Blue Blood - 1834, translating Sp. sangre azul, claimed by certain families of Castile as uncontaminated by Moorish or Jewish admixture. Probably from the visible veins of people of fair complexion (i.e. Pure Albinos). Transparent Un-melaninated Skin.
This girl is even more Pure than the driven Snow (Pure Albino). You can't see through snow.
THIS GIRL IS "OBVIOUSLY" CONTAMINATED!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^So why were the Spanish elite so keen to declare themselves Pure Albino?
Al-Andalus was the Arabic name given to a nation and territorial region also commonly referred to as Moorish Iberia. The name describes parts of the Iberian Peninsula and Septimania governed by Muslims (given the generic name of Moors), at various times in the period between 711 and 1492.
Following the Muslim conquest of Hispania, al-Andalus was divided into five administrative areas roughly corresponding to Andalusia, Galicia and Portugal, Castile and Léon, Aragon and Catalonia, and Septimania.
In 1469, the crowns of the Christian kingdoms of Castile and Aragon were united by the marriage of Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon. 1478 commenced the completion of the conquest of the Canary Islands and in 1492, the combined forces of Castile and Aragon captured the Emirate of Granada, ending the last remnant of a 781-year presence of Islamic rule in Iberia.
On January 2, 1492, Emir Muhammad XII surrendered the Emirate of Granada to Queen Isabella I of Castile, who along with her husband King Ferdinand II of Aragon were Los Reyes Católicos, or "The Catholic Monarchs".
{Psst: This guys NOT Pure}. Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
That above is an unsightly medical condition called "varicose veins". Not all 'white' people get them, is not 'white' people alone that get them, and I have personally seen Black People with that condititon as well (so don't bother with it...); hence that 'after' picture next to it in the original post (which would be 'after' the treatment of said condition).
Varicose veins to the left, normal to the right..
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^The above was a demonstration of "See Through" skin, where the veins look Blue, NOT Varicose veins! Try to keep up.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
- So mike you finally are admitting that the native pre-Moorish inhabitants of Spain were white and that they coined the term blue blood to signify racial purity - non-Moorish admixture. Well done.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^Sucker! Why are Albinos so dumb?
Actually Ferdinand had nothing to do with Moors. If you trace Ferdinand II back far enough, you will find that he was Swiss, visa vi the house of Burgundy.
BTW - Ferdinand II and Isabel were second cousins.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
cassiterides - I have found that any nonsense which allows Whites to see themselves as "Normal" will immediately be swallowed.
The definition of "Blue Blood" i.e. claimed by certain families of Castile as uncontaminated by Moorish or Jewish admixture.
Was of course, provided by a White publication.
But think about it dimwit: where but in an Albinos mind, would being called "So Pale that the veins under you skin show through"
Be considered a badge of Honor?
You people are seriously ill!
Actually the INSULT, Blue Blood: had its beginnings with the Spanish disgust for the Frenchification of elites following the French revolution.
In 1793, Spain went to war against the new French Republic. The war polarised the country in an apparent reaction against the gallicised elites. Defeated in the field, peace was made with France in 1795 and it effectively became a client state of that country.
In 1807 the Spanish king abdicated in favour of Napoleon's brother, Joseph Bonaparte.
The 2 May 1808 revolt was one of many nationalist uprisings against the Bonapartist regime across the country. These revolts marked the beginning of what is known to the Spanish as the War of Independence.
Military action by Spanish guerrillas and armies, and Wellington's British-Portuguese forces, combined with Napoleon's disastrous invasion of Russia, led to the ousting of the French imperial armies from the Spain in 1814, and the return of King Ferdinand VII.
After Ferdinand VII, Isabella II became queen of Spain. Isabella was born in Madrid in 1830, the eldest daughter of King Ferdinand VII of Spain, and of his fourth wife and niece, Maria Cristina, who was a Neapolitan Bourbon and a grandniece of Marie Antoinette. Maria Cristina became regent on 29 September 1833, when her three-year old daughter Isabella was proclaimed queen regnant on the death of the king. {NOTE THE DATE!}
IT IS WITH ISABELLA II AND HER KING CONSORT THAT THE TERM "BLUE BLOOD" FINDS IT TRUE MEANING!
The couple was rather caustically described by an English contemporary as:
… The Queen is large in stature, but rather what might be called bulky than stately. There is no dignity either in her face or figure, and the graces of majesty are altogether wanting. The countenance is cold and expressionless, with traces of an unchastened, unrefined, and impulsive character, and the indifference it betrays is not redeemed by any regularity or beauty of feature.
The King Consort is much smaller in figure than his royal two-thirds, and certainly is not a type that could be admired for its manly qualifications; but we have to remember that in Spain aristocratic birth is designated rather by a diminutive stature and sickly complexion than by those attributes of height, muscular power, open expression, and florid hue, which in England constitute the ideal of ‘race.
Yes, I know: the British calling others "sickly complexioned".
Hey, they're Albinos. The ability to see only what you want to see is their stock-n-trade. Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
For those who have become students of White falsifications, here is a good one for you.
In 1807 the Spanish king abdicated in favour of Napoleon's brother, Joseph Bonaparte.
This foreign puppet monarch was widely regarded with scorn.
The 2 May 1808 revolt was one of many nationalist uprisings against the Bonapartist regime across the country. These revolts marked the beginning of what is known to the Spanish as the War of Independence.
The title of this Goya painting depicting the Spanish people in rebellion against a French King is "The Second of May 1808."
Wiki gives the title as "The Second of May 1808 or The Charge of the Mamelukes".
Why?
Whoever did the "REPAINTING" left one Black face, a very prominent Black face, so he had to be explained.
Problem is: Mamelukes were Turkish slave soldiers brought to the west from Asia by the Arabs. They ruled Egypt from 1250 to 1516 A.D.
They had NOTHING TO DO WITH SPAIN - AND THEY WERE WHITE!!!!
If Napoleon brought in Egyptian troops, they weren't Mamelukes.
Silly Albinos. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
this thread is an assault on Mr. Codfried's teachings, shame
Mike's has finally been brainwashed by the white man's lies about blue blood. He's been taken over by evil forces, tricked by false historians despite all the time and effort Egmond spent in educating us about the true meaning.
We await Mr. Codfried's corrections of this matter, perhaps Mike can be reasoned with still be saved from the clutches of the fakers
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
But think about it dimwit: where but in an Albinos mind, would being called "So Pale that the veins under you skin show through"
Be considered a badge of Honor?
You people are seriously ill! ===========
Pale white skin has always been associated with nobility, purity and the higher classes. In contrast dark skin throughout history has denoted inferiority or the lower classes.
You can even read in the Song of Songs in the Old Testament of a Hebrew female who was ridiculed for darkening her skin in the sun, when she was from a higher class and should have stayed in doors and kept her skin pale white.
Throughout history pale white skin was linked to nobility because the nobles were never darkend by the sun as they rarely ever went outdoors (unlike the labourers or lower classes). You can find this as a proverb in the Suda (the 10th century Byzantine encyclopedia) which notes that those with white skin were ''nobles and cobblers''. Nobles = the higher classes who were pale white as they stayed in doors, and also the 'cobblers' because these men worked indoors on peoples shoes and so were not darkened or tanned by the sun but remained pale white.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
None of them thought very highly of Albinos: This is what the Greeks thought of "White Skin"
Etext of Anabasis by Xenophon Translation by H. G. Dakyns
[3] I.e. "chestnuts."
The Hellenes breakfasted and then started forward on their march, having first delivered the stronghold to their allies among the Mossynoecians. As for the other strongholds belonging to tribes allied with their foes, which they passed en route, the most accessible were either deserted by their inhabitants or gave in their adhesion 30 voluntarily. The following description will apply to the majority of them: the cities were on an average ten miles apart, some more, some less; but so elevated is the country and intersected by such deep clefts that if they chose to shout across to one another, their cries would be heard from one city to another. When, in the course of their march, they came upon a friendly population, these would entertain them with exhibitions of fatted children belonging to the wealthy classes, fed up on boiled chestnuts until they were as white as white can be, of skin plump and delicate, and very nearly as broad as they were long, with their backs variegated and their breasts tattooed with patterns of all sorts of flowers. They sought after the women in the Hellenic army, and would fain have laid with them openly in broad daylight, for that was their custom. The whole community, male and female alike, were fair-complexioned and white-skinned. It was agreed that this was the most barbaric and outlandish people that they had passed through on the whole expedition, and the furthest removed from the Hellenic customs, doing in a crowd precisely what other people would prefer to do in solitude, and when alone behaving exactly as others would behave in company, talking to themselves and laughing at their own expense, standing still and then again capering about, wherever they might chance to be, without rhyme or reason, as if their sole business were to show off to the rest of the world.
Mossynoeci is a name that the Greeks of the Euxine Sea applied to the peoples of Pontus, the northern "ANATOLIAN" (Turkey) coast west of Trebizond. Xenophon wasn't talking about Persians, he was talking about White SETTLERS IN ANATOLIA!
Writing soon after 430 BCE, Herodotus in Book 3 cites the Mossynoeci, along with the Moschoi, Tibareni, the Macrones and Mares as comprising the 19th satrapy established by Darius of Persia.
MORE FROM XENOPHON
Etext of Hellenica by Xenophon Translation by H. G. Dakyns
I.e. at Ephesus.
But, instead of marching straight into Caria, Agesilaus turned sharp off in the opposite direction towards Phrygia. Picking up various detachments of troops which met him on his march, he steadily advanced, laying cities prostrate before him, and by the unexpectedness of his attack reaping a golden harvest of spoil. As a rule the march was prosecuted safely; but not far from Dascylium his advanced guard of cavalry were pushing on towards a knoll to take a survery of the state of things in front B.C. 395. After this, at the first indication of spring, he collected the whole of his army at Ephesus. But the army needed training. With that object he proposed a series of prizes--prizes to the heavy infantry regiments, to be won by those who presented their men in the best condition; prizes for the cavalry regiments which could ride best; prizes for those divisions of peltasts and archers which proved most efficient in their respective duties. And now the gymnasiums were a sight to see, thronged as they were, one and all, with warriors stripping for exercise; or again, the hippodrome crowded with horses and riders performing their evolutions; or the javelin men and archers going through their peculiar drill. In fact, the whole city where he lay presented under his hands a spectacle not to be forgotten. The market-place literally teemed with horses, arms, and accoutrements of all sorts for sale. The bronze-worker, the carpenter, the smith, the leather-cutter, the painter and embosser, were all busily engaged in fabricating the implements of war; so that the city of Ephesus itself was fairly converted into a military workshop. It would have done a man's heart good to see those long lines of soldiers with Agesilaus at their head, as they stepped gaily be-garlanded from the gymnasiums to dedicate their wreaths to the goddess Artemis. Nor can I well conceive of elements more fraught with hope than were here combined. Here were reverence and piety towards Heaven; here practice in war and military training; here discipline with habitual obedience to authority. But contempt for one's enemy will infuse a kind of strength in battle. So the Spartan leader argued; and with a view to its production he ordered the quartermasters to put up the prisoners who had been captured by his foraging bands for auction, stripped naked; so that his Hellenic soldiery, as they looked at the white skins which had never been bared to sun and wind, the soft limbs unused to toil through constant riding in carriages, came to the conclusion that war with such adversaries would differ little from a fight with women. Dascylium (near modern day Ergili, Turkey)
Today, except for the Germanic, Slav, and Turkic Albinos of Europe, and European extraction: the only other people who think "Pale Skin" is anything other than a sign of ill health, is the Albino derived Japanese (the only reason they have color is because of admixture with Jomon and Ainu).
Obviously, they are a rather inscrutable (ill) people.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
[Christian Laboutin shoes]
Quite a different approach. But I admire Mike111 for his total vision of ALL of history, in all its murky details. Something beyond my grasp. And I thank him for making me aware that whites only came to Europe 6000 years ago, from Central Asia. But most importantly, both Mike111, and Marc Washington are not afraid to come out to talk about Black European Kings. This is such a relieve next to Blacks who seem to find solace in the idea that Blacks are the eternal slaves, and whites are forever battling Blacks. It leaves room for Blacks to be perceived as conquerers and bringers of civilisation.
Me? I'm shopping for white shoes...
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
Here are some panels of my exhibition: Blue blood is Black Blood: nothing grand, very low tech, no need for a truck and lifting arm, I just roll the whole thing up and shove it in a black dustbin liner.
The idea came from exhibitions at the literature museum in The Hague, where I saw that the displays were just pieces of paper, glued on carton, in a glass case.
I wish all of you would do the same and bring the message to the Blacks, that they are not eternal slaves, or inferior to whites.
That whites hate Blacks because they were ruled and oppressed by Blacks.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
The concept of Blue blood goes back to 1100-1200, when the Modern Era nobility was launched. The phrase followed that of Blue Men, as how Black Europeans (500-1500)were called. The Blue bloods considered themselves descendents of the Black Europeans, who were considered the Adel(edel=true)The True Europeans.
I believe these Black and coloured Europeans were descendents of the first Europeans, who were African, so Black and coloured.
The Nobility made a conscious choice to remain Black, by intermarriage, and looked down on whites, as they used their skins to make bookbindings, clothing and shoes.
A important pillar on which rest the blue blood is black blood theory are the fake whitened, portraits, which today still look very convincing but the persons are described as brown and black of complexion, so that's what I go with.
BLACK VIKINGS
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
Mike111 showing his more visionary side:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Pursuant to this post:
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: Mike, we need more threads like this one and your own History of whites. The brothers and sisters read this stuff, they might not respond because of the dragons on this site, but they crave the information. Now I see that Historum.com is as racist as they come. How do Black Americans put up with this ****? Everywhere in the world, except in the so-called free world people are inspired by what they see in North Africa. Not in the US? Now we know why we went through the charade of having a so-called Black president elected.
Egmond, there are a great many psychological tangents which come into play when science and Race are forced together - and they are for the most part exclusive. And that would be okay if each element had their own outlets, thereby allowing the observer to consider all available evidence and make an individual judgement - but that is not the case.
Actually few Blacks have any interest in this sort of thing at all. Those who have the intellectual capacity to understand it, have been worn down by the fringe elements who just make stuff up, and the religious elements who use it for congregational Empire building - they too are also rather loose with the truth.
Of course, you also have the pathetic Blacks who think that if it was true, Whites would have taught it to them - I'm SERIOUS, that is not a joke!
But perhaps, worst of all, you have Black scientists and researchers, who have access to the truth, BUT WHO CAN'T TELL THE TRUTH!
Take for instance:
Henry Louis Gates Jr. He serves as the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor at Harvard University, where he is director of the W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research.
Cornel Ronald West University Professor at Princeton University, where he teaches in the Center for African American Studies and in the Department of Religion.
My first inclination is to call them soulless sell-outs. But these people lead privileged, wealthy, and easy lives. They know that if they say the wrong thing, or too much of anything, that easy life is over, and they are on the street. To be honest, I can't say for sure that I would do anything different.
Plus it's not all their fault, Blacks have shown a consistent disdain for funding their own intellectual institutions. American Blacks don't even fund their own Black universities, Whites do! Therefore if one these people were to attempt to tell the truth, Blacks have provided no place for them to go, except the street. Even Diop, who did try to tell the truth, could only go so far. Otherwise, he too would have been out in the cold.
Against this rather pathetic backdrop of haltered minds, minds sidetracked by hopeless antipathy, minds confused and controlled by religious and other Dogmatic indoctrination, and just plain simple-mindedness.
You have these Superpowers with their own institutions, and propagandizing agents.
Albinos (Whites) - There effort has been to convince the rest of humanity that their defects and limitations, are actually an evolutionary improvement. In order to make that lie work, they have tried to created a fantasy history for themselves, with them at the top, and Blacks at the bottom - the reverse of actual history.
Central to this fantasy history of theirs, was their assertions that they were native to Europe, and the creators of European civilizations. Interestingly, the more simpleminded Albinos have even tried to expand that to include North African and middle-eastern civilizations. Quite silly when you think about it, but since when does logic have anything to do with fantasy.
On the bright side, the actual history of Europe is rather well attested by contemporaries of the times. The industrious Black can simply do some reading of the ancient Greek and Roman historians and get a pretty good idea of what went on in ancient times. The medieval however, is another story entirely. By then, the Mulatto Greeks and Romans had been kill off, or absorbed by the Germanics, Slavs, and Turks. The Albinos have firm control of those histories, and they're not telling.
In the same neighborhood, you have the former Albinos, now a mulatto race, the Turks. Who are the ruling elites in North Africa, the middle-east, and of course, Turkey. They see it in their interest to play-down their Black admixture, and go for acceptance by the powerful Albinos in the north.
Like the Albinos in the north, they have created a fantasy history for themselves which says that they are in fact the same people as the original inhabitants. This is of course laughable and easily proven false. But here is where power and control come in. They simply broke of noses and modified life-like images of the ancients, and refuse to release genetic data from scientific examinations. When they do release data, the subjects are so cherry-picked as to be worthless as regards to ancient peoples. Out of the thousands of studies done, I can think of only one study that said plainly that ancient Egyptians were Black "analysis of mummified soft tissues". That means that Blacks can't prove conclusively that they are frauds - and that's all they want - doubt!
Then you have the Chinese, also a Mulatto people. But like the everybody else, they want to believe and assert, that they are a unique and original people. So they too, seek to obfuscate their Black dominated history. They teach their people that they descend from Peking man, not Africa.
Yes, it really is pathetic, but who really cares what Asians say or think? I'm not sure, but I think that tendency by Blacks to blow-off Asians might have something to do with Satoshi Kanazawa publishing an article titled “Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?" Guaranteed some Black chick blew him off.
But here again, power and control carry the day, as far as the truth is concerned. China has a zillion skeletons of ancient Blacks. But no analysis has ever been forthcoming, and dna data is just plain out of the question.
And in the Americas, all of those opposing forces come together, plus they pick up one more, the American Indian. The Amerindian too, wants to assert that they are a uniquely evolved people, and that they are the original settlers of the Americas.
And just like everywhere else, there are skeletons and artifacts which clearly show the original people to have been Black people. And also like everywhere else, they try to hide the dna data.
All of North America, Mexico, United States, Canada, is loaded with ancient Black skeletons. How fitting that the one study which specifically says that the Paleoamericans were Africans, "Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World" was done by a Brazilian group. The Whites in Canada, the United States, and Mexico, have been sitting on the genetic data for their Black skeletons for decades, and will probably continue to do so. Blacks in the Americas, being ignorant, powerless, or both. Have no hope of effecting change, sad of them, sad for them.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
This is what the Greeks thought of "White Skin" ========
Back to reality Mike:
Plato, Republic, 474e (380 BC):
“The swarthy are of manly aspect, the white are the children of the Gods divinely fair and as for honey-hued, do you suppose the very word is anything but the euphemistic invention of some lover who can feel no distaste for sallowness when it accompanies the blooming time of youth”.
- Plato linked white skin to the Gods. This was because virtually all the ancient Greek Gods were pale white in complexion (excluding the Pelasgian deities).
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
The phrase followed that of Blue Men, as how Black Europeans (500-1500)were called ========
Indigenous europeans are white.
The only reason you concoct a fantasy of 'black natives' of europe is because you are a black immigrant living in Holland and out of insecurity you need a reason to justify why you are living in a white country.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: This is what the Greeks thought of "White Skin" ========
Back to reality Mike:
Plato, Republic, 474e (380 BC):
“The swarthy are of manly aspect, the white are the children of the Gods divinely fair and as for honey-hued, do you suppose the very word is anything but the euphemistic invention of some lover who can feel no distaste for sallowness when it accompanies the blooming time of youth”.
- Plato linked white skin to the Gods. This was because virtually all the ancient Greek Gods were pale white in complexion (excluding the Pelasgian deities).
I have checked three (3) on-line translations of Plato's Republic and have NOT found that particular quote. Please explain.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Selections from Plato's Republic, Book V 473c to 480a Translated by Paul Shorey from The Collected Works of Plato, Huntington and Cairns (ed.), Princeton U. Press, 1980, p. 712-720.
----
That reply, Glaucon, said I, befitted another rather than you. It does not become a lover to forget that all adolescents in some sort sting and stir the amorous lover of youth and appear to him deserving of his attention and desirable. Is not that your 'reaction' to the fair? One, because his nose is tiptilted, you will praise as piquant, the beak of another you pronounce right royal, the intermediate type you say strikes the harmonious mean, the swarthy are of manly aspect, the white are children of the gods divinely fair, and as for honey-hued, do you suppose the very word is anything but the euphemistic invention of some lover who can feel no distaste for sallowness when it accompanies the blooming time of youth? And, in short, there is no pretext you do not allege and there is nothing you shrink from saying to justify you in not rejecting any who are in the bloom of their prime.
============
MORE QUOTES FROM OTHER SOURCES -
Aristophanes, Ecclesiazusae, 385-387 (390 BC):
‘‘There was a crowd, such as has never been seen at the Pnyx, and the folk looked pale and wan, like so many shoemakers, so white were they in hue’’.
- A description of ancient greek females.
Menander, Dyskolos, 535, 754 (317 BC):
(Dyskolos, a young townsman named Sostratos falls in love with farmer Knemon's daughter. To win her hand, Sostratos volunteers to till the soil on Knemon's farm. His skin was pale and burned.)
‘‘The sun was burning me’’ (ὁ δ' ἥλιος κατέκα'), says Sostratos afterwards (line/verse 535). Later in the play (line/verse 754) Knemon looks at Sostratos and says: ‘‘He has been burned. Is he a farmer?’’ (ἐπικέκαυται μέν. γεωργός ἐστι).
Plautus, Vidularia, 31-36 (200 BC?):
(In Plautus' Vidularia, there is a scene in which a young townsman proposes to work on a farm. The slave Dinia doubts the young man Nicodemus' fitness for such labour because of his pale skin.)
‘‘Life in the country is hard work, young man. Poverty in the city is much harder, by Pollux. Your hands have been used to throwing dice. But now I realize they must get a workout with baskets. Your body is pale from citified softness and shade. The sun is the painter for that: it will darken my body.’’
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Massachusetts Institute of technology (MIT)
The Republic
By Plato
Written 360 B.C.E
Translated by Benjamin Jowett
Book V
Socrates - GLAUCON - ADEIMANTUS
[Excerpt]
You got me into the scrape, I said. And I was quite right; however, I will do all I can to get you out of it; but I can only give you good-will and good advice, and, perhaps, I may be able to fit answers to your questions better than another --that is all. And now, having such an auxiliary, you must do your best to show the unbelievers that you are right.
I ought to try, I said, since you offer me such invaluable assistance. And I think that, if there is to be a chance of our escaping, we must explain to them whom we mean when we say that philosophers are to rule in the State; then we shall be able to defend ourselves: There will be discovered to be some natures who ought to study philosophy and to be leaders in the State; and others who are not born to be philosophers, and are meant to be followers rather than leaders.
Then now for a definition, he said. Follow me, I said, and I hope that I may in some way or other be able to give you a satisfactory explanation.
Proceed. I dare say that you remember, and therefore I need not remind you, that a lover, if lie is worthy of the name, ought to show his love, not to some one part of that which he loves, but to the whole.
I really do not understand, and therefore beg of you to assist my memory.
Another person, I said, might fairly reply as you do; but a man of pleasure like yourself ought to know that all who are in the flower of youth do somehow or other raise a pang or emotion in a lover's breast, and are thought by him to be worthy of his affectionate regards. Is not this a way which you have with the fair: one has a snub nose, and you praise his charming face; the hook-nose of another has, you say, a royal look; while he who is neither snub nor hooked has the grace of regularity: the dark visage is manly, the fair are children of the gods; and as to the sweet 'honey pale,' as they are called, what is the very name but the invention of a lover who talks in diminutives, and is not adverse to paleness if appearing on the cheek of youth? In a word, there is no excuse which you will not make, and nothing which you will not say, in order not to lose a single flower that blooms in the spring-time of youth.
If you make me an authority in matters of love, for the sake of the argument, I assent.
And what do you say of lovers of wine? Do you not see them doing the same? They are glad of any pretext of drinking any wine.
Very good. And the same is true of ambitious men; if they cannot command an army, they are willing to command a file; and if they cannot be honoured by really great and important persons, they are glad to be honoured by lesser and meaner people, but honour of some kind they must have.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
As I have warned many times, over many years: You CANNOT trust White translations of ANYTHING! They must always be cross-checked.
Obviously the....
Selections from Plato's Republic, Book V 473c to 480a Translated by Paul Shorey from The Collected Works of Plato, Huntington and Cairns (ed.), Princeton U. Press, 1980, p. 712-720.
Was done by one of the many Albino liars (Paul Shorey) in academia.
To all but the lying, fantasizing, delusional Albinos: it is clear that Plato is teasing his older brother Glaucon, whom he knows to be an unrepentant Womanizer.
What he is saying, is that no matter the attribute, Glaucon will always find a flowery way to see and describe his target. Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^I hope that it is not lost on the intelligent members of the forum, that Plato's Republic confirms my assertion that classic Greece and Rome were in fact Black, White, and Mulatto societies.
It further confirms my assertion that conventional White history is a LIE!
It further confirms my assertion that much of the artifacts in White institutions, such as museums, are modern-day fakes.
Of course, it also confirms that Whites, like the Jewess Mary Lefkowitz of "Not Out of Africa" fame: is a "Bare-Faced" Albino liar - just one of millions.
Geez: I wonder if that statement will once again prompt Alt to brand me a racist for scapegoating those poor innocent Albinos.
But for sure, for about the last 200 years, Europe HAS been a fundamentally Albino society. Wonder what happened?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
I say 200 years above, because just before that, the noted American Albino, Benjamin Franklin, penned this essay.
.
Digital History - Primary Source Documents
Title: America as a Land of Opportunity
Author: Benjamin Franklin
Year: 1751
Type of document: essay
Quotation: "Why increase the Sons of Africa...where we have so fair an Opportunity...of increasing the lovely White and Red?"
Annotation:
Perhaps the most important essay written by an American during the eighteenth century, Franklin's "Observations Concerning the Increase of mankind" was one of the first serious studies of demography. In the early nineteenth century it would serve as an inspiration for Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), who based his grim law of population (that population would inevitably outstrip the food supply) on Franklin's calculations. But Franklin's argument was, in fact, quite different from Malthus's bleak prophesy. Franklin, like other Americans as late as Lincoln, held to a belief that no man in America needed to long remain a laborer for others. Despite the doubling of the population in every twenty years or so, America remained a land of opportunity, where wages remained high and even slaves were expensive.
What is perhaps most striking about Franklin's essay today is his sophisticated use of "social science" data to convince the British ministry to alter its colonial policies. Particularly jarring, however, is Franklin's plea that America be maintained as an entirely Anglo-Saxon society.
Full Text:
Europe is generally full settled with Husbandmen, Manufacturers, &c. and therefore cannot now much increase in People: America is chiefly occupied by Indians, who subsist mostly by Hunting. But as the Hunter, of all Men, requires the greatest Quantity of Land from whence to draw his Subsistence, (the Husbandman subsisting on much less, the Gardner on still less, and the Manufacturer requiring the least of all), The Europeans found America as fully settled as it well could bee by Hunters; yet these having large Tracks, were easily prevail'd on to part with Portions of Territory to the new Comers, who did not much interfere with the Natives in Hunting, and furnish'd them with many Things they wanted.
Land being thus plenty in America, and so cheap as that a labouring Man, that understands Husbandry, can in a short Time save Money enough to purchase a Piece of new Land sufficient for a Plantation, whereon he may subsist a Family; such are not afraid to marry; for if they even look far enough forward to consider how their Children when grown up are to be provided for, they see that more Land is to be had at Rates equally easy, all Circumstances considered.
Hence Marriages in America are more general, and more generally early, than in Europe. And if it is reckoned there, that there is but one Marriage per Annum among 100 Persons, perhaps we may here reckon two; and if in Europe they have but 4 Births to a Marriage (many of their Marriages being late) we may here reckon 8, of which if one half grow up, and our Marriages are made, reckoning one with another at 20 Years of Age, our People must at least be doubled every 20 Years.
But notwithstanding this Increase, so vast is the Territory of North-America, that it will require many Ages to settle it fully; and till it is fully settled, Labour will never be cheap here, where no Man continues long a Labourer for others, but gets a Plantation of his own, no Man continues long a Journeyman to a Trade but goes among those new Settlers, and set up for himself, &c. Hence Labour is no cheaper now, in Pennsylvania, than it was 30 Years ago, tho' so many Thousand labouring People have been imported.
The Danger therefore of these Colonies interfering with their Mother Country in Trades that depend on Labour, Manufactures, &c. is too remote to require the Attention of Great-Britain.
But in Proportion to the Increase of the Colonies, a vast Demand is growing for British Manufacturers, a glorious Market wholly in the Power of Britain, in which Foreigners cannot interfere, which will increase in a short Time even beyond her Power of supplying, tho' her whole Trade should be to her Colonies: Therefore Britain should not too much restrain Manufactures in her Colonies. A wise and good Mother will not do it. To distress, is to weaken, and weakening the Children, weakens the whole Family....
'Tis an ill-grounded Opinion that by the Labour of Slaves, America may possibly vie in Cheapness of Manufactures with Britain. The Labour of Slaves can never be so cheap here as the Labour of working Men is in Britain. Any one may compute it. Interest of Money in the Colonies from 6 to 10 per Cent. Slaves one with another cost L30 Sterling per Head. Reckon then the Interest of the first Purchase of a Slave, the Insurance or Risque on his life, his Clothing and Diet, Expences in his Sickness and Loss of Time, Loss by his Neglect of Business (Neglect is natural to the Man who is not to be benefitted by his own Care or Diligence), Expense of a Driver to keep him at Work, and his Pilfering from Time to Time, almost every Slave being by Nature a Thief, and compare the whole Amount with the Wages of a Manufacturer of Iron or Wool in England, you will see that Labour is much cheaper there than it can ever be by Negroes here. Why then will Americans purchase Slaves? Because Slaves may be kept as long as a Man pleases, or has Occasion for their Labour; while hired Men are continually leaving their Master (often in the midst of his Business) and setting up for themselves.
....There are suppos'd to be now upwards of One Million English Souls in North-America, (tho' 'tis thought scarce 80,000 have been brought over Sea) and yet perhaps there is not one the fewer in Britain, but rather more, on Account of the Employment the Colonies afford to Manufacturers at Home. This Million doubling, suppose but once in 25 Years, will in another Century be more than the People of England, and the greatest Number of Englishmen will be on this Side the Water. What an Accession of Power to the British Empire by Sea as well as Land! What Increase of Trade and Navigation! What Number of Ships and Seamen! We have been here but little more than 100 Years, and yet the Force of our Privateers in the late War, united, was greater, both in Men and Guns, than that of the whole British Navy in Queen Elizabeth's Time....
And since Detachments of English from Britain sent to America, will have their Places at Home so soon supply'd and increase so largely here; why should the Palatine Boors [Germans] be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.
Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.
The Europe of 260 years ago, as described by Benjamin Franklin, and proved by artifacts posted by Egmond Codfried and others, is quite different from modern-day Europe. What happened in the intervening years? Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
--- Nice distortion of the Benjamin Franklin quote.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
This image of Saint Maurice (1120)needs to be explained.
Mike 111, I once tried to interest you in Frank Snowden, Black in Antiquity (1971).
Blue blood ruled from 1500-1789 or 1150-1848. Black superiority in Europe was the Ancien Regime, and we are still living with the fall out.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Blue Blood - 1834, translating Sp. sangre azul, claimed by certain families of Castile as uncontaminated by Moorish or Jewish admixture. Probably from the visible veins of people of fair complexion (i.e. Pure Albinos). Transparent Un-melaninated Skin.
This girl is even more Pure than the driven Snow (Pure Albino). You can't see through snow.
THIS GIRL IS "OBVIOUSLY" CONTAMINATED!
Mike, perhaps you are right, Beyonce is black, so she has no blue veins showing. Mystery solved.
But why is she holding the mike there Mike?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^She is thinking of ME!!!
The Mike, me Mike, get it?
I would bring her to her lovely knees!
(With Ecstasy).
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: --- Nice distortion of the Benjamin Franklin quote.
cassiterides - What a fool you are. You confuse what I do, with what you do. I neither mis-quote nor make anything up. Here is the link.
Mike: " The Europe of 260 years ago, as described by Benjamin Franklin, and proved by artifacts posted by Egmond Codfried and others, is quite different from modern-day Europe. What happened in the intervening years?"
Forced biological assimilation of black and brown Europeans.
Immigrants are usually not the poorest people, so the brown and black Europeans who went to the US were the coloureds who were somehow better off than the white serfs, and farmers.
Not all brown and black Europeans seemed to identify with Africa and Africans. But some protested against the slave trade and openly identified as Black, although wholly European from descent, like Knibbs: an abolition fighter,
Knibbs
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: Mike: " The Europe of 260 years ago, as described by Benjamin Franklin, and proved by artifacts posted by Egmond Codfried and others, is quite different from modern-day Europe. What happened in the intervening years?"
Forced biological assimilation of black and brown Europeans.
Immigrants are usually not the poorest people, so the brown and black Europeans who went to the US were the coloureds who were somehow better off than the white serfs, and farmers.
Not all brown and black Europeans seemed to identify with Africa and Africans. But some protested against the slave trade and openly identified as Black, although wholly European from descent, like Knibbs: an abolition fighter,
Knibbs
Mike says Blue Bloods are albinos you can't both be right...
or can you ????
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^I have seen sources which describe members of historically Black British families migrating to the U.S. I have not researched it to find out what color they were at the time.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^I have seen sources which describe members of historically Black British families migrating to the U.S. I have not researched it to find out what color they were at the time.
quote:3. Schwarze Deutsche or Black Germans, found along the Danube River in Austria and Germany, in the Black Forest and, to a lesser extent, along the Rhine River, have dark hair and eyes, unlike the fairer people both north and south of them. Their descendants in America may be called either Black Dutch or Black German. The origin of their dark coloration is ancient, from the Roman army in the third and fourth centuries, C.E. The Roman army of this time period was mostly made up of German mercenary soldiers, but along the German border, the Romans preferred to station non-Germans. The army on the Danube was largely drawn from Numidian and Nubian soldiers, especially Garamante Numidians. The Garamante (called Tubu now) were Black Africans from the central Sahara. Now the Tubu live in northern Chad, eastern Niger and southern Libya. They are not usually found north of Marzuk in Fezzan or Kufra in Cyrenaica now, but in Roman times they ranged north to the central coast of Libya and to Ghadames in southern Tunisia. As well as Garamante, there were some Iranic people stationed on this frontier, especially Sarmatians (called Ossets now) and Scythians (Ashkenazi in the Hebrew Bible) from southern Russia and the Ukraine (Ashkenaz, the old Hebrew for Scythia, has been used for Germany in modern Hebrew by Ashkenazic Jews trying to ingratiate themselves with Germans and Austrians or trying to hide their Khazar ancestry). These African and Iranic soldiers left many descendants who tend to have black, heavy hair and dark eyes even yet.
Now I'm less pleased with this source because it does not aknowledge autochtonous Black and brown Europeans, who were there already.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: Mike: " The Europe of 260 years ago, as described by Benjamin Franklin, and proved by artifacts posted by Egmond Codfried and others, is quite different from modern-day Europe. What happened in the intervening years?"
Forced biological assimilation of black and brown Europeans.
Immigrants are usually not the poorest people, so the brown and black Europeans who went to the US were the coloureds who were somehow better off than the white serfs, and farmers.
Not all brown and black Europeans seemed to identify with Africa and Africans. But some protested against the slave trade and openly identified as Black, although wholly European from descent, like Knibbs: an abolition fighter,
William Knibbs
British, William Knibbs identified as Black towards the slaves he fought to liberate.
From his images I considered Benjamin Franklin a brown European.
The problem is the definitian of Black. That's how eurocentrism hides Blacks.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Simpleton above...read your own source
''from the Roman army in the third and fourth centuries, C.E.''
How is 3rd century AD autochtonous???
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
-- Where is the evidence for black natives in northern europe?
You never post any.
You have nothing.
You are no different then someone claiming whites were in congo before the black pygmies.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Why does not a single ancient writing describe the ancient germans as black?
Even mike111 accepts Tacitus described the native germans as redheaded whites.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: Mike 111, I once tried to interest you in Frank Snowden, Black in Antiquity (1971).
Blue blood ruled from 1500-1789 or 1150-1848. Black superiority in Europe was the Ancien Regime, and we are still living with the fall out.
Egmond - As I have said before, I have never read any authors (except for Clydes works) because early-on I was not satisfied with those that I perused. That allowed me to approach everything with a fresh mind, and with a determination to support every assertion with verifiable fact or artifact.
The danger of accepting hearsay is now forcing me to apologize to Mary Lefkowitz. Though she is wrong, her logic is correct! This is her side of the argument, so perhaps in truth, her opponents did provide proof. But if not, her logic, NOT facts, is correct.
by Mary Lefkowitz
Was Greek Culture Stolen from Africa? Modern myth vs. ancient history
Excerpted from her Book Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History
Why I wrote the book. In the fall of 1991 I was asked to write a review-article for The New Republic about Martin Bernal's Black Athena and its relation to the Afrocentrist movement. The assignment literally changed my life. Once I began to work on the article I realized that here was a subject that needed all the attention, and more, that I could give to it. Although I had been completely unaware of it, there was in existence a whole literature that denied that the ancient Greeks were the inventors of democracy, philosophy, and science. There were books in circulation that claimed that Socrates and Cleopatra were of African descent, and that Greek philosophy had actually been stolen from Egypt. Not only were these books being read and widely distributed; some of these ideas were being taught in schools and even in universities.
Ordinarily, if someone has a theory which involves a radical departure from what the experts have professed, he is expected to defend his position by providing evidence in its support. But no one seemed to think it was appropriate to ask for evidence from the instructors who claimed that the Greeks stole their philosophy from Egypt.
Normally, if one has a question about a text that another instructor is using, one simply asks why he or she is using that book. But since this conventional line of inquiry was closed to me, I had to wait till I could raise my questions in a more public context. That opportunity came in February 1993, when Dr. Yosef A. A. ben-Jochannan was invited to give Wellesley's Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial lecture. Posters described Dr. ben-Jochannan as a "distinguished Egyptologist," and indeed that is how he was introduced by the then President of Wellesley College. But I knew from my research in Afrocentric literature that he was not what scholars would ordinarily describe as an Egyptologist, that is a scholar of Egyptian language and civilization. Rather, he was an extreme Afrocentrist, author of many books describing how Greek civilization was stolen from Africa, how Aristotle robbed the library of Alexandria, and how the true Jews are Africans like himself.
After Dr. ben-Jochannan made these same assertions once again in his lecture, I asked him during the question period why he said that Aristotle had come to Egypt with Alexander, and had stolen his philosophy from the Library at Alexandria, when that Library had only been built after his death. Dr. ben-Jochannan was unable to answer the question, and said that he resented the tone of the inquiry. Several students came up to me after the lecture and accused me of racism, suggesting that I had been brainwashed by white historians. But others stayed to hear me out, and I assured Dr. ben-Jochannan that I simply wanted to know what his evidence was: so far as I knew, and I had studied the subject, Aristotle never went to Egypt, and while the date of the Library of Alexandria is not known precisely, it was certainly only built some years after the city was founded, which was after both Aristotle's and Alexander's deaths.
A lecture at which serious questions could not be asked, and in fact were greeted with hostility -- the occasion seemed more like a political rally than an academic event. As if that were not disturbing enough in itself, there was also the strange silence on the part of many of my faculty colleagues. Several of these were well aware that what Dr. ben-Jochannan was saying was factually wrong. One of them said later that she found the lecture so "hopeless" that she decided to say nothing. Were they afraid of being called racists? If so, their behavior was understandable, but not entirely responsible. Didn't we as educators owe it to our students, all our students, to see that they got the best education they could possibly get? And that clearly was what they were not getting in a lecture where they were being told myths disguised as history, and where discussion and analysis had apparently been forbidden.
Good as the myths they were hearing may have made these students feel, so long as they never left the Afrocentric environment in which they were being nurtured and sheltered, they were being systematically deprived of the most important features of a university education. They were not learning how to question themselves and others, they were not learning to distinguish facts from fiction, nor in fact were they learning how to think for themselves. Their instructors had forgotten, while the rest of us sat by and did nothing about it, that students do not come to universities to be indoctrinated --at least in a free society.
Was Socrates Black?
Socrates' head of Roman statue copied from a late 4th cent. B.C. Greek originalI first learned about the notion that Socrates was black several years ago, from a student in my second-year Greek course on Plato's Apology, his account of Socrates' trial and conviction. Throughout the entire semester the student had regarded me with sullen hostility. A year or so later she apologized. She explained that she thought I had been concealing the truth about Socrates' origins. In a course in Afro-American studies she had been told that he was black, and my silence about his African ancestry seemed to her to be a confirmation of the Eurocentric arrogance her instructor had warned her about. After she had taken my course, the student pursued the question on her own, and was satisfied that I had been telling her the truth: so far as we know, Socrates was ethnically no different from other Athenians.
What had this student learned in her course in Afro-American studies? The notion that Socrates was black is based on two different kinds of inference. The first "line of proof" is based on inference from possibility. Why couldn't an Athenian have African ancestors? That of course would have been possible; almost anything is possible. But it is another question whether or not it was probable. Few prominent Athenians claim to have had foreign ancestors of any sort. Athenians were particularly fastidious about their own origins. In Socrates' day, they did not allow Greeks from other city-states to become naturalized Athenian citizens, and they were even more careful about the non-Greeks or barbaroi. Since Socrates was an Athenian citizen, his parents must have been Athenians, as he himself says they were.
Another reason why I thought it unlikely that Socrates and/or his immediate ancestors were foreigners is that no contemporary calls attention to anything extraordinary in his background. If he had been a foreigner, one of his enemies, or one of the comic poets, would have been sure to point it out. The comic poets never missed an opportunity to make fun of the origins of Athenian celebrities. Socrates was no exception; he is lampooned by Aristophanes in his comedy the Clouds. If Socrates and/or his parents had had dark skin, some of his contemporaries would have been likely to mention it, because this, and not just his eccentric ideas about the gods, and the voice that spoke to him alone, would have distinguished him from the rest of the Athenians. Unless, of course, he could not be distinguished from other Athenians because they all had dark skin; but then if they did, why did they not make themselves bear a closer resemblance the Ethiopians in their art?
Was Cleopatra Black?
Stone head of Cleopatra. Her hooked nose and curved lower lip shows her resemblance to her father Ptolemy XII Auletes.Until recently, no one ever asked whether Cleopatra might have had an African ancestor, because our surviving ancient sources identify her as a Macedonian Greek. Her ancestors, the Ptolemies, were descended from one of Alexander's generals. After Alexander's death in 323 B. C., these generals divided up among themselves the territory in the Mediterranean that Alexander had conquered. The name Cleopatra was one of the names traditionally given to women in the royal family; officially our Cleopatra (69-30 BC) was Cleopatra VII, the daughter of Ptolemy XII and his sister. Cleopatra VII herself followed the family practice of marrying within the family. She married her two brothers (Ptolemy XIII and XIV) in succession (after the first died in suspicious circumstances, she had the second murdered). Her first language was Greek; but she was also the first member of the Ptolemaic line who was able to speak Egyptian. She also wore Egyptian dress, and was shown in art in the dress of the goddess Isis. She chose to portray herself as an Egyptian not because she was Egyptian, but because she was ambitious to stay in power. In her surviving portraits on coins and in sculpture she appears to be impressive rather than beautiful, Mediterranean in appearance, with straight hair and a hooked nose. Of course these portraits on metal and stone give no indication of the color of her skin.
Portrait of Cleopatra and the baby Caesarion on a coin from Cyprus, 47/6 B.C.The only possibility that she might not have been a full-blooded Macedonian Greek arises from the fact that we do not know the precise identity of one member of her family tree. We do not know who her grandmother was on her father's side. Her grandmother was the mistress (not the wife) of her grandfather, Ptolemy IX. Because nothing is known about this person, the assumption has always been that she was a Macedonian Greek, like the other members of Ptolemy's court. Like other Greeks, the Ptolemies were wary of foreigners. They kept themselves apart from the native population, with brothers usually marrying sisters, or uncles marrying nieces, or in one case a father marrying his daughter (Ptolemy IX and Cleopatra Berenice III). Because the Ptolemies seemed to prefer to marry among themselves, even incestuously, it has always been assumed that Cleopatra's grandmother was closely connected with the family. If she had been a foreigner, one of the Roman writers of the time would have mentioned it in their invectives against Cleopatra as an enemy of the Roman state. These writers were supporters of Octavian (later known as Augustus) who defeated Cleopatra's forces in the battle of Actium in 31 B.C.
Does Racial Identity Matter?
The question of race matters only insofar as it is necessary to show that no classicists or ancient historians have tried to conceal the truth about the origins of the Greek people or the ancestry of certain famous ancient figures. It has been suggested that classicists have been reluctant to ask questions about Greek origins, and that we have been so "imbued with conventional preconceptions and patterns of thought" that we are unlikely to question the basic premises of our discipline. But even though we may be more reluctant to speculate about our own field than those outside it might be, none of us has any cultural "territory" in the ancient world that we are trying to insulate from other ancient cultures.
Did ancient Greek religion and culture derive from Egypt?
The idea that Greek religion and philosophy has Egyptian origins derives, at least in part, from the writings of ancient Greek historians. In the fifth century BC Herodotus was told by Egyptian priests that the Greeks owed many aspects of their culture to the older and vastly impressive civilization of the Egyptians. Egyptian priests told Diodorus some of the same stories four centuries later. The church fathers in the second and third centuries AD also were eager to emphasize the dependency of Greece on the earlier cultures of the Egyptians and the Hebrews. They were eager to establish direct links between their civilization and that of Egypt because Egypt was a vastly older culture, with elaborate religious customs and impressive monuments. But despite their enthusiasm for Egypt and its material culture (an enthusiasm that was later revived in eighteenth and nineteenth-century Europe), they failed to understand Egyptian religion and the purpose of many Egyptian customs.
Classical scholars tend to be skeptical about the claims of the Greek historians because much of what these writers say does not conform to the facts as they are now known from the modern scholarship on ancient Egypt. For centuries Europeans had believed that the ancient historians knew that certain Greek religious customs and philosophical interests derived from Egypt. But two major discoveries changed that view. The first concerned a group of ancient philosophical treatises attributed to Hermes Trismegistus; these had throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance been thought of as Egyptian and early. But in 1614 the French scholar Isaac Casaubon demonstrated that the treatises were actually late and basically Greek. The second discovery was the decipherment of hieroglyphics, the official system of Egyptian writing, completed by 1836. Before decipherment, scholars had been compelled to rely on Greek sources for their understanding of Egyptian history and civilization. Once they were able to read real Egyptian texts, and could disregard the fanciful interpretations of hieroglyphics that had been circulating since late antiquity, it became clear to them that the relation of Egyptian to Greek culture was less close than they had imagined. Egyptian belonged to the Afroasiatic language family, while Greek was an Indo-European language, akin to Sanskrit and European languages like Latin.
On the basis of these new discoveries, European scholars realized that they could no longer take at face value what Herodotus, Diodorus, and the Church fathers had to say about Greece's debt to Egypt. Once it was possible to read Egyptian religious documents, and to see how the Egyptians themselves described their gods and told their myths, scholars could see that the ancient Greeks' accounts of Egyptian religion were superficial, and even misleading. Apparently Greek writers, despite their great admiration for Egypt, looked at Egyptian civilization through cultural blinkers that kept them from understanding any practices or customs that were significantly different from their own. The result was a portrait of Egypt that was both astigmatic and deeply Hellenized. Greek writers operated under other handicaps as well. They did not have access to records; there was no defined system of chronology. They could not read Egyptian inscriptions or question a variety of witnesses because they did not know the language. Hence they were compelled to exaggerate the importance of such resemblances as they could see or find.
On the Origins of the Egyptians Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North. See Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982), vol I, pp 489-90; S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54.
Did the theory of the transmigration of souls come from Egypt?
Because he tended to rely on such analogies as he could find, Herodotus inevitably made some false conjectures. Herodotus thought that Pythagoras learned about the transmigration of souls from Egypt, when in fact the Egyptians did not believe in the transmigration of souls, as their careful and elaborate burial procedures clearly indicate. Herodotus tells us that he wrote down what the Egyptians told him; but when they spoke, what did he hear? Since he did not know Egyptian, his informants could have been Greeks living in the Greek colony of Naucratis in the Nile Delta, or Egyptians who knew some Greek. How well-informed were his informants? On the question of origins, at least, it seems that neither group had any more than a superficial understanding of the other's culture. Perhaps someone explained to him about the Egyptian "modes of existence," in which a human being could manifest itself both materially, or immaterially, as ka or ba or a name, and that death was not an end, but a threshold leading to a new form of life. Belief in these varied modes of existence required that bodies be preserved after death, hence the Egyptian practice of mummification. Greeks, on the other hand, believed that the soul was separated from the body at death, and disposed of bodies either by burial or cremation. In any case, there is no reason to assume that Pythagoras or other Greeks who believed in transmigration, like the Orphics and/or the philosopher-poet Empedocles, got their ideas from anyone else: notions of transmigration have developed independently in other parts of the world.
Did Plato Study in Egypt?
Plato. Roman copy of 4th cent. B.C. originalPlato never says in any of his writings that he went to Egypt, and there is no reference to such a visit in the semi-biographical Seventh Epistle. But in his dialogues he refers to some Egyptian myths and customs. Plato, of course, was not a historian, and the rather superficial knowledge of Egypt displayed in his dialogues, along with vague chronology, is more characteristic of historical fiction than of history. In fact, anecdotes about his visit to Egypt only turn up in writers of the later Hellenistic period. What better way to explain his several references to Egypt than to assume that the author had some first-hand knowledge of the customs he describes? For authors dating from the fourth century and earlier, ancient biographers were compelled to use as their principal source material the author's own works. Later biographers add details to the story of Plato's Egyptian travels in order to provide aetiologies for the "Egyptian" reference in his writings. The most ironic anecdote of all is preserved by Clement of Alexandria: Plato studied in Egypt with Hermes the "Thrice Great" (Trismegistus). This is tantamount to saying that Plato studied with himself after his death. The works of Hermes could not have been written without the conceptual vocabulary developed by Plato and Aristotle, and is deeply influenced not just by Plato, but by the writings of Neoplatonist philosophers in the early centuries AD. In any case, whoever these teachers were, Plato seems never to have learned from them anything that is characteristically Egyptian, at least so far as we know about Egyptian theology from Egyptian sources. Instead, Plato's notion of the Egyptians remains similar to that of other Athenians; he did not so much change the Athenian notion of Egyptian culture as enrich and idealize it, so that it could provide a dramatic and instructive contrast with Athenian customs in his dialogues.
Was there ever such a thing as an "Egyptian Mystery System?"
Even after nineteenth-century scholars had shown that the reports of Greek visitors to Egypt misunderstood and misrepresented what they saw, the myth that Greek philosophy derived from Egypt is still in circulation. The notion of an Egyptian legacy was preserved in the literature and ritual of Freemasonry. It was from that source that Afrocentrists learned about it, and then sought to find confirmation for the primacy of Egypt over Greece in the fantasies of ancient writers. In order to show that Greek philosophy is in reality stolen Egyptian philosophy, Afrocentrist writers assume that there was in existence from earliest times an "Egyptian Mystery System," which was copied by the Greeks. The existence of this "Mystery System" is integral to the notion that Greek philosophy was stolen, because it provides a reason for assuming that Greek philosophers had a particular reason for studying in Egypt, and for claiming that what they later wrote about in Greek was originally Egyptian philosophy. But in reality, the notion of an Egyptian Mystery System is a relatively modern fiction, based on ancient sources that are distinctively Greek, or Greco-Roman, and from the early centuries AD.
In their original form, ancient mysteries had nothing to do with schools or particular courses of study; rather, the ritual was intended to put the initiate into contact with the divinity, and if special preparation or rituals were involved, it was to familiarize the initiate with the practices and liturgy of that particular cult. The origin of the connection of Mysteries to education in fact dates only to the eighteenth century. It derives from a particular work of European fiction, published in 1731. This was the three-volume work Sethos, a History or Biography, based on Unpublished Memoirs of Ancient Egypt, by the Abbé Jean Terrasson (1670-1750), a French priest, who was Professor of Greek at the Collège de France. Although now completely forgotten, the novel was widely read in the eighteenth century..Of course Terrasson did not have access to any Egyptian information about Egypt, since hieroglyphics were not to be deciphered until more than a century later.
Why claim that Greek philosophy was stolen from Egypt?
Perhaps the most influential Afrocentrist text is Stolen Legacy, a work that has been in wide circulation since its publication in 1954. Its author, George G. M. James, writes that "the term Greek philosophy, to begin with is a misnomer, for there is no such philosophy in existence." He argues that the Greeks "did not possess the native ability essential to the development of philosophy." Rather, he states that "the Greeks were not the authors of Greek philosophy, but the Black people of North Africa, The Egyptians." It is not hard to understand why James wishes to give credit for the Greek achievement to the Egyptians, even if there is little or no historical foundation for his claims. Like the other nationalistic myths, the story of a "Stolen Legacy" both offers an explanation for past suffering, and provides a source of ethnic pride.
But although the myth may encourage and perhaps even "empower" African-Americans, its use has a destructive side, which cannot and should not be overlooked. First of all, it offers them a "story" instead of history. It also suggests that African-Americans need to learn only what they choose to believe about the past. But in so doing, the Afrocentric myth seeks to shelter them from learning what all other ethnic groups must learn, and indeed, face up to, namely the full scope of their history.
What people on earth have had a completely glorious history? While we point to the great achievements of the Greeks, anyone who has studied ancient Greek civilization knows that they also made terrible and foolish mistakes. Isn't treating African-Americans differently from the rest of humankind just another form of segregation and condescension? Implied discrimination is the most destructive aspect of Afrocentrism, but there are other serious problems as well. Teaching the myth of the Stolen Legacy as if it were history robs the ancient Greeks and their modern descendants of a heritage that rightly belongs to them. Why discriminate against them when discrimination is the issue? In addition, the myth deprives the ancient Egyptians of their proper history and robs them of their actual legacy. The Egypt of the myth of the Stolen Legacy is a wholly European Egypt, as imagined by Greek and Roman writers, and further elaborated in eighteenth-century France. Ancient Egyptian civilization deserves to be remembered (and respected) for what it was, and not for what Europeans, ancient and modern, have imagined it to be.
What is the evidence for a "Stolen Legacy?"
James's idea of ancient Egypt is fundamentally the imaginary "Mystical Egypt" of Freemasonry. He speaks of grades of initiation. In these Mysteries, as the Freemasons imagined them, Neophyte initiates must learn self-control and self-knowledge. He believes that Moses was an initiate into the Egyptian mysteries, and that Socrates reached the grade of Master Mason. In his description of the Greek philosophy, he emphasizes the Four Elements that play such a key role in Terrasson's Memphis and Masonic initiation ceremonies. He speaks of the Masonic symbol of the Open Eye, which based on an Egyptian hieroglyph but in Masonry has come specifically to represent the Master Mind. As in the University/Mystery system invented by Terrasson, Egyptian temples are used as libraries and observatories.
What then are the Greeks supposed to have stolen from the Egyptians? Are there any texts in existence that be found to verify the claim that Greek philosophy was stolen from Egypt? How was the "transfer" of Egyptian materials to Greece accomplished? If we examine what James says about the way in which the "transfer" was supposed to have been carried out, we will find that that few or no historical data can be summoned to support it. In fact, in order to construct his argument, James overlooked or ignored much existing evidence.
Did Aristotle raid the Library at Alexandria?
Aristotle. Roman copy of late 4th century B.C. original.No ancient source says that Alexander and Aristotle raided the Library at Alexandria. That they do not do so is not surprising, because it is unlikely that Aristotle ever went there. Aristotle was Alexander's tutor when Alexander was young, but he did not accompany him on his military campaign. Even if he had gone there, it is hard to see how he could have stolen books from the library in Alexandria. Although Alexandria was founded in 331 BC, it did not begin to function as a city until after 323. Aristotle died in 322. The library was assembled around 297 under the direction of Demetrius of Phaleron, a pupil of Aristotle's. Most of the books it contained were in Greek.
Did Aristotle plagiarize Egyptian sources?
If Aristotle had stolen his ideas from the Egyptians, as James asserts, James should be able to provide parallel Egyptian and Greek texts showing frequent verbal correspondences. As it is, he can only come up with a vague similarity between two titles. One is Aristotle's treatise On the Soul, and the other the modern English name of a collection of Egyptian texts, The Book of the Dead. These funerary texts, which the Egyptians themselves called the Book of Coming Forth by Day, are designed to protect the soul during its dangerous journey through Duat, the Egyptian underworld, on its way to life of bliss in the Field of Reeds. Both Aristotle and the Egyptians believed in the notion of a "soul." But there the similarity ends. Even a cursory glance at a translation of the Book of the Dead reveals that it is not a philosophical treatise, but rather a series of ritual prescriptions to ensure the soul's passage to the next world. It is completely different from Aristotle's abstract consideration of the nature of the soul. James fails to mention that the two texts cannot be profitably compared, because their aims and methods are so different. Instead, he accounts for the discrepancy by claiming that Aristotle's theory is only a "very small portion" of the Egyptian "philosophy" of the soul, as described in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. On that basis, one could claim that any later writer plagiarized from any earlier writer who touched on the same subject. But why not assume instead that the later writer was influenced by the earlier writer, or even came up with the some of the same ideas independently, especially if those ideas are widespread, like the notion that human beings have souls?
James also alleges that Aristotle's theory of matter was taken from the so-called Memphite Theology. The Memphite Theology is a religious document inscribed on a stone tablet by Egyptian priests in the eighth century BC, but said to have been copied from an ancient papyrus. The archaic language of the text suggests that the original dates from sometime in the second millennium BC. According to James, Aristotle took from the Memphite theology his doctrine that matter, motion, and time are eternal, along with the principle of opposites, and the concept of the unmoved mover. James does not say how Aristotle would have known about this inscription, which was at the time located in Memphis and not in the Library of Alexandria, or explain how he would have been able to read it. But even if Aristotle had had some way of finding out about it, he would have had no use for it in his philosophical writings. The Memphis text, like the Egyptian Book of the Dead, is a work of a totally different character from any of Aristotle's treatises.
The Memphite text describes the creation of the world as then known (that is, Upper and Lower Egypt). It relates how Ptah's mind (or "heart") and thought (or "tongue") created the universe and all living creatures in it: "for every word of the god came about through what the heart devised and the tongue commanded." From one of his manifestations, the primordial waters of chaos, the sun-god Atum was born. When Ptah has finished creating the universe, he rests from his labors: "Ptah was satisfied after he had made all things and all divine words."
In form and in substance this account has virtually nothing in common with Aristotle's abstract theology. In fact, in Metaphysics Book 11, Aristotle discards the traditional notion of a universe that is created by a divinity or divinities, in favor of a metaphysical argument. If there is eternal motion, there is eternal substance, and behind that, an immaterial and eternal source of activity, whose existence can be deduced from the eternal circular motion of the heavens. The source of this activity is what is called in English translation the "unmoved mover."All that this theory has in common with the Memphite theology is a concern with creation of the universe. On the same insubstantial basis, it would be possible to argue that Aristotle stole his philosophy from the story of creation in the first book of Genesis.
Is there a diversity of truths?
There are of course many possible interpretations of the truth, but some things are simply not true. It is not true that there was no Holocaust. There was a Holocaust, although we may disagree about the numbers of people killed. Likewise, it is not true that the Greeks stole their philosophy from Egypt; rather, it is true that the Greeks were influenced in various ways over a long period of time by their contact with the Egyptians. But then, what culture at any time has not been influenced by other cultures, and what exactly do we mean by "influence"? If we talk about Greek philosophy as a "Stolen Legacy," which the Greeks swiped from Egyptian universities, we are not telling the truth, but relating a story, or a myth, or a tall tale. But if we talk about Egyptian influence on Greece, we are discussing an historical issue.
In historical and scientific discussions it is possible to distinguish degrees, and to be more or less accurate. As a classicist, I may overemphasize the achievement of the Greeks because I do not know enough about the rest of the Mediterranean world; Egyptologists may be inclined to make the same mistake in the opposite direction. We recognize that no historian can write without some amount of bias; that is why history must always be rewritten. But not all bias amounts to distortion, or is equivalent to indoctrination. If I am aware that I am likely to be biased for any number of reasons, and try to compensate for them, the result should be very different in quality and character from what I would say if I were consciously setting about to achieve a particular political goal.
Drawing a clear distinction between motivations and evidence has a direct bearing on the question of academic freedom. When it comes to deciding what one can or cannot say in class the question of ethnicity or of motivations, whether personal or cultural, is or ought to be irrelevant. What matters is whether what one says is supported by facts and evidence, texts or formulae. The purpose of diversity, at least in academe, is to ensure that instruction does not become a vehicle for indoctrinating students in the values of the majority culture, or for limiting the curriculum to the study of the history and literature of the majority culture. That means that it is essential for a university to consider developments outside of Europe and North America, and to assess the achievements of non-European cultures with respect and sympathy.
It is another question whether or not diversity should be applied to the truth. Are there, can there be, multiple, diverse "truths?" If there are, which "truth" should win? The one that is most loudly argued or most persuasively phrased? Diverse "truths are possible only if "truth" is understood to mean something like "point of view." But even then not every point of view, no matter how persuasively it is put across, or with what intensity it is argued, can be equally valid. The notion of diversity does not extend to truth.
Students of the modern world may think it is a matter of indifference whether or not Aristotle stole his philosophy from Egypt. They may believe that even if the story is not true, it can be used to serve a positive purpose. But the question, and many others like it, should be a matter of serious concern to everyone, because if you assert that he did steal his philosophy, you are prepared to ignore or to conceal a substantial body of historical evidence that proves the contrary. Once you start doing that, you can have no scientific or even social-scientific discourse, nor can you have a community, or a university.
Mary Lefkowitz is the Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities at Wellesley College. She is the author of many books on ancient Greece and Rome, including Lives of the Greek Poets and Women in Greek Myth, as well as articles for the Wall Street Journal and the New Republic. She is the co-editor of Women's Life in Greece and Rome and Black Athena Revisited.
Available from Amazon.com Shipped Directly to You!
Not Out of Africa by Mary Lefkowitz - The book that has sparked widespread debate over the teaching of revisionist history in schools and colleges. Was Socrates black? Did Aristotle steal his ideas from the library in Alexandria? Do we owe the underlying tenets of our democratic civilization to the Africans? Mary Lefkowitz explains why politically motivated histories of the ancient world are being written and shows how Afrocentrist claims blatantly contradict the historical evidence. Not Out of Africa is an important book that protects and argues for the necessity of historical truths and standards in cultural education. Only $10.40 Order from Amazon
Also available: Black Athena Revisited by Mary R. Lefkowitz - In this collection of twenty essays, leading scholars in a broad range of disciplines confront the claims made by Martin Bernal in Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization. In that work, Bernal proposed a radical reinterpretation of the roots of classical civilization, contending that ancient Greek culture derived from Egypt and Phoenicia and that European scholars have been biased against the notion of Egyptian and Phoenician influence on Western civilization. The contributors to this volume argue that Bernal's claims are exaggerated and in many cases unjustified. Topics covered include race and physical anthropology; the question of an Egyptian invasion of Greece; the origins of Greek language, philosophy, and science; and racism and anti-Semitism in classical scholarship. In the conclusion to the volume, the editors propose an entirely new scholarly framework for understanding the relationship between the cultures of the ancient Near East and Greece and the origins of Western civilization. Only $15.96 Order from Amazon
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Why does not a single ancient writing describe the ancient germans as black?
Even mike111 accepts Tacitus described the native germans as redheaded whites.
cassiterides - typical fool that you are, you are confusing the ETHNIC PEOPLE called Germanics/Germans with the NATIONALITY Germans.
BTW fool, didn't Franklin describe some of them as Black.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Some classical writings on natives of the far north and their racial features -
Vitruvius, On Architecture, 6. 1. 3 (25 BC):
“In cold countries which are distant from the south, the moisture is not drawn out by the heat, but the dewy air, insinuating its dampness into the system, increases the size of the body, and makes the voice more grave. This is the reason why the people of the north are so large in stature, so light in complexion, and have straight red hair, blue eyes, and are full of blood, for they are thus formed by the abundance of the moisture, and the coldness of their country.”
Pliny, Naturalis Historia, 2. 78 (77 AD):
‘‘…in the frozen and icy regions, the people have white skins, hair growing long downward, and yellow…’’
Ptolemy, Tetrabiblios, 2. 2 (150 AD?):
‘‘The natives of those countries which lie under the more remote northern parallels (that is to say, under the Arctic Circle and beyond it) have their zenith far distant from the zodiac and the Sun's heat. Their constitutions, therefore, abound in cold, and are also highly imbued with moisture, which is in itself a most nutritive quality, and, in these latitudes, is not exhausted by heat: hence they are fair in complexion, with straight hair, of large bodies and full stature. They are cold in disposition, and wild in manners, owing to the constant cold. The state of the surrounding atmosphere and of animals and plants corresponds with that of men; who (as natives of these countries) are designated by the general name of Scythian.’’
‘‘The Gauls are tall of body, with rippling muscles, and white of skin, and their hair is blond, and not only naturally so, but they also make it their practice by artificial means to increase the distinguishing colour which nature has given it.’’
Livy, Ab urbe condita (History of Rome) 38. 17. 3 (25 BC):
‘‘Gauls have the highest reputation as soldiers... their tall persons, their long red hair’’
Ibid, 38. 21. 9:
‘‘The fact that they fight naked makes their wounds conspicuous and their bodies are fleshy and white, as is natural, since they are never uncovered except in battle; so that both more blood flowed from their abundant flesh and the wounds stood out to view more fearfully and the whiteness of their skins was more stained by the black blood.’’
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Mike got owned 1 above, so he's left.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
[/QUOTE]
A TALE OF TWO QUEENS
Let's be creative. These are images of two Queens, both straining to tell us something.
So both images should be regarded as highly symbolic. The first is showing that she exerts female sexuality, the other shows her high birth.
Marie Henriette is the sister of Charles II Stuart, The Black Boy, A tall black man, the swarthy Stuart. Married to William II of Orange, Stadhouder of the Netherlands (like a king)
The heraldic Moor, or page, gives her pearls symbols of pure blood: blue blood. And she was not white.
The feather coat can still be seen in the Mauritshuis Museum, brought by Maurits of Nassau from Brazil. She is also wearing an oriental headdress, perhaps descent from oriental ancestors who brought arabic/greek science to Europe?
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote:Egmond - As I have said before, I have never read any authors (except for Clydes works) because early-on I was not satisfied with those that I perused. That allowed me to approach everything with a fresh mind, and with a determination to support every assertion with verifiable fact or artifact.
Mike111, PLEASE humor me and find this book by Frank Snowden. After you have perused it, feel free to reject or accept. but only after you have looked in that book. PLEASE. By not acknowledging the work of an eminent Black researcher you display white racist behavior, who do not acknowledge Black scientists.
The other person you named believes in Atlantis and that Blacks became white 6000 years ago.
So he's a damn fool, if you ask me.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:By not acknowledging the work of an eminent Black researcher you display white racist behavior, who do not acknowledge Black scientists.
With all due respect,
BULLSHIT. You've gone a little over the line with that one deh...
There are some things I do agree with you on, and many things I do not- that being one of them.
His referring to Africans from certain regions as 'dumb n*ggers' and such; and consistently referring to Black People as "N*gger"- now THAT is displaying 'white' racist behavior...as well as subconscious and/or conscious Self-hatred....
EVEN WORSE, it's a disrespect to his Ancestors.... and he should be SHAMED....
I'm not going to get into a tit for tat with you so....
Have a nice day.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Mike111, PLEASE humor me and find this book by Frank Snowden. After you have perused it, feel free to reject or accept. but only after you have looked in that book. PLEASE. By not acknowledging the work of an eminent Black researcher you display white racist behavior =======
I'm not sure the afrocentric interest in Snowden. He was not an afrocentric. His works claim roman, greeks etc were white hence van sertima and similar radical afrocentrics have criticised him.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Mike111, PLEASE humor me and find this book by Frank Snowden. After you have perused it, feel free to reject or accept. but only after you have looked in that book. PLEASE. By not acknowledging the work of an eminent Black researcher you display white racist behavior =======
I'm not sure the afrocentric interest in Snowden. He was not an afrocentric. His works claim roman, greeks etc were white hence van sertima and similar radical afrocentrics have criticised him.
What yo pale ass needs to do is concern yourSelf with eurocentric interests and not worry yourSelf bout what afrocentric's interests are...because they really don't concern you.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
Mike111, I do not think that Blacks should fight each other while they are under attack of a damn KKK posse. Your article by that euro centrist is too long for now, but what I can tell you is that whites from USA, Holland and Belgium sound the same. Why is that? And they do not have a proper discussion: its war to them: Blacks wanting to steal their writers, and such... Science as it is has scientist researching the same data and coming off with two wildly different results: one says green, the other says red. All knowledge is received knowledge, even you were not born with what you think you know about Bactrians, Scythes, or what have you. By collecting as many sources and using COMMON SENSE you get a long way in discerning the truth. Snowden has collected many positive images from classical Blacks and coloreds, gives alternative methods for identifying Blacks, Black and colored historical persons in Europe. Why I like this book is that he fills the gap for Black presence for the 800BC-300AD period. The image of a Classical African even then, was a symbol of a Black Identity.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
Dear, you need not tell me every time that you do not agree with me because you mean nothing to me. I have a hard time telling you apart from the KKK posse on this forum, as it is.
I do not name you, as you know who you are...
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Snowden has collected many positive images from classical Blacks and coloreds, gives alternative methods for identifying Blacks, Black and colored historical persons in Europe. =======
According to Snowden the Romans and Greeks were white. Have you even read his works?
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Snowden has collected many positive images from classical Blacks and coloreds, gives alternative methods for identifying Blacks, Black and colored historical persons in Europe. =======
According to Snowden the Romans and Greeks were white. Have you even read his works?
Snowden's books are quite informative....both Blacks in Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience and Before Color Prejudice: The Ancient View of Blacks are a part of my personal library.
Not ALL Romans were 'white, nor were ALL Greeks 'white'....operative word there being "ALL"....and a Black Greek and/or Black Roman did not necessarily = slave either, so no bodda come with that f*ckery argument...that is the REALITY of it...
That being said, since you've asked- HAVE YOU?
ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT NOTE, SIDE-NOTE HERE:
Wha yu really ah seh star...Please take your confused arrogant loony-tunes rass guh battywash yuh madda...
Fi real yuh gwan like ah one POPPY-SHOW....
best yu low mi and guh one side- any problem we may have, ah yu one create it with your ASSUmptions...better yuh keep yuh likkle sideways speech dem tuh yuhrassSelf...
Mi throw mi corn, but mi nuh call nuh fowl...
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: This is what the Greeks thought of "White Skin" ========
Back to reality Mike:
Plato, Republic, 474e (380 BC):
“The swarthy are of manly aspect, the white are the children of the Gods divinely fair and as for honey-hued, do you suppose the very word is anything but the euphemistic invention of some lover who can feel no distaste for sallowness when it accompanies the blooming time of youth”.
- Plato linked white skin to the Gods. This was because virtually all the ancient Greek Gods were pale white in complexion (excluding the Pelasgian deities).
Black God: the Afroasiatic roots of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions
By Julian Baldick
Syracuse University Press,
In his latest provocative book, Julian Baldick argues that just as there is a common Afroasiatic language family, so too there is a common Afroasiatic family of religions. There is an inner logic to be found in myths, folk-tales, rituals, customs and beliefs as far apart as Yemen and Nigeria, which go back to an ancient past shared by the Bible and the pharaohs. Using the methods of comparative mythology, the author sifts through the work of an array of scholars - including anthropologists, religious historians, archaeologists and classical Greek writers and contemporary comments on them by professional Egyptologists - to build his picture of the Afroasiatic heritage, and how much of it is still with us in modern Western thought.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
This is a good read; I have a copy of it:
quote:African Origins of the Major "Western Religions" first published in 1970, continues to be one of Dr. Ben's most thought-provoking works. This critical examination of the history, beliefs and myths, remains instructive and fresh. By highlighting the African influences and roots of these religions, Dr. Ben reveals an untold history that many would prefer to forget.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: As I have warned many times, over many years: You CANNOT trust White translations of ANYTHING! They must always be cross-checked.
Obviously the....
Selections from Plato's Republic, Book V 473c to 480a Translated by Paul Shorey from The Collected Works of Plato, Huntington and Cairns (ed.), Princeton U. Press, 1980, p. 712-720.
Was done by one of the many Albino liars (Paul Shorey) in academia.
To all but the lying, fantasizing, delusional Albinos: it is clear that Plato is teasing his older brother Glaucon, whom he knows to be an unrepentant Womanizer.
What he is saying, is that no matter the attribute, Glaucon will always find a flowery way to see and describe his target.
Oh dear, if yall would only read Emma, by Jane Austen (1816), you would see how blatant eurocentrism lies. All the Blackness tumbles from the pages, its not coded, its not concealed; Austen is a Black activist.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
Mike111
quote: by Mary Lefkowitz
Was Greek Culture Stolen from Africa? Modern myth vs. ancient history
Excerpted from her Book Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History
I really do not agree with anything this woman says. Van Sertima answered them, he said the Olmecs or something wore helmets that resemble buckets, they said that he said that Olmecs wore buckets as helmets...
Mike111, do you understand what powerful weapon you have with your knowledge? You are destined to be a leader of your people. History is both science and is myth, and the people need slogans. History is a means to an end, it has a clear purpose, to get people on the move. That's how they approach history, and see the devastating results for Blacks. You need to fight fire with fire. Do not worry about sources, have them ready if a scholar should ask, but think about the ordinary, poor people who have no time or money to buy books or spent weeks in a whites infested library. We do that research for them, and offer the results. You want to help them, Enlighten them, lead them out of white supremacy hell. By opening their eyes to Black European Kings, The Stuarts who were coal Black. Make an exhibition and tour all of Chicago, next Illinois, next Oprah. You spent a lot of time battling white and black trash here: why? There are only four people on the web who talk about Black Kings, make it count, do spread the word. You have all the elements to confirm my blue blood theory. The whites were ruled by Blacks.
[Turkish ladies, usually chewing sunflower seeds, always offering me bits of food, pretzels, small stuffed buns, fresh fruit]
Please stop abusing mulattoes, Turks, etc ...it's so offensive to cultured people, and you might loose your audience. State you opinions, but do show respect to receive respect. The Turks were always most kind and respectful to me when I traveled the whole of Turkey. Addressing me as ' hadji,' sending someone to fetch a chair, offering hot tea. Never mind the big shots, the bloodsucking elite, they are everywhere the same, I side with the poor people. And even though white, some are real lookers...The food is great.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: this thread is an assault on Mr. Codfried's teachings, shame
Mike's has finally been brainwashed by the white man's lies about blue blood. He's been taken over by evil forces, tricked by false historians despite all the time and effort Egmond spent in educating us about the true meaning.
We await Mr. Codfried's corrections of this matter, perhaps Mike can be reasoned with still be saved from the clutches of the fakers
You have some wit...a shame you choose to be blind from the truth.
Somewhere they write about me: that he really seems to believe his theories.
This is really funny.
Or: ' someone has an axe to grind;' about my Jane Austen teachings.
So I went to reading all those tacky euro centrist BS books, just because I have an axe to grind.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
and he should be SHAMED....
