posted
DID THE ORIGINAL EUROPEAN BLACKS WHO ENTERED EUROPE 40.000 YEARS AGO SURVIVED THE ASIAN WHITE INVASION FROM 6000 YEARS AGO?
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. You cannot force knowledge on people; you can just create an atmosphere and point things out so they can form their own conclusions. Believe nothing, investigate everything is what Kant taught us. So, all of my threads and posting on ES explain how I arrived at my Blue Blood is Black Blood theory. Now free your minds, reject white supremacy in all its guises, and not just talk the talk.
DID THE ORIGINAL EUROPEAN BLACKS WHO ENTERED EUROPE 40.000 YEARS AGO SURVIVED THE ASIAN WHITE INVASION 6000 YEARS AGO? ARE THEY THE MEDIEVAL BLUE MEN AND THE BLUE BLOODED, OLD NOBILITY? DID THEY SURVIVE UNTIL OUR TIMES? WHAT DID THEY LOOK LIKE? HOW DOES THE DESPOTIC RULE OF THIS BLACK AND COLOURED EUROPEAN ELITE (1500-1789) RESULTED IN RACISM TODAY?
Until recently I knew only Mike Nassau (2002) writing about Black Dutch, Black European descendents of Garamante (present Tubu) and Iranian Ashkenazi who after 50BC settled in South Germany and along the Rhine and Danube River. Arriving in the American Colonies and who were not treated like the enslaved Africans. Later on persons claimed descent from Black Dutch to escape being branded as ‘niggers’ and sharing in the plight of slaves and descendents of slaves: enslavement, discrimination, segregation or in general getting the short end of the stick. New immigrants in the US like Black Irish, European Jews and Cape Verdians were given the choice to join the status quo and were thus treated as Whites. So they would not mix nor side with other, oppressed minorities. Perhaps this also implied that they would become White looking as well and acculturate Anglo-Saxon culture.
WHO ARE THE ORIGINAL BLACK EUROPEANS?
Now I believe that the original Black Europeans from 40.000 years ago survived through intermarriage, geographical isolation and immigration. Parts of Holland like Zeeland, the area between Tournai and Cambrai in present Belgium and France, Pays de Vaud in Swiss, South West France or Guienne, Savoy in Italy, South Germany, Bohemia and Saxony were most likely where the Black European survived and somehow resisted White domination which started 6000 years ago. Most likely the Wends or Vandals were dominated by Black Europeans. These Blacks can best be described as ‘a intermarrying, fixed mulatto race, with some looking more like Africans or Asians or White’s.’ These European Blacks were the Blue Men (500-1500) known from mythical stories, but also from medieval miniatures and the adoration of Black Madonna’s in Europe. They appear as minorities, as part of mostly White dominated nations as the Vikings. But also as Black or Black dominated European nations. I also see an influx of Blacks and Coloureds around the end of the Middle Ages, with the collapse of the Crusaders Kingdoms in the Middle East. It seems that Protestantism was instigated by Eastern Christian who, following the Bible, did not revere statues of god or saints. They have painted images but no cut images. It occurred to me that the founders of the protestant churches dressed in eastern robes, wore eastern skullcaps and looked Black or Asian/Semitic. The Huguenot women, French Protestants, wore an eastern haïk, an all-enveloping black chador like garment, looking like Iranian woman today.
WHO WERE THE BLACKS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE US COLOUR LINE?
Articles about the beginning of the colour line (1691) in the American colonies talk about Black slaveholders, but do not really say whom these Blacks were. Nor what precipitated the ensuing discrimination. Perhaps an African domination in numbers by African masters and African slaves, as well? Why were Africans imported into Europe in 1440, if not to swell the ranks of European Blacks? Some Americans were Africans who travelled between Africa and the American Colonies, but were never enslaved. They were relatives and descendents of those Africans who fetched slaves inland and sold them on the coast to Europeans. Some were African descendents of Europeans and had western names, while looking like full Classical Africans. Other were most likely autochthonous Black Europeans, like John Hanson, the first American president from Black Swedish descent.
In colonial entities the colonizer strived to create a half-breed cast to assist in the oppression and exploitation of the colonised nation. This ‘mulatto’ group acted like a buffer and disguised the colour line. In Indonesia they were the ‘Indo’s.’ In Holland today the third and fourth generations Indo’s are in ascendancy, being part of the status quo and becoming ministers, actors and thinkers. The first generation was wrested from their Indonesians mothers and western educated by their European fathers. Typically the Indo’s are grounded in the military and by joining in genocide they pass the mark of true loyalty. But it’s really the White looking, White acting types who can compete for positions with high visibility. It’s alleged that a high placed Dutch politician could not become prime minister because he married a Black, Surinamese woman. Typically Surinamese Dutch today are told not to think of themselves as victims, which is always very sound advice. But in this case it means that they should not shrink from selling and murdering their own kind. They should not think of themselves as Africans or Surinamese, but as Dutch, and not have any solidarity with nations exploited and murdered, on a daily basis, by the Dutch.
WHEN DID WHITES COLONISE EUROPE?
Now, thanks to another Mike, Mike111, who informed me on ES about European Whites as Asian immigrants to Europe 6000 years ago, I can add to my theory the hypothesis that the Blue blood elite, the Old Nobility, were most likely the descendents of the original Black Europeans. They survived until our times, looking Black and coloured. Sharing a Black identity, which was more important than actual looks or colour nuance. Intermarriage as a means to construct a disciplined, ethnic-political power base. More sources confirm that until 6000 years ago White’s were not autochthonous to Europe. The emergence of the Moor in European art from 1250, with the statue of St, Maurice as a pitch black Classical African, signals the last ascendancy of these original Black Europeans as a political force. From 1500 they controlled the whole of Europe as at this time the symbol of the Moor, dominating Adoration scenes, was adopted in the whole of Europe. All of Europe was then ruled by a Black and coloured elite; Intellectuals, Nobles and Black Kings. Family Arms showed Moors, family names referred to The Moor and Blackness. Persons who are (self)described as Black, brown, bad complexion, very bad complexion, swarthy, dark and swarthy with a flattened nose, very dark, chimney sweep, black as chimney, The Black Boy, Black Tom, not the white hands, basané (dark brown), noir et basané (black brown), ugly, of low birth. Sometimes depicted as Whites, but with a little Moor as the symbol of their Blue Blood and black skin.
BLUE BLOOD; REVERSED APARTHEID IN EUROPE (1500-1789)
There was Reversed Apartheid (1500-1789) with only people of colour getting all the opportunities to study, getting the best jobs and collecting fame. I think about Haydn and Van Beethoven who were employed and befriended by the Black Nobility and Royalty. Only coloureds could rule. Blacks intermarried to get Black offspring because Black meant superiority, civilization, power, fit to be the ruling class. Just like how White’s view themselves and carry on today. The French Revolution was against the Nobility and Kingship. The fathers of the French Revolution were Voltaire and Rousseau, both rivals and both members of the coloured elite, but non-Noble’s. As were the Enlightenment philosophers as Racine, David Hume, Immanuel Kant and Helvetius. But Romanticism would break with this rational tradition, and would seek for inspiration in medieval times to find the ‘real’ Europe. Thus we see neo-gothic presented as something supposedly White. Only Whites would be considered true Europeans. This led to the physical elimination of the European Jews.
REVISIONISM; FAKE, WHITENED PORTRAITS OF THE BLACK ELITE (1500-1789)
Astoundingly Leonardo Da Vinci’s work was only ‘discovered’ late into the nineteenth century, after he was appropriately whitened by fake portraits. This I see with more revered persons in Holland, like William the Silent, assorted writers and poets, who first needed to be whitened to, became great symbols of the new nineteenth century White, Dutch nation. Some whitened portraits of this elite are authentic, but it seems that most were whitened in the nineteenth century. We are not getting the full picture, as much must have been destroyed or are kept hidden from public view. Some museum curators and scientist know better then displaying fake portraits, but the force behind this revisionism is still in power. They have to collaborate or are just indoctrinated and are misguided to fear Black domination. Racism is most markedly in the educated class. Those Dutch who guard the status quo of state oppression, state racism and the culture of all the institutions.
RACISM DECONSTRUCTED; WHITE SUPREMACY IS BASED ON FAKE, REVISIONIST PORTRAITURE
White people are nothing but Black people with white skin. They are in no way better but also not worse then Blacks. Blacks are not the eternal victims of White’s. Blacks aint no saints, just the underdog. White’s are indoctrinated to see themselves as part of a superior race, an elite. An elite will use anything in their power to keep power; science, education, mass media, propaganda, denial of freedom of expression, hindering free research, police brutality, military might, war, foreign aid and genocide. The fight between Christianity and the Jews is from century to century well documented and the start can be pinpointed in time. Per European state or even city. Why then does it seem that the beginning of the hate between Whites and Blacks is shrouded in mystery, yet the result is very visible for us all? That is because history has been revised, mainly by the use of fake, whitened portraits of the defeated Black rulers of Europe (1500-1789).
Civilisation did not start in Europe but was brought to Europe. Black Civilisation started 10.000 years ago. At some recent time, the European Whites were dominated by Blacks (1500-1789). The struggle to end this despotic domination resulted in the travesty of Scientific Racism, its overwrought stupidity we can still observe today. All these false theories about SSA Africans, and Somalis being Whites and the pyramids being built by Whites are part of this Revisionism. To hide the Black domination of Whites. The notion that Adam and Eve were Whites is a lie that could only have begun after the eighteenth century as the then elite revered Black Madonna’s. The European identity was Christianity, symbolised by white figures in art. When the Black Europeans emerged as a political force they changed the iconography in order to show Blacks as good Christians, present at the birth of Christianity. Hence the young, gorgeously stunning figure of the Black King, Balthasar, who offered gold to the Infant Jesus.
To think of Whites as beings of superior evil reinforces the image that the White elite want to impress on their victims. That they are supposed to be invincible. Well, they are not. Whites are no monoliths, as many poor Whites suffer from the same hardships as many poor Blacks. In western societies citizens are no more then tax milk cows, and rapidly losing their Humans Rights, as well. Yet they are indoctrinated with fear for ‘the other’, which only sixty years ago, used to be the European Jew. Today the ‘other’ is The Black and The Muslim. Newspapers in Holland today openly write about ‘The Moroccan Question’ just as only sixty years ‘The Jewish Question’ was obsessed over. The behaviour of a few delinquent Moroccan youth is deemed more important than the breaking of a world financial crisis. All the drug and alcohol riddled Dutch youth is acting out, yet the government is only putting the focus on the coloured youth. Dutch members of parliament speak openly of ethnic Dutch as enemies of the state. White’s are thus warned not to side with ‘The Other’ and not feel any pity with their plight. For the last twenty-eight years I hear about the Dutch police looking for Black and Muslim candidates, yet not succeeding. This could only mean that they do not want them. No Blacks and coloureds having positions of authority or power. Slowly there are rules and laws put in place to create an undemocratic stranglehold on the citizens, by their own chosen representatives. Extreme Right groups somehow escape judicial scrutiny as if they will be employed as a Hitler Jügend or SS, might the need arise. I see a movement towards a new expulsion of Blacks and Muslims in Europe, a new Holocaust. That’s why I see them moving a few Muslims in positions of prominence so they can wash their hands from any guilt, when things end in tragedy and bloodshed. The Surinamese are pitted against Moroccan and Turks.
A case will be made, that between some of the prominent European Muslims today, the oppression and murder of European Muslims was a fight among the Muslims themselves. Before the last Holocaust Jews were controlled by their own people, even deciding who would be transported to the destruction camps. Today some imams and mosques are employed to fight ‘terrorism.’ Some people still insist that they did not knew about the nazi destruction camps, yet everyone could see that Jews were transported in train wagons reserved for live stock. Why transport them as cattle if they were only being shipped to work camps or fancy resort camps? Why beat, kick and humiliate them while they were standing in line for transport, if they were leaving for a better existence, out of the disease ridden and flea invested ghettos?
Egmond Codfried The Hague December 2008
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Further information: Race (historical definitions), Scientific racism, Craniofacial anthropometry
The first scientific attempts to classify humans by categories of race date from the 17th century, along with the development of European imperialism and colonization around the world. The first post-Classical published classification of humans into distinct races seems to be François Bernier's Nouvelle division de la terre par les différents espèces ou races qui l'habitent ("New division of Earth by the different species or races which inhabit it"), published in 1684. [edit] 17th and 18th century According to philosopher Michel Foucault, theories of both racial and class conflict can be traced to 17th century political debates about innate differences among ethnicities. In England radicals such as John Lilburne emphasised conflicts between Saxon and Norman peoples. In France Henri de Boulainvilliers argued that the Germanic Franks possessed a natural right to leadership, in contrast to descendants of the Gauls. In the 18th century, the differences among human groups became a focus of scientific investigation (Todorov 1993). Initially, scholars focused on cataloguing and describing "The Natural Varieties of Mankind," as Johann Friedrich Blumenbach entitled his 1775 text (which established the five major divisions of humans still reflected in some racial classifications, i.e., the Caucasoid race, Mongoloid race, Ethiopian race (later termed the Negroid race), American Indian race, and Malayan race). From the 17th through the 19th centuries, the merging of folk beliefs about group differences with scientific explanations of those differences produced what one scholar has called an "ideology of race" (Smedley 1999). According to this ideology, races are primordial, natural, enduring and distinct. It was further argued that some groups may be the result of mixture between formerly distinct populations, but that careful study could distinguish the ancestral races that had combined to produce admixed groups. [edit] 19th century The 19th century saw attempts to change race from a taxonomic to a biological concept. In the 19th century a number of natural scientists wrote on race: Georges Cuvier, Charles Darwin, Alfred Wallace, Francis Galton, James Cowles Pritchard, Louis Agassiz, Charles Pickering, and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. As the science of anthropology took shape in the 19th century, European and American scientists increasingly sought explanations for the behavioral and cultural differences they attributed to groups (Stanton 1960). For example, using anthropometrics, invented by Francis Galton and Alphonse Bertillon, they measured the shapes and sizes of skulls and related the results to group differences in intelligence or other attributes (Lieberman 2001). These scientists made three claims about race: first, that races are objective, naturally occurring divisions of humanity; second, that there is a strong relationship between biological races and other human phenomena (such as forms of activity and interpersonal relations and culture, and by extension the relative material success of cultures), thus biologizing the notion of "race", as Foucault demonstrated in his historical analysis; third, that race is therefore a valid scientific category that can be used to explain and predict individual and group behavior. Races were distinguished by skin color, facial type, cranial profile and size, texture and color of hair. Moreover, races were almost universally considered to reflect group differences in moral character and intelligence. The eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, inspired by Arthur Gobineau's An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races (1853–1855) and Vacher de Lapouge's "anthroposociology", asserted as self-evident the biological inferiority of particular groups (Kevles 1985). In many parts of the world, the idea of race became a way of rigidly dividing groups by culture as well as by physical appearances (Hannaford 1996). Campaigns of oppression and genocide were often motivated by supposed racial differences (Horowitz 2001). In Charles Darwin's most controversial book, The Descent of Man, he made strong suggestions of racial differences and European superiority. In Darwin's view, stronger tribes of humans always replaced weaker tribes. As savage tribes came in conflict with civilized nations, such as England, the less advanced people were destroyed.[18] Nevertheless, he also noted the great difficulty naturalists had in trying to decide how many "races" there actually were (Darwin was himself a monogenist on the question of race, believing that all humans were of the same species and finding "race" to be a somewhat arbitrary distinction among some groups): Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.[19]
Pulitzer Prize winning historian James McPherson, writing for the American Historical Association, described the importance of revisionism: The 14,000 members of this Association, however, know that revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship. History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning. The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"—is what makes history vital and meaningful. Without revisionism, we might be stuck with the images of Reconstruction after the American Civil War that were conveyed by D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation and Claude Bowers's The Tragic Era. Were the Gilded Age entrepreneurs "Captains of Industry" or "Robber Barons"? Without revisionist historians who have done research in new sources and asked new and nuanced questions, we would remain mired in one or another of these stereotypes. Supreme Court decisions often reflect a "revisionist" interpretation of history as well as of the Constitution.[3] Those historians who work within the existing establishment and who have a body of existing work from which they claim authority, often have the most to gain by maintaining the status quo. This can be called an accepted paradigm, which in some circles or societies takes the form of a denunciative stance towards revisionism of any kind. Historian David Williams describes the resistance to the advocates of a more inclusive United States history that would include the roles of women, African Americans, and the labor movement: These and other scholarly voices called for a more comprehensive treatment of American history, stressing that the mass of Americans, not simply the power elites, made history. Yet it was mainly white males of the power elite who had the means to attend college, become professional historians, and shape a view of history that served their own class, race, and gender interests at the expense of those not so fortunate — and quite literally to paper over aspects of history they found uncomfortable. “One is astonished in the study of history,” wrote Du Bois in 1935, “at the recurrence of the idea that evil must be forgotten, distorted, skimmed over. ... The difficulty, of course, with this philosophy is that history loses its value as an incentive and an example; it paints perfect men and noble nations, but it does not tell the truth.[4]
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who are these black and coloured people? I bet this is what the original black Europeans looked like, before the whites completely replaced them in the 1800's
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic