[Grimaldi Man in the Monaco Museum: did he die out or lived on till the 20th century?]
CLYDE WINTERS, MARC WASHINGTON, MIKE111, AND EGMOND CODFRIED
Mike once pointed out to me that the ES site was the only site in the world dedicated to free speech of Afrocentrist. And he was right. Now I read that this site will be closed down in 2012. 2012 is also the year of a new Holocaust, Ethnic Cleansing will commence in Europe. If you have plans to visit Europe in 2012-2016, reconsider. Just like the Arab world blew up in January 2011, so Europe will blow up in 2012. Muslims and Blacks will be robbed before they are expelled, and the one who posses critical knowledge will be murdered.
As far as I can see these four Black persons on this site are the only people in the world who freely discuss and research Blacks in the European Diaspora. This is crucial because only by realising this, we can ask how these Blacks manifested themselves in history, and why their presence is so hotly denied by eurocentrist. Eurocentrism was found on the need to extirpate Blacks from history. This revisionism seems to be entering its final phase when even Black scholars will deny that there were any Blacks in Europe. Or, that these poor Blacks magically turned white 6000 years ago. As one hangs around eurocentrist for too long one tends to sound like them. To them, the only identity allowed to Blacks is that of slaves and descendents of slaves, while we know that Black slavery only started around 1441. So what did the Africans were doing all this time, waiting for their curse to kick in and be abducted into slavery? Sitting around a fire, not stirring one meter, uttering animal sounds and regularly eating each other?
What I like to point out that these four musketeers should really take stock and asses their responsibility, because they seem to be the only four persons in the world who may turn things around. They should make sure their research is safeguarded from destruction. And perhaps make some effort to understand each others research and look how to built on that. For the sake of Blacks, that they will not be written out of history.
concept of whiteness of today was created after 1848 when the European whites were emancipated and went out to conquer and oppress the whole world from their new found identity as whites and as humans: bringers of civilisation.
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
while we know that Black slavery only started around 1441.
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: Black Rule (1500-1789).
Egmond I'm trying to figure this out. You need to make a timeline. Are you saying blacks ruled Europe prior to 1789 but started ruling only beginning in 1500 ? Do you mean whites were there before the ruling blacks got there in 1500s ?? So where did these blacks come from? Were they already there but not ruling in earlier centuries, 1400s, 1300s, 1200, etc. etc. ? How did they get the whites into a position where they could make them into shoes? That seems like it would take the force of a powerful army. Did they trick them into it? Also slavery was abolished in France in 1794. So if you have slavery in Europe of Africans starting in 1441 and abolished (in France) in 1794 then slavery of Africans corresponds with the whole period Black rule 1500-1789 which falls in between it. Ironically abolition in France would come five years after whites had come to power. How can this be?
posted
To end racism we need to ask different questions less we will be still asking for equality in the next hundred years.
Why do we have racism? What did Blacks do to make whites hate them so much? Why does eurocentrism deny there were Black kings and nobles ruling Europe? Did the Grimaldi Men, the first Europeans, die out, or are they the Black Vikings and Blue Men of European history? What do the personal descriptions of brown, black, sanguine complexion, bad complexion, black boy, swarthy, not the white hands of European nobles and kings mean?
After the Crusades, the Europeans who left the Middle East returned to Europe and were enforced with scientific knowledge, which combined with their military power, made them a new force. Europe was inhabited by all kinds of peoples of all complexions, but we know that the Africans were the first. This gave them some advantage over the whites, who came from Central Asia, only 6000 years ago. Among the Black Europeans, the Blue Men of history, a faction decided to declare themselves a nobility and claimed to have blue blood. They intermarried to not dilute their blue blood. Just like Asians (Chinese and Indians) in the west today, do not like to mix with others.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: [QB] To end racism we need to ask different questions less we will be still asking for equality in the next hundred years.
Why do we have racism? What did Blacks do to make whites hate them so much?
You answered this already, blacks hated whites and decided to use their skins to make shoes.
I think in addition to this it's not all about hate, It's also greed. People tend to exploit other people if they have the power to and can get away with it. Power corrupts they say. Not everybody, but many people of all stripes. How do empires get to be empires? They go in with armies, kill people and take their land and tax them. The Egyptians, Romans, Dutch, etc, some tribe raiding another tribe.
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
Why does eurocentrism deny there were Black kings and nobles ruling Europe?
What about America? The British for example established colonies in America 1607 – 1783. Were these black people?
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: After the Crusades, the Europeans who left the Middle East returned to Europe and were enforced with scientific knowledge, which combined with their military power, made them a new force.
were they, who did the Crusades black or white, I'm getting confused between 1095 and 1291.
You might consider making a timeline to organize the progression of history,
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Mike once pointed out to me that the ES site was the only site in the world dedicated to free speech of Afrocentrist. And he was right. Now I read that this site will be closed down in 2012.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
While researching Jane Austen (1775-1817) I realized that the observations she made were a reality to her. In ‘Northanger Abbey’ she simply states that the brown complexioned Tilney’s were ‘superior.’ So to Austen Blacks were superior; they were the aristocracy and gentry she herself belonged to. And they dominated a people with no civilisation, with obscure beginnings. This she dramatised in ‘Emma’ (1816) in the person of white Miss Harriett Smith of unknown parentage. Who also would not make any effort to find out were she came from, just as whites are not really interested to know the origins of whites. Perhaps not wanting to hear that they descend from albinos. The European Blacks saw themselves as the true Europeans, they were there first. Thinking about this system it also remind me of the Indian caste system, were people basically look the same, yet when one is born in a certain cast, he will always remain a member of this caste. So my research is result oriented, making sense of the descriptions and images I have found. And finding answers: where did the European nobility come from, why do whites hate Blacks so much and is the essence of whiteness the hatred of Blacks?
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egmond - Even though I am curious as to how things evolved socially and politically: I really don't spend much time on early and medieval Europe.
But here is an interesting tid-bit for you: A few years back, I think in response to one of your posts, I was researching a landed name in Britain.
I ran across an entry which attributed the families acquisition of it's lands: to the patriarch finding "Old Black Issac" drunk in a ditch (side of the road - some such), and taking that opportunity to kill him. (I'm not sure the name was Issac). I have tried many times to retrace what I was doing, in order to find it again, but to no avail.
But that's really quite amazing when you think about it. In any country, the landed folk are the noble elite. What could have been the conditions of those times, where a landed elite could have been murdered, and his lands taken by his murderer?
Not knowing British history that well, it seems to me, that may have been the times of this study:
A study.
Evidence for an apartheid-like social structure in early Anglo-Saxon England (2006)
1. Mark G Thomas1, 2. Michael P.H Stumpf, 3. Heinrich Härke
Quote from News story: The UCL research into the more recent Anglo-Saxon period suggested a migration on a huge scale. "It appears England is made up of an ethnic cleansing event from people coming across from the continent after the Romans left," he said. Archaeologists after the Second World War rejected the traditionally held view that an Anglo-Saxon invasion pushed the indigenous Celtic Britons to the fringes of Britain.
Instead, they said the arrival of Anglo-Saxon culture could have come from trade or a small ruling elite. But the latest research by the UCL team, "using genetics as a history book", appears to support the original view of a large-scale invasion of England. It suggests that the Welsh border was more of a genetic barrier to the Anglo-Saxon Y chromosome gene flow than the North Sea.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Thank you Mike111. I have been reading about The Franks, and The Goth’s but these Eurocentric studies are pure hell as no mention is made of any Blacks in Europe. Sometimes you have to spell out the notes and they direct you to some other work where things are said about a persons looks. They mention it in the notes, but do don’t make it part of their research that their subject was brown or black. Strange.
But this is also the case of Jane Austen where her novels are filled with elaborate personal descriptions and discussions about black skin and black beauty, the scholars do not notice. If they quote it, no comment is given.
So the four of us are really going against the grain, and soon no one will ever question these things which are not to be spoken off. If future editions of Austen novels are cleansed of these descriptions, no one will be left to protest.
If you want to succeed in academia you better parrot-like repeat what the professor has told you. If you are not an academic, you are some stupid trash not worth the time of day.
I feel the four of us, because really I do not know what to make of the other Blacks on this forum, have to think about how to bring about a change. I like the fact that you made something for U-Tube. The word has to get out to the people and we should offer them clear and cut statements.
You notice that the Eurocentric trash is constantly asking the same dumb-ass questions time and again so there can be no progress for us. How difficult is it to understand that a person described as black cannot be considered white.
I have my own dicta which my Black audience readily understands:
Human races were invented to give whites human status.
Racism is a liberation ideology.
Whites are descendents of albinos.
Whites were serfs and were kept for their beautiful white skins to be made into leather for bookbinding’s, clothes and shoes.
Blue blood is black blood.
The Moors in western art are symbols of blue blood.
Kindly let me hear yours.
I also feel that its only the Modern Age, from 1500, that determined the present status quo and the position of Blacks. When I hear about Bactrians I really think about Rosario Dawson, who played Alexander The Greats wife. I do not see how Bactrians influenced the politics of today. But of course its admirable if a person has such a complete view of history.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Great post. You are bringing up issues which need to be addressed. First of all, I don’t know if it will be in 2012 or later but soon Europeans will show their madness and terrible things will take place in Europe. We may suffer somewhat in the U.S., but blacks here even though they lack adequate weapons will probably fight back.
You asked why racism exists. Racism exists because of tribalism and nationalism. Europeans have usually organized themselves around the tribe. If tribes would fight each other, the tribe that lost was usually absorbed by the winning tribe and members of the defeated tribe that was not killed off were forced to adopt the language and culture of their conquerors.
European tribalism highlighted the idea of the Other. The Other was anyone that did not belong to the tribe since blacks were visibly different from Europeans phenotypic ally it was easy for Europeans to view them with fear and awe. Fear because blacks could easily replace them through sexual unions which led to the mullatto type which was closer in color to black than white. They also feared blacks because of their intuition that they could not compete with Blacks due to our military skills, technological genuis and history of rule over Europeans.
Egmond you have to understand that Ironlion, Mike, Marc and you are hated because your research proves that Europeans have been taught a fake history. The presentation of these facts impacts directly on the white mind and makes them feel inferior.
ES is the most hated site on the internet by Europeans. It is hated by Europeans because here you will find discussions backed with evidence that European history is a lie. In other forums when an AA (I am using AA in the sense of any Black found in the Americas: South, North, Central, Caribbean) is just about to win a debate dealing with history, anthropology or whatever s/he is banned. At ES this does not occur and time after time trolls come here and leave many discussions with their tail between their legs. AAs know the brutality of Europeans so we don’t trust them too much.
I am hated more than anyone else because I know how to conduct research and get articles published. I am often surprised how Europeans talk about on various forums. LOL they often talk negatively about my research but they never present counter evidence to dispute my findings.
Europeans fear us because of our power to destroy their tribes by simply mating with them. Every great European civilization by its end was dominated by Blacks. Mike mad a beautiful posts on how the Romans as a result race mixing were eventually ruled by mulattos. And everyone knows that the Greeks were eventually replaced/influenced by the Indians and Egyptians. These people were tribalistic, and prejudice—but not racists . As a result, they didn’t mind writing about the great history of Blacks in their day.
Blacks are held in Awe by Europeans. Although they act as though they do not feel inferior to Blacks, they do everything in their power to hold Blacks back and prevent true competition.
Europeans fear Blacks because they have been taught that we have taught through history and folktales we are superior. Blacks have been recognized as a source of potential riches and power. The tales of the little people reflect this Awe. My friend Vos Toth Bator found that these ‘wee people’ were usually described as “dark, or black skinned’. They were taught that these people lived in beautiful cities and that if you captured one they could be ransomed for (a pot of ) gold, knowledge and etc. The best evidence of this Awe is the story of Billy Goat Gruff. In this tell three goats (Europeans) want to cross a bridge into a beautiful city but their way is blocked by a Ogre. Ogre or Ugrian was term for blacks. These little Black people were pushed all the way North into the artic.
Europeans had an easy time with the ‘wee people’ or Anu. They had a more difficult time with the Proto-Saharan people (Mande, Dravidians and etc.). After the flood the Proto-Saharans left the Saharan highlands and replaced many Anu at sites near rivers where Anu population centers had been destroyed. The Proto-Saharans did not interfer with the Anu population centers on the plains. This is why you find so many African skeletons and an African substratum in Indo-European languages.
Around the time of the volcanic eruptions at Thera, Proto-Saharan civilizations were destroyed in coastal regions and beyond as a result of this chaos. Europeans who were wandering Central Asia, heard about this chaos and they began to invade Europe and the Middle East after 1500 BC. Through wars attrition the Blacks were conquerored, but they remained a significant power until between 1000-700 BC when Europeans in Greece began to gain a significant foothold in the area. Europeans refer to this period as the dark age.
The art of Greece and Rome make it clear that there were a number of Blacks living in this region. It was only with the invasion of the GERmanic tribes into Mediterranean region that Blacks were murdered and replaced by whites.
Once Europeans gained control of Europe it went into decline until the Amoravid Africans took knowledge into Europe. These Blacks made Europeans feel inferior and remained in control in many parts of Europe up to 1492. Due to Blacks have ruled Europe for millenia they were part of the fabric of Europe and tried to remain “separate” from the locals by declaring that they were “blue bloods”.
European intellegentia during the slave trade decided that they were going to avoid the Black takeover of their civilization by Blacks by rewriting history. The first thing that did is make a concerted effort to claim that Blacks never had a civilization. Next they taught that the Classical History text were myths. By claiming they were myths they could deny Blacks a roll in ancient history. Instead of talking about ‘blacke moors’, they began to refer to the Black Moors as “swarthy” and etc. to deny a recent role of Blacks in history.
LOL although they put a great effort in falsifying history AAs learned to read. Once AAs learned to read they began to teach the truth about the Black origin of the Egyptians, Greeks and Moors. European scholars tried to fool people by repainting ancient artifacts such as those in Crete and Egypt to make it appear that these people Europeans—but this policy often failed because there were records showing the modern reproductions and re-painted originals depicted Blacks and not whites.
Due to AAs the Eurocentrist failed in making everyone believe in a fake history. In addition Brown people (Africans, Latinos and Arabs) appear to be in a position to reach majority populations in some European countries.
I will end this discussion here since I have chores to do.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Mike once pointed out to me that the ES site was the only site in the world dedicated to free speech of Afrocentrist. And he was right. Now I read that this site will be closed down in 2012.
ESR can never replace ES because there are too many leaders at the site who disrespect us . e left the Egyptology forum and made the Ancient Egypt forum the most discussed forum on the web.
Great post. You are bringing up issues which need to be addressed. First of all, I don’t know if it will be in 2012 or later but soon Europeans will show their madness and terrible things will take place in Europe. We may suffer somewhat in the U.S., but blacks here even though they lack adequate weapons will probably fight back.
You asked why racism exists. Racism exists because of tribalism and nationalism. Europeans have usually organized themselves around the tribe. If tribes would fight each other, the tribe that lost was usually absorbed by the winning tribe and members of the defeated tribe that was not killed off were forced to adopt the language and culture of their conquerors.
European tribalism highlighted the idea of the Other. The Other was anyone that did not belong to the tribe since blacks were visibly different from Europeans phenotypic ally it was easy for Europeans to view them with fear and awe. Fear because blacks could easily replace them through sexual unions which led to the mullatto type which was closer in color to black than white. They also feared blacks because of their intuition that they could not compete with Blacks due to our military skills, technological genuis and history of rule over Europeans.
Egmond you have to understand that Ironlion, Mike, Marc and you are hated because your research proves that Europeans have been taught a fake history. The presentation of these facts impacts directly on the white mind and makes them feel inferior.
ES is the most hated site on the internet by Europeans. It is hated by Europeans because here you will find discussions backed with evidence that European history is a lie. In other forums when an AA (I am using AA in the sense of any Black found in the Americas: South, North, Central, Caribbean) is just about to win a debate dealing with history, anthropology or whatever s/he is banned. At ES this does not occur and time after time trolls come here and leave many discussions with their tail between their legs. AAs know the brutality of Europeans so we don’t trust them too much.
I am hated more than anyone else because I know how to conduct research and get articles published. I am often surprised how Europeans talk about on various forums. LOL they often talk negatively about my research but they never present counter evidence to dispute my findings.
Europeans fear us because of our power to destroy their tribes by simply mating with them. Every great European civilization by its end was dominated by Blacks. Mike mad a beautiful posts on how the Romans as a result race mixing were eventually ruled by mulattos. And everyone knows that the Greeks were eventually replaced/influenced by the Indians and Egyptians. These people were tribalistic, and prejudice—but not racists . As a result, they didn’t mind writing about the great history of Blacks in their day.
Blacks are held in Awe by Europeans. Although they act as though they do not feel inferior to Blacks, they do everything in their power to hold Blacks back and prevent true competition.
Europeans fear Blacks because they have been taught that we have taught through history and folktales we are superior. Blacks have been recognized as a source of potential riches and power. The tales of the little people reflect this Awe. My friend Vos Toth Bator found that these ‘wee people’ were usually described as “dark, or black skinned’. They were taught that these people lived in beautiful cities and that if you captured one they could be ransomed for (a pot of ) gold, knowledge and etc. The best evidence of this Awe is the story of Billy Goat Gruff. In this tell three goats (Europeans) want to cross a bridge into a beautiful city but their way is blocked by a Ogre. Ogre or Ugrian was term for blacks. These little Black people were pushed all the way North into the artic.
Europeans had an easy time with the ‘wee people’ or Anu. They had a more difficult time with the Proto-Saharan people (Mande, Dravidians and etc.). After the flood the Proto-Saharans left the Saharan highlands and replaced many Anu at sites near rivers where Anu population centers had been destroyed. The Proto-Saharans did not interfer with the Anu population centers on the plains. This is why you find so many African skeletons and an African substratum in Indo-European languages.
Around the time of the volcanic eruptions at Thera, Proto-Saharan civilizations were destroyed in coastal regions and beyond as a result of this chaos. Europeans who were wandering Central Asia, heard about this chaos and they began to invade Europe and the Middle East after 1500 BC. Through wars attrition the Blacks were conquerored, but they remained a significant power until between 1000-700 BC when Europeans in Greece began to gain a significant foothold in the area. Europeans refer to this period as the dark age.
The art of Greece and Rome make it clear that there were a number of Blacks living in this region. It was only with the invasion of the GERmanic tribes into Mediterranean region that Blacks were murdered and replaced by whites.
Once Europeans gained control of Europe it went into decline until the Amoravid Africans took knowledge into Europe. These Blacks made Europeans feel inferior and remained in control in many parts of Europe up to 1492. Due to Blacks have ruled Europe for millenia they were part of the fabric of Europe and tried to remain “separate” from the locals by declaring that they were “blue bloods”.
European intellegentia during the slave trade decided that they were going to avoid the Black takeover of their civilization by Blacks by rewriting history. The first thing that did is make a concerted effort to claim that Blacks never had a civilization. Next they taught that the Classical History text were myths. By claiming they were myths they could deny Blacks a roll in ancient history. Instead of talking about ‘blacke moors’, they began to refer to the Black Moors as “swarthy” and etc. to deny a recent role of Blacks in history.
LOL although they put a great effort in falsifying history AAs learned to read. Once AAs learned to read they began to teach the truth about the Black origin of the Egyptians, Greeks and Moors. European scholars tried to fool people by repainting ancient artifacts such as those in Crete and Egypt to make it appear that these people Europeans—but this policy often failed because there were records showing the modern reproductions and re-painted originals depicted Blacks and not whites.
Due to AAs the Eurocentrist failed in making everyone believe in a fake history. In addition Brown people (Africans, Latinos and Arabs) appear to be in a position to reach majority populations in some European countries.
I will end this discussion here since I have chores to do.
.
3000 years of history, could not be wiped away so easily....
posted
Egmond, you said "But this is also the case of Jane Austen where her novels are filled with elaborate personal descriptions and discussions about black skin and black beauty, the scholars do not notice. If they quote it, no comment is given."
Would it be possible to scan and post those quotes? It would be very useful to have those.
BTW - Are the people described in her books like these, or ordinary locals?
posted
It's clear to me that we need a Black person, expert in English history on the forum, because I really can't make good sense out of all this.
Aside from the Picts and Druids, we know little of the original people of Britain. Black Celts such as the Silures, could be original, or could have been chased there by the Goths (Germanics).
By the time of Tacitus (100 A.D.), Germanics occupied Scotland, who did they displace?
Who are the other people mentioned on this map?
This is a Wiki cut and paste.
The history of Anglo-Saxon England broadly covers early medieval England from the end of Roman rule and the establishment of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the 5th century until the Conquest by the Normans in 1066.
Origins (AD 400–600)
Migration of Germanic peoples to Britain from what is now northern Germany, the northern part of the Netherlands and southern Scandinavia is attested from the 5th century (e.g. Undley bracteate). Based on Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, the intruding population is traditionally divided into Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, but their composition was likely less clear-cut and may also have included Frisians and Franks. Also, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle contains text that may be the first recorded indications of the movement of these Germanic tribes to Britain.
The Jutes, were a Germanic people who, according to Bede, were one of the three most powerful Germanic peoples of their time, the other two being the Saxons and the Angles. They are believed to have originated from Jutland (called Iutum in Latin) in modern Denmark, Southern Schleswig (South Jutland) and part of the East Frisian coast.
At the time of the Germanic invasion of Southern Britain, many Britons emigrated to the area now known as Brittany in France, where Breton, a Celtic language closely related to Welsh and Cornish and descended from the language of the emigrants, is still spoken.
"Anne of Brittany" Egmond, is she Black or White?
In the 9th century, the Viking challenge grew to serious proportions. Alfred the Great's victory at Edington, Wiltshire, in 878 brought intermittent peace, but with their possession of Jorvik, the Danes gained a solid foothold in England.
An important development in the 9th century was the rise of the Kingdom of Wessex; by the end of his reign Alfred was recognised as overlord by several southern kingdoms. Æthelstan was the first king to achieve direct rule over what is considered "England".
Near the end of the 10th century, there was renewed Scandinavian interest in England, with the conquests of Sweyn of Denmark and his son Cnut the Great. By 1066 there were three lords with claims to the English throne, resulting in two invasions and the battles of Stamford Bridge and Hastings. The latter, which heralded the Norman conquest of England, resulted in the overthrow of the Anglo-Saxon polity and its replacement with Norman rule.
The Norman conquest of England began on 28 September 1066 with the invasion of England by William, Duke of Normandy. William became known as William the Conqueror after his victory at the Battle of Hastings on 14 October 1066, defeating the king Harold II of England. Harold's army had been badly depleted in the English victory at the Battle of Stamford Bridge in Northern England on 25 September 1066 over the army of King Harald III of Norway. By early 1071, William had secured control of most of England, although rebellions and resistance continued until approximately 1088.
The Norman conquest was a pivotal event in English history. It largely removed the native ruling class, replacing it with a foreign, French-speaking monarchy, aristocracy, and clerical hierarchy. This, in turn, brought about a transformation of the English language and the culture of England in a new era often referred to as Norman England.
By bringing England under the control of rulers originating in France, the Norman conquest linked the country more closely with continental Europe, lessened Scandinavian influence, and also set the stage for a rivalry with France that would continue intermittently for many centuries. It also had important consequences for the rest of the British Isles, paving the way for further Norman conquests in Wales and Ireland, and the extensive penetration of the aristocracy of Scotland by Norman and other French-speaking families, with the accompanying spread of continental institutions and cultural influences.
Following the conquest, the Anglo-Saxon nobility were either exiled or joined the ranks of the peasantry. It has been estimated that only about 8 per cent of the land was under Anglo-Saxon control by 1087. Many Anglo-Saxon nobles fled to Scotland, Ireland, and Scandinavia. The Byzantine Empire became a popular destination for many Anglo-Saxon soldiers, as the Byzantines were in need of mercenaries.
The Anglo-Saxons became the predominant element in the elite Varangian Guard, hitherto a largely Scandinavian unit, from which the emperor's bodyguard was drawn and continued to serve the empire until the early 15th century. However, the population of England at home remained largely Anglo-Saxon; for them, little changed immediately except that their Anglo-Saxon lord was replaced by a Norman lord
In 1503, James IV attempted to secure peace with England by marrying King Henry VII's daughter, Margaret Tudor. The birth of their son, later James V, brought the House of Stuart/Stewart into the line of descent of the House of Tudor, and the English throne.
George III (George William Frederick; 4 June 1738 – 29 January 1820) was King of Great Britain and King of Ireland until the union of these two countries, after which he was King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland until his death. He was concurrently Duke and prince-elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg ("Hanover") in the Holy Roman Empire (Germany) until his promotion to King of Hanover on 12 October 1814. He was the third British monarch of the House of Hanover, but unlike his two Hanoverian predecessors he was born in Britain, spoke English as his first language, and never visited Hanover.
George was born in London at Norfolk House. He was the grandson of King George II, and the son of Frederick, Prince of Wales, and Augusta of Saxe-Gotha.
On 8 September 1761 in the Chapel Royal, St James's Palace, the King married Princess Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, whom he met on their wedding day. A fortnight later, both were crowned at Westminster Abbey. George remarkably never took a mistress (in contrast with his grandfather and his sons), and the couple enjoyed a genuinely happy marriage. They had 15 children—nine sons and six daughters.
Europeans fear us because of our power to destroy their tribes by simply mating with them. Every great European civilization by its end was dominated by Blacks. Mike made beautiful posts on how the Romans as a result race mixing were eventually ruled by mulattos. And everyone knows that the Greeks were eventually replaced/influenced by the Indians and Egyptians.
Here is another portrait of George III, it is found in the mayors office, city of New york. It is said to be from the time the British ruled New york. It is therefore perhaps the most accurate portrait of king George III.
The man is an obvious MULATTO! (That's a wig he is wearing).
How then does a Mulatto man, in union with a Mulatto woman, make those blond haired Albino children?
The British are such falsifying liars.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This might be off topic but while on another post I stumbled on something that I think has never been mentioned. Perhaps Marc or Egmond could look into. I don't know where this information would lead but look at this:
prognostic
=
pro gnostic
.
that's got to be a clue to something. I'll let you guys handle it
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Why does eurocentrism deny there were Black kings and nobles ruling Europe?
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
The man is an obvious MULATTO! (That's a wig he is wearing).
Were these European nobles black or Mulatto?
If they were mulatto they would be half evil. We need to distinguish pure black Europeans from mulattos. How can you trust these mulattos if they're in bed with the cracker? Whose side are they on? How can we get anywhere if we keep diluting?
It seems odd that blue blood blacks with a royal bloodlines would be mixing with sub human uncivilized serfs that they were harvesting for skin but that's just me. I thought these royals would be more inbred in their ways. preserving the royal anestral line and so on. Instead they're humping albinos
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
They have long been famed for their love of lavish banquets and rich recipes. But what is less well known is that the British royals also had a taste for human flesh.
A new book on medicinal cannibalism has revealed that possibly as recently as the end of the 18th century British royalty swallowed parts of the human body.
The author adds that this was not a practice reserved for monarchs but was widespread among the well-to-do in Europe.
Medicinal cannibalism: Both Queen Mary II and her uncle King Charles II both took distilled human skull on their deathbeds in 1698 and 1685 respectively, according to Dr Sugg
Even as they denounced the barbaric cannibals of the New World, they applied, drank, or wore powdered Egyptian mummy, human fat, flesh, bone, blood, brains and skin.
Moss taken from the skulls of dead soldiers was even used as a cure for nosebleeds, according to Dr Richard Sugg at Durham University.
Dr Sugg said: 'The human body has been widely used as a therapeutic agent with the most popular treatments involving flesh, bone or blood.
This painting of Charles I's execution in 1649 shows people surging forward to mop up the former king's blood. It was thought to have healing properties
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Egmond you've go to do something, Mike's still fantasizing that these whitened fake portraits of European kings weren't black people at the same time spreading the Eurocentric myths about cannibalism.
Also you should start doing some lectures in Holland, get in touch with the people. brother Tahj can hook you up:
posted
I'm sure it would be hubris to think that our humble offerings would warrant the assignment of someone to defuse, obfuscate, and obstruct: But it has become apparent that Lioness has a specific agenda.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From above: "Based on Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, the intruding population is traditionally divided into Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, but their composition was likely less clear-cut and may also have included Frisians and Franks. Also, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle contains text that may be the first recorded indications of the movement of these Germanic tribes to Britain."
The Frisians are a Germanic ethnic group native to the coastal parts of the Netherlands and Germany. They are concentrated in the Dutch provinces of Friesland and Groningen and, in Germany, East Frisia and North Frisia, that was a part of Denmark until 1864. They inhabit an area known as Frisia. Frisians have a reputation for being blond-haired (Remember that this is a Wiki extract). The Frisian languages are still used by 500.000 speakers; dialects of Frisian are recognized as official languages in both the Netherlands and Germany.
In another thread, we beat-up on the Black Muslims pretty good. Fairness now dictates that we give equal scrutiny to Black Catholics.
What are we to make of a religious leader, supposedly a purveyor of truth and such fine things. Who fails to even make an attempt to explain the reason for, and identity of, the Black Frisian King who he pays homage to on his personal Coat-of-Arms.
The Freising shield of German born Pope Benedict XVI.
From the crown design, we can probably safely assume that the Freising king is the first Holy Roman Emperor Otto I.
Consider for a moment, the vile hypocrisy of this institution. Not only did it sanction the murder and enslavement of millions in the Americas and elsewhere; allowed its priests to molest its children. But in the face of virulent racism over the last few centuries, just the words: Hey be cool, they were once our kings: could have had such a calming influence. Instead they stood silent, and allowed the vile racists to do their deeds - perhaps even helped them.
And in thanks, Africans build cathedrals to them.
In the face of that, this insult to the intelligence of Blacks, by the Albino boys at Wiki, is very mild indeed.
Example of explanation found at Wiki
The Crowned blackamoor
A legend tells of Abraham of Freising travelling one night through the Poljanska dolina valley with his black servant. While walking through a dark thicket they came across a huge bear. Abraham stopped, terrified; the quick-thinking servant aimed an arrow from his bow and shot the bear dead. The bishop embraced him and proclaimed: "You have saved my life, servant. I shall reward you, so that future generations may know what a hero you were." He showed his gratitude by depicting his servant's head (caput aethiopis) in the bishopric's and the town's coat of arms.
The "Freising blackamoor" was demonstrably first utilized in 1284 by Bishop Emicho of Wittelsbach. An inscription on the outer part of a 14th century seal reads SIGILLUM CIVITATIS LOK - seal of the town of Škofja Loka.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Above I asked Egmond if "Anne of Brittany" was Black or White?
I was curious to see if he would recognize her "Uniquely" African female "Receded" hairline. I have personally seen Black women, whose hairline began almost at the middle of her head. This particular trait, is found only in African women.
Whites often attribute this to a history of straightening the hair and pulling it tightly back in various hairstyles, i.e., corn rows, tight braids or buns etc. But whatever the catalyst, this is a natural predisposition.
posted
Okay, okay, I lied a little above. That "Uniquely" African female "Receded" hairline can be found elsewhere - IN GREAT BRITIAN!
It is called the "Tudor Hairline"
The high inherited hairlines that we often seen from those women of Anglo Saxon ancestry can be exemplified by the history and paintings of Queen Elizabeth I, the great Tudor queen, the daughter of Henry VIII, who reigned for 45 years. She had a naturally high hairline, which is revealed in many portraits. Also, one can find many portraits of women of English nobility of her time who emulated the queen by actually shaving back an inch or so of their hair to more resemble the queen. This was especially true of the women who were in her court. It should be noted that Bette Davis, in portraying Queen Elizabeth, had to shave her hairline back for such a movie role.
Elizabeth Woodville (1437–92), Queen Consort of Edward IV of England
All those "Nappy Headed" Women above: Does anybody really believe that the portrait coloration's are true?
Like I said: "The British are such falsifying liars."Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
[Larger Image Buy a print License this image possibly by William Faithorne, printed and published by Robert Peake the Elder line engraving, probably early 17th century NPG D25726]
[The National Portrait Gallery site offers many Stuart portraits which show extreme blackness. However for images of Anne of Denmark, James I wife; they claim 'no image available,' and have been doing so for the past six years. Still there is one brown drawing of her to be seen]
As a lowly Surinamese who has been living and loving among the superior Dutch for 31 years I have become some expert on these matters. I was able to observe freely by a mighty act of god which prevented me to be indoctrinated by the Dutch. This comes with a price, off course.
You all are responding to my thread but no one actually comments on my blue blood is black blood theory which is supposed to make things easier.
I offer a complete Black identified viewpoint.
Whites did not discover Blacks. Whites did not found the European civilisation. Whites as an ethnicity did not exist before 1760. By giving them a share in our history before this date, as some of the Black researchers in this thread are doing, is horrible. Just stop doing this, please. Look at your own considerable findings and trust in your own judgement.
If a person like Anne of Britanny was a European noble from way before 1848 she was Black; because the nobility self-identified as Black. Blue blood is a Black Identity, just like Rastaman is a Black identity.
Instead of going one person at the time, we should consider the whole noble and royal elite as Black and make progress.
These Blacks did some confusing things by somehow clinging to the Greek ideal of white beauty, but off course never dreaming of actually marrying whites. Some bleached and painted themselves white, others were against this nonsense. It seems that Jane Austen was fighting COLORISM among the Black and brown elite. Perhaps also some rivalry among the Asian originated “blacks” and the African Blacks. People will look for any reason to fight among each other. In her own world whites did not really exist as a force, or all the sources about her feelings about whites were destroyed.
Artist had the calling to create beauty, which let to all these bewilderingly different portraits of the same person. Meanwhile Classical Black looks were revered as ‘pure blood.’ But for great royal portraits there seem to have been some strict guidelines and a person with really strong Classical features might be rendered completely ‘Aryan’ in looks and complexion.
Obviously some race mixing happened when the whites entered Europe, 6000 years ago. And perhaps the majority of European Blacks who became the noble elite had some white admixture. To mix is more natural then not to mix. But around 1100-1200 some realized they need to stop mixing lest Blacks, the true Europeans, will disappear. Then I wonder about the African Types which inhabited Europe 45.000 years ago. As we know Africa has all complexions, like Khadafy for instance, so even the “fair” ones, and fair does not mean white, but are light skinned coloureds, could have contributed towards the mulatto looks of some of the European nobility. Other race-mixing could be because of cementing of political treaties or for the love of money if in a rare case a white skinned bride came with money and goods.
Mike, I have a Jane Austen Thread. Her Novel ‘Emma’ (1816) confirms my blue blood is black blood theory and she writes Black History which was already being revised as she was looking on.
As a quintessential European she asserts European symbolism and the “Mr. Elton, black spruce and smiling” from the novel “Emma”(1817) is her way of using the European symbolism of the Moor which tells you that the company is Black identified and superior. To be sure this is repeated in 'Mansfield Park' (1813) with 'Mr. Crawford: ‘absolutely plain, black and plain.’ And his lovely sister Mary was ‘very brown with a lively black eye.’ Next, on another level she does many interesting things with Mr. Elton, like praising him to pieces for his beauty and good manners, and how a woman would be most lucky to marry him. That he is pitch-black we know because Austen said his family was without any ‘low connections.’ He was round faced and pretty too. The Highbury ladies would just swoon over him.
Off course they are novel personages, but her private letters, and descriptions about her own family and circle shows real life brown and blacks who belonged to the gentry and aristocracy.
Last we should consider that all these royal so-called ‘Champions of Christianity,’ in the sanctity of their castles and palaces practiced sorcery. They ate and drank bouillon of human flesh and dressed in human skin and walked on shoes made of human leather. And the males whored around like dogs. Yet they were Christians, Catholics and Louis XV always broke up with his mistress before Easter so they could go for Confession, and next restart the whoring.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: I stated earlier that Lionese is a dummy account run by 6 agents of the state.
It is neither a she, nor a he. It is a they, like in state security agents!
One thing for certain, they came on a mission only to be humilitated by higher degrees of Muurish science and knowledge.
Lionese, get a handle on yourselves and behave!
Its a team alright. Reason we should become a team as well. If Blacks today had only 1% of the unity of whites have against Blacks, things would change rapidly.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
[Jane Austen (1775-1817) showing dark colouring and Classical African facial traits. Her Black identity is derived from her novels which feature Blacks. This portrait confirms perfectly how she was described.]
[The fake image her family came up with around 1860, made by her sister Cassandra. Her loving and protective family felt compelled to give her a white identity, and she did not issue a portrait during her life time, as her looks made her liable to rejection and persecution.]
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Egmond, you said "But this is also the case of Jane Austen where her novels are filled with elaborate personal descriptions and discussions about black skin and black beauty, the scholars do not notice. If they quote it, no comment is given."
Would it be possible to scan and post those quotes? It would be very useful to have those.
BTW - Are the people described in her books like these, or ordinary locals?
A few of her novels are ebooks on the web. Like Sense and Sensibility.
quote:Miss Dashwood had a delicate complexion, regular features, and a remarkably pretty figure. Marianne was still handsomer. Her form, though not so correct as her sister's, in having the advantage of height, was more striking; and her face was so lovely, that when in the common cant of praise, she was called a beautiful girl, truth was less violently outraged than usually happens. Her skin was very brown, but, from its transparency, her complexion was uncommonly brilliant; her features were all good; her smile was sweet and attractive; and in her eyes, which were very dark, there was a life, a spirit, an eagerness, which could hardily be seen without delight. From Willoughby their expression was at first held back, by the embarrassment which the remembrance of his assistance created. But when this passed away, when her spirits became collected, when she saw that to the perfect good-breeding of the gentleman, he united frankness and vivacity, and above all, when she heard him declare, that of music and dancing he was passionately fond, she gave him such a look of approbation as secured the largest share of his discourse to herself for the rest of his stay.
The images of Moors you posted do not represent real people, the images are more or less allegories with the Moor in the middle symbolising blue blood and Black superiority. For some weird reason artist used a white skin to represent beauty. The word beauty refers to whiteness: Austen uses handsome and pretty when she talks about Black beauty. Beauty was not a neutral word.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egmond - My way is obviously quite different from yours. I lack the ability to extrapolate and create a complete picture, so I trudge along, looking for evidences, so as to form my complete picture.
Yes, it is clear that the Europe of 200, 300 years ago, was quite different than it is today, race-wise. But I tend to be more comfortable using sources like "The Royal book of crests": artifacts - though modified, and sources like:
Title: America as a Land of Opportunity
Author: Benjamin Franklin
Year: 1751
Type of document: essay
Quotation: "Why increase the Sons of Africa...where we have so fair an Opportunity...of increasing the lovely White and Red?"
Quote: why should the Palatine Boors [Germans] be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.
(He was obviously speaking about THESE people: the Holy Roman Empire was German and Based in Germany).
Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.
But the fact is: the Germans DID acquire their Complexion. Solving the mystery of HOW that happened, and WHY that happened, will require a bit more than reading Jane Austen. And it will also require - proof.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
The decline of the Roman Empire was a slow process, which occurred over a period of over 350 years. Beginning at about 100 A.D. and culminating on September 4, 476, when Romulus Augustus, the last Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, was deposed by Odoacer, a Germanic chieftain.
Using common sense:
Does Odoacer look more like THIS German, from about the same time.
[over de overgrootvader van Alexander Pushkin, Ibrahim Hannibal?]
Dus nu na twee jaar stel ik vast dat ik de enige persoon in de hele wereld ben die een theorie over het ontstaan van de adel heeft, dus The Big Bang van de adel.
Tegelijkertijd verklaar ik racisme tegen zwarten als een bevrijdingsideologie en onthul ik dat al die zwarten, Moren, in de westerse kunst symbolen zijn van blauw bloed. De adel zelf-identificeerde zich als Zwart. Sommigen hadden klassieke Afrikaanse gelaatstrekken dat stond voor 'puur adellijk bloed.'
Intussen heb ik vastgesteld dat Menselijke rassen in 1760 werden verzonnen om witten een menselijke status te geven omdat zij tot die tijd slechts werden gehouden voor menselijk leer om schoenen, kleding en boekenkaften voor de zwarte en bruine adel te leveren.
Racisme is dus een bevrijdingideologie om witte lijfeigenen en horigen te leren om hun zwarte adellijke meesters niet langer te vereren als superieure wezens, maar te haten als semi-apen.
De verklaring van de rechten van de mens was dus aannemelijk voor de gelijkheid van witten met hun zwarte en bruine meesters en dat men hun huid niet langer zou gebruiken om schoenen te maken.
Witten, zoals wij ze vandaag kennen, hun witte identiteit; dateert van 1848 toen de horigen en lijfeigenen definitief werden bevrijdt. Dit lijd ik onder ander af van het onderbelichte feit dat er tot in de 19e eeuw er handel in mensenhuid was in Europa.
Verder kwam ik tot de conclusie dat de essentie van witheid het haten van zwarten is. Racistische tirades zijn daarom gericht op witten om hen binnen het witte gareel te houden.
Hiermee ben ik één van de weinige zwarte onderzoekers die witten niet zondermeer als slecht en verdorven en als leugenaars neerzet, maar aangeeft dat zij zwaar getraumatiseerd zijn doordat hun voorouders werden gehouden als vee om mensenleer te leveren aan de adel, die zwart en gekleurd was. De haat richt zich ook tegen het symbool van zwarte superioriteit, het symbool van de Moor: de pikzwarte Afrikaanse mens.
Verder heb ik zodoende ook de zwarte Madonna's en Zwarte Jezussen nog steeds in Europese kerken te zien, als uitingen van zwarte superioriteit verklaard en aanwijzingen dat Europa (1500-1789) gezien moet worden als een zwarte beschaving.
Dat lijk mij een betere verklaring dan het huidige: wij weten niet waarom er zoveel zwarten in de westerse kunst zijn. Naast afbeeldingen van Moren zijn er natuurlijk ook de familie en geografische namen in heel Europa met het woord Moor als stam. Verwijzingen naar de zwarte afstamming van de familie en blauw bloed.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Of course, we already knew that the REAL Germans/Celts were Black people, from the 4,600-year-old graves found at Eulau, Germany.
.
So the fastidious person might well ask: So why or when, did you start using German for Whites? (This is embarrassingly, after chiding Clyde for using Cro-Magnon instead of Grimaldi).
The simple answer is The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (56-118 A.D.). (Or rather - the "TRANSLATION" of Tacitus). As some may recall, he described the Germanics as: "All have fierce blue eyes, red hair, huge frames, fit only for a sudden exertion." Since that fits the Albino Whites to a "T", I went along with it.
And yes, this in the face of other authors like Jordanes, calling them by their true name - Goths.
Of course I have never trusted White translators: The height of their mischief being their hilarious translation of Strabo's geography. Were he goes into the most minute details of Iberian Dress and Customs: BUT NEVER DESCRIBES THE PEOPLE!
Of course, common sense tells us that Strabo did indeed describe the Iberians, the White translators simply redacted those parts.
Now the task is to separate references to German, which means Whites, from references to German, which means the indigenous people. Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
You and I are talking in order to forge a vision to liberate Blacks from white supremacy. It needs to be clear and practical, and we do not wait for approval by the very people we want to liberate Blacks from. We reject their ways and their means of approbation. I have noticed that all the noted Black American researchers today receive the highest accolades from white universities.
This should tell us something about their ideas of how to get Blacks out of this racist hell, and more importantly: how whites perceive their methods to bring about a change. Their methods will not bring a change because they are based in eurocentricity. Many studies are ideologically racist, so of little use to you and me. So I suggest we are not going to emulate those Black American professors, as well. As a researcher you know how biased science can be; sometimes it should be read as some weird fairytale by a professor who was masturbating himself while he wrote something down or banging a student or two. It sucks, its stupid. Yet he is assured of getting his monthly pay check and all the young hopefuls to fornicate with on campus.
I do not know what you mean by proof? Especially while you have already all the necessary facts at your disposal to put two and two together. Reading Jane Austen and analysing her work is a means to an end. She was living in a period when things were changing and she commented on those changes. Just like a writer might write about things which are happening today. Not as a scientist, but as an artist, although he, just like Austen, might consult works of science. I have pointed out in my two articles about Austen that the white scholars as one body ignore the black and browness in Austens novels. That is a combination of sources creating knew knowledge.
When you are consulting classical writers its just the same. They are no more or less objective then Jane Austen, and they had their own reasons, based on the needs and the moods of their times, to write things down as they did. I myself favour the more recent writers because I cannot see how things from 1000 years ago are influencing our politics today.
I have noted in another thread that Dr.Nell Irvin Painter used a wrong source to conclude that Madame de Staël was transparently, super white, while many other sources say she was very black of complexion. Austen was invited to meet De Staël but declined. The reasons are lost because her loving sister slashed all her letters.
The pre-historic European nations had all complexions and had all possible peoples of the world among their multitude. Perhaps a certain tribe consisted of more members of a certain colour or descent then others, perhaps some had more ‘race-mixing’ then others.
But what we need to do is decide on a model in order to be able to move on and built a theory. The fact that they were German speaks about geography, culture, language, history, not especially about their complexion. Yet the first Germans who arrived in the US came from areas where the people were brown and black from complexion.
The Eurocentric way of approaching ethnicity is always to forge a link between looks and mentality and behaviour. There are writers who make a connection between Alessandro de Medici’s blackness and his wildness. Or that Charlotte Sophie Mecklenburg had such a nasty personality because she was Black. Now I read how evil Turks are, and how they hate Blacks. Or I read that mulattoes are bad people. I cannot understand for the live of me why a educated, intelligent person will say these things.
Black is foremost an identity, not a sum of biometry, and I feel that American Blacks have been eating this whiteman **** for too long not to fall and remain in this trap. Did not you notice that biometry and cranio-metry are only used to define Blacks? I never heard of them measuring whites. The Black man, the first human, is the interloper, not the whites. You have taught me that whites came from Asia, so lets stick to that, they came to Europe and encountered Blacks and browns, who later came to dominate them.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK Mods of ESR. The customer has spoken. Is he always right? Let’s see some customer service here. Feedback is “too many bosses”. And “no freedom of speech”. When ES dies(plug is pulled) there will be a void to fill. Think business. More market share!!!!! Be ready. Bass, Sage, Brada, Homely etc?
You made this site what is!!!!
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: ESR.
quote: Mike once pointed out to me that the ES site was the only site in the world dedicated to free speech of Afrocentrist. And he was right. Now I read that this site will be closed down in 2012.
ESR can never replace ES because there are too many leaders at the site who disrespect us . e left the Egyptology forum and made the Ancient Egypt forum the most discussed forum on the web.
.
.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xyyman there is freedom of speech just not freedom to spam and troll Are these rules soo heavy handed??
First we would like to welcome you and thank you for joining Egypt Search Reloaded. This site was started by members of another Egypt discussion board, in reaction to a series of undesirable posts, due to lack of moderation/administration.
It is our desire to create an inviting atmosphere, free from harassment and other gross and negligent behavior. We welcome all views, and the staff of this site does not collectively encourage one view over another. Posters are free to disagree with one another, as well as with staff members posting in various threads without fear of retribution. When a particular post is modified by a staff member, the user will be publicly notified of the reason for modification.
The following behavior is discouraged, and will be strictly moderated, which includes modifications or deletions of individual posts.
1. Profanity, or any use of explicit vulgar language.
2. Gross pornography and any links to pornographic material.
3. Defamation of character or Ad Hominem debates.
4. Spamming, flooding, advertising or other types of solicitation.
5. Invasion of privacy, which includes posting personal information about other members without their permission.
6. No user shall have more than one account or post under various User I.D.’s
Violations of the above will result in the following consequences:
1. 1st offense, users will be publicly admonished, and kindly asked to refrain from further distractions.
2. Second offense, violators will be sent an official warning
3. Third offense, violators will be temporarily banned (30, 60, or 90 days)
4. Frequent offenses will result in a permanent ban.
posted
Don't get me wrong. I think ESR is where it should be. It is a few steps away from over taking ES.
It is getting hits with Google almost as much as ES. It is almost there. Loosening up may help push ESR past ES.
As I said to Bass one time, we have to be patient with "trolls". Oleint/Lioness and CT should not be banned. I think he was banned for using the word "negro". I hate the term but it is still being used today. So. . . . .
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Egmond this is what happened. People were dark skinned In Europe for thousands of years.
When agriculture became widespread grain was introduced as a staple. Many people because deprived of vitamin D because there are few foods rich in vitamin D except fish.
It is primarly absorbed into the body through sunlight
-but the problem was that there is less sunlght in Northern latitudes. In addition due to colder temeprtures people wear clothes and this covers up most of the body and prevents it from being exposed to the sun.
Therfore these dark skinned people gradually lost there dark skin. It was protective against the sun in higher sunlight areas it also meant that vitamin D was absorbed at a slower rate. This was a problem beacause people had to wear clothing most of the time due to colder temperatures. So in this new set of circumstances their skin lightened so that what little they skin had exposed could absorb the vitamin D faster. It was a trade off. If they went back down to more equatorial latitudes they could get sunburn.
. You can see this in Africa also. Most people near the egautarial region of Africa have dark skin. If you look at the people who live in the South like the San (Khosian) people many have relatively lighter skin, a light brown.
This is the standard mainstream theory of why people developed lighter skin. There are some exception to it. For example people who eat a lot of fish can get adequate vitamin D despite living in low sunlight areas.
You might hear some alternate theories about light skin.
You have to ask yourself why people beleive these alternative theories. These alternative theories probablay have a component that makes then feel better about themselves in addition to serving political purposes. But the truth is not always that makes us feel better about ourselves. Sometimes truths are painful.
Some have to separate what is the best obervation from what we would like it to be to make us feel better. This is how religion operates it goes for the feel good explanation.
But you can't blame everything on relgion. Feelgoodism can be popular among atheists as well.
The white Dutch are former black Africans.
Even with the albino theory the conclusion is the same. Mike says that the Dravidians came from Africa and settled into Asia. He says that white people are black Dravidians who lost some of their skin color due to albinism.
The conclusion is the same:
The white Dutch are former black Africans.
So it doesn't even matter which theory you subscribe to.
Look at the African girl on the right. She's an albino. She probably has some eyesight problems and her skin can burn easily. Other than that she is basically these same as her tribes people.
posted
Mike, could you provide with a theory about the Black European Kings you an I are digging up. And why we are not told they were Blacks?
Reading The history of white man by Nell Irvin Painter I understand that Black American researcher are following an American tradition with a lot of emphasis on the Classics. But this is really euro centrism and is not useful for Blacks. Nothing has changed yet. So its time for thinking about new approaches, asking new question.
I am disappointed that Dr Painter does not give any attention to afrocentrism and studies about Blacks in the European diaspora. She hardly seems to quote Black researchers, just as we are used to that white researchers ignore Black scientist.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Don't get me wrong. I think ESR is where it should be. It is a few steps away from over taking ES.
It is getting hits with Google almost as much as ES. It is almost there. Loosening up may help push ESR past ES.
As I said to Bass one time, we have to be patient with "trolls". Oleint/Lioness and CT should not be banned. I think he was banned for using the word "negro". I hate the term but it is still being used today. So. . . . .
Banned for using the word "Negro"????
Really xyyman, what serious person would want to be affiliated with such a forum?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: Mike, could you provide with a theory about the Black European Kings you an I are digging up. And why we are not told they were Blacks?
Reading The history of white man by Nell Irvin Painter I understand that Black American researcher are following an American tradition with a lot of emphasis on the Classics. But this is really euro centrism and is not useful for Blacks. Nothing has changed yet. So its time for thinking about new approaches, asking new question.
I am disappointed that Dr Painter does not give any attention to afrocentrism and studies about Blacks in the European diaspora. She hardly seems to quote Black researchers, just as we are used to that white researchers ignore Black scientist.
Judging from the summary, her book seems to address your question:
Quote: Our story begins in Greek and Roman antiquity, where the concept of race did not exist, only geography and the opportunity to conquer and enslave others. Not until the eighteenth century did an obsession with whiteness flourish, with the German invention of the notion of Caucasian beauty. This theory made northern Europeans into “Saxons,” “Anglo-Saxons,” and “Teutons,” envisioned as uniquely handsome natural rulers.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egmond - In dismissing her book, you are loosing sight of one of our greatest mysteries: When and How did racism start?
Look at the clues: The British monarchy was Black, the Holy Roman monarchy was Black. They were all German! It culminated in Hitler - he was German!
She traces the beginning of Racism to 18th century Germany. What Happened?
I hope you will read the book carefully, then let me know if I should read it. You never know, she may have uncovered something. Then again, it may just be a superficial bit of fluff.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Egmond - In dismissing her book, you are loosing sight of one of our greatest mysteries: When and How did racism start?
Look at the clues: The British monarchy was Black, the Holy Roman monarchy was Black. They were all German! It culminated in Hitler - he was German!
She traces the beginning of Racism to 18th century Germany. What Happened?
I hope you will read the book carefully, then let me know if I should read it. You never know, she may have uncovered something. Then again, it may just be a superficial bit of fluff.
You have not read her book so you cannot defend it, or comment on the contents in any way. But evn worse, you never read anything I have been posting on this site.
======================
[A great Germanic hero: this was most likely on Emersons’s heated mind while he was doing 'science']
Dear Cousin Mike111,
My humble approach to literature while doing research is like this: you order as many books on your research subject as you can at the library, and then you look at the list of chapters and the index at the end. And you look at the list of illustrations. Some books you can discard at once, other need closer scrutiny. Soon you will be able to make a shift and pay the promising ones some closer inspection. Seldom will you read a book cover to cover.
I have read most of The History of White man by Nell Painter, mostley the parts that deal with the European elite. But the book made me understand Black American researchers better, because they seem to follow some tradition of American historiography, which to my mind has no benefit for any Black person. Why study American scientist who do not acknowledge Blacks as People, nor as Americans.
The obsession with ‘races’ among the whites is most bewildering to me: what the hell are they talking about? All a Black person needs to know is that whites come from albinism, and they are bad news, because they are fucked up, as their ancestors were kept for shoe leather by the Black nobility.
You should do some spotty reading as she also discusses this thing about some Germanic tribe having ‘piercing blue eyes.’ Common sense tell us that its not possible for a whole tribe or a whole nation to have piercing blue eyes. Its goddam mythology.
Sister Nell seems to confirm what I said about professors masturbating themselves and presenting the result as ‘science.’ I laughed for an hour as she wrote about Horatio Greenough as ‘Steeped in things Greek.’ So Emerson and his fuckbuddy Greenough somehow elevated there blond, muscled punk, boyfriends into Germanic Heroes, playing a great joke on the prudish and sanctified Americans.
I really do not see any ‘races’ among the whites, let alone that slight differences in looks could explain ‘historical determination.’ the whole ‘determination’ thing sucks.
Mike, honestly, if a talent like yours could only be nurtured, like someone sending you euro 5000 so you could stay in Turkey for three months, get to know the charming and friendly Turks and visit all the hundreds archaeological sites and museums they have, you would have a more refined outlook.
Try to be practical and useful to Blacks as we are the only four of five persons left who study native Blacks in Europe, Black Kings no less. And that these whites can be nothing else but descendents of albinos, a simple fact they do not want to hear, but every Black person immediately understands. This is the piece of history which must be prevented from disappearing as it will spell the annihilation of Blacks that Jane Austen has predicted.
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: [QUOTE]You have not read her book so you cannot defend it, or comment on the contents in any way. But evn worse, you never read anything I have been posting on this site.
I confess to not reading much of your stuff either, but really, this passage did give me quite a chuckle!! Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Don't get me wrong. I think ESR is where it should be. It is a few steps away from over taking ES.
It is getting hits with Google almost as much as ES. It is almost there. Loosening up may help push ESR past ES.
As I said to Bass one time, we have to be patient with "trolls". Oleint/Lioness and CT should not be banned. I think he was banned for using the word "negro". I hate the term but it is still being used today. So. . . . .
Banned for using the word "Negro"????
Really xyyman, what serious person would want to be affiliated with such a forum?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic