dinsdag 6 augustus 2013

 

WERE THE GREEK AND ROMAN CIVILIZATIONS BLACK CIVILIZATIONS?



I recently bought Sex and Race (1941)

by JA Rogers, three volumes.(euro 95)

I extensively used it for my first book in 2004,

on the brown and black skinned European elite.

Because of this my first book is now dated and somewhat misguided.

The illustration are great and I brought brown and black Dutch nobles out of the racist closet.

If twenty scientist say the same thing, one is bound to accept this as a fact,

yet only now I understand how far the revision after 1848 went and why they did this.

To alter the portraits was a masterstroke but is also the weakness of the revisionism

The physical evidence is still here, it should have been destroyed.

But we would still have the personal descriptions,

the engravings and the novel personages who are brown and black.

Rogers wrote extensively about Blacks in the Greek/Roman world but like

Snowden he saw them as immigrants and as a 'strain': but not at the center  of things.

Europeans are equated with 'whites.' Blacks are somehow imbued with slave DNA.

He named the nicknames of emperors as 'niger' or 'afer.'

Yet because he is blinded by the whitened images, he cannot see the whole.

Who could suspect the color of an whole elite to have been changed?

How did a Black man became emperor in Greece if it was dominated by white Europeans?

And did he not have a family, and how did they came to be in this position,

and what happened to the family?

So my research is not about Black DNA among the Greeks, whatever this is,

But Europeans who came from Africa, became an elite over  the European latecomers,

and never mixing with them as the brown and black color stood for nobility and superiority.

The brown and black Europeans were the Greek and Roman noble elite, and some had

classical African facial traits, which we sometimes find in images,

but they could also have been omitted for some strange reason,

as everybody could understand that the emperor or a noble or a writer

could only be part of the brown and black complexioned elite.

So I’m back to Rogers, he offers sources and details that can be worked,

although he did not see what he had by way of evidence.

There are glimpses and his despair over some sources is obvious,

But he was not Egmond Codfried, and he did not live my life,

and his aim was really showing that white and black mixing was universal,

and did not cause civilizations falling apart or something the Nazis were claiming.

 

========================================

The Greek/Roman civilization

was run by brown and black skinned people.

Looking just like Henrietta Lacks', kin.

As you seem to be some senior power here,

it is the likes of you who foster obscurantism.

I'm offering scientific research, evidence, sources,

images, description to determine if the paint had darkened,

or if the artist like Apelles saw Alexander the Great

as swarthy, zwart, black of skin.

===================


 

 
 
 
quote: Plutarch on Alexander the Great's Appearance

Plutarch writes that Alexander was fair, but doesn't say he had red hair.
Plutarch's Life of Alexander (Section 4)
"4 The outward appearance of Alexander is best represented by the statues of him which Lysippus made, and it was by this artist alone that Alexander himself thought it fit that he should be modeled. 2 For those peculiarities which many of his successors and friends afterwards tried to imitate, namely, the poise of the neck, which was bent slightly to the left, and the melting glance of his eyes, this artist has accurately observed. 3 Apelles, however, in painting him as wielder of the thunder-bolt, did not reproduce his complexion, but made it too dark and swarthy. Whereas he was of a fair color, as they say, and his fairness passed into ruddiness on his breast particularly, and in his face. 4 Moreover, that a very pleasant odor exhaled from his skin and that there was a fragrance about his mouth and all his flesh, so that his garments were filled with it, this we have read in the Memoirs of Aristoxenus."
 
 
 

http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320H.../12cults/pompeiifresco.jpg



[Roman Blacks leading a Isis worship religious ceremony in ancient Pompeii]

Yesterday I read an article in Archeology, a magazine which stated it was impossible to make a genetic link between present day Europeans and the hunter gatherers of before 6000 BC. It seems that the present Europeans are descendants from later era’s and came from elsewhere. This reminded me of my idea that white Europeans came to Europe around 6000 years ago from Central Asia, but that the majority of whites only came to Europe around 400 AD, with the great peoples movements. The first Europeans came from Africa, had all possible African complexions and face types. Because they were the first, and considered themselves true Europeans: part of this group declared itself in 1100-1200 a noble elite and a bourgeoisie that dominated the white latecomers. This nobility fashioned itself after the Greek nobility which also saw itself as true Greek against others called barbarians. Classical Greek and Roman civilization were quoted a lot by the elite after 1100 because they saw themselves as inheritors of this civilization. I read that Julius Caesar was brown of complexion. Their civilization was based on that of Egypt. Blacks in Antiquity (1971) by Frank Snowden shows a lot of images we call Moors, classical African types. He found that there was no color line. Color was discussed when a white woman delivered a Black baby, and class and religion were in question. But just like the period 1100-1848 was white washed, in spite of many written references to the brown and black complexion of Kings and Emperors, I suspect the classical era was also whitened. There are painted scenes of Isaiac religious ceremonies with Blacks and a Black priest. I could be that in art, like the Egyptians, they favored the depiction of a facial type that reflected all facial types, that somehow by strange definition came to be considered white. Like only persons with classical African facial traits are Blacks, and the others are whites in spite of a brown or Black skin. So I will next find some biographies about some classical grandees and see how they are described and depicted by themselves and their contemporaries.

Egmond Codfried
Curator Blue Blood Is Black Blood Museum
The Hague


http://webecoist.momtastic.com/wp-...9/09/Albino_Animals_5x.jpg

Were the Greek and Roman civilizations Black civilizations?

http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320H.../12cults/pompeiifresco.jpg


[Roman Blacks leading a Isis worship religious ceremony in ancient Pompeii]

Yesterday I read an article in Archeology, a magazine which stated it was impossible
to make a genetic link between present day Europeans and the hunter gatherers of
before 6000 BC. It seems that the present Europeans are descendants from later era’s
and came from elsewhere. This reminded me of my idea that white Europeans came to Europe
around 6000 years ago from Central Asia, but that the majority of whites only came to Europe
around 400 AD, with the great peoples movements. The first Europeans came from Africa,
had all possible African complexions and face types. Because they were the first,
and considered themselves true Europeans: part of this group declared itself in 1100-1200
a noble elite and a bourgeoisie that dominated the white latecomers. This nobility
fashioned itself after the Greek nobility which also saw itself as true Greek against
others called barbarians. Classical Greek and Roman civilization were quoted a lot
by the elite after 1100 because they saw themselves as inheritors of this civilization.
I read that Julius Caesar was brown of complexion. Their civilization was based on that of Egypt.
Blacks in Antiquity (1971) by Frank Snowden shows a lot of images we call Moors, classical African types.
He found that there was no color line. Color was discussed when a white woman delivered a Black baby,
and class and religion were in question. But just like the period 1100-1848 was white washed,
in spite of many written references to the brown and black complexion of Kings and Emperors,
I suspect the classical era was also whitened. There are painted scenes of Isaiac religious ceremonies
with Blacks and a Black priest. I could be that in art, like the Egyptians, they favored the depiction
of a facial type that reflected all facial types, that somehow by strange definition came to be considered white.
Like only persons with classical African facial traits are Blacks,
and the others are whites in spite of a brown or Black skin.
So I will next find some biographies about some classical grandees
and see how they are described and depicted by themselves and their contemporaries.

Egmond Codfried
Curator Blue Blood Is Black Blood Museum
The Hague


http://webecoist.momtastic.com/wp-...9/09/Albino_Animals_5x.jpg

 


 
 



Whites resemble albinos, and are probably descendants of albinos who left Africa 45.000 years ago as a group and settled in central Asia, before they came to Europe. Whites are not native to Europe. We believe this because all old master portraits were altered after 1848 to hide the brown and black faces of the European elite.

 


“The Africans who came to ancient Greece and Italy participated in an important chapter of classical history.
Although evidence indicated that the alien dark- and black-skinned people were of varied tribal and geographic origins,
the Greeks and Romans classified many of them as Ethiopians. In an effort to determine the role of black people in ancient civilization,
Mr. Snowden examines a broad span of Greco-Roman experience--from the Homeric era to the age of Justinian--focusing his attention on the Ethiopians as they were known to the Greeks and Romans. The author dispels unwarranted generalizations about the Ethiopians, contending that classical references to them were neither glorifications of a mysterious people nor caricatures of rare creatures.”






I suspect Mr. Snowdon, Like JA Rogers to be misguided because of faulty secondary sources that had whitened the Greek and Roma eras.
Snowden writes about the Greek Blacks as immigrants, and seems to believe that
whites are indigenous to Europe or that they founded any civilization.
The blue blood theory and the International campaing against fake over paints
will open doors to much new research.


 
You might not be aware of my campaign against the fake, beige over paints in all museums.
It’s a hoax like 9/11, Bush bombing America, is a hoax, you cannot even talk about.
Both Blacks and whites have remarked that all historical writers, scientists, discoverers are according to revisionist history whites.
Some people next wonder how this is possible as on observation there is nothing special nor superior about whites.
So they came up with this blanket statement: there were no Blacks in Europe.
Africa is just a few miles from Europe, on a clear day in Tanger you can see the Spanish coast,
and most agree that the first Europeans were Africans,
But then they say these Africans became white 6000 years ago, while it were the non- native whites that came to Europe 6000 years ago from Central Asia.
It all started 1848 when white serfs were emancipated and shoe leather to the nobility no more,
they had all old master portraits of the brown and black skinned elite altered,
And you can still see the brown and black skin under the beige and pink if its pointed out to you, and that why I'm banned because I'm telling the truth they have been hiding for 165 years.
Brown and Black Europeans civilize and Christianized the hell out of whites.
And whites are still kissing the ass of Black entertainers like Diana Ross.

 





http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090628113900AAGU8oY

When it comes to discription of complexion confusion reigns.
Caligula was ' palled' and some assume he was thus white and very pale white.
When we read 'swarthy' again everybody has his own vision.
But if we look at a portrait like the engraving of George Keppel,
we see a very dark, black skin, as his family was famous for being swarthy,
according to Isabelle de Charriere. His uncle baron Aarnoud Joost van der Duyn van Maasdam,
was brownblack: De Charriere wrote a poem about baron Maasdam:
A son teint noir et basane, about his brown black complexion.
Boswell saw him as ' chimney sweeper.'
Cassandra Austen, the big sis of Jane Austen (1775-1817) was described as pale,
but her sis Jane was a brunette of complexion. a brown, not a pink color.
Their niece Eliza de Feuillide was a daughter of George Austen' sister, and he was the father of Jane and Cassandra,
and de Feuillide speaks of her own ' native brown color heightened with a tan.'
So pale, of palid, yet still brown of color
 
What about their looks,
were they brown and black of complexion,
with some having classical African facial traits,
we call Black today?
The following abridged list of rulers for the ancient Greek world is primarily for the rulers of the Hellenistic age (323–31 B.C.), after the time of Alexander the Great. In the preceding centuries, the dominant geopolitical unit was the polis or city-state. Greek city-states were governed by a variety of entities, including kings, oligarchies, tyrants, and, as in the case of Athens, a democracy.

Table of Contents Rulers of Macedonia The Ptolemaic Dynasty of Egypt The Seleucid Dynasty, Rulers in Asia Minor The Attalids, Rulers of Pergamon Rulers of Pontus Rulers of Baktria
Rulers of Macedonia 496–168 B.C.

Alexander I 496–454 B.C.
Perdikkas II 454–413 B.C.
Archelaos I 413–399 B.C.
Aeropos II 398–395 B.C.
Amyntas II 395–394 B.C.
Amyntas III 393–370 B.C.
Perdiccas III 365–359 B.C.
Philip II 360/59–336 B.C.
Alexander III (the Great)(1) 336–323 B.C. 1
Philip III Arrhidaios 323–317 B.C.
Alexander IV 323–310 B.C.
Olympias 317–316 B.C.
Cassander 315–297 B.C.
Philip IV 297 B.C.
Antipatros and Alexander V 297–294 B.C.
Demetrios I Poliorketes ("Besieger") 294–288 B.C.
Pyrrhos of Epeiros 288/7–285 B.C.
Lysimachos 288/7–281 B.C.
Seleukus 281 B.C.
Ptolemaios Keraunos ("Thunderbolt") 281–279 B.C.
Antigonos II Gonatas ca. 277–239 B.C.
Demetrios II 239–229 B.C.
Antigonos III Doson ca. 229–222 B.C.
Philip V 222–179 B.C.
Perseus 179–168 B.C.
The Ptolemaic Dynasty of Egypt(2) 306–30 B.C. 2
Ptolemy I Soter ("Savior"; governor from 323) 306–282 B.C.
Ptolemy II Philadelphos ("Sister-friend") 284–246 B.C.
Ptolemy III Euergetes ("Benefactor") 246–222 B.C.
Ptolemy IV Philopator ("Father-friend") 222–204 B.C.
Ptolemy V Epiphanes ("[God] Manifest") 210–180 B.C.
Cleopatra I 180–177 B.C.
Ptolemy VI Philometor ("Mother-friend") 180–164, 163–145 B.C.
Cleopatra II 170–115 B.C.
Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II Physkon ("Potbelly") 170–163, 145–116 B.C.
Ptolemy VII Neos Philopator (with Ptolemy VI and briefly after the latter's death) 145–144 B.C.
Ptolemy IX Soter II Lathyros ("the Bean") 116–107, 88–81 B.C.
Cleopatra III 140–101 B.C.
Ptolemy X Alexander I 107–88 B.C.
Berenike III 100–80 B.C.
Ptolemy XI Alexander II 80 B.C.
Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysos Auletes ("the Piper") 80–58, 55–51 B.C.
Cleopatra V 80–69 B.C.
Berenike IV and Cleopatra VI 58–55 B.C.
Ptolemy XIII 51–47 B.C.
Cleopatra VII 51–30 B.C.
Ptolemy XIV 47–44 B.C.
Caesarion (Ptolemy XV) 44–30 B.C.
The Seleucid Dynasty, Rulers in Asia Minor 305–63 B.C.
Seleukos I Nikator ("Victor"; ruler from 312) 305–281 B.C.
Antiochos I Soter (co-ruler from 294 or 293) 281–261 B.C.
Antiochos II Theos ("the God") 261–246 B.C.
Seleukos II Kallinikos ("the Glorious Victor") 246–226/5 B.C.
Seleukos III 226/5–223 B.C.
Antiochos III Megas ("the Great") 223–187 B.C.
Seleukos IV Philopator 187–175 B.C.
Antiochos IV Epiphanes 175–164 B.C.
Antiochos V Eupator ("of the Good Father") 164–162 B.C.
Deemtrios I Soter 162–150 B.C.
Alexander Balas (Epiphanes) 150–145 B.C.
Demetrios II Nikator 145–140, 129–126/5 B.C.
Antiochos VI Epiphanes 145–142 B.C.
Diodotos "Triophon," pretender 142–139/8 B.C.
Antiochos VII Sidetes 139/8–129 B.C.
Kleopatra Thea ("Goddess") 126/5–123 B.C.
Antiochos VIII Grypos 126/5–96 B.C.
Seleukos V 126 B.C.
Antiochos IX Philopator "of Kyzikos" 114/3–95 B.C.
Seleukos VI 95 B.C.
Antiochos X Eusebes ("the Pious") Philopator 95 B.C.
Demetrios III Philopator Soter (at Damascus) 95–88 B.C.
Antiochos XI Epiphanes Philadelphos (in Cilicia) 95 B.C.
Philip I (in Cilicia) 95–84/3 B.C.
Antiochos XII Dionysos (at Damascus) 87 B.C.
Philip II 84/3 B.C.
Antiochos XIII Philadelphos 69–63 B.C.
The Attalids, Rulers of Pergamon 283–129 B.C.
Philetairos (not king) 283–263 B.C.
Eumenes I (not formally king) 263–241 B.C.
Attalos I Soter 241–197 B.C.
Eumenes II Soter 197–159/8 B.C.
Attalos II 159/8–139/8 B.C.
Attalos III 139/8–133 B.C.
Aristonikos ("Eumenes III") 133–129 B.C.
Rulers of Pontus ca. 280–63 B.C.
Mithridates I ca. 280–ca. 266 B.C.
Ariobarzanes ca. 266–ca. 255 B.C.
Mithridates II ca. 255–ca. 220 B.C.
Mithridates III ca. 220–ca. 185 B.C.
Pharnaces I ca. 185–ca. 170 B.C.
Mithridates IV Philopator ca. 170–ca. 150 B.C.
Mithridates V Euergetes ca. 150–120 B.C.
Mithridates VI Eupator, "the Great" ca. 120–63 B.C.
Rulers of Baktria 256–55 B.C.
Diodotos I 256–248 B.C.
Diodotos II 248–235 B.C.
Euthydemos I ca. 235–ca. 200 B.C.
Euthydemos II ca. 200–ca. 190 B.C.
Demetrios I ca. 200–ca. 185 B.C.
Antimachos I ca. 195–ca. 185 B.C.
Pantaleon ca. 185–ca. 180 B.C.
Demetrios II ca. 185–ca. 175 B.C.
Agathokles ca. 180–ca. 165 B.C.
Eukratides I (usurper?) ca. 171–ca. 155 B.C.
Agathokleia and Menandros ca. 155–ca. 130 B.C.
Kalliope and Hermaios ca. 75–ca. 55 B.C.

Department of Greek and Roman Art, The Metropolitan Museum of Art
 

I predict that the Greek and Roman elite was brown and black of complexion,
made up of the first Europeans who came from Africa, considering themselves
true Europeans because they came first, long before the others.
The Greek nobility saw itself as from the soil, so true Greeks and Europeans.
Whites came from 6000 years ago, while the greatest number came around 400AD.
So with a slight of hand, also accepted by Snowden and Rogers,
after 1848 Greek civilization was made white.

Perhaps the whites were then not present in great numbers,
perhaps some sharing of power,
The idea that Greek slaves became free man after some time,
indicated that their lesser status was not fixed.
Yet the non-noble Blacks were seen as equal to whites,
if we read Emma (1816) by Jane Austen as non-fiction.
but by 1100-1200 when the modern nobility started,
they did not share any power with whites,
perhaps they had come in too great numbers.

Would it not be nice if a civilized educated person would answer me?
Somebody who read biographies and knows about complexions,
but is not some stupid fucking racist?
 
Ptolemy XV Caesarion

At the Louvre in Paris there is a bust of Ptolemy XV Caesarion,
the son of Cleopatra, and although the nose is sawn off,
you can still see prognathism and full lips.
It is somewhere on the web.
quote: Plutarch on Alexander the Great's Appearance

Plutarch writes that Alexander was fair, but doesn't say he had red hair.
Plutarch's Life of Alexander (Section 4)
"4 The outward appearance of Alexander is best represented by the statues of him which Lysippus made, and it was by this artist alone that Alexander himself thought it fit that he should be modeled. 2 For those peculiarities which many of his successors and friends afterwards tried to imitate, namely, the poise of the neck, which was bent slightly to the left, and the melting glance of his eyes, this artist has accurately observed. 3 Apelles, however, in painting him as wielder of the thunder-bolt, did not reproduce his complexion, but made it too dark and swarthy. Whereas he was of a fair color, as they say, and his fairness passed into ruddiness on his breast particularly, and in his face. 4 Moreover, that a very pleasant odor exhaled from his skin and that there was a fragrance about his mouth and all his flesh, so that his garments were filled with it, this we have read in the Memoirs of Aristoxenus.

Apelles...but made it too dark and swarthy.
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/.../a/was_cleopatra_black.htm

The question about the ethnicity of classical leaders/elites is legitimate,
it did not start with me.
Here they discuss Cleopatra’s complexion, and if she was Black.
Black is not defined.
Black is a face type, with a broadish nose and subnasal prognathism.
Next frizzled hair, thick lips and a dark complexion.
Because of portraits we cannot talk about body type.
I like also to see more indication of a Black identity,
Such as Obama marrying a Black women to have Black off spring.
In his case he could have also married a white woman as he is half white.
Because of my blue blood research we are aware of the brown and
black complexioned Europeans self-identifying as Black with heraldic Moors,
As the sign of pure blood and nobility were classical African facial traits.
Nobility was based on the idea that the brown and black skinned Europeans
were true Europeans, from the soli, as they came long before the whites or others to Europe.
Many royal images show the Egyptian elite as classical African in looks.
The face of the sphinx was classical African. Mummies show classical African types.
Deities were colored brown and black.
The article assumes that the Macedonians were whites,
Because the basis of this article is the wrong believe that there were no blacks in Europe,
While Alexander the Great was described and portrayed as dark and swarthy.
I assume that because even in Europe the elite was brown and black of complexion,
There is no way the Greek/Egyptian could be white.
So Cleopatra did not have a white complexion, but was brown or black of complexion.
There is a text which says she was black of color.
As the brown and black skinned types freely intermarried, I think of the whole elite to be Black.
 
Rulers of Pontus ca. 280–63 B.C.
Mithridates I ca. 280–ca. 266 B.C.

A trip to Turkey brought me to the tumulus of one Mithridates, ruler of Pontus.
Cleopatra VII,
this image does not show complexion,
and we do not know her true features.
Or those of her parents or siblings.
Images were made with an ideal type in mind,
so we need many more sources to be sure.
A image of her son shows classical African facial traits.
The Macedonian elite was not white,
white were the newcomers, the barbarians.
=================================
 
 
http://www.clockexhibition.nl/images/Huygens_2.jpg
[img]http://www.clockexhibition.nl/images/Huygens_2.jpg[/img]
 
Christiaan Huygens is depicted in many ways,
this engraving shows the strongest classical African facial traits and dark skin,
you can check the whitened Rembrandt portrait of his uncle Maurits Huygens,
looking like a raging mulatto.
and drawings or engravings of his father Constantijn,
who showed dark of skin.
His grandma also looks a bit classical African on a Van Mierevelt.
Rogers was complaining that his criticaster never looked in at his sources,
and often did not even read his books, that  they denounced.
I'm finding I have the same problem,
while we today have internet, so anything can be found,
read and assessed.
Rogers had to pay co-workers to be able to loan books from the library,
because as a Black man he could not enter the library.
Like me he based his research mostly on white writers,
but while I came to read between the lines,
casting things in an alternative light,
he often went along with the lies and the revisionism.
As he was not out to deceive, he imagined others would not want to deceive either.
But he was wrong, the hatred of Blacks acts as a blinding force,
and forces white scientist to falsify history, pervert their own findings,
to make whites into a civilizing force, while they were just immigrants,
barbarians and lowly serfs, used as shoe leather by Blacks.
 
 
 

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie plaatsen