Alcanadre (Alcanada) is a town and municipality in La Rioja province in northern Spain. The town is located along the Ebro River, between Logroño and Calahorra, near to Campo de la Mataruta where a battle was fought with the Moors and is mentioned in tej Chronicle of James I king of Aragon
Alcanadre, at 346 m above sea level and has a population of 764 people (INE 2008), was one of the most important towns of La Rioja. Before the Christian era, Alcanadre was located in the area of the Basques. This, based on Greek and Latin texts of Strabo, Livy and Ptolemy fundamentally. Vascón was for centuries and in the 5th century poet Prudentius of Calahorra still calls for "Basque Ebro" on their way Rioja. The territory, however, being deeply Romanized. Later Alcanadre was disputed by the Visigothic kingdom of Toledo extending a discontinuous in time to the valley of the Ebro Rioja. On arrival of the Moors in the area, in 714, had a command of Count Casio, eponymous family Qasi Banu, family dominates in La Ribera, in central Navarra Olite, on the banks of Aragon by Borja and Tarazona and finally, for almost all La Rioja. The Banu Qasi, very familiarly linked with Arista of Pamplona Basques represent the continuing presence of a Romanized Vasconia Ebro Valley
Thus in 714, the Banu Qasi, powerful family in the area, is Islamicized and organized the territory for Islam. The Arab presence in the area was actually a minority. Córdoba's power was exercised through the family originally vascona Qasi Banu closely linked to the Basques of Pamplona. The origin of Alcanadre Arabic should not be entirely as these the people gave it a name, and according to the Arabist Asin Palacios, this means the bridge or aqueduct arches, indicating that the Arabs conquered the people of the aqueduct.
Aradon was a town that was 7 km from Alcanadre, in the district of La Mesa. Its abbey, made with pieces of concrete, located next to the Hermitage, was devastated by the flooding of a gap between Alcanadre and Ausejo, creating a deep ravine. No one knows for sure when or why Aradon disappeared, but in deeds of 1800 is listed as uninhabited village. The only remnant that remains today, along with some stone of La Mesa, is the shrine of the Virgin of Aradon, patron saint of the town. In the chapel was a virgin of 1.2 meters, carved in a block of sandstone Templar era, remaining a tympanum of the Epiphany of the late twelfth century. It remains in the village church.
Below the Vatican desribes it as a collar. Have you seen such a collar before?
Below they say:
"Italian heraldry, however, usually depicts the Moor wearing a white band around his head instead of a crown, indicating a slave who has been freed; whereas in German heraldry the Moor is shown wearing a crown."
They don't explain why he is wearing a crown. Notice the large hoop earring. European kings don't hoop ear earrings. Ony some people like Sir Francis Drake and Shakespere wore smaller earrings in one ear to show they were worldly. As we had discussed before you can see painings of Mughal sultans wearing them but not European nobles. Ethiopians and Nubians did wear hoop earrings. Also these black heads in the heraldry never have names nor do European kings put themselves in the heraldry. My interpretation of the crown here is of an African who has been coverted to Christianity. As we see in herldry, historical events and people are not depicted. These things are symbols
Vatican website describing Pope Benedict XVI’s Coat of Arms
Popes often used their family shield or composed their own with symbols indicating their ideal of life or referring to past events or experiences, or even elements connected with specific Pontifical programmes. At times, they even added a variant to a shield that they had adopted on becoming a Bishop. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, elected Pope and taking the name Benedict XVI, has chosen a coat of arms rich in symbolism and meaning that transmits to history his personality and Pontificate. A coat of arms consists of a shield bearing several important symbols and surrounded by elements that indicate the person’s dignity, rank, title, jurisdiction and more. The shield chosen by Pope Benedict XVI is very simple: it is in the shape of a chalice, the most commonly used form in ecclesiastical heraldry. The field of Pope Benedict XVI’s shield, different from the composition on his shield as Cardinal, is now gules (red), chape or (gold). The principal field, in fact, is red. In each of the upper corners there is a “chape” in gold. The “chape” [cape] is a symbol of religion. It indicates an idealism inspired by monastic or, more specifically, Benedictine spirituality. Various Orders and Congregations, such as the Carmelites and the Dominicans, have adopted in their arms the form of the “chape”, although the latter only used it in an earlier form rather than their present one. Benedict XIII (1724-1730) of the Order of Preachers used the “Dominican chief” [heraldic term: upper part of the field] which is white divided by a black “chape”. Pope Benedict XVI’s shield contains symbols he had already used in his arms when he was Archbishop of Munich and Freising, and subsequently as Cardinal. However, they are arranged differently in the new composition. The principal field of the coat of arms is the central one which is red. At the point of honour of the shield is a large gold shell that has a triple symbolism. Its first meaning is theological. It is intended to recall a legend attributed to St Augustine. Meeting a child on the beach who was trying to scoop up the sea into a hole in the sand, Augustine asked him what he was doing. The child explained his vain attempt and Augustine took it to refer to his own futile endeavour to encompass the infinity of God within the confines of the limited human mind. The legend has an obvious spiritual symbolism; it is an invitation to know God, yet with the humility of inadequate human understanding, drawing from the inexhaustible source of theology. The scallop shell, moreover, has been used for centuries to distinguish pilgrims. Benedict XVI wanted to keep this symbolism alive, treading in the footsteps of John Paul II, a great pilgrim to every corner of the world. The design of large shells that decorated the chasuble he wore at the solemn liturgy for the beginning of his Pontificate, Sunday, 24 April, was most evident. The scallop is also an emblem that features in the coat of arms of the ancient Monastery of Schotten near Regensburg (Ratisbon) in Bavaria, to which Joseph Ratzinger feels spiritually closely bound. In the part of the shield called “chape”, there are also two symbols that come from the Bavarian tradition which Joseph Ratzinger introduced into his coat of arms when he became Archbishop of Munich and Freising in 1977. In the dexter corner (to the left of the person looking at it) is a Moor’s head in natural colour [caput Aethiopum] (brown) with red lips, crown and collar. This is the ancient emblem of the Diocese of Freising, founded in the eighth century, which became a Metropolitan Archdiocese with the name of München und Freising in 1818, subsequent to the Concordat between Pius VII and King Maximilian Joseph of Bavaria (5 June 1817). The Moor’s head is not rare in European heraldry. It still appears today in the arms of Sardinia and Corsica, as well as in the blazons of various noble families. Italian heraldry, however, usually depicts the Moor wearing a white band around his head instead of a crown, indicating a slave who has been freed; whereas in German heraldry the Moor is shown wearing a crown. The Moor’s head is common in the Bavarian tradition and is known as the caput Ethiopicum or the Moor of Freising. A brown bear, in natural colour, is portrayed in the sinister (left) corner of the shield, with a pack-saddle on its back. An ancient tradition tells that the first Bishop of Freising, St Corbinian (born c. 680 in Châtres, France; died 8 September 730), set out for Rome on horseback. While riding through a forest he was attacked by a bear that tore his horse to pieces. Corbinian not only managed to tame the animal but also to make it carry his baggage to Rome. This explains why the bear is shown carrying a pack. An easy interpretation: the bear tamed by God’s grace is the Bishop of Freising himself; the pack saddle is the burden of his Episcopate. The shield of the Papal coat of arms can therefore be described (“blazoned”) in heraldic terms as follows: “Gules, chape in or, with the scallop shell of the second; the dexter chape with a moor’s head in natural colour, crowned and collared of the first, the sinister chape a bear trippant in natural colour, carrying a pack gules belted sable”. The shield carries the symbols connected to the person who displays it, to his ideals, traditions, programmes of life and the principles that inspire and guide him. The various symbols of rank, dignity and jurisdiction of the individual appear instead around the shield. It has been a venerable tradition for the Supreme Pontiff to surround his armorial shield with crossed keys, one gold and the other silver, in the form of a St Andrew’s cross: these have been variously interpreted as symbols of spiritual and temporal power. They appear behind the shield or above it, and are quite prominent. Matthew’s Gospel recounts that Christ said to Peter: “I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16: 19). The keys are therefore the typical symbol of the power that Christ gave to St Peter and his Successors. Thus, it is only right that they appear in every Papal coat of arms. In secular heraldry there is always some form of headpiece above the shield, usually a crown. In ecclesiastical heraldry it is also common for a headpiece to be shown, but obviously of an ecclesiastical kind. The Supreme Pontiff’s arms have featured a “tiara” since ancient times. At the beginning this was a sort of closed “tocque”. In 1130 a crown was added, symbol of the Church’s sovereignty over the States. Boniface VIII, in 1301, added a second crown, at the time of the confrontation with Philip the Fair, King of France, to show that his spiritual authority was superior to any civic authority. It was Benedict XII in 1342 who added a third crown to symbolize the Pope’s moral authority over all secular monarchs, and reaffirmed the possession of Avignon. With time, although it lost its temporal meaning, the silver tiara with three gold crowns came to represent the three powers of the Supreme Pontiff: Sacred Orders, Jurisdiction and Magisterium. In past centuries, Popes wore the tiara at solemn official celebrations and especially on the day of the “coronation” at the beginning of their Pontificate. Paul VI used for this purpose a precious tiara which the Archdiocese of Milan had presented to him, just as it had given one to Pius XI; but afterwards, Paul VI donated it to a charity and introduced the current use of a simple “mitre”, although these mitres were sometimes embellished with ornaments or gems. But he left the “tiara” and the crossed keys as the emblem of the Apostolic See. Today, the ceremony that begins a Pontificate is no longer called a “coronation”. The Pope’s full jurisdiction begins the moment he accepts his election by the Cardinals in the Conclave and not with coronation as for secular monarchs. This ceremony, therefore, is simply called the solemn inauguration of his Petrine Ministry, as it was for Benedict XVI on 24 April. The Holy Father Benedict XVI decided not to include the tiara in his official personal coat of arms. He replaced it with a simple mitre which is not, therefore, surmounted by a small globe and cross as was the tiara. The Papal mitre shown in his arms, to recall the symbolism of the tiara, is silver and bears three bands of gold (the three powers: Orders, Jurisdiction and Magisterium), joined at the centre to show their unity in the same person. On the other hand, there is also a completely new symbol in the arms of Pope Benedict XVI: the “pallium”. It is not part of the tradition, at least in recent years, for the Supreme Pontiffs to include it in their arms. Yet the pallium is the typical liturgical insignia of the Supreme Pontiff and frequently appears in ancient portrayals of Popes. It stands for the Pope’s responsibility as Pastor of the flock entrusted to him by Christ. In early centuries the Popes used a real lambskin draped over their shoulders. This was later replaced by a stole of white wool woven with the pure wool of lambs reared specially for the purpose. It was decorated with several crosses that were generally black in the early centuries, or occasionally red. Already by the fourth century the pallium had become a liturgical symbol proper to and characteristic of the Pope. The Pope’s conferral of the pallium upon Metropolitan Archbishops began in the sixth century. Their obligation to postulate the pallium after their appointment is attested as far back as the ninth century. In the famous long iconographic series of medallions in St Paul’s Basilica that portrays all the Popes of history (the earliest portrayals are idealized), many Supreme Pontiffs are shown wearing the pallium, especially those between the fifth and 14th centuries. The pallium is therefore not only the symbol of Papal jurisdiction, but also the explicit and brotherly sign of sharing this jurisdiction with the Metropolitan Archbishops, and through them, with their suffragan Bishops. It is thus the visible sign of collegiality and subsidiarity. In heraldry in general, both civic and ecclesiastical (particularly for lower ranks), it is customary to place a ribbon or cartouche below the shield, bearing a motto or a heraldic device. It expresses in a few words an ideal or a programme of life. In his Episcopal arms, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had chosen the motto “Cooperatores Veritatis”. This remains his aspiration or personal programme but does not appear in his Papal arms, in accordance with the tradition common to the Supreme Pontiffs’ arms in recent centuries. We all remember that John Paul II would often quote his motto, “Totus Tuus”, although it did not feature in his Papal arms. The absence of a motto in the Pope’s arms implies openness without exclusion to all ideals that may derive from faith, hope and charity.
posted
The Vatican is wrong when it is saying the white head band of the Moors is the symbol of freed slaves.The white head band is a religious symbol.The white head band of the Moors is the symbol of worship of the Sun God Nimrod according to Melo Josias.In King Tut tomb wall relief you can see the funeral people wearing a white head band.In EGSF thread the Chinese are from Egypt you can see Chinese funeral people dress in white and wearing a white head band.
The Crown is the symbol of Monarchy so a Moors wearing a crown is the symbol of black Kings that use to rule part of Europe.Thats what the Vatican article failed to say.
The Moorish symbols in Euro heraldry depict sometime an actual black European kings ancester of the current bleach white kings and sometime just the symbol of the glory, sophistication and knowledge of the black Moorish kings that white Euro wanted to be associated with.
quote:Originally posted by mena7: The Vatican is wrong when it is saying the white head band of the Moors is the symbol of freed slaves.The white head band is a religious symbol.The white head band of the Moors is the symbol of worship of the Sun God Nimrod according to Melo Josias.In King Tut tomb wall relief you can see the funeral people wearing a white head band.In EGSF thread the Chinese are from Egypt you can see Chinese funeral people dress in white and wearing a white head band.
you have no links, no sources to back what you claim. You mention the Chinese. That has nothing to do with the pictures of Moors with head bands. Nimrod isn't even mentioned in the Qu'ran. I never heard of Melo Josias. Who is he ? Do you have a quote of him? Nimrod is not mentioned in the Koran and Muslims consider Nimrod to be evil. Moors or Christians do not worship Nimrod. It makes no sense. Do you believe anything you read?
quote:Originally posted by mena7:
The Crown is the symbol of Monarchy so a Moors wearing a crown is the symbol of black Kings that use to rule part of Europe.Thats what the Vatican article failed to say. The Moorish symbols in Euro heraldry depict sometime an actual black European kings ancester of the current bleach white kings and sometime just the symbol of the glory, sophistication and knowledge of the black Moorish kings that white Euro wanted to be associated with.
Peter of Aragon being presented the chopped off heads of four defeated Moorish kings. The chopped off heads have crowns ( battle of alcoraz) original flag of Sardinia, blindfolded captives original coat of Arms Sardinia . later version blindfold changed to headband
^^^ see the blood dripping? They are not trying to show they admire Moors with this
.
If you recall the Christains were at war with the Muslims.
Look at the above art. It is European Christian art made by white people. In the painting of Peter of Aragon you see four kings of the Moors. Their names are not listed maybe unknown.
On the flags of Sardinia you see the same red cross from the painting and added are four Moors heads, each head looks exactly the same not like four different Moorish kings. It's because they didn't care who they were. They were from an enemy army
In the original version they are blindfolded. In the later version it was changed to a headband. A proper Moor is going to have a turban not a headband. The images in the European heraldry are fantasy cartoons of how Moors actually were.
The message is " "Moors watch out, we will chop off your head or make you a captive"
The above is Christian art and flags. They were at war with the Muslims. The above are symbols of white supremacy. The represent, the killed, the captive and the freed convert All of the above, the paintings and flags were made by white Christians to serve their purposes. Once these things become symbols people copy it over and over again in differnt heraldry, like you will see the virigin Mary over and over in herladry.
^^^^ This is what Moorish art looks like. Moors had their own art in spain and it looks different. They weren't into painting people and their religion didn't allow much of it. Do you see Moorish arhictecture and Mosques in medieval France, Germany or the Netherlands?
Remember they were the enemies of the Christians not their forefathers.
The Moorish invasion of Iberia was in 711. there are a lot of years of civilzation in Spain before that Prior to that Spain was ruled by Romans and Visigoths who converted to Roman Catholicism. The proper term for Moorish rulers is not "king"
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lioness you are generalising the symbol of the Moors on heraldries and flags. The Spanish images of the Moors was base on hatred because the Moors ruled their country for 700 years thats the reason why they portrayed the decapitated head of the Moors on their flags and heraldry.
The British and the German depicted the Moors a positive way in their heraldry and flags.The Moors in British heraldry was the symbol of powerful aristocratic British families.Their names was on the heraldry under the image of the Moors.Some scholars stated that those Moors/black people on heraldry are the image of real noble and king.For the evidence on British heraldry check realhistoryww.com British section, check JA Rodgers Nature color line,check Ivan Van Sertima African in Europe.
The white head band is not the symbol of freed slave.I think it is a religious symbol or a political symbol.It may be the symbol of the Sun God.I cant say the sun God was Nimrod because I have no proof but remember The Moors, Canaanites, Arabs and Persians have secret religion in their secret societies.Eyeball evidence show that the white headband was worn in funeral by A Egyptian and Chinese.Melo Josias is a Kongolese Pastor and writer.
Ha,ha,ha: Thanks Cass, every time I need an example of how Albinos use lies or fake images to further their silly fantasy histories, you hand something to me.
This is the picture that Cass linked at Wiki.
Moors as depicted by the Byzantine historian Johannes Skylitzes, 12th century (Skylitzes Manuscript)
The fake picture above is clearly intended to show that Moors weren't really Black people, but rather the Sand Nigger Mulattoes who currently claim to be moors.
But note below, how another set of Albino liars, in trying to create another lie (Blacks were BROUGHT TO IRELAND), prove the lie of another set of Albinos!
Corpus of Electronic Texts Edition
translated by Joan Newlon Radner Electronic edition compiled by Beatrix Färber, Maxim Fomin, Emer Purcell
Funded by University College Cork and
Professor Marianne McDonald via the CELT Project.
translated by Joan Newlon Radner Electronic edition compiled by Beatrix Färber, Maxim Fomin, Emer Purcell
FA 330
Thereupon the Norwegians swept across the country, and they devastated and burned the whole land. Then they brought a great host of them captive with them to Ireland, i.e. those are the black men. For Mauri is the same as nigri; 'Mauritania' is the same as nigritudo. Hardly one in three of the Norwegians escaped, between those who were slain, and those who drowned in the Gaditanian Straits. Now those black men remained in Ireland for a long time. Mauritania is located across from the Balearic Islands.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mena7: [QB] Lioness you are generalising the symbol of the Moors on heraldries and flags. The Spanish images of the Moors was base on hatred because the Moors ruled their country for 700 years thats the reason why they portrayed the decapitated head of the Moors on their flags and heraldry.
The British and the German depicted the Moors a positive way in their heraldry and flags.
^^^^ that's like saying this baseball team is portraying Indians in a positive way because he's smiling and there's no blood dripping
.
^^^ that's like saying this type of statue some white people in America used to put on their lawns is positive.
The positive use of the picture of the Moors is when they convert from Islam to Christianity.
The Almoravid movement started with a pilgimage to Mecca.
Islam was the religion of Moors at the time. The black people who the Europeans approved of were people like St. Maurice who was a Christian and defended Christians. Yes he lived before Islam but all this heraldry we are talking about comes after Islam and the Moors at that time were Muslim. And if they gave up Islam and joined the Christain soldiers then they were accepted.
I showed earlier the old flag of Sardina (lsland of Italy) and how it comes from Peter of Aragon with the for Moors heads:
The new flag:
^^^^ After the Moors were conquered and people converted to Christianity the symbol becomes less hateful people think it looks cute and put it on stuff. The message is you people are so hamless we can use you as a mascot. You can see over time even the blinfolded captive fours is not as negative chopped off heads.
You can't tell me that Charlemagne did not go to war with the Moors. You can't tell me that the French and Germans loved blacks and that what originated as chopped off heads is doing a 360 and becoming love. And these Holy Roman Catholic emperors who fought the Moors had controlled large territories including more than one country
What was happening was that over time they took an image of a miltary threat to them and transformed it into something harmless. Like the Cleveland Indians baseball team symbol. During the American Indian wars 1622–1924 where the Indians were putting up a fight against the Europeans the Euroepans are not going to be making cute pictures of smiling Indians.
And you know what American Indians think of that smiling Cleveland Indians baseball logo? They don't like it and don't want it to be used even though he's smiling and has no blood dripping.
quote:Originally posted by mena7:
The Moors in British heraldry was the symbol of powerful aristocratic British families. Their names was on the heraldry under the image of the Moors.Some scholars stated that those Moors/black people on heraldry are the image of real noble and king.For the evidence on British heraldry check realhistoryww.com British section, check JA Rodgers Nature color line,check Ivan Van Sertima African in Europe.
All of them are wrong and making up fantasies. Aristocratic familes used Moors and other symbols like the god Posidon, dragons and mermaids These are not how the people from those familes looked. Consider you might be wrong about this. Look at the portaits of the nobles from these families. They don't look like the Moors on the heraldry. Look at the Sardinia flag each of the four heads looks exactly the same, it's a symbol not real people.
people look at a herladry symbol that shows a Moor with a crown. Then they assume it was a black king of Europe because it has a crown. That is because they don't have deeper knowledge of the subject and they want to imagine they were a European king. Most of them were asshole dicators anyway, that is why today we have term limited elections.
^^^^ Look at this a coin from Barbados. 1788
The man has a crown. So did Barbados have a black king in 1788? Of course not black people were working on planations as slaves at the time. And below the head it says "I serve"
So we see what's up. These crowns are like like jokes, bad jokes and that is why I don't like this heraldry it's like they are making fun of us, that we are some harmeless they can put a crown on our head.
In aristocratic families of Europe if you had house slaves it showed you were wealthy. That is what you see here:
^^^ you see the woman here? She's a bitch she won't even make eye contact with the child. And where's the child's mother? Is she on the same continent?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The Barbados Slave Code of 1661 was a law passed by the colonial legislature to provide a legal base for slavery in the Caribbean island of Barbados. The code's preamble, which stated that the law's purpose was to "protect them [slaves] as we do men's other goods and Chattels," established that black slaves would be treated as chattel property in the island's court.
The Barbados slave code ostensibly sought to protect slaves from cruel masters and masters from unruly slaves; in practice, it provided far more extensive protections for masters than for slaves. The law required masters to provide each slave with one set of clothing per year, but it set no standards for slaves' diet, housing, or working conditions. However, it also denied slaves even basic rights guaranteed under English common law, such as the right to life. It allowed the slaves' owners to do entirely as they wished to their slaves, including mutilating them and burning them alive, without fear of reprisal.
Throughout British North America, slavery evolved in practice before it was codified into law. The Barbados slave code of 1661 marked the beginning of the legal codification of slavery. The Barbados Assembly reenacted the slave code, with minor modifications, in 1676, 1682, and 1688. The Barbados slave code also served as the basis for the slave codes adopted in several other British colonies, including Jamaica (1664), South Carolina (1696), and Antigua (1702).
The legal basis for slavery was established in Mexico in 1636. These statutes created the status of chattel slave for those of African descent, i.e. they were slaves for life and the status of slave was inherited. Slave status passed to through the mother in these statutes. Virginia's 1662 statute read, "All children borne in this country shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother.
Provenance: Donated to Notre Dame in 1887 as part of a 2,300 item coin collection
In 1788, at about the same time as some of the newly formed American states were coining coppers, a penny size copper, was minted in England for Barbados. The token is thought to have been privately commissioned by Phillip Gibbs, a local plantation owner. The obverse depicts a the national symbol, a pineapple, with the legend "Barbadoes Penny" and the date 1788. The reverse displays a bust of an African wearing a plumed crown and the legend "I serve". This coin comes in two basic types, one with a small pineapple and small head and the other with a larger pineapple and larger head. Within these categories there are variants based on gradations in the size of the pineapple and the amount of spacing between the numbers in the date. These dies were engraved by John Milton, who in 1789 became assistant engraver at the Royal Mint. Milton records that an issue was struck starting October 4, 1788. Pridmore lists two varieties (10 and 12) which were proofs made for sale to collectors and two varieties produced for circulation (11 and 13). There is another variety which Pridmore attributes to a second issue, possibly produced by J. G. Hancock in Birmingham (Pridmore no. 14). It appears several of the dies eventually ended up with Milton's friend, the London coin dealer Matthew Young. Some overstrikes on British trade tokens and fantasy restrikes in copper and silver, including a variety dated 1791, are attributed to Young.
In 1792, Phillip Gibbs again commissioned copper halfcents and cents to be produced by Milton in England. On the obverse, both denominations depict a crowned Neptune riding a chariot over the sea with the identifying legend "Barbadoes halfpenny" or "Barbadoes penny" above and the date 1792 below. Some identify the figure as George III dressed as Neptune. The reverse is the same as on the 1788 copper penny. These coins regularly circulated but were private token issues without legal tender status. There are also some later undated merchant tokens issues: Moses Tolano (or Tolanto) comissioned farthings and halfpence, Thomas Lawlor comissioned copper and brass farthings, and a T. Bowen used a counterstamp, but all of these items most probably date to the nineteenth century.
Okay Black Boys and Girls, Uncle Mike wants to see if you have learned anything over the years. The Albinos want you to believe that they would continually mint coins with the head of one of their chattel Slaves wearing a crown on it.
The same Slaves who when they are not brutalizing or killing them at will, they are worried about them revolting and killing them, the Albinos.
Whereas Uncle Mike says that all logic and history says that the coins accurately depict British King George III:
Between 300AD and 1200AD Barbados' inhabitants were the Arawak Indians. They were driven off the island by invading Carib Indians from Venezuela, who then left Barbados around the time the first Europeans sailed into the region. By the early 1500s all signs of Amerindian life had vanished. In 1536 Portuguese explorer Pedro a Campos stopped over in Barbados en route to Brazil and named the island 'Los Barbados' - the bearded ones, presumably after the island's fig trees, with there long hanging aerial roots. (A beard-like resemblance)
Although known to the Portuguese and Spanish, the British were the first settlers in 1625. Captain John Powell landed on Barbados with his crew and claimed the uninhabited island for England. Two years later, his brother Captain Henry Powell landed with a party of 80 settlers and 10 African slaves. The group established the island's first European settlement, Jamestown, on the western coast at what is now Holetown. They were welcomed only by a herd of Portuguese Hogs thought to be left there by Campos whose intention was to use them as food on return voyages.
The first English ship, the Olive Blossom, arrived in Barbados in 1624. They took possession of it in the name of King James I. In 1627 the first permanent settlers arrived from England and it became an English and later British colony.
King James I
From the arrival of the first English settlers in 1627–1628 until independence in 1966, Barbados was under uninterrupted English and later British governance and was the only Caribbean island that did not change hands during the colonial period. In the very early years, the majority of the population was white and male, with African slaves providing little of the workforce. Cultivation of tobacco, cotton, ginger and indigo was handled primarily by European indentured labour until the start of the sugar cane industry in the 1640s.
The first slaves in Barbados were white (called Indentured Servants); people who, for various reasons, had been deemed enemies of the Crown. This practice was so prevalent during the period 1640 to 1650, that a phrase for punishment was coined "to be Barbadoed".
The slavery Africans in Barbados started after Captain Powell brought the 10 slaves in 1627. The slave population in 1629 was still diminutive with not more than 50 Amerindian and African slaves working the land, in construction and in homes. This low slave population was due to few persons being able to buy slaves at that time. Slaves brought into Barbados came from various tribes out of the forest region of West Africa, during village raids. Some of the African tribes were Eboes, Paw-paws and Igbo. They came via slave trade forts on the African west coast, set up by Europeans. Such forts were the Axim and El Mina. After being traded for trinkets, the slaves were sent to the Caribbean and sold to Plantation owners. In 1636, officials passed a law declaring all slaves brought into Barbados, whether African or Amerindian were to be enslaved for life. It was later extended to include their off springs. At this time there were only 22 free coloured persons on the island.
after the Somerset uprising, many West Country men were exiled or "barbadosed" by Judge Jeffreys. Nearly 7000 Irish were transported to the island during the Cromwellian period.
Barbados quickly acquired the largest white population of any of the English colonies in the Americas. In many respects, Barbados became the springboard for English colonisation in the Americas, playing a leading role in the settlement of Jamaica and the Carolinas, and sending a constant flow of settlers to other areas throughout the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.
During the 1700s, the main source of labour for cotton and tobacco was indentured servants from Europe, while Amerindians from the Guianas were imported to teach agriculture. As the cotton and tobacco industry started to fail because of the lack of labour, due to terrible conditions for indentured servants, the sugar industry emerged. Sugar in Barbados at that time was used only for feedstock, as fuel and in the production of rum.
In a short space of twenty years, the economic phenomenon known as the Sugar Revolution transformed the face of Barbados forever. Tropical luxuriance gave way to a carefully controlled garden-like appearance of the entire island, as almost complete deforestation occurred.
Due to the demand for a strong labour force after the Sugar Revolution took place, Africa became the obvious choice for slaves, because they were strong and Africa was closer than Europe to the Caribbean. Slave ships also travelled faster because they were assisted by the Tradewinds blowing towards the west.
particular, especially from what is today the country of Ghana. The Asante, Ewe, Fon and Fante peoples provided the bulk of imports into Barbados. Nigeria also provided slaves for Barbados, the Yoruba, Efik, Igbo and Ibibio being the main ethnic groups targeted.
It is estimated that between 1627 to 1807, some 387,000 Africans were shipped to the island against their will The high mortality rate among slaves working on the sugar plantations necessitated a constant input of fresh slaves in order to maintain a work force.
In 1642, Barbados planters found a new source of revenue when the Dutch introduced them to sugar cane farming. By mid 1600's sugar cane plantations were producing and exporting sugar, attracting wealthy landowners with political affiliations. Enhancing the islands plantocracy, this new emergence of elite planters excluded poor whites and non-whites from Barbados' political infrastructure. The island soon gained the largest white population of any of the English colonies in the Americas, becoming the springboard for English colonisation in the Americas. As the cost of white labour rose in England, more slaves were imported from West Africa, especially the Gold Coast and by extension more black slaves were brought to Barbados. The main groups of slaves imported were from Ibibio, Yoruba, Lgbo and Efik, as well as Asante, Fante, Ga and Fon. By mid 1600's there was over 5600 black African slaves in Barbados and by early 1800,s over 385,000. The constant importation of slaves was caused by the high mortality rate, due to bad conditions and overwork. By the 1700's, Barbados was one of the leaders in the slave trade from the European colonies.
During the 1800's, the elite were building elaborate estates like Drax Hall and St. Nicholas Abbey, which still exist, while controlling the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council. They encouraged slave reproduction to avoid more importations of slaves, becoming the only island in the British Caribbean no longer dependent on slave imports.
The Colour Shift
During the 1700's to 1800's, Barbados shifted from a majority white population to majority black. This caused tension on the island as white indentured servants became unsure of their place, and plantation owners were afraid of slave rebellion, eventually causing most of them to leave. By the beginning of the 1800's the majority of blacks in Barbados were born locally, with a high percentage of Creole born blacks, as opposed to Africans. This enabled the black population to reproduce itself, rather than rely on new imports from Africa to maintain population levels.
Regulating the Slaves Due to the unrest, the laws regulating the slaves were strongly enforced. By the 1800's, there were laws prohibiting slaves from leaving their plantations without permission and stopping them from playing drums or any other instruments used by slaves to communicate with each other. There were also laws requiring the return of runaway slaves and leniency for those killing slaves.
The Slave Rebellions
During the 1600's, there were (3) unsuccessful rebellions in Barbados; 1649, 1675 and 1692. The First Slave Rebellion (1649) This included two plantations, and the trigger was insufficient food. It was quickly subdued with not much damage.
The Second Slave Rebellion (1675) This one was island-wide and took over three years to plan but was uncovered when a one of the slaves named Fortuna leaked the information out. Over 100 slaves were arrested and tortured, while over 40 were executed after being found guilty of rebellion. Some committed suicide before being executed, while others were beheaded or burnt alive.
The Third Slave Rebellion (1692) This was also island-wide with over 200 slaves arrested and over 90 executed after being found guilty of rebellion.
Rebellions simmered in Barbados until 1816 due to an increase in free blacks and slaves born on the island (called Creole Slaves), there were also more frequent visits to the island by British Military Ships for supplies and a colonial militia which was becoming more powerful during the 1800's.
Creole Slaves were believed to be more submissive than African born slave and therefore were placed over the Africans.
The Bussa Rebellion (The Easter Rebellion - Sun 14th April 1816) During the 1816 rebellion more than 800 slaves were killed while fighting and over 100 executed. This was the first rebellion of this size in Barbados and the Caribbean, and took part for (3) days on the southern part of the island. This rebellion caused reform to ease the hardships of slavery.
In 1825 the 'Amelioration Policy' was changed to 'the Consolidated Slave Law' legislation (The Emancipation Act) which consist of (3) Rights for Slaves; The right to own property / The right to testify in all court cases / Reduction of fees charged for Manumission (a fee charged to slaveowners for emancipating their slaves).
This shift in population patterns, facilitated a process of creolisation, which saw West African and West European cultural patterns acting on each other under the influence of a small tropical island environment to produce a Barbadian variant of a wider West Indian culture. Travellers to the island in the eighteenth century noted these changes, especially on the white population, who were accused of 'lisping the language of the Negroes,' or of 'adopting the Negro style.'
Despite the pervasive nature of creolisation on Barbados, it is a mistake to conclude that West African cultural patterns were stripped from the black population. This erroneous opinion is widespread and based on the notion that planters deliberately applied a policy of deculturation in order to guarantee themselves a docile work force. The truth is quite the opposite. Planters argued that African cultural retentions, particularly those that permitted socialisation, for example the Saturday night dances and Sunday activities commonly referred to in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as 'plays' made the slave population more contented with their lot and willing to work harder and create greater profits for their owners
Emancipation - Slave Freedom
During the eighteenth century, although quite small, there were some freed slaves most of whom worked as tradesmen but could not vote. Because of racial discrimination many freed slaves tended to gravitate towards the British culture and its white supremacy to fit in, separating themselves from other slaves. In 1807 the International Slave Trade was abolished giving slaves in Barbados hope of freedom, but abolitionist missionaries and antislavery debates seemed to hinder the process, ultimately causing the 1816 Revolt by Bussa of Bayley's Plantation. Bussa is now one of Barbados' National heroes with the Emancipation Statue being erected in his memory.
By 1834 slavery was abolished in all the territories of British rule. This was mainly due to the Consolidated Slave Law (The Emancipation Act) and (3) major uprisings; Bussa Rebellion (Barbados - 1816) / Demerara Revolt (now Guyana - 1823) / Jamaica Revolt (1832). Because of the instability within the Caribbean, the British Parliament was forced to emancipate over 80,000 slaves at this time.
Apprenticeships for freed slaves were then introduced under labour contracts as indentured servants. In Barbados Indentured Servants could not join the islands educational systems, and labour contracts were for (12) years, making it the longest in the Caribbean, as well as being paid the lowest wages in the region. Some worked (45) hour weeks without pay in exchange for accommodations in tiny huts.
In 1838 the Masters and Servant Act (Contract Law) made discrimination against persons of colour in Barbados illegal.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Thanks for the history lesson.
Now tell us why you hide your Black rulers.
Barbados is an Island with an easy to observe history. The below coin was issued in 1792
^^^^ this coin is not hidden. It's in plain site on numerous websites.
What it demonstrates is that an image of a black man with a crown could be issued by a white plantation owner who owned slaves. Under the head on the coin, not a name of a person you might usually see but instead the words "I serve"
This is a clear cut case of depiction of an African with a crown that does not represent a king.
It's a slave wearing a crown. This is the reality we are dealing with.
This history of island Barbados is simple and clear.
The thing is we as Black people would rather that it be a real king than a slave so much that when we see an image like this we will make up an entire alternate history to rationalize it.
from wikipedia:
Osborne-Gibbes baronets
"The Gibbs"
Sir Philip Gibbes, the First Baronet (1731–1815), was a cultivated, well-read English gentleman. His friends included Jeremy Bentham, John Wesley and Philip Yorke, 3rd Earl of Hardwicke. He also conversed extensively in Paris during the 1770s with Benjamin Franklin on the subject of the American Revolution. The First Baronet was considered to be a humane slave owner and an enlightened economic manager by 18th-century standards and the influential 1789 autobiography written by the ex-slave and abolitionist Olaudah Equiano contains a positive description of him.
A member of London's Middle Temple, he was appointed to the Barbados legislature, advising the island's governor in Bridgetown on legal matters. According to the Website of the British Museum, he designed and privately issued copper penny and halfpenny coins for Barbados in 1792 in order to help satisfy the island's need for small denomination units of currency. The coins were minted in England, as was an earlier issue inititiated by the First Baronet in 1788.
^^^^^ Now let's look at an alternate point of view. Nobody has this view it's hypothetical.
The assumption would be that a coin issued in Barbados has a black king on it therefore in 1792 Brabados was ruled by a black king.
Now we have to explain all the above history of Barbados must be erased. There were no African slaves there. It was populated by native black people and led in 1792 by some black king who we don't know the name of whose motto was "I serve". He disappeared mysteriously and was replaced by British white people. Yet these British white people like to show a coin of him in their collections. They killed him but they were dumb and forgot to remove this evidence, this coin that shows his existence. And they are too dumb to find these coins and destroy them. They are in plain sight pointing to the original black king of Barbados.
That's all we know the history of Barbados is now erased.
Is this really what you want to believe?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Nice! Doubling-Down the triviality of the new explanation, to make the former more plausible.
So now we have a "Private" person, demanding that the British mint, in Britain, produce coins for a British overseas possession that shows no sign of British sovereignty. But rather shows a Chattel Slave, wearing the sacred imperial Crown of the British Monarchy.
Lioness and Brethren Albinos - First of all, the British mint, like any other mint, operates as a branch of government. It does not take orders from individuals. In cases where large countries mint for smaller counties, it is by official agreements.
In cases where merchants minted their own fake coins, they did so at their own risk, and certainly NOT at the government mint! Damn you Albinos think we're stupid.
Second, just the act of using the British Crown thusly would quickly produce a charge of sedition, treason, and any number of other charges.
But whats really stupid is that you fail to realize that Britain had many other overseas possessions to be compared with, India being the biggest and most important.
Note: When you find a copper coin with the inscription EAST INDIA COMPANY dated before 1839, usually with early dates such as 1616, 1717, 1818, and denominations ANNA, HALF ANNA, or RUPEE, the coin is not issued by the East India Company, but a modern spiritually oriented token recently manufactured and sold to tourists. These tokens generally include the likeness of different Hindu gods, as well as related spiritual symbols and caricatures.
East India Company Coin, make year 1818
One rupee east India company Victoria silver coin 1840.
posted
^Here is an interesting fact, though King George ruled for a very long time (reign 25 October 1760 – 29 January 1820), there are few coins with his "Supposed" likeness, and even stranger, they ONLY name him in Latin!
In response to a coin shortage, the Colony of Virginia struck this copper halfpenny 1773. We are TOLD that the likeness is of King George III on the obverse and the seal of the Colony of Virginia on the Reverse.
HOWEVER, the coin merely says that George is King. The person with the Olive Leaf Crown is probably their false concept of a Roman. Don't forget, they are trying to cover-up a Black king.
posted
^^^^^ Notice the lies Mike's is trying to sell you.First he says that whites killed off blacks in Europe in a genocide finishing up in 1648 the Thirty Years war.
Now he has moved up the date to 1820.
You think this silliness if pro-Black ???
Look at the Jews are fairly successful these days but at the same time they talk about the holocaust a lot where they were victimized and humiliated in extreme ways.
But if we indulge denial fantasies instead of realizing what happened to us it is not going to help us it is going hurt us and to hold us back and live in a state of delusion.
For example look at the coins above and Mike is telling us King George looks entirely different in each, a lie
Let me help with a reality check.
In each coin above he does not look entirely different, Mike's lying to you again trying a new hustle on you a scam.
He looks similar in each coin.
The top coin is heavily worn it looks most similar to the bottom coin.
The middle coin still looks very similar to the bottom coin. Why doesn't it look exactly the same?
Because of reality it was made in 1790 and the bottom coin was made in 1807
17 years later !!!
And we should expect the person looks exactly the same ??
Look at all three coins above in Mike's post. They all look similar
Or do you want to believe Mike's Disneyland where he wants Africans to disappear and reappear as as native European kings up to 1820 now?
Even malibudisul realizes Mike's bullshit sometimes
this is from Mike's website:
^^^^ My question to Mena7 and malibudisul is if you have children or would have children are you going to teach them this is black history that King George III of England was black and he died in 1820 ? And did you notice the King George coins Mike posted each have his name in latin on the coin but the Barbados coin has no name and instead " I serve"
Mike makes Black history into a joke, something he can play around with and then sell his version to people as history
and it is a clear LIE Mike is trying to feed you.
Mike says "albinos lie" Black people also lie and this is an example. Mike's a liar
And a lot of black people copy his website now thinking it's accurate.
Mike is distorting Black people's education
That's why he has a website which is supposed to represent world history but his full name is not on it. It's secret. He's not man enough to come out to the world and tell us who he is.
This is why Clyde and Egmond have a lot more integrity. Clyde gives us he real name, Clyde Winters and anybody can look up his picture and background.
Mike has a secret identity because he wants to feed you lies and take no responsibility for them.
This is probably because he works for white people and he's afraid they won't like it if they find out about his website.
What a shameful coward
^^^ See this? How can they take the chopped off heads of their enemy dripping with blood and put it on a royal coat of arms with a crown at the top ???
That's how they did things then. They put the enemy on coats of arms with a crown. So we have to deal with this rather than pretend it never happened
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
^^^ see the blood dripping? They are not trying to show they admire Moors with this
.
If you recall the Christains were at war with the Muslims.
...blah blah
The message is " "Moors watch out, we will chop off your head or make you a captive"
.... Once these things become symbols people copy it over and over again in differnt heraldry, like you will see the virigin Mary over and over in herladry.
...
You don't know fuk all about heraldry Skunt, and you are a fuching liard!
[Marc writes] We can introduce him now. This is also a good opportunity to let it be known that (1) I recognize many kings of England and European countries as white - especially those after the 16th century; (2) I personally have a standard for determining for myself if they are white or black.
For instance, George III definately looks black with his blunted nose and full facial features and short wiry-looking afro.
Ironlion I dare you to endorse the above statement form Mike's webiste as truthful and make a mockery of African diaspora history.
I want to see you do this, make a post stating clearly that this coin with a man with African features, an afro, an earring and the words below him "I serve"
> is King George III a man who authorized British plantation project brutalizing and dehumanizing African people
come on clown let me hear you disgrace African history with ridiculous theories that King James III was Black you goddamn foolish buffoon
King George III Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
I don't know about your huff and puff, but I do know that the image of the man on the Barbardian coin is a Black King of England. He is wearing the Moorish Crown of England, and he serves the people like all true kings are meant to do.
He was not a slave. Slaves are not used to represent the sovereigns on their sovereign coins. Slaves are never represented with Crowns. Slaves wear chains. Slaves do not appear on the face of coins, wearing crowns.
Show me one albino pink white slave who was ever represented on an European coin as a king, wearing a crown. Show me one....duncey, I am waiting
-------------------- Lionz Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
I don't know about your huff and puff, but I do know that the image of the man on the Barbardian coin is a Black King of England. He is wearing the Moorish Crown of England
You are a clown and a disgrace to Black history
There is no Moorish Crown of England
Not even Mike would come up with such a ridiculous term you made up. You are the only person in the world who ever put those words together. you know zero about the history of Barbados
The British Kings founded slave plantations in Barbados, did you know that? Wasn't it you who said the first racist was Elizabeth I and she died 1603. 183 years before this coin was made. or did Egmond convince you she was black too?
guess what Europeans putting crowns on black people is a form of mockery and you are blind to it because you want to be them so bad
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [.... guess what Europeans putting crowns on black people is a form of mockery and you are blind to it because you want to be them so bad
OMG what a fuching duncey!
The so-called Crown of England came from the Muurs. The red fez inside is from the Muurish fez, the flower d'lis (Lily flower) was the national flower of Ta-Muur aka ancient Egypt, and the Cross of Saint George as you know is Egyptian\Ethiopian in origin.
Saint George was a Black man. King George could well be a Black man as argued by the BHI historians.
Nobody puts an image of a slave dressed up as a king on a currency so as to mock another tribe.
Images on currencies are matters of official and public record, respecting the sovereign and the sovereignty of the nation.
Duncey, just show me one instance of a pink ass albino jewish slave wearing a crown and stamped on the face of any sovereign currency... I am still waiting...
Chains are for slaves, duncey.
Crowns are for Kings!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: guess what Europeans putting crowns on black people is a form of mockery and you are blind to it because you want to be them so bad
Ha,ha,ha:
Now I've heard EVERYTHING!!!
One of the greatest Empires of all time, taking the trouble to mint coins with Slaves wearing their sovereign Crown, in order to mock their slaves, who are in their eyes little more than draft animals anyway - see the term Chattel Slavery.
He,he,he: Where is the Horse with a Crown?
I often say that Albinos are degenerate liars: lioness, you have just taken it to new depths.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
At least iron is not dumb enough to endorse this as specifically King George III
Mike just makes this shyt up and passes it off as fact He's a corrupt individual, harming black education trying to take the African out of everything because he's been brainwashed by white supremacy to hate Africa.
And you fools thing his methods are pro-Black
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^On a serious note, after Lioness nonsense. I wonder how many Negroes though to wonder what would make Albinos even consider proposing such stupidness. But better yet, I can almost guarantee that there are Negroes who believe it.
It all revolves around the carefully cultivated mindset, created by various means like false history, racism, etc, that Black skin equates to Africa, which in turn, equates to Slavery, i.e. Blacks are naturally "Supposed" to be Slaves, which is bolstered by the fact that Africans were so heavily involved in it.
Put it all together, and Albinos are empowered to declare Black Europeans Africans, and a Black king on a coin - a Slave.
In the words of Malcolm X: You been hoodwinked and Bamboozled!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mena7: The Vatican is wrong when it is saying the white head band of the Moors is the symbol of freed slaves.The white head band is a religious symbol.The white head band of the Moors is the symbol of worship of the Sun God Nimrod according to Melo Josias.In King Tut tomb wall relief you can see the funeral people wearing a white head band.In EGSF thread the Chinese are from Egypt you can see Chinese funeral people dress in white and wearing a white head band.
The Crown is the symbol of Monarchy so a Moors wearing a crown is the symbol of black Kings that use to rule part of Europe.Thats what the Vatican article failed to say.
The Moorish symbols in Euro heraldry depict sometime an actual black European kings ancester of the current bleach white kings and sometime just the symbol of the glory, sophistication and knowledge of the black Moorish kings that white Euro wanted to be associated with.
Single headbands wore worn by the ancient Berbers and look similar to what is still worn by some of the Siwa men. I doubt very seriously it had religious significance. It probably caught on because of these early Berber people or black North Africans were wearing them.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic