such, he looks like the kind of guy who'd wear wife-beaters and sandals with black socks. And then yell at the kids to get the hell off his lawn. Like Tom Anderson. Boy, I tellya what.

He looks like Randy Quaid, to me. Not that Randy Quaid isn't the kind of guy who'd wear wife-beaters and sandals with black socks. I bet Louis XIV never ran out on a $10,000 hotel bill, though...

MrDibble
12-23-2009, 12:16 PM
Even the most politically-incorrect, nationalistic, old-fashioned historical movements of white academics never tried to claim that the ancient Egyptians and Greeks and the Arab empires and the Aztecs and Mayas and Incas and every other civilization were all actually white Anglo-Saxons!
The gist of your argument's OK, but this is wrong. There have, indeed, been claims to various ancient civilizations by AS pseudo-historians, from the "Quetzalcoatl was a white man" theory on to the whole Atlantis crowd.

Guinastasia
12-23-2009, 12:20 PM
He looks like Randy Quaid, to me. Not that Randy Quaid isn't the kind of guy who'd wear wife-beaters and sandals with black socks. I bet Louis XIV never ran out on a $10,000 hotel bill, though...


Cousin Eddie!!!

Tamerlane
12-23-2009, 12:46 PM
The gist of your argument's OK, but this is wrong. There have, indeed, been claims to various ancient civilizations by AS pseudo-historians, from the "Quetzalcoatl was a white man" theory on to the whole Atlantis crowd.

Or that Great Zinbabwei was built by Phoenicians, or that the Tutsi were superior to the Hutu because of 'white genes' transmitted via Ethiopia ( i.e. the "Haimitic Hypothesis" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamitic#Hamitic_hypothesis) ).

So, no - unfortunately white Europeans were at times in the habit of claiming the achievements of other cultures as there own. Which just once again points out the commonality of people everywhere ;).

Paul in Qatar
12-23-2009, 01:00 PM
As mentioned, this thread discusses something that makes no difference one way or the other. Who cares? Why?

Guinastasia
12-23-2009, 01:13 PM
As mentioned, this thread discusses something that makes no difference one way or the other. Who cares? Why?

Because, as people have pointed out, it's amusing.

Oh, and google "codfried louis xiv" as he said. Some of the images he's got are really a hoot. Madame Recamier???

RedFury
12-23-2009, 05:54 PM
Racism exist, I did not invent it. I'm offering a solution.

What is this "solution" you speak of? I've read the whole thread and haven't found one.

Belowjob2.0
12-23-2009, 06:18 PM
In seriousness - Afrocentrism is, in my opinion, one of the most utterly arrogant, obnoxious and racist "historical" schools of thought. It absolutely smacks of envy, resentment and hostility. These people literally try to claim everyone important in history - they say the ancient Romans and the ancient Greeks were black, they say the ancient Egyptians were black, they say the Jews were black and the European Jews today are "impostors," they say Jesus and Moses were black, and now apparently they're saying that the greatness of the European Renaissance was all due to blacks - and evil whitey is trying to cover it all up!

Even the most politically-incorrect, nationalistic, old-fashioned historical movements of white academics never tried to claim that the ancient Egyptians and Greeks and the Arab empires and the Aztecs and Mayas and Incas and every other civilization were all actually white Anglo-Saxons! The only thing I can even think of that comes close is the absurd Nazi theories that the ancient Indians were all blue-eyed, blond Aryans...or something.

Not true.

It's a staple of classical race theory to claim that the all the achievements of great civilizations were fomented by Caucasians or the Caucasian/Aryan element in the civilization. And as Tamerlane pointed out, achievements in Africa proper were routinely ascribed to mysterious foreign interlopers.

Afrocentric scholars in the academic mainstream, like Molefi Kete Asante (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molefi_Kete_Asante) (widely seen as the godfather of the discipline) make few if any of the claims you're citing here. Asante and the other mainstream academics use standard academic research methods and verifiable sources. No one is obligated to agree with their conclusions, any more than anyone's obligated to agree with Kevin Macdonald (http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/the_professor_the_antisemites_love_20080509/), but Macdonald, like Asante, uses standard academic research methods.

Sage Rat
12-23-2009, 07:18 PM
Charles II: 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charles_II_when_Prince_of_Wales_by_William_Dobson,_1642.jpg) 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charles_II_Prince_of_Wales_Egmont.jpg)

His father: 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charles,_Prince_of_Wales_%28later_Charles_I%29_by_Isaac_Oliver.jpg) 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charles_I_as_Duke_of_York_and_Albany_Robert_Peake.jpg)

His mother: 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sir_Peter_Lely_001.jpg)

Father's father: 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:James_VI_of_Scotland_aged_20,_1586..jpg) 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:James_I,_VI_by_John_de_Critz,_c.1606..png)

Father's mother: 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anne_of_Denmark_mourning_the_death_of_her_son_Henry_in_1612.jpg) 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anne_of_Denmark-1605.jpg)

Mother's father: 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Henry_IV_of_france_by_pourbous_younger.jpg) 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Henry_IV_en_Herculeus_terrassant_l_Hydre_de_Lerne_cad_La_ligue_Catholique_Atelier_Toussaint_Dub reuil_circa_1600.jpg)

Mother's mother: 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MariadeMedici07.jpg) 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peter_Paul_Rubens_095b.jpg)

Father's father's father: 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Henry-stuart-darnley.jpg)

Father's father's mother: 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mary_Stuart_Queen.jpg) 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:YoungMaryStuart.jpg)

Father's mother's father: 1 (http://perfectcaptain.50megs.com/frederickII_denmark.jpg) 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frederik_2.jpg)

Father's mother's mother: 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sophiemecklenburgdenmark.jpg)

Mother's father's father: 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antoine-de-bourbon.jpg)

Mother's father's mother: 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jeanne-albret-navarre.jpg)

Mother's mother's father: 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FrancescodeMedici.jpg) 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Francesco_I_de_Medici.jpg)

Mother's mother's mother: 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Johanna_of_Austria_rubens.jpg)

Overall, I'd vote that his ancestry sure looks white.

John Mace
12-23-2009, 07:26 PM
Wow. Someone has too much time on his hands. ;)

Nzinga, Seated
12-23-2009, 07:33 PM
Not true.

It's a staple of classical race theory to claim that the all the achievements of great civilizations were fomented by Caucasians or the Caucasian/Aryan element in the civilization. And as Tamerlane pointed out, achievements in Africa proper were routinely ascribed to mysterious foreign interlopers.

Afrocentric scholars in the academic mainstream, like Molefi Kete Asante (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molefi_Kete_Asante) (widely seen as the godfather of the discipline) make few if any of the claims you're citing here. Asante and the other mainstream academics use standard academic research methods and verifiable sources. No one is obligated to agree with their conclusions, any more than anyone's obligated to agree with Kevin Macdonald (http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/the_professor_the_antisemites_love_20080509/), but Macdonald, like Asante, uses standard academic research methods.

I take your points, but I think he has a point. There certainly are lots of 'Afrocentrists' out there that are making claims that can't be backed up with any fact, and doing that takes away from the great acheivements that we really have, which are many.

Maybe we should define "Afrocentrist". Because if we mean the kind of people that go around claiming Cleopatra, Jesus and all of the Hebrews were black Africans, then we have to go ahead and call bullshit on them.

ETA: Nevermind defining it. I am gonna read the wiki article and see what they have to say. I'll go with that definition, I guess.

Sage Rat
12-23-2009, 07:50 PM
Wow. Someone has too much time on his hands. ;)

Not really. Wikipedia links to the father and mother of everyone and has images of them all. It only took like 10 minutes to verify.

smiling bandit
12-23-2009, 08:01 PM
We are deconstructing racism. Some people want racism and white superiority to end, like some people look for a cure for cancer.
Swarthy skin means he did not look white. Yet we think of him as white, and museums show him as white. Why?

This is why people like you (that is, with a one-track mind or a deep agenda) should not try to read history. Swarthy does not mean anything like "not white". My grandpa was swarthy. He was also white as they come. more or less your entire argument (to the extent it can even be called that) is absoutely ridiculous, basing huge sweeping claims on minimal or nonexistant evidence, which you in any case are simply interpreting int he way you like and without any confirmation at all.

History is not done in that manner. Well, good history isn't.

Nzinga, Seated
12-23-2009, 08:13 PM
This is why people like you (that is, with a one-track mind or a deep agenda) should not try to read history. Swarthy does not mean anything like "not white".

link. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Swarthy)

This thread has inspired me to look up what 'Afrocentrism' really means.

I have always taken it to mean black people in America that dress in traditional African garb and also tend to claim that black people are soley responsible for all of the world's great accomplishments. I know people exactly like that, and they self-identify as Afrocentric. Now, I am beginning to think they may want to research the word...cause they are doing Afrocentric wrong, mostly.

dropzone
12-23-2009, 09:20 PM
Overall, I'd vote that his ancestry sure looks white.Ask the OP, if he ever returns (and I look forward to his return because he's funny). I think he'll say that they weren't white, they were just drawn that way.

Guinastasia
12-23-2009, 09:22 PM
Swarthy does not mean anything like "not white". My grandpa was swarthy. He was also white as they come.


Ditto -- my grandfather was Hungarian/Slovak, and yet I'd call him "swarthy." Racially, he'd be considered a Slav-Magyar.

And btw, if the OP wants an example of an albino, look up "Edgar Winter".


Hey -- I have a new theory. If like, all the nobility of Europe were really black, so would that make black people white? It makes perfect sense!!!

Guinastasia
12-23-2009, 09:32 PM
Fucking time limits!!!

That's the sad part. Africa's own history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdoms_in_pre-colonial_Africa) is easily as long and as exciting as European/Middle Eastern history. Empires, kingdoms, wars, great civilizations, conflict, rivalries, cultures...African history is at least as complicated and epic as European history is. You don't find Europeans claiming that the rulers of ancient Mali, Songhai or Great Zimbabwe were white.

If you stop and think about it, then it just makes Afrocentrism almost, I dunno, somehow a feeling of inferiority in disguise? Like the true history of Africa, which IS great, but it's ignored -- because some how what is white is what is best. Does that make sense? Like it's not good enough. It's STILL Eurocentric with a different name.

jayjay
12-23-2009, 09:45 PM
If you stop and think about it, then it just makes Afrocentrism almost, I dunno, somehow a feeling of inferiority in disguise? Like the true history of Africa, which IS great, but it's ignored -- because some how what is white is what is best. Does that make sense? Like it's not good enough. It's STILL Eurocentric with a different name.

I'm in no position to try to analyze that form of Afrocentrism for motives. I'm not black, and I can't say from any kind of experience WHY people promote it. I do think it may be somewhat related to the motives for GLBT people (of which I DO have experience) to kind of glom onto anyone relatively major in history who might possibly at one point have shown some sort of affection for someone of their own gender either in public or in later-published letters. A sort of "We're NOT invisible!" kind of thing.

Smee
12-23-2009, 09:56 PM
Afrocentrists grasp of historical events and characters reminds me of a television interview with the girlfriend of an English professional soccer player.

She revealed to the interviewer that her neighbourhood had a black coloured statue of Winston Churchill with an attached plaque detailing his time as a soldier in Africa and as prime minister of the UK.

This was all hilariously digested in her teenage mind and regurgitated as "Winston Churchill was the first black president of Africa"

All the ingredients are there to create a majestic lasagne but an all in pot of overcooked stew is comically dished up instead.

SecondJudith
12-24-2009, 10:17 AM
If you stop and think about it, then it just makes Afrocentrism almost, I dunno, somehow a feeling of inferiority in disguise? Like the true history of Africa, which IS great, but it's ignored -- because some how what is white is what is best. Does that make sense? Like it's not good enough.

(Disclaimer: I am white.)

As Nzinga pointed out, this is probably because that's what's taught as The Way Things Are to children of all races in US schools. How much African history are children taught, as compared with European history? If it is taught, it is likely to be about white colonialism or the slave trade, which just reinforces the idea that Europeans are naturally in charge/more important/at the top of the socioeconomic scale. It's not like black kids spontaneously develop internalized inferiority, it's in the basic US history curriculum.

Guinastasia
12-24-2009, 01:06 PM
Well, jayjay, it is easy in some cases to determine which historical figures were probably gay. (Edward II of England, for example)

(Disclaimer: I am white.)

As Nzinga pointed out, this is probably because that's what's taught as The Way Things Are to children of all races in US schools. How much African history are children taught, as compared with European history? If it is taught, it is likely to be about white colonialism or the slave trade, which just reinforces the idea that Europeans are naturally in charge/more important/at the top of the socioeconomic scale. It's not like black kids spontaneously develop internalized inferiority, it's in the basic US history curriculum.

Of course they don't, and of course teaching only about Europe is bullshit. BUT, you don't teach bullshit to make up for it -- it's only going to make it worse, not better. It's the same -- Eurocentric, but wrapped in a new package.

What I'm saying is, instead of trying to push Afrocentrism, make a campaign to include more authentic African history, and the actual accomplishments of African Americans in the US.

I suppose as because I got my degree in history and all, it bugs me when people try to push myth as fact. (I get royally annoyed when people pull the whole "hemophilia was caused by inbreeding" or "everyone thought the Earth was flat!", so maybe I'm a bit over-sensitive)
;)

LouisB
12-24-2009, 06:11 PM
I have a question, or questions, and I'm not trying to be a smart ass.

If I were to want to seriously study Black History, would I, by definition, find myself studying African history? if not African history exclusively, what other history would I be studying? By whom would that history be written and how would I verify that person or persons bona fides? Where would I even start or how would I begin?

Remember please that I was raised in 1940 thru early 1960s Texas, where Black and White water fountains, waiting rooms, rest rooms, etc, etc., were common and blacks rode in the backs of buses and a black man dared not look at white women in a "certain way." I hate to say this but I was taught that if a black man accomplished something significant it only meant that he had "human" blood in his family line. How much truth do you think I absorbed concerning black history?

Just for the record, I totally rejected all that crap, beginning when I was about fifteen. Again for the record, my father cut me from his will because I refused to embrace his racist theories. My questions above are legitimate; I want to fight my ignorance.

Tamerlane
12-24-2009, 06:26 PM
If I were to want to seriously study Black History, would I, by definition, find myself studying African history? if not African history exclusively, what other history would I be studying? By whom would that history be written and how would I verify that person or persons bona fides? Where would I even start or how would I begin?

Black history, in a U.S. context, generally refers specifically to African-American history - i.e. the history of black people in the United States and the colonial areas that would become the United States. African history is usually a seperate subject, though sometimes the two can be overlapped in college coursework - I once took a course on African and Afro-American Literature that covered everything from Sundiata: an Epic of Old Mali to Crick Crack, Monkey. Generally speaking where I went to school African history was taught in the history department, Black history in the Ethnic Studies depatment, but of course that will vary from school to school.

As for what sources, just look for well-reviewed works with legitimate looking academic credentials. For example on average academic presses are usually a safer bet ( particularly in terms of straight, narrative history ) than vanity or mass-market publishers, though that certainly isn't a guarantee of quality. I'm sure if you posted a thread in Cafe Society looking for specific topics folks could point you in some directions.

Argent Towers
12-24-2009, 08:46 PM
(Disclaimer: I am white.)

As Nzinga pointed out, this is probably because that's what's taught as The Way Things Are to children of all races in US schools. How much African history are children taught, as compared with European history? If it is taught, it is likely to be about white colonialism or the slave trade, which just reinforces the idea that Europeans are naturally in charge/more important/at the top of the socioeconomic scale. It's not like black kids spontaneously develop internalized inferiority, it's in the basic US history curriculum.

Well, when I took history in high school (which was "World History" - advanced level) we spent about a month learning about nothing but various ancient African cultures. They really pounded us over the head with it (and the class was 100% white, in Indiana.) We also learned a hell of a lot about the pre-Columbian cultures of the New World. On the other hand, we learned almost nothing about the Hundred Years War; I think we spent about one day on the Thirty Years War; we didn't learn anything at all about the German electorate system; we spent virtually no time on the Restoration period in England and learned barely anything about the Williamite or Hanoverian successions; there were a hell of a lot of things essential to European history that we never learned. But we did do week-long projects on the Zimbabwe empire.

In US history there was a hell of a lot of "the Indians were all wiped out," "Columbus was evil" and "slaverywasbadslaverywasbadslaverywasbadslaverywasbad". I don't recall us spending more than 15 minutes talking about white indentured servants, or Irish shipped over to America by Cromwell to work out indefinite periods of hard labor in de facto slavery, or any of the white people who were worked to death in America and on whose bones the country was built in addition to the blacks and Indians.

History classes in the 21st century are totally P.C.

tomndebb
12-24-2009, 09:33 PM
History classes in the 21st century are totally P.C.Well. your impression of your particular classes is certainly that they were "totally P.C"

OTOH, I have had enough experience with high chool history classes in the last few years to know that your experience was far from typical,

Tamerlane
12-24-2009, 09:38 PM
Well, when I took history in high school (which was "World History" - advanced level) we spent about a month learning about nothing but various ancient African cultures. They really pounded us over the head with it (and the class was 100% white, in Indiana.) We also learned a hell of a lot about the pre-Columbian cultures of the New World. On the other hand, we learned almost nothing about the Hundred Years War; I think we spent about one day on the Thirty Years War; we didn't learn anything at all about the German electorate system; we spent virtually no time on the Restoration period in England and learned barely anything about the Williamite or Hanoverian successions; there were a hell of a lot of things essential to European history that we never learned. But we did do week-long projects on the Zimbabwe empire.

Everything changes :).

As I recall you're a young guy, Argent Towers. I'm just about 42, so not ancient. But I assure you we did NOT spend a month on ancient African cultures when I was in high school ( in the uber-liberal CA Bay Area ) or a learn much about pre-Colombian history ( "Aztecs & Incas conquered" ). We spent a little time on ancient Egypt and that was it - next to nothing sub-Saharan that I can recall ( I remember my teacher saying he remembered "Hatshepsut" with the mnemonic "Hot Ketchup" ). Really ancient Greece and Rome dominated my world history class, then we skipped rapidly to WW I & II and never got much past that. We never spent much time on the HRE either, if it makes you feel any better, not that I'm sure we should of. Damn little on China or India either ( "Yellow River", "Mohenjo-Daro" ).

And I was already a total history geek by the time I entered high school. I even took a second semester of world history, a rare elective, and we spent next to no time on Africa. It was mostly post-Roman European history up through Vietnam I think.

So I weep not for you ;) - every high school world history class is a contrast in shitty compromises. It's just wayyyy too much to cover in such a short period of time. Your complaints about the Hundred Years War ( should at least be mentioned, in terms of the final separation of the crowns of France and England ) and somewhat more strongly the Thirty Years War ( keystone moment in the development of modern nationalism ) are kinda reasonable. But the German electoral system? Hanoverite and Williamite Successions? Pshaw. I wouldn't teach that stuff in high school either and I like that sort of thing. It just isn't essential enough to cram into precious class hours.

Now is a month on Africa excessive? Maybe - depends on how its done and just what you include in Africa. But world history by definition shouldn't be completely dominated by a study of Europe no matter how central it has been in the last 300 years. Given the paucity of instruction in decades past, a little corrective is no big deal, as long as it is handled properly ( which is really the key issue ).

Odesio
12-24-2009, 09:58 PM
If you come from a place where your culture was stripped from you (or your ancestors, and by proxy, you) then you pretty much have to start from scratch.


I used to work in a section of the public library where genealogy was pretty much our bread and butter. I'm certainly not an expert on genealogy but I was good enough to help beginners and to assist the experienced researchers when they required it. I quickly came to realize that helping our African American patrons was a bit different than helping our white patrons.

Our black patrons often had the same problems that some of our white patrons had but they had one big additional problem. The big difference was, as I told them, "when you hit 1860 you're going to hit a wall." Unless their ancestor was a free man they weren't going to find him or her listed in the census by name. There are ways for blacks researching genealogy to go farther but they'll have to do a lot more work earlier than most whites in my experience. So I also tell them that it's possible to get past that wall but it can be very difficult. A black coworker of mine managed to trace her ancestry back to the 18th century but a lot of it really isn't the same kind of proof available to most whites.

While I've never had a particular interest in my own genealogy I've always had the option to research it as far back as possible. Many African Americans will not be able to reliably trace their ancestry prior to 1860. There were only a few white patrons who had a real difficult time tracing their family tree to their country and town of origin. Nearly 100% (I didn't take a scientific poll) of the black patrons I helped ran into serious trouble doing the same. For the vast majority of them I suspect it's impossible to know with any certainty.


But, I'm digressing. The point is, when you culture was taken from you, and you have to start from scratch, you tend to be in a very difficult position.


I think I understand why it exists. I just can't stomach teaching lies in order to bolster group image. I don't tend to run across this kind of thing with black people though I do run across it quite a bit with white southerners because of my line of work. I'm talking about folks like the Sons of Confederate Veterans or the United Daughters of the Confederacy. You wouldn't believe how many times I've had to correct the "Happy darkies in the field" interpretation of southern slavery.


There you have the birth of a so-called Afrocentric. I went through the process myself, and I remember the pain of learning the truth about some of the lies I was taught (you mean, Jesus wasn't a black man???) but it doesn't compare the absolute joy of learning the truth about who my people really are, and all that we have to be proud of.


Absolutely. One of the hard things about people teaching all the wrong things about history is that it's extremely hard to change the minds of those who were taught that way. That's what I run into when people with SCV or UDC folks.



So, when you hear an Afrocentric person talking, (not the OP, I mean, a real one) try looking at them as someone on a journey. You can educate them and help them along on their journy.

Personally I think most of Afrocentrism is less about history and more about forming a modern political and social ideology. I'm not so sure they're on a journey any more than a member of the SCV is.

Ají de Gallina
12-25-2009, 12:46 PM
Good thing you give the permission to be, because there is plenty to be proud of. The black experience is quite unique. The fact that a nation can begin with putting a people down so low that the only way a black woman can make it into the white house is as actual, factual property, to coming to a point where she can sit at the head of the table as first lady of this great nation. That is a long way, baby. The fact that the most put down of a put down people can still offer so much to the world culture (hip-hop, jazz,) from the very bottom of the ghetto is also very telling, for anyone paying attention.

But I think what one would do well to think of, when they are getting worked up into an outrage over the ignorant claims of many Afrocentric people, is the why.

If you come from a place where your culture was stripped from you (or your ancestors, and by proxy, you) then you pretty much have to start from scratch. And if you have to trust white people as the writers of history, which you kinda do if you are educated in American public schools, then you are going to have a bit of a trust issue. See, no matter how much we talk about how Africans sold their own people, there is no comparing African slavery to American slavery. The absolute institutionalized, organized kind of slavery that takes away names, abilities to learn and grow, histories, prides, and legacies forevermore, from generation to generation...that is quite different from the kind of slavery that other people have endured. So I really don't understand why someone always makes a big production over pointing out that Africans sold slaves; it misses the point.

But, I'm digressing. The point is, when you culture was taken from you, and you have to start from scratch, you tend to be in a very difficult position.

When you grow up in the ghetto as a black person, you may go through some stages. Let me break them down:

1. You are born into a society and the game is already in motion. You are already a product of generations of blacks in this nation that has this huge history of slavery. Your parents come from an age of Jim Crow, you grandparents come from an age of something even harder, and it was their job to educate you. They teach you what they know. So you go to church and bow down to white jesus. Son of God. Basically, your black ass bows down to a white god every single night.

2. You accept images in the media that white is right, blue eyes are better, straight hair is great, booty-flat is where it's at. You begin to grow resentful. The truth is, you come from a people that believed in your beauty, but you were cut off from that love generations ago, and your people were taught that you were ugly. Resentment begins to build.

3. You come of age at about 15. You begin to get into some of the rebellious energy going on around you. Malcolm X, Minister Farrakhan, young black men come up to you and teach you to stop bowing to a white god. Aint no white god in the sky gonna save you, YOU are god, black man!

4. You begin to read everything you can get your hands on that gives that message. You don't have the kind of family that can send you to Ivy league universities, but you have some books that everyone in the hood passes around, and it tells you everything GOOD about being black, instead of all the bad things.

There you have the birth of a so-called Afrocentric. I went through the process myself, and I remember the pain of learning the truth about some of the lies I was taught (you mean, Jesus wasn't a black man???) but it doesn't compare the absolute joy of learning the truth about who my people really are, and all that we have to be proud of.

So, when you hear an Afrocentric person talking, (not the OP, I mean, a real one) try looking at them as someone on a journey. You can educate them and help them along on their journy. Or you can just go bananas and start seriously debating whether or not rock and roll is black or white. Either way.

1) Unique, sure; every culture's is. Particularly special, no.
2) Black women as actual, factual property was invented in Africa, by blacks.
3) The history of a type of music played with (except maybe drums) with european instruments an beung influence in its origin by european music cannot therefore by pinned on any specific race. Of course, jazz/blues -with that name- is African-american, but beer was invented by sumerians and we don't have to look towards Babylon after every party.
4) Do you know of ANY culture not ravaged by another?
5) Anyone not born with the game not already in motion? Because being born and already having 1000 people fucking you in the ass 24/7 is a common experience for 1/3 of the world's population.
6) Beleived in your beauty? No no no. They sold you to whites.
7) Most people cannot go to Ivy league colleges.

You try to somewaht justify a crazy idea by people with grudges (some of them understandalbe). BTW, in Peru, pretty much the same ideas gave us NOT just crazy books, but 15 years of terrorism. You can see how I'm not imporessed by your plight.

Nzinga, Seated
12-25-2009, 01:48 PM
Aji de Gallina, I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not trying to be daft on purpose. I simply don't follow you, and it seems you are all over the map.

Let's take number 6 for instance...what does my people selling me into slavery have to do with them finding black skin and features beautiful or teaching me that those features aren't attractive?

And number 3 has me scratching my head for real. What are you talking about?

wmfellows
12-25-2009, 01:51 PM
Aji de Gallina, I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not trying to be daft on purpose. I simply don't follow you, and it seems you are all over the map.

Let's take number 6 for instance...what does my people selling me into slavery have to do with them finding black skin and features beautiful or teaching me that those features aren't attractive?

And number 3 has me scratching my head for real. What are you talking about?

I rather had the same reaction. Maybe English non-native lang expression barrier?

orcenio
12-25-2009, 03:14 PM
1) Unique, sure; every culture's is. Particularly special, no.I very strongly disagree with you here. As an ethnic/racial group African-Americans (AA) have a very unique history here in the Americas. To just focus on the US, AA endured ~300 years of slavery -and to sum that up in just one short sentence doesn't do the full history justice. After which, as a group, they had to slowly fight for equal and fair treatment from both the government and their racially united/numerous neighbours; a fight which continues to this day. AA history is long, torturous and unique; chattel slavery (as practised in the US) can not compare to the historical use of things like indentured servitude. 2) Black women as actual, factual property was invented in Africa, by blacks.It would be more accurate to say women were/are considered property for a good amount of the developing world (which includes Africa). However this shouldn't take away from Nzinga, Seated's point that throughout the colonial period and first half of the USA's history, AA were not people, but property; to see an AA woman in the white house as the first lady (in my mind, at least) does show how long the country has grown from it's twisted roots. I'd like to add: a lot of Africa still has a long way to go IRT women's rights.3) The history of a type of music played with (except maybe drums) with european instruments an beung influence in its origin by european music cannot therefore by pinned on any specific race. Of course, jazz/blues -with that name- is African-american, but beer was invented by sumerians and we don't have to look towards Babylon after every party.You can say that the music genres created by AA folk musicians were influenced by historical European (in addition to African) contributions, but it is disingenuous to say that they can't be "pinned on any specific race." In addition to Blues and Jazz there are many other genres that have clear, documented AA roots: Gospel, R&B, Hip-Hop, etc.4) Do you know of ANY culture not ravaged by another?I think what Nzinga, Seated was hinting at was the sheer totality, institutionalization and length of the cultural ravaging that was done to AA. They weren't allowed to own anything not even their past, their culture, their history, their children, nor themselves. The only reason AA currently exist as a unique racial group (with unique cultural dialect/customs) is that they historical weren't (under any reasonable circumstance or amount) allowed to integrate into the wider white society. Threats of personal/group violence and volumes of laws were written to keep "the blacks in their place." This lasted for most of American history (about 400 years) and continued up until a few years ago; they had a strong affect for AA and most Americans are reluctant to even recongize that it even existed or the full extant of its current effects.
5) Anyone not born with the game not already in motion? Because being born and already having 1000 people fucking you in the ass 24/7 is a common experience for 1/3 of the world's population.Yes, but I see no reason to ignore the AA experience because of this.
6) Beleived in your beauty? No no no. They sold you to whites.No doubt that some Africans contributed to the transatlantic slave trade in various capacities (including being slave traders), but Nzinga, Seated's point #2 was dealing on how western media is cratered to a light skinned majority and also how AA women were directly taught/depicted as ugly in comparison to European descended women. Frankly, your point in off track a little.
7) Most people cannot go to Ivy league colleges.True, but again a little off topic...You try to somewaht justify a crazy idea by people with grudges (some of them understandalbe). BTW, in Peru, pretty much the same ideas gave us NOT just crazy books, but 15 years of terrorism. You can see how I'm not imporessed by your plight.I think Nzinga, Seated is in favour of educating incorrect Afrocentrics, just not in freaking out yourself.

BTW sorry Nzinga, Seated if I totally misread the meanings of your posts.

Ají de Gallina
12-25-2009, 07:54 PM
Aji de Gallina, I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not trying to be daft on purpose. I simply don't follow you, and it seems you are all over the map.

Let's take number 6 for instance...what does my people selling me into slavery have to do with them finding black skin and features beautiful or teaching me that those features aren't attractive?

And number 3 has me scratching my head for real. What are you talking about?

I meant that while being told one's features are ugly and distatesful is bad, being sold is much much worse

You talked about how blacks invented some types of music and I commented on that. You mentioned that even though they were oppressed they created beautiful music and I said that that music came also from other non-black traditions.


1)I very strongly disagree with you here. As an ethnic/racial group African-Americans (AA) have a very unique history here in the Americas. To just focus on the US, AA endured ~300 years of slavery -and to sum that up in just one short sentence doesn't do the full history justice.
A2)fter which, as a group, they had to slowly fight for equal and fair treatment from both the government and their racially united/numerous neighbours; a fight which continues to this day. AA history is long, torturous and unique; chattel slavery (as practised in the US) can not compare to the historical use of things like indentured servitude.
3) It would be more accurate to say women were/are considered property for a good amount of the developing world (which includes Africa). However this shouldn't take away from Nzinga, Seated's point that throughout the colonial period and first half of the USA's history, AA were not people, but property; to see an AA woman in the white house as the first lady (in my mind, at least) does show how long the country has grown from it's twisted roots.
4)I'd like to add: a lot of Africa still has a long way to go IRT women's rights.
5)You can say that the music genres created by AA folk musicians were influenced by historical European (in addition to African) contributions, but it is disingenuous to say that they can't be "pinned on any specific race." In addition to Blues and Jazz there are many other genres that have clear, documented AA roots: Gospel, R&B, Hip-Hop, etc.I think what Nzinga, Seated was hinting at was the sheer totality, institutionalization and length of the cultural ravaging that was done to AA. They weren't allowed to own anything not even their past, their culture, their history, their children, nor themselves.
6)The only reason AA currently exist as a unique racial group (with unique cultural dialect/customs) is that they historical weren't (under any reasonable circumstance or amount) allowed to integrate into the wider white society. Threats of personal/group violence and volumes of laws were written to keep "the blacks in their place." This lasted for most of American history (about 400 years) and continued up until a few years ago; they had a strong affect for AA and most Americans are reluctant to even recongize that it even existed or the full extant of its current effects.
7)Yes, but I see no reason to ignore the AA experience because of this.
No doubt that some Africans contributed to the transatlantic slave trade in various capacities (including being slave traders), but Nzinga, Seated's point #2 was dealing on how western media is cratered to a light skinned majority and also how AA women were directly taught/depicted as ugly in comparison to European descended women. Frankly, your point in off track a little.
True, but again a little off topic...I think Nzinga, Seated is in favour of educating incorrect Afrocentrics, just not in freaking out yourself.

BTW sorry Nzinga, Seated if I totally misread the meanings of your posts.
(my numbers)

1)Unique doesn't mean anything in abstract. Being held as slaves for centuries is common. The really special thing is the geographical displacement.

2) Slaves as property are older than Hammurabi's code, although chattel as thealmost exclusive way of servitude is more modern.

3) You're right. I'll rephrase. Blacks were considered propert by blacks centuries before whites came to boost the business. Mansa Musa brought his (property) slaves in his Hajj.

4) Agreed.

5) Of course Black music (in the U.S., the caribbean, and SOuth America) has been extremely influential. My point was that it they weren't exclusively black.

6) Are you saying that, in a way, isolation preserved AA culture? Was it good?
Keeping X in place is also common around history.

7) Blacks selling black whas happening waaaay before whites appeared in sub-saharan Africa. "Some" is an understatement, it is better to say that slavery in the way that developed in European places cannot have happended with the extensive collaboration of other blacks. Agreed that AA have to rediscover their history and traditions and be happy about them

Bryan Ekers
12-25-2009, 10:10 PM
Agreed that AA have to rediscover their history and traditions and be happy about them

Why?

I don't mean to sound flippant, but I don't believe in genetic memory and such, so why do modern American blacks have to culturally reconnect with Africa? Isn't it possible to glom onto other traditions (or make up new ones) and be happy with them?

Ají de Gallina
12-25-2009, 10:21 PM
Why?

I don't mean to sound flippant, but I don't believe in genetic memory and such, so why do modern American blacks have to culturally reconnect with Africa? Isn't it possible to glom onto other traditions (or make up new ones) and be happy with them?

I didn't mention Africa specifically. They can re-connect with 200 year-old culture.

Bryan Ekers
12-25-2009, 10:32 PM
I didn't mention Africa specifically. They can re-connect with 200 year-old culture.

Yes, but... why should they? Age alone doesn't convey validity or usefulness.

Odesio
12-25-2009, 10:57 PM
Yes, but... why should they? Age alone doesn't convey validity or usefulness.

I don't understand what point you're coming to. Tradition and history are the stuff cultures are made of. Knowing these things helps you to figure out why things are the way they are today, and, sometimes, where you're going in the future. There's a reason why so many different groups fight tooth and nail to control how we interpret the past.