quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: This purpose of this thread is simple though some continually bring in irrelevant issues.
The purpose is to show that whites have, contrary to the popular view, only been in many countries of Europe (replacing African populations) for a few centuries; and, thank you, Dr. Winters, whites scientists, in the article you present, prove the point with Denmark.
The view of whites being new to Europe is the standard view of white historians and they themselves discuss the fact:
"The Migration Period, also called Barbarian Invasions or Völkerwanderung, is a name given by historians to a human migration which occurred within the period of roughly AD 300–700 in Europe,[1] marking the transition from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages.
The migration included the Goths, Vandals, and Franks, among other Germanic, Bulgar and Slavic tribes. The migration may have been triggered by the incursions of the Huns, in turn connected to the Turkic migration in Central Asia, population pressures, or climate changes.
Migrations would continue well beyond AD 1000, successive waves of Slavs, Alans, Avars, Bulgars, Hungarians, Pechenegs, Cumans, and Tatars radically changing the ethnic makeup of Eastern Europe. Western European historians, however, tend to emphasize the migrations most relevant to Western Europe."
I do not know why some have difficulty catching, or refuse to acknowledge, this uncomplicated, straightforward fact.
White people flourished in Congo untill the Bantu pushed us out and claimed everything we built, true story Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Actually Marc's dissembling over European history is and exact mirror of so called white pseudo scholars, like Jared Diamond - who actually has a thesis called -> "How Africa turned Black", which cites the Bantu migration as the *cause*.
Like Washington, Diamond depends upon ignorance and refuses to acknolwedge basic facts:
ie - the original human and therefore African population was always Black - this includes the earliest outmigrating Asian populations.
Because of the ethnocentrism of some white scholars - including so called liberal ones, they are quite capable of developing extremely twisted ideologies, that apparently help them to bolster some notion of ethnic self importance.
Don't think so?
Jared actually produces a map in which he divides AFrica into white and black territories and in which Nubia(!) is a part of "white" Africa.
Jareds definition of white is maleable [read dishonest], as Marc's definition of Afrikan.
Well.... by Jareds own logic of dividing history into the Black and the Whites - he is in fact required to admit that Whites of Eurasia ultimately derive from Blacks of Africa.
And honest thesis by Jared, therefore has following title:
Africa was always Black....it's Europeans who turned white.
^ You will never see such a thesis from Jared, not because he can dispute it, but because his "liberal" racist ego can't bear to admit this truth.
So what's the more delusional in the end - Afrikan Charlemagne..... or Caucasian Ancient Egypt????
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ lol, indeed. There were cattle theiving Rhodies [white Rhodesians] who actually claimed that the Shona cattle - were brought to Zimbabwe by the ancient "Hamites", therefore Jewish, therefore Caucasian, therefore white.....
...out of greed and envy people can convince themselves of anything, and out of guilt can rationalise any crime. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: This purpose of this thread is simple though some continually bring in irrelevant issues.
The purpose is to show that whites have, contrary to the popular view, only been in many countries of Europe (replacing African populations) for a few centuries; and, thank you, Dr. Winters, whites scientists, in the article you present, prove the point with Denmark.
The view of whites being new to Europe is the standard view of white historians and they themselves discuss the fact:
"The Migration Period, also called Barbarian Invasions or Völkerwanderung, is a name given by historians to a human migration which occurred within the period of roughly AD 300–700 in Europe,[1] marking the transition from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages.
The migration included the Goths, Vandals, and Franks, among other Germanic, Bulgar and Slavic tribes. The migration may have been triggered by the incursions of the Huns, in turn connected to the Turkic migration in Central Asia, population pressures, or climate changes.
Migrations would continue well beyond AD 1000, successive waves of Slavs, Alans, Avars, Bulgars, Hungarians, Pechenegs, Cumans, and Tatars radically changing the ethnic makeup of Eastern Europe. Western European historians, however, tend to emphasize the migrations most relevant to Western Europe."
I do not know why some have difficulty catching, or refuse to acknowledge, this uncomplicated, straightforward fact.
posted
Thanks Dr. Winters. I am only saying that whites are mostly new to European counties having been in most places for some centuries; and pushed indigenous Africans out when muscling their way in. Things white historians verify and the archeological record supports.
quote:Originally posted by markellion: The view of blacks being new to Africa is the standard view of black historians and they themselves discuss the fact:
They talk about how the Bantu spread through east and southern Africa and replaced the native population, blacks are very new to Africa!
Name one black historian who makes a big deal about the Bantu migrations.
posted
The purpose is to show that blacks have, contrary to the popular view, only been in many countries of Africa (replacing European populations) for a few centuries
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by markellion: The view of blacks being new to Africa is the standard view of black historians and they themselves discuss the fact:
They talk about how the Bantu spread through east and southern Africa and replaced the native population, blacks are very new to Africa!
Name one black historian who makes a big deal about the Bantu migrations.
.
Because all the historians you listen to care more about India and Scandinavia than things relevant to Africa
Aren’t the Bantu migrations like, one of the most important things to study in African history?
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
click on prgram: [4. The Bantu Migrations One of the most extraordinary population movements in history - how the Bantu spread into East and Southern Africa transforming the culture and linguistics of the continent.]
posted
What is he on about????? Europe is an extension of Africa. Non-African??!!!. If you say the America's and far East. Yes. There maybe debate about African influence. But for 200kyrs Africa has been pumping out and peopling the world. The regions closest to it will feel the greatest effect(Europe, Levant and A.Penisular). Backup your claimn with some evidence . . . .bro. And give up on that reverse pyschology BS. Whites in Africa???? Huh? Seem to forget the impact of the sun and the harsh conditions.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] What is he on about????? Europe is an extension of Africa. Non-African??!!!. If you say the America's and far East. Yes. There maybe debate about African influence. But for 200kyrs Africa has been pumping out and peopling the world. The regions closest to it will feel the greatest effect(Europe, Levant and A.Penisular).
Of course there was contact between Africa and Europe I didn't say there wasn't
Still I wouldn't say the Parthenon or the trial of Socrates was any part of black history
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
click on prgram: [4. The Bantu Migrations One of the most extraordinary population movements in history - how the Bantu spread into East and Southern Africa transforming the culture and linguistics of the continent.]
posted
An article such as the one Dr. Winters posted on African genetic foundations in Denmark prior to Germanic invasions is on target. Conversely, some writing in this thread appear to be living in a state of denial in refusing to believe or pretending not to believe that the Germanic peoples have only been in Europe in THE GREATER MAJORITY OF CASES for a some centuries and not even before the birth of Christ. Their conversion to Christianity followed Africans and a black Jesus and black Madonnas and Christ child who established the religion. The two excerpts below don't refer to African roots spoken of in the last sentence above; but it's brief and to the point that the influx into Europe by Germanic peoples was new and they replaced an indigenous population - which I've shown is African. The replacement of blacks by whites represents a holocaust against Africans that makes the Jewish holocaust look mild. They once covered the continent and are now, except for recent migrations, to be found nowhere in the continent. Complete ethnic cleansing. Complete genocide against Africans in Europe.
[1] Celtic regions of continental Europe were conquered by Rome and Germanic peoples in the 1st century BCE.
[2] The Germanic peoples are a historical group of Indo-European-speaking peoples, originating in Northern Europe and identified by their use of the Germanic languages which diversified out of Common Germanic in the course of the Pre-Roman Iron Age. Recent scholarship has contested the existence of a distinct Germanic ethnicity.[1]
Migrating Germanic peoples spread throughout Europe in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Germanic languages became dominant along the Roman borders (Austria, Germany, Netherlands, and England), but in the rest of the (western) Roman provinces, the Germanic immigrants adopted Latin (Romance) dialects. Furthermore, all Germanic peoples were eventually Christianized to varying extents. The Germanic people played a large role in transforming the Roman empire into Medieval Europe, and they contributed in developing a common identity, history, and culture which transcended linguistic borders.
quote:Thanks Dr. Winters. I am only saying that whites are mostly new to European counties
We are only saying that this is false.
The ancestors of white people have lived in Europe for 30 thousand years.
These people come from 3 very specific glacial refuges, beginning 18 thousand years ago during the Ice age.
The genes that cause European skin to be white [post-date] ie come after, this time period.
Europeans repopulated Northern Europe from the 3 refuges when the Ice receded.
White skin spread amongst them following this time.
European origin is not a mystery.
West Europeans are as much as 90% R1b haplotype.
This means specifically that their ancestors came from the Western most ICE Age refuge.
This is clear and rather easy to understand.
Haplogroup R1b is the most common haplogroup in Europe and is especially common along the Atlantic coast (reaching more than 80% of males in Ireland and parts of Spain). The R1b haplogroup is sometimes claimed to have been the haplogroup of the Aurignacians who were the first modern human to enter Europe at a time that the Neandertals were still common, as much as 30,000 years ago.
R1b descendants may have been survivors of those first modern humans who took refuge in Spain during the last glacial maximum and then repopulated the western part of Europe after the Ice Ages ended, perhaps 10,000 years ago. http://www.stanford.edu
^ Reality.
But feel free to return to your photo-shop fantasies.....
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here we go again. Those above-mentioned people were Africans that whites miscegenated with. They are black-originated genetic materials, not white.
I should and want to acknowledge to source of comments I made about some here who introduce irrelevant and superfluous material. It was Xyyman who wrote (omitting the name he referred to)
[1] you seem to be evading the main point -
[2] you [are] missing the point .. . deliberately.
Xyyman. Thanks for the insight and being outspoken about it.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That above-mentioned genetic material was of African (by phenotype) origin, not white. Today's Europeans are a replacement population that wiped-out the indigenous Africans and produced children with those who remained so African blood and genes in running in the veins of today's Europeans. Here's an example of African founders of today's genetic lines whose pheontypes, though in Europe for 1.7 million years, are there no longer:
quote:and not even before the birth of Christ. Their conversion to Christianity followed Africans and a black Jesus and black Madonnas and Christ child who established the religion.
Speaking of which, did you know Jesus was born in 1053 A.D. and crucified in 1085 A.D.
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Someone please tell me, if there was a conspiracy going this far to cover up some supposed ancient black European past why did the white elite neglect to rewrite where Herodotus says Egyptians are "black with wooly hair"
I mean rewriting some words has to be easier than this huge conspiracy theory but they neglected to do so
posted
You are welcome. We are all here to learn . . . . . . without prejudice.
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: Here we go again. Those above-mentioned people were Africans that whites miscegenated with. They are black-originated genetic materials, not white.
I should and want to acknowledge to source of comments I made about some here who introduce irrelevant and superfluous material. It was Xyyman who wrote (omitting the name he referred to)
[1] you seem to be evading the main point -
[2] you [are] missing the point .. . deliberately.
Xyyman. Thanks for the insight and being outspoken about it.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: Here we go again. Those above-mentioned people were Africans that whites miscegenated with. They are black-originated genetic materials, not white.
And here we go again with your idiotic distortions!
How can those people be "Africans" if they lived out of Africa for 30,000 years?! There was NO "miscegenation" with whites, because *THEY BECAME THE WHITES*, nitwit! And their genetic material is the exact same that modern whites have today and who indigenous black African have non of!
It's obvious you are in need of medication, or have probably stopped taking any. LOLPosts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: Here we go again. Those above-mentioned people were Africans that whites miscegenated with. They are black-originated genetic materials, not white.
And here we go again with your idiotic distortions!
How can those people be "Africans" if they lived out of Africa for 30,000 years?! There was NO "miscegenation" with whites, because *THEY BECAME THE WHITES*, nitwit! And their genetic material is the exact same that modern whites have today and who indigenous black African have non of!
It's obvious you are in need of medication, or have probably stopped taking any. LOL
I was just thinking last night, if these people remained "black Africans" after 30,000 years in Europe they would still have had to adapt to the enviroment. So do you have any idea what these extinct ice negroes would have looked like?
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ It's a known fact even Marc professes-- that the earliest European remains are represented by Cro-Magnon man. The cranial features do possess tropical (African) features on one hand but also traits that are found in their modern (white) descendants on the other. These first Europeans began losing their pigment once their ancestors left the tropics and ventured into temperate latititudes. It was during their stay in Ice Age Europe that they became lighter, and that the environment favored their mutation for very pale ('white') skin. Thus white skin evolved in Europe and was present in Europe by ancient times.
No Germanic invasion from Northern Europe or any invasion from the steppes changes this fact.
Thus, there were NO black ancient indigenous Europeans.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Djehuti wrote: It's a known fact even Marc professes-- that the earliest European remains are represented by Cro-Magnon man. The cranial features do possess tropical (African) features on one hand but also traits that are found in their modern (white) descendants on the other. These first Europeans began losing their pigment once their ancestors left the tropics and ventured into temperate latititudes. It was during their stay in Ice Age Europe that they became lighter, and that the environment favored their mutation for very pale ('white') skin. Thus white skin evolved in Europe and was present in Europe by ancient times.
No Germanic invasion from Northern Europe or any invasion from the steppes changes this fact.
Thus, there were NO black ancient indigenous Europeans.
*Yawn* It's over, Marc. Get a new hobby instead of playing online fantasy in public forums about history.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: This purpose of this thread is simple though some continually bring in irrelevant issues.
The purpose is to show that whites have, contrary to the popular view, only been in many countries of Europe (replacing African populations) for a few centuries; and, thank you, Dr. Winters, whites scientists, in the article you present, prove the point with Denmark.
The view of whites being new to Europe is the standard view of white historians and they themselves discuss the fact:
"The Migration Period, also called Barbarian Invasions or Völkerwanderung, is a name given by historians to a human migration which occurred within the period of roughly AD 300–700 in Europe,[1] marking the transition from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages.
The migration included the Goths, Vandals, and Franks, among other Germanic, Bulgar and Slavic tribes. The migration may have been triggered by the incursions of the Huns, in turn connected to the Turkic migration in Central Asia, population pressures, or climate changes.
Migrations would continue well beyond AD 1000, successive waves of Slavs, Alans, Avars, Bulgars, Hungarians, Pechenegs, Cumans, and Tatars radically changing the ethnic makeup of Eastern Europe. Western European historians, however, tend to emphasize the migrations most relevant to Western Europe."
I do not know why some have difficulty catching, or refuse to acknowledge, this uncomplicated, straightforward fact.
White people flourished in Congo untill the Bantu pushed us out and claimed everything we built, true story
^LOL good one Mark...
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ lol, indeed. There were cattle theiving Rhodies [white Rhodesians] who actually claimed that the Shona cattle - were brought to Zimbabwe by the ancient "Hamites", therefore Jewish, therefore Caucasian, therefore white.....
...out of greed and envy people can convince themselves of anything, and out of guilt can rationalise any crime.
posted
The European presence in most countries of the continent was a result of 5th century AD migrations where they replaced indigenous Africans - the Celts.
THE END OF ROMAN BRITAIN: ASSESSING THE ANGLO-SAXON INVASIONS OF THE FIFTH CENTURY
BY WILLIAM BAKKEN
NOVEMBER 16, 1994
Contents
Introduction Primary Literary Sources Archaeology Place-Name Studies Continental Origins Early Settlement Evidence The British Viewpoint Settlement Patterns: Kent Settlement Patterns: Sussex> Settlement Patterns: Wessex Settlement Patterns: East Anglia Settlement Patterns: Lindsey Settlement Patterns: Deira Settlement Patterns: Mercia and the Midlands Summary Bibliography
Introduction
The years between the collapse of the Roman government in Britain in the early years of the fifth century and the arrival of St Augustine at the end of the sixth were a period of significant change. During that time, the physical character of the people and their language and institutions were completely altered.1 A Germanic people replaced the Celtic British, or at least became a significant part of the population of lowland Britain.2 Germanic dialects replaced Latin or Celtic and loose knit and feuding hereditary kingships replaced the more centrally governed Roman provinces. Because this change took place while the Germanic immigrants were pagan and illiterate, the process was not well recorded.3
Traditionally, the first Germanic warband arrived in Britain in the mid fifth century to serve as mercenary troops at the invitation of the British sub-Roman government. When the government failed in their agreement to supply them, these troops revolted. This revolt touched a significant part of the country. Then, the first settlers invited their relatives from overseas to join them. At the beginning of the sixth century, the Germanic peoples rapid spread through the country was checked for a time by the British, but by the mid sixth century they started to expand again. By the time of Augustine's arrival, they controlled much of the lowlands and were expanding to the north and west.
posted
Of the Roman and British civilization the Anglo-Saxons were ruthless destroyers, exulting, like other barbarians, in the wanton annihilation of things which they did not understand. Every city, or nearly every one, which they took, they burned, slaughtering the inhabitants.
The Anglo-Saxons. Meanwhile across the North Sea the three Germanic tribes which were destined to form the main element in the English race were multiplying and unconsciously preparing to swarm to their new home. The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes occupied territories in the region which includes parts of the present Holland, of Germany about the mouth of the Elbe, and of Denmark. They were barbarians, living partly from piratical expeditions against the northern and eastern coasts of Europe, partly from their flocks and herds, and partly from a rude sort of agriculture. At home they seem to have sheltered themselves chiefly in unsubstantial wooden villages, easily destroyed and easily abandoned; For the able-bodied freemen among them the chief occupation, as a matter of course, was war. Strength, courage, and loyalty to king and comrades were the chief virtues that they admired; ferocity and cruelty, especially to other peoples, were necessarily among their prominent traits when their blood was up; though among themselves there was no doubt plenty of rough and ready companionable good-humor. Their bleak country, where the foggy and unhealthy marshes of the coast gave way further inland to vast and somber forests, developed in them during their long inactive winters a sluggish and gloomy mood, in which, however, the alternating spirit of aggressive enterprise was never quenched. In religion they had reached a moderately advanced state of heathenism, worshipping especially, it seems, Woden, a 'furious' god as well as a wise and crafty one; the warrior Tiu; and the strong-armed Thunor (the Scandinavian Thor); but together with these some milder deities like the goddess of spring, Eostre, from whom our Easter is named. For the people on whom they fell these barbarians were a pitiless and terrible scourge; yet they possessed in undeveloped form the intelligence, the energy, the strength--most of the qualities of head and heart and body--which were to make of them one of the great world-races.
THE ANGLO-SAXON CONQUEST AND SETTLEMENT. The process by which Britain became England was a part of the long agony which transformed the Roman Empire into modern Europe. In the fourth century A. D. the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes began to harry the southern and eastern shores of Britain, where the Romans were obliged to maintain a special military establishment against them. But early in the fifth century the Romans, hard-pressed even in Italy by other barbarian invaders, withdrew all their troops and completely abandoned Britain. Not long thereafter, and probably before the traditional date of 449, the Jutes, Angles, and Saxons began to come in large bands with the deliberate purpose of permanent settlement. Their conquest, very different in its methods and results from that of the Romans, may roughly be said to have occupied a hundred and fifty or two hundred years. The earlier invading hordes fixed themselves at various points on the eastern and southern shore and gradually fought their way inland, and they were constantly augmented by new arrivals. In general the Angles settled in the east and north and the Saxons in the south, while the less numerous Jutes, the first to come, in Kent, soon ceased to count in the movement. In this way there naturally came into existence a group of separate and rival kingdoms, which when they were not busy with the Britons were often at war with each other. Their number varied somewhat from time to time as they were united or divided; but on the whole, seven figured most prominently, whence comes the traditional name 'The Saxon Heptarchy' (Seven Kingdoms). The resistance of the Britons to the Anglo-Saxon advance was often brave and sometimes temporarily successful. Early in the sixth century, for example, they won at Mount Badon in the south a great victory, later connected in tradition with the legendary name of King Arthur, which for many years gave them security from further aggressions. But in the long run their racial defects proved fatal; they were unable to combine in permanent and steady union, and tribe by tribe the newcomers drove them slowly back; until early in the seventh century the Anglo-Saxons were in possession of nearly all of what is now England, the exceptions being the regions all along the west coast, including what has ever since been, known as Wales.
Of the Roman and British civilization the Anglo-Saxons were ruthless destroyers, exulting, like other barbarians, in the wanton annihilation of things which they did not understand. Every city, or nearly every one, which they took, they burned, slaughtering the inhabitants.
posted
Europeans are recent occupants of most nations in Europe - including England.
Originating from the Steppes, and after the migration to Germany, "The Angle, Saxon, and Jute tribes who invaded Britain in the 5th and 6th centuries are known as the Anglo-Saxons. They left their homelands in northern Germany, Denmark and northern Holland and rowed across the North Sea in wooden boats."
England was earlier taken by Caesar in 54 BC after overcoming its African / Celtic population. Uninvited, they simply took the land of another people.
All of these happened in very recent times.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:England was earlier taken by Caesar in 54 BC after overcoming its African / Celtic population.
^ Yawn. The amount of effort you devote into your Euro-envy fantasising is truly sad.
"The peoples known as the Celts are thought to have originated in central Europe, to the east of the Rhine in the areas now part of southern Germany, Austria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Hungary. From around 3,400 years ago, these proto-Celtic peoples expanded across the Continent, and eventually inhabited a large portion of central, western, and northwestern Europe. During the Classical periosd of Greece and Rome, Celtic culture was predominiant to the north of the Alps. Even today, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Cornwall, Cumbria and Brittany are basically Celtic in character. Despite the changes that time has brought, the influence of Celtic traditionis still fundamental."
From "The Sacred World of the Celts" by Nigel Pennick
posted
Whites are, for the most part, newly settled in most of continental Europe.
The Saxon mercenaries revolted against their British chiefs and began the process of invasion and settlement that destroyed the native ruling class and established Germanic kingdoms throughout the island by the 7th century. The invaders were variously Angles, Saxons, Frisians, Jutes, and Franks in origin, but were similar in culture and eventually identified themselves indifferently as Angles or Saxons.
The writer calls these people "invaders." They invaded the homeland of Africans / Celts.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone wrote: "The peoples known as the Celts are thought to have originated in central Europe, to the east of the Rhine in the areas now part of southern Germany, Austria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Hungary."
This first image is an old page of mine of statues of Celtic and Gaulish gods. You can see they are African in phenotype.
The page below shows you the population of Central Europe before being wiped out by incoming Germanic tribes. Again, African. For instance, look at the jet-black Moorish kings of Croatia or balls of wooly hair of St. Michael and Saint Andrew. Whites are portrayed with sharp noses and primarily long, flowing hair. Observe, for instance, white portrayals of Charlemagne in the blue box in the picture below.
For most of continental Europe, whites are very recent immigrants - a product of the Migration Period beginning in the 5th century AD.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ So Celts (who spoke an Indo-European language closely related to Germanic peoples) are African but Germanics are not? And Germanic people (as your maps indicate) originated from northern Europe but are somehow not native to Europe??
Why does this insane thread still exist?
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Who cares what you profess, since it includes whites being new to Europe and Afro-Celts and Afro-Charlemagne even though he was Germanic who you call as the only true whites in Europe. LOL
You're a nutcase!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [ ^ So Celts (who spoke an Indo-European language closely related to Germanic peoples) are African but Germanics are not?
The original Germanics were also Afrikan, before they were replaced by the European Germanics.
Europeans are new to Germania.
Germany was actually African until the NAZI's replaced the true/Black Germans with white Germans, from the steppes.
Actually Hitler was African originally until he was replaced by white Hitler.
This is why there are no photographs of Hitler before the 20th century.
Just like with Charlemagne.
Really Djehuti, I don't see why you have such a hard time understanding this. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Someone forgot about the original replaced Africans in the Steppes, but I forgive them. Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
[Marc writes Someone whose name begins with "D" wrote:
"It's a known fact even Marc professes-- that the earliest European remains are represented by Cro-Magnon man."
Where do I "profess" anything about "Cro-Magnon."
[Djehuti writes] Who cares what you profess … You're a nutcase!
[Marc writes] Djehuti. You ask “Who cares what you profess”???
It was YOU who wrote that I profess something inventing the claim as I did not write what you state.
Where do I "profess" anything about "Cro-Magnon."
. . .
Back to the facts: The 5th Century Anglo-Saxon Invasion of England ushered in a period of significant change. During that time, the physical character of the people and their language and institutions were completely altered. A Germanic people replaced the Celtic British.
The early phase of the Celts (as a European people in the second phase would adopt the name for themselves) were African. The first and earliest phase was African as my b&w page several posts up shows.
Those who try to turn a blind eye to truth or airbrush the facts that whites are for the most part recent occupants of Europe are living in a state of denial. Be a man and face up to the truth. Know the truth and it will set you free.
. . .
Africans in Europe were called by several names and this page shows this. Those you see in Europe were also called Celts. Celts are African.
posted
Anglo-Saxon is the collective term usually used to describe the ethnically and linguistically related peoples living in the south and east of the island of Great Britain (modern Great Britain/United Kingdom) from around the early 5th century AD to the Norman conquest of 1066. They spoke closely related Germanic dialects, and they are identified by Bede as the descendants of three powerful Germanic tribes, the Angles and the Saxons from today's northern Germany, and the Jutes from today's Denmark.
Place names seem to show that smaller numbers of some other German peoples came over: Frisians at Fresham, Freston, and Friston; Flemings at Flempton and Flimby; Swabians at Swaffham; perhaps Franks at Frankton and Frankley.
As stated. Europeans are for the most part a recent population to the continent.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
"The same conclusion results when one examines the Visigothic skulls from northern Spain which date from the sicth century A.D.. Here a series combined from several cemiteries shows us exactly the same Nordic type, with tall stature and with a high-vaulted skull, a long face and a broad jaw; in this respect resembling, in a sense, the earlier Hallstatt crania, but more particularly those of the western Germanic group, especially the Hannover Germans and the Anglo-Saxons."
I will later do a country-by-country examination of the invasion of Europe by Germanic peoples so all can understand this history airbrushed from history books found in public schools and for the most part unknown.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I will later do a country-by-country examination of the invasion of Europe by Germanic peoples
^ I'm sure you will indulge your Euro-Envy obsession however you please, however, you've already admitted that Germanic originates in Europe, which means by definition from *pre* Germanic Indo-European langauges, so your *country-by-country* contrivences avail you nothing:
Germanic peoples are a historical group of Indo-European-speaking peoples, *originating in Northern Europe*... and identified by their use of the Germanic languages.
In your world, originating in Northern Europe = *non European* (?)
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic