When presenting something potentially controversial, it is good form to cite your sources before being asked. If you fail to cite sources before being asked you may be seen as careless. But whatever you do, do not fail to cite sources after being asked. Not once. (See 3.2 for details.)
Substantiate All Factual Claims. — Unsubstantiated statements of fact are not tolerated. Moderators will challenge any statement of fact that appears to be simply made up. No exceptions. This is the rule that most often trips up newbies. Do not make factual claims in this site that you cannot back up with credible (preferably peer-reviewed) sources. Never. Not once. Claims that do not allege facts, like "Vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate," are exempt.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Wed 09 Jul 2008 14:18 Post subject:
Jaime wrote:
And sorry William, but while some claims of JA Rogers are valid, others are way over the top. Tunnel vision research.
That is essentially what I wrote. Nowhere will you find that I've written that all of his work is to be regarded as correct or valid. The claims he made that were based on eyeballing are certainly to be treated with a raised eyebrow. To be fair, he sometimes quoted others (some of whom were anthropologists) who made similar claims that are just as suspect. This is what I like least about Rogers's work. Other claims, such as the Olmecs having been "Negroid," etc. also don't hold water. But here again, he often quotes others in these cases, and does not merely give his own opinion.
However, the fact remains that generally, the basic data given about sub-Saharan admixture having occurred in various places, notably in Europe and the Middle East, is quite accurate. I also like very much the actual examples he gives of Afro-European mixing.
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.
Beethoven and Hitler are two famous examples of this group (Peanuts). It is interesting to imagine Hitler's reaction to someone telling him he probably got his heavy, black hair from Black African ancestry. Since this was so long ago, with population movement and inter-marriage, all Europeans must have some ancestry from these Black African soldiers. In sixty generations, a person could leave 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 descendants with just two children per person each generation so long as no descendants married each other. Obviously, after a time, many descendants will marry each other, but still it works out statistically that most people from that long ago who left descendants at all are ancestors of everyone in Europe today. The tendency for people to stay in their own community explains why we can see the effects along the Danube and in the Black Forest in the people with black hair and dark eyes but do not see it far away like Iceland. The concentration is far greater at the point of origin, but the dispersion radiates out to everywhere given enough time.
And sorry William, but while some claims of JA Rogers are valid, others are way over the top. Tunnel vision research.
That is essentially what I wrote. Nowhere will you find that I've written that all of his work is to be regarded as correct or valid. The claims he made that were based on eyeballing are certainly to be treated with a raised eyebrow. To be fair, he sometimes quoted others (some of whom were anthropologists) who made similar claims that are just as suspect. This is what I like least about Rogers's work. Other claims, such as the Olmecs having been "Negroid," etc. also don't hold water. But here again, he often quotes others in these cases, and does not merely give his own opinion.
However, the fact remains that generally, the basic data given about sub-Saharan admixture having occurred in various places, notably in Europe and the Middle East, is quite accurate. I also like very much the actual examples he gives of Afro-European mixing.
Which is fine. Now I'll await your addressing these 'fixed mulato' and fixed albino' racial claims.
There is NO evidence whatsoever of Buddha having African features. That statue itself doesn't depict any features not common in Asian populations today. And that statue is typical Mathura and in no way any older than the Ganhdara portaits. All portraits of Buddha are over 300 years past Buddha's own life. Please familiarize yourself with Buddhist art history before making any more outlandish claims.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Wed 09 Jul 2008 14:31 Post subject:
Salsassin wrote:
William wrote:
Jaime wrote:
And sorry William, but while some claims of JA Rogers are valid, others are way over the top. Tunnel vision research.
That is essentially what I wrote. Nowhere will you find that I've written that all of his work is to be regarded as correct or valid. The claims he made that were based on eyeballing are certainly to be treated with a raised eyebrow. To be fair, he sometimes quoted others (some of whom were anthropologists) who made similar claims that are just as suspect. This is what I like least about Rogers's work. Other claims, such as the Olmecs having been "Negroid," etc. also don't hold water. But here again, he often quotes others in these cases, and does not merely give his own opinion.
However, the fact remains that generally, the basic data given about sub-Saharan admixture having occurred in various places, notably in Europe and the Middle East, is quite accurate. I also like very much the actual examples he gives of Afro-European mixing.
Which is fine. Now I'll await your addressing these 'fixed mulato' and fixed albino' racial claims.
I do not agree that Arabs are a "fixed mulatto race," nor do I agree that Whites are a "fixed albino race"! I honestly don't recall having read of any such thing in Rogers's books that I have (Sex and Race, and Nature Knows No Color Line). I can check when I go home, but even if he did write these things, I do not agree with them.
Last edited by William on Wed 09 Jul 2008 14:34; edited 1 time in total
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.
Beethoven and Hitler are two famous examples of this group (Peanuts). It is interesting to imagine Hitler's reaction to someone telling him he probably got his heavy, black hair from Black African ancestry. Since this was so long ago, with population movement and inter-marriage, all Europeans must have some ancestry from these Black African soldiers. In sixty generations, a person could leave 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 descendants with just two children per person each generation so long as no descendants married each other. Obviously, after a time, many descendants will marry each other, but still it works out statistically that most people from that long ago who left descendants at all are ancestors of everyone in Europe today. The tendency for people to stay in their own community explains why we can see the effects along the Danube and in the Black Forest in the people with black hair and dark eyes but do not see it far away like Iceland. The concentration is far greater at the point of origin, but the dispersion radiates out to everywhere given enough time.
[Buddha, showing African features and Black hair]
I wrote to Mike Nassau regarding this years ago, and he couldn't provide me with the sources that this information came from. His answer was that he likely got this data from the African-American re-writings of history that were published in the 1960s.
A piece from the English Renaissance. Made by order of Sir Drake to encase a miniature portrait of Queen Elizabeth I. There are many things said about this piece, by Karin Hall for instance, in Things of Darkness.
None can however satisfy me and I have launched my own hypothesis, based on my study of other representation of The Moor, through the ages.
This piece, and a similar one on a De Medici candelabra, which I saw in the Louvre Museum, Paris, I consider European symbols of Black Supremacy. The Medici family was Black skinned and some resembled Classical Africans.
They show the profile of a Black King, a Classical African, dominating the profile of a White woman. He is Africa and she is Europe.
Elizabeth I was the niece of Mary of Scots, her fathers sister Mary Tudor was Mary Stuart of Scots grandmother. Mary Stuart's son James I was married to Anne of Denmark. She ordered a play 'The Masque of Blackness' (1602), which explains how and why Black people, the Sun People, came to Europe. This play praises Black beauty, as Blacks were created first and Black beauty does not fade. This play was performed at court for the royal family and courtiers. The Masque of Blackness can be read in extenso on the web
The Black Boy, Charles II Stuart was a grandson of James I.
It is these little facts which I use to make a case for a Black and coloured European elite 1500-1789, a period which I describe as Reversed Apartheid. Of course we could endlessly repeat what others have established, but then there is no progress. Remember that when new findings are reported the establishment will be allways kinda hostile.
So how about someone having him provide his sources per the rules instead of him posting more unsubstantiated claims?
There are many well known works which report about Blacks in Europe. Many Middle Age miniatures show Blacks among the whites.
What I have added is a theory, based on these scientific works, which explain for instances why persons described as Black were shown as White's. Why there should be so much confusion about the looks of Charlotte Sophie or Charles II Stuart. What Bleu Blood means. Why the nobility always had representations of The Moors on their portraits, on jewellery, on family arms. And I have found that scientific racism was formulated against the notion of Black Supremacy. It specifically attacked the symbol of Black Supremacy, the symbol of The Moor.
[Buddha, showing African features and Black hair][/quote]
Quote:
I wrote to Mike Nassau regarding this years ago, and he couldn't provide me with the sources that this information came from. His answer was that he likely got this data from the African-American re-writings of history that were published in the 1960s.
Is it forbidden to quote J.A. Rogers or Mike Nassau on this site? Are there any scientist who were never criticized? Are Afrocentric scientific studies intrinsically inferior to what others have written?
Rogers has asked if Bhudda looked African, in light of what we now about groups in India who look Classical African and descent from migrating Africans. He also speaks about the possibility that Jesus, Mozes and Mohamed were Black. I have no way to prove or disprove these claims, I have no means for exhumation and DNA analysis. I only state what Rogers has written in Sex and Race.
Last edited by Egmond Codfried on Wed 09 Jul 2008 15:16; edited 1 time in total
I wrote to Mike Nassau regarding this years ago, and he couldn't provide me with the sources that this information came from. His answer was that he likely got this data from the African-American re-writings of history that were published in the 1960s.
Is it forbidden to quote J.A. Rogers or Mike Nassau on this site? Are there any scientist who were never criticized? Are Afrocentric scientific studies intrinsically inferior to what others have written?[/quote]
They are when they fudge the facts and just use each other as sources.
So how about someone having him provide his sources per the rules instead of him posting more unsubstantiated claims?
He just posted a source: Mike Nassau. It may not meet strict credibility standards, but it complies with the site rules. The following passage is from Commentary on the Rules.
Quote:
Ideally, the source should contain primary raw data but even an appeal to authority is acceptable. When someone makes a questionable claim and backs it up with a weak source (for example a website notorious for falsification like Wikipedia, Dienekes, or Racial Reality, or one that cannot be checked like the so-called CIA "fact book"), the moderator might be tempted to rule that the substantiation is inadequate. A better response is to allow it, but then to show (or let the other members show) why the source is untrustworthy. Members recognize when a substantiation source is useless. Accepting an unreliable source as substantiation (albeit lacking in credibility) has the advantage of revealing possible hidden agenda on the part of the member who cited it. The alternative, a moderator’s ruling that an unreliable source does not satisfy the requirement of the substantiation policy, might discourage new members from presenting claims on which they sought others’ views because they themselves found them doubtful.
Salsassin wrote:
Egmond Codfried wrote:
Is it forbidden to quote J.A. Rogers or Mike Nassau on this site? Are there any scientist who were never criticized? Are Afrocentric scientific studies intrinsically inferior to what others have written?
They are when they fudge the facts and just use each other as sources.
The answer to Codfried's question is, "No, it is not forbidden." Citing Mike Nassau as a source complies with site rules, although lacking in credibility. Salsassin is not a moderator and has no authority to interpret site rules. William is a moderator.
Last edited by fwsweet on Wed 09 Jul 2008 15:20; edited 1 time in total
Perhaps we could all have a big discussion about what 'a scientific fact' is, just to touch base. We don't want people to think we are conducting a Inquisition trial.
I'm sorry to read that even Ivan van Sertima is looked down upon, on this site. In that case there is little hope for poor me. Perhaps I should go back to cleaning toilets and forget my dreams of deconstructing and explaining racism, which I do not consider a normal human expression. It is taught to people by some authority. I hope to deconstruct racism to make a better world.
Are we, by the way, satisfied that Barack Obama is Black. We have seen the pictures of his parents etc, but did we do a DNA check? No. It's all eyeballing. Just like going to the market without lab equipment, but still making damme sure that the fish on sale is fresh.
Last edited by Egmond Codfried on Wed 09 Jul 2008 15:28; edited 1 time in total
Perhaps we could all have a big discussion about what 'a scientific fact' is, just to touch base. We don't want people to think we are conducting a Inquisition trial.
Works for me. A good starting point would be Introduction to Science-As-Process. But if you want to do that, we should probably split the discussion off to another thread.
Posted: Wed 09 Jul 2008 15:30 Post subject: Re: Queen Charlotte
Egmond Codfried wrote:
This is what I have found after three years of research. When you concentrate on personal descriptions and then look for portraits, you will find many famous, elite, historical Europeans were described as 'black, brown, swarthy, not the white hands, basané (dark brown), chimney sweep. I'm talking barons and counts and such, as well as kings and queens. But they were painted as white, with blond hair. King Charles II Stuart of Britain was named The Black Boy, and described on a wanted poster issued by parliament als 'A tall Black man.' There are engravings which indeed show a intensely black man. The site of the National Potrait Gallery shows, beside the white fakes, also these black portraits of him and his family. "NPG king Charles.'
Please provide evidence of someone described as Black or Swarthy that was painted with blonde hair. And eveidence that Black just didin't mean swarthy complexion in comparison to peers as is used in many places of Latin America today.
Quote:
So we don't have to fight endlessly about what Moors looked like, for the nobility shows us what they considered their ancestors. I guess they were descendents from the Franks, which originated with the Nubians, Iranians and Anatoliens, brought to Europe to fight the Germanic nations by Caesar and remained, finding their own communities and keeping the color alive.
Please show evidence oand sources that Moors descend from Franks. Please show evicennce and sources of Franks decending from Nubians, Iranains and Anatolians. brought to Europe to fight Germanic populations.
Quote:
We are talking about a intermarrying, fixed mulatto race with some members who looked more African, or Asian or white, but shared a black identity. They saw themselves as superior and I compare the period from 1500-1789 as Reversed Apartheid which began with the Renaissance and ended with the French Revolution. We don't know about this because we are shown whitened, fake portraits of the Black and coloured European elite.
Please provide evidence other than your subjective eyeballing of this so called Whitewashing of Black Europeans, and that they shared a Black identity.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Wed 09 Jul 2008 15:33 Post subject:
Salsassin wrote:
Please show evidence oand sources that Moors descend from Franks. Please show evicennce and sources of Franks decending from Nubians, Iranains and Anatolians. brought to Europe to fight Germanic populations.
Somehow, I don't think that's quite what he meant, since the Franks were a well-known Germanic people. Let's allow him to clarify this.
So how about someone having him provide his sources per the rules instead of him posting more unsubstantiated claims?
He just posted a source: Mike Nassau. It may not meet strict credibility standards, but it complies with the site rules.
So Mike Nassau is the source for all his claims in this thread? If so, I should hope he can cite the specific writings of Nassau that address all his claims on this thread.
In a biography she is described as 'swarthy.' Somewhere on the internet a 'American traveller' who spoke to her wrote: 'Good features, bad complexion, amplitude of form [..].' So she had no subnasal prognatism, but was very Black of colour and obese, too. As were her lovers, namely Benjamin Constant, a noble of Hugeunot descend, who is described as 'very bad complexion,' and we are not talking acne!
Her father was M. de Necker, a rich banker and a kind of minister of Finance to Louis XVI. The French Royal couple cosigned her marriage contract to baron de Staël-Holstein.
A Duchess D'Abrantes, a historian, is quoted in another biography and says; 'In the ninetheenth century there were only three great powers: Russia, Britain and Madame de Staël.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
