See the forehead ridges?
He’s OBVIOUSLY Klingon. Duh.
http://images.google.nl/images?hl=nl&source=hp&q=white+obama&btnG=Afbeeldingen+zoeken&gbv=2&aq=f&oq=
“White Obama”
Do you understand the concept? for one reason or another a black person is shown as white. The people I’m discussing are described as black or coloured. You could understand that their siblings and cildren are black and coloured as, as are their parents. Some had classic african features, others not, but were still black and coloured in looks. The portraits we are shown do not present the whole picture.
http://images.google.nl/images?hl=nl&source=hp&q=white+obama&btnG=Afbeeldingen+zoeken&gbv=2&aq=f&oq=
Paintings are suspect to!
Jews came out of Africa. Don’t you know the Book of Exodus?
If you accept that racism against blacks and others and white supremacy is still a problem, you will look for a solution. The solution can be found if we understand were this kind of racism came from. Racism is a overwrought liberation ideology against a black elite which was despotic and cruel, yet made Europe as we know it.
None of them had classic African features, and a photoshopped picture of Obama as a “white man” STILL looks black. Making someone’s skin light and giving him straight hair does not negate the obviously African facial features. On the other hand, there is no way in hell I am going to believe you when you say that Henry VIII and Henry Stuart, Antoine de Bourbon, and Charles V Hapsburg - the patriarchs of three of the most important noble families of Renaissance Europe, were black.
If their portraits “do not show the whole picture,” then, since their portraits are in fact the only record we have of their appearance, what does show the whole picture?
If this is true, how do you explain racism against Asians, Hispanics, Irish (who were considered a separate race), Native Americans…do you think that the ONLY kind of racism is anti-black racism?
If you read the book of Genesis and Exodus, not to mention commentaries thereof, you’d find that the Jews are more or less agreed to have come from the Sumerian/Mesopotamian region (since you’re arguing based on the BIBLE here, we’ll not go into evolution and EVERYONE coming from Africa in the beginning) and migrated to Israel and finally to Egypt. Egypt which was mixed white (probably more like what we consider Arab now) and negroid. And in Egypt, they were treated as slaves (according to your theory, were the Jews negros oppressed by the white Egyptians or whites oppressed by the negro Egyptians?
Slavery was not the result of racism. Blacks ruled Europe when the first slaves were shipped out of Africa. Racism, ugly racism as we know it today is from the 19th century. The whites really came into their own in the 19th century. Because, here it becomes complicated, the leaders of the French Revolution were the black and coloured bourgeoisie. Both Voltaire and Rousseau are called the fathers of the French Revolution and are associated with black portraits. James Boswell described Rousseau, his mentor as "a genteel black man in an Armenian overcoat.’ There are many images which show Voltaire as pitch-black.
I believe that the declaration of human rights should be read as middling black citizins, but also white Europeans asking for equality from a black, noble elite.
Do you really believe that, or are you pretending? Jews didn’t come from Africa. They came from Israel, and moved to Africa during a famine, then tried to move back, but were held as slaves.
Don’t quote stuff you don’t understand.
Do you assume that I’m so stupid that I do not understand that the choice of black stone or wood will result in a black image but which not say anything about the persons true colour? Do you think I’m some ape banging away at the computer? This is hardly a basis of discussing anything with the likes of you. I’m presenting here some highlights, and my conclusions are not based on one image or without consulting existing research. What I also ask is to consider that there are other ways to look at supposedly established scientific facts.
Ah. You seem to have finally understood my exact opinion.
^
ll
ll
That’s a joke.
The Maurits Museum catalogue mentions brown underpaintings which are detailed portraits already. Usually a brown underpainting is only for facial contours.
The Frans Hals Museum mentions two portraits of a 17th century kopple were the face and hands are repainted with a type of colourparticles which only came in use in the beginning of the 18th century.
Personally I consider the original painting by Van Miereveldt as over paints, the brown and black faces were whitened. Many of his portraits we know only as kopies, with the original being lost or not revealed You can tell this by carefully looking at them. The over paint with beige or pink is sometimes skillfully done, but sometimes it looks more like a precious work is vandalised. Like soe house painter or a panicky family memebr taking up the brush to hide something awfull: the blackness of his ancestor.
I believe that Hitler collected paintings to aryanize them, such as works by Rembrandt.
To understand what I’m talking about you have to see many Rembrandts in the flesh as wel as reproductions in that great 5 kilo book with his complete oeuvre.
You misunderstand. But if its a blip, it was a major blip and needs explaining.
My reseach is based on personal descriptions like the black boy and a tall black man: Charles II Stuart. His cousins Louis XIV’s body was black as ink, when viewed in the 18th century.
Yes the whole thing started in France, but the beheading of louis XVI was like the breaking of a spell. These deities could be brought down. They came back for some time, and were not defeated in the whole of Europe, but the absolute king was gone. The nobility almost everywhere abolished or reduced in power and holdings.
Their best weapon however was breeding and becoming white to hold on to power. Blue blood was black blood.
Try to find out everything about Charlotte Sophie Mecklenburg Strelitz, the wife of George III and mother to George IV who was the uncle of Victoria.
Was Victoria white with a grandmother looking like a mulata?
What is black, what is white, who is black who is white?
Read Frank Snowden Blacks in Antiquity about blacks in the Greek, Roman and early christian era, being equal with whites.
Families who started out black can become white after four generations, still taking care who they marry lest a rastaman pops out.
Under what conditions was the body viewed in? How was it stored? Do you realize that there are decay and/or mummification processes which turn skin black? There is more than one tale from the US southwest of an indisputably Caucasian miner getting lost and, when found later, their dead body has been reported to be “black as ash”.
Plus, there are “bog bodies”, which have all been turned leathery-black/brown over time.
Different circumstances, maybe, but it just goes to show that you don’t have to be Negro to have black skin AFTER DEATH.
If blackness is that discardable, then what significance does it have?
bluebloodisblackblood@hotmail.com
There are fake descriptions too, mostly 19th century when they were busy hiding their troubled past. Or discriptions were misunderstood: bad complexion did not mean acne or pockmarks, but black skin.
My research started with Belle van Zuylen (1739-1805), Isabelle de Charriere, a dutch barones. She states : ‘I do not have the white hands, I know ite and even joke about it but colour is no joking matter.’ She calls herself Zelide after a Egyptian princess in an opera by Voltaire. In her books we often find black and colour principle characters. all her partners are black and noble, she seem to be going for the blackest ones, to have blacker children.
Yet a biographer says; she was a typical blond blue eyed Dutch girl.
Find her grandmother Maria Jacoba van Goor (1687-1737) who looks quite African to most viewers.
My reserach is about 1500-1789
You know about Alexander Pushkins greatgranddaughter who maried a grandchild of Victoria?
She is described as having negro hair and lesbian tendencies too.
And blond too. Look for the Australian Aboriginals.
All phenotypes, even blue eyes are in the African human, the first human already.
Whites are albino’s and this permits more showing of blondness and blue eyes
There are no races, only phenotypes, an adaption to environment.
No blog or newsletter. a bilingual book. getting organized. search google blue blood is black blood egmond codfried and read only my postings to start with.
bluebloodisblackblood@hotmail.com