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. Prior to that the common term was Negro. Prior to that, African, Moor, or the actual tribe name.
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 was not at least partially Jewish. 
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?
Well, there is Prester John.
That was contemporary, though. No one today claims that Prester John or his kingdom actually existed.
Noooo!!! Man. You got them coming out of the woodwork in this thread.
Welcome to the dope!
Huh. Kinda looks like Walter Mathau in that one. Kinda like a cross between Mathau and Captain Hook.
According to wiki: “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,
I don’t think they had Photoshop around in Charles’s day.
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.
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.
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. 
Oh, no. Persecution of conversoswas rampant through the Renaissance era. The Spanish Inquisition wasn’t known for its “live and let live” approach to life.
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!
Forgetting your Emperor, are you ?
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.
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.
Shit, it looks like Ivan the Terrible was actually Native American!!! Who’d a thunk it?!
Mary, Queen of Scots, was a redhead. Redheads are anything BUT black. (Most have very light, very sensitive skin)
(BTW, what sources did you use for your “books”, and where might one obtain a copy? Do you have a link?)
Sorry, I missed this before I posted:
Voyager – actually, the Greek royal family was Danish/German/Russian. The first King of Greece, George I, 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, 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, was Phillip’s father. His mother was Princess Alexandra 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!!! 
[sub]God, I LOVE royal history!)[/sub]
Don’t you understand? 1789 is when they were all secretly overthrown and replaced by lizards. Racist lizards.
Ginger is the new black. Haven’t you heard?