Plus fort ensemble Suivez nous sur Facebook et Twitter | News > L’histoire cachée des noirs et métis dans la noblesse européennepublié le 27 avr. 2011 22:32 par metis defrance
|
zondag 22 mei 2011
L’histoire cachée des noirs et métis dans la noblesse européenne
zaterdag 21 mei 2011
PERSONAL DESCRIPTIONS
[William I of Orange (1533-1584): 'More brown then white' and \ Brown of complexion and the beard'(Beresteyn 1933:1)].
PERSONAL DESCRIPTIONS
The Blue Blood is Black Blood (1500-1789) Theory (2005) is primarily based on biographical, personal descriptions of members of the European elite that say they were brown or black of complexion.
Next there are portraits, mostly engravings, which do show the black and brown complexions. This theory offers a deconstruction of racism against Blacks by stating that Europe was once ruled by a Black identified, Black and coloured noble and royal elite, and scientific racism should be regarded as a liberation ideology to wean oppressed whites away from their fascination with their Black and brown oppressors. Part of the liberation ideology was also the revision of history to turn all the Great Men into white men. Human Races were invented to raise whites to the level of humans, and put whites at the top of a fictional evolutional hierarchy, with Blacks at the bottom, nearest to apes. While The Declaration of Human Rights should rightly be understood for the whites Europeans, serfs, to gain equal rights, to be respected as humans by their black and coloured noble and royal masters.
Racism was invented around 1760, according to Appiah (1975), when nations were hence identified by skin colour. The French Revolution (1789-1795) was the first wave of the ideological war for liberation of whites. Before this there were Farmer Revolts in the 15th and 16th centuries against the nobility and the church that were bloodily put down. Due to restorations whites were only finally emancipated after the revolutions from 1848. As these Black nobles had issued fashionable and propagandistic, whitened portraits; these pieces were next used for revisionism; to hide this bitter and traumatic historical episode. Black portraits were repressed or over painted or copied as white portraits. Some authentic black portraits are still languishing in secret family faults. Whites seem to still be vehemently reacting to these acrimonious happenings, and still fear Black domination; even if most of them do not know that the European elite was Black.
There has to be a factor in the raising of white children to make around 10% hard-line racists, who are able to intimidate non-racist whites as well as Blacks. Still it can be noticed that the historical Black portraits are until today consciously neglected or overexposed to appear lighter in reproduction. There have to be people in the know. Like when they talk about Black Caucasians or African Caucasians, to explain away Black European royalty. Or people are told that blue blood refers to blue veins, or black refers to black hair or even that portraits do not show ethnicity, which some less able people repeat over and over. Claims are made that fungi altered ‘woodcuts’ or that paper is oxidised to make whites appear like Blacks. This fungi or oxidation only seems to attack the faces and hands and leaves the white lace collars, white. Yet the biggest group that permits this revisionism to continue are Blacks themselves, with their intellectual leaders still selling their people for personal gain, career purposes and safety. Or that Black persons are taken aback by the liberating idea that Blacks are not the eternal victims of whites. This gives whites, who were only emancipated after 1848, too much credit and power.
These personal descriptions are found in biographies; even the first pages. Next the Blue blood theory asks why then are they described as brown or black yet portrayed as whites. But there are indeed also drawings and prints to be found, which show their dark complexions. Some even show ethnic facial traits. The personal descriptions are also called pen portraits, and they can be autobiographical as well. Isabelle de Charrière (1740-1805), known also as baroness Belle van Zuylen, wrote about her self in ‘Portrait of Zélide’(1767) to James Boswell: ‘She does not have the white hands, she knows this and even jokes about it; but it’s not a joking matter.’ (CP.Courtney 1996)Yet all her known portraits show a white woman with dark hair. A portrait of her grandmother, Maria Jacoba van Goor (1687-1737) however shows a rich, regent class woman with marked African facial traits, yet with white skin. The white skin is at variance with her granddaughter writing: I don’t have the white hands. Van Goor’s mother, Elizabeth Schrijvers, was a niece of Rembrandt’s.
Boswell, a Scottish noble and a candidate for marriage to De Charrière, and who is a descendent of king John Bruce, calls himself ‘black’ as he jokes about his yet unborn natural child, that should be called ‘The Black Prince,’ as both his parents are ‘black.’ He writes in his journal about his niece: ‘Mrs Maasdam black as chimney.’ And about her husband: ‘Her husband chimney sweeper.’ She was Anna Margaretha van Aerssen, a granddaughter of the Surinam governor Cornelis van Aerssen van Sommelsdijk(1637-1688). Lady van Aerssen married baron Aarnoud Joost van der Duyn van Maasdam (1715-1785) a member of the oldest noble families. De Charrière wrote a poem about the barons complexion: ‘A son teint noir et basané.’(1767) (About his brown black complexion) The Van Aerssens Family was the richest family in the 17 century and owned a third part of Surinam. The governor’s grandmother, Petronella Borre (1578-1653) shows frizzled hair. Baron van Maasdam’s sister married a ‘friend’ of King William III: Aarnout Joost Keppel. An engraved portrait of heir grandson, George Keppel, Earl of Albemarle shows the famous dark complexion of this family. In a letter to her lover Constant D’Hermenches de Rebeque, De Charrière writes that the Van der Duyn family was famed for their swarthiness. But his famous portrait by Sir Joshua Reynolds shows a white man.
There is no portrait issued of Mrs. Maasdam, but of her husband there is portrait by De Spinny, which shows a white man, with light eyes. Their daughter Anne van der Duyn (1747-1798) looks dark, and granddaughter Sophie Countess of Bylandt (1778-1841) shows remarkable Classical African facial traits. From his features, mentioned in the poem, we can conclude that the portrait actually shows baron Maasdam. He has probably ordered the whitened portrait himself. Which leads to the next question as why did the brown and black elite have themselves portrayed as whites? An engraving of his cousin George Keppel, of Albemarle, shows the very dark colouring. A portrait by Sir Joshua Reynolds (1761) of his sister, Elizabeth Keppel, the Marquise of Tavistock, shows a white woman aided by a Black woman; a Moorress. The Moorress is not a real person, but symbolises ‘blue blood,’ and inform us of the high birth of the Marquise. Moor is the name for the Classical Africans we find in European art and heraldry. The Marquise of Tavistock is an ancestor of The Duchess of Cornwall, Camilla Parker Bowles.
A later lover of De Charrière was Benjamin Constant, a nephew of D’Hermenches de Rebeque, and is described as having: ‘very bad complexion.’ (Dennis Wood) Like his lover Germaine baroness de Staël-Holstein (1766-1817), wife of the Swedish ambassador to the French King: ‘an amplitude of form, good features, bad complexion’ and she was ‘too swarthy.’ Her marriage contract was co-signed by Louis XIV and his wife Marie Antoinette. The French Queen was a daughter of Empress Maria Theresa of Habsburg, the granddaughter of Leopold I Habsburg (1640-1705), Emperor of The Holy Roman Empire. He was described as ‘a short, hale black man.’ Portraits and coins show a very prognastic man, with extremely thick lips. Another famous Hapsburg, Emperor Charles V’s mummy is described as ‘black’ and shows very Black and very prognastic on a 19th century photograph. Louis XIV mummy was viewed in the 18th century and was deemed well preserved and ‘black as ink.’ His cousin Charles II Stuart (1630-1685) was named The Black Boy and described by a wanted poster as ‘a tall black man.’ Several prints show a very dark skinned man. As does his mother, Henrietta Maria de Bourbon, a daughter of Maria de Medici and Henri IV de Bourbon. Louis XIV, The Sun King who was followed by his great-grandson Louis XV, and was the great-great grandfather of King Louis XVI. All royals intermarried with other royal families and all were blue blooded. The wives of Louis XIV and Leopold I were sisters, and daughters of Filip III of Spain.
By the above method we can identify many other relatives as brown or black of complexion. The description mentions skin colour, which mattered, as it was proof of blue blood. Their complexion and facial traits showed them to be descendents of Blacks. As does the little Moors, which depiction can also be regarded as mythical forefathers or forefather spirits. We also notice that the same person is shown in many different ways, to the point that portraits do not match. This can be understood as; every painter imposing his own sense of beauty on persons who might not have classical good looks. Many regarded the Greek ideal as the standard of beauty: a small facial angle. The Greek gods had a facial angle of 0, a feature seldom met in real people. Yet there also seems a need to play up the Classical African traits, from which we can conclude they were valued as proof of pure blue blood. The Habsburg took pride in their own marked subnasal prognathism. The Classical African features were thus highly prized as further proof of blue blood in the family bloodlines, when not every member showed these facial traits. The whitened portrait seems to be propagandistic, as they ruled whites and wanted to legitimise their rule by looking white. In real life this was often achieved with white face paint and bleach, together with blond wigs. But this make up was also part of their aesthetics, like whites today do not seem to like their natural milky colour and tan on exotic beaches, use self-browning crèmes and have themselves sprayed brown. But this does not mean they want to be Blacks or marry Blacks. It’s a status symbol and makes the person look rich and sporting, to be able to travel to sunny beaches. This also goes for hair structure or hair colour, which individuals are forever changing according to whim or fashion.
The European Black noble and royal elite were presumably descendents of the first Europeans who were Africans. They did not suddenly became whites 6000 years ago, but were forcibly assimilated in the late 19th century, yet some managed to remain Black far into the twentieth century. Queen Alexandra of Britain, wife of Edward VII, a great-grandson of Charlotte of Mecklenburg, was still painting herself pink by 1910. From the start there was admixture with whites and Asians, thus they can be defined as ‘an intermarrying, fixed mulatto race, with some looking more African, Asian or white.’ In their aesthetics some followed the classical Greek ideal, which favoured a small facial angle and white skin. Yet in real life they intermarried and considered Black individuals as of pure blood and more noble. The Black Europeans considered themselves the true Europeans, and ruled and oppressed the white majority, who were migrants from Asia. Other Blacks who were not noble were favoured in a system that can be described as Reversed Apartheid. This practice explains why the not noble and intellectual elite was also Black and brown in looks. There seems to be a need with some parts of the nobility for using the skins of their white subjects, serfs, as leather for bookbinding’s, clothing and shoes. This explains some of the fury of the French Revolution.
MORE DESCRIPTIONS
Edward of Woodstock: The Black Prince. He has, just like his mother, Marguerite de Hainaut, Asian facial traits; perhaps derived from their Mongol ancestors.
Charlotte Sophie of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, wife of King George III and mother of George IV. She was Queen Victoria’s grandmother: ‘a true mulatto face, brown, yellow.’ Her portraits often show her classical African features with frizzled hair. It is claimed that she shows Vandal facial traits. Presumably Blacks were part of all the peoples that inhabited Europe: Saxons, Franks, Sueven, Goth’s, Vandals; but only around 1100-1200 assumed the position of nobles and kings among their fellow white nationals.
William of Orange (1533-1584), founder of the Dutch dynasty: ‘more brown then white, brown of complexion and the beard.’ Some prints show strong prognathism and curly hair. His brother Count Johan of Nassau shows strong subnasal prognathism and dark complexion as well.
Ludwig von Beethoven: The Black Spaniard. Several paintings testify to his black complexion.
Bernd Hayden: the little Blackamoor. An oil portrait shows his black skin.
Anna Boleyn: very dark, with black eyes and dark hair.
Elizabeth I: dark. She was famous for painting her face white.
James Boswell: dark and swarthy, with black eyes.
Lorenzo the Medici: dark and swarthy, with a flattened nose. A Vasari portrait shows his blackness.
Pierre-Alexander Du Peyrou: son teint noir et basane, his dark brown complexion.
Jean Paul Bernadotte: semitic origins.
Thomas Fairfax: nicknamed ‘Black Tom.’
Jean-Jacques Rousseau: a gentle black man in an Armenian coat.
Elizabeth Barett Browning: very brown complexion.
Johan van Sandick: self described as ‘brown, with brown hair.’
Jane Austen: rich brown, not pink
Eliza de Feuillide: the native brown of my complexion heightened with a tan.
BLACK PORTRAITS
Next there are very black engravings, but no description found, yet.
Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector: an equestrian portrait shows a truly black man.
John Deveraux was a descendent of Anna Boleys sister Mary, and became Elizabeth I’s lover: looks extremely black of complexion.
François de la Noué: Huguenot leader looks very black with strong subnasal prognathism.
Henri IV; black prints and a painting. His son Duc D’Anjou described as swarthy. His grandson Charles II Stuart was The Black Boy.
Catharine de Medici: a black print by Clouet.
Anthony van Leeuwenhoek: very black drawings.
Jan Vos: described as “ugly’ because with very Classical African with Black skin.
Shakespeare looks Black. His plays have many black characters: Othello, Hamlet
Bredero: looks black.
Fillips II Habsburg: a very black engraving, prognastic. His father, Charles V’s mummy was black and very prognastic.
Martin Luther: a black drawing
Alessandro de Medici: looks like a true mulatto
Gustaaf IV Adolf: African features
Gustaaf X of Sweden: dark, prognastic.
Voltaire: several black drawings.
David Hume: classical African looks on Ramsay portrait, dark skin on engraving.
Immanuel Kant: several dark drawings
Mary of Scots: very dark. Her great-grandson was Charles II Stuart and named The Black Boy
Baron Onno Zwier van Haren; has Indonesian looks, just like his daughter baroness Caroline van Haren, who married J. van Sandick, and their son: Onno Zwier van Sandick.
zaterdag 14 mei 2011
THE BLUE BLOOD IS BLACK BLOOD (1500-1789) THEORY
Pots: schutterijstuk with Mr. Salomon Colterman in the middle, with a huge afro hairdo. He payed for this private militia.
This image really sums up my blue blood research: a Black man in the middle, the Blacks dominating the whites. Colterman was a beer brewer in the city of Haarlem, North Holland province.
[De Regentessen van het Oudemannenhuis door Frans Hals]
Again a board of regents, all black and coloured in the Dutch city of Haarlem. It just cannot be a coincidence they all are Black, unless Blacks were the elite. Only the servant looks white.
This is a masterpiece, were only a few strokes determine the facial traits, and makes different mulattoe types.
Staalmeesters by Rembrandt: an all Black group of regents from Amsterdam.
[Henri IV de Bourbon: one of the few paintings which show dark complexion. Both his grandson Charles II Stuart (The Black Boy) and Louis XIV showed very dark complexions]
THE BLUE BLOOD IS BLACK BLOOD (1500-1789) THEORY
This theory (Codfried 2005) sets out to proof that the controversies around and hatred against Blacks, since 1760, (Appiah 1975) are the result of the fact that European whites were once ruled and despotically oppressed by Blacks; who also brought them civilisation. These Blacks were the highest European ‘blue blooded’ nobility and the European royal families we today, due to revisionism, think of as whites. In looks they were a ‘fixed mulatto race’ with brown and black complexions, and some looking more African, Asian or white. The whites were looked down upon and were called ‘t Grauw (the Grays) or Pink. To maintain colour, a sign of their ‘pure’ noble blood, they practiced strict intermarriage. This system of society can be compared to South African Apartheid, when a supposedly superior white minority oppressed a Black and coloured majority; and can thus be defined as Reversed Apartheid. Which system also benefited the non-noble European Blacks who were given opportunities to study and were given high positions. All the great names of this era belong to the Black and coloured group, so Europe during this period, can also be defined as a Black Civilisation. The word ‘edel’ (noble) means ‘true,’ so the European nobility considered itself as True Europeans.
From archaeology we know that 45.000 years ago, after the melting of the ice sheets from the Second Ice Age, and when Europe became habitable, the first Modern Human inhabitants were Africans: The Grimaldi Man. But its claimed by Eurocentrist scientist that 6000 years ago these Blacks became whites, because they suddenly lost the ability to synthesise melanin, which they did not need anymore as a protection to the sun. Yet afrocentrist point out that whites originated in Central Asia, descendents of albino’s who had once left Africa, and moved into Europe only 6000 years ago. Their whites skin better allowed them to synthesise vitamin K, for strong bones, so they thrived in a sunless environment. As the first humans were Blacks we need to understand how humans became white and which role albinism played in this natural process.
Part of the controversy and confusion is due to the definition of Blacks: who or what is Black. The eurocentric approach rest heavy on biometrics and facial traits. It prefers to regard Blacks as very different from whites, and as primitive humans. This leaves no room for approaching Blackness as a uniting identity, a culture and a way of life. The finding of this blue blood theory was hampered by the ideological racism of the previous researchers, whose intent is to deny the existence and any roll of Blacks in history. Black researchers who follow this biological definition of their white oppressors play into this demeaning view of Blacks and help to eliminate Blacks from history. Because the eurocentric definition is informed by the conviction that Blacks are inferior, hardly human, and no founders of any civilisation. They are then only to be defined as descendents of slaves. According to later, revisionist Christian theology; Blacks were even born to be slaves, and were already slaves ruled by highly improbable white pharaohs; to built pyramids. To understand a civilisation one needs to intellectually approach this as an intellectual product, by a thinking people. The shape of their nose and lips does not inform us of their identity or what they are capable of. In researching the nature of a civilisation we should focus on how the people selfindentified by understanding their own symbolism in art, literature and heraldry. Their looks can only inform us of their geographical movements and regions of origin, but not about their capabilities as founders of a culture. To further hide Blacks from history, historical European Blacks are defined as ‘Black Caucasian,’ presumably interchangeable with pink whites, and who are also the narrow featured ‘African Caucasians’, and very different from ‘True Negroes,’ from below the Sahara. Yet the distinguishing features, which define sub-Saharan Blacks, like sub nasal prognathism and woolly hair, are also found on many members of the European elite. In those cases these portraits are not displayed and the unfounded claim is made that one cannot derive ethnicity from historical portraits. Yet blue blood is in all respects a Black identity.
There are no known images of Blacks during the pre-historic Era, but some skeletons and the description of some bog mummies. These mummies have disappeared as part of the revisionism to hide European Black roots. From the Historical Era, which for West Europe started around 50 BC, we know that Caesar brought African warriors, the Garamante, to fight the Germanic peoples, and protect the borders of the Roman Empire. They eventually settled along the Danube and the Rhine, where far into the 18th century there dark looking communities were found. (Nassau 2002) Like some parts of The Black Forest, Pays de Vaud, Guyenne and Northern France. Nassau seems to cling to the notion that Europe has always been white. European immigrants from these areas who arrived in America during the 17th century were called ‘Black Dutch.’ In America 1691 signalled the year when the colour line against Blacks was introduced, and centuries later some Blacks claimed descent from these Black Europeans to escape enslavement, or racial segregation and general discriminatory treatment as the descendents of African slaves experienced. There does not exist a clear and definitive reason why American Blacks were suddenly discriminated against. This episode serves, at least, to proof that there were Blacks in Europe until the 17th century, who apparently escaped becoming white, 6000 years ago.
[Charles II Stuart, called The Black Boy, and described as ' a tall black man.']
From Franklin Snow’s ‘Black in Antiquity’ (1971) we learn that during the Classical Era (800 BC-300 AD) Blacks were part of the European, Mediterranean civilisations and were described and depicted in a positive fashion. There was no colour line, as colour was rightly understood as an adaptation to environment, which did not speak of a person’s merit. Racism was projected on the Classical Era by 20th century American researchers, from the Jim Crow Era, when white America openly waged a racist war against its Blacks. This ‘adaptation’ of history to suit the need of a period, by giving racism a historical base, is revisionism. Part of this revising of history was denying that some images, pottery or statues depicted Blacks, by describing them as ‘caricatures’ of a white person. Yet by actually viewing them, most viewers recognise Classical African features. Africa has many faces, but the classical African types symbolises the whole of Africans. This type has; brown or black skin, woolly hair, a flat and broad nose, thick protruding lips, long arms and legs, steatopygie, narrow hips and bandy legs with flat feet. The subnasal prognathism seems to be the most distinguishing and controversial element in the controversy regarding the looks of Blacks, and branding them as ‘ugly.’ And was presented as proof of their inferiority and their proximity to apes. From 1760 human races were invented, nations were defined by skin colour, whites were regarded as superior humans and the summit of the evolution, while the Blacks were the lowest step of the human evolutional ladder.
Many miniatures from the medieval period (500-1500) of labourers and peasants or any city scene show Blacks among the whites. Many nations knew the Moriska, a Moorish dance. From the early middle ages there are descriptions of European Blacks, even among the Vikings; who we are taught to imagine as an uniformly light blond people. Writers who saw them invading Britain described some Black and brown types among them. Sometimes they were in the capacity of the leaders as well. Blacks were euphemistically called ‘blue men.’ But only during the latter part of the Medieval Era the depiction of blackness takes a new and urgent turn. Saint Maurice who was born in Thebes, Egypt, and died a martyr’s dead in Europe was from 1120 depicted as a Classical African. Around the same time the bible was scoured for Blacks and hence also the Queen of Sheba was shown as Black. One of the Wise Man from the east who visited the infant Jesus was restyled as a young Black King, and named Balthasar. From then on he was centrally placed in the so-called adoration scenes, showing a Black Christian king at the beginning of Christianity. The concept became very popular and was adopted in the whole of Europe by 1500. (Kaplan 1996) Something had changed and the Black elite asserted their looks and their Christianity. This coincides with the beginning of the Renaissance and the Modern Era.
[Filips II Habsburg]
[Filips II Habsburg]
The latter part of the Medieval Era also saw the finding of the nobility, with family genealogies going back to 1200-1300. This period also brought lots of knightly literature like Percival which featured a black knight, Isenhart: ‘who’s breeding excelled all breeding.’ (Eschenbach 1210) Classical Africans, Blacks, were called Moors and in this research ‘Moor’ refers to the Classical African type in European art, heraldry and literature. Many noble families derived their family names from the stem: Moor. And many noble families carried heraldic arms showing a Moor’s head. Heraldic Moors were also encountered in geographical names and state or city arms crests. Little Moors were depicted as pages, symbolising the noble status of the persons next to them. The image of the Moor had become the symbol of blue blood, a euphemism for Black, and high birth. Moors who were depicted offering pearls to a lady symbolised her pure, noble blood. These Moors were not real people, but created by the painter and were always the darkest Classical Africans. They also signalled the true colour of the noble person, next to them, who was black or brown. Some nobles had Classical African facial traits, and these persons were considered as proof that a family’s bloodline was indeed ‘blue blood’ and truly noble.
The blue blood is black blood theory rests on two important elements. There exist personal descriptions of noble and royal persons, which describe them as brown or black of complexion. Queen Charlotte of Britain is described as ‘brown’ and having a ‘true mulatto face.’ William I of Orange is ‘more brown then white’ and ‘brown of complexion and the beard.’ Charles II Stuart was called ‘The Black Boy,’ and described on a wanted poster as ‘a tall black man.’ Yet they are mostly shown as whites, and without ethnic facial traits. But further research show many contemporary prints and drawings that show the dark complexion and Black facial traits, like prognathism and woolly hair that fit the descriptions. This immediately leads to the question why these black nobles and kings were also depicted as whites, and why museums want us to believe they were whites. Why do museums exhibit whitened portraits of persons described as brown or black? And when and why this was decided. This all follows when we are told that European Blacks turned white, and there were no Blacks in Europe. Or when we were told that ‘black’ refers to hair colour while the portraits show a brown or black complexion. But we also read of members of the white race, who can be very dark; the so-called Black Caucasians. All these distortions fall under the head of revisionism. The use of authentic, fashionably whitened portraits today is revisionist, because they are used to hide an important historical fact, that Europe was ruled by a Black identified, noble and royal elite.
The controversy around Blacks is based in Scientific Racism, which is based on the fake notion of the existence of Human Races. The invention of Human Races was necessary to proof that whites were a Human Race and were superior to Blacks. The acrimonious nature of racism thus points to a race conflict, between whites and Blacks. These Blacks were the nobles who oppressed and exploited the whites, and this ended during the French Revolution (1789-1795).
The Declaration of Human Rights should be understood as whites asking their Black masters for equality. But because of restorations white emancipation followed only around 1848. And only after this date European history was whitewashed, Black Europeans were forced into biological assimilation and marry with whites. Museums displayed whitened, fake portraits of the Black kings and queens. Racism is then a liberation ideology to free whites who were indoctrinated to believe that Blacks were superior beings.
The Declaration of Human Rights should be understood as whites asking their Black masters for equality. But because of restorations white emancipation followed only around 1848. And only after this date European history was whitewashed, Black Europeans were forced into biological assimilation and marry with whites. Museums displayed whitened, fake portraits of the Black kings and queens. Racism is then a liberation ideology to free whites who were indoctrinated to believe that Blacks were superior beings.
Apparently this process was preceded by the installation of the Colour line in America during the rule of The Stuarts. This must have been akin to the ideals of The French Revolution. Whites might have perceived European Blacks joining forces with African Blacks, and perpetuating serfdom against whites. At the beginning of the colonial era slaves were both Blacks from Africa and whites from Europe. They intermarried, and one criticism of slavery was leveled against the fact that some slaves were so white. Interestingly George Washington was depicted with a little Moor, indicating his noble ancestry. Jefferson was found to have Middle Eastern DNA. Both presidents fathered children with Black women. Abraham Lincoln was described as a melungeon; a mix of white, Black, Amerindian etc. and looked very dark. The man who’s position preceded the office of the President of America, John Hanson; was a European Black from Swedish descent.
Any thinking person can see the resemblance between many white people and pure albino’s. Like wise; all white life forms in the flora and fauna world are based on albinism. Albino’s are normal humans, who can function normally, but only need extra protection against the sun. These are straightforward facts. But the fact that they come from Blacks seems to be a great stumbling block for whites to accept themselves as descendents of albino’s. They cling to the unrealistic idea of European Blacks suddenly turning white 6000 years ago, which is wholly unproven and untenable. Their persistent denial should be understood as an expression of their hatred and loathing of Blacks, even if they deny harbouring these atavistic feelings. It’s the fear and the rage of a people who was farmed for their skins that this episode might return. For this reason they will stifle any initiative which will give blacks and coloureds any position of authority or power. This fear is so pervasive that whites understand each other without consultation when it comes to decide what to do with a Black person.
Although underplayed; the noble domination of whites by a Black noble elite was cruel. Today both parties have a reason to bury these facts, although this belongs to a different era. The whites were exploited as serfs and regarded as sub-human. In many academic book collections today, based on books collected by some members of the nobility, there are books bound in human leather. There are sources that say that human skin was used for clothing and shoes. A young and beautiful white person was killed on purpose to procure their skin. All this explains the hatred and the revolutionary fury of whites against their Black oppressors. But regrettably still goes on today when Black and brown peoples, all over the world, are oppressed, killed and exploited by white nations. Whites are brought up to fear and hate Blacks, even if they do not know how all of that started. Even if the hard-core anti-Black elite numbers only 10% of whites, they are able to exert their power and mainly threaten other whites who might disagree. Whites who would speak up against racism, will be treated as Blacks, as we have seen during the Citizens Rights movement in the USA.
The Blue blood is Black blood theory deconstructs racial hatred against blacks as a liberation movement and shows that blacks are not the eternal victims but founders of civilisations. This theory explains the obsession with Moors in European art, literature and heraldry, as symbols of blue blood. It explains how the Black European nobility came to be and that whites were not native from Europe, but originated from Central Asia. It further demystifies the origins of whites as descendents of African albino’s who left Africa and became ‘a fixed albino race’ in Central Asia. The theory identifies the revisionism tool, the phenomena of displaying fake, whitened portraits in our State museums. By laying bare the roots of racism we have a way of fighting and ending racism.
Egmond Codfried
Paramaribo, 15 May 2011
========================================================================
BLACK EUROPEANS WERE CALLED BLUE MAN
BLUE MEN (500-1500)[/b]
Were there ever any black Vikings?
There were trade routes between Northern Europe and Africa, India and China, so it is very likely that people from all over the world would have visited Scotland.
It is also likely that some Northern Europeans would have settled in other parts of the world and some people from Africa, India and other areas would have settled in Northern Europe. Direct evidence of this is rather hard to find, however.
There's a complication in translations of medieval records because a description of someone as "a black man" was used to mean someone with black hair, not black skin.
Norse sagas describe Africans as "Blaumenn" (blue men). There are stories of Blaumenn in Dublin and of someone called Kenneth of Niger in Scotland in the 10th Century.
http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/faq.html#question11
In the middle ages Muslims were considered as bad or even worse than heathens, because they worshipped Muhammad, who was an Antichrist to Christians. There are not many episodes in Heimskringla that concern Muslims, or ‘blámenn’ as they are called in the sagas. King Sigurd Jorsalafar is said to have fought heathens in Spain on his way to Jerusalem. He plundered with his crew on the island of Formentera, where there was a ‘herr mikill heiðinna blámanna’. Sigurd’s men win the battle of course (Msona chs. V-VI). Heimskringla does not mention anything about Muslim beliefs, but obviously there was no need to clarify the evilness of the blámenn to the audience since the word ‘blár’ reveals that these men were very different from the heroic King Sigurd and his men. Even though blár means ‘blue,’ in this case it signifies ‘black.’ These ‘blue men’ lived in Spain or the south Mediterranean. ‘Blámenn’ refers not only to literally black men, but also to Arabs and Moors. The use of the term ‘blámenn’ indicates that the writer wanted to stress that they were of different ethnic origin than the Norse people. We should also remember, too, that in the fornaldarsögur the term ‘blámenn’ refers to earthly creatures of evil (e.g. ‘blámenn ok berserkir’ Lindow, 1995, 13-14). This ethnic implication was probably more important to the intended audience of the saga than any, rightly omitted, information about the religious beliefs of the blámenn.
http://www.dur.ac.uk/medieval.www/sagaconf/aalto.htm
Frances 488. Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:26 pm
I'm sure I read that black men were called 'blue men' by the Vikings. Also that some African tribes have no separate words for blue and green, as the differentiation is of no importance in their necessary world-view. However, they can readily recognise the difference when it's pointed out to them. The same as we don't have four hundred words for different aspects of camels, as I'm told Arabs do, only in reverse. If you see what I mean.
=====================================================================
Adellijk huwelijk met een Moor in de huwelijksprocessie. Habsburg, Renaissance.
========================================================================
BLACK EUROPEANS WERE CALLED BLUE MAN
BLUE MEN (500-1500)[/b]
Were there ever any black Vikings?
There were trade routes between Northern Europe and Africa, India and China, so it is very likely that people from all over the world would have visited Scotland.
It is also likely that some Northern Europeans would have settled in other parts of the world and some people from Africa, India and other areas would have settled in Northern Europe. Direct evidence of this is rather hard to find, however.
There's a complication in translations of medieval records because a description of someone as "a black man" was used to mean someone with black hair, not black skin.
Norse sagas describe Africans as "Blaumenn" (blue men). There are stories of Blaumenn in Dublin and of someone called Kenneth of Niger in Scotland in the 10th Century.
http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/faq.html#question11
In the middle ages Muslims were considered as bad or even worse than heathens, because they worshipped Muhammad, who was an Antichrist to Christians. There are not many episodes in Heimskringla that concern Muslims, or ‘blámenn’ as they are called in the sagas. King Sigurd Jorsalafar is said to have fought heathens in Spain on his way to Jerusalem. He plundered with his crew on the island of Formentera, where there was a ‘herr mikill heiðinna blámanna’. Sigurd’s men win the battle of course (Msona chs. V-VI). Heimskringla does not mention anything about Muslim beliefs, but obviously there was no need to clarify the evilness of the blámenn to the audience since the word ‘blár’ reveals that these men were very different from the heroic King Sigurd and his men. Even though blár means ‘blue,’ in this case it signifies ‘black.’ These ‘blue men’ lived in Spain or the south Mediterranean. ‘Blámenn’ refers not only to literally black men, but also to Arabs and Moors. The use of the term ‘blámenn’ indicates that the writer wanted to stress that they were of different ethnic origin than the Norse people. We should also remember, too, that in the fornaldarsögur the term ‘blámenn’ refers to earthly creatures of evil (e.g. ‘blámenn ok berserkir’ Lindow, 1995, 13-14). This ethnic implication was probably more important to the intended audience of the saga than any, rightly omitted, information about the religious beliefs of the blámenn.
http://www.dur.ac.uk/medieval.www/sagaconf/aalto.htm
Frances 488. Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:26 pm
I'm sure I read that black men were called 'blue men' by the Vikings. Also that some African tribes have no separate words for blue and green, as the differentiation is of no importance in their necessary world-view. However, they can readily recognise the difference when it's pointed out to them. The same as we don't have four hundred words for different aspects of camels, as I'm told Arabs do, only in reverse. If you see what I mean.
=====================================================================
Adellijk huwelijk met een Moor in de huwelijksprocessie. Habsburg, Renaissance.
maandag 2 mei 2011
MARIA SUSANNA DU PLESSIS; DADER OF SLACHTOFFER?
[Jacobus van der Werff, neef van MSDP te Utrecht]
Black History:
Maria Susanna Du Plessis(1739-1795): Dader of slachtoffer?
De onafhankelijkheidsstrijd van de 18e eeuwse Surinaamse planters.
Sinds enige tijd kunnen wij ons verheugen in maar liefst twee wetenschappelijke studies naar Maria Susanna Du Plessis, wiens gebarsten grafsteen te bewonderen is in de Hervormde Kerk aan het Kerkplein. Indien Surinamers deze onderzoeken meer zouden betrekken in hun alledaagse beeldvorming van de 18e eeuw blijkt dat er een veel groter en belangrijker Black History, nationalistisch en antikoloniaal verhaal schuilt achter deze vrouw dan het bekende ‘Quaat gerucht’ van een babymoord. Namelijk dat zij de enige dochter was van Mr. Salomon Du Plessis (1700-1785), die de krachtdadige woordvoerder was van een republikeinse, Surinaamse onafhankelijkheidsbeweging (1742-1753). De kolonisator heeft later via haar zogenaamde ‘Vaderlandsche’ historici als Van Sypesteyn, Teenstra en Van Lier, de ‘gotisch’ aandoende mythes van de verdronken baby, over ‘een jaloerse monster,’‘een helsche moordenares’ en ‘een wangedrocht van een wijf,’ (Stedman 1799); gebruikt om de familie Du Plessis en de revolutionaire beweging in diskrediet te brengen zodat latere Surinamers geen inspiratie aan de strijd van hun Verlichte plantersvoorouders zouden opdoen. Want zij kwamen immers twintig jaar eerder dan de Amerikaanse planters in opstand tegen koloniale exploitatie en burgerlijke onvrijheid en verdienen daarom minstens dezelfde soort consideratie als de Amerikaanse Vroede Vaderen.
Men leest in ‘Het Recueil van Egte Stukken en Bewijzen’ door Salomon Du Plessis, Johan J. Mauricius e.v.a, Weduwe Schouten, Amsterdam 1752, gedetailleerd alle stukken met betrekking tot remonstranties, voorvallen, schermutselingen en de vuilspuiterij, die speelden rond de strijd van de groep die ten onrechte bekend is als ‘de cabale,’ maar zichzelf voorlang een ‘Republicainsche’ noemde. Zij betoogde de ‘waarachtige herders en bestuurders’ te zijn van het Surinaamse volk en de gouverneur slechts ‘een huurling van de Sociëteit was,’ en bepleiten dat ‘selfs alle eerbewijzen en uiterlijke distinctiën moeten afgeschaft worden,’ aldus Mauricius.(1748) De Republikeinse partij betoogde dat verschillende gouverneurs ‘infracties’ pleegden op het Octrooi, de Grondwet, en dat de Sociëteit daarmee haar bestuursrechten op Suriname had verspeeld, schrijft Salomon Du Plessis. Hun burgerlijke, legalistische strijd culmineerde in het vertrek van Mauricius, en een ‘mini-staatsgreep’ waarbij Otto baron van Verschuer als ‘volksgouverneur’ werd gekozen. Zijn regering duurde van 14 september 1751 tot 2 februari 1752, maar hij werd op bevel van de Prinses-Gouvernante Anna, de weduwe van Stadhouder Willem IV, vervangen door Wigbold Crommelin.(S.Hira 1993:133) Dit enorme, vijfdelig werk, in folio formaat; zou Suriname’s nationale boekwerk moeten zijn, want hierin valt de wording van de Surinaamse Identiteit en de Surinaamse Beschaving te lezen. De Surinaamse planters van de tweede en derde generaties spraken bij voorkeur het Sranan en waren Surinamers geworden. Sommige meesters gingen zelfs samen met hun Afrikaanse slaven helemaal in Winti op.(Van Lier 1947:61)
[Jacobus van der Werff]
[Jacobus van der Werff]
Ons huidige beeld van de slavernij is echter sterk beïnvloed door de 19e eeuwse Emancipatiebeweging waarbij de misstanden soms voor het goede doel werden aangedikt, waardoor de kijk op de verdiensten van die periode helaas wordt vertroebeld. Waarmee absoluut niet gezegd is dat Maria Susanna Du Plessis als slavenhoudster geen grote afkeuring en veroordeling als dader verdient; maar de geschiedenis is namelijk veel genuanceerder. Slavernij en koloniale uitbuiting kunnen dus nooit goedgepraat worden, maar dit onderzoek tracht het beeld van Maria Susanna Du Plessis en haar omgeving te corrigeren en aan te vullen en is ook een pleidooi om meer oog te hebben voor het intellectuele erfgoed van de slavenhoudende voorouders. Net zoals moderne Surinamers steeds meer oog hebben voor de toeristische waarde van de historische, witte gebouwen en woningen die deze slavenhouders lieten bouwen; zo zullen de vrije Surinamers zich ook steeds meer bewust worden van het intellectuele erfgoed van deze voor nationale en burgerlijke vrijheid strijdende voorouders. Zij zullen daartoe ook de door de kolonisator opgelegde revisionistische, racistische, en eurocentrische geschiedenis moeten afwijzen. De filosoof J.J.Rousseau, één van de ‘Vaders van de Franse Revolutie’ (1789-1795) werd namelijk gesubsidieerd en uitgegeven door de Surinamer Pierre-Alexander Du Peyrou (1729-1794); met opbrengsten van de Surinaamse slavernij. Deze zeer rijke, absente planter en schrijver in Zwitserland, werd door Rousseau beschreven als ‘donkerbruin.’(basané) James Boswell (1740-1795), een kleinzoon van een zuster van Cornelis van Sommelsdijck, noemde zichzelf ‘black’ en schreef over Rousseau: ‘A genteel black man in a Armenian coat.’(1772)(Heinemann 1952)
Maria Susanna Du Plessis werd in Suriname geboren, de dochter van de eveneens Surinaamse Johanna Margaretha van Striep (1706-1769). Die was de dochter van Johanna Maria de Bruyn, geboren te Killesteyn, Lexmond-Vianen. De familie De Bruyn, een burgemeesters- en koopmansgeslacht, stamde uit Vianen waar zij het oude kasteeltje Killesteyn van de Brederode’s bewoonden. Van Striep was de weduwe van Daniël Pichot, een lid van de rijkste en machtigste Surinaamse familie en had twee zonen, Du Plessis’ halfbroers; Jan Willem (1730-1802) en Ephraïm Daniël Pichot (1753-1848). In 1737 hertrouwde zij met Mr. Salomon Du Plessis, een Nederlander van hugenoten origine. Ze schonk hem een dochter, Maria Susanna en een zoon; Reinier Isaac (1741-1787). Maria Susanna Du Plessis was vervolgens tweemaal gehuwd. In 1754 met Frans Laurens Grand (1730?-1764), en in 1767 met Frederick Cornelis Stolkert (1747-1804?), de stiefzoon van gouverneur Jan Nepveu (1719-1779). Nepveu was na de dood van zijn eerste echtgenote hertrouwd met Elizabeth Buys (1728-1775), de weduwe Stolkert, van wiens moeder Anna Juliën (1705-) gouverneur Johan Jacob Mauricius (1692-1768) schreef; ‘zijnde een oude mulattin.’ Als dochter van twee Europeanen was Anna Juliën wellicht een zwarte van Europese origine, net als de drievoudige gouverneursweduwe Charlotte van der Lith (1700-1753), en ze hadden een mulatten uiterlijk. In 1783 liet Du Plessis zich scheiden van haar tweede, misschien ook gewelddadige echtgenoot Stolkert. Het betrof mogelijk een dynastiek huwelijk om de terugkeer van haar verbannen vader te bevorderen. Er ontstond toen een strijd over het eigendom van haar plantage Nijd ten Spijt welke ook na haar dood tussen haar erfgenamen en Stolkert voortduurde. Vaststaat is dat hij vanwege hun huwelijkscontract (1767), dat verder op dit punt werd aangescherpt, geen hand mocht hebben in, of aanspraak maakte op haar bezit. Er mag, afgaande op de verschillende echtscheiding stukken, gesteld worden dat Stolkert zijn ‘gescheiden huisvrouw’ lasterde met een verhaal over een door Du Plessis opzettelijk verdronken baby.
De verhalen over Mevrouw Stolkert-Du Plessis kennen wij uitsluitend uit het min of meer fictieve reis- en avonturen verslag van de Schotse Stedman ‘Reize naar Surinamen’ (1799) die tussen 1773-1777 in Suriname verbleef als huurling in het leger van de Zwitserse kolonel Fourgeoud. Een vergelijking met de bronnen wijst uit dat Stedman zich voor een bijzonder zware aantijging aan Du Plessis, baseerde op een aanklacht uit 1733 tegen een planter Christiaan Bisschof die door vijftien slaven werd beschuldigd van een moordpartij op een zevental jeugdige slaven.(Dragtenstein 2002:114) Stedman, een vriend van Stolkert en diens stiefvader Nepvue, schreef alsof Du Plessis zelf van deze gruwelijke misdaad werd beschuldigd, die zes jaar vóór haar geboorte plaatsvond. Stedman beschuldigt haar verder van het doodsteken op 1 mei 1775 van een jonge slavin van wie zij vermoedde dat zij haar echtgenoot wilde verleiden. Echter bleek hij zich ditmaal gebaseerd te hebben op een krantenbericht van 25 februari 1775 waarin de autoriteiten om informatie vragen naar aanleiding van de vondst van een lijk van een jonge mulattin welke dreef in de Suriname Rivier, met op de rug gebonden handen en een doorgesneden keel. Stedman beweerde dat het lijk naast Du Plessis’ woning werd gevonden, het Cornerhouse aan het Oranjeplein.
De geschiedenis van de slavin Alida, wiens borst door Du Plessis zou zijn afgesneden en geserveerd aan haar ontrouwe echtgenoot, is niet terug te vinden in de bronnen. Alida is een fictief personage uit een vernieuwend en folkloristisch toneelstuk van Eddy Bruma en Jo Dompig (1963) welke vele malen werd opgevoerd bij de viering van honderd jaar Emancipatie. Concreter en interessant zijn echter de aantekeningen in de Notulen van de Politieke Raad (14 februari 1792), het Bestuur, waarin haar ex-echtgenoot zitting had. Teenstra, een 19e eeuwse schrijver beweert, ongegrond, dat zij in die notulen beschuldigd werd van moord op haar slavin ‘Aura.’ Hier wordt zij slechts door Stolkert beschuldigt van het laten ontvoeren van haar voormalige slavin Aurora, die zij eerder had gemanumitteerd (1789), naar het ‘Eylandt St. Eustatius.’ En (27 maart 1792) dat zij Aurora’s kinderen verborg op haar plantage voor het bestuur dat hen wilde horen over de verblijfplaats van hun moeder. In haar Testament (1791)(Neus 2003) schrijft Du Plessis dat Aurora, vanwege ‘verregaande impertinentiën,’ niet van haar mag erven en zich niet op haar plantage mag begeven. Verder maakt zij melding van gouden sieraden die aan Aurora toebehoren. De aard van het conflict en welke relatie er tussen de twee vrouwen bestond blijven onduidelijk. Gezien de melding van kinderen, zou het kunnen dat Aurora’s kinderen door een lid van de Pichot Duplessis familie waren verwekt en dus door Du Plessis als haar bloedverwanten werden gezien. In grote tegenstelling tot het wraakzuchtig en bloeddorstige imago treft men een aantekening in het Doopboek dat Du Plessis in 1792 als meter was gevraagd, voor Marcus Jan Jobin, een zoontje van de schoonfamilie van haar eerste echtgenoot. Verder adopteerde zij in haar testament (1791) een slaven jongen, ‘haar geliefde mulatten slaaf en bediende Fredrik’ die onder de hoede van twee gebroeders Pichot een studie moest volgen in Nederland en na terugkeer voorzien moest worden van een huis en erf voor zijn levensonderhoud. Alles ten laste van haar nalatenschap. Hij is mogelijk Frederick E.M. van Du Plessis die ook slavenhouder werd. Ook maakt haar testament legaten aan enkele slaven, slavinnen en hun kinderen en kleinkinderen. Ze gedenkt ook haar neef te Utrecht, Jacobus van der Werff (1761-1807) met een legaat van 800 guldens. Een portret van Van der Werff als zes jarige, (P. de la Croix 1767, Iconografisch Bureau 95101) die in het grootste huis van Paramaribo werd geboren, toont een voornaam jongetje met sterke Afrikaanse gelaatstrekken, en vormt een verdere aanwijzing over het zwarte uiterlijk van Maria Susanna Du Plessis, slavenhoudster.
De graftekst: ‘Eindelyk ben ik tot rust gekomen,’ welke ten onrechte uitgelegd werd als een bevestiging van haar duivelse imago, werd echter door haar zelf opgesteld. Een advertentie aan het einde van haar leven maakte melding van dat zij slechts met een kruisje ondertekende. Ze had dus aannemelijk als dochter van de woordvoerder van de republikeinen, een moeilijk leven geleid, met de strijd van de republikeinen onder leiding van Mr. Samuel Pichot en Charlotte van der Lith tegen gouverneur Mauricius. De levenslange verbanning van haar vader naar Nederland zorgde dat zij sinds 1746 vaderloos opgroeide. Verder was er de vroege dood van haar eerste echtgenoot Grand met wie zij samen de plantage Grand Plaisier, later Nijd ten Spijt, had ontwikkeld. Er was blijkbaar sprake van het persoonlijke leed van ongewilde kinderloosheid. Daarna de moeilijke echtscheiding van Stolkert, en het gevecht om behoud van haar plantage. En tevens de dood van haar beide ouders. De strijd met Stolkert over Aurora. In haar inboedel treft men echter ook een gitaar, een paardrijdzadel, verschillende Franse romans en lijkt zij een voorkeur gehad te hebben voor de kleur groen. Haar erfgenaam was Salomon Reinier Marius Pichot du Plessis (1789-1840), een kleinzoon van Jan Willem Pichot en rechter te Maastricht, die op verzoek van zijn meter M.S. Du Plessis, de familienamen samenvoegde.(CBG, Dossier Pichot Du Plessis) De naam Maria komt terug in de familie als Marius. Haar verlaten plantage, ook bekend als Grani, vernoemd naar de eerste eigenaar; verviel in 1975 weer aan de Staat omdat de latere erfgenamen het niet eens werden over de verdeling van de boedel. Stedman beschrijft haar als schoon, ‘getooid met de grootste tederheid getroffen in een vrouw.’ Verder leest men een suggestie dat zij zijn avances had afgewezen.
Egmond Codfried
Bronnen:
Maria Susanna Du Plessis (1739-1795), Egmond Codfried, Weekkrant Suriname, 2001
Maria Susanna Du Plessis (1739-1795); Dader of slachtoffer?, Egmond Codfried, 2002.
Susanna Du Plessis; Portret van een slavenmeesteres, Hilde Neus–van der Putten, 2003.
Toneelstuk: Maria Susanna Du Plessis, Egmond Codfried, Theater Cosmic, 200l.
Lezers die Black History willen bevorderen kunnen zich aanmelden:
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)