quote:Originally posted by the questioner: Before we can even begin, you must first show us a single reference from an old source that says Charles the V was "black" (negro) before we can start talking about pictures or paintings
. It's hilarious listening to a Boob trying to use evidence, reason, and logic.
Here is one for you, find me an instance where some Albino (White person) describes Donald Trump as White.
Just to give you a sporting chance, any President will do.
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: Before we can even begin, you must first show us a single reference from an old source that says Charles the V was "black" (negro) before we can start talking about pictures or paintings
clever how Mike has diverted the questioner from his own question
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: Before we can even begin, you must first show us a single reference from an old source that says Charles the V was "black" (negro) before we can start talking about pictures or paintings
clever how Mike has diverted the questioner from his own question
not necessarily i used (negro) for a reason
the text he used said "black complexion" it never said he was "black" himself
i asked him how does he know that black (in this case) doesn't mean "pale" instead of "dark"
he has yet to answer this question
you must also remember that Charles the V was not English so searching out a source in English serves no purpose in this case
Posts: 861 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh he's using crack pot sources non primary sources, where the writers are grasping at straws. From what I've read the albino tend to do that a lot in text. Normally I just chuckle at it.
I may come back to this with actual old dictionaries of various languages dealing with this if I have time, but I get tired playing the same stupid games, where you win stupid prizes. If you want to call the junk these toons post "prizes".
IE: What nationality the subject is is not relevant to the language another person chooses describes him in. A claim like that is literally nonsensical.
Posts: 310 | From: US | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: pick a nation and i will prove it
in addition to negro what evidence do you have that Charles the v was called a "moor"
This isn't an answer to my question. Stop drawing out the stupidity. Give me a source where there is an agreement that in all text, all blacks african are described as negro, it must be primary data.
Posts: 310 | From: US | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: Before we can even begin, you must first show us a single reference from an old source that says Charles the V was "black" (negro) before we can start talking about pictures or paintings
clever how Mike has diverted the questioner from his own question
not necessarily i used (negro) for a reason
the text he used said "black complexion" it never said he was "black" himself
i asked him how does he know that black (in this case) doesn't mean "pale" instead of "dark"
he has yet to answer this question
you must also remember that Charles the V was not English so searching out a source in English serves no purpose in this case
^ suppose somebody came to Egyptsearch and read your above paragraph. They would see the name Charles V and before it you talking about a text describing somebody in a text as of "black complexion".
How would anybody know that you were talking about a text not pertaining to Charles V but someones else?
Mike played you
Now fencer has you on another semantic diversion also not pertaining to anything said about Charles V, please stay focused
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have many sources to choose from, unfortunately not all organized, but since these people like to play dumb and I can only handle so much stupidity (specifically when its disingenuous), I will take the time to deal with it. Let's have some fun with the liarness and the joker in just one post.
So to get started we can look at what Mike posted from John Macky, to which our albino friends pull one of their favorite cards — "dictionary shuffle." But we will deal with this. Instead of going into dictionaries and getting too detailed (because these morons are only playing dumb so its not worth THAT much effort). Lets just use the source Mike posted and see what the writer is trying to describe and what he means when he uses the words and if its as loose a word as they claim. We will kill two birds with one stone here (maybe even three):
Memoirs of the secret services of John Macky, esq., during the reigns of King William, Queen Anne, and King George I. London, 1733 (page 26)
In his habit and manners very formal; a tall, thin, very black Man, like a Spaniard or Jew about Fifty Years old.
Okay we don’t really need more than that from what he is describing, their complexion was black and compared to Spanish and Jews, let’s see what the actual Spanish population looked like from some sketches of a visitors journal. The population number of this appearance had to be significant to be able to paint an identity of a region or culture by that appearance. It should be reflected in the sketches.
In the track of the Moors : sketches in Spain and Northern Africa; by Fitzgerald, Sybil Published 1905
The following study sketches are based on observations in Spain and more specifically for those showcased Andalusia and Granda.
We can see what the majority of the people look like, even in the BW sketches.
At this point I'd continue with more sources for complexion use, and continue into Charles descriptions I had saved but I'm getting bored of this again, it’s not worth it but at least we have some nice take home pics for lurkers.
Now we can prepare for liarness to do a shuffle or the joker to figure out some ambiguous text or hypothetical rhetoric to circle talk. Whatever the case it doesn't really matter, they can only follow a set pattern of behavior so you can pretty much guess what the will do, even if its cringeworthingly stupid.
Posts: 310 | From: US | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
fencer, what has this got to do with Charles V ? where are the text references on Charles V
As we can see in the 17th century the terms "black" was not standardized. It could apply to a dark skinned African or a European who was not pale
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Alright guys, what do you make of this? Here is the girl from the Adoration, with Charles and his two sisters. They are arranged better for comparsion.
What can you observe from it?
Scrutinize them and tell me what you can see.
Free ice cream for anyone who makes some noteworthy observations.
Lest we go offtopic, how do these children compare to the figure of this Magus:
No sources provided
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^How appropriate that a thread which uses the word "rendition" to describe a type of portrait, ends up (at the instigation of an Albino), fighting over the meaning of Black.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^How appropriate that a thread which uses the word "rendition" to describe a type of portrait, ends up (at the instigation of an Albino), fighting over the meaning of Black.
LMAO
I wouldn't even call it a fight. The last liarness post is literally just " refuting" by taking the same book and posting a fake image with no context or proof of its authenticity, (indirectly saying --- "we're albinos, we make the rules so we say its real!"). Just the epitome of stupidity. It's kind of sad, since they are being dishonest they can only respond in a certain manner to continue the game, this results in their posts becoming very predictable, to the point that anyone here can parody an "argument" with them.
If you get them angry enough they will really show you what they think of the sources they ask for.
One of my favorites is when they say - "To hell with (insert name of the person or source)!"
Posts: 310 | From: US | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: What is the apparent link between the children in the paintings and the Black magi?
There is no link. Young children and babies have under developed facial features. They look different from one another to a lesser extent than if you compared them as adults Try looking at 50 photos of young European children. You will see many who look very similar but have no relation. Even across ethnic groups, disregarding skin tone, You will find younger individuals with more similar looking features as compared to adults.
Then go to adults
Obama's look alike at right has no relation to him otherwise. Imagine these were oil paintings the similarity would be perceived as even stronger. Type in "celebrity look alikes" in google for more. Some are meant to be funny but many also are just plain similar looking
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: Before we can even begin, you must first show us a single reference from an old source that says Charles the V was "black" (negro) before we can start talking about pictures or paintings
clever how Mike has diverted the questioner from his own question
not necessarily i used (negro) for a reason
the text he used said "black complexion" it never said he was "black" himself
i asked him how does he know that black (in this case) doesn't mean "pale" instead of "dark"
he has yet to answer this question
you must also remember that Charles the V was not English so searching out a source in English serves no purpose in this case
^ suppose somebody came to Egyptsearch and read your above paragraph. They would see the name Charles V and before it you talking about a text describing somebody in a text as of "black complexion".
How would anybody know that you were talking about a text not pertaining to Charles V but someones else?
Mike played you
Now fencer has you on another semantic diversion also not pertaining to anything said about Charles V, please stay focused
your confusing yourself
mike gave me what i wanted but i gave him another question to help verify his reference
if he proves that Charles the V was indeed a black man(negro) than i will yield to it
for it is not impossible that he could have been black(negro or moor) i just need hardcore proof that proves without a doubt that by black complexion they mean Negro
Posts: 861 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged |
if he proves that Charles the V was indeed a black man(negro) than i will yield to it
for it is not impossible that he could have been black(negro or moor) i just need hardcore proof that proves without a doubt that by black complexion they mean Negro
You keep making the same mistake over and over again instead of asking Mike for old text that suggests Charles V was black you have attached the word "negro" and entangled the conversation in what black means. Fencer was actually the one who got into that but you started it. First things first, let us see any information Mike thinks that suggests or proves Charles V was black (has none, see his website) and then you can get into a discussion of what black means. Don't put the cart before the horse. You messed up the conversation now that I'm looking back on the conversatin and Mike and I followed you into the semantics
But now it's time to get back on point and let Mike present his case that Charles V was black with text or paintings made when he was alive and painted in locations where he had been
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
if he proves that Charles the V was indeed a black man(negro) than i will yield to it
for it is not impossible that he could have been black(negro or moor) i just need hardcore proof that proves without a doubt that by black complexion they mean Negro
You keep making the same mistake over and over again instead of asking Mike for old text that suggests Charles V was black you have attached the word "negro" and entangled the conversation in what black means. Fencer was actually the one who got into that but you started it. First things first, let us see any information Mike thinks that suggests or proves Charles V was black (has none, see his website) and then you can get into a discussion of what black means. Don't put the cart before the horse. You messed up the conversation now that I'm looking back on the conversatin and Mike and I followed you into the semantics
But now it's time to get back on point and let Mike present his case that Charles V was black with text or paintings made when he was alive and in locations where he had been
my mistake i assumed that Charles lenos duke of Richmond was Charles V
i sped read Charles and assumed Charles the V
i didn't think he was silly enough to put a whole different Charles to reference Charles the V
first time shame on him second time shame on me
Posts: 861 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: Before we can even begin, you must first show us a single reference from an old source that says Charles the V was "black" (negro) before we can start talking about pictures or paintings
. It's hilarious listening to a Boob trying to use evidence, reason, and logic.
Here is one for you, find me an instance where some Albino (White person) describes Donald Trump as White.
Just to give you a sporting chance, any President will do.
posted
Mike, the questioner is asking you if you have evidence if Charles V was a negro
But the readership first would like to see any evidence in text of Charles V being "black" in any sense of the word or in any language
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Something connects the Black magi with the four white children in the paintings. 24 hours else you all lose your black pass for good.
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda:
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda:
Alright guys, what do you make of this? Here is the girl from the Adoration, with Charles and his two sisters. They are arranged better for comparison.
What can you observe from it?
Scrutinize them and tell me what you can see.
Free ice cream for anyone who makes some noteworthy observations.
Lest we go offtopic, how do these children compare to the figure of this Magus:
posted
The History of the Emperor Charles the Fifth by William Robertson D.D. Vol IV (page 376)
He was the same "black friar" --so called from his swarthy visage -- who had made his name famous by the part he took in persecutions in England;
Imperial Dictionary of the English Language Vol IV 1883 (page 275)
[From swarth, swart, See SWART,] Being of a dark hue or dusky complexion; tawny or black; as the Moors, Spaniards, and Italians are more swarthy than the French, Germans, and English. 'A swarthy Ethiope.'
The joker, stop with the balloon animal show, I am still waiting on that primary sourced documentation of all blacks (regardless of phenotype) being called "negro", this documentation must also support transliteration of negro into all local languages and must be used as a physical description in each and every one of them, they can not be an attempt at a racial construction as this will invalidate you.
Posts: 310 | From: US | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fencer: The History of the Emperor Charles the Fifth by William Robertson D.D. Vol IV (page 376)
He was the same "black friar" --so called from his swarthy visage -- who had made his name famous by the part he took in persecutions in England;
Imperial Dictionary of the English Language Vol IV 1883 (page 275)
[From swarth, swart, See SWART,] Being of a dark hue or dusky complexion; tawny or black; as the Moors, Spaniards, and Italians are more swarthy than the French, Germans, and English. 'A swarthy Ethiope.'
The joker, stop with the balloon animal show, I am still waiting on that primary sourced documentation of all blacks (regardless of phenotype) being called "negro", this documentation must also support transliteration of negro into all local languages and must be used as a physical description in each and every one of them, they can not be an attempt at a racial construction as this will invalidate you.
posted
yes, fencer stop wasting our time with scams, thanks your quote was about Bartolomé Carranza a priest of the Dominican Order, not Charles V
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
What evidence do you have that this is ACTUALLY a faithful rendering of Charles V?
What other images do you have to corroborate your conclusion?
Why this one and not any of the other portraits of well dressed black men in the Netherlands from that era?
What distinguishes this painting, what are the features of this painting that separates from the other paintings of black men from that era, and makes this the definitive painting of Charles V?
Note that I am not saying that your conclusions are wholly unfounded, but what is the supporting evidence besides the fact of the man being black and exhibiting some prognathism which many black people do?
Conclusions are a dime a dozen. A deep scrutiny of the features, and that the conclusion is a well reasoned one from the analysis of those features is what really counts.
We are only reasoning from images about scenes from 500 years back. This is not a physical science in which we can conduct experiments which prove our theories. We can only have well reasoned conclusions, nothing more than that.
Has anyone drawn any conclusions with this painting lately?
Posts: 70 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay guys I gave you more than 2 years and you were unable to see the connection, so you don't get any ice cream.
What connects the Black man above and the children below connection are their tongues. The prognathism of Habsburgs resulted in malocclusion, and this is what is seen in this pictures. The tongues of all of the children are visible. It is not so obvious with Eleanora on the bottom left, but you can see that her lips are apart.
That trait has persisted in Habsburgs to this very day, though to a less obvious extent, probably with assistance of modern orthodontics.
Holy Roman Emperor Leopold II and his great-great-great-great-grandson Ferdinand Leopold von Habsburg
Which leads us to the question. Was the only Black male model available to the sculptor one who had the same condition as Charles V and his sisters? Even if he exhibited such a condition was it necessary for the sculptor to render this feature so faithfully?
There are two other interesting points in the paintings.
The first is the asymmetrical faces of both Charles and Isabella. Note that the asymmetrical trait is even more marked in the painting of the girl on the top-right and her head is heavily tilted to the right to disguise it.
From this we are fairly certain that Duchess Diane of Württemberg, and Kings Juan Carlos and Felipe of Spain are genuine Habsburgs.
Another point worthy of note is the over rotation of the noses of all the children with the exception of Eleanora. The boy on the painting of the adoration also exhibits the displayed tongue and the over-rotation of the nose as well.
As you can see, both the asymmetry and malocclusion are present in these paintings of the Magi, and what we consider to be a genuine painting of a genuinely white Carlos Quinto by Albrecht Durer.
There is clearly an agenda here, A Habsburg Agenda, seemingly of a most dastardly kind. AHA!!
What does this mean? What is this mystery about? Will it ever be solved? Will the hidden meaning in the paintings be eventually revealed?
Find in the next installment of The Mystery of the Asymmetry of Carlos Quinto. Coming soon to a forum near you!!
Something connects the Black magi with the four white children in the paintings. 24 hours else you all lose your black pass for good.
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda:
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: <snipped, displayed above>
Alright guys, what do you make of this? Here is the girl from the Adoration, with Charles and his two sisters. They are arranged better for comparison.
What can you observe from it?
Scrutinize them and tell me what you can see.
Free ice cream for anyone who makes some noteworthy observations.
Lest we go offtopic, how do these children compare to the figure of this Magus:
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: Before we can even begin, you must first show us a single reference from an old source that says Charles the V was "black" (negro) before we can start talking about pictures or paintings
. It's hilarious listening to a Boob trying to use evidence, reason, and logic.
Here is one for you, find me an instance where some Albino (White person) describes Donald Trump as White.
Just to give you a sporting chance, any President will do.
mike111 please present evidence of Charles the V being black (negro) or moor
Charles V's son Don John of Austria was said to be so dark he was called "verdinegro" by Philip II and Antonio Perez. A fine example of colorism.
Charles' sister Eleanor was described as "...a good-hearted, dark-complexioned woman, with the thick lips of the Austrian family, and whilst the king (Francis I) was still surrounded by his guards made her dance a Moorish saraband before him". ^^Charles made her dance for Francis.
Infanta Isabella, Charles' granddaughter, was described as follows, "her swarthy complexion somewhat justifies the sarcasm of Pierre Leroy".
The Habsburgs were, indeed, a black dynasty. And it puts into context the following:
^^This excerpt is from the book "The Races of Men a Philosophical Enquiry Into the Influence of Race Over the Destinies of Nations" by Robert Knox published in 1862. It is for the most part white supremacist pseudo-science nonsense. But even in chaos you can find truth. At this point in time, many of the "white" kingdoms were at the mercy of the larger black monarchies.
Posts: 70 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2018
| IP: Logged |
fencer, what has this got to do with Charles V ? where are the text references on Charles V
As we can see in the 17th century the terms "black" was not standardized. It could apply to a dark skinned African or a European who was not pale
"Black" was not standardized at that time? LOL.
What we have to do is use common sense, as "black" pronounced as such, has only ever meant one thing. In the 16th century a "Black Flag" flown by pirates was "black" of color. A "Blackbird" was "black" of color. "Black-browed" was to have eyebrows "black" of color. "Black Rod" was a name given to the usher of the Order of the Garter for the rod he held that was "black" of color. A "Blackamoor" (Black as a Moor) was a negro, which is a person that is "black" of complexion. A "Blackberry" is a berry that is "black" of color. "Blackface" meant to polish your face a "black" color. And on and on. You are not going to find instances of black used as an adjective to describe something pale or white. But if you do, I would be interested to learn about it.
To give a specific example of Blackamoor:
^^Just so you understand that black was surely "standardized", as this book of heraldry is from the early 1600s. Notice that blackemore is basically interchangeable with the word Jew. The arms are of Sir George Sondes of Lees Court. He married into the Montagu family, who you will also find reference to in Macky's memoir.
Fake paintings will not help in this regard. Unless you authentication documents to prove the paintings are not forgeries they are worthless to use in these discussions.
[ 22. May 2019, 12:49 AM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
Posts: 70 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2018
| IP: Logged |
^^Just so you understand that black was surely "standardized", as this book of heraldry is from the early 1600s. Notice that blackemore is basically interchangeable with the word Jew. The arms are of Sir George Sondes of Lees Court.
The author of the above book says that the three heads on the coat of arms shown are blackamoors but others interpret them to be Jews. The author does not think they are supposed to be Jews. He says at the end of the paragraph that if they were Jews he would expect the bearer of this coat of arms to be Jewish (but they aren't) That does not have to do with word meanings. It has to do with two different opinions as to who is depicted on the coat of arms. And then to say that this represents a standard meaning for "black", that "black pronounced as such, has only ever meant one thing" does not make sense. If it means black color but also a person of the Jewish religion, that's two different meanings for one word, not a standard meaning. And surely not all these people of "black complexion" mentioned in the John Macky memoir are Jews, their names are not Jewish either. It is also notable that in these old books that the word blackamoor or blackemore is never used to describe European nobles.
^^ I have a question for you. Where is your reference that this is a coat of arms of Sir George Sondes? The author you quote above says it's the Ives Coat of Arms.
"between three Blackmores heads couped, Proper,by the name of Ives"
(Note: as with the word "cheveron" in the text "Ives" are in slanted italic fonts and the letter "v" in both of these words resembles a "u" in this particular font but is a "v" not a "u")
posted
Note: I have re-sized the coat of arms image which was too wide for the forum format
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Note: I have re-sized the coat of arms image which was too wide for the forum format
The point is Jew is associated with blackamoor because the original Jews were black. As far as the reference to Sir George Sondes, there are multiple editions of the book. In one edition we have the following:
I'm still all ears if you happen to find a literary reference of the word "black" used as an adjective to mean pale. But I'm sure you will ignore that. As there is no such example in real life.
Moving on, there is also a page in the book that seems to explain persons depicted on these European arms:
I already know that coat of arms and family crests often depicted actual people. But I know people want to convince themselves otherwise. This excerpt seems to confirm that emperors, kings, princes, dukes, popes, cardinals, bishops, etc are, in fact, the people in the arms wearing crowns, robes, miters, papal tiaras, etc.
It seems even supporters are probably depictions of real people at times, as seen in the whitewashed arms of Donald Cameron:
From Wikipedia:
"Donald Cameron (born c. 1550; also known as Black Taylor of the Axe... He is alluded to in the coat of arms of the chief of Clan Cameron, as a likeness of him appears as the supporters holding a Lochaber axe."
Finally, a few excerpts regarding Portuguese Jews.
Waitz in his "Intro to Anthropology" said "An interesting gradation of all shades down to the black is exhibited by the Jews".
Prichard in his "Natural History of Man" said the Portuguese Jew was "very dark".
And the Duchess d'Abrantes, Napoleon's Ambassador to Portugal, said "the Jew, the Negro and the Portuguese could be seen in a single person". -Memoires, 1835
This all puts the following excerpt into context:
We know the people especially in Iberia were extremely dark. So when you post a picture of Earl of Nottingham that is obviously a fantasy painting, it's a waste of everyone's time. No one was confused by the word "black". It has nothing to do with "standardization".
That image of 16th century Portugal seems to depict many Portuguese as very black. You have to come to a realization that they are simply changing these paintings to white people. Here is a prime example:
"On his expeditions against the English who crossed the borders for plunder he was accompanied by his seven sons who, from the darkness of their complexion, were called the Black band of the Blackadders."
Why would you think a clan that is known for having a black complexion would be represented authentically in this make believe white man? Dark and black were used in the same sentence to describe the Blackadders, so it couldn't be mistaken for "pale", which I guess you are still clinging to. Does this invented white man have a black complexion according to contemporary Europeans?
[ 22. May 2019, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
Posts: 70 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2018
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: It is also notable that in these old books that the word blackamoor or blackemore is never used to describe European nobles.
Anne of Cleves was called the Flanders Mare and Blackamoor.
posted
^^ you have two images there that are too wide for the forum. I have converted them back to URL links. You may re-post them as pictures but to do so must re-size them smaller first so that they don't make the whole page where you have to use side to side scrolling to see every post, thank you
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: It is also notable that in these old books that the word blackamoor or blackemore is never used to describe European nobles.
Anne of Cleves was called the Flanders Mare and Blackamoor.
You refer to a list of nicknames of European nobles and there are a around three hundred nicknames in letter"A" alone.
These names are listed after a person's proper name and only one of the entire alphabetical listings lists the nickname "Blackamoor".
Assuming that this person Anne of Cleves was a person resembling some type of African exactly or as you refereed a "negro" - assuming that nicknames are literal, it means out of all these nobles (over 1000 it seems) she is the only one with the nickname "blackamoor"
So is that the kind or proportion of nobles you think were blackamoors? A fraction of one percent?
However, even in such case a nickname is a nickname, most often not literal and one must sometimes do further research as to why someone acquired a given nickname
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
I'm still all ears if you happen to find a literary reference of the word "black" used as an adjective to mean pale. But I'm sure you will ignore that. As there is no such example in real life.
I never said that black means pale nevertheless here is an example:
An American Dictionary of the English Language Noah Webster - 1828
Even in modern "society the term "black" isn't applied consistently between all non-human objects or animals -and humans, not at all
For instance objects like this chocolate are considered to be brown. Brown bears have brown colored fur and black bears have black colored fur. Yet a person with unmistakably brown skin such as this man is most often referred to as "black" . Even today color words are not applied with a consistent standard when it applies to humans. And in the 17th century they had their own inconsistencies.
The actor Colin Farrell. He is considered not to be pale. Look at the color of his cheek and compare it to the collar of his shirt - not close in color. In old Europe there were some Africans or people resembling Africans but a very small proportion as compared to today. If African they would be considered foreigners. Older writers applied the term "black" in inconsistent ways and not as a racial concept as in modern society and one writer might not be consistent with another writer. So some of these writers might call a European person was not considered pale -called "black" sometimes. At the same time the word "black" also applied to an African person who might have much darker skin. This is relative to the demographics back then and the fact that they did not have a clear concept of "race" and a standardized color labeled racial system until later.
Today there are many more people of African descent in America and Europe and the word "black" has a strong racial connotation. In old Europe it did not, so a European that would not be called black today might be called black then unless they were very light skinned pale. "Black" not as a racial category but as a loosely applied descriptive term meaning anything not very light pale.
Similarly Professor David R. Roediger of the University of Illinois, suggests that the construction of the white race in the United States was an effort to mentally distance slave owners from slaves. By the 18th century, white had become well established as a racial term. Prior to that time it was not invested with the political significance it has today, both these terms "white" and "black"
The "Common sense" of today is the common sense of a few hundred years ago, the common changes
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Daniel_Finch 2nd Earl of Nottingham by Jonathan Richardson.
quote:Originally posted by Mansfield9:
We know the people especially in Iberia were extremely dark. So when you post a picture of Earl of Nottingham that is obviously a fantasy painting, it's a waste of everyone's time. No one was confused by the word "black". It has nothing to do with "standardization".
That image of 16th century Portugal seems to depict many Portuguese as very black.
Your argument makes no sense. You say that picture of a swarthy Earl of Nottingham is a fantasy picture. Yet in a attempt to argue this you post a painting with many figures, many dark and many as light as or lighter than the Earl of Nottingham. So either both paintings are a fantasy or neither is.
quote:Originally posted by Mansfield9:
Fake paintings will not help in this regard. Unless you authentication documents to prove the paintings are not forgeries they are worthless to use in these discussions.
so where is your authentication document for this Chafariz d'el Rey Portugal painting?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: It is also notable that in these old books that the word blackamoor or blackemore is never used to describe European nobles.
Anne of Cleves was called the Flanders Mare and Blackamoor.
You refer to a list of nicknames of European nobles and there are a around three hundred nicknames in letter"A" alone.
These names are listed after a person's proper name and only one of the entire alphabetical listings lists the nickname "Blackamoor".
Assuming that this person Anne of Cleves was a person resembling some type of African exactly or as you refereed a "negro" - assuming that nicknames are literal, it means out of all these nobles (over 1000 it seems) she is the only one with the nickname "blackamoor"
So is that the kind or proportion of nobles you think were blackamoors? A fraction of one percent?
However, even in such case a nickname is a nickname, most often not literal and one must sometimes do further research as to why someone acquired a given nickname
You ask for an instance when nobility is called blackamoor. That is what I gave you. I doubt it was a term of endearment. There is no reason to have nobility specifically called out as black, although many were. In that list from A-Z there are dozens of instances were nobility were nicknamed for their blackness. Simply look at the monikers "black", "brown", "swarthy", "noir", "devil", any derivative of "moor", etc. Not sure what you are actually suggesting. That everyone should be nicknamed blackamoor? That would be nonsensical.
Posts: 70 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2018
| IP: Logged |
I'm still all ears if you happen to find a literary reference of the word "black" used as an adjective to mean pale. But I'm sure you will ignore that. As there is no such example in real life.
I never said that black means pale nevertheless here is an example:
An American Dictionary of the English Language Noah Webster - 1828
Even in modern "society the term "black" isn't applied consistently between all non-human objects or animals -and humans, not at all
For instance objects like this chocolate are considered to be brown. Brown bears have brown colored fur and black bears have black colored fur. Yet a person with unmistakably brown skin such as this man is most often referred to as "black" . Even today color words are not applied with a consistent standard when it applies to humans. And in the 17th century they had their own inconsistencies.
The actor Colin Farrell. He is considered not to be pale. Look at the color of his cheek and compare it to the collar of his shirt - not close in color. In old Europe there were some Africans or people resembling Africans but a very small proportion as compared to today. If African they would be considered foreigners. Older writers applied the term "black" in inconsistent ways and not as a racial concept as in modern society and one writer might not be consistent with another writer. So some of these writers might call a European person was not considered pale -called "black" sometimes. At the same time the word "black" also applied to an African person who might have much darker skin. This is relative to the demographics back then and the fact that they did not have a clear concept of "race" and a standardized color labeled racial system until later.
Today there are many more people of African descent in America and Europe and the word "black" has a strong racial connotation. In old Europe it did not, so a European that would not be called black today might be called black then unless they were very light skinned pale. "Black" not as a racial category but as a loosely applied descriptive term meaning anything not very light pale.
Similarly Professor David R. Roediger of the University of Illinois, suggests that the construction of the white race in the United States was an effort to mentally distance slave owners from slaves. By the 18th century, white had become well established as a racial term. Prior to that time it was not invested with the political significance it has today, both these terms "white" and "black"
The "Common sense" of today is the common sense of a few hundred years ago, the common changes
That is not an example of the use of "black" as an adjective to mean pale. That is the definition that was already posted, and was being discussed in this thread. What I am asking you is for a literary reference of the "use" of the word to mean "pale" in some way. I'll repeat, I would be interested to see an example of this, but I'm sure you have never seen one, much like every other person on the planet. If you want to suggest black has loose meanings today, or even in the past, that is fine. But to suggest a white man would be described as having a black complexion will not pass.
For your remembrance:
What we have to do is use common sense, since people like to interpret it in different ways. In the 16th century a "Black Flag" flown by pirates was "black" of color. A "Blackbird" was "black" of color. "Black-browed" was to have eyebrows "black" of color. "Black Rod" was a name given to the usher of the Order of the Garter for the rod he held that was "black" of color. A "Blackamoor" (Black as a Moor) was a negro, which is a person that is "black" of complexion. A "Blackberry" is a berry that is "black" of color. "Blackface" meant to polish your face a "black" color. And on and on. You are not going to find instances of black used as an adjective to describe something pale or white.
Posts: 70 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2018
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Your argument makes no sense. You say that picture of a swarthy Earl of Nottingham is a fantasy picture. Yet in a attempt to argue this you post a painting with many figures, many dark and many as light as or lighter than the Earl of Nottingham. So either both paintings are a fantasy or neither is.
I truly hope you are not a lawyer. To suggest that if one piece of evidence is fraudulent all evidence you can ever present is fraudulent is an exercise in cognitive dissonance. It is a truly weak argument, and one I've read in your posts before. I don't have to prove the authenticity of any artwork that is held in these European institutions. That is their job. Of course there is artwork that is real, but there is also a plethora of fake artwork, as the art forgery industry has always been a booming industry. People have careers were they actually DISCERN what is real vs what is fake. They can't just say, as authenticators, "either all art is fake, or none of it is". Lol.
I showed you the Portuguese painting of the town center along with the literary excerpts to give you context that there were people in that region who were extremely black. Which I'm sure you saw judging from your response. Yet you tell me there were light people there too. What does that mean exactly? Did I ever say there were no light people? I'm simply giving you visual and literary context to the complexion of many Portuguese at the time. So you can understand, what I know you already do, that the descriptions of people as black complexioned, especially the Portuguese, means exactly that and no more.
With regard to the evidence from the book of heraldry I see you did not respond to that. I've seen you suggest time and time again that these coat of arms never depict actual people. That is obviously false. I believe the excerpt I provided explains it simply in black and white.
Posts: 70 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2018
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansfield9: That is not an example of the use of "black" as an adjective to mean pale. That is the definition that was already posted, and was being discussed in this thread. What I am asking you is for a literary reference of the "use" of the word to mean "pale" in some way. I'll repeat, I would be interested to see an example of this, but I'm sure you have never seen one, much like every other person on the planet.
I don't know why you keep asking about paleness. That is a straw man argument. Most people who call themselves "white do not consider themselves "pale"
quote:Originally posted by Mansfield9:
If you want to suggest black has loose meanings today, or even in the past, that is fine. But to suggest a white man would be described as having a black complexion will not pass.
Will not pass what? That is not an argument
quote:Originally posted by Mansfield9:
For your remembrance:
What we have to do is use common sense, since people like to interpret it in different ways.
My remembrance is that "common sense" in one era does not always correspond to "common sense" in another era and "common sense" is very much a subjective term to begin with. Historical research is what we should be using not opinions we call "common sense"
quote:Originally posted by Mansfield9: In the 16th century a "Black Flag" flown by pirates was "black" of color. A "Blackbird" was "black" of color. "Black-browed" was to have eyebrows "black" of color. "Black Rod" was a name given to the usher of the Order of the Garter for the rod he held that was "black" of color. A "Blackamoor" (Black as a Moor) was a negro, which is a person that is "black" of complexion. A "Blackberry" is a berry that is "black" of color. "Blackface" meant to polish your face a "black" color. And on and on. You are not going to find instances of black used as an adjective to describe something pale or white. [/QB]
You are not getting it.
I have already demonstrated that color terms are not accurate when applied to people and are more recently used as labels for race. Objects are given proper color descriptions, milk chocolate is brown and charcoal is black. Yet brown people are often called black and people called white do not resemble a sheet of paper. Most people called white do not consider themselves "pale" and "paleness" is often an interpretation based on a given person's subjective comparison to their own complexion. So it makes no sense to talk about the color of snow or salt, literally white and assume that people referred to as "white" are literally white
People called "white" are not literally white in color and such persons in earlier periods are sometimes said to have "black" complexions. In such cases from the slightest tint away from being pale they could be called "black" as well as people darker. These texts from John Macky prove that because when we look at paintings of these people there is no evidence that the paintings are forgeries or fakes.
And if there was a massive conspiracy to make thousands of fake paintings wouldn't they also have destroyed or revised all copies of John Macky's Memoirs of the secret services ?
On the other hand in assuming things fake with no evidence why would we assume Memoirs of the Secret Services, not even published while he was alive, to be real? -the double standards you keep applying
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] Your argument makes no sense. You say that picture of a swarthy Earl of Nottingham is a fantasy picture. Yet in a attempt to argue this you post a painting with many figures, many dark and many as light as or lighter than the Earl of Nottingham. So either both paintings are a fantasy or neither is.
I truly hope you are not a lawyer. To suggest that if one piece of evidence is fraudulent all evidence you can ever present is fraudulent is an exercise in cognitive dissonance. It is a truly weak argument, and one I've read in your posts before. I don't have to prove the authenticity of any artwork that is held in these European institutions. That is their job.
yet you said this
quote:Originally posted by Mansfield9:
Fake paintings will not help in this regard. Unless you authentication documents to prove the paintings are not forgeries they are worthless to use in these discussions.
quote:Originally posted by Mansfield9:
I showed you the Portuguese painting of the town center along with the literary excerpts to give you context that there were people in that region who were extremely black. Which I'm sure you saw judging from your response. Yet you tell me there were light people there too. What does that mean exactly? Did I ever say there were no light people?
you said
quote:Originally posted by Mansfield9:
We know the people especially in Iberia were extremely dark. So when you post a picture of Earl of Nottingham that is obviously a fantasy painting, it's a waste of everyone's time.
and to support this argument you posted Chafariz d'el Rey. Why waste everyone's time posting that as if it proves the painting of the Earl of Nottingham by Jonathan Richardson the elder (c.1664–1667–1745) in the National Portrait Gallery of London is a fantasy?
Again you said
quote:Originally posted by Mansfield9:
We know the people especially in Iberia were extremely dark. So when you post a picture of Earl of Nottingham that is obviously a fantasy painting, it's a waste of everyone's time.
^ You are attempting to use a logical argument here, that if people in Iberia were extremely dark and I post a picture of the Earl of Nottingham and he's not extremely dark then the painting must be a fantasy.
And if it is a fantasy does it mean that 99% of European paintings are also "fake"?
Yet in the very painting you use to show " We know the people especially in Iberia were extremely dark." that very painting shows only some were dark
quote:Originally posted by Mansfield9:
With regard to the evidence from the book of heraldry I see you did not respond to that. I've seen you suggest time and time again that these coat of arms never depict actual people. That is obviously false. I believe the excerpt I provided explains it simply in black and white.
There is no need to respond to that because the following page is not a description of people depicted on coats of arms
Artificials, as they are born in Coat-Ar∣mours, are considered according to Mens E∣states and Actions
Civil, in regard of Prehe∣minence of digni∣ty Tempo∣ral, Supream, as Em∣perours, Kings, Free States, Subordinate, as Princes, Dukes, Grand-Officers, Magistrates, &c. and their ensigns are Born by the Persons themselves ha∣ving such Dignity, as Crowns, Cha∣peaus, Robes of Estate, Scepters, Mounds, &c. Born before them as tokens of such their Dignity, as the Sword of E∣state, the Lord Chancellors Purse, the great Mace, &c. Ecclesia∣stical, Antichristian, as Pope, Cardinals, &c. Christian and A∣postolical, as Arch-bishops and Bishops, &c. and theirs likewise ei∣ther Born or worn by the Persons them∣selves, as the Triple Crown, Cardi∣nals Hat, Pall, Miter, Croy•ier. Born before them, as the Cross, Vierge, &c. Professi∣ons and Arts Liberal, which are Cardinal, or chief Faculties, as Theology for our Souls. Physick for our Bodies, to which Surgery also is referred. Law for our Fortunes. Subordinate, as the seven Scien∣ces, Grammar. Logick. Rhetorick. Geometrey. Musick. Arithmetick. Astronomy. Mecha∣nical, For necessity, and so principal, as Agriculture, Pasture, Vine-dressing, &c. Clothing, Tailery, &c. Armature, Architecture, Carpentry, &c. Navigation. Venation, Hunting. Hawking. Fishing. For delight only, and so less princi∣pal, Cookery. Embroidering. Painting. Carving. Playing On Stage. At Cards, Dice, Tables, &c. Military, whereof some serve for Order, whereof some are of Shew, as Banners, Pennons, Guidhims, Penonsels, Standards, &c. Sound, as Drum, Trumpet, Fife, &c. Executi∣on of Order, Invasive, of which some are Missile, as great Ordnances with their parts and appurtenances, Bows, Arrows, Darts, Slings, &c. Manual, as Swords, Spears, Bills, Partizans, Glaives, &c. Defen∣sive, ser∣ving for Man, and are for Defence only, as Shields, Pavices, Targets, Bucklers, &c. Defence and Habit, as Caskes, Helmets, Gauntlets, Corslets, Curasses, with their parts. Horse, and are ordained for Defence and Ornament, as the Sha•rone, Cranet, Barde, &c. Common use, as Bits, Bridle, Snaffles, Saddle, Stirrops, Horse-shoes, &c.
^^ This is a table of where the coats of arm appear, not what is depicted on them.
The book tells us what is depicted on them "Blackemores" not named people
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The book tells us what is depicted on them "Blackemores" not named people
Of course the book doesn't name people. That is not the purpose of the book. That is why I provided you with the coat of arms of the Cameron clan, in which the supporter is said to be a "named person". To show you that a coat of arms can, and do, depict real people. Just like the coat of arms that depicts the Catholic Monarchs.
Regarding the Portuguese, I'm not sure why you are confusing yourself. I never said all the Portuguese were black. I'm simply establishing what contemporary writers meant when they likened the Portuguese or Spanish to very black people. I'm showing you that there were many extremely black people there, apparently of prominence. So there is no reason to believe these writers did not know what the color black looked like. And thus get so confused that they would believe that fake painting of the Earl could pass for a very black man.
Posts: 70 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2018
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: And if there was a massive conspiracy to make thousands of fake paintings wouldn't they also have destroyed or revised all copies of John Macky's Memoirs of the secret services ?
People are only concerned with hiding images. They can make up the rest of the fiction by saying things like "black wasn't standardized yet".
And people are, in fact, revising these books. They swap out the images, because, again, that is all they are concerned with. They can claim "black means white" so long as there is no depictions of the person labeled properly. With Blackadder, predictably, the image was hidden by an uploader whose tech skills are apparently not up to par. He only left one image alone in his scans:
So revision is very much an active endeavor. This is why contemporary literature is rarely used in classrooms unless abridged or heavily annotated to alter meaning. Modern textbooks allows for an easy telling false history. Unless you know somewhere that John Macky's Memoirs are used in a classroom?
Posts: 70 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2018
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansfield9: People are only concerned with hiding images. They can make up the rest of the fiction by saying things like "black wasn't standardized yet".
And people are, in fact, revising these books. They swap out the images, because, again, that is all they are concerned with. They can claim "black means white" so long as there is no depictions of the person labeled properly. With Blackadder, predictably, the image was hidden by an uploader whose tech skills are apparently not up to par.
^^ where and how did you find this image?
You are making a lot of mistakes in looking at things like this. The Blackadder surname comes in on the lower right paragraphs. The missing picture above is Dr. Joseph Black and his entry starts on the previous page 307 and goes on to 308. Blackadder is the following entry that starts on the same page at the end of Joseph Black (lower right of page 308 above) you showed and goes on to page 309.
The book
The Scottish Nation: Or the Surnames, Families, Literature ..., Volume 1 By William Anderson, 1867
This is an enlargement and on the lower right after a short line separating the entries you can still see the beginning of the next entry Blackadder. At the above link you can see all the illustrations.
The missing picture, Dr, Joseph Black. The text says
quote: The following portrait of Dr.Black is engraved from the painting by Sir Henry Raeburn
This is typical where a book illustrator copies a painting and makes a black and white engraving for a book.
The original
Professor Joseph Black (1728–1799) Henry Raeburn (1756–1823) Hunterian Art Gallery, University of Glasgow
title: Colonel John Blackadder, 1664 - 1729. Deputy Governor of Stirling Castle accession number:PG 1534, Oil on canvas date created: after 1700
gallery: Duff House
Duff House is a Georgian estate house in Banff, Aberdeenshire, Scotland. Now in the care of Historic Scotland, it is part of the National Galleries of Scotland and is a Category A listed building.
Lieutenant-Colonel John Blackadder (14 September 1664 – 31 August 1729) was a Scottish soldier who served with the Cameronian Regiment during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
^^Even if they have to insert already whitewashed pages. I've seen this practice with entire volumes from some uploaders. Any page with an illustration would have these inserted pages from another book.
^^Or you have entire volumes with these whited out blocks where the illustration should be.
^^You can even see with John Maitland the guy, not well versed in whitewashing as of yet, didn't hide the original illustration 100%. Even in his portrait, the x-rays revealed the whitewashing, as they try to obfuscate his face by superimposing a fake image of Mary, Queen of Scots. A nice distraction technique.
As I said, whitewashing is an active endeavor, whether art or literature. And the Blackadder painting I specifically showed you with a page holding his helmet in the background. The Blackadders were called the Black Band of the Blackadders for the darkness of their complexion. You contend that they did not understand what black meant when applied to people. That is nonsensical and I'm not sure why I have to keep explaining this. They are associating dark and black in the literary reference. So they fully understood complexion and color as we would understand it today. The page behind the whitewashed figure would clearly fit this "dark" or "black" description. So to believe a white, pale, pink, or beige man (however you would like to describe him) is what they thought was dark or black back then is cognitive dissonance.
I won't beat a dead horse. If you would like to imagine that he has a dark complexion, its a free world. Perhaps the page has a pale complexion, since it seems to be opposite day. And you curiously have not said a thing about the Cameron supporter in the coat of arms being a "named person" as you like to say. Not surprised.
Posts: 70 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2018
| IP: Logged |
^^Even if they have to insert already whitewashed pages. I've seen this practice with entire volumes from some uploaders. Any page with an illustration would have these inserted pages from another book.
^^Or you have entire volumes with these whited out blocks where the illustration should be.
^^You can even see with John Maitland the guy, not well versed in whitewashing as of yet, didn't hide the original illustration 100%..
Sometimes there may be potential copyright issues on the illustrations as per the rights or lack of of whoever is uploading and that's the reason they weren't uploaded.
If we look at your above example, like you said, in the first version with the missing illustration there is still a small bit of the illustration showing. And we can see that that small bit has part of one of the stripes showing on his garment and that matches the second version of the same page where the original illustration is fully showing. That means that there is no reason to think there was a switch of illustration in the full version
quote:Originally posted by Mansfield9:
Even in his portrait, the x-rays revealed the whitewashing, as they try to obfuscate his face by superimposing a fake image of Mary, Queen of Scots. A nice distraction technique.
No distraction technique. The painter simply decided he didn't want to keep the Queen of Scots so he recycled the canvas and stretcher to make a new painting.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
As I said, whitewashing is an active endeavor, whether art or literature. And the Blackadder painting I specifically showed you with a page holding his helmet in the background. The Blackadders were called the Black Band of the Blackadders for the darkness of their complexion. You contend that they did not understand what black meant when applied to people. That is nonsensical and I'm not sure why I have to keep explaining this. They are associating dark and black in the literary reference. So they fully understood complexion and color as we would understand it today.
No, it's a not a matter of understanding it isa matter of intent when a word is applied differently in different eras.
Are you aware that the same word we use today used in a different time period might be used with a different degree of variation or have an altogether different meaning in some cases?
To say someone has a dark complexion is relative to the demographics where a person is perceived as darker than the majority and especially the case in period before modern medias
To the average Polish person this man is dark skinned. To the average Kenyan person he is not dark skinned. These word is relative obviously and also relative in other time periods according to demographics and word usage of the period
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic