I'm sorry, I posted this piece before I could read the last warning. Maybe I should rephrase, as not should, but why I conisder her as black. return to this tomorrow as I have to go home and prepare chinese noodles.
Maybe I should rephrase, as not should, but why I conisder her as black
Sounds good to me. I think that the main confusion some of us have about your thesis is whether you are talking about:
* distant invisible subsaharan ancestry (which most here would agree with)
* obvious subsaharan features (which many of us would accept if demonstrated, but your pictures are not all that objectively persuasive)
* avowed ethno-political self-identity (which most would probably be skeptical of, since the phenomenon appeared in the U.S. only in the 1820s and 30s and is virtually unknown in monarchies or among Euro aristocracy)
Maybe I should rephrase, as not should, but why I conisder her as black
Sounds good to me. I think that the main confusion some of us have about your thesis is whether you are talking about:
* distant invisible subsaharan ancestry (which most here would agree with)
* obvious subsaharan features (which many of us would accept if demonstrated, but your pictures are not all that objectively persuasive)
* avowed ethno-political self-identity (which most would probably be skeptical of, since the phenomenon appeared in the U.S. only in the 1820s and 30s and is virtually unknown in monarchies or among Euro aristocracy)
Anyway, regarding your noodles, bon apetit.
[A young Black clutching an arch, Hyacinthe Rigaud (1659-1734)]
I came to this site today, fully expecting my Surinam Black ass to be terminated. But it was not, so we move on and hope for the best. I must say that you people were running me ragged about 'sources' yet I do not feel than any of my sources were tapped in or considered for that matter. I also marvel at the air of ‘knowing it all.’ Like when I say that the little Moor, a SSA as you will have it, represents Bleu Blood, some of you rejected this out of hand as if they were experts on European art and Old Masters too! Just step into any library and marvel at the rows and rows of art books. I have been reading them for the last three years. Somebody wrote a folio sized book on Rembrandt which must weight about 50 kilo. And I read it, goddammit! Did any of you?
These wonderful paintings of European nobles and kings are not photographs but works of art loaded with symbolism. There is always a lot more going on then meets the eye. And you will miss it if you are not trained to look for it. More so, as people are forever screwing around with these paintings, having them altered for various reasons. Cutting them up, removing or adding, changing the clothes, the face. And we are also not getting the full picture, so to speak, as many pieces are only known from catalogues and descriptions. They were either burned to a crisp or are hidden away in some cellar, away from prying eyes.
The reason that none of you have heard about these thing before does not proof that what I'm saying is untrue. Non of your sceptic responses are new to me too, I have heard them from these Dutch 'experts' as well. They do not impress me and I will go on publishing.
So I have heard about combining different kinds of sciences to create a ‘novum.’ I started with literary science, which let to portraiture and physical anthropology. Just as we today make photographs and drawings of races around the world, so we could consider paintings as engravings of the European nobility as examples of ethnicity of this particular group. It’s also new to return the favour of being poked and prodded by western scientist, by poking and prodding them, for a change.
Unfortunately the threatening language toward me has scared everyone away from this discussion. I’m surprised that this science, as a tool to explain phenomena, is itself not part of scrutiny, to discuss its limitations or failings or misuses in past and present. We have learned from Einstein that the Laws of Physics only work at low speed, not when it comes to the atomic level. So Anthropology has its limits, starting with human fallibility, ethnocentrism, and nationalism.
We have a magazine over here named Virtus, published by an academic work group, a Commission Adelsgeschiedenis, History of the Nobility. In one article written by Conrad Gietman, who is part of the board which publishes the Red Book. This book shows who is noble and who is not, as many claim to be, but are rejected. Some older, successful claims are proven to be fraudulent and so on. He wrote an article about a painting of a noble man, which shows this noble and also a richly attired child, a young Blackamoor or Black Page, who holds the head of a wild boar. Gietman explains that references to the hunt on a portrait mean that the sitter is noble, as only nobles were allowed to hunt. This was the most jealously guarded privilege. Then I do not expect these people to take six year old children to a dangerous hunts. Nor do I see people hiring six year old Black servants to carry cut crystal carafes and glasses around on silver trays. Nor can I imagine why one exalted Queen would be portrayed with her servant, sitting on her lap. Everybody had servants. And why favour some servants and not the others. Portraits of real servants are very rare. The Blackamoor on painting is not a servant and not a living person, but a symbol of the White looking sitters 'Bleu Blood.'
When you look at all the Moors you can find from around 1500-1900, I might have seen 150 or more, you will notice how this image has evolved. From a Renaissance Black King’s profile (Africa) dominating a White woman’s profile (Europe) on The Drake Jewel, a Fountain of the Moor by Bernini, to a little boy, the centrally placed Black King at the birth of Jesus, to an almost furtively pictured Moor or presented as a 'Servant.' To understand why I write 'furtively' you need to study the French Revolution and understand the hatred against the nobility and it's role.
P.S First you make a sauce (oil, ginger, black pepper, garlic and the ‘five spices mix’ in salty soy sauce, sugar and salt added) thickened with cornstarch, to cut greasiness. The blanched egg noodles together with as much bean sprouts are mixed into this sauce. I fried some leeks and sweet Chinese sausage, and omelette in pieces, and added this to the whole. Don’t forget the sesame oil.
THE INCIDENCE OF ILLEGITIMACY IN EUROPEAN ROYAL FAMILIES
March 14 2008 at 1:41 PM
Egmond Codfried Egmond
Medical science informs us that in twenty percent of all births the man who is named as the biological father is not the biological father of the child. However, when it comes to royal births this figure seems to go through the roof, as many royals are branded as illegitimate. Of the many cases in Wikipedia and Public Media, which immediately come to mind, I offer these.
[Alexandre Coste and his father Prince Albert de Monaco]
[Nicole Coste and prince Albert of Monaco, parents of Alexandre]
Prince Albert of Monaco fathered and then acknowledged an illegitimate son Eric Alexandre of Monaco (2003), with a lovely Air France stewardess Nicole Valéri Coste (1971), from Togo. As an illegitimate child, Alexandre is not in the line of succession of his father’s titles, but he will inherit from his father’s estate. Red-haired prince Harry of Britain, the Hero of Iraq, is rumoured to be the son of one red-haired James Hewitt, the horse riding instructor who outted himself as a lover of the late Diana of Wales. Prince Laurent of Belgium is frequently discussed in the Dutch media because of his criminal tendencies and they never fail to mention that his mother, Queen Paola, had an affair. She allegedly wanted to punish her philandering husband, future King Albert, by kindly offering him a bastard son. He confessed to have fathered an illegitimate daughter. In a posthumously published interview, Prince Consort Bernard of the Netherlands, married to long suffering Queen Juliana, confirmed his two illegitimate, now elderly daughters. Two alleged English sons were spurned.
[The Beautiful Queen: Wilhelmina of the Netherlands]
Former Queen Wilhelmina of The Netherlands, known as The Beautiful Queen, is rumoured to be the daughter of Queen Emma and a courtier, Jonkheer de Ranitz, and not her presumed father King William III. Poor Emma was presumably artificially impregnated and the dynasty was saved by a bronze turkey baster! The story goes that the King was rendered incapable because of a lifestyle of dissipation, advanced age and a nasty sex disease. This old story was recently updated when princess Margarita de Bourbon de Parme, a seriously troubled member of the royal family, threatened to have DNA analyses done on secretly obtained biological samples of her aunt, present day Queen Beatrix. These would then be compared to material of King William III, in order to proof that Queen Beatrix is not from the bloodline of King William I, and does not have the Constitutionally given right to occupy the throne.
[Louis XIII]
[Queen Victoria, Empress of India]
Cardinal de Richelieu is supposed to be the biological father of Louis XIII. Queen Victoria of Britain, a granddaughter of mulatto faced Queen Charlotte Sophie *, is rumoured to be the daughter of the Belgian princess Victoire and her secretary. He tried to impose parental like rights over young, poor Victoria. She was sickened to find out about this illicit relation with her equally overbearing mother, so both were speedily banished from her life.
To me, the only credible instance of illegitimacy in a royal family is the famous case of King Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden (1778-1837). He is supposed to be the son of Queen Sophie Magdalena and a courtier Baron Munck von Fulkila. The facts are that after eleven years parliament ordered King Gustav III to finally consummate his marriage. He seemed to be incapable and asked his ‘intimate’ friend Von Fulkila to impregnate the poor Sophie, while he personally guarded the door to the Royal Bedchamber. According to Joel Alexander Rogers in ‘Sex and Race’ (1941) speaking on the nature of the friendship between the King and Von Fulkila, the emphasis should be placed on ‘intimate.’ Afterwards Von Fulkila blackmailed the family to obtain a handsome pension. This hilarious case is rendered credible because the greatest campaigner of the King’s illegitimacy was his own, horrified grandmother. Thoroughly disgusted, parliament barred this dynasty from the throne, which was then offered to Jean- Baptiste Bernadotte (1763-1844). A French Marshall of Napoleon Bonaparte’s army and some prints show him to be black of skin with a huge mass of curly hair.
[Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, King of Sweden]
Rogers confirms Gustav IV Afrocentric looks, with frizzy Afro hairstyles, subnasal prognasty and thick lips. But he considers this fact as proof, because Gustav IV does not look like his ‘North European’ parents. I beg to differ! If one contemplates the use of a substitute sperm donor, one will look for somebody of the same race as the supposed father. So to me the royal family of Swede was not white but belonged to a fixed mulatto race: no matter what faked and whitened portraits they show us. After the French Revolution the royal and noble families turned their attention to the ‘breeding’ of white skinned offspring. Bernadotte’s white descendents still occupy the Swedish throne.
* There is no indication that mulatto faced Charlotte Sophie of Mecklenburg Strelitz was illegitimate. It would be very strange to have chosen her for a Queen, if this state of affairs would be so obvious in her looks. The British press and the republicans would have had a field day.
Source: "Belle van Zuylen's vergeten oma: Maria Jacoba van Goor (1687-1737). Een beknopte studie over zwarten en kleurlingen in Europa en Nederland door de eeuwen heen", Egmond Codfried. Bestellen? Maak € 20,50 over op bankrekening 257384367 t.n.v. E. Codfried o.v.v. naam en adres.
I came to this site today, fully expecting my Surinam Black ass to be terminated.
You are unlikely to be "terminated," but you are very likely to be suspended for one week. See Rule 5.0:
The Rules wrote:
Regardless of which rule you violate, the process of suspension is the same. A moderator will warn you and try to help you comply. If you persist in violation or defy a moderator your membership level will be dropped to level 2 (no posting privileges except private messages and site management) for a time period that increments by powers of two. In other words, your first suspension will be for for one week, the second for two weeks, the next for one month, then two months, then four months, etc.
The main problem I see is that you have been asked several direct, questions by moderators, but your answers have been mainly introspective non-sequiturs about your own experiences. You are starting to give the site's management team the impression that you cannot (or will not) settle down to factual specifics.
Egmond Codfried wrote:
Medical science informs us that in twenty percent of all births the man who is named as the biological father is not the biological father of the child.
Source, please. The only study I know that addressed this was by Brian Sykes, who compared Y haplotypes with surnames in the UK. His number was much smaller (around one percent).
Incidentally, I moved this thread from the "History of the U.S. One-Drop Rule" because it is about Europe rather than the U.S. and it is apparently about a tendency for a society to see Whiteness in ambiguity, rather than to see Blackness (which is what the ODR is about).
[quote="fwsweet"]
The main problem I see is that you have been asked several direct, questions by moderators, but your answers have been mainly introspective non-sequiturs about your own experiences. You are starting to give the site's management team the impression that you cannot (or will not) settle down to factual specifics.
Incidentally, I moved this thread from the "History of the U.S. One-Drop Rule" because it is about Europe rather than the U.S. and it is apparently about a tendency for a society to see Whiteness in ambiguity, rather than to see Blackness (which is what the ODR is about).
I hope in getting there, in answering all your request for sources. But I think that where you have no physical proof, there should be room for arguments, to arrive at the truth. In one of the first paragraphs of Ripley's, 'The Races of Europe' (1900) one reads that the narrow skulled human type found in Europe could be 'either Teutonic or African.' So there is some great ambiguity here which could work either way. Like both Whiteness and Blackness are ambigues. Personally I have not seen my believe challenged that Whites came from Blacks, as humanity originated in East Africa where the people are still brown skinned, a adapatation to their environment. We see Albinism coming from Black parents, but no Black children from White parents. J.A. Rogers in 'Sex and Race' deals with a few cases, hilariously so, which would prove some 'trow back' theory that White parents could conceive a Black child. Those mentioned cases under scrutiny just showed good old fashioned fornication with a Black man.
Incidentally, I moved this thread from the "History of the U.S. One-Drop Rule" because it is about Europe rather than the U.S. and it is apparently about a tendency for a society to see Whiteness in ambiguity, rather than to see Blackness (which is what the ODR is about).
The main purpose for my short piece on 'Illigitemacy in Royal families' is to show that I have done some research on this matter, and why I do not think that Charlotte Sophie of Mecklenburg Strelitz was born out of wedlock, a natural daughter of Abraham Hannibal. Such a thing would make her a poor choice for a Queen of Britain and it would be widely discussed, as all other cases, truth of false, were.
Medical science informs us that in twenty percent of all births the man who is named as the biological father is not the biological father of the child.
Source, please. The only study I know that addressed this was by Brian Sykes, who compared Y haplotypes with surnames in the UK. His number was much smaller (around one percent).
You now have 24 hours either to provide evidence backing up this claim or to retract it.
[Jan Wicherides, son of Surinam Governer Wichers and a slave woman*]
I have been studying the thread ‘Commentary On The Rules,’ about ODR, and have this to offer from my perspective as a person born and bred in Surinam. The designation Octoroon/ casties complies with a Surinam classification: mulat, mesties, casties, poesties, listies and liplap. The product of a liplap and a White would be considered White.
To this I have added my argument that the product of two mulattos’ would also be mulatto or at least mulatto looking: a mulattotype. I have pointed this out because in Surinam historiography people would take a description of someone being ‘mulatto’ as meaning that his/her father was White, looking at his possessions and position as part of the colonial elite, and the mother Black, and from enslaved ancestors. There was a law which forbade marriages between White and Black in Surinam, issued by Governor Cornelis van Aerssen, at the end of the 17th century. This would lead the researcher to wonder in a particular case, how this was possible, as there also exists a marriage certificate of the two parents. The father of the wife originating in North Italy and her mother from a French Caribbean Island
This could mean they were married on a boat at sea, out of Surinam jurisdiction. Equiano, also named Gustavus Vassa, mentions such a case when a poor White man wanted to marry a rich Black woman on a Caribbean Island, and had to marry each other out at sea. In the Netherlands, the Motherland, these marriages were not forbidden.
Or we have to conclude that the extremely rich, Surinam woman, who was described as ‘an old mulatto woman, marrying her overseer,’ by 18th century Governor Mauricius in his journal, was mulatto looking. Mauricius was writing about her looks, not her genetics. So both her parents might have been of mixed ‘race,’ despite him coming from Italy. This is also the explanation I offer for Charlotte Sophie having ‘a true Mulatto face.’
In Surinam other rules were in place to enforce a colour cut off point, to keep unwanted elements out. Slaves who were given their freedom were forbidden to have social ties with slaves, and risked becoming enslaved again. Also persons, though light skinned as mesties and lighter, who came from parents, who were not married, could not enter the militia. Jean Jaques Vrij has done extensive research on this. He notes some people who were rejected, retaliating that other accepted members were born out of wedlock, or even blacker in appearance, then allowed. They however had powerful fathers. So I think that all this colour line cut off point was more of a social ploy, to keep out the unwanted masses.
Nowhere in this discussion site have I sensed that the One Drop Rule was more of a political ploy, a catch all, and a stick behind the door, to attack people who ‘acted out.’ In the Netherlands, until the late sixties persons of a homosexual persuasion were officially diagnosed as mentally ill and were not only incarcerated, but castrated as well. But I sense that this diagnosed would only be levelled at citizens who ‘annoyed,’ who gave offence, upsetting the order of things, threatening status quo, challenging powerful persons or groups on unrelated matters. As the USA was a melting pot from the very beginning, you could hardly miss if you accused any person of having one distant African ancestor. So as I’m still reading on this subject I wonder why a person’s bloodline would suddenly come under severe, judicial scrutiny. Knowing fully well that no matter the outcome: such a case would be ruinous. Today we may compare it to Barrack Obama being labelled a Muslim, because his middle name is Hussein. From this we have to understand that he is totally unsuitable to be an American president.
* Jan Wicherides could be considered a mulat, but if his mother was already a mix he was a mesties or casties-type. I reckon his colour to have been altered, from my research on these matters
Sources:
Oso, a Dutch scientific periodical on Surinamistiek, several issues.
Cynthia Macleod, a Surinam writer.
Jean Jaques Vrij, a Historian, researched Surinam militias during the colonial era
I have tried to put in my own two cents worth at this 'Commentary on the Rules' thread, started by OTHER but was not able. Do I need extra permission? This responce was intended for that thread as well.
==============================================
I have been studying the thread ‘Commentary On The Rules,’ about ODR, and have this to offer from my perspective as a person born and bred in Surinam. The designation Octoroon/ casties complies with a Surinam classification: mulat, mesties, casties, poesties, listies and liplap. The product of a liplap and a White would be considered White.
To this I have added my argument that the product of two mulattos’ would also be mulatto or at least mulatto looking: a mulattotype. I have pointed this out because in Surinam historiography people would take a description of someone being ‘mulatto’ as meaning that his/her father was White, looking at his possessions and position as part of the colonial elite, and the mother Black, and from enslaved ancestors. There was a law which forbade marriages between White and Black in Surinam, issued by Governor Cornelis van Aerssen, at the end of the 17th century. This would lead the researcher to wonder in a particular case, how this was possible, as there also exists a marriage certificate of the two parents. The father of the wife originating in North Italy and her mother from a French Caribbean Island
This could mean they were married on a boat at sea, out of Surinam jurisdiction. Equiano, also named Gustavus Vassa, mentions such a case when a poor White man wanted to marry a rich Black woman on a Caribbean Island, and had to marry each other out at sea. In the Netherlands, the Motherland, these marriages were not forbidden.
Or we have to conclude that the extremely rich, Surinam woman, who was described as ‘an old mulatto woman, marrying her overseer,’ by 18th century Governor Mauricius in his journal, was mulatto looking. Mauricius was writing about her looks, not her genetics. So both her parents might have been of mixed ‘race,’ despite him coming from Italy. This is also the explanation I offer for Charlotte Sophie having ‘a true Mulatto face.’
In Surinam other rules were in place to enforce a colour cut off point, to keep unwanted elements out. Slaves who were given their freedom were forbidden to have social ties with slaves, and risked becoming enslaved again. Also persons, though light skinned as mesties and lighter, who came from parents, who were not married, could not enter the militia. Jean Jaques Vrij has done extensive research on this. He notes some people who were rejected, retaliating that other accepted members were born out of wedlock, or even blacker in appearance, then allowed. They however had powerful fathers. So I think that all this colour line cut off point was more of a social ploy, to keep out the unwanted masses.
Nowhere in this discussion site have I sensed that the One Drop Rule was more of a political ploy, a catch all, and a stick behind the door, to attack people who ‘acted out.’ In the Netherlands, until the late sixties persons of a homosexual persuasion were officially diagnosed as mentally ill and were not only incarcerated, but castrated as well. But I sense that this diagnosed would only be levelled at citizens who ‘annoyed,’ who gave offence, upsetting the order of things, threatening status quo, challenging powerful persons or groups on unrelated matters. As the USA was a melting pot from the very beginning, you could hardly miss if you accused any person of having one distant African ancestor. So as I’m still reading on this subject I wonder why a person’s bloodline would suddenly come under severe, judicial scrutiny. Knowing fully well that no matter the outcome: such a case would be ruinous. Today we may compare it to Barrack Obama being labelled a Muslim, because his middle name is Hussein. From this we have to understand that he is totally unsuitable to be an American president.
Sources:
Oso, a Dutch scientific periodical on Surinamistiek, several issues.
Cynthia Macleod, a Surinam writer.
Jean Jaques Vrij, a Historian, researched Surinam militias during the colonial era
I have tried to put in my own two cents worth at this 'Commentary on the Rules' thread, started by OTHER but was not able. Do I need extra permission?
The "Commentary on the Rules" forum is for moderators only. It is a place to post the official clarifications and explanations of the site's posting rules. As such, the forum is not open to non-moderator members. You should post any comments about site posting rules, or suggestions for their improvement, to "Site Management," where they can be studied and debated. Any rules changes that become official site policy after such discussion will be added to the site's posting rules and, if clarification is needed, to "Commentary on the Rules."
That being said, I do not understand the point of your message. It does not seem to be a suggestion about site posting rules. If it is meant to explain Surinam's social divisions, it should probably go into the "Caribbean Basin" forum. But if means to ask a question about the Jim-Crow era historical rise of the U.S. one-drop rule (which was applied only to people who looked White and who self-identified as White), then it should go into the "History of the U.S. One-Drop Rule" forum.
That being said, I do not understand the point of your message. It does not seem to be a suggestion about site posting rules. If it is meant to explain Surinam's social divisions, it should probably go into the "Caribbean Basin" forum. But if means to ask a question about the Jim-Crow era historical rise of the U.S. one-drop rule (which was applied only to people who looked White and who self-identified as White), then it should go into the "History of the U.S. One-Drop Rule" forum.
This gets a bit tiresome!
I read the discussion between you and OTHER and a lot of dates of specific events were mentioned, during colonial rule by England, that she was from the islands and such. I thought that for some perspective on this subject, I could ad what I know from 'The Black Blood in White people' dilemma, in Dutch colonies. As it was some fatal condition waiting to explode and destroy the whole of civilization if not kept in check. I felt that would be a highly scientific approach.
But it starts to dawn on me that what you are running is a kind of sect, with you as the godlike sectleader. Next to your octoroon self, there should be some godlike DNA lurking in your genes.
And you are perfectly free to do this, and people to follow, if they like. Thank god I know where I'm coming from, and what I'am set out to do.
Your site is for me just a update on disgusting eurocentric views, dressed as science. But I understand where eurocentrism and racism are coming from, as these poor Europeans were despotically ruled by these Black and Coloured nobles and kings, claiming to have Bleu Blood, symbolised by a Classical African. Then this was known by some later researchers so they ruled that even pitch black European kings as Charles II Stuart were actually White. But just to make sure, his Black portraits were kept hidden or over painted with beige.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1053 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Tue 22 Jul 2008 14:25 Post subject:
Egmond Codfried wrote:
Quote:
That being said, I do not understand the point of your message. It does not seem to be a suggestion about site posting rules. If it is meant to explain Surinam's social divisions, it should probably go into the "Caribbean Basin" forum. But if means to ask a question about the Jim-Crow era historical rise of the U.S. one-drop rule (which was applied only to people who looked White and who self-identified as White), then it should go into the "History of the U.S. One-Drop Rule" forum.
This gets a bit tiresome!
I read the discussion between you and OTHER and a lot of dates of specific events were mentioned, during colonial rule by England, that she was from the islands and such. I thought that for some perspective on this subject, I could ad what I know from 'The Black Blood in White people' dilemma, in Dutch colonies. As it was some fatal condition waiting to explode and destroy the whole of civilization if not kept in check. I felt that would be a highly scientific approach.
But it starts to dawn on me that what you are running is a kind of sect, with you as the godlike sectleader. Next to your octoroon self, there should be some godlike DNA lurking in your genes.
And you are perfectly free to do this, and people to follow, if they like. Thank god I know where I'm coming from, and what I'am set out to do.
Your site is for me just a update on disgusting eurocentric views, dressed as science. But I understand where eurocentrism and racism are coming from, as these poor Europeans were despotically ruled by these Black and Coloured nobles and kings, claiming to have Bleu Blood, symbolised by a Classical African. Then this was known by some later researchers so they ruled that even pitch black European kings as Charles II Stuart were actually White. But just to make sure, his Black portraits were kept hidden or over painted with beige.
Have a nice day.
Egmond
I assure you that the purpose of this site is not to allow folks to espouse Eurocentric views, Afrocentric views, or any other such views. The purpose is to teach and learn about U.S. racialism. Of course, related subjects are also welcomed and discussed, such as DNA admixture in America, Europe, and elsewhere, and the concept of "race" as it exists in different countries. But if someone is found to advocate Eurocentrism, Afrocentrism, or any other "-ism," moderators will step in. That is not tolerated here.
Surely you jest by suggesting our discussion group is a sect with the administrator being a sect leader. I personally take offense to that. The reason why Frank established the rule that unsubstantiated claims are not to be tolerated is to uphold our status as one of the few sites whose data can be trusted. We get many hits from colleges and universities. If we allowed unsupported claims to be made, we would join the ranks of the countless other sites that are run by ideologues of one sort or another.
Always be slow in taking offence and you will have a long and happy life. Are you planning on having children? Well dear, then be ready to forgive, even after ten transgressions, or you will not have a life. An offence is only an offence if you look at it as such. Now, so much for wisdom, back to anti racialism.
All this skull measuring talk leads me to further scrutinize the people in the street and at the sport club, where I can study them even in their ‘natural’ state; both male and female! Then they come in pairs so one can compare Indian with Dutch or Arab with Indonesian or Afghan with Turk and so one. It’s a regular Tower of Babel over here. Throwing caution to the wind I even approach more people, when they are dressed of course, to demand where they come from and why they look the way they do. Some of these narrow skulled, narrow nosed and thin lipped Africans were dismayed when I told them they were White. One had to consult his mother on this and she also expressed great wonder. To be absolutely sure I asked this Sudanese guy flat-out if he considers himself Black. He said yes. Then I later noticed that with his narrow skull came the bandiest legs I ever saw. So I’m having a great time with this ‘Black as soot, but being White people’ business and so should you. I do not want to hear of any offence taking and such.
But for the life of me I cannot understand why an Anti-racialist site would all the time refer to old time racialist theories. And beat up on poor Rogers, Snowden and Van Sertima too. I guess such a site would start from scratch, point out the failings of the racialist of old, and move on. I already wrote that these studies Ripley collected in ‘The Races of Europe’ sounded like anecdotes from a few old farts having a wee bit of Scotch at the end of the day, about who they chatted up and how many schools they raided to ogle schoolchildren, scaring the bejesus out of ‘m. ‘
But those that went to Africa strike me like the biggest buffoons one could think of. Oh, My! What people in their right mind would set of and measure not only skulls, but black behinds and genitals too? In one of these wonderful books like ‘The Invention of The White Race’ and ‘Outcast from Evolution’ they show a contraption like you would not believe! Designed especially to measure up Black peoples bodies. I sense the desperation to explain away Black superiority and give White people a sense of White superiority, and claiming the pyramids as White accomplishments. Now, if these mysterious White pyramid builders had only thought of building the pyramids in London, Paris or Amsterdam or something, there would be no need for this ‘Black people who are actually White people’ confusion, no?
Even some totally misguided person printing in this thread a story about switching molars from Grimaldi Man skeletons, as if teeth make prognatism. This is the greatest hogwash I have ever heard and proofs that some of these buffoons have never actually seen any Black folks. The idea that Black people would have larger teeth to make prognatism is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. And if this is the level of their science well, scr*w ‘m all! And their followers too.
Now I’m thinking perhaps those Alpine European types should be designated as Blacks, because of their broad skull, curly hair and fleshy lips. Ripley speaks of an ‘Old Black Breed’ on some godforsaken British Island. There you have it!
As for now I see some merits in this site, but the demerits are overwhelming, to me. There is a gross sense of Non Fair Play, like the swallowing up of postings, moving subjects around, threatening language to scare away people from approaching subjects, petty justice like some mind control, wilfully putting emphasis on stuff which is secondary to the subject at hand, wilful faulty application of data to silence dissent, and generally playing god.
But I wish you great health and success as no one is forced to join this site.
Codfried, please stop posting portraits of Euro aristocracy. If your goal was to demonstrate that you see subsaharan features in those portraits, please consider your goal to have been met. I think that I can speak for the entire management team that you have convinced us that you do indeed see in those portraits what you claim to see. Enough.
Unless you have something to add beyond your claim that Euro arstocracy was of subsaharan appearance, based on non-replicable evidence, I would like to consider the topic closed.
Codfried, please stop posting portraits of Euro aristocracy. If your goal was to demonstrate that you see subsaharan features in those portraits, please consider your goal to have been met. I think that I can speak for the entire management team that you have convinced us that you do indeed see in those portraits what you claim to see. Enough.
Unless you have something to add beyond your claim that Euro arstocracy was of subsaharan appearance, based on non-replicable evidence, I would like to consider the topic closed.
Thank you so much.
I would like to add that if my theories are right, and this elite was as despotic as I think, using White human leather proofs my point. Also they had other cannibalistic tendencies, which I would like to illustrate with some articles on the web. I would appreciate if you give some more time, so I can inform.
Codfried, please stop posting portraits of Euro aristocracy. If your goal was to demonstrate that you see subsaharan features in those portraits, please consider your goal to have been met. I think that I can speak for the entire management team that you have convinced us that you do indeed see in those portraits what you claim to see. Enough.
Unless you have something to add beyond your claim that Euro arstocracy was of subsaharan appearance, based on non-replicable evidence, I would like to consider the topic closed.
These two latest of Charles II and Louis XIV were the Blackest looking I have found and needed to be included.
It seems to me that William unearthed information that this strict North African and SSA divide is not universally supported. See the Neanderthaler thread. Personally I have no use for this divide, for my research, as we have only descriptions and portraits, with or without a Blackamoor, who looks SSA. The people themselves talked about colour as a distinguishing mark, as they seem to be a mix off all possible coloured etnicities. The Masque of Blackness play (1602), ordered by Anne of denmark, the grandma of Charles II Stuart, mentioned the Niger River.
FOR AGES BLACK PEOPLE WERE CALLED BLUE PEOPLE BY EUROPEANS
Here I have collected some pieces on the internet regarding calling Black people, Blue people. Then I have recently read a newspaper report about a new exposition in Amsterdam : 'Black is Beatiful,' that Blue people show up on Middle Ages images. I'm searching for these. But I have already seen images of this era which show Blacks among the Whites. This supports my understanding of Bleu Blood means Black Blood, which connects with the frequently used dominant image of the Moor in European art, from the Renaissance.
The other explanations what Blue Blood means, posted in this thread, I consider ludicrous!
Egmond Codfried
Quote:
Were there ever any black Vikings?
There were trade routes between Northern Europe and Africa, India and China, so it is very likely that people from all over the world would have visited Scotland.
It is also likely that some Northern Europeans would have settled in other parts of the world and some people from Africa, India and other areas would have settled in Northern Europe. Direct evidence of this is rather hard to find, however.
There's a complication in translations of medieval records because a description of someone as "a black man" was used to mean someone with black hair, not black skin.
Norse sagas describe Africans as "Blaumenn" (blue men). There are stories of Blaumenn in Dublin and of someone called Kenneth of Niger in Scotland in the 10th Century.
In the middle ages Muslims were considered as bad or even worse than heathens, because they worshipped Muhammad, who was an Antichrist to Christians. There are not many episodes in Heimskringla that concern Muslims, or ‘blámenn’ as they are called in the sagas. King Sigurd Jorsalafar is said to have fought heathens in Spain on his way to Jerusalem. He plundered with his crew on the island of Formentera, where there was a ‘herr mikill heiðinna blámanna’. Sigurd’s men win the battle of course (Msona chs. V-VI). Heimskringla does not mention anything about Muslim beliefs, but obviously there was no need to clarify the evilness of the blámenn to the audience since the word ‘blár’ reveals that these men were very different from the heroic King Sigurd and his men. Even though blár means ‘blue,’ in this case it signifies ‘black.’ These ‘blue men’ lived in Spain or the south Mediterranean. ‘Blámenn’ refers not only to literally black men, but also to Arabs and Moors. The use of the term ‘blámenn’ indicates that the writer wanted to stress that they were of different ethnic origin than the Norse people. We should also remember, too, that in the fornaldarsögur the term ‘blámenn’ refers to earthly creatures of evil (e.g. ‘blámenn ok berserkir’ Lindow, 1995, 13-14). This ethnic implication was probably more important to the intended audience of the saga than any, rightly omitted, information about the religious beliefs of the blámenn.
I'm sure I read that black men were called 'blue men' by the Vikings. Also that some African tribes have no separate words for blue and green, as the differentiation is of no importance in their necessary world-view. However, they can readily recognise the difference when it's pointed out to them. The same as we don't have four hundred words for different aspects of camels, as I'm told Arabs do, only in reverse. If you see what I mean.
In Magnúss sona saga (ch. 6) King Sigurd makes a journey to the Holy Land. On his way he fights with
the “heathen blámenn” on the Spanish Isles of Menorca and Ibiza. These socalled
“blue men” in the
saga are Moors. The word blár means here ‘black’ and blámenn referred to the inhabitants of Blálönd –
Black Lands, which was an undefined, faraway
geographical area in the minds of the learned medieval
Scandinavians. As the word itself reveals, it was the black skin that mattered. In the fornaldarsögur
blámenn were associated with forces of evil. Nevertheless, blámenn referred later not only to black men
but also to Moors and Saracens. So, here we have the thin line between the supernatural and ethnically
different enemies, which is by no means a deviating feature in the Heimskringla (or in other Old Norse
sources).22 As the giants of the Old Norse mythology became the Finnar in historical writings, so did
the blámenn of the fornaldarsögur become the enemies of Christianity: black men, Saracens, Moors. As
John Lindow has pointed out, it must have been difficult to draw a line between the supernatural and
the natural in these contexts. Lindow has also observed that what is striking about the description of
strangers and other groups in Nordic tradition are “how closely they resemble attributes of supernatural
Ennen ja nyt 4/2004 >>> http://www.ennenjanyt.net/404/
referee/aalto.pdf
7
beings”.23 In fact, in the Middle Ages there hardly existed a division between the supernatural and the
natural. In people’s minds angels were as real as demons.
It is obvious that in the Middle Ages Icelanders and Norwegians must have had a faint understanding
of faroff
places that they knew only by name: Spain, Sicily, Jerusalem, Byzantium. But it seems that the
geographical distance had less importance than religion when regarding the “otherness” of people.
Namely, the Christian concept of the world was that it consisted of Christian peoples. Heathens and
heretics did not belong to their world: they were outside of Christendom. It seems that this Christian
worldview
is perceptible also in the Heimskringla, as strangers are those who stand outside the
Christian community. These outsiders are described as extremely different. “Otherness” based on
ethnic difference does not seem to play a major part in the Heimskringla. In the case of blámenn it is
obvious that skin colour that differed from the standard is one factor that makes them different, but I
would see the skin colour only as a feature that emphasises that blámenn were evil and enemies of
Christianity as were also the Wends. All in all, heathens in the Heimskringla seem to be strangers
without any category, which would mean that their degree of difference is digital.
The True root of Hoy
by Blue Man on 27.2.2004
Those mired in the constraints of the modern world, would be hard pressed to allow themselves to believe the truth of the origins of this sacred word- Hoi Hoy, which is most generally spelled Hoi, has a root far earlier than most understand. It has become a greeting associated with those who know the TRUTH of the origins of Man. Ahhh, he must be crazy you say?!. The Hoi greeting is most often traced to seafaring civilizations, who had significant contact with the mammals of the sea. The Hoi Hoi sound is that made by porpoises to communiate (greet) each other. Over time this sound was adopted by Vikings, Scotsman, Polynesians, Islanders, etc. as a Universal Greeting. When the legendary Blue Men (Hoi Gollokai) (Mermaid like creatures- with wizardlike powers of song, luck, art, and creativity)) due to their higher consciousness (like dolphins) left the oceans to return to land, thus beginning their interaction and intermingling with early humans (Cro Magnon). This eventual interbreeding led to lineages far more intelligent with a higher consciousness than existed before. These lineages can be traced to several ancient civilizations, most notably in Scotland and Ireland, where the Galukai came out of the brakish waters of the Lochs. Ancient Scottish castles on the Lochs (, bear some as yet unknown signifiance in this history. Mummified remains of these ancient sea creatures can be found in some museums. I have seen them. "The Luck O the Irish", has a basis in fact, for the redheaded descendants of the Golokai, who came from the sea, eventually mating with humans. If you analyze photography of bluemen, colors, similar to dolphins, and convert them to negatives you get bluegreen. Irish/Scottish redheads, seen in the negative (as in the sea), appear this exact color- bluemen. There also exists other strains of these breedings who came from the polynesian and island peoples. These peoples, some alive today, possibly with the surname Hoy or Hoi, possess qualities of lucidity, creativity, higher consciousness, sensitivity to sound, generally very musical, or artisitic, have a special affinity for the water, and seem to age slowly. Even the Hopi Indians of the SouthWest, who arose from remnants of the Mayans, who knew these secrets, have as one of their deities- The Red Beard LongHair. Shown as a Kachina- he is the spirit who brings the water and rain to the land. Sound farfetched ? I have done my research. New clues from the underwater lost city off the coast of Cuba that has been found, as well as pyramid anomolies in the OceanPacific due West of Oregon/California coast should prove interesting.... Stay tuned. Hoi Hoi has become the international greeting for those with the higher consciousness, yet who stay in the shadows. There may also be a link with sacred Orders such as the FreeMasons... who came from this Old World- New Order.... There are other very interesting parallels, that I don't have time to discuss, relating to a self-perpetuating semantic phenomenon. The The. strange and interesting comparisons to the mathematics of Fractal Chaos theory, and the iterations of equations that create a "Mandelbrot Set" formation... Truth is Stranger than Fiction !! Hoi Hoi !! Long live the Porpoise People ! P.S. The word porpoise comes from Porcus (Pig) + Piscis (Fish)= PigFish... mammal interbred with fish.... sounded with the oi sound that the dolphin makes. Ignorant humanoids descended from simians... enlightened Man descended from sea creatures that returned to the sea after having lived on land, and then rebred with existing mammalian humanoids... BELIEVE... Hoi Hoi !! Some believe in aliens from outer space.... but here on earth is the evidence of the truth from our own oceans !!!
Their little lecture concerning the relationship between grapheme and phoneme in the
Greek and Russian alphabets is hardly more trustworthy. Per says: “We must remember that
in both the Greek and Russian alphabets the letters “b” and “v” are identical, and so are “o”
and “u”…” (p. 137 our translation). Obviously, they have not understood that one letter can
symbolize different sounds in the same or related alphabets. The Russians and the modern
Greeks distinguish between b and v and between o and u in both speech and spelling; a fact
which the first lesson in any textbook on these languages would have revealed. Even when it
comes to Snorri’s own language, the two authors are surprisingly ignorant. When discussing
the meaning and location of Bláland (The Blue Land, i.e. the Land of the Blue Men) (pp. 29),
they fail to acknowledge that the adjective blár in Old Norse may also mean dark. Their
discussions around the meaning of the place-name Svitjod (Old Norse Svífljó›) also end in a
total shambles when they introduce a pseudo-Norse explanation which is grammatically
impossible (p. 30).
Three key questions arise at this point: What did the very first Norse travelers to North America in fact call the people they met there, well over a century before Ari the Learned penned his history? Did the reference to "Skrælings" occur in the first version of Ari's work, the original of which no longer exists? And what was the word Skræling(j)ar intended to signify?18 18
As handed down through the pertinent medieval literature, the word Skræling(j)ar deliberately conveys small size as the chief characteristic of the native people the Norse met on their voyages farthest west. (From innumerable examples, we know that the names the medieval Norse gave to new people and places were based on what they considered a main characteristic.19) There is also fairly good scholarly agreement that in a literary context, Skræling(j)ar was used pejoratively to indicate puny physical stature—a quality disdained by the medieval Norse. While the word therefore suggests a possible etymological link to the modern Norwegian word skral, used about people or objects in poor condition,20 that linkage is not readily acceptable to linguistic scholars. However, the philologist Kari Ellen Gade proposes that if the word skræling(j)ar was coined orally shortly before its first-time written use in Ari's book, the commonly accepted rules for vowel changes and consonant doubling in Old Norse might not apply.21
19 Examples are the names Leif Eiriksson gave to the three main North American regions he found, and the term blámenn ("blue men") applied to the black people the Norse encountered in North Africa.
JSTOR: Royal Purple of Tyre- [ Vertaal deze pagina ]Negroids and some "Moors" were called "blue-men" in early Irish-Norse Chronicles.36 ..... Purple in the Middle Ages was used for sacred and royal purposes ...
links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2968(196304)22%3A2%3C104%3ARPOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U - Gelijkwaardige pagina's
Etymology and definitions
BlueberriesThe modern English word blue comes from the Middle English, bleu or blwe, which came from an Old French word bleu of Germanic origin (Frankish or possibly Old High German blao, "shining"). Bleu replaced Old English blaw. The root of these variations was the Proto-Germanic blæwaz, which was also the root of the Old Norse word bla and the modern Icelandic blár, and the Scandinavian word blå, but it can refer to other colours. A Scots and Scottish English word for "blue-grey" is blae, from the Middle English bla ("dark blue," from the Old English blæd). Ancient Greek lacked a word for colour blue and Homer called the colour of the sea "wine dark", except that the word kyanos (cyan) was used for dark blue enamel.
As a curiosity, blue is thought to be cognate with blond, blank and black through the Germanic word. Through a Proto-Indo-European root, it is also linked with Latin flavus ("yellow"; see flavescent and flavine), with Greek phalos (white), French blanc (white, blank) (loaned from Old Frankish), and with Russian белый, belyi ("white," see beluga), and Welsh blawr (grey) all of which derive (according to the American Heritage Dictionary) from the Proto-Indo-European root *bhel- meaning "to shine, flash or burn", (more specifically the word bhle-was, which meant light coloured, blue, blond, or yellow), whence came the names of various bright colours, and that of colour black from a derivation meaning "burnt" (other words derived from the root *bhel- include bleach, bleak, blind, blink, blank, blush, blaze, flame, fulminate, flagrant and phlegm).
In the English language, blue may refer to the feeling of sadness. "He was feeling blue". This is because blue was related to rain, or storms, and in Greek mythology, the god Zeus would make rain when he was sad (crying), and a storm when he was angry. Kyanos was a name used in Ancient Greek to refer to dark blue tile (in English it means blue-green or cyan).[3] The phrase "feeling blue" is linked also to a custom among many old deepwater sailing ships. If the ship lost the captain or any of the officers during its voyage, she would fly blue flags and have a blue band painted along her entire hull when returning to home port. [4]
Many languages do not have separate terms for blue and or green, instead using a cover term for both (when the issue is discussed in linguistics, this cover term is sometimes called grue in English). Blue is commonly used on internet browsers to colour a link that has not been clicked; when a link has been clicked it changes yellow or orange or purple.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
