Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Black History: Black European nobility tucked away

Black nobility in Europe? According to black Dutch researcher Egmond Codfried and author of the book "Belle van Zuylen's forgotten grandmother" there was black nobility in Europe, but there history and images were later carefully tucked away. His claims are controversial, and of course not accepted by European historians and the man in the street.

Codfried has systematically studied hundreds of paintings of famous and less famous nobility. He regularly stumbled upon people who looked black or coloured, or although they were white, clearly had African facial features.

About his work he writes: “This study of historical sources and literature on black and coloured historic persons was inspired by the chance finding of a portrait of Maria Jacoba van Goor (portraited in the picture). We get a view of the problems and of the methods to identify these Europeans. This beautiful painting was also a reason to cast an afrocentric view at Belle van Zuylens life and her works, the biographies en the origin of her financial fortune. Through her coloured grandmother, the Dutch Belle van Zuylen (1740-1805) also known as Madame de Charrière, joins the rank of writers as the Russian Alexander Pushkin, the French Alexander Dumas and Colette, the Britons Elizabeth Barrett and her husband Robert Browning. As well as the German classic composer Ludwig von Beethoven and Queen Charlotte of Britain. These are Europeans of great merit, who had black forefathers. Also we find that Belle was a friend of Pierre Alexander Du Peyrou (1729-1794), a brown coloured and wealthy Surinam plantation owner in Swiss. He is renowned as a close friend, benefactor and publisher of the most famous philosopher of the Enlightenment, Jean Jaques Rousseau.

The reason why he studies nobility has to with the fact that nobility has left traces in the form of portraits and writings.

Some of his claims

Queen Charlotte Sophie of Mecklenburg Strelitz (1744-1818), Wife of George III

Described by others in her time as 'a true mulatto face' , ' brown' or ' yellow.' Her nose is to wide and her mouth shows the same fault.













Maurits Huygens (painted by Rembrandt in 1632) the older brother of Constantijn Huygens. Constantijn was one the most famous poets in the Golden Century.












The way black people were portraited

A painting of the French-Swiss painter Liotard (1702-1789) "Portrait of a young woman". Liotard is also considered coloured by Codfried.













A Moor by Juriaen of Streeck (1619-1673). Most people do not realize how many pictures exist of Moors in Europe. Why the love of Moors? Names, family crests, geographical indications, all references to the Moor, according to Codfried.

On the forum someone writes, that this is a picture of a servant.








As a response Codfried writes: "Part of the Moritzburg Treasure (Renaissance), , with a gold and silver cup in the form of a Moor's head, which was used at high nobilty marriages. Why Moor's head? The Moor was apparently in high regard."











PORTRAIT OF AN AFRICAN MAN January Mostaert (ca.1474-Haarlem Haarlem 1552/1553) Ca. 1520-1530. A unique 16th-century portrait

A painting of a black African in European clothing - with sword - portrayed as a Habsburg-Burgondian nobleman from that period. The self-conscious attitude, clothes and rich attributes demonstrate a successful assimilation of this man within the cultural norms of the European Renaissance. (Research lab Black is beautiful Dutch)

But, the research lab also writes, black Africans were in the 16th-century Europe rarely people of distinction. Most of them were imported as slaves in Spain and Portugal. A small number of them were released over the years, but most were employed as servant to their master. Only the Congo, which in the late 15th century was Christianized by the Portuguese, had a special status as a black kingdom of which the elite was educated in Portugal. Some Congolese made it as scholar, clerk, musician and jester quite far. Most remained employed in subordinate occupations. In the Netherlands, where the slave status was not recognized, negroes usually came along as servants of Spanish and Portuguese traders.


But why is it so important to show that black or coloured people were part of the European nobility? Codfried's motivation is to show that Europe was never as 'white' as we have been taught. Black people were always in Europe, even among the European nobility.

Looking at the portraits of those 16th and 17the century black people in Europe, I wonder what they would think of us now.

Some links

Pictures of nobility

Black nobility tucked away (Dutch) – an interesting article with pictures

Blue Blood Is Black Blood

Update: Also read: First black head of a European state: Alessandro de Medici (Italy)

49 Comments:

Sibo Kano said...

Very interesting post! Although I am convinced that the roots of African presence In Europe run deeper than generally accepted I have some questions with the purpose of Codfried’s research.

First I want to stress that I do not doubt the African ancestry of people like Pushkin in Russia, Dumas in France or the de Medici-family in Italy! This has been convincingly proven! And there are more.

But I think that Codfried’s research proofs that race doesn’t exist rather than proofs that people of African ancestry were part of the European higher society 5 centuries ago (although there were some, no doubt!). But even though there might have been some people with African ancestry in the European higher society I have strong doubts about the cultural afro centric meaning of it. As these people were representatives of European culture and didn’t relate to their black fellows in slavery.

However, one of the examples I think problematic is Beethoven having black ancestry. The arguments always refer to his African facial features and the way he was described as ‘black’ by his contemporaries. It never refers to his actual ancestry and identity …

First: I know white people who have nappy hair, wide noses and thick lips although they don’t have any black ancestry. I know black people with fine noses and thin lips who don’t have any white ancestry. (are better: any traceable ancestry, socially meaningful ancestry). There are white & black people who have nearly the same skin tone, brown like mulattoes. That someone has a typical ‘mulatto face’ doesn’t make him mulatto; A picture of President Kagame is not a proof that he has white ancestry although he totally looks more white than Obama … more like a white man with a brown skin.

Second: among white people (in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands) referring to a white person as ‘zwart’ (black) or ‘wit’ (white) doesn’t say anything about him/her looking like someone of the black or white race. It says more something about the color of their hair and their complexion, much more like light-skin/dark-skin, good hair/bad hair among African Americans.

Third: Beethoven was of Flemish ancestry: from the Flanders a.k.a. Spanish Netherlands a.k.a. Southern Netherlands, contemporary Belgium. Right here where I am now. Of course he grew up as a German. During the 16th century the Spanish ruled over the little territory ruthlessly. Beethoven was born 2 centuries after the Spanish ruled over the Flanders. The Spanish soldiers raped a lot of women and the Flemish turned out smaller and darker than their Dutch ‘brothers’ up North. The Spanish influence on the physical features of the Flemish (and their culture) is still obvious. I know many Flemish people who are very dark-skinned and have jet black hair (they could pass for Spanish no problem). These people are referred to as ‘black’ but only in a white physical sense, never in a racial sense. There may be some black ancestry somewhere, as the Spanish in that period were renowned to have mixed relationships with Africans too (and any people they dominated). But these people are considered as white, no doubt.

Therefore it is not a surprise that Beethoven may have been dark-skinned and even having ‘black’ physical features.

But still, referring to what I wrote before:

1. This didn’t have any influence on his identity or had any cultural meaning. He was European and considered as such. Many Europeans are dark-skinned but are therefore not considered black in a racial sense. I think about so many Belgian people … First person that comes to mind: Frank Vanhecke president of the fascist right wing Vlaams Belang party … isn’t it ironic

2. Even though we could try to trace back African ancestry through the Spanish influence in Belgium, but even then, I see race as a social construct more than a physical biological thing. Dark-skinned Europeans are considered white, light-skinned Africans of the diaspora are considered black. And this social meaning is what matters, I think, not the width of the nose or the shape of the lips.

Afro-Europe said...

Sibo, you're right about having strong doubts about the cultural afro centric meaning of it. I think Codfried also didn’t see it as cultural afro centric thing, he mentioned that some of the "black" nobility even owned slaves.

I have never read the book, but I am interested in how he concludes that some people have African Ancestry just by looking at their facial features. Being dark skinned doesn't mean you have African blood.

I will try to contact him, and ask him to respond to the remarks you made.

Egmond Codfried said...

BLUE BLOOD IS BLACK BLOOD (1500-1789)(1)

And I was duly contacted and read the article and reactions. Much obliged. The book mentioned was my first stab at this subject, namely black European nobility and black European royalty. My latest book is titled Blue blood is black blood (1500-1789). Nobody was more surprised with the findings and it took three years before I could believe my own theories and say Blue blood is black blood (1500-1789). Watch the date! My theory is all mine, coming from a anti-racist and anti-colonialist viewpoint, but based on extensive literature and sources. Some had to be read in a certain way, as the writers are mainly ideological racists. The images, though attractive are a bit of a headache as they should be ‘read’ and not taken at face value. We are not being shown all there is.

(The image shown is Anna Boleyn and not the extremely African looking, brown coloured, Charlotte Sophie van Mecklenburg)

This theory is based on personal descriptions in biographies and on the internet which describe persons of the highest nobility as ‘black, brown, more brown then white, not the white hands, The Black Boy, The Swarthy Stuart, Black Tom, chimney sweeper, black as chimney, The Black Prince, bad complexion, ugly.

Next comes the marked disparity between these descriptions and the portraits which often show these same people as whites, some with dark hair but also as blonds with blue eyes. This disparity is problematic and should be explained.

Another major problem is a definition of ‘black.’ What is black and what is white? Who is then black and who is white. In the US they used the one drop rule. But we could also regard a person who is 1/8 black as a white person. These terms are more politically motivated and change from region to region and from one age to another age. It is/was not used objectively, but in order to divide and rule, to conquer, to oppress. More objectively is black as an identity, to bypass actual looks. For Obama to have chosen a black wife and attending black churches shows him to be black identified.

The black Europeans I have identified had black looks and even classical African looks, meaning hair, lips, noses and colour. But the symbol of their ethnicity was the Moor, a pitch black, prognostic African. They identified as black. And we today look at their dresses, palaces, hairstyles, stories, culture, philosophy and recognize these as white we are mistaken. Like viewing the drinking of tea as the acme of British-ness does not make it white. It started out with blacks or people of colour. People of colour can have many looks. Descendents of classical African may resemble Europeans, but are black and black identified. Africa harbours many phenotypes, some individuals looking quite non-classical African, yet they are African. Diop showed that Africa was one civilisation, one culture, language, religion. And even the non-classical looking types are part of Africa, not immigrants. All phenotypes are inside the African man.

These days I like to stress that the albino is the ancestor of the people we call white. Both whites and albino share the trait of the inability to produce melanin. In all of nature the white life forms; the white flowers, the white reptiles, birds, mammals, primates; are albinos. Yet when it comes to humans, the whites vehemently reject this notion. Why? Because it does not sit well with their idea of white supremacy?

Egmond Codfried said...

BLUE BLOOD IS BLACK BLOOD (1500-1789)(2)

White supremacy is based on fake, whitened portraits of a elite which was described as black and coloured and identified as black, with images of the Moor. Some European cameo images show a black, male profile eclipsing a white, female profile, meaning black supremacy.

The black were the first humans inhabiting Europe. The Grimaldi Man entered Europe 40.000 years ago. The whites came only 6000 years ago, farmers from Central Asia. Written sources tell us of Caesar importing Africans, Garamante warriors, who had their hair in a crest – dreadlocks- around 50BC. Snowden writes about blacks in Antiquity (1971) from 800BC to 300 AD, the Early Christian Era. Medieval reports talk about Blue Men (500-1500) meaning black Europeans, even among the Vikings. Often depicted as blue people too. So there cannot be any doubt that there were blacks in Europe from the earliest times. So its not strange to regard black looking Europeans as blacks or coloureds. The mother of The Black Prince, Phillipa of Hainault had Asian ancestry. What happened to these people?

According to Kaplan the image of the Moor started in 1120 with a statue of St Maurice. Followed by the Black magi of King in the Adoration scenes. By 1500 this theme was common in all of Europe and even in the colonies. What does it mean, a youthful, luxuriously dressed black man at the beginning of Christianity? Then they worshipped black Madonna’s, black images of god and Jesus in their great churches.

So for a little recap: those nobles emerging at the end of the medieval period claimed blue blood, which reminds us of blue men and they identified with images of Moors: the root ‘moor’ in geographic names, family names, heraldry, jewellery, art objects, Moors in portraits, stories with a Moor in attendance.

The acrimonious nature of racism against blacks made me look for a recent confrontation between blacks and whites. The invention of the colour line in the US pinpoints the date of US racism to 1691. So we should be able to date racism in general to 1770 when according to Appiah (1985), nations were divided by colour, and not geography or language and culture. The only confrontation around this date is The French revolution of 1789-1795, when nobles, the blue bloods, were slaughtered and fled France. This revolution provoked more revolutions in the whole of Europe where in many states the nobility was abolished. To free white Europe from black oppression racism was invented, to show that blacks were inferior and ugly and beastlike.

Racism can now be deconstructed as an overwrought liberation ideology to free Europe from black oppression. They made Europe to what it is but were despotic and cruel. The idea of a united Europe began with the black noble elite. When they first appeared they might have been a blessing, bringing civilisation to Europe, but the system became corrupted and was violently brought down with the beheading of the French king and his wife, erstwhile divine beings.

Egmond Codfried

Afro-Europe said...

Thanks very much for accepting the invitation to respond. Very interesting viewpoint!

benpitler said...

This is an interesting topic. It seems generally accepted that black people did not have a real presence in Europe until after 1900 or so, but I too think that this seems somewhat impossible. People of all kinds have moved and migrated throughout history, so it seems likely that in actuality, a much greater number of blacks were living in Europe prior to 1900 and WWI. That being said, it's hard to say how reliable this artistic analysis actually is, but nevertheless I think the researcher makes a good point.

Egmond Codfried said...

Dear friends, I’m happy to see that more people are putting up my theory blue blood is black blood (1500-1789) on their website.

Sadly enough I have noticed that whites, any white person, will respond with blind panic, irrationality and ridicule if I try to explain these matters to them. Perhaps they are even in fear off each other and do not want to be labelled ‘nigger lover.’ Who knows?
Yet I believe they deserve some consideration as they were dominated by blacks, so they were taught to fear blacks. This fear is instilled through education, media, movies, anything. The indoctrination is so strong and pervasive that other coloureds and even blacks are affected.
To change this we have to combat the religious believe called white supremacy. The idea is that whites because of their colour are better, have better intelligence, better moral values, less likely to make a mess of some undertaking, more honest, more considered, less violent, better in looks etc.

This fallacy can easily be deconstructed by realizing that whites came out of blacks. Whites are descendents of albino’s as both lack the ability to produce melanin and some are still very white and immediately burn in the sun, while others are mixed with darker phenotypes and are able to tan. Human albinism is more then the classical albino with red eyes. There are albino variations which in description sound like what we consider normal whites with darker hair, darker eyes and the ability to tan. Albinism is hereditary.

There seems to be a need to medicalise albinism while they are normal, functioning people who just need to take some precautions before they venture out in the sun. Believe it or not, blacks were described in the 19th century as riddled with diseases and their extinction was eminent. Whites do this today against albino’s and recent this obvious comparison. They respond with some strange Wikipedia science saying that blacks slowly turned white in a mysterious process, about 6000 years ago. That’s actually when the whites left central Asia and settled in Europe, where they met the first Europeans, who were black and coloured.

While in the whole of nature every white life form comes from albinism. We have white roses and dark roses, white mice and grey mice, white cat and black cat and white gorilla and black gorilla. Yet we do not consider a white cat as defect or sick or put a higher or lower value on white cats, white dogs, white roses or white squirrels. White and black in regard to humans are political terms to divide and to oppress.

I feel that the first step needed is to eradicate white supremacy by showing every black person images of albinism among flowers, animals, primates and humans. Whites came out of blacks and are in no way superior. If they appear superior there must be other machinations in play. Like white supremacy is based on whitened, fake over painted portraits of a European elite which was described as black and coloured.

Moors are classical Africans found in Western art. I would like to advice blacks to come away from discussions about the Spanish Mores because this confuses the matter. The Arab Moors encountered black, coloured and white Europeans. The cultured black, noble and royal Europeans made Europe what it is today, but became cruel and despotic. This resulted in the French Revolution. Blacks abducted and held other blacks in slavery, and there are still blacks today who collaborate to keep other blacks down.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Afro-Eeurope for this great writing. I would like to add to the list Lorenzo de Medici, also called Lorenzo de Magnificient, first Duke of Floence, Italy.
Annalisa Butticci

Anonymous said...

sorry, his name was Alessandro. Lorenzo was his father. Annalisa

Afro-Europe said...

Hi Annalisa, thanks for the comment. I posted a story about him.

Anonymous said...

Dear mr Codfried

If a person in Europe is called black it's mostly because he has black hair, not that he has black skin. This was especially common before the 1960s when "negroes" for political reasons started to be called "black people" in the USA.

egmond codfried said...

quote:"If a person in Europe is called black it's mostly because he has black hair, not that he has black skin."

Dear, I hear this all the time. Would be kinda nice someone would prove this to me, once and for all.

The personal descriptions I use are quite clear about the persons colour or features:

Charles II Stuart: The Black Boy, a tall black man, the swarthy Stuart.

Lorenzo de Medici: dark and swarthy, with a flattened nose.

Queen Anna Boleyn: very dark, with black eyes and dark hair.

Germaine de Staël: too swarthy, bad complexion

James Boswell: swarthy with black eyes and black hair.

Rousseau: a genteel black man in an Armenian coat (Boswell)

Queen Charlotte Sophie of Mecklenburg Strelitz: a true mulatto face, yellow, brown, her mouth was to wide and her nose shows the same fault.

Charles V Habsburg: his mummy was black with massive subnasal prognatism

Louis XIV: mummy black as ink. He was a cousin of Charles II Stuart; the black boy.

Elizabeth I (Boleyns daughter): dark

William of Orange: more brown then white, brown of complexion and the beard.

Crystal said...

I dodn't believe that whites decended from albino's. My paternal grandfather was albino and Nigerian and none of his children came out albino and neither did any of his grandchildren. There are many African tribes with light skin and what are considered typical European features (i.e. hair, nose, thin lips, light eyes, ect.). I believe that whites most likely came from these different tribes and when they spread into Europe and other colder climates over time they evolved/adapted to the climate they were in; thus causing them to change in apperance to varying degrees.

Other than that I find it very interesting that there were so many black/mulatto nboility. I believe it since before the 1600s people mixed more racially since people were divided more by culture and class and race didn't become a social construct until the 1600s.

Egmond Codfried said...

If you accept that skin colour is an adaptation to environment and the first human was Black, you need to explain the whites, and even the white skinned Africans. I have found a source which says that 25% of the offspring of two albinos might be albino too. So I imagine that albino’s from such a union, who intermarry are likely to have an even higher rate of albino off spring. I would say that your sample, your dear grandfather, is a way to small population to make any scientific predictions. Next we have to concentrate on what this Black nobility was up to in Europe. They were a ruling elite of conquerors who had military prowess as well as scientific knowledge. I compare the system, 1500-1789) with Reversed Apartheid, with Blacks and coloureds on top. So anyone who was anything was most likely Black and coloured in looks. Blue blood is black blood.

Anonymous said...

WAS JANE AUSTEN BLACK?

SOURCES: How her person was described by family members

JANE AUSTEN'S OWN APPEARANCE

"In person she was very attractive; her figure was rather tall and slender, her step light and firm, and her whole appearance expressive of health and animation. In complexion she was a clear brunette with a rich colour; she had full round cheeks, with mouth and nose small and wellformed bright hazel eyes, and brown hair forming natural curls close round her face."

James-Edward Austen,
Jane's nephew

~
"... certainly pretty-bright & a good deal of colour in her face – like a doll – no that would not give at all the idea for she had so much expression – she was like a child – quite a child very lively and full of humour."

Mr Fowle,
family friend

~

"... her's was the first face I can remember thinking pretty ... Her hair, a darkish brown, curled naturally – it was in short curls round her face...Her face was rather round than long – she had a bright but not a pink colour – a clear brown complexion and very good hazel eyes. Her hair, a darkish brown, curled naturally, it was in short curls around her face. She always wore a cap ... before she left Steventon she was established as a very pretty girl, in the opinion of most of her neighbours."

Caroline Austen,
Jane's niece

~

"Her hair was dark brown and curled naturally, her large dark eyes were widely opened and expressive. She had clear brown skin and blushed so brightly and so readily."

An early description of young Jane at Steventon by Sir Egerton Brydges

~

"She was tall and slender; her face was rounded with a clear brunette complexion and bright hazel eyes. Her curly brown hair
escaped all round her forehead, but from the time of her coming to live at Chawton she always wore a cap, except when her nieces had her in London and forbade it."

Edward Austen Leigh of Jane's appearence in the years just after the family left Southampton

~

" Her stature rather exceeded the middle height; her carriage and deportment were quiet but graceful; her complexion of the finest texture, it might with truth be said that her eloquent blood spoke through her modest
cheek."

" Her pure and eloquent blood spoke in her cheeks and so distinctly wrought that you had almost said her body thought."

Henry Austen said of his sister

Anonymous said...

WAS JANE AUSTEN BLACK?
by Egmond Codfried

SOURCES: Quotes from her books

[quote] '[Henry Crawford], was not handsome; no, when they first saw him, he was absolutely plain, black and plain; but still he was the gentleman, -Northanger Abbey[/quote]

[quote] Oh! They give themselves such airs. They are the most conceited creatures in the world, and think themselves of so much importance! By the by, though I have thought of it a hundred times, I have always forgot to ask you what is your favourite complexion in a man. Do you like them best dark or fair?"

"I hardly know. I never much thought about it. Something between both, I think. Brown--not fair, and--and not very dark."

"Very well, Catherine. That is exactly he. I have not forgot your description of Mr. Tilney--'a brown skin, with dark eyes, and rather dark hair.' Well, my taste is different. I prefer light eyes, and as to complexion--do you know--I like a sallow better than any other. You must not betray me, if you should ever meet with one of your acquaintance answering that description." -Northanger Abbey[/quote]

Anonymous said...

WAS JANE AUSTEN BLACK?
by Egmond Codfried

SOURCES: Quotes from her books

[quote] Emma Watson was not more than of the middle height, well made and plump, with an air of healthy vigour. Her skin was very brown, but clear, smooth, and glowing, which, with a lively eye, a sweet smile, and an open countenance, gave beauty to attract, and expression to make that beauty improve on acquaintance. […]The next morning brought a great many visitors. It was the way of the place always to call on Mrs. Edwards the morning after a ball, and this neighbourly inclination was increased in the present instance by a general spirit of curiosity on Emma`s account, as everybody wanted to look again at the girl who had been admired the night before by Lord Osborne. Many were the eyes, and various the degrees of approbation with which she was examined. Some saw no fault, and some no beauty. With some her brown skin was the annihilation of every grace, and others could never be persuaded that she was half so handsome as Elizabeth Watson had been ten years ago. -The Watsons[/quote]

[quote] Miss Dashwood had a delicate complexion, regular features, and a remarkably pretty figure. Marianne was still handsomer. Her form, though not so correct as her sister's, in having the advantage of height, was more striking; and her face was so lovely, that when, in the common cant of praise, she was called a beautiful girl, truth was less violently outraged than usually happens. Her skin was very brown, but, from its transparency, her complexion was uncommonly brilliant; her features were all good; her smile was sweet and attractive; and in her eyes, which were very dark, there was a life, a spirit, an eagerness, which could hardily be seen without delight. From Willoughby their expression was at first held back, by the embarrassment which the remembrance of his assistance created. But when this passed away, when her spirits became collected, when she saw that to the perfect good breeding of the gentleman, he united frankness and vivacity, and above all, when she heard him declare, that of music and dancing he was passionately fond, she gave him such a look of approbation, as secured the largest share of his discourse to herself for the rest of his stay.-Sense and sensibility[/quote]

Anonymous said...

WAS JANE AUSTEN BLACK?
by Egmond Codfried

Sources: Quotes from her books
and 'Gowland's Lotion.'

[quote] "Did you ever see such a skin? -- such smoothness! such delicacy! -- and yet without being actually fair. --One cannot call her fair. It is a most uncommon complexion, with her dark eye-lashes and hair -- a most distinguishing complexion! So peculiarly the lady in it. --Just colour enough for beauty."

"I have always admired her complexion," replied Emma, archly; "but do not I remember the time when you found fault with her for being so pale? --When we first began to talk of her. --Have you quite forgotten?"-Emma[/quote]

[quote] “How very ill Eliza Bennet looks this morning, Mr Darcy," [Caroline Bingley] cried; "I never in my life saw any one so much altered as she is since the winter. She is grown so brown and coarse! Louisa and I were agreeing that we should not have known her again.”

However little Mr Darcy might have liked such an address, he contented himself with coolly replying that he perceived no other alteration than her being rather tanned -- no miraculous consequence of traveling in the summer.

"For my own part," she rejoined, "I must confess that I never could see any beauty in her. Her face is too thin; her complexion has no brilliancy; and her features are not at all handsome. Her nose wants character; there is nothing marked in its lines. Her teeth are tolerable, but not out of the common way; and as for her eyes, which have sometimes been called so fine, I never could perceive any thing extraordinary in them.”-Pride and Prejudice[/quote]

Quote;
“Gowland’s Lotion
During the Regency the Gowland's Lotion may have been the most famous of them all. Prepared by Macdonald, Humbert, & co. in Longacre, it was priced at 9d. 3d. per Half Pints, 2s. 3d. for a Pint and 6s. the Quart. e Said to cure everything from pimples to scrophula, this lotion was a must have for the fashionable lady of the era. It was not for everyday use but to combat sudden eruptions of the skin, sunburn etc. In Modern domestic medicine f Thomas John Graham commented "These red, stationary pimples in the face, form a complaint called by professional men gutta rosea, and are often a source of much disgust to the female part of society. Gowland's lotion is a favourite remedy for their removal; but, as it is a solution of corrosive sublimate, it is by no means safe."
The Medical lexicon g gives the following information on the recipe: "Lotion, Gowland's. An empirical preparation (Bitter almond, sugar, distilled water. Grind together, strain and add corrosive sublimate, previously ground with spiritus vini rectified.) Used on obstinate eruptions." and The Modern Practice of Physic h further explains the formula as "A remedy much employed by women who are troubled with eruptions in the face is Gowland's lotion, the basis of which is the oxymuriate of mercury or superacetate of lead; but it is a hazardous application when continued for any length of time." It was obviously best suited to oily skin, although the addition of mercury and/or lead would indeed make it unsafe!
© 1999-2010 Yvonne Forsling, All rights reserved.”

digi said...

Japanese nobility were black-skinned too, just as Europeans were. I've seen some pictures of emperors and it looks so.

egmond codfried said...

Thank you. I have also learned that the Japanese royals are mostly small in stature.
I have a Blog:
bluebloodisblackblood.blogspot.com
The european elite was black and brown in looks and Black identified. Their black identity was blue blood, and symbolised with images of a Moor. They ruled and exploited whites, even using their white skins for bookbindings, clothing and shoes. This explains why whites hate blacks so much, with today people not realising why. They are afraid to be ruled by blacks again.

Anonymous said...

It is not strange that there are many black people (Moors, Turks) in Western Europe. It is also not strange that some of them were of nobility. It was a common practise of the Romans to employ soldiers from one part of the empire in another parts. That way, they wouldn't have to kill their peers. So, Germans in Egypt and Egyptians in Germany... Many would return to their ancestrial langs, but many would choose to stay after their tour. Roman soldiers could get some land after their tour and that means they could be the basis of many rich families. Secondly, there could be Christian people from semitic and Turkish ancestry who came to Western Europe after the crusades, as personal friends of European nobility or as knights of the cross. Thirdly, it is common knowledge that the best scholars in the pre-middle ages were from Arabian countries. They would be gladly employed by kings for building and (weapons) designs, as well as university teachers. And there was of course the invasion of the Moors in Spain. After they were driven out of Spain, there must be people of black and mixed blood remain. Concluding: it would be very strange if there would not be black people of nobility in midaevel times.

egmond codfried said...

UPDATE: BLUE BLOOD IS BLACK BLOOD (1100-1848)

The research question was: why do white’s hate and fear Blacks so much? What did Blacks do to whites to make them so hateful? When did they do these things to whites? Why can’t one discuss these matters with whites?

I’m not claiming that whites are bad people and Blacks good. Instead I have found that whites hate and fear blacks because they were despotically ruled by a black and brown complexioned European elite, which identified as Black. Blue blood is Black blood (1100-1848).

Racism and eurocentrism then becomes a liberation ideology to free whites from Black rule in Europe, and prevent this from occurring again. The reason why this sounds very strange is because whites have rewritten history since they were emancipated in 1848. They have turned history white. The whites today are descendents of the European Serfs. During the period 1100-1848 there was trade in human leather in Europe, and it were most likely that the Serfs who were flayed, and their skins used to bind books, make clothing and make shoes. The Serfs, the whites; were considered less then human, and Human Races were invented to give them human status since 1760.

The Nobility in Europe started with black and brown complexioned native Europeans, who were descendents of the first Europeans who entered Europe 45.000 years ago. The whites came 6000 years ago from Central Asia.
During the medieval era black and brown Europeans were called blue men. A poem describes Saracens as: blue and black as molten lead. Blue was a euphemism for black.

EGMOND CODFRIED said...

VERVOLG...

The nobility started from 1100-1200 and the nobles called themselves blue blood. Blue men, blue blood. And intermarriage was the cornerstone of the nobility, to remain coloured. The nobles dominated the whites (and the non-noble Black Europeans)in a caste system, with everybody with colour as part of the caste system, and whites as the outcasts. A reversed apartheid system with Blacks on top.

All this sounds very strange to us, because the whites were emancipated in 1848, and from then started painting the history white. So today we look at images of persons who are described as black and brown, but look white. The use of these whitened portraits should be considered revisionist, as they are taken out of context. The brown and black skinned elite sometimes painted themselves white, which led to portraits where they are portrayed as whites. But they had also portraits which showed their dark complexions as well. But these we do not get to see, but they still exist. Some of these are over painted, with pink paint.

The brown and black Europeans symbolised their identity with images of Moors and Black Madonna's. They considered Black superior over white, so god was white. In the same way we find today white Madonna’s in countries were everybody is brown and black. The Moor is a classical African, and nobles who resembled these Classical Africans were regarded as having pure noble blood. So we also have many images of heraldic Moors, to show the families Black ancestry, and descriptions of noble's and kings as brown or black in looks. But there also remain Black portraits, most prints. The saying: a prince on a white horse, is derived from the fact that the white horse symbolised the white population who were ruled by black and brown princes, like how a prince sits on a horse.

All can be verified in Google. I feel I need to push these new findings, which earlier writers of Black History had little knowledge of. Blacks are running in circles and have no means to end white supremacy and racism, because nobody offered a theory how it all started. This theory goes to the beginning, and explains all the Blacks in western art, the Golden Moors, The Black Madonna’s as remnants of a forgotten black civilisation. The revisionism is still active. A Jane Austen (1775-1817) who is described as ‘a brunette complexion’ wrote about brown and blacks in the gentry, yet her personages are portrayed by whites in movies. It’s clearly written in her books that her main personages are brown and black, yet…So Black should just re-examine everything from this new blue blood is black blood perspective and free themselves from white supremacy.

Egmond Codfried
The Hague

Nita said...

Greetings from America. I am doing some research of Black influence in Europe for my personal interests. How is the research going for you Codfried?

Anonymous said...

I have a need to know who I'm. Thank you for your research. I must keep up with you .

Ayannah Taylor said...

Excellent Research no one has put it together so clearly how we ruled and lost power since th elate 1600 to 1800's. Thanks and much love from America.

Anonymous said...

@EGMOND CODFRIED,

While this is indeed an intersting theory, I do question some of the things you've stated. For instance if white people were considered inferior, why did the "Black nobility" intermarry with them? In addition to this, why did they paint themselves white in portraits?

I await your response,

Thank You,
MS

Anonymous said...

I read the first part and was laughing my ass off.The Grimaldi man entered Europe 45,000 years ago.The Neanderthal man was already there over 150,000 years ago.But wait! The Neanderthal man isn't Human so he doesn't count.But wait! Caucasians, Asians, and every other NON-black person in this world has atleast 1-4 % Neanderthal in them so therefore white's were there long before blacks even knew that area existed.

Anonymous said...

An African albino that has a child with another albino will still show African features. Same with Asian & Indian albinos. I forgot to mention there are also Caucasian albinos so your shit is false.You need to do a little research on albinos before assuming shit.

Anonymous said...

He claims white supremacist did it.I wouldn't want information from a man who thinks whites came from albino's.When he doesn't realize there are Indian,Asian,Black, and Caucasian albino's.

Anonymous said...

Greetings i think this work splendid. It goes verywell with my personal research. I wanted to ask a question though because it gets so looked over. But would you happen to know the nationality of these moors. I know its a stretch because after the rennaissancd period authors didnt make good commentaries of actual nationalites of the black people in europe. Hence rhey grouped every black in one catagory: AFRICAN. African european etc are incorporated names and they only served the purpose of location not natuonality. Foe the guy making the COMPLAINT of the albino theory. Hince the fact it is just a theory not to be taking negatively and because you responded so impulsively shows your incompetence. We know that each nation produces albinos but it isnt a common practice ti force them into the caucas mountains as it was yester-day. Alot ofof the peoplethe being forcedof into that geographical area would be hamitic or shemitic speaking from a biblical point of view. I think edmund did a magnificent job and i say keep up the good work brother!

Anonymous said...

Same reason white slave owners loved and had babies with the "inferior" black women.Love,sex and war have always transcended ethnic boundaries.
And lack of full knowledge regarding albinism does not nullify other premises based in factual history.
SJ

Anonymous said...

Since i first saw the Sphynx as a teenager in a Nigerian secondary school, then later the pics of the S America Olmec heads with the broad,flattened & much flared nares, coupled with the welcoming and accepting attitude my country people had for the white folks, despite the history of slavery, colonialism and continued economic rape, and the reality(then) of apatheid in S Africa, as well as accounts of deep racism experienced by returning emmigrants, my young mind had already started rebeling against the standard history of the world. And now i am older, and i see, right underneath most of the so-labelled "white" skin, just a dash of color, i appreciate that Almighty Yah truly laughs in derision of the today's self appointed masters of the world. I may even go as far as saying that not only does the european nobility flow with black...er, i mean blue blood, but the ancient gods of the greeks and the romans, with their wicked sense of humor, were all,as well as the giant offspring rulers they bred(like Agamemnon of the ancient Argos), i say, were all black as night.

Ronald Guest said...

In my (A. Taharaka) recent research I came across this piece written by Benjamin Franklin: America as land of opportunity, published in(1751)"Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind." Just a little food for thought for you racist out there. Please David Macritchie master work on the subject, "Ancient and Modern Britons (volume 1&2), published in 1884.

Anonymous said...

Dear Brother Farrah,

The history of Blacks, the first people, did not start with the enslavement of Blacks in 1441 by their own Black European brethren, who were the noble and bourgeois elite of Europe. The Nobles and Bourgeoisie were like two equally brown and black complexioned European tribes fighting for power. All of history is about brown and black complexioned people. Whites never, ever founded any civilization. Blacks civilized and Christianized the pagan hell out of whites in Europe. Among the nobles and bourgeois those with classical African facial traits were considered pure of blood. The nobility self-identified as Black by means of little heraldic Moors. The heraldic Moors in western art are symbols of blue blood and Black Superiority. They are usually not real persons, nor god forbid slaves: they are imaginary figures created by the painter as a symbol. The clever painters even did not need to have a Black person in front of them to whip up a magnificently dressed little or big Moor. The painted portraits are no instamatic snapshots, they are artificial and loaded with symbolism. Though some real life nobles, kings and emperors like Charles V Hapsburg or Leopold I Hapsburg, fully resembled these imaginary Moors in looks. So even if they were depicted white in concept, and loved the folly of painting up themselves white and bleaching their skins in real life: they identified as Black, as coming from Africa.
And they saw themselves as superior over whites and the bourgeois castes. But we do not know this, and some find it almost impossible to believe because we have been deceived since 1848 with fake, whitened over paints of people who were described as black, brown, the black boy, more brown then white, swarthy, bad complexion, not the white hands, chimney sweeper, black as chimney, the black prince, black tom, ugly, etc. When you enter a museum the people who speak to you lie through their teeth. The paintings are over paints, often completely vandalized master pieces. And they write thick important ‘scientific’ books about this falsified data, that hides the true complexion of the ancient regime. The whites were considered shoe leather, until the invention of human races to elevate these whites to human level. The historical Declaration of Human Rights was on their behalf; the white serfs were asking to be regarded as humans by their brown and black skinned nobles. In this way the bourgeois philosophers of the Enlightenment forged a coalition between whites who were the majority and the bourgeois, who in defiance of the nobility identified themselves as Caucasians, or black Caucasians; to defeat the hated nobility. When they finally succeeded, the newly emancipated whites set out to rewrite history, extirpate their oppressors from history, and retouched all the faces of the hated ancient regime. Now, even as we speak, the whites keep this secret from us. But no more, I’m onto their little game, that I, with your help en blessing, will stop right now. Go to your museum and ask for a tour with magnifying goggles and demand to be shown the facial retouches, and next write to your city council about this scandalous falsehood perpetrated on Blacks.
I have discovered a source of miscommunication between Americans and others as the State of American still believes in the unscientific concept of human races, assigning a race to every citizen. And in the US the North Africans, no matter of what complexion, are considered whites. We have all seen the Libyans and Egyptians marching on TV and we should decide for ourselves if they are white. Do they have a white identity? As the bourgeois and republican inspired, revolutionary leadership identified as white, though brown and black of complexion, Americans do not realize that the American Founding Fathers were far from lily-white of complexion. Greetings to you all and Best Wishes for 2013, the year of our deliverance.

Egmond Codfried
Suriname Blue Blood Is Black Blood Museum
At The Hague.

John said...

Greetings to you, too, Egmond!

I've just returned from your website and I must say, to put it mildly, some of the information posted there is well, astounding! One of the assertions, for instance, that King Louis Xiv, if I remember correctly, used human skins as adornment, was a bit hard to believe, but I'm always open to learning. I will read and reread everything on your site and be enlightened by the research you've found.

I do hope that 2013, as you wish for us African peoples globally, is our "Year of Deliverance".
Peace!

rg garrett said...

Why can't you people just accept the fact that you were still in caves in the caucuses mountains when europe was ruled by black hebrews.

Anonymous said...

PART ONE...

To the makers of Hidden Colors
The Hague, 22 January 2013.

Mr. Tariq Nasheed,

After carefully watching your DVD of Hidden Colors (2011) my conclusion is that you must be in league with the enemies of Blacks by presenting the unaware public with wrong and unfinished research, and by promoting further division among Blacks by linking Black History to anti- activism, anti-women liberation and anti-gay emancipation efforts. The divide between men and women is the greatest scorch, while all well thinking people understand that women need to be equal to men, that we need to get rid of the patriarchies of old, for Blacks to exist and prosper. By your vulgar gay bashing you have alienated Blacks from at least 20% of their own: parents, children, siblings, and taxpaying, fellow workers.

And showing how the penal system is working against any Black as you did, is really meant to intimidate any Black in trying to overturn the status quo. The Fat Cats and bitter, mean spirited women, and the obviously closeted hateful gay professors, you have presented: utter old fashioned white solutions to the Black Problem and are basically telling Blacks: Do not bother, there is no use, be like us, join the capitalist system, rape women legally (prostitution) and bash your gays (only the men as women sexuality does not count) and all will be well in the world. The problems are shown as so great and so overwhelming, that the whites come off as these immensely powerful creatures who are always ahead, who have always conquered and vanquished Blacks from time immemorial, Blacks should not even THINK of trying to change anything.

The truth and the lies are presented as a mix, so the debunking of your story is made hard, because there is truth is some parts although presented in a terribly wrong context. And you show the dreaded fakes, whitened images that were created to keep us in the dark. You fail to identify whites as albino derived, because this is what whites especially hate to hear, as it shows they did not come first and that they came out of Blacks, and thus could never, ever be superior to Blacks.

I have recognized a few images which I have generally introduced on the web, and they are presented by you without the context of my Blue Blood Is Black Blood (1100-1848 ) Theory, scientific research, which basically says that Europe during this time should be regarded as a Black Civilisation, with brown and black complexioned native Europeans dominating, ruling, civilizing and christianising whites who are Asian, and a foolproof albino derived nation, but late comers. Part of the brown and black complexioned Europeans declared themselves in 1100-1200 a blue blood nobility and self-identified with heraldic Moors as Blacks. They created the Black King Balthasar, the Black Madonna’s and the numerous Black Saints as propaganda for Black Superiority. Together with the bourgeoisie they were the second estate, and both of these Black European ‘tribes’ oppressed the whites who were reduced to lowly serfs, and outcasts of the cast society. The elite even used their skins for shoe leather. The French Revolution brought the nobility down, but they re-emerged with restorations like the one by Napoleon. Your type of research after all these decades remains patchy, spotty and anecdotic when it comes to the presence of Blacks in Europe, for not naming names or showing Black portraits. Just like the enemies of Blacks like to keep it.

The end was in 1848 with the final Revolutions when the third estate, the white serfs, were emancipated and got general suffrage for men. Next, in reverse they set out to ‘restore’ the

Anonymous said...

PART TWO...

....portraits of the ancient regime to what they claimed was the true intention of the painters, and retouched the hell out of the supposedly ‘darkened’ paint back to white. An old photo of The Syndics by Rembrandt introduced by me on the web shows he made his figures all shades of brown and showed classical African facial traits along with colour. My museum has embarked on a international campaign to make the public aware of the fact that all Old Master portraits in museums are fake, whitened over paint, while the brown faces and brown hands underneath remain highly visible.

In spite of this you showed a whitened, fake image of James I Stuart, the grandfather of Charles II Stuart who you did present as a Black person, somehow suggesting that the Nobility and Kingship was instigated by whites who intermarried with some Blacks, resulting in a few Black or ethnically mixed Kings. This is totally wrong, and this points to your intentionally unfinished and highly misleading research. The image of the Spanish Queen Isabelle shows her with long blond hair, which is totally ridiculous, with the Habsburgs famous for massive prognathism. The rule by Blacks is the cause of racism against Blacks today, as the bourgeois philosophers had invented Racism against the Black-identified nobility as a liberation ideology. Blacks are thus one step above apes, which were presented to the white masses as people who had degenerated because of their immoralness.

There are many genealogies available which show intermarriage between and among nobles and royals, so with finding one or two Black person with those ranks, and comparing images with personal descriptions that say brown or black of complexioned, one can understand the whole elite to have been brown or black and self-identifying as Black. Images of Moors are symbolic and seldom represent real persons. A painter did not need to have a person in front of him to create an image of a Moor. There is no proof of Moorish persons directly from Africa teaching or having any powerful positions at universities or courts. The European Blacks are native, they regarded themselves as from the soil, and claimed senior rights over whites. The Islamic Moors that ruled Spain do not show up beyond the South of France, and there is no sign of any Islam among the ruling, brown and black complexioned European Christian elite, after they were driven from Spain. This misinformation all leads to a dead end, and serves the enemy of Blacks well.

Because your message is no threat to white supremacy teachings of history which omits Blacks as an elite, and because you present so-called scholars who manage to find Black Emperors sitting on China’s thrones, and Black Kings in Mesoamerica, but cannot find extremely well documented and depicted European Emperors like Leopold I Habsburg, or Charles V Habsburg that represent a Black Civilisation: it seems to me they are working AGAINST Blacks Liberation. That’s also why your false prophets of hatred can be so successful, they are part of the oppressing system. They represent how the enemy of Blacks who never sleeps has co-opted Black History and has tried to turn it in an instrument of hatred, derision, division and oppression. Like how slavery was perpetrated with the help of some Blacks to enslave and keep Blacks in slavery. You are not part of the solution, but part of the problem. You are all Fat Cat sell-outs, well ensconced, with a well-feathered nest, but out and out TRAITORS to the Blacks. You bold facedly introduce more and new division between Blacks. Really not better then the Africans who from 1441 sold Africans to the Black Europeans who kept their brethren in slavery.

The only merit from your DVD is that Blacks can come face to face with their direct enemies.

Egmond Codfried
Curator Suriname Blue Blood Is Black Blood Museum
Bluebloodisblackblood.blogspot.com
bluebloodisblackblood@hotmail.com

Anonymous said...

One of the things I get to get to terms with is being constantly misunderstood. People need not agree with me, but please make the effort to understand what I have been writing. I’m just an average person and I assume others also know how difficult communication can be in the most favorable of circumstances. Is there anybody out there who often puts himself in the other’s position and worries if he understands, and tries to eliminate or mention the obstacles between humans from different nations, tongue, locations etc. to make things go smoother. Meeting the other half-way, so to speak.
I have found that in the US the state assigns everybody a Race. Human Races are unscientific, there are no Human Races. People might show different types, but there is no foolproof way to determine what race a person is. Nor does race say anything about behavior, capabilities, opinions, or morality.
So I’m sure I cannot have a rational discourse with a persons who argues in terms of Race, and cannot see beyond the limitations the believe in Human Races in the understanding of issues.


While this is indeed an intersting theory, I do question some of the things you've stated. For instance if white people were considered inferior, why did the "Black nobility" intermarry with them? In addition to this, why did they paint themselves white in portraits?

I await your response,

Thank You,
MS”

I notice that this person rejects my findings, but does not offer one iota of how he or she thinks it should be. Why is this? I feel my theory is applicable in most situations and answers question of which the scientist say there is no answer.
The nobility looked down on both the brown and black complexioned bourgeoisie and the white serfs. In google there are many articles and books about flaying, using human skin to make book covers, clothing and shoes.

Anonymous said...

part two...

This is nothing I applaud. And is not my fault normal history books never speak of this or church door being lined with human skin, showing approval by the church, the first estate, also dominated by the nobility. This explains racial inspired hatred against Blacks, although there are no black nobles around anymore to threaten whites. They keep on going as if it was only yesterday. They keep the whitened, fake, vandalized portraits pristine. The third estate, the white serfs, liberated themselves in 1848, for the second time as the bourgeoisie stole the French Revolution. They set out to destroy things reminding them of the Ancien Regime. They smashed Black Madonna’s. the portraits of the Ancien Regime were retouched to make them resemble the new order, the whites. It was either whitening or destruction. You can still see the white faces and hands underneath the top layers. The Ancien Regime was under pressure to alter the private portraits. They were also under some duress to biologically integrate with the whites. The rampant racism might have motivated them to lighten up, to marry a fair person. The nobility and bourgeoisie were of all complexions. Next fairness was bred in and blackness was bred out, to arrive at a type considered white. Poor Queen- Regent Emma of the Netherlands, she was always carrying an umbrella around to prevent tanning, as the Van Waldeck Piermonts were so swarthy indeed. Her sister Helena married Victoria’s youngest, ailing son, and there used to be very dark pictures of her on the web. I consider her daughter Wilhelmina or granddaughter Juliana the first white members of the Orange-Nassau family, just barely so. But the nobles and royals were dark skinned way into the 20th century. The King of Spain Alfonso the something visited the US in the 1920-tees, and I wonder how his very dark complexion and huge thick lips were explained away. What, pray, did the KKK make of this kings Black looks. There are many questions, what discussion they were having at the castles about turning white to keep their positions and power? How was a bride selected, balancing dowry with lightness of complexion? And who married the Black beauties? Some had always kept the antique Grecian ideals of beauty high and bleached their face or painted white, receiving praise for that from some. Go figure. Nothing as queer as folks.


egmond codfried
bluebloodisblackblood.blogspot.com
bluebloodisblackblood@hotmail.com

Anonymous said...

what would be a proof then? I'm from austria, we call blonde, light-skinned people "Weiße/r" (Ah, du meinst die Weiße/die Helle." - Oh! You mean this white girl/the girl with the light skin")
if we're talking about someone with dark hair or darker skin we say "Schwarze/r" or "Dunkle/r" ("Der ist wirklich dunkel." - He's really dark.")

cityloves247 said...

great collection of information and happy to see visitors getting involved too. There is so much to learn and am sure you all realize that you are not even at the tip of the iceberg yet! Though the information is not new, at least to me, am happy to see younger folks getting involved. It's their time to pick up the mantel and running with it. To knock on doors (figuratively of course), to ask questions, to challenge the available information that society has dispersed for generations.

Emancipation of mental slavery is a tasked and a dilemma, and far harder than the physical, because, it's not so easy to gasp any of the edges or it's formations; yet still, one must if they are to exit to other realms of understanding themselves.

A great place to start for new seekers is the excellent publication called, " The Golden Bought ". It's a rather large publication, but so filled with useful knowledge on European cultural traditions and people. and best of all it's available free online from any of the big public cyber libraries.

Kelita09 said...

Maybe this is how the white race started... 2011 article of black parents giving birth to a "white" baby and they say that she does not appear to look like a typical albino
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3060907/Black-parents-give-birth-to-white-baby.html

Kelita09 said...

It also shows that typical features do not always match typical complexions

Anonymous said...

As a black (supposedly African)Maine, American; I can't tell you how well you just expressed many of my own feelings about race. There are no races; my grandfathers (some slaves and some not) have fathered several hundred who cannot be determined to be either black or white. I do believe that whites are the latest to show up (not as a race but a color) but big deal, everybody's got their time. My own daughter would be white if we didn't state she was black on her birth certificate, it's a U.S. thing.

marinus said...

Who said Neanderthals were white? Just the fact that the first samples were found in a German Valley does not prove that they were white at all. Petrified bones, so very difficult to identify the race! Lucy could have been white, or black, or green for all we know.

helga585 said...

With the royals it’s all Ethiopian Jews that are predominantly negro. The coats of arms of Coburg, Landkreis Freising, and Landkreis Garmisch-Partenkirchen reveal the truth somewhat with the negro head on those coats of arms.

Hernanday said...

Hello Egmond, I have follow your work and have found similar things in my studies as well. I would like to have you as guest blogger on my blog if you are interested maybe you get some more viewers.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...