posted
^ I won't even get into your childish game of dares... dunce queries from a certified dunce.
At this point you have no other retort than to cry about "the blond haired person on the left".
1)You have been taught that Carthage colonized Rome, you had no response...
2) You have been shown that the Etruscans the orignal ancient Romans were predominantly black people, with historical texts, with artefacts, and you could not refute this;
3) You have been shown Black Roman Emperors, Black Roman Empresses, Black Roman Priests and Scholars, Roman coins, and you had no answer;
4) You have seen Black Roman missionaries, Black Roman Bishops, and you had no response;
5) You were even shown Black Roman Gods and Goddesses, no response from you;
6) We gave you genetic studies that still link Italy genetically with Africa, and YOU HAD NO RESPONSE, except for:
"what about the blond person on the left"
Well Lioness, my favourite dunce, tell us about the blond person on the left. That is your story...to tell. We will listen...
My story is that Rome was an ethnically mixed empire where Black people had very high visibility and prominence, due to their historical attachment with Italy and Europe..
"2000 years of history, could not be wiped away so easily" - Bob Marley
"The king of Rome is a brother to the King of Ethiopia" - Kebra Negast
Case proven, case close.
If you have any real questions, Sugar, bring it on!
Lion!
Do you know Virgilus the Homer of Rome? He was an African:
Do you know the boxing champion of Rome and America? He was an African:
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Mike, Iron posted these Etruscan paintings. He mentioned earlier that people with light skin in Rome came later with goths and slavics. But in many of these much earlier Etruscan frescos etc. we see these very light skinned people, sometimes with blond hair.
The above picture is from your site www.realhistoryww.com You seem to be calling the white people in these paintings "latins" rather than Etruscans. What is the origin of these "latin" white people?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Mike, Iron posted these Etruscan paintings. He mentioned earlier that people with light skin in Rome came later with goths and slavics. But in many of these much earlier Etruscan frescos etc. we see these very light skinned people, sometimes with blond hair.
The above picture is from your site www.realhistoryww.com You seem to be calling the white people in these paintings "latins" rather than Etruscans. What is the origin of these "latin" white people?
Before I beat you into submission you did not even acknowledge that black people had anything to do with ancient Rome.
Now you are reduced to struggling to identify any piece of "white" flotsam in a sea of Mauro-Romanos;
Now Lioness, who has got the inferior complex? Who was trying to falsely claim Rome? Who has been posting falsified images of ancient Romans? Who has now admitted a black foundation for Rome, only with the qualifier that "blonds were also there"? Who is desperately trying to save face?
Who was desperately putting up pictures of hot-fake Romano-Moorish curls?
A little humilty could have saved you all of this humiliation!
Now where is that your lil animal Jerri the pink mouse?
I wonder what he has got to say now?
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: I asked you earlier about the figure on the left with the blond curly hair and pale skin. This would indicate that some of the Etruscans were white in a period far prior to the goths.
Lioness my dear - far be it from me to gloat; but I seem to detect a note of resignation. Could it be that the weight of evidence is starting to wear you down?
....
You said it right Mike, or to put it more precisely, you certainly described her predicament with graphic accuracy!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Etruscan Achilles Achilles in Ambush." Mid 6th century B.C. A scene from the Illiad. The Trojan prince, Troilus, upon a stallion is ambushed at the well outside the walls of Troy by Achilles
Banquet Scene
Market Negotiation
The Muurs who founded Rome!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
I see what you're saying Iron. If the two people in the above painting were to have children the child might look like the man on the left in the below photo or you in your rasta hat
But that still doesn't resolve the origin of the white person on the right in the above Etruscan painting hundreds of years before Julius Caesar. It seems to indicate that blond haired white people were in the region long before the Roman Empire and it show how your claim that white people only came in with the goths and slaves is incorrect.
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: Royalty of Ancient Rome
Craftman of Ancient Rome
Lyingass
Put up or shut up!!!!
Show us that African Muurswere not the founders of Rome, and that to claim so is a mark of inferiority complex...
Who is the liar now???? Who has been shown to be an ignoramus pretender?
Was Roman Empire White??? Do you bleach your pink ass???
What made you stop spam more pictures of some so-called white Roman Emperors?
Did you see the Muurs of Etrusca, and Carthage? The Muurs of Ireland and the Muurs of Wales? The Muurs of Anatolia, the Muurs of Greece? The Muurs of Africa the originalland of the Muurs
Are you gonna call me Uncle? I am waiting...
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:... It seems to indicate that blond haired white people were in the region long before the Roman Empire and it show how your claim that white people only came in with the goths and slaves is incorrect.
The other example below that you posted earlier:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by IronLion:
Dunce
You fake a low attention span. But I will bury you with facts till you heal your wicked heart...
Read below carefully...
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: The no go area of popular fictionalized white bwoy history is that "the Aryans built Rome".
How true is this?
No it is a damned lie! The truth was that Rome was a multi-ethnic Empire. Any true scholar with the slightest mastery of classics will attest to this.
Rome as well as the entire southern and central and western Europe was built by aboriginal black Europeans sometimes called the mysterious Celts, NIGRI-LATINIS, the IBERIANS or the Maurs.
Sometimes authors attribute the origin of Rome to Etruscans, or to Greeks or to Canaanites. It is generally acknowledged that those three powers were themselves basically multi-ethnic, and also that the Canaanites were singularly black and African in origin.
Later we get an influx of barbarians nomads, who were assimilated and romanized.
Then slaves from the Slavic and Germanic tribes were captured from Northern Europe and used on Roman plantations in Central Europe.
And then one must not forget that the cultural founts of Rome was not anywhere on the European mainland but in North Africa, with Egypt and the province of Africa being the most sophisticated, and civilized in arts, science and culture. The cultural capital of the Roman Empire was Alexandria in Egypt.
All the inhabitants of the Roman provinces of Africa could easily attain to Roman citizenship and even aspire to become Emperors of Rome.
Not so for today's so-called white people who were actually called barbarians and hated by the Roman state and Empire. They were the threats of the day, the potential carries of contagions mental and spiritual, eroders of morality. Besides the oracles of Delphi had forcasted that barbarians whites would eventually overun the emipre.
They eventually did. Bursting the barriers of imperial Rome which had contained them in Central Europe, the barbarians gothic an slavic hordes swamped Rome, southern and central Europe, western Europe as well, bursted into Africa, and then onwards to the Americas and Australia. Like demons released from hell.
Those Barbarians are the direct ancestors of todays so-called Italians, French, Germans, English, Beligia, Holland, Sweden, Russia, and the whole of the so-called white races of todays Europa.
And those gothic descendants have spent a thousand years, re-writing history, destroying monuments, burning books and libraries, in an attempt to hide the truth about themselves, and to usurp the majesty and excellence of the great black civilizations. They would trick the black children (the real owners of this world) into a life of complancency and surbodination, wherein they are unable to assert their legitimacy.
Which is why they have invested so much energy in re-writing and retelling the story of the Roman Empire and its fall, at the hands of the barbarians so-called whites.
See the Roman Dread Locks Legion of Lucius Quietus, the Overall Commander of the Roman Legions
The fact that the title of this "Moorish Cavalry" and not "Roman Cavalry" should clue you into the fact that the Moors and Trajan were not of the same stock.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
You fake a low attention span. But I will bury you with facts till you heal your wicked heart...
Read below carefully...
Later we get an influx of barbarians nomads, who were assimilated and romanized.
Then slaves from the Slavic and Germanic tribes were captured from Northern Europe and used on Roman plantations in Central Europe....
Not so for today's so-called white people who were actually called barbarians and hated by the Roman state and Empire. They were the threats of the day, the potential carries of contagions mental and spiritual, eroders of morality. Besides the oracles of Delphi had forcasted that barbarians whites would eventually overun the emipre.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by IronLion:
Dunce
You fake a low attention span. But I will bury you with facts till you heal your wicked heart...
Read below carefully...
Later we get an influx of barbarians nomads, who were assimilated and romanized.
Then slaves from the Slavic and Germanic tribes were captured from Northern Europe and used on Roman plantations in Central Europe....
Not so for today's so-called white people who were actually called barbarians and hated by the Roman state and Empire. They were the threats of the day, the potential carries of contagions mental and spiritual, eroders of morality. Besides the oracles of Delphi had forcasted that barbarians whites would eventually overun the emipre.
(make up your mind, they were assimilated but hated at the same time??-lioness)
Those Barbarians are the direct ancestors of todays so-called Italians, French, Germans, English, Beligia, Holland, Sweden, Russia, and the whole of the so-called white races of todays Europa.
Which is why they have invested so much energy in re-writing and retelling the story of the Roman Empire and its fall, at the hands of the barbarians so-called whites.
Re-read the above thread opener...
Re-read the Italicized portion...
Any more questions??
yes I re-read your opener. None of it applies to the person on the left at the top of this post that was originally posted by you, an Etruscan painting which shows a blond haired white person, for the millionth time, and there are many such pictures, prior to the the Slavic and Germanic tribes you mention. Stop being thick as a brick
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
You fake a low attention span. But I will bury you with facts till you heal your wicked heart...
Read below carefully...
Later we get an influx of barbarians nomads, who were assimilated and romanized.
Then slaves from the Slavic and Germanic tribes were captured from Northern Europe and used on Roman plantations in Central Europe....
Not so for today's so-called white people who were actually called barbarians and hated by the Roman state and Empire. They were the threats of the day, the potential carries of contagions mental and spiritual, eroders of morality. Besides the oracles of Delphi had forcasted that barbarians whites would eventually overun the emipre.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by IronLion:
Dunce
You fake a low attention span. But I will bury you with facts till you heal your wicked heart...
Read below carefully...
Later we get an influx of barbarians nomads, who were assimilated and romanized.
Then slaves from the Slavic and Germanic tribes were captured from Northern Europe and used on Roman plantations in Central Europe....
Not so for today's so-called white people who were actually called barbarians and hated by the Roman state and Empire. They were the threats of the day, the potential carries of contagions mental and spiritual, eroders of morality. Besides the oracles of Delphi had forcasted that barbarians whites would eventually overun the emipre.
(make up your mind, they were assimilated but hated at the same time??-lioness)
Those Barbarians are the direct ancestors of todays so-called Italians, French, Germans, English, Beligia, Holland, Sweden, Russia, and the whole of the so-called white races of todays Europa.
Which is why they have invested so much energy in re-writing and retelling the story of the Roman Empire and its fall, at the hands of the barbarians so-called whites.
Re-read the above thread opener...
Re-read the Italicized portion...
Any more questions??
yes I re-read your opener. None of it applies to the person on the left at the top of this post that was originally posted by you, an Etruscan painting which shows a blond haired white person, for the millionth time, and there are many such pictures, prior to the the Slavic and Germanic tribes you mention. Stop being thick as a brick
You are sily like a child how many people are in the painting?
Describe them both to me, and to yourself.
Then post those "many blond hair" Estruscans so all see them...
My thesis was Etruscans, Phoenicians, Cartheginians, Nigri-Latins, were all Muurs from Africa, and they were the orginal owners and colonizers and builders of Rome. Your types came much later...
What is your thesis??? Do you have any?
And you still have not answered my question, do you bleach your pink butts???
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
The fact that the title of this "Moorish Cavalry" and not "Roman Cavalry" should clue you into the fact that the Moors and Trajan were not of the same stock.
You are stupid beyond description...
Who wrote up that title "Moorish Cavalry"?
Trajan?
Look at the picture and title again... Gosh!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: Royalty of Ancient Rome
Craftman of Ancient Rome
Lyingass
Put up or shut up!!!!
Show us that African Muurswere not the founders of Rome, and that to claim so is a mark of inferiority complex...
Who is the liar now???? Who has been shown to be an ignoramus pretender?
Was Roman Empire White??? Do you bleach your pink ass???
What made you stop spam more pictures of some so-called white Roman Emperors?
Did you see the Muurs of Etrusca, and Carthage? The Muurs of Ireland and the Muurs of Wales? The Muurs of Anatolia, the Muurs of Greece? The Muurs of Africa the originalland of the Muurs
Are you gonna call me Uncle? I am waiting...
Are you gonna say "Uncle IronLion!?"
Are you gonna call me the Dean of Roman studies?
I am waiting
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: Royalty of Ancient Rome
Craftman of Ancient Rome
Lyingass
Put up or shut up!!!!
Show us that African Muurswere not the founders of Rome, and that to claim so is a mark of inferiority complex...
Who is the liar now???? Who has been shown to be an ignoramus pretender?
Was Roman Empire White??? Do you bleach your pink ass???
What made you stop spam more pictures of some so-called white Roman Emperors?
Did you see the Muurs of Etrusca, and Carthage? The Muurs of Ireland and the Muurs of Wales? The Muurs of Anatolia, the Muurs of Greece? The Muurs of Africa the originalland of the Muurs
Are you gonna call me Uncle? I am waiting...
Are you gonna say "Uncle IronLion!?"
Are you gonna call me the Dean of Roman studies?
I am waiting
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
By GJK Campbell-Dunn M.A. (NZ), M.A. (Camb.) Ph.D.
Recent genetic research at Universidad Complutense, Madrid shows an African–Egyptian presence in prehistoric Italy. We identify Etruscan as Niger-Congo.
Etruscan has now been deciphered as Niger-Congo. Our work is based mainly on that of M. Pallottino (1975), L. Bonfante (2002) for Etruscan and D. Westermann (1927), H. Mukarovsky (1977) for Niger-Congo. Evidence from comparative morphology and sound correspondences follows. PWS Proto-Western Sudanic “Sudan” (Westermann) PWN Proto-Western Nigritic (Mukarovsky).
ETRUSCAN MORPHOLOGY COMPARED WITH NIGER-CONGO
Etruscan is agglutinative, not an inflected language like Latin. Its morphology is made by the free addition of affixes, ie. by lateral extension, not by vertical paradigms: zal, e-sal; u-nu ; uni, uni-al, uni-al-ti ; aule, aule-s, aule-s-la etc. The last ex has the Niger-Congo postposed article -la. Niger-Congo is likewise agglutinative in structure, with prefixes before the root, suffixes after it.
This is slightly off topic, but what about CAMPBELL-DUNN's works being mostly bogus linguistics?
The aim of the author (Campbell-Dunn) is to demonstrate a genetic linguistic relationship between Niger-Congo Languages (Bantu, Wolof, Fulani, Mande, Yoruba, Akan, etc.) and Etruscan, the language of the mysterious culture of a great part of modern Italy (ca 1200 BC-550) prior to the rise of the Romans and their language, Latin. The Etruscan language is considered as an isolate by mainstream scholarship (BONFANTE 2002). However, just like for other linguistic or phenotypic "isolates" such as Basque language in Europe or Fulani people in West Africa, egregiously fanciful theories have been asserted by irresponsible scholars regarding their origins. For Etruscan, one could for example cite GUIGNARD (1964), Comment j'ai déchiffré la langue étrusque, « Wie habe ich die etruskische Sprache entziffert. How I deciphered the Etruscan language ». Grammaire comparée des langues basque, étrusque et islandaise, self-edited (sic), et GUIGNARD (1992), Les clefs de décodage de la langue étrusque : les condensateurs électriques étrusques...; la colonisation étrusque du Japon (=the keys of decoding of the Etruscan language : Etruscan electrical capacitors (sic), the Etruscan colonization of Japan).
Needless to say that to challenge the mainstream opinion that Etruscan is an isolate, CAMPBELL-DUNN will have to provide substantial evidence similar to that that can be found between languages considered by mainstream scholarship as related, e.g. Afro-Asiatic (Ancient Egyptian, Berber, Semitic, Cushitic, Chadic, Omotic) or Indo-European (Romance, Germanic, Indo-Iranian, Slavic, Celtic, etc) languages. In our opinion, CAMPBELL-DUNN fails to do so. To his credit though, unlike some pseudo-comparative linguists, CAMPBELL-DUNN has the advantage of using reconstructed forms, namely that of WESTERMANN (1927) and not randomly found Niger-Congo linguistic elements to compare them with Etruscan.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [QUOTE]The aim of the author (Campbell-Dunn) is to demonstrate a genetic linguistic relationship between Niger-Congo Languages (Bantu, Wolof, Fulani, Mande, Yoruba, Akan, etc.) and Etruscan, the language of the mysterious culture of a great part of modern Italy (ca 1200 BC-550) prior to the rise of the Romans and their language, Latin. The Etruscan language is considered as an isolate by mainstream scholarship (BONFANTE 2002). However, just like for other linguistic or phenotypic "isolates" such as Basque language in Europe or Fulani people in West Africa, egregiously fanciful theories have been asserted by irresponsible scholars regarding their origins. For Etruscan, one could for example cite GUIGNARD (1964), Comment j'ai déchiffré la langue étrusque, « Wie habe ich die etruskische Sprache entziffert. How I deciphered the Etruscan language ». Grammaire comparée des langues basque, étrusque et islandaise, self-edited (sic), et GUIGNARD (1992), Les clefs de décodage de la langue étrusque : les condensateurs électriques étrusques...; la colonisation étrusque du Japon (=the keys of decoding of the Etruscan language : Etruscan electrical capacitors (sic), the Etruscan colonization of Japan).
Needless to say that to challenge the mainstream opinion that Etruscan is an isolate, CAMPBELL-DUNN will have to provide substantial evidence similar to that that can be found between languages considered by mainstream scholarship as related, e.g. Afro-Asiatic (Ancient Egyptian, Berber, Semitic, Cushitic, Chadic, Omotic) or Indo-European (Romance, Germanic, Indo-Iranian, Slavic, Celtic, etc) languages. In our opinion, CAMPBELL-DUNN fails to do so. To his credit though, unlike some pseudo-comparative linguists, CAMPBELL-DUNN has the advantage of using reconstructed forms, namely that of WESTERMANN (1927) and not randomly found Niger-Congo linguistic elements to compare them with Etruscan.
Is the above your own comment, or is it plagiarized?
If it is your comment confirm, if not fess up!
Awaiting response..
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [QUOTE]The aim of the author (Campbell-Dunn) is to demonstrate a genetic linguistic relationship between Niger-Congo Languages (Bantu, Wolof, Fulani, Mande, Yoruba, Akan, etc.) and Etruscan, the language of the mysterious culture of a great part of modern Italy (ca 1200 BC-550) prior to the rise of the Romans and their language, Latin. The Etruscan language is considered as an isolate by mainstream scholarship (BONFANTE 2002). However, just like for other linguistic or phenotypic "isolates" such as Basque language in Europe or Fulani people in West Africa, egregiously fanciful theories have been asserted by irresponsible scholars regarding their origins. For Etruscan, one could for example cite GUIGNARD (1964), Comment j'ai déchiffré la langue étrusque, « Wie habe ich die etruskische Sprache entziffert. How I deciphered the Etruscan language ». Grammaire comparée des langues basque, étrusque et islandaise, self-edited (sic), et GUIGNARD (1992), Les clefs de décodage de la langue étrusque : les condensateurs électriques étrusques...; la colonisation étrusque du Japon (=the keys of decoding of the Etruscan language : Etruscan electrical capacitors (sic), the Etruscan colonization of Japan).
Needless to say that to challenge the mainstream opinion that Etruscan is an isolate, CAMPBELL-DUNN will have to provide substantial evidence similar to that that can be found between languages considered by mainstream scholarship as related, e.g. Afro-Asiatic (Ancient Egyptian, Berber, Semitic, Cushitic, Chadic, Omotic) or Indo-European (Romance, Germanic, Indo-Iranian, Slavic, Celtic, etc) languages. In our opinion, CAMPBELL-DUNN fails to do so. To his credit though, unlike some pseudo-comparative linguists, CAMPBELL-DUNN has the advantage of using reconstructed forms, namely that of WESTERMANN (1927) and not randomly found Niger-Congo linguistic elements to compare them with Etruscan.
Is the above your own comment, or is it plagiarized?
If it is your comment confirm, if not fess up!
Awaiting response..
Fess up Lyingass, fess up.. I caught you pants down plagiarizing comments cutting and pasting from others comments then presenting them as your own comments:
quote:Originally posted by Arara Sabalu on Reloaded: This paper is a review of G.J.K. CAMPBELL-DUNN, The Etruscan decipherment, <online>, http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/gc_dunn/Etruscans.html, page retrieved on Wednesday September the 1st 2010. The aim of the author is to demonstrate a genetic linguistic relationship between Niger-Congo Languages (Bantu, Wolof, Fulani, Mande, Yoruba, Akan, etc.) and Etruscan, the language of the mysterious culture of a great part of modern Italy (ca 1200 BC-550) prior to the rise of the Romans and their language, Latin. The Etruscan language is considered as an isolate by mainstream scholarship (BONFANTE 2002). ....
Your source says 15% Albinos a tiny minority of Albinos inherited curly hair probably from their Muurish ancestors. You are a mulatoo nationalist, so you know what I mean.
But the scary part is the other part of you, the 85% who do not have this gene...
The rest 85% well, who are those?
Julius Caesar
Augustus
Claudius
vespasian
Tiberius
Caligula
quote:Originally posted by IronLion:
Now, point out the gene responsible for the "brown" skin of the Europeans as the Romans have been shown to be brown and black skinned like olives?
p53 gene
Lyingass
Jari your Dawg does not realize you came up with the p53 gene theory...
You wanna explain this to him?
Lion!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAARRR!!!
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
You are a vandal like your ancestors, and a thief otherwise you would not delibrately spam a thread from which you ran away as a result of rank ignorance.
Now like a cowardly dog, you are trying to clog the thread by spamming it with pictures that are too large to unload properly.
This makes u an infernal animal, that cannot fight on fact, relying instead on dirty plots to censor the truth.
Moderator take note.
Lion!
-------------------- Lionz Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Wow at this thread, simply wow. You people do understand skin color is due to sun exposure right? I am "Native American" and look very white, because my ancestors lived in North American and due to little sun exposure my skin is now light.
You can toss pictures and "facts" all day long but fact of the matter is, early humans were all DARK skinned. Honestly, who cares if Romans were black. I don't care what race you are, why would want to claim such barbaric, murderous thieves such as the Romans. I recently say someone say Henry the 8th was black, I think the entire human race doesn't want to claim him. I would rather think of him as an alien than a member of the human race. Good grief.
Skin color doesn't determine intelligence or capabilities. And history is written by the victors.
Case in point Einstein was white So is Paris Hilton (need I say more?)
quote:Originally posted by Vilewoman: [QB] Wow at this thread, simply wow. You people do understand skin color is due to sun exposure right? I am "Native American" and look very white, because my ancestors lived in North American and due to little sun exposure my skin is now light.
To which Native American ethnic group(s) do you belong? I presume it's one of the more northerly ones if you're really pale.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Perhaps a better question is why is this dumb thread getting so much attention in the first place??
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Perhaps the question to ask is, how come a pretend indochinese pink arse tranny,aka Jehuti play an authority in black muurish history?
Why is the indochinese pink arse afraid of Muurish history?
Why does this indochineses claim that there are no Muurish people in Asia, Americas and Europe when the evidence demonstrate that they were there and they were very important too?
Why has this indochinese tranny been lurking around African history and culture of which he knows so little for more than five years?
Why not tell us about your indochinese roots and history? And your trans-sexual preferences? We are waiting...
Lion!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Wow at this thread, simply wow. You people do understand skin color is due to sun exposure right? I am "Native American" and look very white, because my ancestors lived in North American and due to little sun exposure my skin is now light.
You can toss pictures and "facts" all day long but fact of the matter is, early humans were all DARK skinned. Honestly, who cares if Romans were black. I don't care what race you are, why would want to claim such barbaric, murderous thieves such as the Romans. I recently say someone say Henry the 8th was black, I think the entire human race doesn't want to claim him. I would rather think of him as an alien than a member of the human race. Good grief.
Skin color doesn't determine intelligence or capabilities. And history is written by the victors.
Case in point Einstein was white So is Paris Hilton (need I say more?)
Wow at this thread, simply wow. You people do understand skin color is due to sun exposure right? I am "Native American" and look very white, because my ancestors lived in North American and due to little sun exposure my skin is now light.
You can toss pictures and "facts" all day long but fact of the matter is, early humans were all DARK skinned.
Honestly, who cares if Romans were black. I don't care what race you are, why would want to claim such barbaric, murderous thieves such as the Romans. I recently say someone say Henry the 8th was black, I think the entire human race doesn't want to claim him. I would rather think of him as an alien than a member of the human race. Good grief.
Skin color doesn't determine intelligence or capabilities. And history is written by the victors.
A very intelligent post Vilewoman, but perhaps not quite accurate. Today, many people who call themselves native Americans, are in fact European. That because the dilution of native blood necessitates those with as little as 1/8 native blood being accepted as native Americans.
This is of course, simply an economic and political maneuver: In the real world, 7/8 White European trumps 1/8 native American every time.
.
SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS!
Researchers have discovered only a handful of Paleoindian skeletons older than 8000 years. Now that University of California (UC) officials have recently urged federal officials to give two of the oldest known skeletons in America to the Kumeyaay nation for reburial, anthropologists at several UC campuses are protesting vehemently, calling the action "scandalous" in blogs and interviews.
At almost 10,000 years old, the skeletons—excavated in 1976 from the property of the former chancellor’s house at UCSD—are too old to have any cultural or biological affinity with the Kumeyaay or any living Native Americans, says Schoeninger, who is co-director of a UCSD working group that advised the university to keep the skeletons.
“Unlike most skeletons of such antiquity, these are remarkably well-preserved.” They are both better preserved and older than the well-known skeleton of Kennewick Man (who was Polynesian), which was the subject of several lawsuits after Native Americans claimed the skeleton when it washed ashore on the bank of the Columbia River in Oregon.
posted
IronLion Was The Roman Empire White ? is a great thread. you prove that the Roman and Greek were not white because they were using skin bleaching cream and they were wearing white people wig. You also showed Campbell Dunn work that revealed Etruscan was a Niger Congo language.
In 2012 I read an Africamaat article about skin bleaching that states the European Monarchs and nobilities of the Renaissance and colonial era were using skin bleaching cream. Skin bleaching cream was a popular product sold in all European market in the renaissance and colonial era. The article also state the ancient Greek used skin bleaching cream. The use of skin bleaching cream by the European elites and some of the European masses is the proof that the classical era European were black and brown. After the white Central Asian Goth and Slav massive invasion and migration to Europe in the 6 cent CE the European elites and part of the Euro masses remained brown and black until the late colonial era when they bleach out.
In 2013 I read Campbell Dunn book the African Origin of Classical civilization were he revealed the Ancient Minoan, Etruscan and Roman cultures, religions, languages and name of places were African. The Yoruba and Mande were the Minoan and The Mande, Yoruba and Akan were the first Roman.
I read also the Congolese scholar and pastor Jose Nzeyitu Josias book Les Racines Bantoues Du Latin were he prove the Congolese and Linguala languages are the mother of Latin. The original Roman people most have been black people.
Most of the Roman artifacts in Western museums are Renaissance era fake that's why they look like white people. By contrast Roman and Greek artifacts in Egyptian museum look like mulato people. The black Roman artifacts are in low number, they are either hidden our have been destroyed. Graeco Roman civilization was created by black then became brown, black and white. Racism didn't exist in that era what matter was tribalism, ethnicism, citizenship and nationality.
Great observation. I am actually struck by the resemblance. Obama appears to be a man of destiny from the past, as we have found his face also amongst the Kings of Egypt.
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Great observation. I am actually struck by the resemblance. Obama appears to be a man of destiny from the past, as we have found his face also amongst the Kings of Egypt.
I agree, are you able and or capable to make photo collage of comparative images?
That would be awesome.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr Hella Eckardt, senior lecturer in Roman Archaeology at the University of Reading, said: “Our analysis of excavated skeletal remains of people living in Roman Britain such as the ‘Ivory Bangle Lady’ and others like her show that multicultural Britain is not just a phenomenon of more modern times.”
By analysing skeletons facial features, skull measurements, the chemical signature of food and drink and burial goods, archaeologists were able to learn more about Roman times and migrants of African descent who came to Britain.
The ‘Ivory Bangle Lady’ was a high status young woman of North African descent who remains were buried in Roman York (Sycamore Terrace).
Dated to the second half of the 4th Century, her grave contained jet and elephant ivory bracelets, earrings, pendants, beads, a blue glass jug and a glass mirror.
Dr Debbie Weekes-Bernard, who is leading the Romans Revealed outreach project, said: “The University of Reading research results showed that people came to Britain from many different parts of the Roman Empire, including North Africa. In some of the larger towns like York and Winchester, up to 20 per cent of the Roman Britain population may be classed as ‘non-local’ or ‘incomers’.
“This research is really important, providing evidence to challenge the current curriculum as taught in schools and highlighting the diversity of Roman Britain.”
According to the National Archives, the official archive for the UK Government, people of African descent have had a presence in Britain for the past 2,000 years.
In Roman times, black troops were sent to the ‘remote and barbaric’ province of Britannia – the ancient term for Great Britain – with many settling permanently even after the Roman legions left.
1,800-year-old stone head of an eminent African-Featured Romano-British found in Binchester, Durham England by Oguejiofo Annu
Afro British Binchester-sandstone-head-200x255
Afro British Moor
Archaeologists from Durham University England, who were excavating an ancient site of a Roman bathhouse outside Binchester Roman Fort near the town of Bishop Auckland, County Durham, northeast England, found a carved stone head of a black man dating to the 2nd or 3rd century A.D.
The small sandstone sculpture is about eight inches high and four inches wide — in a layer of stone rubble. Two years ago a small Roman altar was found nearby.
Archaeologists believe the head period the Romans ruled England. Binchester was a fort on the northern frontier.
The Binchester head also has facial features — mainly the modeling of the nose and lips — that may suggest an African influence.
I would emphatically call him a Moor because in the time of the Romans, so-called black people of today were called Moors and Melaneos. Those Moors were native to Britain, they were the first British, before the invasion of the Island by the Albions, and the Goths, the Vinlanders etc.
The Binchester head is African in appearance, and the experts cannot deny their own eyes no matter how hard they try. But Dr Petts, who is also Associate Director of Durham University’s Institute of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, said experts were unsure whether these features were “deliberate or coincidental”.
He explained: “This is something we need to consider deeply. If it is an image of an African, it could be extremely important, although this identification is not certain.”
The most interesting aspect is this so-called African features were carved into all images and statues found in England dating from that same period. Due to to its pervasity in the art of that period, the scholars have attempted to rebrand its identity and localise it.
According to Dr Mason one of the scholars involved in the study: “The African style comparison may be misleading as the form is typical of that produced by local craftsmen in the frontier region.”
Afro Moors English Binchester-head-angles-106x150
Binchester Roman Fort, called Vinovia by the Romans, was the largest fort in the county, housing a garrison of one thousand men, most if not all of them cavalry. It guarded the crossing point of the River Wear, a strategically important location about 60 miles north of the legion’s headquarters at York and about 30 miles south of Hadrian’s Wall.
Binchester Fort is in the centre of today’s County Durham, approximately one and a half miles north of Bishop Auckland in England.