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.
I thought we were talking about European nobility c. 1500-1789,
Why is that?
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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?
In color.
A few more pics are here.
Saw the thread title, and bet myself that the OP would have a join date of Dec '09. Self wins!
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.
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?
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.
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?
This has nothing to do with the assertion of the OP, obviously.
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 -
Regards,
Shodan
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.
He doesn’t look black in any of these paintings. Please provide a citation showing that “black” in 1500 referred only to African ancestry.
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.
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
That’s some first-rate well poison you got there…
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?
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?
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?