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.
I have read somewhere that the Franks were latin speaking and not classified by the classical writers as Germanic. But now I have to go home to eat the pasta which is waiting for me. I will adress this again in the hope that you might want to share.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Wed 09 Jul 2008 16:18 Post subject:
Egmond Codfried wrote:
William wrote:
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.
I have read somewhere that the Franks were latin speaking and not classified by the classical writers as Germanic. But now I have to go home to eat the pasta which is waiting for me. I will adress this again in the hope that you might want to share.
I've studied the Germanic and Celtic populations of Europe for years. The Franks were definitely originally Germanic, having formed from Germanic tribes already settled near the Rhine, together with new arrivals from central and eastern Germania. Since some of the tribes near the Rhine were admixed with earlier Celtic-speaking tribes, there was likely some of this "blood" in the Franks as well. Their original language was a dialect of Germanic. Once they settled in Gaul, however, they did indeed intermingle with the Gallo-Roman population there, and they adopted Latin speech.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 10 Jul 2008 04:16 Post subject:
I browsed through Rogers's books tonight, and even though I have read them a few times, every time I look through them I am in awe that one man researched, wrote, and published all of this himself. He must have been very bright, and he did an excellent job. Of course, as mentioned above, claims made about people based on eyeballing are not very persuasive. To be sure, some other claims about this or that group being "Negroid" seem a bit farfetched as well; but in nearly all of these cases, he cites the work of someone else, usually an anthropologist. He is not merely making this stuff up. So, these beliefs, whatever we may think of them now, were once held by some members of the scientific community or other prominent people. There are numerous quotations. As said before, his examples of Afro-European mixing, and the data given about the absorption of Africans into European and other populations, are interesting in the extreme, and quite accurate. Rogers was remarkable in that he did not believe in the existence of biological races. In his time, belief in same was standard. So, it must be remembered when he uses words such as "Negroid" he is referring to an appearance resembling some Africans, and, incidentally, does not always suggest this sort of appearance is due to direct mixture with sub-Saharans.
I am impressed that Egmond knows of the work of Rogers, and also the work of Snowden, whose two books I also have.
By the way, I can't believe I still have it, from way back in '02, but I did find the e-mail from Mike Nassau (it didn't copy very well from Hotmail, as some words are run together; I tried to separate as many as I could quickly spot); it seems he did list sources that he found on a website that he checked after he read my e-mail, but couldn't recall where he picked up the bit about the Garamantes in Germany (Rogers also quotes others who have made mentionings of Africans being stationed near Germanic territory in Roman times, such as the Danube river, so there likely is some truth to it) :
Garamante in Germany...
From: Mike and Gloria Nassau (gnassau@bellsouth.net)
You may not know this sender.Mark as safe|Mark as unsafe
Sent: Sun 1/27/02 12:39 PM
To: teutoni@hotmail.com
Dear Bill Kreiner,
Very interesting question. I don't know where I picked that up, likely partof theBlack American rewriting of history in the sixties ("Black Consciousness"movement). I put Garamantes and Roman in as search terms in Googlehttp://google.comand found a lot of things.
See:http://www.ancienthistory.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1024/news/35.html The foremost expert on the Garamantes in the Anglophone world appears to beDavid Mattingly,
see:http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/data/indiv/area/idmes/MATTINGLY,David.htm
There is an email address for him there. I guess we could ask him. The following references are from http://www.ucd.ie/~classics/africa.htm under "Military" :
D.Cherry, Frontier and Society in Roman North Africa (1998)
C.M.Daniels, The Garamantes of Southern Libya (1970)
C.Daniels, The Frontiers: Africa. in: J.Wacher (ed), The Roman Empire(1987)
E.W.B.Fentress, Numidia and the Roman Army. BAR Int. 53 (Oxford 1979)
R.G.Goodchild, Le limes Tripolitanus. Journal of Roman Studies 40(1950)30-8.
M.Janon, Remarques sur la frontière de Numidie.in: V.A.Maxfield, andM.J.Dobson, Roman Frontier Studies 1989 (1991) 482-484.
Y. Le Bohec, La Troisième Légion Auguste (1989)
Y. Le Bohec, Le auxilia (1992)
B.D.Shaw, Soldiers and society: the army in Numidia (1983)
M.Speidel, The Roman Army in North Africa. Journal of Roman Archaeology 5(1992)
P.Trousset, Le camp de Gemellae sur le mimes de Numidie d'après les fouillesdu colonel Baradez (1947-1950). In: J.Fitz (ed), Limes. Akten des XI.Internationalen Limeskongresses (1977) 559-577.
P.Trousset, Signification d'une frontière: nomades et sedentaires dans laszone du limes d'Afrique. In: W.S. Hanson, L.J.F.Keppie, Roman FrontierStudies 1979. BAR 71(iii) (1980)
C.M.Wells, The problems of Desert Frontiers. Chairman's Notes on theSession. in: V.A.Maxfield, and M.J.Dobson, Roman Frontier Studies 1989(1991) 478-481.
C.R.Whittaker, Frontiers of the Roman Empire. A Social and Economic Study(1997) esp. Chapters 1-3
The funny thing is that that has been out there since I published "Melungeons and Other Mestee Groups" (see:http://www.multiracial.com/readers/nassau.html ) in 1994. (search for Garamante). This is the version put on-line by the Multiracial Activist, which is the easiest to search, part of http://www.multiracial.com/issues/issues-melungeon.html
No one else has ever questioned it. I would now question the predominance of Garamantes among the Numidian and Nubian (Black)soldiers of the Roman army. The Black presence on the German frontier of the Roman Empire I believe is real, though perhaps overstated. My wife is of Black German ancestry, all four of her grandparents came to America from Germany. She has black hair, brown eyes and lobeless ears, as well as a dark complection. Nassau is her maiden name, I took it when we married. I think the lobeless ears are almost absolute proof of Black African ancestry. I have naturally flat feet and keloid scars, both of which prove non-European ancestry, both likely from Black African ancestors.
Mike
>> A Touch Of Gray <teutoni> wrote:> >
Hi Mr. Nassau:>>
I recently came across a few articles posted by you regarding "Schwarze Deutsch" people. My ancestors come from the Black Forest region of Germany,and were referred to as "Schwarz." My father has a swarthy complexion, black hair, and dark eyes. He was born in a German section of Hungary, since his ancestors migrated from the Black Forest to what is now Hungary during the 1700s. To my knowledge, they only interacted with other Germans while intheir new home.>> Your article is the first place I have ever seen mentioned anything about black troops having been stationed in this region and along the Danube River during Roman times. I was totally unaware of the Garamantes' presence there and there having been a black population in Vindobona, as well as their total absorption into the population. Can you site me any sources which describe this? Can you give me any more details on the subject? I am quite interested in learning more about this. I post on a message board called Racial Myths, and your article might be of interest.
I see that my joining this forum is already paying off with Bill Kreiner offering all these new sources. From my scattered sources I remember titbits, and try to recall where I made notes of them. Using your real name instead of some tacky nickname shows good faith.
Could it be Tacitus who did not classify the Franks with the Germanic tribes? And do we know what the Germanic tribes looked like? How did they come to speak Indo-Germanic languages without some admixing with Asians? It's all assumed that they were white looking and blond too but they could have been a multicultural and multi-etnic mix.
I'm reading Ripley, The Races of Europe, from 1900 unfortunately and not 1963. I understand from him that the narrow skulled European type could have been Teutonic as well as African. This points to the Garamante, I would speculate. Then there are regions like Pays de Vaud, Swiss, where the people are 'brown' as Benjamin Constant says. According to the son of Alexander Dumas the region between Cambrai and Tournai is inhabited by a brown race. The Black brother in law of Napoleon, Joachim Murat, King of Naples comes from Guyenne, South West France, where I see many black Europeans coming from. I would like to believe that the Alpine types have African/Asian blood, but all this Eurocentric science was founded to deny this possibility.
One note reads Goubert 1969: 160. (Codfried 2005) But this is, if I remember well, a note in another work, as I could not get hold of Goubert 1969. But this person says that De Boullainvilliers, a 17th century, of ancient nobility, French: is considered a 'racist' when he discusses his ancestors, the Franks, as a superior 'race' which conquered the Gauls. It seems to me Boullainvilliers is talking ethnicity and not only 'social construct,' when he discusses the old French Nobility. A Dutch writer Den Tex wrote about her mother baroness Bentinck and offers some little insights which suggest that the nobility thought of themselves being different in appearance than the ordinary people, they being more squatty build. We have this expression ''t Grauw' which is a unappealing grey/dishwater colour, used by the upper classes for the lower classes. Then there are these many centrally placed Moors on paintings, Adoration scenes, Crucifixion scenes, jewellery etc, and all showing pitch black Classic Africans.
All of this of course feeds into my finding the European nobility (or royalty) being described as black, swarthy, bad complexion, basané (dark brown) and often portrayed as such.
Egmond Codfried
Last edited by Egmond Codfried on Tue 15 Jul 2008 12:51; edited 2 times in total
Egmund seems to have this assumption that Euro looking is Blonde and Blue Eyed and that somehow all other people are mixed. Blondism and Blue eyes are the exception, not the norm in most European countries. And has been like that since neolithic times. In fact Germanic people were brown skinned as recently as 6,000 years ago. I also have red of the resence of Africans in the Danube, etc. I know admixture occured, especially during Roman times. That still is a far fetch from claims of all people with swarthy complexions or broad faces being mixed with African, being some sort of Black nobility hidden in plain view and certainly not some "fixed mulatto race."
In fact Germanic people were brown skinned as recently as 6,000 years ago."
How can we establish this 'fact' you mention here about the Germanic peoples? And while you are at it, explain to me what you have found about the origins of Arabs. Are they a race or a nation, or a culture?
A researcher, in my experience, needs some space and indulgence to show his theories/hypothesis to others, to play, in order to reach some conclusion. At least as he is not one of those persons who just sit and copy what others have discovered and thought out. This process takes a lot of brainpower and creativity, and the result can be brilliant, but also a mistake. But even a mistake, can help others to reach a better theory.
The explanations about what ‘Bleu Blood’ means on the web sound silly to me. It’s mentioned everywhere that nobody is sure where it originated. I say, when you mention blood, you talk DNA. Then you show me Moors, all over the place. So I went for the simplest explanation: The Moor symbolises the Black ancestor and even the black colour of the sitter, shown as White.
Rogers launched the theory of a 'fixed mulatto race' which sounded plausible to me, and did not conflict with what I saw during trips to Egypt, Morocco or Tunisia. I also know that in mixed families you can find all possible types and skin tones. He was talking about Iraq. And it helped me to define these coloured Europeans I found as ‘an endogamic, fixed mulatto race with members who seemed more African, Asian or White, but shared a Black identity.’
This helped me to avoid too much emphasis on the portraits, which can be confusing. Charlotte Sophie had 'a true mulatto face' which does not mean that she was a mulatto in the classic sense, but descended from coloured families. She was not, god forbids! Abraham Hannibal's illegitimate daughter as is suggested somewhere on the web, because she would make a poor choice for a Queen. Further more I saw some portraits, few on the web, where she is brown of colour, meeting many requirements to be considered African looking. I have seen her son, George IV, brown or white, but with a Moor.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 10 Jul 2008 15:39 Post subject:
I do not believe it was Tacitus who made such a comment about the Franks, as Tacitus wrote his Germania in 98 A.D., while the Franks did not exist as a tribe until sometime in the 200s A.D. I have Germania at home, and will check when I have a chance.
The Indo-Germanic tribes do appear to have come from the East, but they did not supplant any already existing European populations; rather, they amalgamated with them. There were various peoples living in Europe before the arrival of the Indo-Germanic peoples. There does not seem to be any question that the original settlers of Northern Europe were not originally Nordic-looking, as the pale skin of Northern Europeans is a rather recent adaptation (occurring perhaps 5kya or so). Our administrator here, Frank Sweet, did some groundbreaking work on this.
I do not have Ripley's book, unfortunately, but I do have Coon's Races of Europe. I will check when I have time to see if he can shed light on the Garamante. I don't offhand recall any mentioning of them there. Coon did state that people of all known "races" and nations were brought into Italy during the days of the Roman Empire, and he adds that they were absorbed into the population, becoming modern-day Italians. Rogers says essentially the same thing.
I do vaguely recall reading about the pigmentation of the folks of Pays de Vaud and also the region between Cambrai and Tournai. Rogers mentions that some observers have noticed "Negroid" traits in the population of southern France, notably Auvergne and Gascony. He mentions that the last expulsion of the Moors from Spain resulted in the settlement of many in this region of France at the invitation of the King. In Belgium, even prior to the arrival of the Spaniards with their African troops, there was supposedly a "black-skinned race." Rogers quotes a writer who mentioned this.
This is all very interesting, and I look forward to what your research uncovers. Have you already published a book about this?
Not to belittle the notion that portraits of Europeans with visible SSA admixture were purposefully altered, but wasn't it also quite common for those who commissioned likenesses to make whatever enhancements they felt were appropriate, including the removal of pock marks, balancing uneven features, making unattractive faces generally more attractive according to the standards of the time?
Or are we talking about the posthumous alteration of these portraits in subsequent generations? So there is a consistent "whitening" of Europeans who were known to have had visible SSA ancestry?
I'll address these points in depth later but some things to research.
Craniometric features within European populations through different ages. If the assumption is that eyeballing is enough to identify African ancestry, then there should be a clear division of features before African migrations, and those after admixture. None of my communications with Loring Brace, Chris Stringer, etc lead me to beleive broad features, dolychocephalic heads, etc were that uncommon in European cultures to begin with.
I already posted a link on DNA research of skin color through bones for Germanic people.
Also consider the whole Blondism, Blue eyed thing.
Considering the majority of europe is not blue eyed and blonde haired, to assume swarthiness as an example of admixture without documentation of said admixture or without DNA sampling is highly speculative.
As is any assumption that a Black servant in the age of European colonialist mentalities would be a symbol of African ancestry.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 10 Jul 2008 17:41 Post subject:
Jaime wrote:
Considering the majority of europe is not blue eyed and blonde haired, to assume swarthiness as an example of admixture without documentation of said admixture or without DNA sampling is highly speculative.
There are similar maps in Coon's and Guenther's books.
Yes, I agree that swarthiness alone can't be used for this purpose. Eyeballing (as I've said numerous times) isn't always very reliable when it comes to determining admixture, but it becomes less unreliable when more than skin tone alone is taken into account, obviously.
That study you posted on early Germans is interesting, but we can't conclude much from it, as the sample was very small, and the markers Schmidt used could not distinguish blonde from dark hair and provided no data on eye color. It should be noted that early Roman writers did mention the light hair of the Germanic peoples. If I recall correctly, Caesar noted this during his Gallic Wars, and I believe Tacitus and Strabo made mention of this.
Considering the majority of europe is not blue eyed and blonde haired, to assume swarthiness as an example of admixture without documentation of said admixture or without DNA sampling is highly speculative.
There are similar maps in Coon's and Guenther's books.
Yes, I agree that swarthiness alone can't be used for this purpose. Eyeballing (as I've said numerous times) isn't always very reliable when it comes to determining admixture, but it becomes less unreliable when more than skin tone alone is taken into account, obviously.
That study you posted on early Germans is interesting, but we can't conclude much from it, as the sample was very small, and the markers Schmidt used could not distinguish blonde from dark hair and provided no data on eye color. It should be noted that early Roman writers did mention the light hair of the Germanic peoples. If I recall correctly, Caesar noted this during his Gallic Wars, and I believe Tacitus and Strabo made mention of this.
I used her as an example of skin color. Obviously the fact that Southern Europeans mde note of the light hair of Northern Europeans speaks volumes to the fact that it was not as common in southern Europe. In fact, psychology studies have indicated in quite a few ways, that the distinctive tends to stick on one's mind over the common. So even inf half the population of Norther European had dark hair, the presence of blondism compared to the lack of it in Southern Europe would probably have registered much more, than the actual proportion.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 10 Jul 2008 18:19 Post subject:
Salsassin wrote:
William wrote:
Jaime wrote:
Considering the majority of europe is not blue eyed and blonde haired, to assume swarthiness as an example of admixture without documentation of said admixture or without DNA sampling is highly speculative.
There are similar maps in Coon's and Guenther's books.
Yes, I agree that swarthiness alone can't be used for this purpose. Eyeballing (as I've said numerous times) isn't always very reliable when it comes to determining admixture, but it becomes less unreliable when more than skin tone alone is taken into account, obviously.
That study you posted on early Germans is interesting, but we can't conclude much from it, as the sample was very small, and the markers Schmidt used could not distinguish blonde from dark hair and provided no data on eye color. It should be noted that early Roman writers did mention the light hair of the Germanic peoples. If I recall correctly, Caesar noted this during his Gallic Wars, and I believe Tacitus and Strabo made mention of this.
I used her as an example of skin color. Obviously the fact that Southern Europeans mde note of the light hair of Northern Europeans speaks volumes to the fact that it was not as common in southern Europe. In fact, psychology studies have indicated in quite a few ways, that the distinctive tends to stick on one's mind over the common. So even inf half the population of Norther European had dark hair, the presence of blondism compared to the lack of it in Southern Europe would probably have registered much more, than the actual proportion.
That makes sense, since I do seem to recall that the blondeness of the Germans was regarded as somewhat striking by some commentators.
Going back to the topic of eyeballing, during my travels in southern Europe, I certainly did note that some folks throughout the Mediterranean and also France did not look European to my eyes. Of course, I'm not the best at this sort of thing, which is very subjective, anyway. I'm not saying this is definitely due to admixture, but I can see why some folks want to find out about the origins of these folks.
David McRitchie wrote extensively in the late 1800s about various folks of the British Isles who didn't look European to anthropologists of the day. Some of it, accoring to him and those he quoted, was due to later admixture, and some of it seemed to be due to phenotypes of earlier, non-European-looking Brits not having been completely eradicated. He mentioned Mongolian and "Negroid" faces. He also consulted literature describing earlier people of Britain, including those who invaded it, and found descriptions of swarthy Danes, etc. His conclusion was that Brits can't be considered a "White" folk.
I find this fascinating to research, but am not 100% sure what to make of it all.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 10 Jul 2008 20:39 Post subject:
Salsassin wrote:
William wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
Yeah, if you ever email with Loring Brace he can tell you about a few of those types.
I had corresponded with Brace and also Gill years ago, but not about this. What did Brace say about some of these types?
Haven't corresponded with Gill in years.
Brace basically said that the types existed since early times and gave me some examples. Can't find the email though.
Gill is very much a believer in bio-race, it would appear.
Coon also says some of these types (such as the "Mongoloid"-looking or Ainu-like Frenchmen) have been around since early times, probably relics of distant prehistoric Europeans. He seems to feel that some of the non-European-appearing types are from ancient European stock (like the Frenchmen), whereas some result from admixture (like Asiatic-looking Hungarians and other Eastern Euros). He doesn't see any distinct "Negroid" traits in southern Europeans for the most part, though. He does mention the occasional person with frizzly hair as a possible example of minor sub-Saharan admixture, and he says the skull of the Mediterranean "race" has "Negroid" tendencies. But he doesn't agree with authors that claim southern Europeans are significantly admixed with Africans; and genetics supports this. There is admixture, but it would appear that genetically it is too little to really be noticeable.
Guenther, on the other hand, seems to regard all ambiguous types as having non-European admixture.
Not to belittle the notion that portraits of Europeans with visible SSA admixture were purposefully altered, but wasn't it also quite common for those who commissioned likenesses to make whatever enhancements they felt were appropriate, including the removal of pock marks, balancing uneven features, making unattractive faces generally more attractive according to the standards of the time?
Or are we talking about the posthumous alteration of these portraits in subsequent generations? So there is a consistent "whitening" of Europeans who were known to have had visible SSA ancestry?
[His Serene Highness King Mohammed VI of Morocco. King Mohammed VI and his late father, King Hassan II]
What does SSA mean?
But you are right on all counts and if we stick our minds together we could find out when pictures were altered, if they were altered, by who and WHY.
Apparently the despotic black and coloured elite also ordered portraits which show themselves as white. After travelling through Morocco last year I encountered huge, big portraits of King Mohamed VI along the roads. In the North he looked very fair skinned as many of the Berbers from the Rif do. In the South he looked remarkably caramel coloured going to cinnamon, as he does in real life. I guess this is done for propagandistic reasons as most of the Southern Moroccans are darker of complexion. Some in the Deep South looking like swarthy Pakistani's, of all people! So the black and coloured European elite, the Bleu Blooded nobility, wanted to legitimise their rule by appearing White, as the peoples they despotically exploited and dominated.
Some old portraits appear to me as having been over painted with beige to hide brown or black faces and hands. They are described as having a brown under painting. Under painting is a legitimate technique to shape faces and give them a more natural look. But a book on portraits in the Mauritshuis Museum, in The Hague, mentions that this supposed ‘under painting’ in some portraits is so extensive and detailed, that the specialist are not sure why this is. Well, I will tell you why: It probably showed the person as brown or black, which was fine for some period, but definitely not okay in another period. I believed that Van Miereveld would paint his clients with colour and ethnic treats. His authentic painting of Constantijn Huygens hangs in De Huygens Museum, Voorburg in The Netherlands. The kind ladies let me stand on a chair for half an hour to scrutinize this painted panel, so I’m able to declare that it is over painted with beige, as the so called ‘under painting’ being a detailed black portrait of the black skinned Constantijn Huygens. Many of his portraits are only known as copies ‘after Van Miereveld.’ I’m writing a short piece, but bear with me that I have conducted many other examinations, to arrive at these conclusions.
I link the whitening of black features with this period when black Europeans were forced to paint themselves white and wear blond wigs. This spilled over in portraiture. But even before this European artist were bounded by strict aesthetic rules and were obliged to create beauty. Somehow they came to follow Classic Greek rules with Greek profiles and such. So every artist went about to idealise his client and all came up with a different version. Poor Queen Henrietta Maria de Bourbon, daughter of Maria de Medici, mother of The Black Boy Charles II Stuart and aunt to black skinned Louis XIV: she has a thousand faces, both white and pitch black!
Hitler consciously collected European art. I believe that his specialist altered the remaining black looking faces. As he cleansed the European gene pool of unwanted blood, so he cleansed European art to make a blindingly white Europe. There are two books which talk about his art grabbing policy. I ad to this my own hypothesis, that the paintings were altered. And all the European museums are keeping mum. White supremacy is based on falsified portraits.
As I did with the image of The Moor. I have studied the evolution of The Moor in European art from the Renaissance to the French Revolution and yes, in later years they are disguised as ‘servants.’ Karin Hall’s book, ‘Things of Darkness’ shows portraits with a Moor, with the ghostlike Moor disappearing in the shadows of the drapes. So he is nary visible, he is not a real person, but they need him desperately to be in the picture. Go figure why! Just get hold of all the Moors you can get, then insight will come.
In the long road to liberation and the French Revolution the black elite came under fire, had to disguise their black complexion, wear blond wigs and stop flaunting the notion that Black blood was superior. So the symbol of Bleu Blood was disguised as a servant, as old habits die hard. Did you see The Drake Jewel? Does the Black figure strike you as a servant? I understand I’m way out front, and it took me some time to trust and believe my own findings. So seek corroboration by replicating my research. Most can be verified just by surfing the web.
Egmond Codfried
Last edited by Egmond Codfried on Tue 15 Jul 2008 13:22; edited 4 times in total
There is no single face in nature, because every eye that looks upon it, sees it from its own angle. So every man's spice-box seasons his own food. – Zora Neale Hurston
I did not know this saying, and I want to thank you for this, but I especially love Zora to pieces when she tells us in ‘Tracks in the Dust,’ about how Blacks themselves were involved in abducting fellow Africans to sell them to European slave traders. This can only be for her love of humanity, to give Blacks a handle on their own behaviour.
I was born and brought up in Surinam, South America, where the president is Black, the doctor is Black, the judge is Black, the president of the University of Surinam is Black and so on, so I can relate to her growing up in the segregated South were the Blacks had their own institutions, and did not favour ‘integration,’ with Whites replacing all the Blacks in position of authority and power. I have no hang ups about being Black.
You change a situation by changing at least one factor. That would be Blacks stop selling each other down the river, any longer. People have sinned against the Black's, but they themselves are still destroying each other. And believe me; I know what I'm talking about! There is still slavery in Africa, for one.
My notion of Black Identity spans 10.000 years of Black civilisation, and not the last 500 years when some Blacks were held in bondage. I refuse to be defined by this small episode. I have nothing against White's as I see most of them as victims of all this White supremacy bullshit. I have been living now for 28 years in Holland and I have never seen one superior White person. We are all just people, and most Dutch are just decent, nice folks who would like to live in peace with all the other nations in the World.
This fiery piece is not directed against anybody, and no one should feel attacked or insulted.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
