quote:Originally posted by xyyman: God damn! you got me. you win. 500yo "documented" history from lying Europeans beats modern genetic science. How can I argue with that.
I wouldn't bother with genetic evidence as most people don't understand it and won't even try.What the heck, I don't understand it myself. There is nothing better than pretty pictures and there are lots of them from the official, approved, authoritative and most importantly whiter than white sources.
Some art historians so far haven't worked out one of the reasons Charles IV propagated the cult of St Maurice so much in his time.
I suspect most of the denials we see are coming from people whose know these truths but have been given the job of ensuring that the majority of white people never get to know or even hear about these things. Their job is to challenge and deny the information no matter how stupid it makes them look and they will never stop.
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
so you think swarthy caucasians are black people?
^^^ In other words, if paintings were done of these people and they were depicted with medieval crowns and robes, certain nutty black folk will look at the paintings and will claim they were black people. But genetically they would be more similar to lighter skinned Europeans then to Africans or anybody else. And the darker skinned males are of the same ancestry as their female counterparts, who are sometimes lighter skinned and that is also an "ideal" (not in my opinon) but promoted in ancientl times as well as today with the skin bleaching, probably a status symbol for women, in that some were wealthy enough to be provided for indoors, spend most of their times indoors primping and not have to farm the fields which would be evidenced by a tan. (Ironically a sun tan today can be a status symbol, in that it can make one appear, if in winter, that one the had money take a plane, go on vacation and lie at the beach drinking tropical cocktails
This constant focus on European art, with certain Black folk is a form of denial of one's Africaness. And to cover up this denial they will make racist remarks about white people in order to trick other black people into their delusion, the false assumption that if it upsets white people it must be pro-black. But of course it's not pro-black. What it is, is wanting to be the colonizer instead of wanting to be the colonized but distorting history in an attempt to do it. It's a form of covert coconut-ism What self respecting person of African descent would name themselves after an aristocratic family of inbred royal albinos, the people who first authorized the Trans Atlantic slave trading and European conquests of Central America?? Indeed as per history there is much confusion and paranoid delusion amongst black folk today, much bizarre backward stretching going on
Afrocentrics on the other hand like Molife Asante, Diop, Dr Ben, Obenga, Chancelor Williams, who wrote books don't go into European art and try to pretend swarthy caucasians were black people.They focus on African civilization (also Moorish conquests) The people who do this European fantasizing are not Afrocentrics
These nutty black people obsessed with European art are accurately identified as
Black Eurocentrics
The anonymous person known as Mike111 on this very forum, through his own website is actually the world's foremost proponent of Black Eurocentrism
Some Black Eurocentrics, not all, even believe the first human beings on earth originated in Europe, not Africa and were Black. Then, they say it was only many thousands of years later that whites invaded Europe and blacks fled into Africa for the first time and which at that time was uninhabited Then, they say, later the lying albinos made up their so called "Out of Africa" theories to try to trick Black people into thinking they came from there. Obviously if white people are promoting the OOA theory it must be a lie, real talk
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Eh? Are you saying that guy is 'black' or swarthy? He's clearly white skinned, compare his hands to the woman. Its a 600-700 year old painting, so its not a surpise his face has got a little darker. He's still clearly light skinned though.
If this is your definition of 'black', then who is white? You seem to be colour blind and label black or dark well into light white pigmentation.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: So I repeat. What happened to the black Kings of Europe ?
Where is the evidence for them? But I guess it depends what you mean by 'black'?
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: God damn! you got me. you win. 500yo "documented" history from lying Europeans beats modern genetic science. How can I argue with that.
Quote from the new dec2014 paper:
false-paternity between Edward III (1312–1377) and John would mean that John’s son, Henry IV (1367–1413), and Henry’s direct descendants (Henry V and Henry VI) would have had NO LEGITIMATE CLAIM to the crown. This would also hold true, indirectly, for the entire Tudor dynasty (Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I) since their claim to the crown also rested, in part, on their descent from John of Gaunt. The claim of the Tudor dynasty would also be brought into question if the false paternity occurred between John of Gaunt and his son, John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset. If the false paternity occurred in either of the three generations between Edward III and Richard, Duke of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, then neither of their claims to the crown would have been legitimate.
God damn! you got me. you win. 500yo "documented" history from lying Europeans beats modern genetic science. How can I argue with that.
your argument makes no sense, the modern genetic science on Richard III was researched and published by "lying Europeans"
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have said this from the very beginning. I believe in scientific data first before what is written by lying delusion Europeans. SO FAR, they haven't started falsifying the scientific data. But I expect they would soon.
They try to "spin" the meaning of the data. Or highlight insignificant portions to perpetuate their myth.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] I have said this from the very beginning. I believe in scientific data first before what is written by lying delusion Europeans. SO FAR, they haven't started falsifying the scientific data.
How do you know? You were in the lab?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Eh? Are you saying that guy is 'black' or swarthy? He's clearly white skinned, compare his hands to the woman. Its a 600-700 year old painting, so its not a surpise his face has got a little darker. He's still clearly light skinned though.
If this is your definition of 'black', then who is white? You seem to be colour blind and label black or dark well into light white pigmentation.
Anyone who sees this thread can understand why Mike describes white people as - here it comes, DEGENERATE LYING ALBINOS, of which you are a good example.
The picture above portrays Charles IV with a chocolate brown complexion in various shades, from plain dark to light (as in chocolate with milk added) and you (ie Dead) claim that a chocolate brown is the same as the regular "white" colour, the pink/cream blend of Nothern Europeans (otherwise described as flesh tones) in which his wife Anna von Schweidnitz is portrayed.
An alternative to the chocolate brown used to describe Charles IV's complexion would be the colour of vanilla pods, bistre, and seal brown
I am describing the complexion of Charles IV as a matter of record, because I can see that what is happening here is that people like Dead and Lioness are banking on the fact that one day the image links will not be functioning, with the result that there will be no record of consensus as to what the images portrayed. I am beginning to believe that most of the responses denying the presence of images of Blacks in Europe are being put here as matter of record, not for the purposes of reasonable debate, like a court transcript which can be reviewed and debated in the future.
The question must be asked - what incentivizes or compensates people for making comments which make them out to be plain fools, if not outrightly mendacious, in such a plain and public manner?
As to the standard excuse/explanation that Charles IV's complexion is due to a deterioration of the pigments, the question must be asked as to why Anna von Scheidnitz complexion is not equally affected, and why only Charles IV's skin (hands, face and neck) has been affected, and not his clothing, or the cross he is holding.
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
Eh? Are you saying that guy is 'black' or swarthy? He's clearly white skinned, compare his hands to the woman. Its a 600-700 year old painting, so its not a surpise his face has got a little darker. He's still clearly light skinned though.
If this is your definition of 'black', then who is white? You seem to be colour blind and label black or dark well into light white pigmentation.
Anyone who sees this thread can understand why Mike describes white people as - here it comes, DEGENERATE LYING ALBINOS, of which you are a good example.
The picture above portrays Charles IV with a chocolate brown complexion in various shades, from plain dark to light (as in chocolate with milk added) and you (ie Dead) claim that a chocolate brown is the same as the regular "white" colour, the pink/cream blend of Nothern Europeans (otherwise described as flesh tones) in which his wife Anna von Schweidnitz is portrayed.
An alternative to the chocolate brown used to describe Charles IV's complexion would be the colour of vanilla pods, bistre, and seal brown
I am describing the complexion of Charles IV as a matter of record, because I can see that what is happening here is that people like Dead and Lioness are banking on the fact that one day the image links will not be functioning, with the result that there will be no record of consensus as to what the images portrayed. I am beginning to believe that most of the responses denying the presence of images of Blacks in Europe are being put here as matter of record, not for the purposes of reasonable debate, like a court transcript which can be reviewed and debated in the future.
The question must be asked - what incentivizes or compensates people for making comments which make them out to be plain fools, if not outrightly mendacious, in such a plain and public manner?
As to the standard excuse/explanation that Charles IV's complexion is due to a deterioration of the pigments, the question must be asked as to why Anna von Scheidnitz complexion is not equally affected, and why only Charles IV's skin (hands, face and neck) has been affected, and not his clothing, or the cross he is holding.
^^^ Hapsburg, this is a black man?
Above you show a painting of apparently swarthy caucasian Charles IV and Anne Adore that is located at Karlstejn Castle
For context let's look at other paintings at Karlstejn Castle
Here's another painting of Charles IV
Richard's father-in-law Emperor Charles IV and brother-in-law presented to the Virgin by royal saints, Bohemia ca. 1370 (detail from the Votive Panel of Archbishop Jan Očko of Vlašim)
check homey's hands out ^^^
Full panel Votive Panel of Archbishop Jan Očko of Vlašim
Hapsburg will you stop the delusional nonsense. Mike shows the same painting on his website. But of course he has all these other figures cut out That doesn't give you a proper full context. He hides it
What do you see here? Is it King Charles IV, a slightly darker than pale caucasian kneeling before a white Virgin Mary
or is it a black man kneeling before a white Virgin Mary?
That's all your options.
And are any of these other people in the painting black people?
Have you ever in your life seen a South European so called "white" person who has brown skin? They exist you know, millions of them. And they don't all live in Southern Europe, some of them move to other places in Europe, I realize it's incredible Have you heard of Spain, Italy and Greece or only Germany and Norway?
And Mike is not even backing you up. You're out here on your own getting eaten by the lioness
O.K. now let's go back to Karlstejn Castle. Guess what? They actually did do a painting of a black person there. Let's look
Again, we need context, here's a pink boy from the castle: Charlemagne ( (Latin: Carolus or Karolus Magnus)
Mikeology is a drug It fvcks with your mind
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Mikeology is a drug It fvcks with your mind
I'll be damned. Learn to speak for yourself. You are the one with the hard on for Mike, always chasing him around and trying to have a counter to his comments, and because you assume that I follow him blindly, you have begun chasing me around as well.
Take this thread as well. My response to Dead was that there are written records describing some European royals as swarthy and even added some paintings and sculptures which back those descriptions. Did you see me write anything describing Charlemagne or Queen Elizabeth as black or African? The word swarthy means black anyway, as in complexion, not necessarily race.
Because of your issues with Mike, you have gone on a wild tangent unrelated to the point being raised. My focus is on the painting I loaded, and Dead's response to it, ie he stated the complexions are close enough when in fact they are totally different. Diluting chocolate as much as you like will not give you the pink color of a white person, as pink comes from diluting red, not from diluting chocolate brown. What does all your pictures have to do with this point?
You are the one making the statement that Mikeology fvcks with a person's mind.
No, It ain't so
It is your embarrassment at Afrocentrics, Hebrew Israelites, van Sertima and what nots that is fvcking with YOUR mind, not Mikeology.
Speak for yourself
As to the presence of European kings being swarthy enough to be described as black in Europe, how about this:
quote: Eleanor of Aragon (the fourth person from the left), the Queen of Portugal with daughter Johanna (first person from the left), daughter Isabella (second person from left), granddaughter Eleanor (third person from the left) daughter Catherine (fifth person from the left), husband Edward I (sixth person from left), her father Johann I (fifth person from the right), son Alfonso (third person from right) and son Fernando (before the table
Now go ahead and tell me that the complexions of the Black men shown at the centre of the painting above are anything near the white of the other people in it?
Here is a close up of the "Black" Portuguese kings
Is the complexion of these three European men below you posted in your previous response anything near that of two kings above?
Lioness why are you such a sucker for punishment?
I am beginning to arrive at the opinion that just by responding to you I am engaging in conduct unseemly of a Habsburg, even a fantasy make pretend wannabe a Habsburg .
I bid you a Good Night and a Goodbye. Farewell.
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Habsburg, not sure how I can respond when you are evidently colour blind.
This guy has pale white skin. His hands are the same complexion as the female. Only his face appears a bit darker, but his face is still not a "chocolate brown complexion".
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
"swarthy enough to be described as black in Europe"
I am beginning to arrive at the opinion that just by responding to you I am engaging in conduct unseemly of a Habsburg, even a fantasy make pretend wannabe a Habsburg .
yes but I am nearly the only one replying to you
Some Portugese men
swarthy enough to be described as black in Europe
If paintings were made of these men and they were dressed like kings you would be swearing they were black people
They're called Hispanics look into it
swarthy Italians
"swarthy enough to be described as black in Europe" (but laughed at in the U.S. ) Carlo De Medici
High yella Moroccan dude
"you got a problem?" Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Southern Italians were considered “black” in the South and were subjected to the Jim Crow laws of segregation. They weren’t allowed to marry “whites.” It was difficult, damn near impossible.
They were designated as “black” on census forms if they lived in the South and that is because the majority of them were dark-skinned Sicilians.
Mass lynchings happened to them often.
One of the biggest mass lynchings happened to Italians in New Orleans when they thought that a Italian immigrant had killed a “white” police officer.
The very few Northern Italians that immigrated here perpetuated the myth that Southern Italians and Greeks were of a different race than them in order to save their own asses. This wasn’t true, and there are actually dark-skinned Italians all over Italy, not just in the South, as well as light-skinned Italians all over Italy.
The reason I say very few is because over 80% of Italian immigrants were from Southern Italy (Sicily, Abruzzo, Calabria, Campania, Sardinia, Naples, etc.)
It was highly unlikely (damn near impossible) for a Southern Italian to own a slave because they were seen as the same as blacks, and at the time, they were the second (right behind blacks) most discriminated against group.
The mass immigration for Italians didn’t start until 1880 and even then, they were discriminated against. However, this mass immigration leads into Italian-Americans today:
Italian is the fourth largest ethnic group reported among white Americans.
The great majority of Italians are now middle class to upper middle class and wealthy. They also mostly work white collar jobs.
Their intermarriage rate is around 90%. It was at 80% in the 70’s. So most Italian-Americans also have a white parent of some other descent, especially if they were born after 1980. Exactly like my friend who has a Sicilian father (and he is very dark-skinned) and white Southerner for a mother. We spoke to my friend’s Sicilian grandfather, and he said that one of his brothers was dating a white girl from the South back in the day and that her family considered him “black.” They thought that was weird because by that time, they were living in New York.
They are now considered white
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: why are you saying Marcus Aurelius was a moor? based on what?
I am saying that Europe was originally the land of the Muurs of Ethiopia and Mauritania... Including the Black Scottish tribe of Macraes...
quote:Originally posted by TRUTH HITMAN: Dr. Johnson, in his Journey to the Hebrides, thus beautifully describes the people of Auchnasheal Scotland The M'Craas or Macraes people 1715 A.D
"We soon afterwards came to Auchnasheal, a kind of rural village, a number of cottages being built together, as we saw all along in the High lands. We passed many miles this day without seeing a house, but only little summer-huts, called shielings."--------------The Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides, with Samuel Johnson p 131
"We had a considerable circle about us, men, women, and children, all M'Craas, Lord Seaforth's people. Not one of them could speak English. I observed to Dr. Johnson, it was much the same as being with a tribe of Indians. — Johnson-." --------------The Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides, with Samuel Johnson p 131
"There was great diversity in the faces of the circle around us : some were as black and wild in their appearance as any American savages . "----------The Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides, with Samuel Johnson p 132
An account of the Isle of Sky Dr. Johnson
"Our boatmen were rude singers, and seemed so like wild Indians, that a very little imagination was necessary to give one an impression of being upon an American river.-------The Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides, with Samuel Johnson p 261
Description of Mr Malcolm Macleod and the Macleods
Mr. Malcolm Macleod, one of the Rasay family, celebrated in the year 1745-6. He was now sixty-two years of age, hale, and well-proportioned, — with a manly countenance, and tanned by the weather, yet having a ruddiness in his cheeks, over a great part of which his rough beard extended. — His eye was quick and lively, yet his look was not fierce, but he appeared at once firm and good- humored --------The Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides, with Samuel Johnson p 152
We got into Rasay's carriage, which was a good strong open boat made in Norway. The wind had now risen pretty high, and was against us; but we had four stout rowers, particularly a Macleod, a robust black-haired fellow, half naked, and bare headed, something between a wild Indian and an English tar. ----The Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides, with Samuel Johnson p 152
"swarthy enough to be described as black in Europe"
I am beginning to arrive at the opinion that just by responding to you I am engaging in conduct unseemly of a Habsburg, even a fantasy make pretend wannabe a Habsburg .
yes but I am nearly the only one replying to you
Some Portugese men
swarthy enough to be described as black in Europe
If paintings were made of these men and they were dressed like kings you would be swearing they were black people
quote: Figure 1. Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups in Iberian, North African, and Sephardic Jewish Samples Binary marker phylogeny of the Y chromosome, showing mutations on the branches of the tree, and shorthand haplogroup names40 immediately beneath. Haplogroups unobserved in any sample are indicated by dashed branches on the tree. Below the phylogeny are given the percentages of chromosomes carrying the observed haplogroup. Abbreviations are as follows: n, sample size; h, Nei’s unbiased estimator of gene diversity. Data on North African populations are from the literature (see footnotes). a Data from Bosch et al.34 b Data from Arredi et al.,47 with haplogroup prediction for hgG. c Subhaplogroups of R1b3 were not typed in the Sephardic Jewish sample.
quote: Figure 4. Iberian, North African, and Sephardic Jewish Admixture Proportions among Iberian Peninsula Samples Mean North African, Sephardic Jewish, and Iberian admixture proportions among Iberian samples, based on the mY estimator and on Moroccan, Sephardic Jewish, and Basque parental populations, are represented on a map as shaded bars on bar charts. Error bars indicate standard deviations, and three-letter codes indicate populations, as given in Figure 1.
--Susan M. Adams, Mark A. Jobling et al.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nehesy: "Ancient and Modern Britons" Vol I & II by David Mac Ritchie is full of evidence for existence of Black scots and among them " Kenneth King of Alban; who was known as Dubh, Niger or the Black " P 266 Vol I
* Macduff/Magha Dubh = The son of the blacks:The clan of the Black , Vol I P 266 (according to the swarthy and black colour of those of the tribe)
* Kenneth ruled blacks and whites in scotland ,Vol II p 87
* Magha Dubh shortened into McDuff , represented "one division of the posterity of this powerful black king", Vol II p 87
* Black Monks in Scotland, Vol II p 291
* P 272 ,The black races of Scotland , Vol I * P 116,about the ancestors of the McLeod : "from Leod,son to the Black prince of Man", Vol I
etc, etc
These 2 books are very embarrassing (with skeletal evidence , analyzed by Pr Huxley a scholar of that time) for Euronuts : Black Danes, Black Celts, Black Vikings,Black Huns,Black Druids,Black Hungarians,Black (Kara) Tartars of Genghis Khan, the Black Moors of Great Britain in General...
Bump.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: ^Shuush, simple idiot.
We know it is you no matter how many name changes you make. You apine blattering is always the same, never changes... LMBAO!
IronLion, I don't know who you think I am LOL, but I assure you whoever you think I am I am not. I'm a white female who is proud of my heritage & will not allow ignorant history stealing racist blacks like you to steal what is MY birth right.
If you're not of Northwest African descent, you need to stop claiming it as if it's yours. Stop stealing it as "your" heritage.
posted
I’m response to DHDOXIES AND THE LIONESS I’ve noticed that you guys haven’t mentioned the prominence of the tapers bloodline in Europe one of the three sons of Noah who inherited such lands as the khaukazis and Britannia , Yapeth was of the dark races and it was documented that he and his descendants mixed with the preadmites who were the cave dwelling Neanderthals of Europe , all bloodlines except for the blacks obtain Neanderthal DNA which clearly shows that the other races rooted from the red people of the earth mistermed black people
Posts: 7 | From: BABYLON - UK | Registered: Sep 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
@DHDoxies in terms of law and history it seems like your birthrite is insufficient as the royal arms of uk (stolen by khazars) clearly shows the tribe of yudah and Ephraim (the six lions and the unicorn as well as David’s harp on the bottom right , it’s a well known fact that the royal monarch of today have zero heritage to yisrael especially as their claim was through matrilineal rite rather than the known tradition of patrilineal let alone the fact of the red ruddy nobility of KJV being breed out
Posts: 7 | From: BABYLON - UK | Registered: Sep 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
You also stated your a white female , a female is defined as person opposite to the male gender , black laws dictionary 11th edition states that a person is a human being. A human being in bullentines dictionary 1930 describes a human being to be a monster ‘a sub monster can neither inherit blood nor be an heir to no land’ Double insufficient
Posts: 7 | From: BABYLON - UK | Registered: Sep 2020
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Are you saying that guy is 'black' or swarthy? He's clearly white skinned, compare his hands to the woman. Its a 600-700 year old painting, so its not a surpise his face has got a little darker. He's still clearly light skinned though.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
Printer-friendly view of this topic