posted
Mike111 theory of the real European Medieval and Renaissance paintings being crack and the fake modern paintings not being real sound true to me. The black servants or pages of the European Monarchs and Nobles families came from the same family of the Monarchs and Nobles seems true to me.
During the French Revolution the paintings and statues of the Black Madonna and Child inside the Catholic Churches were destroyed by the revolutionary. The French revolutionary probably destroyed also the original paintings and statues of the brown skin French Monarchs and Nobles. Oliver Cromwell as Mike111 stated above ordered the destruction of the paintings, statues, book illustrations of the Brown and Black British Monarchs and Nobility.
The European International Bankers and the Secret societies they controlled were behind the French Revolution and the British Revolution. In the 20 cent the International Bankers and their Secret Societies did a Communist Revolution in Russia were they executed Tsar Nicholas II like they executed French King Louis XVI and English King James II.
quote:Originally posted by Habsburg: Lioness, when are you going to act as a sane human being and graciously admit that you could be wrong, that someone else has a valid point?
wrong about what?
quote:Originally posted by Habsburg:
You expect to be treated respectfully here and not labelled with epithets. Instead of doing the decent thing and presenting your picture in the same complexion as the so called 'Indian page boy', you present something which only indicates your race baiting contempt for the theme of this forum.
What is this compulsion to exhibit this aspect of your mind?
I have to do your phtoshop project and if I don't do it to your liking I get labeled with epithets? That is not civilized behavior
Look, you aksed for a picture of young Charles changed to a brown complexion. Why you wanted this I don't know. So I made the changes and it's not that easy to do for me. Now you want the color more specific to the boy in the other painting. That was harder to do
Ok, here, it's not exact but it's closer
Again, I have no idea what the point of doing this is
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Habsburg my boy, just showing a picture does nothing, you have to explain what everything means, and then put it all together.
PORTRAIT OF A MULATTO IN ARMOUR, OIL ON CANVAS, CIRCLE OF JEAN-FRANCOIS DE TROY
PORTRAIT D'UN MULÂTRE EN ARMURE ENTOURAGE DE FRANCOIS DE TROY (TOULOUSE 1645-1730 PARIS)
Thank you, great research. How did you find it?
It's not fake, I was mistaken. Egmond Codfied posted it way back with no info. Then I posted it. Mike concealed the source so he could do a fake identity switch
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
This Mulato man could be one of the Louis King of France.
French King Louis XIV hair style and armor looks like looks like the so call Mulato in armor.
Princesse Louise Marie Therese and the mulato in armor looks like they belong to the same family.
Posts: 5374 | From: sepedat/sirius | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no doubt in the mind of any diligent researcher that a significant proportion of Europe's Royals were quite dark enough to be categorized as being black, Charles II being one of them. When Lucy Walter (one of Charles's mistresses) is described as brown, it isn't too farfetched to believe that some of his children were also brown. When one James was born, (either one of Charles's sons or brothers), the midwives were very concerned because his skin was so dark that they thought he was ill.
But when Mike attaches a description to a picture saying "Believed to be James Francis Edward Stuart ..." it implies that some recognized experts or scholars have studied it and come to that conclusion and if that is the case it should be accompanied by a reference.
But Lioness you should know that official scholars and historians know that they soon be unemployed if they challenge the official version of history and you can't expect any support from them even if they clearly see and know better.
Given the history about Francois du Troy presented by Mike there is good reason to believe the portrait is that of a high ranking noble, and could even be a royal. Over here at Egyptsearch we have seen enough to know that such claims can be well founded and Lioness you know that, unless you are one of the said persons whose economic well being depends on sticking to the official version and interpretation of artifacts and events.
-------------------- The Habsburg Agenda - Defending Western Christian civilization Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
But when Mike attaches a description to a picture saying "Believed to be James Francis Edward Stuart ..." it implies that some recognized experts or scholars have studied it and come to that conclusion and if that is the case it should be accompanied by a reference.
Recognized by WHOM?
The Albino people who originally created the lies?
What are you using for a Brain?
I am an expert, my results beat any known researcher of today.
So much so, that it has driven the great Sage mad with envy.
So what is the true meaning of your statement?
Mike you really have me worried sometimes, and I think I am not the only one.
You cannot impose your own meaning on what words regularly mean to the man on the street. This is how Joe Bloggs understands it when you use a phrase like "Believed to be James Francis Edward Stuart ...". It means the kind of talking heads that the BBC trots out when they make their documentaries. Scholars from Oxford, Cambridge, and Ivy League universities, experts from auction houses like Sotheby's and Christies, and museum curators from the British Museum, the Smithsonian etc. That is what is generally understood when you start of a sentence with "Believed to be James Francis Edward Stuart ...".
It means there is some consensus among those regarded as experts in the field that is so. A website and a regular presence on forums is not regarded as a sign of expertise. A recognized public image, a degree from a university which gives you lots of letters after your name, and recognition among peers in the same field is what puts anybody in the description of recognized expert. We can post loads of well researched and reasoned arguments here, but the man in the street will not recognize anyone here as such without the above qualifications.
Not all your interpretations and assertions start of in this manner but in this particular instance Lioness is right. What you have to do in this case is to say, I Mike of realhistorywww, Mike111 of Egyptsearch forums, I have studied and examined the evidence thoroughly, and these are my conclusions, I fully stand by them, and I take full responsibility for them. This way you can take full credit for your discoveries.
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
But when Mike attaches a description to a picture saying "Believed to be James Francis Edward Stuart ..." it implies that some recognized experts or scholars have studied it and come to that conclusion and if that is the case it should be accompanied by a reference.
Recognized by WHOM?
The Albino people who originally created the lies?
What are you using for a Brain?
I am an expert, my results beat any known researcher of today.
So much so, that it has driven the great Sage mad with envy.
So what is the true meaning of your statement?
Mike you make an important point: You are the expert. Sadly, Afros and Africans can not accept an Afro-American as an expert unless that Afro is recognized by whites as an expert. The good thing about today is that Europeans can not control all the medium today so the truth is out there. Keep up the good work.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike when are you going to stop this crazy delusional attitude and start living in the real world? You can live and bask in your own sense of glory on account of your discoveries as much as your like, but in the real world nobody knows who you are.
Allow me to retort
1. The Christie's page does not confirm that it is James. What it implies is that your belief that it depicts King James has some substance to it.
2. My statement was not about whether it could be King James or not, it was about what words mean to people. Your own belief and conclusions does not amount to a general accepted truth. As the saying goes, in a world where everybody is insane, a sane person is considered to be mad. Where folly is bliss it is foolish to be wise. You can be as right as Albert Einstein or Isaac Newton, or whoever you liken yourself to. If there is no general consensus your theories are not regarded as true. Through out history greater minds than yours have again and again found themselves in this situation, but they still had the humility and gracious and did not go around insulting everyone who disagreed with them.
3. Lioness was attacking you and I went to produce the information which got your ass out of a sling. She had the courtesy to thank me for producing that link. You went off and used that information to your benefit and didn't even care to acknowledge my role in it.
4. If Ausar wants you banned from the forum, it is not because your arguments but the manner in which you present them. I really don't know what self-esteem issues foster the need to present yourself in this manner, and to be honest your attitude damages the Afrocentric cause. Being polite and civil doesn't mean you are trying to ingratiate yourself with 'The Man'. It is understood that sometimes you have to be rough with people when they try to distort the arguments with irrelevancies, but you take it over the top. There are times when I think that Celtic Warriorress is an alter-ego of yours you employ to avoid turning some of your threads into soliloquies.
5. I have been following realhistorywww over the years to see that you have made a fairly solid case for the presence of African people in Europe and Worldwide. Any open minded person who tries to corroborate the evidence for himself can see that, but you continue to act as if it is still you against the whole world and you don't know when to stop. You are like Don Quixote who sees windmills as monsters which need to be challenged, and you keep injecting implications into innocuous words spoken by others. Lioness made a statement about your captioning the image "Believed to be James Francis Edward Stuart ..." and I said that she is right about the way your phrased your belief, implying that there was some open consensus.
6. You said some people introduced you to the picture saying that it was King James. Out of common sense alone I am sure none of the people introduced you to it who believe, or probably know it to be King James on account of having more evidence than they have displayed to you are going to come out publicly and say so on account of the possible consequences. So at the end of the day you have no one except yourself, and others who are more open minded to support your belief. That is why you cannot caption the painting in that manner. because it was actually so realhistorywww wouldn't exist, because there would be no need for it exist. It is because the evidence and interpretation you present is not generally believed that realhistorywww exists. So why add a caption to the painting suggesting otherwise?
You need to man up and stop treating valid criticism as a personal attack (even if is is an underlying agenda). Clyde Winters is often attacked in this forum, but he rolls with it, and responds in a manner which diffuses the attack and manages to keep on making his point. You know very well how much I regularly and relentlessly go in on Lioness because of here two-faced attitude. She was right in this case, not about the content, but the manner in which it was presented, and I conceded it.
If you are on some medication I suggest you take it regularly in order to get your egotism and narcissism under control, seriously. I also hope this matter can end here, without dragging on indefinitely. I have said what I want to say.
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference is Clyde would never say "believed to be" and not say by whom. He lists extensive references but more importantly he takes responsibility for his opinions that are alternative to the mainstream by attributing his real full name to them. That is why he is a much better man than you.
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Believed to be James Francis Edward Stuart ...".
I set this simple challenge for you based on your caption. Name at least one person besides you or Egmond et al (ie other Afrocentrics) that ever wrote or made a statement for the record about the picture that prior to yesterday substantiated or lent credence to your claim that the portrait was "Believed to be James Francis Edward Stuart ...".
Just do this simple thing and I will openly concede I am in error right here. Either that or you restrain your tongue and keep your fingers away from your keyboard.
-------------------- The Habsburg Agenda - Defending Western Christian civilization Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
King James III, James Francis Edward Stuart, by Antonio David, 1720
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
entourage de francois de troy
entourage of francois de troy (Toulouse 1645-1730)
portrait d'un mulatre en armure
portrait of a mulatto in armor
François de Troy (1645 – 21 November 1730) was a French painter and engraver who became principal painter to King James II in exile at Saint-Germain-en-Laye and Director of the Académie Royale de peinture et de sculpture.
If the above painting was of a noble why is the title "Portrait of a Mulatto in Armor" ? Is it because he was half black and they wanted to hide his identity? That just doesn't make sense. Why not just destroy the painting or at least keep it hidden as opposed to being put on sale at a public auction with the picture on view on their publically accessible website? If someone wanted to hide black nobility the first thing you do is destroy this painting at least hide it.
In other words, Mike thinks the real James III is the mulatto in the above painting. So why do all these other paintings of James III (only a few I have shown) exist where he looks white? The proposal is that they are all fake. But somehow they forgot to destroy or hide the 'original' mulatto portrait of his true mulatto appearance before they went and made multiple new white portraits of James III. And it's documented and pictured by a famous white owned auction house. That makes no sense. It's childish
Anyway Mike says all paintings of this age must have cracking and that since he doesn't have a better close up view he can't tell if it has cracking. Therefore according to Mike it might be fake. Somebody who was to be able to have the most expert opinion would have to see the painting in person, second best a high quality page in a book
However not all old paintings crack, there are many variables. I don't think the painting is fake.
Francois De Troy, one of the leading portraitists at Versaille, was the artist of choice at the Stuart court-in-exile at the chateau of St Germain. Between 1698 and 1711 he produced a series of portraits of James II and his children. He also painted some of the most notable Jacobite supporters, such as Lord Drummond. There are seven separate De Troy likenesses of James, but twenty-six versions were known, which raises the question of De Troy’s personal involvement in each picture. It is, as the author of ‘Portraits of the Stuarts in Exile’ notes, ‘probably impossible to determine which, if any, of the surviving versions were produced by De Troy’s assistants’, who included the noted artist Alexis Simon Belle [Edward Corp, exhibition catalogue, Scottish National Portrait Gallery, 2001, p44].
portrait of King James III when prince (aka James Francis Edward Stuart, The Old Pretender) 1705c. Studio of Francois De Troy
_____________________________________ Portrait of an officer, possibly James Fitzjames, Duke of Berwick (1670-1734) Circle of François de Troy (Toulouse 1645-1730 Paris)
"Portrait of the Duc de Broglie (1671-1745)" oil on Canvas by a follower of Hyacinthe Rigaud In armour with a velvet- lined, leopard skin mantle and the Sash of the Order of Saint Esprit, the baton of a marshal of France in his left hand
posted
"There are seven separate De Troy likenesses of James, but twenty-six versions were known, which raises the question of De Troy’s personal involvement in each picture. It is, as the author of ‘Portraits of the Stuarts in Exile’ notes, ‘probably impossible to determine which, if any, of the surviving versions were produced by De Troy’s assistants’, who included the noted artist Alexis Simon Belle [Edward Corp, exhibition catalogue, Scottish National Portrait Gallery, 2001, p44]. "
Thats Albino for .... lots of fakes were made ....
The white ones are all fakes....
-------------------- Keldal Posts: 2818 | From: new york | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Lioness, when you challenge someone's argument, you must challenge it on the evidence they present to support their case.
I have already seen the picture of King James on the realhistorywww website which Mike compared with the the Francois du Troy painting to support his case that the Francois du Troy painting was the real King James, and so have you as they are on the same page. But when you challenged the caption on the painting here, you pretended that Mike hadn't presented the comparison to support his case and was just mouthing of. Technically speaking you were right, but you need to stop this kind of sly, devious underhand conduct.
The armour, the hairstyle, even the pink strip of cloth lining the shoulder plate (if that is what it is called) and the leopard skin are all present in both of the images you have presented here. So why don't do the decent thing and present them side by side so people can judge whether Mike had good cause to come to his conclusions? He may have used the wrong wording but his conclusions are well founded.
-------------------- The Habsburg Agenda - Defending Western Christian civilization Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Habsburg: @Lioness, when you challenge someone's argument, you must challenge it on the evidence they present to support their case.
I have already seen the picture of King James on the realhistorywww website which Mike compared with the the Francois du Troy painting to support his case that the Francois du Troy painting was the real King James, and so have you as they are on the same page. But when you challenged the caption on the painting here, you pretended that Mike hadn't presented the comparison to support his case......
The armour, the hairstyle, even the pink strip of cloth lining the shoulder plate (if that is what it is called) and the leopard skin are all present in both of the images you have presented here. So why don't do the decent thing and present them side by side so people can judge whether Mike had good cause to come to his conclusions? He may have used the wrong wording but his conclusions are well founded.
There are many portraits of James III
The one being discussed here is by Antonio David
There is also a portrait of a mulatto by Francois du Troy and the mulatto is in the same pose wearing armour similar to the the amour worn in the portrait of James III as well as a similar leopard skin mantle.
So with all the many other paintings of James III and with no text that describes him as a mulatto why then would one logically conclude that a portrait of a mulatto with similar garb and pose is the real James III and the many portraits labeled James III are all fake?
Employing unbiased objective logic, that conclusion does not follow.
With nothing else to suggest that James III (aka James Francis Edward Stuart) was anything other than a white man as shown in the lot of many paintings of him, using unbiased objective logic the portrait of a mulatto is more likely a portrait made in imitation of Antonio David's portrait of James III
That is a more logical conclusion
However I propose Mike's analysis is highly biased wishful thinking and not an attempt to be objective. if this mulatto portait is King James III and the other portraits of him are all fake it means a conspiracy of unbelievably silly proportions was carried out. Futhermore I don't think belief in this theory is more "pro black". In fact I think it is less "pro black" when his father James II headed the Royal African Company, a primary slave trading company where slaves were branded with the company's initials, RAC, on their chests. Of course nobody cares about the nature of these royal families. The whole thing then functions as a cover up of the European role as founders of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and as colonizers over indigenous people's lands And it also functions to put forth the idea that Africans did not exist in old Europe, that people who looked exactly like Africans ( in this case half African) were in fact not Africans they were in fact of the stock oppressing the Africans! The behavior is an example of the Stockholm Syndrome
But many people love conspiracies and much more probable scenario spoils the fun for them . Believing in this kind of conspiracy gives one the sense that they are part of a small elite group who have uncovered a big secret that we used to be flamboyant "nobles"
And notice the circular reasoning attempted.
The proposal is that a painting of a mulatto is King James III because a fake painting of King James III indicates that James III wore armour with pink velvet trim and a leopard skin mantle
In other words details in a painting proposed to be fake are used to prove the identity of an unidentified person in another painting.
That is simply not rational objective thinking
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike White history is already well documented (you should know after all you are trying to steal it) all the artifacts & everything are all already there (you claim they are fake) so I need do nothing. You are the one trying to formulate a fake history for yourself. You are the one who can't come up with any proof of your Central Asia crap. I know you can't because I have asked many times and each time you won't do it or you fail LOL.
BTW Mike one last time & get it through your dang head TURKS AREN'T WHITE neither are Jews.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
This stuff about Egyptians is way off topic. If you look at the paintings and colored sculpture of ancient Egypt the vast majority in the main dynastic periods the are people brown. If you look at the old European paintings the vast majority resemble modern Europeans. So there is no comparison whatsoever Instead of making a new thread on these commenatries about Egyptians Mike is trying to win points to compensate for all the points he lost in this thread
In other words this thread is called "Biographies of Blacks of note in Britain" Yet none are listed
How about,
Olaudah Equiano Ottobah Cugoano Jacques Francis Edward Swarthye Ignatius SanchoChristopher Cappervert Diogo Isabell Peeters Gylman Ivye
Have any of you referred to books which document Blacks in Britain or is Mike your only information source and you just comment on what he says? That's Doxies role. Will she ever author her own thread?
And who will start a real thread on Blacks in Britain ?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing about the ancient Egyptians is that you can discuss them forever and not come to an agreement.
For me the Ancient Egyptians are a fairly simple matter. They are 'proper black people' however that is interpreted, and the closest people them are the nomadic tribes of Northern Kenya and Uganda. They are the original AE stock, not matter how much they don't look it. There can be wide variations in appearance even within very closely related tribes, and a group can exhibit certain particular traits to an extent that they are considered a different people.
Proof of AE's racial make up can be seen clearly in the Sphinx, which happens to be female anyway, and just because the mummies excavated look closer to Somalis and some the tribes out there, really doesn't mean a thing. The traits are very visible in modern Egyptian women. The problem with images from Africa is that the media prefers to display 'photogenic faces' that conform more to Western ideals of beauty.
There is something else you should focus on as a line of thought or enquiry.
When Louis XIV's body was exhumed the body was ebony all over and in remarkably good condition. Note that point. It had not suffered any notable deterioration, and one text described the skin as shiny. Consider the corollary. If the body was black and in good condition, then isn't it rationale to assume that it must have been black before it was entombed? If the same body was found in Africa, in the same condition, wouldn't it be rationale to assume that it was that of a black man, then why shouldn't the same apply in Europe? Here comes the rub. The bodies were thrown in a pit and destroyed with quick lime, destroying any possible knowledge of the appearance of the great kings of the ancien regime. The churches were raided apparently to obtain lead to manufacturer bullets for the revolution.
What is interesting about the texts is that there is no sign that any of the witnesses at the scene where shocked, surprised, or alarmed that Louis's body was black and well preserved. Does that seem normal for a people who today are expected to believe that one of their greatest kings was white or most sallow(as we believe today)? If the people at the scene felt that the fact that his body had turned black all over was a sign from God about his evil nature or whatever they didn't mention it.
Don't forget that he is believed to be the father of the Black Nun of Moret, a double first cousin to his wife (they shared the same four grandparents), and a first cousin to Charles II who was described as the Black Boy.
What does that tell you about the images of the royals we see today? They are probably even more bogus than we could imagine.
And one more thing. During the revolution statues of the Black Madonna were destroyed with the chant "Death to the Egyptian". Why the Egyptian? Who were the Egyptians supposed to be? Have you also noticed that hardly any royal females are portrayed as dark-skinned or black, in spite of the males that happen to be?
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
It appears that we are now at a point where we are all satisfied that the Albino peoples history is indeed a cruel hoax.
(Except the great Sage who I suspect is a White guy).
I would like for us to now explore WHY they felt it was necessary to do such a thing - I have touched on this before - and the various methods they used to propagate their monumental lies.
Was world conquest pursued to spread the lies, our were the lies partly created to justify world conquest?
One of the great mysteries to me is the fake portraits and statues.
If creating them was a world-wide Albino conspiracy, I see no way that they could have keep a secret among so many people. So was it individual self hating Albino racists on their own, creating things to show the history that they would have liked. And over the centuries, they thereby created fake artifacts by the many thousands or even millions. Could it be that is how it happened?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Hollywood movies of today are the equivalent of the statues and paintings of yesterday.
entertainment and propaganda.
In the vein that Albinos continue to make Fake white Egyptian movies, fake White Jesus movies, fake white knights, lords, kings, and saints, (Game of Thrones),
is the same way they created the fake statues and art. They created what they would like reality to be and then thereafter lie to themselves and their children that the created fake is real.
It is their culture:
ex. 1. create Elvis to copy Black Artist (Chuck Berry, etc.)(a poor copy at that) 2. Then afterwards, call Elvis "The King of Rock and Roll"
As, they moved from Central Asia, as ignorant, poor, illiterate, hungry etc., they must have been stunned to see the wonders of Black Civilizations ....especially Egypt (they are still stunned).
the natural result is not only envy, but a huge sense of inadequacy....low self esteem, add this to the Albinism defect and the result is extreme psychological distress. The way they deal with it is projecting violence on the who they believe to be the source of the distress.
They now do it naturally: fake history, fake reality, violence.
-------------------- Keldal Posts: 2818 | From: new york | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Chineses and Indians elites are compliced in white aka Albino Europeans creating ten of thousands of fake white European Monarchs statues and paintings. The Black and Brown European Caesars, Emperors, Kings, Princes, Popes, Merchants, Bankers had traded for one thousand years with India and China during the Silk Road. Brown and Black Europeans Caesars and Kings had Ambassadors to India and China. I think during the Silk Road hundred of thousands of Black and Brown Europeans Caesars and Emperors Statues, paintings and coins were taken to India and China and thousands of statues and coins of Indian and Chinese Monarchs were taken to the Roman Empire and later Europe.
Not only the White Europeans are hiding the artifacts of Black and Brown European Monarchs, The Chineses and Indians are hiding their own black Monarchs artifacts and the European black and Brown artifacts they got from trades.Maybe The reason Western Bankers and Corporations are offshoring ten of millions of jobs to China and India and investing hundred of billions of dollars in those countries corporations is to bribe the Chinese and Indian elite to hide the Black and Brown European Kings artifacts that the European failed to find and destroyed during the colonial era.
Posts: 5374 | From: sepedat/sirius | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question is what is the real agenda here, who or what is behind it? There are times when I feel some aspects of the White nature and character are not under the direction of a human intelligence. It is as though something within it is trying to copy human beings, but because it doesn't understand the spirit or heart of what is trying to copy, it imposes its own weird aesthetic on affairs.
Take these images of Gugu Mbatha Raw, the actress in Dido. The Evening Standard featured her in one of the magazines. The one on the left shows her natural complexion. The one on the right is not even close to what actually appears on the cover and inside. The colour is completely gone, and when I say gone, I mean gone. I don't mean trying to make her skin lighter. The colour is just gone, looking like some dark toned mediterranean woman in dim lighting. When I saw the picture first I was confused, because there was something familiar but I couldn't pin it down. It was when I read the caption that I realized who it was.
This is what I mean about the White frame of mind. Her complexion is completely eviscerated of what makes it beautiful, dressed up and put back up as though it is beautiful that way, as though the white people who put it up felt envious of it and decided it to denude it. The person there doesn't look a white person or a black person, just dark and unwhite. What you are seeing here actually looks "very good" in comparison to what actually appears. So the question is if they don't like it, or it makes them aware of their shortcomings, why don't just they leave it alone? And this is the kind of weird aesthetic it seems they want to impose on other races, at least if not them, then those involved in their modelling and fashion industries, with their stick thin figures.
In addition to their dominate everything, this is the other part of them that I feel a need to understand.
It calls to mind those horror films in which some weirdo cannot get the woman he wants, so he kills her and preserves her body, so he can place it is room an goes to sleep wih it at his side.
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kdolo, first of all you stupid White people hating, Black supremacist moron. Whites did NOT come from no Central Asia & we do NOT have albinism. Second it is YOU & your ilk who are trying to falsify history, lying to yourselves & your own children because its how you would like it to be.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
These are mulattos, Both Gugu Mbatha-Raw and Barack Obama have a white mother and black father
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
what do any of these Africans have to do with the mulattos I put up who have one white parent and another black parent?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haney, there are no original European DNA. All DNAs derive from original African genes..
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
according to Mike, Barack Obama came out of the womb of an albino and drank albino breast milk
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Chromosomal genes are different from autosomals...
Here, I gonna help you:
Chromosomes in humans can be divided into two types: autosomes and sex chromosomes. Certain genetic traits are linked to a person's sex and are passed on through the sex chromosomes. The autosomes contain the rest of the genetic hereditary information...
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: albionoid genes are autosomal recessive.
That's right in Africa when two black people have an albino child it is because they both have the gene for albinism. If only one of them has the gene the child won't be albino.
And if two black people have an albino child and that albino child grows up and has their own child with a black person who is not a carrier of the gene for albinism, then the child won't be half black the child will be just as black as their one black parent and their skin tone will be unaffected by their albino parent,
yes, albinoid genes are autosomal recessive.
So why is Barack Obama much lighter than his father?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lioness, in case you didn't read my post properly and just engaged in your usual knee jerk responses, the topic of my post was how a magazine presented a mixed race woman stripped of all her colour for whatever reason, and presented it as though it was stylish and beautiful.
If that is what they wanted then why didn't they use a regular white woman instead? So the whole idea was to strip her of her natural beauty so they could feel more comfortable about their own selves. Try to understand what is being said here. On the actually cover the colour is completely gone, it doesn't even look like the light tan you see here. They didn't make it look lighter, the colour was completely removed, more like a dull bleached out pink.
Another point you should note. The Igbo women here are not light by any stretch of imagination. If you were to observe them in real life you would see that their natural skin tones are not much different from the men they are standing next to. What you see is down to the way their make up relates to the lighting or the photo processing, and more likely some skin lightening. It only shows how clueless you are about African people.
They probably look more like this in everyday life.
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Habsburg: Lioness, in case you didn't read my post properly and just engaged in your usual knee jerk responses, the topic of my post was how a magazine presented a mixed race woman stripped of all her colour for whatever reason, and presented it as though it was stylish and beautiful.
If that is what they wanted then why didn't they use a regular white woman instead? So the whole idea was to strip her of her natural beauty so they could feel more comfortable about their own selves. Try to understand what is being said here. On the actually cover the colour is completely gone, it doesn't even look like the light tan you see here. They didn't make it look lighter, the colour was completely removed, more like a dull bleached out pink.
Another point you should note. The Igbo women here are not light by any stretch of imagination. If you were to observe them in real life you would see that their natural skin tones are not much different from the men they are standing next to. What you see is down to the way their make up relates to the lighting or the photo processing, and more likely some skin lightening. It only shows how clueless you are about African people.
They probably look more like this in everyday life.
The fact that in your last sentence you speculate how Igbo women "probably" like in everyday life and you show the woman above as an example is contradicted by Ironlion who actually is an Igbo and already posted these photos below
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: Light skin Igbos of Nigeria
According to Ironlion some Igbos are darker, others lighter, the lighter ones, like the Khosians, according to Mike, came into contact with albinos somewhere in their ancestry
Barack Obama's mother Ann Dunham, ( that means she gave birth to him) They have similar eyes and chin shape
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [QB] Odd Cause of Humans' Dark Skin Proposed
By Stephanie Pappas, Senior Writer | February 25, 2014 07:01pm ET
In modern sub-Saharan Africa, albinism is common, with about one case per every 5,000 people. In comparison, there is only one case per every 20,000 people in Europe and the United States.
posted
If I say probably because I don't know about the specific reasons why these ones are lighter skinned because I am looking at a photograph and speculating from experience in actual observation why they look that way. They don't fall into the category of light-skinned, which generally means people who have the complexion of mulattoes, which some Khoisan actually look like.
Try to understand this there is a higher incidence of complexion like that of mulattoes among Ibos, but they constitute a small proportion, not even near 5% of the wider Ibo population. But it is the higher incidence among them that lead people to make such generalizations.
Now take a good look at the images you presented and think about this. All the light skinned people you presented here are women, which is generally the case when people go on to make statements about light skinned Ibos. Yet in the case of the Khoisan many of the examples are men.
Could be because of makeup and skin lightening that images of light skinned Ibos tend to lean towards women?
When you observe people of all races in general you see that when young the boys complexions don't differ much from girls, but as they grow older men are usually darker for the simple reason that men in general don't care about getting darker as they grow older. It is women who generally care more about light complexions, and use skin lightening creams to maintain or even lighten them.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Habsburg: Lioness, in case you didn't read my post properly and just engaged in your usual knee jerk responses, the topic of my post was how a magazine presented a mixed race woman stripped of all her colour for whatever reason, and presented it as though it was stylish and beautiful.
If that is what they wanted then why didn't they use a regular white woman instead? So the whole idea was to strip her of her natural beauty so they could feel more comfortable about their own selves. Try to understand what is being said here. On the actually cover the colour is completely gone, it doesn't even look like the light tan you see here. They didn't make it look lighter, the colour was completely removed, more like a dull bleached out pink.
Another point you should note. The Igbo women here are not light by any stretch of imagination. If you were to observe them in real life you would see that their natural skin tones are not much different from the men they are standing next to. What you see is down to the way their make up relates to the lighting or the photo processing, and more likely some skin lightening. It only shows how clueless you are about African people.
They probably look more like this in everyday life.
The fact that in your last sentence you speculate how Igbo women "probably" like in everyday life and you show the woman above as an example is contradicted by Ironlion who actually is an Igbo and already posted these photos below
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: Light skin Igbos of Nigeria
According to Ironlion some Igbos are darker, others lighter, the lighter ones, like the Khosians, according to Mike, came into contact with albinos somewhere in their ancestry
quote:Originally posted by Habsburg: ...there is a higher incidence of complexion like that of mulattoes among Ibos, but they constitute a small proportion, not even near 5% of the wider Ibo population. ...
Says who? Your opinion or fact?
Based on what?
Gee!
Phyno popular Nigerian musician of Igbo extraction....
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: albionoid genes are autosomal recessive.
.... And if two black people have an albino child and that albino child grows up and has their own child with a black person who is not a carrier of the gene for albinism, then the child won't be half black the child will be just as black as their one black parent and their skin tone will be unaffected by their albino parent,
yes, albinoid genes are autosomal recessive.
.... So why is Barack Obama much lighter than his father?
Honey,
What are you rambling about here? Try again but please keep it comprehensible....
Sex chromosomes are different than autosomal chromosomes. That is all I was trying to tell you.
Obama's mother is autosomal Albino, but chromosomal African...
You get it now? Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: albionoid genes are autosomal recessive.
.... And if two black people have an albino child and that albino child grows up and has their own child with a black person who is not a carrier of the gene for albinism, then the child won't be half black the child will be just as black as their one black parent and their skin tone will be unaffected by their albino parent,
yes, albinoid genes are autosomal recessive.
.... So why is Barack Obama much lighter than his father?
Honey,
What are you rambling about here? Try again but please keep it comprehensible....
Sex chromosomes are different than autosomal chromosomes. That is all I was trying to tell you.
Obama's mother is autosomal Albino, but chromosomal African...
You get it now?
I'll explain it to you again, read:
in Africa when two black people have an albino child it is because they both have the gene for albinism. If only one of them has the gene, the child won't be albino.
And if two black people have an albino child and that albino child grows up and has their own child with a black person who is not a carrier of the gene for albinism, then the child won't be half black the child will be just as black as their one black parent and their skin tone will be unaffected by their albino parent. The reason for this is that the gene is recessive
^^^ now go back to square one deal with this statement
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: albionoid genes are autosomal recessive.
.... And if two black people have an albino child and that albino child grows up and has their own child with a black person who is not a carrier of the gene for albinism, then the child won't be half black the child will be just as black as their one black parent and their skin tone will be unaffected by their albino parent,
yes, albinoid genes are autosomal recessive.
.... So why is Barack Obama much lighter than his father?
Honey,
What are you rambling about here? Try again but please keep it comprehensible....
Sex chromosomes are different than autosomal chromosomes. That is all I was trying to tell you.
Obama's mother is autosomal Albino, but chromosomal African...
You get it now?
I'll explain it to you again, read:
in Africa when two black people have an albino child it is because they both have the gene for albinism. If only one of them has the gene, the child won't be albino.
And if two black people have an albino child and that albino child grows up and has their own child with a black person who is not a carrier of the gene for albinism, then the child won't be half black the child will be just as black as their one black parent and their skin tone will be unaffected by their albino parent. The reason for this is that the gene is recessive
^^^ now go back to square one deal with this statement
Haney
An albino gene carrier's skin colour is also impacted by the mere fact of carrying that gene, even if only in heterozygous mode. That is why you have some many shades of colour in Africa.
Honey, autosomal genes determine how you will look. Chromosomal genes on the other hand are used in population mapping and history, i.e. tracing ancestry.
Gee, you still don't get it?
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [QB] Odd Cause of Humans' Dark Skin Proposed
By Stephanie Pappas, Senior Writer | February 25, 2014 07:01pm ET
In modern sub-Saharan Africa, albinism is common, with about one case per every 5,000 people. In comparison, there is only one case per every 20,000 people in Europe and the United States.
why?
Because when talking about themselves, European Albinos only recognize type 1 Albinos as Albinos, ignoring type 2 which is what most of you are.
All medical references outline recognize OCA 2. The statement above: " there is only one case per every 20,000 people in Europe and the United States." applies to OCA 2 which is discussed in all medical references, book and magazine articles. A less quoted figure "1 in 40,000 people" applies to OCA 1
And as stated in many thousands of articles "OCA 2 is the most common form of albinism"
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: My point in posting the article was to highlight WHY your people left Africa, not because the specifics were true.
So you are abandoning your theory that white people are Albino Dravidians. Are you going to change your website now?
Now that we know that the albinos were African albinos before they left Africa (in your imagined out of Africa mass albino migration) then there is no sense in calling them Dravidians. That becomes stupid
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: albionoid genes are autosomal recessive.
.... And if two black people have an albino child and that albino child grows up and has their own child with a black person who is not a carrier of the gene for albinism, then the child won't be half black the child will be just as black as their one black parent and their skin tone will be unaffected by their albino parent,
yes, albinoid genes are autosomal recessive.
.... So why is Barack Obama much lighter than his father?
Honey,
What are you rambling about here? Try again but please keep it comprehensible....
Sex chromosomes are different than autosomal chromosomes. That is all I was trying to tell you.
Obama's mother is autosomal Albino, but chromosomal African...
You get it now?
I'll explain it to you again, read:
in Africa when two black people have an albino child it is because they both have the gene for albinism. If only one of them has the gene, the child won't be albino.
And if two black people have an albino child and that albino child grows up and has their own child with a black person who is not a carrier of the gene for albinism, then the child won't be half black the child will be just as black as their one black parent and their skin tone will be unaffected by their albino parent. The reason for this is that the gene is recessive
^^^ now go back to square one deal with this statement
Haney
An albino gene carrier's skin colour is also impacted by the mere fact of carrying that gene, even if only in heterozygous mode. That is why you have some many shades of colour in Africa.
Honey, autosomal genes determine how you will look. Chromosomal genes on the other hand are used in population mapping and history, i.e. tracing ancestry.
Gee, you still don't get it?
Read it again. None of what you said above changes the following statement:
In Africa when two black people have an albino child it is because they both have the gene for albinism. If only one of them has the gene, the child won't be albino.
And if two black people have an albino child and that albino child grows up and has their own child with a black person who is not a carrier of the gene for albinism, then the child won't be half black the child will be just as black as their one black parent and their skin tone will be unaffected by their albino parent. The reason for this is that the gene is recessive
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic