NONE were Black or AA. Now, weither or not they had African ancestry or DNA markers is another story....
I'm listening, dear. Did you do any research? I guess this Black or not-Black but AA or having African DNA thing should lead to the practice in Belgium where they have all the geographical and street names in Flemish as well in French. So anyone can pick what suites him best. In my research I found that the Black identity: intermarriying, socialising, and thinking of oneself as Blue Blooded (= Black Blooded), was more important than actual colour or traits.
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Sun 05 Oct 2008 13:43 Post subject:
Egmond Codfried wrote:
In my research I found that the Black identity: intermarriying, socialising, and thinking of oneself as Blue Blooded (= Black Blooded), was more important than actual colour or traits.
In my research I found that the Black identity: intermarriying, socialising, and thinking of oneself as Blue Blooded (= Black Blooded), was more important than actual colour or traits.
In my research I found that the Black identity: intermarriying, socialising, and thinking of oneself as Blue Blooded (= Black Blooded), was more important than actual colour or traits.
But this source is nothing more than your own postings insisting that portraits of European nobility "look Black" to you! Indeed, it is the very thread that got you suspended twice for being unable or unwilling to clarify the meaning of "Black" (in your thesis that when pre-19th-C writers said someone was a "blue-blood," they meant the person was "Black").
If by "Black blood" you mean: (A) distant invisible subsaharan ancestry, then most here would agree with it. Our species first appeared in Africa, after all.
If you mean: (B) obvious subsaharan features, then many would accept you thesis if demonstrated, but your pictures are not objectively persuasive.
If you mean: (C) avowed ethno-political self-identity, then most would reject it, since such a phenomenon appeared in the U.S. only in the 1820s and 30s and was virtually unknown in pre-19th-C Euro monarchies or aristocracy.
In my research I found that the Black identity: intermarriying, socialising, and thinking of oneself as Blue Blooded (= Black Blooded), was more important than actual colour or traits.
But this source is nothing more than your own postings insisting that portraits of European nobility "look Black" to you! Indeed, it is the very thread that got you suspended twice for being unable or unwilling to clarify the meaning of "Black" (in your thesis that when pre-19th-C writers said someone was a "blue-blood," they meant the person was "Black").
If by "Black blood" you mean: (A) distant invisible subsaharan ancestry, then most here would agree with it. Our species first appeared in Africa, after all.
If you mean: (B) obvious subsaharan features, then many would accept you thesis if demonstrated, but your pictures are not objectively persuasive.
If you mean: (C) avowed ethno-political self-identity, then most would reject it, since such a phenomenon appeared in the U.S. only in the 1820s and 30s and was virtually unknown in pre-19th-C Euro monarchies or aristocracy.
Thank you for more clearly explaining the problems you all have with my theories. I do not care to revive this thread, on this ODR site. But I thank you for your indulgence. My theory wanted to explain as well why these Nobles and Kings would be seen obsessively clutching little and big Moor's, WITH SSA LOOKS. Because I have found so many portraits, scenes and jewellery with a Moor, I saw it as a badge for people belonging to the same 'club.' I guessed he symbolised a recent ancestor (500-1500). But let's forget this stuff, if you feel I'm mistaken. Thank you for not eliminating my texts from the site, though.
I'm presently reading Paul Kaplan "The Rise of the Black Magus in Western Art" (1996) (1300-1500), wonderfully researched, where he collects as many works which show the Black Magi or King, starting in 1300-1400, while by 1500 it was adopted in the whole of Europe. Or images of The Queen of Sheba, and Saint Maurice, an African Saint. But as this bookreview shows, he does not explain what the symbolism of the Black Herald or Black Magi or Black King in the Adoration scenes really means. I believe I know.
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Mon 06 Oct 2008 16:25 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
But this source is nothing more than your own postings insisting that portraits of European nobility "look Black" to you! Indeed, it is the very thread that got you suspended twice for being unable or unwilling to clarify the meaning of "Black" (in your thesis that when pre-19th-C writers said someone was a "blue-blood," they meant the person was "Black").
If by "Black blood" you mean: (A) distant invisible subsaharan ancestry, then most here would agree with it. Our species first appeared in Africa, after all.
If you mean: (B) obvious subsaharan features, then many would accept you thesis if demonstrated, but your pictures are not objectively persuasive.
If you mean: (C) avowed ethno-political self-identity, then most would reject it, since such a phenomenon appeared in the U.S. only in the 1820s and 30s and was virtually unknown in pre-19th-C Euro monarchies or aristocracy.
fwseet
Thanks for pointing this out. I had read his thread an honestly his argument is very weak.
I for one am open to ideas and "new" looks at history, but the amount of history revisionism out there is quite appalling. These charlatans who promote these type of things apparently can't see that they have a big "agenda" printed on their forehead.
I myself am a history and cultural anthropology fan but would never compromise the truth in order to prove an objective, even I somehow had something to benefit it.
An example of "re-looking" at history is the myth that the native Tainos of the Dominican Republic were all dead within 50 years. The truth is the assimilated in the population and very recent DNA results (2008 per Jorge Estevez of the National Museum of the American Indian) shows a mtdna of 15 to 20%. It is also unbelievable the amount of Resistance this new evidence has received from Dominicans and many historians as a whole. My point is I think it is important to "re-look" at history as new evidence or technology permits, but what Codfried is doing is over the top.
An example of "re-looking" at history is the myth that the native Tainos of the Dominican Republic were all dead within 50 years. The truth is the assimilated in the population and very recent DNA results (2008 per Jorge Estevez of the National Museum of the American Indian) shows a mtdna of 15 to 20%. It is also unbelievable the amount of Resistance this new evidence has received from Dominicans and many historians as a whole. My point is I think it is important to "re-look" at history as new evidence or technology permits, but what Codfried is doing is over the top.
Why is that? I was under the impression that many Dominicans tended to exaggerate the Amerindian component in their society.
Why is that? I was under the impression that many Dominicans tended to exaggerate the Amerindian component in their society.
It is the difference between popular folklore (Taino heritage) and academic consensus (no Taino heritage). I cannot speak to DR, but in PR when Martinez-Cruzado published his results, showing that over half of Puerto Ricans have native American mtDNA, it was a bombshell that became the talk of the island for months.
On the one hand, you had those few Taino-heritage types who had always argued that they were of native American descent. On the other hand, you had the virutally uninimous consensus of the academic community, that there was negligible Native American ancestry in modern Puerto Ricans, and that the Taino-heritage types were deluded ignoramusses.
When the study came out, the Taino-heritage types gloated for months pointing out to everyone who would listen (and anyone who would not listen, for that matter) that they had been right all along. Most academics shrugged and accepted the DNA findings. But there are still quite a few in the UPR who, to this day, refuse to believe that the DNA results mean anything compared to their unshakeable belief in the Taino extermination.
[For that matter, I know more than two or three history professors at UFL who absolutely refuse to accept that there is any Black blood in any White people, no matter how far back you look.]
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Tue 07 Oct 2008 03:11 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
[For that matter, I know more than two or three history professors at UFL who absolutely refuse to accept that there is any Black blood in any White people, no matter how far back you look.]
Good grief, how in the world did they get their tenure???
I mean, c'mon, every tenth grader knows we are all one people and trace our roots to a common heritage.
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Tue 07 Oct 2008 03:17 Post subject:
G-Man wrote:
Why is that? I was under the impression that many Dominicans tended to exaggerate the Amerindian component in their society.
It may be the case that Dominicans that are raised in the US will emphasize their Taino heritage, but not the case for the large majority of Dominicans who live here in the DR. This is based mostly on ignorance and outdated history book maybe with a smattering of racial prejudice as well. For that matter, the acceptance of their African heritage is played down if not dismissed for the most part. What this has caused is a homogenation of identity which is in reality taken to be racial "identification" by the masses - which is kind of funny as Dominicans, black and white, consider themselves to be the "same" as far as race goes for the most part.
Chip: Thanks for pointing this out. I had read his thread an honestly his argument is very weak.
I for one am open to ideas and "new" looks at history, but the amount of history revisionism out there is quite appalling. These charlatans who promote these types of things apparently can't see that they have a big "agenda" printed on their forehead.
I myself am a history and cultural anthropology fan but would never compromise the truth in order to prove an objective; even I somehow had something to benefit it.
Thank you for your insults, what does not kill me will make me stronger. And what great scientist might you be? I like to point out that I have never started a thread on this site, all were created for me. The Blue Blood thread was visited and enriched by the most eminent, world renowned scientist you have on this site. William sure seemed positive, before his disappearance. He posted the sources which Mike Nassau used, and some validation of Snowden’s research. Most really seemed willing to THINK ALONG with me. Perhaps I can be forgiven for thinking out loud. But at least that offending thread can be used as an example as how NOT to look for change, on a site as ODR. But, I have my own threads at Egyptsearch.com now, so I'm just fine, thank you. Come to Egyptsearch.com, why don't you?
Good grief, how in the world did they get their tenure? I mean, c'mon, every tenth grader knows we are all one people and trace our roots to a common heritage.
The short answer is, "I do not know." Let me think about and I shall try to speculate. I shall post my speculation in another thread. The first thing that comes to mind, however, regards your mention of a tenth grader.
Take a tenth grader and a full professor to the video game arcade at the mall. Pit them against each other on a game that neither has ever seen before. Who will win? It is easily demonstrated that the ability to learn begins to decline after puberty and drops precipitously after 50.
Although the decline in learning ability varies among individuals, I suggest that some middle-aged adults simply cannot absorb new information, no matter how hard they try. And so they rationalize (as do we all when we find ourselves incapable of something).
An example of "re-looking" at history is the myth that the native Tainos of the Dominican Republic were all dead within 50 years. The truth is the assimilated in the population and very recent DNA results (2008 per Jorge Estevez of the National Museum of the American Indian) shows a mtdna of 15 to 20%. It is also unbelievable the amount of Resistance this new evidence has received from Dominicans and many historians as a whole. My point is I think it is important to "re-look" at history as new evidence or technology permits, but what Codfried is doing is over the top.
Why is that? I was under the impression that many Dominicans tended to exaggerate the Amerindian component in their society.
It's a misconception and/or 'lost in translation' type of thing.
The term indio, used by many Dominicans is misnterpreted to mean Native Amerindian. The term indio is also known in Cuba and PR.
It's a descriptor that is used to:
a) Describe a skin color in between the extremes of black and white
b) Phenotype of someone who is neither black or white
c) Someone with straigh features, straight black hair, and skin color that is neither black or white.
This descriptor is often used in combinations with others, indio claro, indio oscuro, etc. and/or in addition with others that describe other features.
I can 100% vouch that Dominicans do not self-identify as Native Amerindians. When I lived in DR, indio used in that way had negative connotations.
On the Dominican National ID card are three descriptors:
B for blanco
I for indio
N for negro
Quick story: Since Dominicans' use indio in this way, and so do many Cubans and Puerto Ricans, they get into some trouble here in the USA when coming in contact with other LatinAmericans who consider the term an insult.
Let's just say a fine Colombian woman walks by, tan skin, straight black hair, etc.:
Dominican guy: Diablo, que india mas hermosa! (what a fine indian chick)
Colombian girl: India tu madre! (your mom's an indian!)
Why is that? I was under the impression that many Dominicans tended to exaggerate the Amerindian component in their society.
It may be the case that Dominicans that are raised in the US will emphasize their Taino heritage, but not the case for the large majority of Dominicans who live here in the DR. This is based mostly on ignorance and outdated history book maybe with a smattering of racial prejudice as well. For that matter, the acceptance of their African heritage is played down if not dismissed for the most part. What this has caused is a homogenation of identity which is in reality taken to be racial "identification" by the masses - which is kind of funny as Dominicans, black and white, consider themselves to be the "same" as far as race goes for the most part.
No not at all. Dominicans in the US are relatively recent arrivals, they are mostly either born in DR or first generation US born.
They self-identify the same way as their kin in DR.
Dominicans in the USA resist to be categorized in the US style black/white categories.
Thank you for your insults, what does not kill me will make me stronger. And what great scientist might you be? ...
The bulk of this post is non sequitur and irrelevant to the topic at hand. With this in mind, I am hereby asking Codfried specifically, "What evidence would it take to convince Codfried that there was no connection between being born into the hereditary pre-19th-C European aristocracy and having sub-Saharan ancestry?" I urge Codfried to read rule 3.6.3 before answering.
These charlatans who promote these type of things apparently can't see that they have a big "agenda" printed on their forehead.
I myself am a history and cultural anthropology fan but would never compromise the truth in order to prove an objective, even I somehow had something to benefit it.
I'm not a charlatan, a charlatan is a bad person, and it’s hurtful to be included in 'These charlatans.'
What is this 'big agenda' I'm supposed to have, what does it say, based on which of my postings?
Where did I 'compromise the truth,' which I take to meaning that I consciously lied to prove a objective.
Where did I lie? How do I benefit from lying over here?
By answering these reasonable questions you might make me mend my evil ways and approach my research in a better way.
Thank you for your insults, what does not kill me will make me stronger. And what great scientist might you be? ...
The bulk of this post is non sequitur and irrelevant to the topic at hand. With this in mind, I am hereby asking Codfried specifically, "What evidence would it take to convince Codfried that there was no connection between being born into the hereditary pre-19th-C European aristocracy and having sub-Saharan ancestry?" I urge Codfried to read rule 3.6.3 before answering.
3.6.3 Make sure that your thesis is falsifiable. It is courteous at the start of a dispute to explain what sort of evidence would persuade you to change your mind. You must explain what sort of evidence would persuade you to change your mind if anyone asks. Refusal is grounds for suspension. For more on this point, read item 3 of the thread.
I have already stated that I have no wish to revive this topic on ODR. When you do research you keep an open mind for arguments which refute your own hypothesis. So I guess the DNA proof and some measurements on skeletons, that these poor nobles and kings were not in the least SSA looking, would shut me up for good. Perhaps also a little insight in why they had this obsession with SSA Moors? But for now, I'm done making this claim here anymore, ever!
"What evidence would it take to convince Codfried that there was no connection between being born into the hereditary pre-19th-C European aristocracy and having sub-Saharan ancestry?.
Yesterday I remembered my earlier suggestion, after I saw your letter to Buckingham Palace regarding Charlotte Sophie van Mecklenburg.
I asked if a certain international scholar could not ask and pay for some DNA and skin analysis done on the pieces in The Hague, a tongue and a black toe, of the brothers DE WITT who were lynched in 1672 (?).
Then I also saw a photograph (1872) of the black and prognastic mummy of Charles V Habsburg in Hugo Soly e.a. (1999). If some analysis could be done on that as well. Just a tought!
Yesterday I remembered my earlier suggestion, after I saw your letter to Buckingham Palace regarding Charlotte Sophie van Mecklenburg.
I asked if a certain international scholar could not ask and pay for some DNA and skin analysis done on the pieces in The Hague, a tongue and a black toe, of the brothers DE WITT who were lynched in 1672 (?).
Then I also saw a photograph (1872) of the black and prognastic mummy of Charles V Habsburg in Hugo Soly e.a. (1999). If some analysis could be done on that as well. Just a tought!
Now, that would be interesting. You would also have to do autosomal testing on some ordinary run-of-the mill commoners of the same time, to see if nobility were consistently more admixed than commoners. But it this were shown to be the case, it would be very interesting indeed.
Yesterday I remembered my earlier suggestion, after I saw your letter to Buckingham Palace regarding Charlotte Sophie van Mecklenburg.
I asked if a certain international scholar could not ask and pay for some DNA and skin analysis done on the pieces in The Hague, a tongue and a black toe, of the brothers DE WITT who were lynched in 1672 (?).
Then I also saw a photograph (1872) of the black and prognastic mummy of Charles V Habsburg in Hugo Soly e.a. (1999). If some analysis could be done on that as well. Just a tought!
Now, that would be interesting. You would also have to do autosomal testing on some ordinary run-of-the mill commoners of the same time, to see if nobility were consistently more admixed than commoners. But it this were shown to be the case, it would be very interesting indeed.
So you will not only be famous for The Colorline, Second Life and what not, but finding something of interest with the European Nobility too! The intermarriage is the very cornerstone of the Nobility. They took this Blue blood thing most seriously. Incidently I have been reading about books bound in human leather in many great libraries. There could be just the random DNA you are talking about.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
