Was Europe (1500-1789) a black civilisation?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Egmond_Codfried

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]

@Egmond_Codfried

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]

@ivan_astikov

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

Well…a few did, certainly.

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 black too?

[Egmond_Codfried]

@Marley23

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]

@stuthehistoryguy

Well…a few did, certainly.

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 black too?

What would you consider evidence?

[jayjay]

@Bryan_Ekers

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]

@Egmond_Codfried

Be so kind to explain racism to me.

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

[Egmond_Codfried]

@Shodan

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]

@Egmond_Codfried

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]

@Egmond_Codfried

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]

@Egmond_Codfried

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]

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]

@Shodan

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]

@Shodan

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]

@Egmond_Codfried

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]

@The_Second_Stone

This is a put on, isn’t it?

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

[jayjay]

@Shodan

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]

@The_Second_Stone

This is a put on, isn’t it?

Not familiar with the Afrocentric movement, are you?

[Egmond_Codfried]

@Marley23

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]

@jayjay

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