Egmond. As mentioned, I would like to thank you for taking the lead in this subject and providing so much material. I did, though, find all of my images below in image search engines. One point. I've heard it spoken of but independently came to the same conclusion myself.
That is that with witch doctors killing albinos to gain enhanced powers of magic using their body parts is a damn good reason for albinos to hate blacks, hate Africans.
It's not just the present writers speaking about people being killed because of white skin. Gerald Massey over a century ago spoke with sadness and lamentation for the witchdoctors who'd have white missionaries killed because they believed their white skin had magical powers once dried and made into powders and potions.
He was saddened by their ignorance. But, he noted it and if this practice goes back to the Stone Age and earlier (and many practices do) it takes no rocket scientist to understand the anathema that whites entering the Bronze Age onwards would have towards Africans.
It is a sad fact that nearly whatever continent whites met Africans even going back 3000 years, they had racist things to say and committed genocide wherever they went.
That racism might have roots in horrific memories of the way their albino ancestors may have been treated.
posted
Yes. Her thick lips alone give away her African ancestry.
Marc Washington Member # 10979
posted
. .
The Irish have freckles as it was once the land of the black Celts before Caesar and the Germanic migrations. But intermarriage and the passage of time have caused their melanin stock to nearly vanish. Just traces remain as seen in the freckles and sandy hair.
. .
Egmond Codfried Member # 15683
posted
[Book cover shows that the Greeks put white and black on a equal scale. They understood colour as an environmental adaptation, not some personal merit]
Snowden points out in 'Blacks in Antiquity' that 20th century American scientist projected 20th century racism on the Greeks. The Classical Greeks were not racist and colour was no barrier on the social ladder.
I have found and posted pieces here which say that racism as we know it today started in the second half of the 18th century.
In the US however it seems to have started around 1691.
I believe that racism was functional and directed against black superiority in Europe (1500-1789) by a black and coloured elite which claimed blue blood, symbolised by the image of a Moor. The Moor was always a Classical African. Hence racism was directed against the symbol of Blue blood: The Moor.
Marc Washington Member # 10979
posted
. .
I think you make goood points.
Actually, I like that janiform vase above used by Snowden on his book cover and included it on my own here at #3 below. That page notes the wave of Germanic peoples arriving with William (pic. 6) the so-called conqueror that decimated thousands of Celt villages noted in what William named the Doomsday Book. Chilling title.
You speak about Moor as the Classical African, the gentry that hostilities were directed, during the Middle Ages, against black hegemony in Europe. The page below speaks directly to those points you make:
Below is a link to the more complete picture of the Straubourg Moors defending their castle grounds against Germanic peoples - those of the Germanic Migration Period whose eventual victory changed the face of Europe and wiped-out memory of it's Moor (not only: a single people I refer to as the Capsemmochal going back to pre-biblical days):
posted
"White", "white", "white", "black", "black", "black", "racism", "racism", "racism". You guys are so defensive and obsessed that it almost makes me puke out of disgust. eek
Marc Washington Member # 10979
posted
. .
Egmond. You write: "Snowden points out in 'Blacks in Antiquity' that 20th century American scientist projected 20th century racism on the Greeks. The Classical Greeks were not racist and colour was no barrier on the social ladder."
That's what Snowden said. I'd point out, though, that the Classical Greeks were African as this link shows:
The earliest Italians-of-today were variously really warlike where for centuries they bombarded Mozia where (by phenotype) Africans lived and Mozia finally fell. On the other hand, there was some peaceful co-existence where today's Romans were moving into Rome and such and more-or-less got along. They were at first guests and in small numbers.
So, in a sense, we'd not expect racism as they were being welcomed as guests and hospitality was showered on them. When their numbers grew and they became more militaristic under the likes of Caesar, the former African hosts were made slaves.
The way I look at it, those early days when the Roman Republics were transitioning to the Roman Empire were a mixed bag and in the end, we lost all our wealth, our estates, our freedom, our civilization. All was lost. And, guess what happens when you read archeological accounts of this period as they are looked at today.
Any Italian archeologist who pries into the past will be ostracized from the society of archeologists and will find no employment.
This field is taboo for them to talk about. They want to believe that today's population was always in Italy and formed the great civilizations of the past. They want to believe a fairy tale.
So, when Snowden writes that there was no barrier on the social ladder, it was at first only a black social ladder that whites saw and climbed up on and in the end pushed blacks off of.
I guess I don't share the same opinion about the egalitarianism of days leading to the Roman Empire as Snowden does (though I scanned dozens of his pictures).
But, that's okay. No need for people to agree about everything.
posted 
