I guess I fail to see what the intrigue is in the possibility that european nobility carry small amounts of genetic information from recent african admixture mixed in with the rest of their genetic information that comes from an earlier quest out of Africa.
I guess the reason why you don’t see, what you have labeled as 'the intrigue,’ when there is sufficient proof that pitch black skinned Kings and Queens occupied the European throne’s from 1500-1789, is because you are not Black. It’s like most man around the world who don’t care about Women’s Rights or Gender Equality, because this means they would have to compete with women as well, as with other men for jobs, promotions and such. Typically such people will deny that women are still second class citizens, as some will argue that there is no racial discrimination. Around the world, men have all the priviliges society denies women, just because they have a dick. No matter how limp or stupid or weak or cowardly they are, they are superior to any woman.
Last edited by Egmond Codfried on Tue 15 Jul 2008 11:42; edited 1 time in total
[quote="Salsassin"]
Have no interest in studies that are anachronistic and have been superseded by more modern studies that are less biased. But your methodology is no accurate than theirs.
Quote:
Genetic studies by Cavalli Sforza and others show that Europe was populated by people who immigrated from Asia and Africa. Both regions had darker people. The assumption that all these people miraculously lost every one of their traits is un realistic. The changes were gradual and some populations retained more charachteristics than others. I already provided a DNA study that shows that Germanic people were darker in earlier times.
Quote:
Jews definitely may have picked up genetic traits in Egypt, but considering their distance, many of those characteristics were already there. This is a reconstruction of a Jew of the early periods:
Quote:
Swarthiness and broadness of face of this level in Europe could have come from multiple sources including local ones. Admixture definitely occured, but a descriptin of swarthiness and a picture are hardly evidence of African Admixture and much less some Black one drop rule hidden aristocracy.
Quote:
Most members on this message board have some degree of African Ancestry, so your claim is foolish. But many of us still hold ourselves to a higher standard of proof than yours.
[The Masque of Blackness (1602), a design for the figure representing the Niger River]
A BLACK, EUROPEAN ARISTOCRACY
You might want to be patient with me for not leaping with joy at this so called ‘science’ you seem to put so much believe in, as this is the same ‘science’ which declared that my ancestors, Africans enslaved by the Dutch, were 2/5 human and 3/5 beast.
So I gather that you agree with me that some of these people I’m talking about, the European royal, noble and intellectual elite 1500-1789 were black of skin, or swarthy as some descriptions will have it. Where we might disagree is where this blackness came from. If I understand your brand of science right there is ‘good’ blackness and ‘bad’ blackness. The 'good' blackness one finds with Asian Indians who are considered White’s who just happen to be pitch black, because of some unfortunate admixture with inferior, black skinned native’s. These White’s we also find in Africa, where a mysterious White race appeared, and built the pyramids and Great Zimbabwe, too. But they became lax and fatally succumbed to the beastly charms of Black women, having black skinned offspring. But these should not be considered Blacks as they are royal in stature, have long and narrow skulls, narrow noses and thin lips. No beastly subnasal prognasty mars their superior, Greek profiled, European beauty.
For argument sake I will go along with you and consider Henrietta Maria, the mother of the Black Boy an Indian women, looking at all these veils she wearing. So aren’t you the tiniest bit curious why a swarthy Indian family named Stuart would occupy the Scottish and British throne for many generations? And why there is not a single mention of their Asian roots?
From the beginning I have pointed out that this coloured elite adorned themselves and their portraits with a Moor, a Classical African, showing extreme blackness, broad skulled, broad and flat face, frizzy hair, thick lips, and subnasal prognasty. Never an Indian or anything else, always a Black Classical African. This made me define them as ‘an endogamic, fixed mulatto race with some looking more African or Asian or White, but sharing a Black identity. This identity was called Bleu Blood, symbolised by this Moor dominating many works of art and literature.The Black Boy’s grandmother, Queen Anne of Denmark, ordered a play, The ‘Masque of Blackness’ (1602) which has a character personifying the Niger River ( in West Africa). The play praises Black beauty, not Indian beauty or whatever.
So I conclude that our positions are not so far apart, it’s just that one has to get used to a independent way of thinking. And realising that eurocentrist have been lying to us for many years, without some of them realising why. They were following a revisionism which today still is in operation to hide the important fact that Europe was despotically dominated by a Black elite, from the Renaissance (1500), in a way which is best described as Reversed Apartheid. Imagine South Africa 150 years after Apartheid was dismantled. How will they look back? Will they be willing to point out that a small, despotic White elite was dominating a major Black majority? We are still dealing with the fall out from the sturggle towards the French Revolution (1789), as Scientific Racism was formulated to counter the idea of Black supremacy and preventing this episode of occurring again.
And sorry William, but while some claims of JA Rogers are valid, others are way over the top. Tunnel vision research.
That is essentially what I wrote. Nowhere will you find that I've written that all of his work is to be regarded as correct or valid. The claims he made that were based on eyeballing are certainly to be treated with a raised eyebrow. To be fair, he sometimes quoted others (some of whom were anthropologists) who made similar claims that are just as suspect. This is what I like least about Rogers's work. Other claims, such as the Olmecs having been "Negroid," etc. also don't hold water. But here again, he often quotes others in these cases, and does not merely give his own opinion.
However, the fact remains that generally, the basic data given about sub-Saharan admixture having occurred in various places, notably in Europe and the Middle East, is quite accurate. I also like very much the actual examples he gives of Afro-European mixing.
Which is fine. Now I'll await your addressing these 'fixed mulato' and fixed albino' racial claims.
I do not agree that Arabs are a "fixed mulatto race," nor do I agree that Whites are a "fixed albino race"! I honestly don't recall having read of any such thing in Rogers's books that I have (Sex and Race, and Nature Knows No Color Line). I can check when I go home, but even if he did write these things, I do not agree with them.
Would it not be more usefull if rebukes were followed by stating the 'true' facts? Because now I have to ask how White's are to be explained. As White's came from Blacks, there must have been some Albinism in play. Skin color is just adaptation to environment. I for now stick to mine definition of White people as a 'fixed, albino race.'
Last edited by Egmond Codfried on Tue 15 Jul 2008 13:37; edited 1 time in total
I guess the reason why you don’t see, what you have labeled as 'the intrigue,’ when there is sufficient proof that pitch black skinned Kings and Queens occupied the European throne’s from 1500-1789, is because you are not Black. It’s like most man around the world who don’t care about Women’s Rights or Gender Equality, because this means they would have to compete with women as well, as with other men for jobs, promotions and such. Typically such people will deny that women are still second class citizens, as some will argue that there is no racial discrimination. Around the world, men have all the priviliges society denies women, just because they have a dick. No matter how limp or stupid or weak or cowardly they are, they are superior to any woman.
You have yet to provide any proof of your pitch Black nobility. Per the rules, Either provide solid evidence or state that it is your unsubstantiated opinion.
You might want to be patient with me for not leaping with joy at this so called ‘science’ you seem to put so much believe in, as this is the same ‘science’ which declared that my ancestors, Africans enslaved by the Dutch, were 2/5 human and 3/5 beast.
No, it wasn't.
Quote:
So I gather that you agree with me that some of these people I’m talking about, the European royal, noble and intellectual elite 1500-1789 were black of skin, or swarthy as some descriptions will have it. Where we might disagree is where this blackness came from. If I understand your brand of science right there is ‘good’ blackness and ‘bad’ blackness.
Wrong again. I don't impute emotional valuations on ancestry. I just don't assume ancestry by biased eyeballing and assumptions of artwork because they happen to sho another person with dark skin. Nor do I assume that using Blackness as a description means they were significantly dark to be considered African. They could have been just slightly darker than the average.
Would it not be more usefull if rebukes were followed by stating the 'true' facts? Because now I have to ask how White's are to be explained. As White's came from Blacks, there must have been some Albinism in play. Skin color is just adaptation to environment. I for now stick to mine definition of White people as a 'fixed, albino race.'
Sorry, but you obvioulsy do not have an understanding of what Albinism is. A lack of capacity to produce melanin, versus an inhibition of level of production of Melanin. Even in the lightest populations we can still recognize and differentiate Albinos.
And no, White people do not come from Blacks. They came from people darker than them obviously, but Blacks are as modern as Whites. They have evolved over time as well. Just as Whites got lighter, there is evidence some populations in Africa kept on getting darker and lighter. The San are lighter than their ancestors, the Bantu are darker than their ancestors. The Sandawe, before admixture to the Bantu were lighter than the Bantu and they lived right on the equator in Tanzania.
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.
Quote:
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.
Roger's work clearly represents the time when he was living, when the onedroprule was the law of the land. Lives could be destroyed by a few well chosen words. I remember Rogers writing in 'Sex and Race' about a headlines grabbing courtcase of a husband who claimed to be duped by his wife and her family in the believe that they were White, while they were Black. He demanded a lot of money in damages. This is difficult to visualize today. She had to show her genitals to the jury, so they could see that the husband could have known she was Black. Rogers shows this family and they look mighty Black to me! He lost the case as the jury was not convinced he did not know these people were Black. Oh, My!
Quote:
I am impressed that Egmond knows of the work of Rogers, and also the work of Snowden, whose two books I also have.
I'm impressed that you are impressed! Why should you be impressed as you do not know me?
Quote:
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" :
Many of these site adresses are out of business!
Quote:
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
I have printed these sources and will look them up. I hope this revealing of sources will elevate Mike Nassau's status considerably, with this forum.
Quote:
>> 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.
>> Sincerely,>> Bill Kreiner[/color]
From what I gathered from my research of Isabelle de Charriere, Pays de Vaud in Swiss must have been like a colony of brown and black Europeans. For her it would be like either moving to the colonies or Pays de Vaud. De Staël parents also came from this region. I feel that people were not moving about a lot so regions as Pays de Vaud would remain coloured for long time.
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."
So what I discovered that some of these people were conciously striving to keep the colour going by only marriying among each other. The Blackness was not 'Mendled out' as some suggested, looking at fake whitened portraits. The Bleu Blood was 'Mendled in.' This could explain why baron van Wassenaer, 20th century, would still be described as a 'White Negro' by all who saw him, and marvelled at his tall and narrow frame, red frizzy hair and prognastic lips. According to the baroness, he even taught he had Black Blood, and 'had extremely dry skin.' But now they claim not to know were it came from. I say it was there in all his sixteen noble ancestors, from the foremost noble Dutch families.
He [ Coon] 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.
Mighty interesting! If you go to Gibraltar you will be most surprised how close Africa is to Europe. It's really surpising, as you can even make out individual buildings and lights from the houses in Morocco. So why not African DNA among Southern Europeans? I read somewhere that some of the Spanish must be regarded as 'Negrito's' but you cannot tell this to them. They would freak out!
Has this panel heard about the Grimaldi Human. Skeletons from 40.000 years ago, in the South of France, which show African body types?
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."
So what I discovered that some of these people were conciously striving to keep the colour going
Evidence
Quote:
by only marriying among each other.
Evidence
Quote:
The Blackness was not 'Mendled out' as some suggested
Evidence
Quote:
fake whitened portraits
Evidence
Quote:
The Bleu Blood was 'Mendled in.'
Evidence
Quote:
baron van Wassenaer, 20th century, would still be described as a 'White Negro' by all who saw him
Evidence
Quote:
marvelled at his tall and narrow frame, red frizzy hair and prognastic lips.
Evidence
Quote:
According to the baroness, he even taught he had Black Blood, and 'had extremely dry skin.' But now they claim not to know were it came from. I say it was there in all his sixteen noble ancestors, from the foremost noble Dutch families.
Has this panel heard about the Grimaldi Human. Skeletons from 40.000 years ago, in the South of France, which show African body types?
You mean the one found in the Grotte de Infants with many other Cro-Magnon skeletons?
Almost all humans had more "Africoid" body types early on as they came from the tropics originally. So elongated limbs, and what not seemed the norm.
As far as the cranial features Loring Brace had this to say:
Quote:
In the Neolithic that went west through Greece and beyond, there was no hint of Africa, so there are no African traces in the Neolithic of Italy, Switzerland, France, Portugal, Germany, Denmark and England, and I have measured Neolithic samples from each of those countries.
What Larry Angel saw in the Levantine Mesolithic was just larger teeth (and hence prognathism) than in more recent samples. It was the same reason that Albert Gaudry and Marcellin Boule claimed to see something African in the Grimaldi specimen from Monaco. In fact, Boule had taken out the deciduous molars, excavated the premolars and permanent second and third molars and in fact installed an adult dentition on the face of a ten-year-old child whose face was shortened by a third by the removal of those adult teeth from their alveolar location. Of course he had prognathism. However, as you get back into the Pleistocene, teeth are larger and prognathism more pronounced, but it is not African influence but just larger jaws and teeth.
And no, White people do not come from Blacks. They came from people darker than them obviously, but Blacks are as modern as Whites. They have evolved over time as well. Just as Whites got lighter, there is evidence some populations in Africa kept on getting darker and lighter.
[Iman Bowie, model and actress]
I have read that the oldest human bones are found in East Africa, so we may assume that they would have looked like those brown skinned Somalies we still find there, properly adapted to this environment. The ones who went South became the more pitch black skinned races as perhaps the Acholi from Uganda. The tall Buganda seem somewhat lighter. I do not think these East Africans can pass for White people and I insist that Iman Bowie is not a White woman! Nor is Paula Abdul, but lets not digress.
Pray, tell what the first humans would have looked like, in your opinion.
I guess the reason why you don’t see, what you have labeled as 'the intrigue,’ when there is sufficient proof that pitch black skinned Kings and Queens occupied the European throne’s from 1500-1789, is because you are not Black. ...
Codfried. You should have read The Rules before posting here. It is bad form to attribute motives to others (rule 2.2). It is bad form to use the word "Black" without explaining whether you mean African-American or of partial sub-Saharan ancestry (rule 3.3.11). And it is especially bad form to accuse someone of being this "race" or that (rule 2.5). You have managed to violate three rules within a single sentence. This is a formal warning. Please do not violate those rules again. If you do, your posting priviledge will be immediately suspended.
Egmond Codfried wrote:
You might want to be patient with me for not leaping with joy at this so called ‘science’ you seem to put so much believe in, as this is the same ‘science’ which declared that my ancestors, Africans enslaved by the Dutch, were 2/5 human and 3/5 beast.
A deep respect for Science as Process is a foundation stone of this site's epistemological base. No current scientific (objective, replicable, etc.) findings suggest that Africans are 2/5 human. Personally, I doubt that any scientific (objective, replicable, etc.) findings ever suggested this. But, if you know of any findings that did show this, you must present them. Even so, you cannot put "science" in quotation marks in order to attack it. There are many web sites that encourage the hypocrisy of using quantum mechanics in computer and communications technology to denigrate the very concept of Western science, but this is not one of them. Stop now.
To the issue at hand, I do not understand precisely what your thesis is. In the light of rule 3.6.1, I am asking you to clarify it. Specifically, I am confused whether your thesis is that:
(1) European aristocracy has some sub-Saharan ancestry.
(2) Your observation of paintings and contemporary documents supports point (1).
(3) The proximity of Gibraltar to Morrocco supports point (1).
(4) The accuracy of point (1) is something that others should get excited about.
If your thesis is point (1), then I doubt that anyone here would doubt it. Not only did the ancestors of the people who colonized Europe about 40 kya originally come from sub-Saharan Africa, but the re-colonization of Europe after the ice melted 12-16 kya included people from sub-Saharan Africa, and the Mediterranean has been a well-known genetic melting pot throughout history. Egyptians, Sea-Peoples, Macedonians, Greeks, Romans, Moors, and many more carried genes across the Mediterranean and across the Sahara in both directions. We have many articles in the molecular anthropology forum that discuss the presence of sub-Sarahan DNA haplotypes in native Europeans, and there is no reason to think that the aristocracy was any different.
If your thesis is point (2), the very sciencific process that you dislike compells many of us to be skeptical of subjective evidence. Evidence that requires belief in order to see it (as do your pictures) just does not belong in the realm of science. It may well be accurate, but it cannot be independently tested by a hostile but honest skeptic (as can DNA, for example).
If your thesis is point (3), then you conflate natives of the African mediterranean coast with those from south of the Sahara. Although there is a great deal of mixing among the populations, they are funamentally distinct. The proximity of Gibraltar to Morrocco is less solid evidence of North African admixture in Iberia than the obvious historical record of 7 centuries of military occupation of Iberia by North Africans.
If your thesis is point (4), then you are posting in the wrong forum. "Should" versus "should not," right versus wrong, justice versus injustice, are dichotomies explcitly excluded from all but the two political advocacy forums.
In short, I for one find your pictures and anecdotes fascinating, but I would like to know precisely what you are trying to prove. Again, what is your thesis?
Last edited by fwsweet on Tue 15 Jul 2008 14:20; edited 2 times in total
Subsequent message by Codfried split off to Were Neandertals White? in the "Molecular Anthropology and Genetics" forum.
Also, off-topic Codfried post about van Sertima's opinions of Olmec heads deleted. Codfried, please stop posting off-topic here (rule 3.5). This forum is reserved for the history of the U.S. one-drop rule. If you want to discuss van Sertima's opinion that stylized Olmec heads are evidence of precolumbian presence of subsaharan Africans in South America (in defiance of the molecular evidence), please post it in the "Latin America" forum. You might want to add your thoughts to either of the existing threads: Pre-Colombian Africans in Central America? or Van Sertima's Afrocentricity.
Egmond Codfried wrote:
To Salsassin: Why are you 'Suspended'?
Since his posting priviledge is temporarily suspended, he cannot answer you. That is what suspension means. If you want to discuss it, go to Temporary Suspension of Salsassin's Posting Priviledge in the "Site Management" forum.
Last edited by fwsweet on Tue 15 Jul 2008 14:52; edited 2 times in total
[quote="fwsweet"][This is a formal warning. Please do not violate those rules again. If you do, your posting priviledge will be immediately suspended.
Quote:
In short, I for one find your pictures and anecdotes fascinating, but I would like to know precisely what you are trying to prove. Again, what is your thesis?
Dear Mister Sweet,
I stand corrected and will strive to respect the rules of this site.
Still I take comfort from the fact that my pictures and anecdotes 'fascinated' you. These old Black European Kings used to have their court jesters and perhaps, without knowing, I'm following this tradition.
But I must not! So I will try to do my best, and follow the rules. I will need some time to answer your numerous questions, but I would think that my main thesis would be :
Black Blood is Bleu Blood (1500-1789), symbolised by a Moor, a Classical African (SubSaharan African in your jargon) boy, man or woman. Formerly described as servants.
My apologies for accusing somebody for 'not being Black,' but it's more like an observation for me and something to elicit a response. I also accused him of 'not being a woman.' No insults intended.
I'm a (Black) European from Surinam, a former Dutch colony. So I'm not really aware of Black Americans being considered different from Blacks in Suriname, or elswhere. I have visited New York in 1986 and the African Americans looked pretty much like I would expect them to look. The more lighter skinned mulatto types I consider Black as well. I do not believe there are Caucasians in Africa with black skin, though!
Then I do not see a important difference between the Blacks of North Africa or those below the Sahara. The Nilotic type above as well under the Sahara, and the more light skinnend Black nations, are quiet the same to me.
I'm not really aware of Black Americans being considered different from Blacks in Suriname, or elswhere. I have visited New York in 1986 and the African Americans looked pretty much like I would expect them to look.
Then you misunderstand U.S. society. It is not that millions of USAmericans who look Black to you consider themselves African Americans. It is that millions of other USAmericans who are genetically European and look utterly White to you also consider themselves African-Americans, often shrilly.
Egmond Codfried wrote:
The more lighter skinned mulatto types I consider Black as well.
Again, you misunderstand U.S. society. Your description applies to 40 million USAmericans of Hispanic descent, most of whom would be insulted if you called them "Black" or "African-American." Please do not tell a Puerto Rican to his face that he is "Black" merely because he looks like a "lighter skinned mulatto type" to you. You are likely to be injured.
Egmond Codfried wrote:
I do not believe there are Caucasians in Africa with black skin, though!
Then I am glad that you have visited this site. Please consider yourself informed. "Caucasian" is an obsolete term used about a half-century ago to denote a particular skull conformation. The word denoted sub-Saharan Africans in Senegambia, Chad, Burkina-Faso (who are among the darkest-complexioned people on the planet), Sudan, Somalia, and Ethiopia, as well as Europeans and East Indians. Technically speaking, there are many, many, millions of "Caucasians" in Africa with Black skin. Again, though, the term is now obsolete because it could not be objectively replicated.
But I suspect that you are not using the obsolete word "Caucasian" in its scientific sense. You are probably using it to mean "anybody who looks White to me." In this case, the point once again is that millions of Americans who look White to you consider themselves Black, and may others who look Black to you (lighter skinned mulatto types) consider themselves White.
Egmond Codfried wrote:
I do not see a important difference between the Blacks of North Africa or those below the Sahara. The Nilotic type above as well under the Sahara, and the more light skinnend Black nations, are quiet the same to me.
I understand. You have your own definition of "Black," you are comfortable with this personal definition, and you see no need to define it objectively to others. You have the right to do this. Just keep in mind that this makes what you have to say about "Blacks" unintelligible to anyone else, hence uninteresting to this site.
[quote="fwsweet"] No current scientific (objective, replicable, etc.) findings suggest that Africans are 2/5 human. Personally, I doubt that any scientific (objective, replicable, etc.) findings ever suggested this. But, if you know of any findings that did show this, you must present them. Even so, you cannot put "science" in quotation marks in order to attack it.
[Saartje Baartmans]
[Almost 200 years after she suffered indignity and hardship in Europe, a box containing Baartman's remains, draped in a South African flag and flanked by six Khoisan children, was wheeled into Cape Town airport in May 2002.]
I grew up with an oral tradition of this specific scientific ‘fact’ that African slaves were considered only part human, and later came across it in writing. I’m struggling to find the written source. As usual it's hard to tell how dominating this view was in the 19th century. But right now I have been searching in internet for these 19th century drawings which compare the profile of a White man, a Black man and an Ape to proof that a Black man is more Ape than human. And a drawing of many animals in profile, to a Black man and a White man, to the same effect. Does anyone know the name of the scientist who proposed these facts?
Than there are drawings of Saartje Burgmans, who was paraded around 19th century Europe to show that Blacks were ugly, and more Ape then human. She herself seemed to have considered it a nice career opportunity, though. This is what I’m referring to and from my perspective it was part of Western Science. And this is why I have put the word science between brackets.
[quote="fwsweet"]
I understand. You have your own definition of "Black," you are comfortable with this personal definition, and you see no need to define it objectively to others. You have the right to do this. Just keep in mind that this makes what you have to say about "Blacks" unintelligible to anyone else, hence uninteresting to this site.
Dear Mister Sweet,
Thank you for your patience.
When I speak of 'Black' I'm not considering only looks. I think especially of self identification and identification with other Blacks as criteria.
But all this is related to my 'Black Blood is Bleu Blood' thesis, where I point out that these Black, noble Europeans 1500-1789, called themselves Black and clutched images of the SSA Moor all the time.
I consider myself a immensely practical and resourcefull person; I could whip up a orange souffle from orange crates, if times are desperate.
There used to be a Free Dictionary site with a long, long article titled Blacks. This is my reference. I have it on paper. But let me write down what I have found out about Isabelle de Charriere and why I believe she should be considered Black.
For which of course I'm vilified, but hey! I'm striving for a revolution, so I can risk being thrown in jail for 'slander' by her family who do not want to hear about any Black blood sh*t.
I grew up with an oral tradition of this specific scientific ‘fact’ that African slaves were considered only part human, and later came across it in writing. I’m struggling to find the written source. As usual it's hard to tell how dominating this view was in the 19th century. But right now I have been searching in internet for these 19th century drawings which compare the profile of a White man, a Black man and an Ape to proof that a Black man is more Ape than human. And a drawing of many animals in profile, to a Black man and a White man, to the same effect. Does anyone know the name of the scientist who proposed these facts?
You are conflating findings with conclusions. There are many thousands of examples of people claiming that Africans (or Irish, or Jews, or Dravidians, or Achuta, or Burakumin, or whatever) are sub-human. I was asking for findings in this regard. If you are unclear of the difference between findings and conclusions, read 3.6 Introduction to Science-As-Process, especially paragraph 5.
As I think I mentioned earlier, you seem to be polemicising man's inhumanity to man, good vs. evil, justice v.s injustice, bigotry vs. tolerance, etc. These are excellent topics, but really belong in one of this site's two political advocacy forums. All I was asking was whether there was ever any objective replicable evidence of African sub-human-ness. Apparently not.
Egmond Codfried wrote:
let me write down what I have found out about Isabelle de Charriere and why I believe she should be considered Black.
Please. No. Do not post why anyone "should" do anything in this history-only forum. This is your last warning. You may tell why you think she did (or did not) considered herself Black. You may tell why you think her contemporaries did (or did not) consider her Black. You may even tell why you think there were differences between what she considered herself and how she is portrayed. But do not tell us what we (the members of this site) should or should not do in this history-only forum. This particular site forum is a scholarly forum for dispassionate value-judgement-free exposition.
Please post your arguments as to why we should consider Isabelle de Charriere Black in one of this site's political advocacy forums, probably "Improving U.S. Society" (sorry, Maya).
[Belle van Zuylen (Isabelle de Charriere)(1740-1805)]
[Her grandmother, Maria Jacoba van Goor (1687-1737)
WHY I CONSIDER BELLE VAN ZUYLEN TO HAVE BEEN BLACK
[title edited by FWS to avoid having to suspend the author]
I came to research Belle van Zuylen when I stumbled on a portrait of Maria Jacoba van Goor, her grandmother. She looked mighty SSA to me, so I went out to find out who she was. I struck gold as she was the rich, regent class granny of baroness Belle van Zuylen. A famous feminist-writer from the 18th century, from a old noble family. Famous for her letters, and struggles to find a suitable husband.
Analysing literary sources is a science too and it should be possible to determine someone’s ethnicity.
Van Zuylen only mixed with nobles and spoke and wrote only French, though thoroughly Dutch. She befriended an older, married man D’Hermenches de Constant, a noble, Swiss descendant of Huguenots. On the painting at Slot Zuylen Museum he shows up as a black skinned man, with two white skinned officers of his regiment. Presumably, his sons.
Later after marriage she has an intimate friendship with his cousin Benjamin Constant who is described in a biography as ‘very bad complexion.’ I found a very black portrait. She looses him to Madame de Staël, bad complexion, and a black portrait.
In her letters to d’Hermenches she calls herself Zelide. This name seems to come from a Voltaire drama ‘Tanis and Zelide.’ Zelide is the daughter of pharaoh.
She gets many marriage proposals from high and rich nobles which she mostly rejects, as she fears for her personal liberty. She is considered risky because she writes and will not make a submissive wife. Enters suitor, auteur James Boswell, who describes himself in his journal as ‘Black.’ His niece he describes as ‘black as chimney.’ Her husband baron Maasdam as ‘chimney sweep.’
Van Zuylen write’s a poem about Mr. Maasdam ‘ About his brown black colour, ‘A son teint noir et basané’(1764). A ‘Black is beautiful’ poem, which says that only personal merit and not skin colour counts. She releases a personal description about her character and looks which says, ‘She has not the white hands, knows it and even jokes about it, but it’s not a joking matter.’ She then marries a most unlikely M. de Charriere from Swiss. I noticed that the marriage end race was between two men who both resided in Pays de Vaud, near Neuchatel. A part where many brown people lived.
There she befriended Pierre-Alexander Du Peyrou, an absent Surinam plantation owner. He was a Maecenas to J.J. Rousseau, who described him in his Confessions book XII as ‘son teint basané, his dark brown colour. Rousseau is described by Boswell as ‘a genteel Black man in an Armenian coat.
Source: There Are No Letters Like Yours: The Correspondence of Isabelle De Charriere and Constant D'Hermenches (European Women Writers) (Paperback)
by Isabelle de Charriere (Author), Janet Whatley (Translator), Malcolm Whatley (Translator)
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
