posted
Clyde, if you look at the Black people of Europe today you would find many of African descent, either recent immigrants or Africans going back into medieval times.
So if the first Europeans were Black and they go back give or take at 45,000 years ago do you think there are any Blacks living in Europe today who would have remained black in color and are still living in Europe today?
It seems that if such Blacks are still living in Europe today, having been for tens of thosuands of years they could be identified genetically and be distingusied from Africans who have been living in Europe in the past 600 or so years, right ?
Just like you can find people in Papua New Guinea that resemble Africans their DNA is not strongly similar to Africans, the various frequencies are more similar to Asians, plus they have up to 5% Densiova admixture. In other words genetically you could tell them apart from an African, Native Austrailians as well
Papua New Guinea aside, my question is could there be Blacks living in Europe today that could be identified genetically who have had continous ancestry in Europe for tens of thousands of years ?
this is addressed to Clyde, please let him answer first
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lioness, those Africans who entered Europe in medieval times would have been completely absorbed into Europe's populations after 4 or 5 generations.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Lioness, those Africans who entered Europe in medieval times would have been completely absorbed into Europe's populations after 4 or 5 generations.
Yes but according to Mikeology Europe was half or more Black up until the mid 17th century
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Lioness, those Africans who entered Europe in medieval times would have been completely absorbed into Europe's populations after 4 or 5 generations.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Lioness, those Africans who entered Europe in medieval times would have been completely absorbed into Europe's populations after 4 or 5 generations.
Yes but according to Mikeology Europe was half or more Black up until the mid 17th century
Lioness and Mike, why are the two of you contorting and torturing yourselves over this issue? Mike and Clyde have explained in no uncertain terms that their concept of Black is not restricted to Sub Saharan Africans, ie all the brown and black Africans with tigntly coiled hair, with the exception Ethiopians, Sudanese and Somalis, who differ in facial features, hair or both.
Yet the two of you are always coming back to this issue.
Lamin if you read Lioness's question properly you will see that she wasn't referring to Africans who came to Europe in the medieval times, yet you replied with a statement about that, and you Lioness also chimed in on that, forgetting that it is not the question you asked and that you also wanted Clyde to respond first. Do you now understand the emotional underpinnings of your question(s)?
I can't help the feeling that most of your disagreements are rooted in butthurt over persistent bad news coming from Africa and dysfunctional African American ghetto communities. On account of this condition you believe that Mike and Clyde are Africans who are trying to gain some self-esteem by relating to real or imaginary accomplishments of some ancient blacks as a substitute for what Blacks, or sub Saharan Africans are accomplishing today.
Any intelligent person knows that theories, especially those relating to the soft sciences(and even the hard sciences to an extent), even if they come from the most respected Oxbridge or Ivy League scholars are just that. Theories. They are mostly informed speculation which one may or may not agree with based on counter evidence or different interpretations.
Anyone who believes otherwise is simply naive or a fool, and those can't be helped. There is no need to butt in with silly comments and questions all the time. Just take the facts presented that, examine them and file them away even if you don't agree with them. They may prove useful one day.
The issue of what "Black" means is another matter that warrants a whole thread in itself, so I will leave that to another day.
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Clyde, if you look at the Black people of Europe today you would find many of African descent, either recent immigrants or Africans going back into medieval times.
I was referring to Lioness' STATEMENT, it is not a question. I pointed out that blacks who happened to be in Europe during medieval times would have been absorbed into the European populations by now. The ostensible blacks in Europe now derive from colonial times.
Note that successful theories must be validated by the empirical facts either directly or indirectly.
The problem with some of the theories propounded on ES are just not backed up by the presented facts--either too scanty or just purely hypothetical.
The issue of being "being butt-hurt" --as you put it-- in no way applies here. I am just interested in the hard facts and plausible hypotheses. Those hypotheses that don't have strong empirical support would be criticized. Simple.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree. The same thing happened to the Black Europeans of New England.
Do you have any empirical evidence, archival or otherwise of independent "Black Europeans" leaving Europe autonomously to settle in New England.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree. The same thing happened to the Black Europeans of New England.
Do you have any empirical evidence, archival or otherwise of independent "Black Europeans" leaving Europe autonomously to settle in New England?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Clyde, if you look at the Black people of Europe today you would find many of African descent, either recent immigrants or Africans going back into medieval times.
So if the first Europeans were Black and they go back give or take at 45,000 years ago do you think there are any Blacks living in Europe today who would have remained black in color and are still living in Europe today?
It seems that if such Blacks are still living in Europe today, having been for tens of thosuands of years they could be identified genetically and be distingusied from Africans who have been living in Europe in the past 600 or so years, right ?
Just like you can find people in Papua New Guinea that resemble Africans their DNA is not strongly similar to Africans, the various frequencies are more similar to Asians, plus they have up to 5% Densiova admixture. In other words genetically you could tell them apart from an African, Native Austrailians as well
Papua New Guinea aside, my question is could there be Blacks living in Europe today that could be identified genetically who have had continous ancestry in Europe for tens of thousands of years ?
this is addressed to Clyde, please let him answer first
I don't even see why you should ask a such a question, but I will hazard an answer.
Unless they bred for complexion or were isolated that would be extremely unlikely. It is known that the genes for complexion are a minuscule part of the human genome, not to mention that tracing it back to 45000 years ago means they would have had to survive through the most recent Ice Age.
The idea of isolating African genes going back 45000 years ago from the broader European population is rather absurd.
When it comes to complexion which is the basis for describing people as Black there is a recent post here about it.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Clyde, if you look at the Black people of Europe today you would find many of African descent, either recent immigrants or Africans going back into medieval times.
So if the first Europeans were Black and they go back give or take at 45,000 years ago do you think there are any Blacks living in Europe today who would have remained black in color and are still living in Europe today?
It seems that if such Blacks are still living in Europe today, having been for tens of thosuands of years they could be identified genetically and be distingusied from Africans who have been living in Europe in the past 600 or so years, right ?
Just like you can find people in Papua New Guinea that resemble Africans their DNA is not strongly similar to Africans, the various frequencies are more similar to Asians, plus they have up to 5% Densiova admixture. In other words genetically you could tell them apart from an African, Native Austrailians as well
Papua New Guinea aside, my question is could there be Blacks living in Europe today that could be identified genetically who have had continous ancestry in Europe for tens of thousands of years ?
this is addressed to Clyde, please let him answer first
I don't even see why you should ask a such a question, but I will hazard an answer.
Unless they bred for complexion or were isolated that would be extremely unlikely. It is known that the genes for complexion are a minuscule part of the human genome, not to mention that tracing it back to 45000 years ago means they would have had to survive through the most recent Ice Age.
The idea of isolating African genes going back 45000 years ago from the broader European population is rather absurd.
When it comes to complexion which is the basis for describing people as Black there is a recent post here about it.
quote:I agree. The same thing happened to the Black Europeans of New England.
Do you have any empirical evidence, archival or otherwise of independent "Black Europeans" leaving Europe autonomously to settle in New England.
Much of the information on these Blacks can be obtained from Court Cases.But they are usually refered too as Freemen or Free Negroes. Back in the day I ran across a number of references to these Freemen.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Clyde, if you look at the Black people of Europe today you would find many of African descent, either recent immigrants or Africans going back into medieval times.
So if the first Europeans were Black and they go back give or take at 45,000 years ago do you think there are any Blacks living in Europe today who would have remained black in color and are still living in Europe today?
It seems that if such Blacks are still living in Europe today, having been for tens of thosuands of years they could be identified genetically and be distingusied from Africans who have been living in Europe in the past 600 or so years, right ?
Just like you can find people in Papua New Guinea that resemble Africans their DNA is not strongly similar to Africans, the various frequencies are more similar to Asians, plus they have up to 5% Densiova admixture. In other words genetically you could tell them apart from an African, Native Austrailians as well
Papua New Guinea aside, my question is could there be Blacks living in Europe today that could be identified genetically who have had continous ancestry in Europe for tens of thousands of years ?
this is addressed to Clyde, please let him answer first
I don't even see why you should ask a such a question, but I will hazard an answer.
Unless they bred for complexion or were isolated that would be extremely unlikely. It is known that the genes for complexion are a minuscule part of the human genome, not to mention that tracing it back to 45000 years ago means they would have had to survive through the most recent Ice Age.
The idea of isolating African genes going back 45000 years ago from the broader European population is rather absurd.
When it comes to complexion which is the basis for describing people as Black there is a recent post here about it.
Here is my two cents. Other people more familiar with this area can chime in.
what was the last time that the majority of Europe was black?
This is why I tell people to ignore this degenerate.
Questions like this are to be expected, because the point is to wear you down with stupidity.
Stupid questions or comments require no knowledge or effort, but fielding them does. So after fielding enough of them, your mind turns to goo, and you quit, that is what they are working toward.
Notice that even the foulest insults give them no pause, they just come right back with the next troll question.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black Europeans were in America before African Slaves
In The Souls of Black Folk (1903) W. E. B. Du Bois also specifically mentioned the slave-ship that "first saw the square tower of Jamestown" as an American beginning point (Du Bois 1986, 424) and asked, "Your country? How came it yours? Before the Pilgrims landed we were there" (Du Bois 1986, 545). " Based on a census taken in March of 1619, there were already 32 blacks (15 men and 17 women) "in the service" of Jamestown planters prior to the August arrival of the Dutch ship. http://www.project2019.com/blkmayflower.htm Some of these Blacks were freemen from Europe. In 1624 John Phillips “a negro, Christened in England 12 years since” testified against a white man.
The presence of Free Black men in Britain was not strange because of the “free” status of Blacks in Britain, back in the 17th Century.
quote:
And it really was true that Africans in England were free. Diogo, an African who had been taken to England by an English pirate in 1614, later reported to the Portuguese Inquisition that when he laid foot on English soil, "he immediately became free, because in that reign nobody is a slave." It was not legally possible to be a slave in Tudor and Stuart Britain and the hundreds of black people present in these isles during those centuries were not treated as slaves either. Africans such as Jacques Francis and Edward Swarthye were allowed to testify in court – a privilege denied to slaves in ancient Rome and the American south, as well as to English villeins.
posted
Slavery in British existed from before the Roman occupation. Chattel slavery virtually disappeared after the Norman Conquest to be replaced by feudalism and serfdom. British merchants were among the largest participants in the Atlantic slave trade. Ship owners transported enslaved West Africans to the New World to be sold into slave labour. The ships brought commodities back to Britain then exported goods to Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Black Europeans were in America before African Slaves
In The Souls of Black Folk (1903) W. E. B. Du Bois also specifically mentioned the slave-ship that "first saw the square tower of Jamestown" as an American beginning point (Du Bois 1986, 424) and asked, "Your country? How came it yours? Before the Pilgrims landed we were there" (Du Bois 1986, 545). " Based on a census taken in March of 1619, there were already 32 blacks (15 men and 17 women) "in the service" of Jamestown planters prior to the August arrival of the Dutch ship. http://www.project2019.com/blkmayflower.htm
The following is from the link you provided
quote:
The "Black Mayflower"
American children are all taught the story of the Pilgrims and the ship, the Mayflower, that brought them to Plymouth Rock in late Autumn of 1620. The following year, the Governor of the Plymouth colony proclaimed a day of "Thanksgiving" to celebrate their first harvest in America.
On the other hand, little is known or taught about the blacks who arrived in the Jamestown Colony in 1619, more than a year before the arrival of the Mayflower in America. Jamestown, which was established in 1607, was the first permanent English Colony in North America. Although there were already blacks living in Jamestown prior to 1619, the arrival of approximately 20 Africans in 1619 marks the official beginning of Slavery in what would become the United States of America.
The following is the story of the "Black Mayflower:"
In April of 1619, the Governor of the Jamestown colony, Sir George Yeardley, sent an English ship named the Treasurer on a supposed "routine trading voyage." The Treasurer was accompanied by a Dutch "Man of War" ship. The Captain of the Dutch ship was named Jope. In fact, the Treasurer's true purpose was to act as a privateer and raid Spanish shipping and the Dutch ship was to cover its activities. Both ships were owned by an Englishman, Robert Rich, the Earl of Warwick.
While on their joint voyage in the West Indies, the two heavily armed vessels captured a Portuguese merchant-slaver ship named the San Juan Bautista. Included in the plunder taken from the Portuguese ship were approximately 100 Africans. The Dutch ship returned at the end of August of 1619 to Old Point Comfort (near Jamestown) with approximately 20 of the Africans. The Dutch sold most of the Africans to Governor Sir George Yeardley and the colony's wealthiest resident, a merchant named Abraham Peirsey. Smaller vessels smuggled the stolen Africans from Old Point Comfort to Jamestown.
The Portuguese had considered the Africans to be slaves. However, because slavery had been eliminated as a classification in English law, the Africans had to be legally classified as "indentured servants." Based on a census taken in March of 1619, there were already 32 blacks (15 men and 17 women) "in the service" of Jamestown planters prior to the August arrival of the Dutch ship.
There are indications that, after years of servitude, some of the 20 stolen Africans brought to Jamestown eventually obtained their freedom. However, unlike most white indentured servants who voluntarily contracted their services for a specific period of time, these Africans were not given such options and most of them probably remained in servitude for the rest of their lives. Indeed, by 1625, the Jamestown census listed ten "slaves." Over the next decades, the number of African slaves in the colonies would increase by the thousands.
Shortly after the return of the Dutch ship to America in late August of 1619, the Treasurer also returned to America and dropped off an African slave woman named Angela. She was the first African-Virginian whose name is known. The Treasurer then set sail for Bermuda with 29 of the original 100 Africans stolen from the Portuguese ship.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by lamin: [qb] Lioness, those Africans who entered Europe in medieval times would have been completely absorbed into Europe's populations after 4 or 5 generations.
I agree. The same thing happened to the Black Europeans of New England.
.
Clyde I don't get it, you agree with Lamin that Africans who entered Europe in medieval times would have been completely absorbed into Europe's populations after 4 or 5 generations. But then you go on to speak about Black Europeans were in America before African Slaves, yet you provide a link which describes these people not as Black Euroepans but as Africans captured by a Dutch ship who stole them by pirating a Portugese ship.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
And it really was true that Africans in England were free.
"Diogo, an African who had been taken to England by an English pirate in 1614, later reported to the Portuguese Inquisition that when he laid foot on English soil, "he immediately became free, because in that reign nobody is a slave." It was not legally possible to be a slave in Tudor and Stuart Britain and the hundreds of black people present in these isles during those centuries were not treated as slaves either. Africans such as Jacques Francis and Edward Swarthye were allowed to testify in court – a privilege denied to slaves in ancient Rome and the American south, as well as to English villeins."
Africans were far more integrated into the English community than we might expect. Black people were baptised, married and buried in English churches. They developed long-standing, intimate relationships with English people. In October 1616, George, a "blackamoor", married Marie Smith in Kent. Gylman Ivye, described as a "negro" or "Ethiop", had two children named Elizabeth and Richard with Anna Spencer of Dyrham, Gloucestershire in 1578 and 1581. They were the first of over 30 children of mixed parentage to be found in parish registers before the outbreak of the English civil war in 1642.
So while the British were were among the largest participants in the Atlantic slave trade and transported enslaved West Africans to the New World to be sold into slave labour there were Africans living freely in Britain
wiki:
Queen Elizabeth was complaining about the number of 'blackamoores' as early as 1556.[26] By the mid 18th century London had the largest Black population in Britain, made up of free and enslaved people, as well as many runaways. The total number may have been about 10,000.[27] It was regarded as fashionable amongst the upper classes to have a Black servant and they sometimes feature in paintings, such as 'The family of Sir William Young' by Zoffany.
A number of Black people achieved prominence. Ignatius Sancho (1729-1780) opened his own grocer's shop in Westminster. He wrote poetry and music and his friends included the novelist Laurence Sterne, David Garrick the actor and the Duke and Duchess of Montague. He is best known for his letters which were published after his death. Others such as Olaudah Equiano and Cuguano were active in the abolition campaigns. The legal status of enslaved people in Europe was often unclear. In Britain it was not finally resolved until abolition in 1838, though after the famous Somerset case in 1772 enslaved people could not be sent back to the colonies against their will
William Wilberforce's Slave Trade Act 1807 abolished the slave trade in the British Empire. It was not until the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 that the institution finally was abolished.
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
" Based on a census taken in March of 1619, there were already 32 blacks (15 men and 17 women) "in the service" of Jamestown planters prior to the August arrival of the Dutch ship. http://www.project2019.com/blkmayflower.htm Some of these Blacks were freemen from Europe. In 1624 John Phillips “a negro, Christened in England 12 years since” testified against a white man.
The Jamestown Census shows that there were 12 Blacks in Jamestown before the 20 Blacks taken to Jamestown by the Dutch.
Moreover, in 1624 John Phillips had been Christened in 1612, this meant that he had been a Black European from Britain.
In summary, the Jamestown Census and life of Phillips prove there were Black Europeans in the English colonies .
I agree. The same thing happened to the Black Europeans of New England.
There is evidence of the presence of people from Romanised North Africa in Roman Britain. Archaeological inscriptions suggest that most of these residents were involved with the military. However, some were in the upper echelons of society. Analysis of a skull found in a Roman grave in York indicated that it belonged to a mixed-race female. Her sarcophagus was made of stone and also contained a jet bracelet and an ivory bangle, indicating great wealth for the time
Early in the 16th century, Africans probably arrived in London with Catherine of Aragon when she travelled to England to marry Henry VIII. Among the six trumpeters depicted in the royal retinue of Henry VIII in the Westminster Tournament Roll, an illuminated manuscript dating from 1511, is a black musician. He wears the royal livery and is mounted on horseback. He is generally identified with the "John Blanke, the blacke trumpeter" who appears in the payment accounts of both Henry VIII and his father, Henry VII.[23] There was also a group of Africans at the court of James IV of Scotland, including a drummer referred to as the "More Taubronar". Both he and John Blanke were paid wages for their services.[24] When trade lines began to open between London and West Africa, Africans slowly began to become part of the London population. For example, merchant John Lok brought five Africans to London in 1555.
In the period of the war with Spain, 1588-1604, there was an increase in the number of Africans arriving in England, many of them freed from Spanish ships. Sir Thomas Sherley and Caspar Van Senden, a merchant of Lübeck, attempted to capitalise on this by petitioning Elizabeth I's Privy Council to allow them to transport Africans to Lisbon, presumably to sell them there. The relevant Privy Council Letters of July 1596 and a draft proclamation from the papers of Robert Cecil have been presented as an attempt to deport Africans from England,[27] but Van Senden and Sherley's efforts were unsuccessful, as they themselves admitted in correspondence with Sir Robert Cecil.[28] This is further demonstrated by the continued presence of Africans in the archival record in the 17th century. Recent studies of Africans in Early Modern Britain include Imtiaz Habib's "Black Lives in the English Archives, 1500–1677: Imprints of the Invisible" (Ashgate, 2008), Onyeka's Blackamoores: Africans in Tudor England, their presence, status and origins (Narrative Eye, 2013) and Miranda Kaufmann's Oxford DPhil thesis "Africans in Britain, 1500-1640". These studies demonstrate the presence of hundreds of Africans in the period, not just in London, but across the country from Aberdeen to Hull, to Truro, with concentrations in port cities such as Bristol, Plymouth and Southampton and well as individuals living in remote villages such as Bluntisham, Huntingdonshire.[29]
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Moreover, in 1624 John Phillips had been Christened in 1612, this meant that he had been a Black European from Britain.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
And it really was true that Africans in England were free. Diogo, an African who had been taken to England by an English pirate in 1614, later reported to the Portuguese Inquisition that when he laid foot on English soil, "he immediately became free, because in that reign nobody is a slave." It was not legally possible to be a slave in Tudor and Stuart Britain and the hundreds of black people present in these isles during those centuries were not treated as slaves either. Africans such as Jacques Francis and Edward Swarthye were allowed to testify in court – a privilege denied to slaves in ancient Rome and the American south, as well as to English villeins.
Yes, so "Black European" includes Africans who were slaves but when English pirates plundered Spanish or Portugese ships when some these Africans arrived in England they became free Black Europeans At the same time England wa one of the largest importers of African slaves to the New World They just didn't practice slavery on their own soil and some of these Africans wound up in England, avoiding becoming slaves in the Carib
In 1619, and as an institution slavery did not yet exist in Virginia. It only became law in 1662
Most Africans had arrived in Jamestown directly from Africa. A few Africans, with adopted English names may have been living in Europe since the 16th century "Black Europeans" and a few of them later wound up in Jamestown
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
We might disagree about what constitutes Black or African, and I will leave you decide which complexions in contemporary Europe or America would cause people to be labelled as "Black". Here is a painting by Jean Fouquet featuring Charlemagne. You are free to decide whether the colours you see are the result of a deterioration of the pigments or a flaw in the reproduction process.
Detail from St Jacques Appears to Charlemagne - Jean Fouquet
From this and other similar paintings you can judge whether at some time in the past there was a sizeable European population who where dark complexioned enough to be adjudged Black or African or whatever description you care for, nothwithstanding the fact that Charlemagne predates Jean Fouquet by 700 years (which I know you are bound to bring up).
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Habsburg: Charlemagne predates Jean Fouquet by 700 years (which I know you are bound to bring up).
please dont waste my time with WTR Wishful Thinking Research
If you were doing proper research on a European time period you would look at an artists work, not just one of their works, not just the one you like, but other works by the same artist -as well as other artists of the same time period
If you mention Jean Fouquet, he lived in the 15th century Now ask yourself why you are not investigating how artitsts of the 15th century depicted average Europeans Ask yourself why you are only interested in kings
Here's a painting by Jean Fouquet
^^^ Once you look at all the Jean Fouquet paintings or illustrations ypu can find
Once you look at a hundred 15th century French paintings you may begin to get an idea who the people were
-of course items like this, as you said, depictions of Charlemagne 631 years after his death as being should be disregarded immediately
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
As usual you responses are so predictable, and you have assumed that I have been selective in my choices. FWIW I have posted a picture of Charlemagne with clearly negroid features and you will find if you search for "Charlemagne Missal", which I suspect you have already seen.
I also posted the effigy of Eleanor of Aquitaine which you have already seen. If Charlemagne or Eleanor of Aquitaine was portrayed in a brown complexion it is because the artists learned from oral history or from images that that is the way they looked, or it could be that a lot of contemporary folk or nobles were brown skinned, just like how today you assume that most ancient Europeans were white because most Europeans are white today.
You are intelligent enough and understand this perfectly, but you will still butt in with all kinds of questions trying to trip people up and reveal inconsistencies in the points they are presenting, and you wonder why Mike is inclined heap insults on you.
Here is another Jean Fouquet painting. There is a mix of light and dark complexions here. So you can judge again whether the brown complexions may have been typical of the era.
The Dormition of the Virgin, Jean Fouquet 1460
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Lioness Do you see how ridiculous you keep making yourself look?
You have posted a picture of Will Smith claiming that the sight of a person with Will Smith's complexion in an European painting is not an indicator of the presence of Black people in Europe, or people dark complexioned enough to be called Black.
Is that a copy and paste example of a Freudian slip or what?
Not only that you raised the possibility those other Europeans in the picture may actually have some Black ancestry in order to have a complexion close enough to that of Will Smith. But as usual you don't seem to realize that, or do you?
Back to the picture of the Virgin. You can see that the first person on the right kneeling by the pillow has a clearly dark brown complexion, way darker than the sort of darker than mulatto complexions the priest and the brown-complexioned people have.
You love coming back for more don't you?
-------------------- The Habsburg Agenda - Defending Western Christian civilization Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Habsburg: @Lioness Do you see how ridiculous you keep making yourself look?
You have posted a picture of Will Smith claiming that the sight of a person with Will Smith's complexion in an European painting is not an indicator of the presence of Black people in Europe, or people dark complexioned enough to be called Black.
yes a person with Will Smith's complexion in an European painting is not proof of a Black majority or anything near to it in medieval Europe. This is not to say there were no blacks in Europe at the time (please study medieval demographics) But based on skin color alone (assuming no paint deterioration or dirt accumulation) as I have demonstrated could include the other men pictured also, who have relatively dark complexions yet are not Black people Also keep in mind royal portraiture where the artist made a portrait by being actually physically present with the person depicted is a different thing form an artist doing a historical piece depicting historical figures and events of the past of which there may be no good references and he just makes it up to his liking
There is evidence of the presence of people from Romanised North Africa in Roman Britain. Archaeological inscriptions suggest that most of these residents were involved with the military. However, some were in the upper echelons of society. Analysis of a skull found in a Roman grave in York indicated that it belonged to a mixed-race female. Her sarcophagus was made of stone and also contained a jet bracelet and an ivory bangle, indicating great wealth for the time
Early in the 16th century, Africans probably arrived in London with Catherine of Aragon when she travelled to England to marry Henry VIII. Among the six trumpeters depicted in the royal retinue of Henry VIII in the Westminster Tournament Roll, an illuminated manuscript dating from 1511, is a black musician. He wears the royal livery and is mounted on horseback. He is generally identified with the "John Blanke, the blacke trumpeter" who appears in the payment accounts of both Henry VIII and his father, Henry VII.
In the period of the war with Spain, 1588-1604, there was an increase in the number of Africans arriving in England, many of them freed from Spanish ships.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Lioness, those Africans who entered Europe in medieval times would have been completely absorbed into Europe's populations after 4 or 5 generations.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I agree. The same thing happened to the Black Europeans of New England.
I agree. The same thing happened to the Black Europeans of New England.
.
Mike's fantasies can be a tempting choice to indulge in Just remember to pinch yourself every once in a while. Like when you are in a museum and start staring at an abstract pattern on an old European carpet or drapery and start to think there are black people there it's time to take a deep breath I think you have realized this
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Consider this. Let us ignore for the time being Mike and Clyde's theories of the existence of Black Europeans and Black Native Americans, and go with the current mainstream view that all Native Americans were Mongoloids.
Europeans begun to settle on continental USA and Canada in the 1600s. Within 300 years they had virtually decimated all the Native Americans. If they didn't lack a conscience (assuming that is what stopped them) and decided instead to carry out their genocide to its final conclusion, what evidence would there be today of the existence of Native Americans, after outright destruction, and/or through forced interbreeding of the remainder with the majority whites?
This process has been accomplished within 300 years and today many people claiming to be Native Americans and claiming their rights are clearly partially or fully European descended.
The same thing can be said of Australia, where the Aborigines have had it just as bad.
If they decided to post a "light, bright, damn near white" image of Queen Liliuokalani in 50 years time would people be any wiser?
In spite of all of this a closer look at the Hawaiian population beyond Hollywood and mainstream media images will show that in the not so distant past many "native" Hawaiians were much darker, as can be discerned from a deeper look at Europe's contemporary population.
So why are the theories of Mike, Clyde and Egmond so difficult for you consider?
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
So why are the theories of Mike, Clyde and Egmond so difficult for you consider?
Mike and Egmond are Black Eurocentrics but Clyde is Afrocentric
I consider all of their theories, one at a time
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: the "Thirty Years Wars" between Black Catholics and Albino Protestants.
Aside from his military endeavors, Charles is best known for his role in opposing the Protestant Reformation.
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
That man in that painting in not Charles V.
This is Charles:
Pale white as a ghost. Mike111 is a pathological liar and is seriously psychotic.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dead: That man in that painting in not Charles V.
This is Charles:
Pale white as a ghost.
So you admit that you are Albinos or derived from Albinos?
You know I think it was Habsburg who made the connection between the Caucasus region stories of people who could not come out during the day because the Sun would injure them, and the modern myths of Vampires, (Bat like creatures who are Bloodless, thus very WHITE), who like Bats, sleep during the day and go out to feed (On Blood) at night.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dead: That man in that painting in not Charles V.
This is Charles:
Pale white as a ghost. Mike111 is a pathological liar and is seriously psychotic.
What an appropriate name DEAD - as in "Brain DEAD".
Okay Albino boy, tell me which of these FAKE portraits you prefer. BTW Asshole, you might notice that some of them have the Prognathic "Habsburg Jaw" and some do not. Needless to say, authentic portraits would have the trademark jaw.
posted
^You know Brain-DEAD, I envision you pouting and mumbling under your breath - He's White!
Believe me, I feel for you, but as you can clearly see, the evidence leaves no choice!
See, that's what Afrocentrics is all about, EXPOSING ALBINO LIES - including all of those FAKE pictures, Coins, Statues, etc!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Since we are open minded people we are ready to consider that the complexion exhibited here may be due to dirt, age or a deterioration of the pigments.
posted
What is your point about the Habsburg jaw? It is an excessive (pathologic?) case of mandibular prognathism. You don't seem to realize this trait is probably more common in Europe, than anywhere else. It is not a "Negroid" trait.
You are probably confusing it with alveolar prognathism - which is found at high frequency in most Sub-Saharan African populations, and is a characteristic "Negroid" skeletal feature [as still recognised by forensic scientists].
Alevolar prognathism is not mandibular prognathism.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike you are an idiotic liar. Afrocentrism is all about Black supremacy, its all about "I hate Whitey, get Whitey".
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Habsburg, the link clearly identifies the bust as a copy, therefore it cannot be authentic.
Question - the Peruvian painting is NOT a copy and clearly identifies Charles as Black skinned and not looking like any of the forgeries. Can you say why you are unsatisfied with the authenticity of the painting.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Habsburg: Here is another bust of Charles V
Charles V Bust 1515 1519
Since we are open minded people we are ready to consider that the complexion exhibited here may be due to dirt, age or a deterioration of the pigments.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Habsburg, the link clearly identifies the bust as a copy, therefore it cannot be authentic.
Mike is correct on this, the above ^^^ is a plaster copy
. Below an authentic Charles V bust, a famous one at the Gruuthuse Museum. It was made of painted terracotta and wood attributed by some historians to the German artist Konrad Meit in 1517-1520. It was made when Charles V was around 17-20 years old. later as Emperor, Charles V had a lot of financial problems but his kingdom was revived by the plunder of gold in Central America and Incas in Peru by the Conquistadors which he oversaw. He was also the first to officially authorize Transatlantic slave trading of Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
This is Charles:
So as you can see Brain-DEAD, the evidence leaves only this man as a real possibility to be Charles V (Carlos Quinto).
Question - the Peruvian painting is NOT a copy and clearly identifies Charles as Black skinned and not looking like any of the forgeries. Can you say why you are unsatisfied with the authenticity of the painting.
quote:Originally posted by Habsburg:
Since we are open minded people we are ready to consider that the complexion exhibited here may be due to dirt, age or a deterioration of the pigments.
It's a good point this painting is in terrible condition and the photo of this Peruvian painting is of very poor quality as well, you can't see any detail.
If it were of good quality it wouldn't matter. While there were many paintings done by royal court artists when Charles V was alive the above Peruvian painting as stated by the Larco Museum was made by an unknown local Peruvian artist around 1800. Charles V never set foot in the Americas but more importantly he had died over 200 years earlier. The painting is irrelevant
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
There a number of points I want to note in this post.
The most obvious thing to me is the disparity between the narrow face of Charles in his mid/late teens and the wide jaw displayed in his later years, especially as seen in his mummy. Unless there was continued bone grown in his jaw after he grew up, it his hard to believe his youth portrait was an accurate one. Medical experts views are welcome here.
Here is what I find most notable in relation to the African Man. There is a clear cut similarity in the shape of the ear between Jan Mostaert's African man and at least two of the portraits of Charles V above.
There is also a strong similarity between Mostaert's African man and the picture of some unknown king described as Charlemagne, which is even stronger in this variation posted by Mike, shown below. Commonsense says that a picture labeled Charles Magne, ie Charles the Great, dated 1520 is more likely to represent the contemporary Charles V than Charlemagne of 700 years earlier.
The major difference here is that the hat on the African Man has been pulled back and cocked at an angle, apparently to reveal the hairline. If it is drawn further down and leveled out it becomes more in line with the so labeled Charlemagne painting. Photoshop contributions are welcome here.
One more thing is the depiction of a furrowed brow on the African Man, which seems to be a recurrent feature of Charles' portraits. Is it by accident or design?
Mike's contention that Jan Mostaert's painting is Charles V is not as farfetched as it sounds. The similarity of the shape of the ear leaves me in no doubt that Jan Mostaert's painting is a portrayal of Charles V, difference in complexion nothwithstanding.
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Albinos are funnier than a barrel of Monkeys! Habsburg, have you seen what they claim his name was?
Ha,ha,ha,ha: "Christofle le More"
Get it? "Christopher the Moor".
Not only are they degenerate defensive racists, trying to hide the impediments of Albinism by claiming it superior, but they're also funny and stupid at the same time.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
1. We have "Christophe the Moor" painted in royal/noble style and dress - a Black man with the characteristic Hapsburg prognathism. Art experts agree he is dressed as a "Hapsburg prince"
2. We have the Black St. Maurice as the patron saint of the Holy Roman Empire.
3. We have innumerable images of unambiguos Black knights, nobles, saints, in buidlings and churhes in the land area known as the Holy Roman empire.
4. We have the innumerable coats of arm showing Blacks ... specifically in the areas controlled by or part of the Holy Roman Empire.
5. Large numbers of representations of Hapsburgs who look "ethnic" ... i.e. mulutto, quadroon, octoroon, etc.. swarthy, curled hair, etc.
6. We have proof of the long standing White practice of making fakes of Black and Swarthy royalty/nobility - making them white or less "ethnic"
Conclusion:
The Rulers of the Holy Roman Empire specifically the Hapsburgs were BLACK and conscious of it and proud of it. Of course being surrounded by the Albinos they ruled, there was some dilution over time, although they tried to preserve themselves by intermarriage with cousins as much as possible.
At some point in time, Black rule was challeneged and eventually came to an end and Albinos - the subjects - started to assert themselves.... to survive..the Black elite agreed to become White. (suppression of Black, elevation of White, intermmarrying with White, changing the art, destroying it, suppressing it.
Mike and Codfried are 100% correct.
the only remaining issues are the details of timing ......
-------------------- Keldal Posts: 2818 | From: new york | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
HAHAHAHA, Mike pot meet kettle LOL. You talk about Whites being racist when you can't make even one post without using racist epithets and when you are racist as hell. Your's, Kdolo's, Habsburg's, Clyde's, King's, Mena7's, XyYThater's, Truthcentric's, Doug's, Nontruthhitman's, Typezeiss', Jantavanta's, Egghead's hatred for Whites knows no bounds even to the point of harming White children & White youth, of course you don't care about them as they are just inferior non-humans to you, King, Kdolo, Janatavanta, Clyde, XyYThater, Habsburg (the idiot), Mena7, Doug, Nontruthhitman, Egghead, Truthcentric, Typezeiss.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
The Rulers of the Holy Roman Empire specifically the Hapsburgs were BLACK and conscious of it and proud of it. Of course being surrounded by the Albinos they ruled, there was some dilution over time, although they tried to preserve themselves by intermarriage with cousins as much as possible.
At some point in time, Black rule was challeneged and eventually came to an end and Albinos - the subjects - started to assert themselves.... to survive..the Black elite agreed to become White. (suppression of Black, elevation of White, intermmarrying with White, changing the art, destroying it, suppressing it.
Mike and Codfried are 100% correct.
the only remaining issues are the details of timing ......
Not bad kdolo, but you are wrong, the How and Why are extremely important in understanding what happened.
I mean if Blacks were the original settlers of Europe - and they were, then how could they be out-numbered and defeated by the Central Asian Albino immigrants?
1) Europe was never densely populated by Blacks.
2) The FIRST invasion of Europe by the Albinos circa 1,200 B.C. led to the first large-scale flight from Europe of Blacks - called exodus of the Sea people.
3) Blacks were further "thinned-out" by Mongol invasions - the Huns.
4) The second invasion of Central Asian Albinos started circa year zero A.D. By it's end, circa 600-700 A.D. Central Asia had been all but emptied of Albinos, when the Mongols chased the last ones - the Turks out of Asia.
5) the "Thirty Years War" in continental Europe, and the British "Civil Wars", were actually race wars, cleverly sold to stupid Blacks as religious wars (many Blacks supported the Protestants).
6) There is no way to know how many Blacks Genghis Khan and his boys killed, but perhaps an example can be taken from what they did in Elam (Persia/Iran). The capitol of Susa stood as a gleaming city for thousands of years. It was rebuilt many times. But the slaughter of Blacks and destruction was so great when the Mongols finished, that it was never rebuilt again.
(To bad Africans don't pay much mind to history, it might be good for them to know something about their new friends past, where it comes to Blacks).
Put that all together, including many things that we still don't know, and you can understand how we non-Africans came to our current condition.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes Kdolo it is a racist epithet that you Black racist Whitey haters use to try to demean, denigrate, degrade & dehumanize Whites.
HAHAHAHA, Mike pot meet kettle LOL. You talk about Whites being racist when you can't make even one post without using racist epithets and when you are racist as hell. Your's, Kdolo's, Habsburg's, Clyde's, King's, Mena7's, XyYThater's, Truthcentric's, Doug's, Nontruthhitman's, Typezeiss', Jantavanta's, Egghead's hatred for Whites knows no bounds even to the point of harming White children & White youth, robbing them of their future & their past, of course you don't care about them as they are just inferior non-humans to you, King, Kdolo, Janatavanta, Clyde, XyYThater, Habsburg (the idiot), Mena7, Doug, Nontruthhitman, Egghead, Truthcentric, Typezeiss. Whites are NOT Albinos nor are we Central Asians. You ARE African Mike deal with it and embrace it.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: If you were to take the position that this is pure white
Then might Europe be an intermediate between pure white and Derek Jeter?
No Fourty2Tribes, you are mistaken, that is a type 1 Albino: Oculocutaneous albinism type 1 (OCA1).
From historical documents we know that the second wave of Albino invaders from Central Asia were Oculocutaneous albinism type 2 (OCA2) Albinos.
Quote: The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (56-118 A.D.) said this about them: For my own part, I agree with those who think that the tribes of Germany are free from all taint of intermarriages with foreign nations, and that they appear as a distinct, unmixed race, like none but themselves. Hence, too, the same physical peculiarities throughout so vast a population. All have fierce blue eyes, red hair, huge frames, fit only for a sudden exertion. They are less able to bear laborious work. Heat and thirst they cannot in the least endure; to cold and hunger their climate and their soil inure them.
posted
Leave it to Mike to know the specific type of pure white while posting a picture of a girl who is eight freckles from being a person of color.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: It is casually understood by most people that the Catholic countries are the countries of the swarthy peoples ....
Have you seen Benjamin Franklin's description of the people of 1751 Europe?
Title: America as a Land of Opportunity Author: Benjamin Franklin Year: 1751 Type of document: essay
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.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic