I am really skeptical of black groups that seek to paint everyone outside of Africa Black, especially recent populations.
I think the claims of a Hapsburg Black Europe and a Europe of which the majority of the people were so called "Moors" is quite ridiculous.
Were there various Black populations in Europe, yes. But as scholars and researchers we have to be more diligent with our analysis of history. Just because you find a Moor head on a coat of arms, doesn't mean the people of that region were Moors.
Anthropology involves the study of language, genes, migration patterns etc. A moor head on a crest doesn't equate to some grand conspiracy on the behalf of Europeans to hide black history.
If there is proof of black people in a region, adequately show this through rigorous methods. The whole copy/paste conflation mantra has just got to stop because it makes black researchers and black scholars look bad.
Posted by Njii (Member # 21985) on :
It has been proven that many of these so called Moor Head Crests are the heads of conquered enemies that the Europeans defeated and used as trophies.
I have not done as much thorough research on this but the conventional explanations of academics regarding these heads sound better than the avalanche of conspiracy theories that one will find on many black forums and in many black groups. Someone has got to call this out.
Posted by Habsburg (Member # 21824) on :
Can you point out one of those black groups and where they have claimed that the majority of Medieval Europeans were black?
Posted by Njii (Member # 21985) on :
Canaanland Moors
Most Hebrew groups
The African Americans Aint African Crowd
and many other cult like groups.
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
Njii .... stop trying to mischaracterize the argument....
Posted by Habsburg (Member # 21824) on :
quote:Originally posted by Njii: It has been proven that many of these so called Moor Head Crests are the heads of conquered enemies that the Europeans defeated and used as trophies.
I have not done as much thorough research on this but the conventional explanations of academics regarding these heads sound better than the avalanche of conspiracy theories that one will find on many black forums and in many black groups. Someone has got to call this out.
Can you point out some of the evidence provided by conventional European scholars which proves that that many of these so called Moor Head Crests are the heads of conquered enemies that the Europeans defeated and used as trophies.?
The emphasis is on the word proof, not speculation or conjecture.
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
Please provide proof that these groups claim that the "majority......."
And please identify who on this board has claimed affiliatuon with one of the aforementioned groups.....
Posted by Njii (Member # 21985) on :
I don't know if this link will work, but if it does, this is an example of European Scholars providing explanations for these heads and their explanations make a lot more sense than what you will find on the majority of online forums.
..because they are European ?? ....because their conclusions are what you want to hear ???
Are these the same European scholars who have a now well known reputatuon for lying and obfuscating Black presence in history the world over ???
Posted by Habsburg (Member # 21824) on :
I don't think the link you posted is a good enough point of debate. You are just asking for a comment on someone else's opinion for which not much evidence or reasoning is provided.
I made this post earlier on another thread, which for convenience sake I have copied here, explaining why all Moorish heraldic symbols can't be explained by conquests over Moors. Can you review it and tell me the flaws you find with my reasoning? You can also follow the link to the page to see if there any definitive evidence to support the theory about it representing conquered Moors.
=============================================
On a slight digression to Aragon, we'll return to Germany shortly. Compare the features of Oliver Kahn with the figures of this Gold Seal of Philip II of Spain and consider: Are the faces on the seal those of some generic Moors, are they the good likenesses of real nobles?
Continuing on the Aragonese theme, how well do these faces on these seals match Martin of Aragon?
Edward I, and father John I of Portugal
Do we still have to be buying into this ridiculous theory that the Moors we see in European heraldry are all images relating to the defeat of the Moors in Spain or in the Crusades?
I could throw in a picture of Clarence Seedorf, but I'll pass.
Oh and I forget to mention, referenced at http://www.hubert-herald.nl/EspanAragon.htm the moors are now officially pink, no more blackamoors.
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
I know....but he makes no argument and neither does the link he provided....
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Njii: It has been proven that many of these so called Moor Head Crests are the heads of conquered enemies that the Europeans defeated and used as trophies.
I have not done as much thorough research on this but the conventional explanations of academics regarding these heads sound better than the avalanche of conspiracy theories that one will find on many black forums and in many black groups. Someone has got to call this out.
Keywords: "I have not done as much thorough research on this"!
Ha! Ha! Ha! That's good TP! If he hasn't researched it then why broach an argument or discussion . Ask a question and he will be provided a link. Lol! These ......
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
He hasn't read any of the latest studies eg Richard III is not related to the people who occupy the throne in London. In other words the present "Royals" are impostors.
Latest studies on Mary Antoinette confirms something similar. Fake royals throughout Europe.
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
Can u post the Marie Antoinette info and analysis
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I just checked ESR. I thought I had the breakdown there or on this site. I will get the title and post it. Will have to check my notes for the breakdown. IIRC, Antoinette is not related to many of the people that claim to be descendants of her. Even some Europeans Royals, who claim connection has none. But these things don't make the Evening News. Another one is Saint Luke, who's body was recently analyzed. Shocker!!! He was most closely related to ....the indigenous Bedouns!
It is all falling apart, they need to stop the bleeding, you know, put a stop on aDNA testing. Lol!
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
So, if these people are not related to whom thry say they are, can you put together a narrative of what happened...
Richard iii Marie Antoinette St.Luke
Was their some kind of population displacement/genocide as Mike suggests ... with a new group of people simply assuming the identities of those they replaced ???
Or something else ...
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
Can u show the St. LUKE study ? and the Berber connection ?
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
I mean Bedouins
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
A Wah Appan ta ya.
The White Panthers be taking the Lead in represeninting in Genetics and outing the Lies of the establishment, and Yall are laughing as If there is the Gehazis doing this to themselves??
Understand The PEOPLE HATE EVIL.
Don't matter from Who.
Blacks, Whites, Reds, Yellows and Browns reveal truth and expose these lowlive that have tried to divide us and keep us apart for NONE but THEIR GAIN!!!
quote:Ephesians 5:11 Have Nothing to do with the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but rather expose them
Recognize the Panthers that are Leading in giving Genetics and DNA a Hurting for there Lies Sonnies.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
Look anyone who's not a fool needing their head bumped knows the vast overwhelming majority of Europeans ancient, medieval, renaissance, pre-industrial, etc were and are W H I T E
quote:Originally posted by Njii: It has been proven that many of these so called Moor Head Crests are the heads of conquered enemies that the Europeans defeated and used as trophies.
Documentation to that effect please or you're no better but much worse than those you are indeed legitimately complaining against.
The vast majority are of founders of European family lineages especially where the patronymic is some variation of Moor which derives from Mauros (still the Greek word for a black, even nigger) in turn deriving from the name far NW Afrs called themselves as posted here on ES many and many a time over the decade.
GOOGLE it.
.
quote: I have not done as much thorough research on this
then you need to remain silent other than to question those of us who have
.
quote: but the conventional explanations
are embedded with institutional racism
.
quote: of academics regarding these heads sound better than the avalanche of conspiracy theories that one will find on many black forums and in many black groups. Someone has got to call this out.
Yes over the decade ESers have called out many ethnocentric simplicities and cover ups whether the chauvinism is Afro or Euro or Med or ...
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I "read" someplace King Tut carried r1b
Posted by Bonampak420 (Member # 20156) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Look anyone who's not a fool needing their head bumped knows the vast overwhelming majority of Europeans ancient, medieval, renaissance, pre-industrial, etc were and are W H I T E
Ausar i believe you have albinism. as i leanred in a thread about why albinos are misunderstood. it seems ashkenazi jews suffer from VIVD DREAMING.
"Normally when Serotonin is produced you wake up and when dark melatonin is produced to put you to sleep."
"Many ashkeanzi Jews suffer from vivid dreaming.
Then there is always the issue of reduced Dopamine levels (and elevated Serotonin levels) since albinism is caused by defects in the TYR/DOPA pathway. "
That is only conclusion i can come up with as to the reason you are manifesting such a fictitious delusion of fictional central asians having any form of civilization or culture in the black region of what we now know as modern day europe.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The guy on the right could pass for a Russian wrestler
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar: [QB] Look anyone who's not a fool needing their head bumped knows the vast overwhelming majority of Europeans ancient, medieval, renaissance, pre-industrial, etc were and are W H I T E
quote:Originally posted by Njii: It has been proven that many of these so called Moor Head Crests are the heads of conquered enemies that the Europeans defeated and used as trophies.
Documentation to that effect please or you're no better but much worse than those you are indeed legitimately complaining against.
The vast majority are of founders of European family lineages especially where the patronymic is some variation of Moor which derives from Mauros (still the Greek word for a black, even nigger) in turn deriving from the name far NW Afrs called themselves as posted here on ES many and many a time over the decade.
Are you claiming that Moor heads in European coats of arms and crests represent the ethnic likeness of founders of European families ?
If so then were the founders of European families that have such coats of arms the Islamic conquerors of Spain going back only as far as 711 AD?
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
The guy on the right could pass for a Russian wrestler
White Russian indeed!
Macular degeneration... lmao!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
Europe was never densely populated by Blacks.
Well it depends on how you define density and if it is relative to the time period in a particular way
We simply don't know the popualtion density in these very early time periods
Obviously the phenotype would have evolved to the new envirornmental conditions over tens of thousands of years also, by now a small amount of admixture perhaps with the Neanderthals
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: He hasn't read any of the latest studies eg Richard III is not related to the people who occupy the throne in London. In other words the present "Royals" are impostors.
Latest studies on Mary Antoinette confirms something similar. Fake royals throughout Europe.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I just checked ESR. I thought I had the breakdown there or on this site. I will get the title and post it. Will have to check my notes for the breakdown. IIRC, Antoinette is not related to many of the people that claim to be descendants of her. Even some Europeans Royals, who claim connection has none. But these things don't make the Evening News. Another one is Saint Luke, who's body was recently analyzed. Shocker!!! He was most closely related to ....the indigenous Bedouns!
It is all falling apart, they need to stop the bleeding, you know, put a stop on aDNA testing. Lol!
Oh oh, that news to me.
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I "read" someplace King Tut carried r1b
quote: "But the work drew criticism from some ancient-DNA experts, who claimed that the results could be explained by contamination from modern humans. The ensuing row deepened a long-standing rift among researchers who aim to coax genetic secrets from the mummified denizens of bygone civilizations. “For sure it is a highly debated field,” says Carsten Pusch of the University of Tübingen in Germany, who was part of the team that analyzed King Tut’s DNA. “The tone of the arguments is sometimes a little bit strong."
quote: "Scientists at Zurich-based DNA genealogy centre, iGENEA, say they have reconstructed the DNA profile of the boy Pharaoh based on a film that was made for the Discovery Channel."
[...]
"Carsten Pusch, a geneticist at the University of Tubingen in Germany, was part of the team that constructed King Tut's DNA from samples taken from his mummified remains, and those of his relatives.
Pusch said that iGENEA's claims are 'simply impossible' because they did not publish the data for Tut's Y-chomosome - found only in males - which would reveal his male descendants, and accused the company of a marketing gimmick."
I noticed that with that new poster NJII and his thread IGNORANCE ABOUT AFRICA. As if we should forget about black people who set up empires civilizations dynastys whatever you want to call it, In every corner of the globe. and only focus on Africa
Posted by Habsburg (Member # 21824) on :
It seems that after his initial replies he has decided not to return. No need to waste time on him/her
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
Are you the last dumb ass on earth who doesn't know black Jews go back to the biblical era? Even genetic reports have shown that. Moojani (link)
D Y man's got a god complex. Fools like you gave it to him.
Ashkenazi this, white that. You just love you d Y man to the point of ignoring and denying the black while you claim that which is white is really black.
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Look anyone who's not a fool needing their head bumped knows the vast overwhelming majority of Europeans ancient, medieval, renaissance, pre-industrial, etc were and are W H I T E
Ausar i believe you have albinism. as i leanred in a thread about why albinos are misunderstood. it seems ashkenazi jews suffer from VIVD DREAMING.
"Normally when Serotonin is produced you wake up and when dark melatonin is produced to put you to sleep."
"Many ashkeanzi Jews suffer from vivid dreaming.
Then there is always the issue of reduced Dopamine levels (and elevated Serotonin levels) since albinism is caused by defects in the TYR/DOPA pathway. "
That is only conclusion i can come up with as to the reason you are manifesting such a fictitious delusion of fictional central asians having any form of civilization or culture in the black region of what we now know as modern day europe.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
Don't be such a provoking ass.
Since when did all European families all have a form of MOOR as their patronymic?
How many times have I told you download the Master of Black presence in Europe one Joel Augustus Rogers, his book Nature Knows No Colorline.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by ausar: [QB] Look anyone who's not a fool needing their head bumped knows the vast overwhelming majority of Europeans ancient, medieval, renaissance, pre-industrial, etc were and are W H I T E
quote:Originally posted by Njii: It has been proven that many of these so called Moor Head Crests are the heads of conquered enemies that the Europeans defeated and used as trophies.
Documentation to that effect please or you're no better but much worse than those you are indeed legitimately complaining against.
The vast majority are of founders of European family lineages especially where the patronymic is some variation of Moor which derives from Mauros (still the Greek word for a black, even nigger) in turn deriving from the name far NW Afrs called themselves as posted here on ES many and many a time over the decade.
Are you claiming that Moor heads in European coats of arms and crests represent the ethnic likeness of founders of European families ?
If so then were the founders of European families that have such coats of arms the Islamic conquerors of Spain going back only as far as 711 AD?
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bonampak420: I noticed that with that new poster NJII and his thread IGNORANCE ABOUT AFRICA. As if we should forget about black people who set up empires civilizations dynastys whatever you want to call it, In every corner of the globe. and only focus on Africa
Their claim is that you only should focus on west Africa/ sub Sahara Africa. That's the restriction. But they that can talk about every other part of Africa (Sahara and the rest of North Africa. I.e. Egypt).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Don't be such a provoking ass.
Since when did all European families all have a form of MOOR as their patronymic?
How many times have I told you download the Master of Black presence in Europe one Joel Augustus Rogers, his book Nature Knows No Colorline.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by ausar: [QB] Look anyone who's not a fool needing their head bumped knows the vast overwhelming majority of Europeans ancient, medieval, renaissance, pre-industrial, etc were and are W H I T E
quote:Originally posted by Njii: It has been proven that many of these so called Moor Head Crests are the heads of conquered enemies that the Europeans defeated and used as trophies.
Documentation to that effect please or you're no better but much worse than those you are indeed legitimately complaining against.
The vast majority are of founders of European family lineages especially where the patronymic is some variation of Moor which derives from Mauros (still the Greek word for a black, even nigger) in turn deriving from the name far NW Afrs called themselves as posted here on ES many and many a time over the decade.
Are you claiming that Moor heads in European coats of arms and crests represent the ethnic likeness of founders of European families ?
If so then were the founders of European families that have such coats of arms the Islamic conquerors of Spain going back only as far as 711 AD?
Don't get bent out of shape that the great God J.A. Rogers was wrong on this one. I'm "provoking" because I don't believe in one of the foremost banned dude's eccentric theories ??
You have a picture up of "Two Negro girls brought from Africa to Scotland on 1504"
They were bought in Africa
and then their names were changed to "More"
From this sort of thing Rogers speculates that since they were named More and they were African (or some type of Euro-pitch black folk )
And since Coats of Arms in Europe have generic sometimes repeating African "Moor" heads on them that therefore white people who have the name More, Moor, Mor , Blackmore etc, must have African ancestry and these Coats of Arms must represent a Moorish ancestor
or a a native black European who happens to look like a Moor, hoop earrings ????
Both scenarios are wrong and we can see how this lead to the banned guy and his cohorts, Rogers is the culprit
(meanwhile what happened to their African names? "Moor" is not what they called themselves !!)
Look carefully at this, four decapitated Moor heads >>
1524 Jeronimo Martinez , Saint George altarpiece wikipedia
Peter I receiving a shield emblazoned with the Cross of Saint George. According to legend, George appeared on the field of battle at Alcoraz. The heads of four decapitated Moors were also found on the battlefield and, when added to George's familiar emblem, the Cross of Alcoraz was created, which would later form the basis for the Sardinian coat-of-arms.
_____________
Coat of Arms , Alacandre, La Rioja Spain
So we are now to believe that although there were these decapitated Moors as a motif when we look at other Moors heads on other Coats of Arms they were not the Muslim hordes but were in fact founders of the royal families of the Christians???
-and there is a tradition of Coats of Arms having the image of the founding member on them
-and that these royal familes of white people who use the Coats of Arms don't know the names of their Moorish Islamic forefathers ??? -even though the invasion only goes back to 711 AD
-but wait a minute, although we see the painting of the four decapitated Moors' head of the battle of Alcoraz being presented to Peter I and we see the Sardinian flag with the same red cross and also with four Moors heads on it but maybe, just maybe, other crowned "Moors" we see on other Coats of Arms have nothing to do with this Crusades motif maybe they are completely different native Black European kings that just look the same
or maybe J.A. Rogers and the wild speculations of David MacRitchie are just wrong.
He also assumes that a person with the surname "Black" or Moor or Moore or Mor, etc. must refer to a dark " "Negro" black skin tone
that it could only refer to the Moors who invaded Spain
( or if that doesn't work as "Moor" is not an Umayyad or al-Murabitun surname maybe they were actually crown wearing black dwarf native Europeans ancestors of royal white people families who just happend to look like North African Moors, but were really native Black Europeans that's the back up, they were look-alikes)
So why do these some of these white Europeans named Moore, Blackmore etc if not named after "Negro" Moors why do they have Coats of Arms with Moor's heads on them ??
Answer: because they thought puns like that were cool
________________________________________
Last name: Blackmore
This interesting surname of Anglo-Saxon origin, with variant spellings Blackmoor, Blakemore, and Blackmore, is a locational name from any of the various places called Blackmore in Essex, Wiltshire and Worcestershire, as well as Blackmoor in Dorset, derived from the Olde English pre 7th Century elements "bloec" meaning "black, dark", plus "mor", hill. Blackmore in Hertfordshire, and Blackmoor in Hampshire, the early forms of which are "Blachmere" and "Blakemere", derive from the Olde English "bloec", plus "mere" meaning "lake". The surname dates back to the late 13th Century (see below), and further recordings include one William de Blachomore (1381) in the Feet of Fines for Norwich. Recordings from English Church Registers include the christening of Joan Blackmore on April 24th 1543, in East Hanningfield, Essex, and the marriage of John Blackmore and Elizabeth Michael on January 25th 1579, at St. Matthew's, Friday Street, London. One Richard Doddridge Blackmore (1825 - 1900) was a novelist and barrister. He was educated at Blundells school, Tiverton, and Exeter College Oxford, he received an M.A. in 1852, was called to the Bar at Middle Temple in 1852. He wrote many famous novels including "Clara Vaughan" in 1864, "Cradock Nowell" in 1866, "Lorna Doone" in 1869, and twelve others. The first recorded spelling of the family name is shown to be that of Richard de Blakemore, which was dated 1273, in the "Hundred Rolls of Oxfordshire", during the reign of King Edward 1, known as "The Hammer of the Scots", 1272 - 1307. Surnames became necessary when governments introduced personal taxation. In England this was known as Poll Tax. Throughout the centuries, surnames in every country have continued to "develop" often leading to astonishing variants of the original spelling
Rogers impresses with detail but the bottom line is that if you try to write a clear explanation with his concept it just turns up silliness
Again - Why are there European Coats of Arms with Moors on them and white people named "Moore" of the Europeans also called black people "Moor" ?
Rogers concept> they probably had Moorish ancestry
problem: that does not fit with Islamic history or European history regarding the Moorish occupation of Spain, names do not correlate to European and they are not Islamic European writing does not support it whatsoever
Rogers back up proposal> the were black dwarf kings, native black Europeans and they were somehow ancestors of white Europeans. The concept is magical and child-like, completely absurd. So what happened European invaders came in but wanted to remind everybody of the great black dwarf kings that they invaded Of course this is in old European documents right ?? They have these Coats of Arms so they must have the proper accompanying explanation right? No they hide the the explanation, that must be it But yet they don't hide the Coat of Arms Benedict is showing the former rulers of Europe on his arms but he just can't talk about it
Look, before all of you try to come at me first try to write one short paragraph explanation of these Coats of Arms with Moors head on them that makes sense
You can't do , all you can do is talk about me
> but that aint good enough and telling me to read the book aint good enough, that is not an argument, you have to make it
Posted by Habsburg (Member # 21824) on :
How about looking at it from this angle. Is there some reason to believe that the subjects of these medieval monarchs were much darker than the people they ruled?
Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: lotta blab blab wolf wolf
I refuse to be bound back constantly regurgitating what I've beat you to death with. You couldn't dispute any of those times and you can'tnow.
For a newbie or a Baby Nutz I might make an exception but not for you who's been squeezed through this ringer again and again and ...
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
God complex....? You got your books I have science. Science will make liars of historians.
Posted by mena7 (Member # 20555) on :
Historian J A Rogers who wrote many well illustrated history books is the father of World Afrocentric history
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
A Dat Me See
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote:Originally posted by mena7: Historian J A Rogers who wrote many well illustrated history books is the father of World Afrocentric history
But he was wrong on many counts. I kindly point out hat he Blue Blood is Black blood theory surpasses all the amateurish bs that came before, probably because the author, Mr egmond codfried, was born and raised in Suriname, and was only exposed to pinks after he was 20 years of age. Then he studied the hell out of these creatures and wrote the book on their history.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote:Originally posted by Njii: I am really skeptical of black groups that seek to paint everyone outside of Africa Black, especially recent populations.
I think the claims of a Hapsburg Black Europe and a Europe of which the majority of the people were so called "Moors" is quite ridiculous.
Were there various Black populations in Europe, yes. But as scholars and researchers we have to be more diligent with our analysis of history. Just because you find a Moor head on a coat of arms, doesn't mean the people of that region were Moors.
Anthropology involves the study of language, genes, migration patterns etc. A moor head on a crest doesn't equate to some grand conspiracy on the behalf of Europeans to hide black history.
If there is proof of black people in a region, adequately show this through rigorous methods. The whole copy/paste conflation mantra has just got to stop because it makes black researchers and black scholars look bad.
California is a state, we may not know what town, so we cannot step on a plane and travel all the way to California to do you harm. This anonimity s h i t wears the hell out of me. The masters do not want us to unite...
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote:Originally posted by Njii: I am really skeptical of black groups that seek to paint everyone outside of Africa Black, especially recent populations.
I think the claims of a Hapsburg Black Europe and a Europe of which the majority of the people were so called "Moors" is quite ridiculous.
Were there various Black populations in Europe, yes. But as scholars and researchers we have to be more diligent with our analysis of history. Just because you find a Moor head on a coat of arms, doesn't mean the people of that region were Moors.
Anthropology involves the study of language, genes, migration patterns etc. A moor head on a crest doesn't equate to some grand conspiracy on the behalf of Europeans to hide black history.
If there is proof of black people in a region, adequately show this through rigorous methods. The whole copy/paste conflation mantra has just got to stop because it makes black researchers and black scholars look bad.
Good questions. I could not open your website so I cannot asses your IQ level, and determine if I will be wasting my time...
You are in awe of pinks. Do not. They are stupid because they were genetically selected for 5000 years to be serfs and shoe leather for Black negroes. And it still shows. They are hostile at every turn because they sense their supposed superiority is bogus.
Conventional science offer many clues to the truth, but one has to read between the lines, one has to synthesize and often discover a source that is a source because it does not answer the big questions it raised.
I will reactivate my thread about the year 1848 which teaches us about this year when 97 percent of the French got voting rights.
The wiki article does not say, that they were the pinks. So we learn that the elite was 3 percent. In a letter Jane Austen instructs her writing niece that _ two and three families in a country town are just the thing to work with_. As Austen is quite scientific about facts, I understood she meant 2_3 percent of the population. Her personages are brown and black and are gentry or nobles. Pinks are their servants.
Of course there has always been a "negro" presence in Europe. European scientists themselves have confirmed this in many various scholarly studies, from various finds of negro remains in various time periods in Europe to the recent study saying Europeans were dark for most of their history up until relatively recently.
There were multiple waves of "negroes" arriving on the shores of Europe from the earliest humans to the current day migrants. This process has never stopped. In fact the legends and fables from Europe attest to this in a symbolic way. The Moorish crests are part of that symbolism along with the very name Europe itself which derives from Europa, the ancient Goddess from around modern day Syria. (And in some parts of North Africa and the Levant they still use the term Europa). Then you have the black Madonnas and Black Saint Maurice which are symbolic archetypes of ancient African religious influence and populations (north Africa was Christian up to the Islamic invasion and many fled to Europe). And in addition to that you still have the Gypsies some of whom are still very dark.
Looking at the faces of the refugees in all the diversity is to see the origin of the population of Europe.
But no the population of Medieval Europe was not mostly black.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But no the population of Medieval Europe was not mostly black.
You are throwing terms around, and answering with High school knowledge.
First define "Medieval Europe" chronologically:
then read the history of that period.
Then find out who the people mentioned in the histories were ethnically, and where they came from.
Only then can you attempt to answer the question.
Just to let you know, what you did was really annoying - after all of these years.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
Not bad kdolo, but you are wrong, the How and Why are extremely important in understanding what happened.
I mean if Blacks were the original settlers of Europe - and they were, then how could they be out-numbered and defeated by the Central Asian Albino immigrants?
1) Europe was never densely populated by Blacks.
2) The FIRST invasion of Europe by the Albinos circa 1,200 B.C. led to the first large-scale flight from Europe of Blacks - called exodus of the Sea people.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But no the population of Medieval Europe was not mostly black.
You are throwing terms around, and answering with High school knowledge.
First define "Medieval Europe" chronologically:
then read the history of that period.
Then find out who the people mentioned in the histories were ethnically, and where they came from.
Only then can you attempt to answer the question.
Just to let you know, what you did was really annoying - after all of these years.
Medieval Europeans were not "mostly" blacks even if there were blacks in Europe, including mulattoes and albinos. And this is from the 10th century onward.
But if you are convinced otherwise then that is your point of view not mine.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Medieval Europeans were not "mostly" blacks even if there were blacks in Europe, including mulattoes and albinos. And this is from the 10th century onward.
But if you are convinced otherwise then that is your point of view not mine.
I'm sorry, I missed your qualification or research to answer that question.
Or is it that you claim the rights of the delusional Albinos, in that it is so because YOU say, it is so!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^I take your silence to mean that you have abandoned the point, so I will continue.
I would have thought that my now you understood the lies and duplicity of the Albinos, even the so-called scientists.
I know that your particular interest is the Americas, so consider this example.
The large indigenous Black population of the Americas was destroyed by murder and disease due to overwork and malnutrition (Not European disease) just like the Amerindian population. However, whereas Blacks were originally the most numerous people in the Americas, today their population is inferior to that of the Mongol extract native Americans.
At the time of Columbus’s landing in the America’s in 1492, the population of the Hemisphere was approximately 100 million people.
Six million (6) in the Caribbean, ten million (10) in the United States and Canada, forty million (40) in Mexico and Central America, forty four (44) million in South America.
By 1650 the Indian population of the Caribbean, Mexico-Central America and South America, was approximately fifteen (15) million people total. Today the Amerindian population of the Caribbean is all but extinct. By 1906 the Indian population of the United States and Canada was only one (1) million people.
Systematic killings for their land and goods, being killed through the overwork and malnutrition of Slavery, and the use of disease as a biological weapon, where indigenous Americans were purposefully infected with Smallpox and other such diseases, (the Albinos would give the Blankets and clothing of Europeans killed by diseases like Smallpox and Measles to impoverished indigenous Americans, whose immune systems were already weak because of overwork and malnutrition): these methods killed almost nine (9) of every ten (10) people.
However, the story later generations of American Albinos tell to cover up the atrocities committed in the Americas, is just plain stupid. That is the ridiculous assertion that indigenous Americans were wiped-out by "European Diseases" that they had no immunity for. And it is a testament to Albino collusion that never has any Albino medical professional come forward and said the truth: initially NO ONE has immunity from a disease. Immunity is developed only AFTER you have gotten, and SURVIVED, a particular disease.
Thus, ANYONE from ANYWHERE, if they have not had Measles or a Measles vaccine, they WILL get sick if exposed to the Measles virus - Ditto Smallpox and all other diseases. And just as these diseases killed SOME EUROPEANS, they would of course also kill SOME indigenous Americans, OR Africans, OR Australians, OR Asians, OR Pacificans, OR MARTIANS!
But since those diseases did not kill off 80-90% of the European population, or 80-90% of the African population, or 80-90% of the Australian population, or 80-90% of the the Asian population, or 80-90% of the Pacifican population: We can confidently conclude that the claim that those diseases killed off 80-90% of the indigenous American population is a vile Albino lie, contrived to cover up the brutal murder of millions of people.
In his Study; Genes, Peoples, and Languages: Cavalli-Sforza sets the number at 95% dead.
However, it is a true indication of Albino degeneracy, how causally the murder and death of 95 million souls is mentioned.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
But more to the point:
Do you really believe that the many millions of Black and Brown people of the Americas is descended from just 5 million survivors and 11 million or so Africans?
Please us the links below to refresh your memory.
Native (mostly) Black people of the American Hemisphere
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: But more to the point:
Do you really believe that the many millions of Black and Brown people of the Americas is descended from just 5 million survivors and 11 million or so Africans?
Please us the links below to refresh your memory.
Native (mostly) Black people of the American Hemisphere
Just to be clear 5 million survivors -"mongoloids" ?-all over the New World or just what is now the United States and by what date? The 11 million blacks are the slaves from Africa?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^Please read my posts on the previous page, the references are obvious.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But no the population of Medieval Europe was not mostly black.
You are throwing terms around, and answering with High school knowledge.
First define "Medieval Europe" chronologically:
then read the history of that period.
Then find out who the people mentioned in the histories were ethnically, and where they came from.
Only then can you attempt to answer the question.
Just to let you know, what you did was really annoying - after all of these years.
To help you find the answers, it might help you to know that WARS are the mechanism for accomplishing population change.
As an example, the "Thirty Years War" (1618–1648), which was a "Race War" (not the religious war claimed by the Albinos), killed as many as 11.5 million people when the total population of Europe was only about 70 million.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^To help you further, here is a partial list of the European Wars in that timeframe. Please follow the scientific method that I prescribed for you, that will get you a accurate answer to the question.
1066 Norman Conquest 1096 - 1291 Crusades 1096 - 1099 First Crusade 1101 Crusade of 1101 1147 - 1149 Second Crusade 1187 - 1191 Third Crusade 1202 - 1204 Fourth Crusade 1209 - 1229 Albigensian Crusade 1212 Children's Crusade (Often believed to be just a story) 1217 - 1221 Fifth Crusade 1228 Sixth Crusade 1248 - 1254 Seventh Crusade 1270 Eighth Crusade 1271 - 1291 Ninth Crusade 1293 - 1323 War between Sweden and Novgorod ended up with Treaty of Nöteborg 1296 - 1328 First War of Scottish Independence 1332 - 1333 Second War of Scottish Independence 1337 - 1453 Hundred Years' War 1341 - 1364 Breton War of Succession 1420 - 1436 Hussite Wars 1454 - 1466 Thirteen Years' War. Between Poland and Teutonic Knights, which finally broke the power of the latter. 1455 - 1485 Wars of the Roses 1474 - 1477 War between the Duchy of Burgundy and the Swiss Confederation 1478 - War between the Principality of Moscow and the Republic of Novgorod. The latter was conquered. 1494 - 1559 Italian Wars 1494 - 1498 Charles VIII's Italian War 1499 - 1500 Louis XII's war with Milan 1500 - 1502 Franco-Spanish Conquest of Naples 1502 - 1505 Franco-Spanish War over Naples 1508 - 1510 War of the League of Cambrai 1510 - 1513 War of the Holy League 1511 - 1514 Anglo-French War 1513 Anglo-Scottish War (Battle of Flodden) 1515 - 1516 Francis I's first Italian war 1521 - 1525 First war of Francis and Charles V 1521-1525 Anglo-French War 1526 - 1529 War of the League of Cognac 1536 - 1538 Third War of Francis and Charles 1542 - 1544 Last War of Francis and Charles 1542 - 1546 Anglo-French War 1542 - 1550 Anglo-Scottish War 1549 - 1550 Anglo-French War 1552 - 1559 Last Italian War 1557 - 1559 Anglo-French War 1495 - 1497 Russo-Swedish War 1499 - 1503 Turkish-Venetian War1509 - 1513 Ottoman Civil War 1514 - 1516 Ottoman-Safavid War 1515 - 1523 Rebellion of the Frisians 1516 - 1517 Ottoman-Mamluk War 1521 - 1523 The Swedish War of Liberation 1521 - 1523 Uprising of the Comuneros in Castile 1521 - 1526 Ottoman-Hungarian War 1522 Ottoman Conquest of Rhodes 1522 The Knights' War in Germany 1524 - 1525 The Peasants' War in Germany 1526 - 1528 Hungarian Civil War 1526 - 1555 Ottoman-Safavid War 1528 - 1533 Ottoman-Habsburg War in Hungary 1531 Swiss Civil War between Zürich and the Catholic cantons 1532 - 1546 Ottoman-Habsburg War in the Mediterranean 1533 - 1536 The Counts' War in Denmark 1537 - 1544 Renewed Ottoman-Habsburg War in Hungary 1546 - 1547 Schmalkaldic War 1551 - 1562 Ottoman-Habsburg War in Hungary 1551 - 1581 Ottoman-Habsburg War in the Mediterranean (Battle of Lepanto (1571)) 1552 - 1555 Charles V's war with Maurice of Saxony 1554 - 1557 Great Russian War 1557 - 1571 Livonian War 1559 - 1560 Scottish Rebellion against the French 1562 - 1598 Wars of Religion in France, also called War of the Three Henries or Huguenot Wars
1562 - 1563 First War of Religion 1567 - 1568 Second War of Religion 1568 - 1570 Third War of Religion 1572 - 1573 Fourth War of Religion 1575 - 1576 Fifth War of Religion 1576 - 1577 Sixth War of Religion 1580 Seventh War of Religion (Lovers' War) 1585 - 1598 Eighth War of Religion 1589 - 1598 Franco-Spanish War 1562 - 1568 Ottoman-Habsburg War in Hungary 1563 - 1570 Northern Seven Years' War also known as Dano-Swedish War 1566 (or 1568) - 1648 Eighty Years' War (war of Dutch independence) 1566(or 1568) - 1609 First Phase 1621 - 1648 Second Phase 1567 - 1573 Scottish Civil War 1568 - 1571 Morisco Revolt in Spain 1570 - 1595 Twenty-five Years' War between Sweden and Russia 1577 - 1582 Livonian War (Poland vs. Russia) 1577 - 1590 Turkish-Persian War 1580 - 1583 Portuguese Civil War 1585 - 1604 Anglo-Spanish War (Spanish Armada, 1588) 1590 - 1606 "Long War" between the Empire and the Turks 1594 - 1603 Tyrone Rebellion in Ireland 1596 - 1597 The Cudgel War in Finland 1600 - 1611 Polish-Swedish War
1602 - 1612 Turkish-Persian War 1609 - 1618 Russo-Polish War 1610 - 1617 Ingrian War between Sweden and Russia 1611 - 1613 War of Kalmar between Sweden and Denmark 1613 - 1617 Russo-Swedish War 1614 - 1621 Polish-Turkish War 1616 - 1618 Turkish-Persian War 1617 - 1629 Polish-Swedish War 1618 - 1648 Thirty Years' War across Europe, ends with the Peace of Westphalia. 1618 - 1625 Bohemian/Palatine Phase 1618 - 1629 Austro-Transylvanian War 1625 - 1629 Danish Phase 1625 - 1630 Anglo-Spanish War 1626 - 1630 Anglo-French War 1627 - 1631 War of the Mantuan Succession 1630 - 1635 Swedish Phase 1635 - 1648 French Phase 1635 - 1659 Franco-Spanish War (ending with the Treaty of the Pyrenees) 1645 Renewed Austro-Transylvanian War 1623 - 1638 Turkish-Persian War 1625 - 1629 Huguenot Uprising in France 1632 - 1634 Russo-Polish War 1634 Polish-Swedish War 1637 Pequot War 1639 - 1652 English Civil War
1639 First Bishops' War 1640 Second Bishops' War 1641 - 1650 Irish War 1642 - 1646 First Civil War 1648 Second Civil War 1650 - 1652 Scottish Uprising 1640 - 1656 Catalan Revolt 1640 - 1668 Portuguese War of Independence 1645 - 1670 Turkish-Venetian War 1648 - 1653 The Fronde 1648 - 1649 First Fronde 1650 - 1653 Second Fronde 1648 - 1660 The Deluge/Northern Wars, A series of wars involving Poland, Sweden, Brandenburg, Russia and Transylvania and Denmark 1648 - 1654 Cossack Revolt against Poland 1654 - 1656 Russo-Polish War 1655 - 1656 Swedish-Brandenburg War 1655 - 1660 Polish-Swedish War 1656 - 1658 Russo-Swedish War 1656 - 1660 Danish-Swedish War 1657 - 1660 Dutch-Swedish War 1658 - 1667 Russo-Polish War 1652 - 1654 First Anglo-Dutch War 1656 - 1659 Anglo-Spanish War 1657 - 1662 Turkish-Transylvanian War 1662 - 1664 Austro-Turkish War
1665 - 1667 Second Anglo-Dutch War preceded by the capture of New Amsterdam, renamed New York City 1667 - 1668 War of Devolution 1671 - 1676 Polish-Turkish War 1672 - 1678 Dutch War 1672 - 1674 Third Anglo-Dutch War 1672 - 1679 War between Brandenburg and Sweden 1675 - 1679 Scanian War between Sweden and Denmark 1675 - 1676 King Philip's War 1678 - 1681 Russo-Turkish War 1682 - 1699 War of the Holy League (Austria, Venice, and Poland vs. Ottomans 1685 Monmouth's Rebellion 1688 - 1697 War of the Grand Alliance 1689 - 1691 Irish Jacobite Uprising 1695 - 1700 Russo-Turkish War 1700 - 1721 Great Northern War between a coalition of Denmark/Norway, Russia and Saxony/Poland on one side and Sweden on the other side 1710 - 1711 Russo-Turkish War, 1710-11, a part of the Great Northern War 1715 - 1717 Polish revolt against King Augustus II 1701 - 1714 War of Spanish Succession 1702 - 1713 Queen Anne's War The North American part of the War of Spanish Succession 1703 - 1711 Hungarian Revolt 1714 - 1718 Turko-Venetian War 1715 - 1716 Jacobite Rebellion also known as "The Fifteen" 1716 - 1718 Austro-Turkish War 1718 - 1720 War of the Quadruple Alliance
1722 - 1723 Russo-Persian War 1722-1723 1722 - 1727 Turco-Persian War 1727 - 1729 largely bloodless Spanish war with England and France 1730 - 1736 Turco-Persian War 1733 - 1738 War of the Polish Succession 1736 - 1739 Russo-Turkish War 1737 - 1739 Austro-Turkish War 1740 - 1748 War of the Austrian Succession 1739 - 1748 War of Jenkins' Ear 1740 - 1742 1st Silesian War 1741 - 1743 Hats' Russian War between Sweden and Russia 1744 - 1748 King George's War The North American part of the War of Austrian Succession 1744 - 1745 2nd Silesian War 1744 - 1748 First Carnatic War 1745 - 1746 "The Forty-five" 1743 - 1747 Turco-Persian War 1749 - 1754 Second Carnatic War 1756 - 1763 Seven Years' War, known as the French and Indian War in the United States, and also 3rd Silesian War 1761 - 1763 Spanish-Portuguese War 1763 - 1766 Pontiac's Rebellion 1768 - 1774 Russo-Turkish War 1768 - 1776 War of the Confederation of Bar in Poland 1773 - 1774 Pugachev's Rebellion 1774 - 1783 First Anglo-Maratha War 1775 - 1783 American Revolutionary War
1778 - 1783 Anglo-French War 1779 - 1783 Anglo-Spanish War 1780 - 1784 Anglo-Dutch War 1777 - 1779 War of the Bavarian Succession 1785 - 1787 Dutch Civil War 1787 - 1791 Austro-Turkish War 1787 - 1792 Russo-Turkish War 1788 - 1790 Gustav III's Russian War also known as Russo-Swedish War 1791 - 1804 Haiti Revolutionary War 1792 War in defence of the constitution in Poland 1792 - 1802 French Revolutionary Wars 1792 - 1797 War of the First Coalition 1792 - 1795 Franco-Prussian War 1792 - 1797 Franco-Austrian War 1793 - 1795 Franco-Spanish War 1793 - 1795 Franco-Dutch War 1793 - 1802 Franco-British War 1798 - 1801 War of the Second Coalition 1798 - 1799 Franco-Russian War 1799 - 1801 Franco-Austrian War 1798 - 1801 Quasi War 1794 Kosciuszko Uprising in Poland 1795 - 1798 United Irishmen Revolt
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
Lord have mercy
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
Not bad kdolo, but you are wrong, the How and Why are extremely important in understanding what happened.
I mean if Blacks were the original settlers of Europe - and they were, then how could they be out-numbered and defeated by the Central Asian Albino immigrants?
1) Europe was never densely populated by Blacks.
2) The FIRST invasion of Europe by the Albinos circa 1,200 B.C. led to the first large-scale flight from Europe of Blacks - called exodus of the Sea people.
^Stupid Bitch, what is your point?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: Lord have mercy
The "English Civil Wars" were the main instrument of population change in late Britain.
Posted by Narmerthoth (Member # 20259) on :
and that's a partial list that doesn't include the many wars between the Turks, the Mongrels, the Russians and the Chinese.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: (Februrary 2015)
I mean if Blacks were the original settlers of Europe - and they were, then how could they be out-numbered and defeated by the Central Asian Albino immigrants?
1) Europe was never densely populated by Blacks.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
But no the population of Medieval Europe was not mostly black.
You are throwing terms around, and answering with High school knowledge.
First define "Medieval Europe" chronologically:
then read the history of that period.
Then find out who the people mentioned in the histories were ethnically, and where they came from.
Only then can you attempt to answer the question.
Just to let you know, what you did was really annoying - after all of these years.
Apologize to Doug
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmerthoth: and that's a partial list that doesn't include the many wars between the Turks, the Mongrels, the Russians and the Chinese.
If you look-up the Mongol attack on Tamerlane's Persia, and the subsequent sacking of Susa, you will find that is the primary killing time for Black Persians.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :