quote:Originally posted by IronLion: Black Emperor of Rome Karakala
Karakalla in with hair wigs:
Wow! you've gone Edmund on us Iron. How the heck can you say for sure that this guy who looks pure Southern Italian IS A BLACK! Yes everyone can see some of the people you have posted have black blood as they should living so close to Afria, but if we are going to start saying Italians are blacks then u better be ready to join lyin_ass snake and Matilda say all of the people in the Middle East represented blacks too.
More images of Karakala:
Emperor Karakala the Black Emperor of Rome:
Eternal Statute of Karakalla from Egypt, nose and lips broken? hmmm...
Karakalla
Karakala
Dana, do you still think that Caracalla looks like some "southern Italian"?
Roooooaaaaarrrrr! Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: History of Sicily by Paolo Mazzesi
The history of Sicily begins with the history of Europe, during the upper Paleolithic (20,000 – 10,000 bC): it was populated by peoples of the modern human type. Settlements and new civilizations followed in waves, then followed by new ones over and over: the Phoenician, the Greeks, the Arabs (the Moors)…..
The most ancient Sicilian culture we know is dated around 10,000 bC (as established from rock carvings at Mount Pellegrino), followed by others until in the Eneolithic (Copper age, 3,500-3,000 bC) the island began to be subjected to ever increasing influences by oriental and Mediterranean civilizations.
Sicily used to have a different name before the current one (we would call it Sicania): it originated from the “Sicani” people : anthropologists tell us that the “Sicani” had nothing in common with the “Siculi”, who came later.
The former originated from Libya, and geologists admit they could have come to the western part of the island when a strip of land emerged during glacial eras used to connect Africa to Sicily, therefore these people where of Camitic origin. About 1,000 bC these people were subjugated ed by the Carthaginese. ..........
Lion, you mean that these people were AFRICANS?????
AMAZING!!!
He, he.
Right on Mike...
I know you have more pictures, facts and artefacts just feel free to let them flow... Teach!
Lion!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe the Romans were white. They were just a bunch of green men and women from the planet Mars. Prove me wrong.
Posts: 676 | From: the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dana and Lion - You both have broached an area that I have been content to leave alone. That is quantifying the Black presence in Europe post White invasion.
There is ample evidence, both artifactual and written, of a Black presence in Europe, well into the medieval period. But the White mans propensity for lying and falsifying data, to me, makes the task of quantifying it impossible.
However, there are a few interesting things to consider on the subject.
We know that the Hellenes and the Latins were the first Whites in southern Europe. But interestingly, their descendants are all but extinct in modern Europe. Today's Europeans are Germanic's, Slav's, and Turks, all of which are post 600 A.D. or more succinctly, their presence is of the MODERN era. So lacking the data that Whites will never release, who can say what the racial make-up of post invasion, ancient Europe was really like?
In Britain, the indigenous Black peoples were almost completely wiped out by the invading Anglo-Saxon's (a Germanic tribe). Whether this was due to genocide or Apartheid is argued in the study "Evidence for an apartheid-like social structure in early Anglo-Saxon England."
Quote: Reproductive isolation and differential social status along ethnic lines is a frequent, temporary consequence of conquest and settlement, the best-known modern case being the Apartheid system in South Africa. In the post-Roman period, intermarriage between dominant immigrants and subject natives was banned in Visigothic France and Spain in the late fifth and early sixth century (King 1972). The Normans in eleventh- and twelfth-century England operated a conquest society in which the native English and Welsh had a lower legal status than Normans (Garnett 1985), and intermarriage, where it happened, was predominantly unidirectional, i.e. Norman men marrying English women. In Anglo-Saxon England, elements of an apartheid-like society can also be perceived in a Wessex law code of the seventh century which distinguishes clearly between Saxons and ‘Welsh’ (Britons) and gives the former a significantly higher legal status, some two centuries after the initial immigration (Whitelock 1979). Archaeological and skeletal data (Härke 1990, 1992), as well as textual evidence (Woolf 2004), have been used to suggest a situation of limited intermarriage between immigrant Anglo-Saxons and native Britons until the seventh century when this distinction began to break down.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^More on the history of the Black Britons and the brutish Albinos Anguulus:
English and Welsh are races apart Sunday, 30 June, 2002, 15:31 GMT 16:31 UK
Map of England and Wales reflected in genes - Gene scientists claim to have found proof that the Welsh are the “true” Britons.
The research supports the idea that Celtic Britain underwent a form of ethnic cleansing by Anglo-Saxons invaders following the Roman withdrawal in the fifth century.
Genetic tests BBC
Genetic tests show clear differences between the Welsh and English.
It suggests that between 50% and 100% of the indigenous population of what was to become England was wiped out, with Offa’s Dyke acting as a “genetic barrier” protecting those on the Welsh side.
And the upheaval can be traced to this day through genetic differences between the English and the Welsh.
Academics at University College in London comparing a sample of men from the UK with those from an area of the Netherlands where the Anglo-Saxons are thought to have originated found the English subjects had genes that were almost identical.
But there were clear differences between the genetic make-up of Welsh people studied.
The research team studied the Y-chromosome, which is passed almost unchanged from father to son, and looked for certain genetic markers.
Ethnic links: Many races share common bonds
They chose seven market towns mentioned in the Domesday Book of 1086 and studied 313 male volunteers whose paternal grandfather had also lived in the area.
-
They then compared this with samples from Norway and with Friesland, now a northern province of the Netherlands.
The English and Frisians studied had almost identical genetic make-up but the English and Welsh were very different.
The researchers concluded the most likely explanation for this was a large-scale Anglo-Saxon invasion, which devastated the Celtic population of England, but did not reach Wales.
Dr Mark Thomas, of the Centre for Genetic Anthropology at UCL, said their findings suggested that a migration occurred within the last 2,500 years.
Genetic links
It reinforced the idea that the Welsh were the true indigenous Britons.
In April last year, research for a BBC programme on the Vikings revealed strong genetic links between the Welsh and Irish Celts and the Basques of northern Spain and south France.
It suggested a possible link between the Celts and Basques, dating back tens of thousands of years.
The UCL research into the more recent Anglo-Saxon period suggested a migration on a huge scale.
“It appears England is made up of an ethnic cleansing event from people coming across from the continent after the Romans left,” he said.
Celtic Britons
Archaeologists after the Second World War rejected the traditionally held view that an Anglo-Saxon invasion pushed the indigenous Celtic Britons to the fringes of Britain.
Instead, they said the arrival of Anglo-Saxon culture could have come from trade or a small ruling elite.
But the latest research by the UCL team, “using genetics as a history book”, appears to support the original view of a large-scale invasion of England.
It suggests that the Welsh border was more of a genetic barrier to the Anglo-Saxon Y chromosome gene flow than the North Sea.
Dr Thomas added: “Our findings completely overturn the modern view of the origins of the English.”
posted
The unholy Holy Roman Empire founded by the Pontifex Maximus of the Goths and the Vandals, 400 years after the collapse of the western roman empire.
Many people confuse this fake Rome with the ancient Roman empire and conflate the two ethnicities.
Read time line:
350: the Roman empire allows the Franks to settle in Belgium 406: as Vandals invade Gaul, the Franks expand in southern Belgium 407: Gebicca becomes leader of the Burgundians 413: the Burgundians settle on the left bank of the Rhine as "foederati" with capital in Worms 435: the Burgundians led by Gundahar invade Belgium 436: the Romans and the Huns attack the Burgundians and kill Gundahar 443: the Romans settle the Burgundians in Savoy 447: Merovech (Meerwig) establishes the Merovingian dynasty among the Franks 457: the Burgundi seize Lyons 480: Frank king Childeric dies and the Frank capital is in Rheims 481: Clovis becomes king of the Franks 486: Franks led by Clovis I (Chlodovech) conquer northern Gaul from the Romans and drive the Visigoths into Spain 496: Clovis converts the Franks to catholicism 507: Clovis defeats the Visigoths, kills their king Alaric II, and takes their French lands, including Aquitaine 510: Clovis moves the Frankish capital to Paris 511: Clovis dies and his kingdom is divided among his four sons, thus creating the kingdoms of Austrasia (eastern France and southwestern Germany) and Neustria (Paris and northern France) 531: the Franks conquer the Thuringians 534: the Franks conquer the Burgundians 536: the Franks conquer Provence from the Ostrogoths 555: the Franks conquer the Bavarians 628: count Pepin I becomes the Austrasian "major domi" (mayor of the palace) 638: the Merovingian king Dagobert is the first king to be buried at the monastery of Saint-Denis, which then becomes the royal abbey church 687: Pepin's son Pepin II becomes the Austrasian mayor of the palace and conquers Neustria, reuniting the two kingdoms 712: a Berber army under Tariq ibn Ziyad conquers southern Spain from the Visigoths and Cordoba becomes the residence of the Arab governor 714: Pepin II dies and Pepin's son, Charles Martel, becomes mayor of the palace 718: Pelayo unites with the Visigothic leaders who have been defeated by Tariq, and creates the kingdom of Asturias in northwestern Spain, thus creating the kingdom of Leon 720: the Arabs capture Narbonne 725: the Arabs capture Carcassonne 732: the Muslim invasion of Europe is stopped by Charles Martel at the battle of Tours 737: the Arabs capture Provence 741: Charles Martel dies and his kingdom is divided between his sons Carloman (Austrasia) and Pippin (the rest), while Bavaria and Aquitaine are de facto independent 743: Pepin and Carloman elect Childeric III to king of the Franks 747: Carloman becomes a Montecassino monk and Pepin III becomes the sole ruler of the Franks 751: The Carolingian mayor Pepin III deposes Childeric III and appoints himself king of the Franks, thus ending the Merovingian dynasty and uniting Neustria, Austrasia and Burgundy 752: the Franks under Pippin expel the Arabs from Provence 754: pope Stephen II anoints Pepin III king of the Franks 756: Pepin III defeats the Lombards and conquers Ravenna but leaves the conquered territories to the Pope, thereby founding the Papal State and establishing a temporal power for the Pope 759: the Muslim army is expelled from France 768: Pepin III dies and Charlemagne becomes king of the Franks, with capital in Aachen 774: the Franks under Charlemagne annex the Lombards 777: Charlemagne builds a palace at Aix-la-Chapelle 778: Charlemagne attacks the Muslims and invades northeastern Spain 778: Charlemagne attacks the Muslims and invades northeastern Spain but is defeated (Roland is defeated at Roncesvalles) 781: Charlemagne places his son Louis on the throne of Aquitaine 785: Charlemagne conquers the pagan Saxons in Germany and the Elbe river becomes the frontier between Germans and Slavs 788: Charlemagne conquers Bavaria 796: Charlemagne conquers the Avars (Pannonia) and establishes the East March (Ostmark or Osterreich) that gets colonized by Germans from Bavaria 800: the Pope crowns Charles emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.....
posted
From a perspecive of Roman laws, a Roman was:
Under the Roman power the Latins had the status of socii (i.e. allies), which gave them great inner autonomy. After the so called Social war in 90-89 BC they obtained the rights of Roman citizens and subsequently all the people originating from Italy and speaking Latin as their mother thongue appealed themselves Romans. In 211 the Constitutio Antoniana de Civitate granted Roman citizenship to all the people under the rule of Rome. Since then the term Roman became a designation of a political community and as such went beyond the primary ethnic frames. It was applied to Celts, Iberians, Daco-Thracians and Illyrians who have abandoned their own languages for Latin and in this manner were completely assimilated, but also to the Greeks in the Eastern provinces who, though preserving their Greek language, adopted the name of Romans (in Greek Rhômaíoi) as a mark of their rise to political predominance in the state affairs of the East.
But who are the latins? Are they one people, one tribe, one racial group? Read on:
The Latins were (a so-called) Indo-European people of the Italic branch who about the beginning of the 1st millenium BC have been settled in Central Italy, in a country south of the banks of the Tiber that was called Latium (modern Lazio).
But who is "Indo". Forget the European part for now.
Indo could mean an indian from the sub-continent. In the time of ancient Rome the word Indo was sometimes used to describe Africans from the continent or from Europe. Indo became a term that was loosely applied to all peoples of colour.
One thing is settled though. The word Indo indicates that the subject was not of pink-white colour. Often ethnic, potentially an African or a Dravidian.
Who was European, well..we have proven beyond doubt that the original owners of Europe were black people. Maures. The others came in much later including the pinks, the muslims, etc.
So when you hear indo-european? Think again.
Indo-european was not a tribal group. It is not racial. It is a network of related languages.
Modern linguists have continually demonstrated the linkages between African languages and those found on the Indian sub-continent. There are more associated words and sounds between African languages and Indian languages than exist between Indian languages and European languages.
Anyone in doubt can just begin by sounding out the names of Indian states in modern India and comparing those names with African and European place names. There is no doubt that cognates occur more between Africa and India, than between either with present day Europe.
Thus, we are not even certain that the language category called indo-european really did exist as linguist have up to date be unable to demonstrate the existence of a proto-indo-european language. The gaps are too many.
So when you hear Indo-European, realize that it is time to begin decoding words.
Lion!
-------------------- Lionz Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
This is Septimus Severus Karakalla's Daddy. Does he look Southern Italian to you in this profile? Emperor Severus, that was one true Maure!
OK - Iron. You have won. I agree now with you and Mathilda. Romans and Italians are the blacks i.e. "Mauri" of both Europe and NORTH AFRICA and in fact SPAIN.
I disagree, however, when you say I say the Dawasir are the only Moors. In fact if you read Dr. Van Sertima's - Golden Age of the Moor, Fall 1991 - you will see where I talked about almost nothing but the black African roots of the Moors i.e. Berbers, Fulani, Mande, Nilo-Saharans, etc. who arrived in Muslim Spain mainly after the 10th century after the Arican Arabians who were THE PREDOMINANT PORTION OF THE MOORS BEFORE THAT TIME.
Funny thing though - I don't quite remember getting anything from you back then - unless of course u are J.A. Rogers or Frank Snowden. Or maybe ur just Diodorus, one of those black Sicilian MOORS of Etruscan descent! Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Ancient African people, sometimes called Moors, are known to have had a significant presence and influence in early Rome. African soldiers, specifically identified as Moors, were actively recruited for Roman military service and were stationed in Britain, France, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Poland and Romania. Many of these Africans rose to high rank. Lusius Quietus, for example, was one of Rome's greatest generals and was named by Roman Emperor Trajan as his successor. He is described as a "man of Moorish race and considered the ablest soldier in the Roman army."
For most of the second century Africans dominated the intellectual life of Rome. By the end of the second century nearly a third of the Roman senate was of African origin. St. Victor I became the first African bishop of Rome in 189 C.E. and reigned until 199 C.E. Victor I, the first pope known to have had dealings with the imperial household, is described as "the most forceful of the 2nd-century popes."
Emperor Lucius Septimius Severus, the most distinguished of the African emperors of Rome, reigned from 193 to 211, and was born at Leptis Magna on the North African coast. Marcus Opellius Macrinus, Emperor of Rome for fourteen months, "was a Moor by birth." St. Miltiades, a Black priest from Africa, was elected the thirty-seventh pope in 311 C.E. Under Miltiades the Roman persecution of Christians ceased. The third African pope, St. Gelasius I, governed as pope from 492 to 496 C.E.
Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullian, another African, was the first of the Church writers to make Latin the language of Christianity. Other Africans included the playwright Publius Terentius Afer. It is to Terence that we owe the expression, "I am a man, and reckon nothing human is alien to me."
SOURCES: Rome And Africa, by Susan Raven African Presence In Early Europe, Edited by Ivan Van Sertima
-------------------- Lionz Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
This is Septimus Severus Karakalla's Daddy. Does he look Southern Italian to you in this profile? Emperor Severus, that was one true Maure!
OK - Iron. You have won. I agree now with you and Mathilda. Romans and Italians are the blacks i.e. "Mauri" of both Europe and NORTH AFRICA and in fact SPAIN.
I disagree, however, when you say I say the Dawasir are the only Moors. In fact if you read Dr. Van Sertima's - Golden Age of the Moor, Fall 1991 - you will see where I talked about almost nothing but the black African roots of the Moors i.e. Berbers, Fulani, Mande, Nilo-Saharans, etc. who arrived in Muslim Spain mainly after the 10th century after the Arican Arabians who were THE PREDOMINANT PORTION OF THE MOORS BEFORE THAT TIME.
Funny thing though - I don't quite remember getting anything from you back then - unless of course u are J.A. Rogers or Frank Snowden. Or maybe ur just Diodorus, one of those black Sicilian MOORS of Etruscan descent!
Dana I hope you take the time to read and reflect:
It takes a very prominent and rich aristocrat, to commission the kind of life-like statute done of this Mauri of Rome.
Even today, not very many of us can afford to commission such expensive piece of art work.
Who then is the face immortalized below which was discovered in Rome?
A fulani moor..according to Dana?
Or a Mauro-Romano...according to the authorities?
Is the moor below some nameless fulani tribal, or could he have been one of the arbiters of life and death in ancient Rome?
Was he a high official? From a patrician family?
Have you heard of the great and famous Nigrinus family of Rome?
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Dana and Lion - You both have broached an area that I have been content to leave alone. That is quantifying the Black presence in Europe post White invasion.
There is ample evidence, both artifactual and written, of a Black presence in Europe, well into the medieval period. But the White mans propensity for lying and falsifying data, to me, makes the task of quantifying it impossible.
However, there are a few interesting things to consider on the subject.
We know that the Hellenes and the Latins were the first Whites in southern Europe. But interestingly, their descendants are all but extinct in modern Europe. Today's Europeans are Germanic's, Slav's, and Turks, all of which are post 600 A.D. or more succinctly, their presence is of the MODERN era. So lacking the data that Whites will never release, who can say what the racial make-up of post invasion, ancient Europe was really like?
In Britain, the indigenous Black peoples were almost completely wiped out by the invading Anglo-Saxon's (a Germanic tribe). Whether this was due to genocide or Apartheid is argued in the study "Evidence for an apartheid-like social structure in early Anglo-Saxon England."
Quote: Reproductive isolation and differential social status along ethnic lines is a frequent, temporary consequence of conquest and settlement, the best-known modern case being the Apartheid system in South Africa. In the post-Roman period, intermarriage between dominant immigrants and subject natives was banned in Visigothic France and Spain in the late fifth and early sixth century (King 1972). The Normans in eleventh- and twelfth-century England operated a conquest society in which the native English and Welsh had a lower legal status than Normans (Garnett 1985), and intermarriage, where it happened, was predominantly unidirectional, i.e. Norman men marrying English women. In Anglo-Saxon England, elements of an apartheid-like society can also be perceived in a Wessex law code of the seventh century which distinguishes clearly between Saxons and ‘Welsh’ (Britons) and gives the former a significantly higher legal status, some two centuries after the initial immigration (Whitelock 1979). Archaeological and skeletal data (Härke 1990, 1992), as well as textual evidence (Woolf 2004), have been used to suggest a situation of limited intermarriage between immigrant Anglo-Saxons and native Britons until the seventh century when this distinction began to break down.
Well I am glad you are not broaching this area Mike, because frankly I myself have little interest in it. As anyone can see the bulk of the coins posted by Iron that he calls "black" are represented by todays southern Italians in Europe and probably some of the people along the coasts of North Africa where they settled among the Moors.
Modern Mediterraneans are brachycranic people easily distinguishable from blacks although as I have said and will concede many of them probably have some recent or ancient black African blood. I am not going to sit down any longer and argue about the fact that Romans and Moors (blacks) were not the same people. If the descendents of iron age Romans and Greeks were predominantly blacks, they would not have been considered "whites" by early Islamic blacks. PERIOD! Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, now, Dana. Let's not be too hasty. Lion has made a case for a multi-racial post invasion Europe. But he has not satisfactorily made the case that the Romans were Black.
He also correctly explained that Indo-European does not mean what people have been led to believe it means.
Picture time:
In this picture, the White woman is the royal.
In this picture the deities are Blacks.
In this picture, we have a mixed-race couple.
In this picture, we have a White and two mulattoes. I have no way of knowing which was dominant.
posted
The African Moors and the European Moors were differentiated by Roman texts:
Here read:
An original brass military diploma which dates from the middle of the second century A.D mentions Moorish soldiers in Moesia,which is modern Serbia.
Another military diploma A.D 158 speakes of Moorish soldiers from Africa in Dacia, or modern Romania, and also of auxiliary troops of the Dacian Moors....
Lion!
-------------------- Lionz Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
This is Septimus Severus Karakalla's Daddy. Does he look Southern Italian to you in this profile? Emperor Severus, that was one true Maure!
OK - Iron. You have won. I agree now with you and Mathilda. Romans and Italians are the blacks i.e. "Mauri" of both Europe and NORTH AFRICA and in fact SPAIN.
I disagree, however, when you say I say the Dawasir are the only Moors. In fact if you read Dr. Van Sertima's - Golden Age of the Moor, Fall 1991 - you will see where I talked about almost nothing but the black African roots of the Moors i.e. Berbers, Fulani, Mande, Nilo-Saharans, etc. who arrived in Muslim Spain mainly after the 10th century after the Arican Arabians who were THE PREDOMINANT PORTION OF THE MOORS BEFORE THAT TIME.
Funny thing though - I don't quite remember getting anything from you back then - unless of course u are J.A. Rogers or Frank Snowden. Or maybe ur just Diodorus, one of those black Sicilian MOORS of Etruscan descent!
Dana I hope you take the time to read and reflect:
It takes a very prominent and rich aristocrat, to commission the kind of life-like statute done of this Mauri of Rome.
Even today, not very many of us can afford to commission such expensive piece of art work.
Who then is the face immortalized below which was discovered in Rome?
A fulani moor..according to Dana?
Or a Mauro-Romano...according to the authorities?
Is the moor below some nameless fulani tribal, or could he have been one of the arbiters of life and death in ancient Rome?
Was he a high official? From a patrician family?
Have you heard of the great and famous Nigrinus family of Rome?
Why should that be according to me Lion - when I never said it. Everybody knows Roman society had Moors in it and also it is quite possible that some Romans had a mulatto appearance due to absorption of earlier populations. I could care less if blacks were high officials among the Romans I'm sure there were some blond and red haired officials as well but that wouldn't have made them the dominant Romans.
One has to take into consideration that a change in physical type DID OCCUR in these areas which shows that black people were NOT the dominant population in Roman ITALY! Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: The African Moors and the European Moors were differentiated by Roman texts:
Here read:
An original brass military diploma which dates from the middle of the second century A.D mentions Moorish soldiers in Moesia,which is modern Serbia.
Another military diploma A.D 158 speakes of Moorish soldiers from Africa in Dacia, or modern Romania, and also of auxiliary troops of the Dacian Moors....
Lion!
The ROMAN MOORS CAME FROM AFRICA LION! HOW DOES THAT MAKE THEM DIFFERENT!?
DANA!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Now, now, Dana. Let's not be too hasty. Lion has made a case for a multi-racial post invasion Europe. But he "has not satisfactorily made the case that the Romans were Black".
He also correctly explained that Indo-European does not mean what people have been led to believe it means.
Picture time:
In this picture, the White woman is the royal.
In this picture the deities are Blacks.
In this picture, we have a mixed-race couple.
[IMG]IMG]
In this picture, we have a White and two mulattoes. I have no way of knowing which was dominant.
posted
For the avoidance of doubt, I began this thread with a thesis...
That ancient Rome was multi-ethnic, multi-cultural;
That there were substantial and significant population of black people who played a very important role in the politics and society of the Roman Empire.
That there were many black Roman Emperors.
That there many prominent black citizens of Rome, and black people highly figured in its elite class.
That the moors were an ethnic group also in Europe as represented by the Ibero-maurisians, Capsians, Silures, Black Celts, the Nigri-latins, the Morlachs of central and Eastern Europe, and the Sicanis of Sicily.
I believe I have made my point. It is up to the honest reader to continue this research and see where it leads to.
Dana when you talk about ancient Arab authorities designating Romans as white, keep it in context. Remember that Rome in the west was fallen and utterly overrun by the Goths, before the birth of Mohammed and the beginning of pan Arabic Islamism.
Which is to say, by the time of the Arabs, ancient Rome was nomore. The writers were simply describing the Goths they saw there in the 5th and 6th centuries.
It is for persons of logical thinking to consider what has been put forth and decide whether it makes sense or not.
To the prejudiced and the know alls, bring your skepticism, and IronLion will cure it all for you.
Lion!
-------------------- Lionz Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: The African Moors and the European Moors were differentiated by Roman texts:
Here read:
An original brass military diploma which dates from the middle of the second century A.D mentions Moorish soldiers in Moesia,which is modern Serbia.
Another military diploma A.D 158 speakes of Moorish soldiers from Africa in Dacia, or modern Romania, and also of auxiliary troops of the Dacian Moors....
Lion!
The ROMAN MOORS CAME FROM AFRICA LION! HOW DOES THAT MAKE THEM DIFFERENT!?
DANA!
Dana
Is this matter emotional for you? I pefer to reason with dispassionate observers than with people who are emotionally invested in defending a particular position inspite of undeniable evidence.
Bring your proofs, contradict me... cite those Arab sources you have, but just prove me wrong. No need to yell, no need for snide comments.
Let your authorities and evidence and logic speak for you. Mine are speaking loud and clear....
Lion!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK guess I just got confused by the title "Was Rome black?" and the fact that you point to Romans who look like modern Italians and call them black.
You do have a slight point on the Goth thing but the fact is pre-Islamic Roman historians did distinguish themselves from the Moors i.e. Africans and Arabs by calling them "the blacks" and "the Ethiopians".
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: The African Moors and the European Moors were differentiated by Roman texts:
Here read:
An original brass military diploma which dates from the middle of the second century A.D mentions Moorish soldiers in Moesia,which is modern Serbia.
Another military diploma A.D 158 speakes of Moorish soldiers from Africa in Dacia, or modern Romania, and also of auxiliary troops of the Dacian Moors....
Lion!
The ROMAN MOORS CAME FROM AFRICA LION! HOW DOES THAT MAKE THEM DIFFERENT!?
DANA!
Dana
Just like you have blacks from Africa and blacks from America and blacks from Britain in this modern days; so you had moors from Africa, moors from Europe, moors from India, moors from as far as the sea of china.
In Roman times, the Nigri-latinis were the moors of Europe. Aboriginal Europeans.
I answered your questions. I notice you side step my own inquiries...any special reason?
Lion!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: OK guess I just got confused by the title "Was Rome black?" and the fact that you point to Romans who look like modern Italians and call them black.
You do have a slight point on the Goth thing but the fact is pre-Islamic Roman historians did distinguish themselves from the Moors i.e. Africans and Arabs by calling them "the blacks" and "the Ethiopians".
The title does not read: Was Rome Black?
The title of this thread is: Was Rome White?
Point out who looks like today's Italian that I have posted.
I am not into Photo spamming. All the Emperors I have identified have verifiable histories either as Africans or as black people born outside Africa.
Dont make vauge accusations. That is a low blow. Be specific. I will back up with textual evidence. Come out clean, put your cards on the table and see how they will stack against mine.
Is it Diocletian, or Maximinius, or Severus Alexander that is your problem? I put up their pictures. They are black people. I dare you to tell me that they are Italians if you are sure of your facts and history.
Lion!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lion - what you say is for the most part true, I just question the extrapolations.
I am personally resigned to defeat on this one. To me, the White mans inundation of fake artifacts, makes it impossible to make an accurate determination.
example:
These are Gauls/Celts.
But the White man produced these fake artifacts of Gauls/Celts.
So knowing that;
Are THESE also fake artifacts?
They may be fakes, or they may not be. I have no way of knowing; short of a written physical description of them - which MAY one day surface. There are some honest Whites, so you never know what may show up.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: ^^A few re-constructed images of Roman Emperors out of 400 Roman Emperors... equals white supremacy for you.
But nooo, pink-white supremacy began with the Pink Goths. It is a very recent mental dis-order, associated exclusively with Cagots like you!
Brown Muurish ethnicity was elite and Royalty of Rome.
Goths were outcasts and enemies of Rome.
Same as in Greece. Barbarians and Vandals.
Incorrigible fool. You need to go to school!
Ironlion if u are saying the elites of the Romans were then black u should at least show some proof of it. From, what I understand only a small percent were of partial black African descent such as Honorius (possibly) and that's an opinion just judging from pictures. The Romans and Greeks were called white or "red men" by the Arabs who were at that time a black people. Mostly their physical characteristics and crania were much like modern southern Mediteraneans, north Syrians and Lebanese a predominantly brachycephalic and hyper-brachycephalic hairsute people with fair-skin and prominent, projecting noses. These people were therefore in no way representative of the Moors or black people in North Africa who displayed in fact often displayed hyperdolichocephaly and many other non-European traits. They may have had of course some share of black African blood but the Romans and early Italians were quick to point out that Moors or Mauri "blacks" were different then themselves - the latter being an "Ethiopian" race. What u and Mikey are saying is as ridiculous as some of the stuff on Matilda's site who tries to chang Moors (related to sub-Saharans/East Africans) into Romans and Greeks i.e. modern southern Europeans. Similarly Vikings Goths and Alans and Slavic peoples should not be confused with southern Europeans. I hope one day we all can start to appreciate diversity and the fact that civilizations rise and fall and no one can claim them all.
Dana
Thanks for your interest in the discussion. Lets talk candidly here.
I like it when people come at me all sure of themselves. A few clarifications please:
How did you get your understanding that the black people in Rome were a tiny minority? Reliable source?...not Gibbons or Toynebee two damned racists.
What happended to the foundational black population of Europe? Did they all die off?
What then happened to the Sicanis, and the Ibero-Maurisians, and the Celts? Did they all die off?
What happended to the Etruscans? Did they all die off?
And the Catheginians, were they all exterminated by this your famous brachycephalic type you reference?
What is the predominant skull type dug up from Roman cemetries?
Did the Romans bleach? Did they use wigs and hair straightners? In massive quantity?
How many black Roman Emperors were there in all?
Please provide me with sources and common sense analysis when you respond.
Lion!
Do you know the Silures of England?
Do you
Dana
If you answered one or two of the questions above, that would be very nice and courteous of you....
That would also put things in perspective.
I am waiting
Lion!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Lion - what you say is for the most part true, I just question the extrapolations.
I am personally resigned to defeat on this one. To me, the White mans inundation of fake artifacts, makes it impossible to make an accurate determination.
example:
These are Gauls/Celts.
But the White man produced these fake artifacts of Gauls/Celts.
So knowing that;
Are THESE also fake artifacts?
They may be fakes, or they may not be. I have no way of knowing; short of a written physical description of them - which MAY one day surface. There are some honest Whites, you never know what may show up.
Mike
It all comes together when you realize that the theiving Goth has had nearly two thousand years to alter and wipe out Roman history.
They were thorough in their operation.
They came into the ancient civilizations of which custodian Rome was at that very moment. They wanted to become Romans.
They prostituted themselves to Romans, both males and females. They slaved themselves, they inflitrated the capital and after more than 3 centuries, they corroded Rome.
They immediately crowned themselves Roman Emperor, like Alaric the Hun. They became the Roman priests, the Roman builders, and then crashed western Europe into dark ages with their incompetence and inability to learn.
It took another 1400 years for Europe to start to stir again, with culture and learning I place of wars and looting.
They created the Roman catholic church, recall the ancient Romans were pagans.
They created the holy Roman empire.
They have Romance fiction as the reward of life.
Today Russia is called the third Rome, you know why?
The thieving Goths:
They burnt libraries, they killed and tortured priests and priestesses, destroyed temples, and took humanity back 4000 years, hence they were called Vandals!
And they had almost 2000 years to re-write and re-mould the history of Rome.
But many clues remain. Cause the most perfect murders still have mistakes.
BobMarley taught us that 2000 years of history, could not be wiped away so easily.
Only half has been told.
The other half is slowly unravelling....
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
A Roman document, Notitia Dignitatum,which dates from the beginning of the fifth century A.D; mentions several Moorish battalions in the Balkans and Moorish military colony Ad Mauros which was located on the Inn river near Vienna; and in what is modern Beseribia,there was a city called Maurocastrum. The BlackCastle.
-------------------- Lionz Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Explorer Is that guy doing a blowjob on a deer? Oh yuck!! are you sure that's not a Ewe he is suckling?.. Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL. I was kidding around; having some fun with the stuff. An interesting scene nonetheless.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey guys; Instead of goofing, why not do some digging for something to add to the conversation?
Lion has brought up some good points: Rome already existed as a city BEFORE the Romans. The other name they go by; the Latins. Were a people who Already existed BEFORE the Whites got there. So just WHO were the Whites? And when did they really get there?
I posted some fake White artifacts above, here is another one.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Notice these loons never mention the Brits who were Roman citizens and part of the empire and lived in a Romanized British society for centuries.
The Black Aborigines of Briton
The Wealas
Another circumstance connected with these names which it is desirable to remember is the absence of evidence to show that the Old English ever called any of the darker-complexioned Britons brown men or black men. Their name for them was Wealas (WALES).
PAGE 112, Origins of the Anglo-Saxon Race.
The Silures
The Silures were a powerful and warlike tribe of ancient Britain, occupying approximately the counties of Monmouthshire, Breconshire and Glamorganshire of present day South Wales; and possibly Gloucestershire and Herefordshire of present day England.
According to Tacitus's biography of Agricola, the Silures usually had a dark complexion and curly hair. Due to their appearance, Tacitus hinted that they may have crossed over from Spain at an earlier date....
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Lion - what you say is for the most part true, I just question the extrapolations.
I am personally resigned to defeat on this one. To me, the White mans inundation of fake artifacts, makes it impossible to make an accurate determination.
example:
These are Gauls/Celts.
But the White man produced these fake artifacts of Gauls/Celts.
So knowing that;
Are THESE also fake artifacts?
They may be fakes, or they may not be. I have no way of knowing; short of a written physical description of them - which MAY one day surface. There are some honest Whites, you never know what may show up.
Mike
It all comes together when you realize that the theiving Goth has had nearly two thousand years to alter and wipe out Roman history.
They were thorough in their operation.
They came into the ancient civilizations of which custodian Rome was at that very moment. They wanted to become Romans.
They prostituted themselves to Romans, both males and females. They slaved themselves, they inflitrated the capital and after more than 3 centuries, they corroded Rome.
They immediately crowned themselves Roman Emperor, like Alaric the Hun. They became the Roman priests, the Roman builders, and then crashed western Europe into dark ages with their incompetence and inability to learn.
It took another 1400 years for Europe to start to stir again, with culture and learning I place of wars and looting.
They created the Roman catholic church, recall the ancient Romans were pagans.
They created the holy Roman empire.
They have Romance fiction as the reward of life.
Today Russia is called the third Rome, you know why?
The thieving Goths:
They burnt libraries, they killed and tortured priests and priestesses, destroyed temples, and took humanity back 4000 years, hence they were called Vandals!
And they had almost 2000 years to re-write and re-mould the history of Rome.
But many clues remain. Cause the most perfect murders still have mistakes.
BobMarley taught us that 2000 years of history, could not be wiped away so easily.
Only half has been told.
The other half is slowly unravelling....
In the Middle ages the term Romans was used in Western Europe for making an inner distinction from Germans in the unified body of the Western Christendom. On the other hand, as Latin was the official written language in the matters of church and state, the term Latins was in common use by all Western Christians (whether Romance-, German- or Slavic-speaking nations) as distinguishing between themselves and the peoples from the rest of the world. Thus, the crusaders' states in the East were were given the name Latin. In the official political relations of Western Europe till the 11th c. the appeal of Roman was applied to the Eastern Roman empire (Byzantium), but its factual linguistic Hellenization combined with its power decline, made the Westerners to refer to it as a Greek empire and to its inhabitants as Greeks with a sense of undoubted despise. As a sign of prestige, both the empires of Charlemagne (established AD 800) and of Otho I (established AD 962) were labeled Roman.
^^^^^black people do not have this kind of hair.His hair is thick and irregular
see how this black man has curls that all hang the same way in the same direction.
No "Caracalla" Lucius Septimius Bassianus is not e]even similar to an Ethiopian.
Marcus Samuelsson the famous Ethiopian chef has an oval shape head and Afro type hair as the Ethiopians so.
Caracalla has a squareish type of head, small lips and his hair is not Afro type hair. You can find exceptions separately but If you put these four things together it does not match African descended people.
Caracalla: 1) thick irregular large curled curly hair. the hair clumps in different directions 2) small lips and not a wide mouth opening 3) a squarish shaped head, not narrow, not a long a face 4) the forehead is straighter it doesn't slope back like Marcus
posted
Lioness - Please print this out so that you will remember it.
All White people are the Albinos of Black people. Therefore NO phenotype or feature can exist in White people, if it does not already exist in Black people.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Lioness - Please print this out so that you will remember it.
All White people are the Albinos of Black people. Therefore NO phenotype or feature can exist in White people, if it does not already exist in Black people.
LoL!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyingass: Italian white people or ancient Romans were not albinos. The are typically darker than Northern European white people especially the Southern Italians are darker.
You mean dark like this :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:
[b]
Sorry Lyinass, did that hurt???
Lioness do you bleach your "white" butts? Or do you put tanning lotions on them?
The Romans were big on bleaching.... Who is big on bleaching today? Who is big on tanning?
Lion!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It this case, lioness is not the only one with vapor-lock. The mentally challenged forget that Whites are the Albino descendants of only ONE type of Black people. So of course, they would be very narrow in their phenotype and features.
With just a little bit of logical thought, it is an easy concept, I don't know what their problem is.
Vapor-locked minds, see if you can follow this. Black Humans have a very Wide variety of phenotypes and features.
Yet Whites have a very NARROW range of features. Yet Mongols have a very NARROW range of features.
If they were naturally evolved Humans, wouldn't they also have a very Wide variety of phenotypes and features, just like Blacks?
On the other hand, if they were simply one type of Blacks: who because of defective genes, came out White, and then they lived apart (Central Asia) and intermarried almost exclusively amongst themselves, for a long time.
Wouldn't they all be White, and ALL look alike?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Mike I told you. Look at how wide his Johnny Mathis" mouth is. His nose is also much wider than Caracalla, Septimius.
Follow the example I told your scraggly ass that Septimius did not have a wide mouth. Then you go and post a du with a wide mouth. why did you even bother.
Other folks you posted Afro type hair. Septimius had curly hair curled from a straight type hair but black people have kinky hair of a much smaller scale that has no straight foundation.
If you look at Septimius' hair if you look at one of the curls you see at the end of the curl the hair has straight parallel lines. Black people don't have that, we have hair that coils. If it curls it coils all the way through to the end. It dont have that straight part at the end of the curl like white people type curly hair. We also have a much thinner strand
Now you have to go to some 3 year old child from Australia you cant be serious.
At least Ron Isley had a squarish shaped head
then you go posting Shemar Moore? Didn't you learn a damn thing? He has a long type head, most certainly not squarish like Ron Isley and Septimius. Plus he has fro type hair and his mother is Irish and French-Canadian. He is what you constantly call a "mutt" in your ranting and ravings.
What about Ron Isley? I told your dumb ass. Look again dummy:
plus he jeris his hair. Wide nose, wide mouth with full lips, get your eyes checked
I told you you have to match all the traits. Not just find four people each with only one of the traits. So what do you go and do. Exactly that. let me know when you get it together
clip this post and print it out on your wall to remind you of your ongoing failure
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyingass: Italian white people or ancient Romans were not albinos. The are typically darker than Northern European white people especially the Southern Italians are darker.
You mean dark like this
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:
[b]
Sorry Lyinass, did that hurt???
Lioness do you bleach your "white" butts? Or do you put tanning lotions on them?
The Romans were big on bleaching.... Who is big on bleaching today? Who is big on tanning?
Lion!
Another southern moorish European. (recall the Roman cavalry?) This bust was found either in southern Europe, (Greece or Rome)... Lyingass you can tell us where you lifted it from... Rich Moorish European. Only the rich and important could afford to so immortalize their image. Only a highly skilled, highly paid artist could have built this bust.
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
is damaged beyond recognition and it was not even produced in Rome. The people did not like being ruled by Roman foreigners so they later busted his face.
This takes us right back to the beginning of this thread and sinks you like the Titanic.
Yes the above head is what that Moorish cavalry looked like.
The Romans were not comprised of Moors but they had a cavalry of Moors at one point to fight for their white asses. But other moors like Syphax fought against the Romans who attacked Carthage.
Now ask yourself with this cavalry in mind and the bust of a similar type, The Emperors did not look like this.
Who runs America? The white old boy network. Yet there plenty of blacks in the military. Colin Powell was a four star general and Secretary of State. Now there's a president who is half black with a black wife and kids. To this extent Rome was multi racial.
Caracalla? He was a sick and cruel bastard nobody even in their wannabeism should want to associate with. Look it up
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
If one was to make a point about Rome why would one have to go to Egypt to make that point?
Why is that?
_____________________________________________
People of Fayum
Under Greco-Roman rule, Egypt hosted several Greek settlements, mostly concentrated in Alexandria, but also in a few other cities, where Greek settlers lived alongside some seven to ten million native Egyptians. Faiyum's earliest Greek inhabitants were soldier-veterans and cleruchs (elite military officials) who were settled by the Ptolemaic kings on reclaimed lands. Native Egyptians also came to settle in Faiyum from all over the country, notably the Nile Delta, Upper Egypt, Oxyrhynchus and Memphis, to undertake the labor involved in the land reclamation process, as attested by personal names, local cults and recovered papyri. It is estimated that as much as 30 percent of the population of Faiyum was Greek during the Ptolemaic period, with the rest being native Egyptians. By the Roman period, much of the "Greek" population of Faiyum was made-up of either Hellenized Egyptians or people of mixed Egyptian-Greek origins.
While commonly believed to represent Greek settlers in Egypt, the Faiyum portraits instead reflect the complex synthesis of the predominant Egyptian culture and that of the elite Greek minority in the city. According to Walker, the early Ptolemaic Greek colonists married local women and adopted Egyptian religious beliefs, and by Roman times, their descendants were viewed as Egyptians by the Roman rulers, despite their own self-perception of being Greek. The dental morphology[ of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of ancient Egyptians than to Greeks or other European populations.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: This is Bigio Morata, a Greek in Anatolia, late 2nd century B.C.E.
Ironlion had pointed out this head shows a phenotype and hair style very similar to Moorish calvary, I agree. It certainly does not look Roman had busts. If there were blacks in Greece that does not make Greece black anymore than Japan white because some whites live in Japan.
* Possible place made: Turkey * Place made: Provenance not known
# Dates: late 2nd century B.C.E. # Period: Ptolemaic Period
Maybe he was a Turk then?
The Ptolemaic dynasty was Greek rule under the Hellenes, the period in which you said Greece became white. The man's hair style looks similar to a Kushite.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic