Jump to content
harry brown

Royal Wedding, Are. You. Watching?

Recommended Posts

Former. Actress,Humanitarian ,Activist,Megan. Markle  ,Who. ,Is,Biracial. Is. To. Marry. Prince. Harry. .Her .Mother. is. African-American ,Her. Father. Is. White..Raised. In. Los-Angeles,California.  She. Will. Be. Positive. For. The. Black. People. .. .What. It. Is. Like. Being. Black. In. America,In. The,World.  Talk. About. Being. Biracial. And. Diversity.......This,Country. Racism. Led. By.  The. Neo. Nazi, Nut,,President.,Will. She. Talk. About. This...The. Royal,Wedding. Is. Tomorrow.  News. Says. Her. Father. Want,Be. There.  I. Think. Prince. Charles. Might. Walk. Her,Down. The. Aisle ,Stand. In. For. Her. Father......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I'm glad so many Black people are finally agreeing with me that just because you have a Black parent, doesn't necessarily mean you're Black yourself.
I DON'T see her as Black but I DO see her as an AfroAmerican.

A BI-RACIAL AfroAmerican.....like WEB Dubois, Halle Berry, and President Obama.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, hell-to-the-no!  

 

I doubt there are very many heterosexual Black men on Earth -- even --- the British ones, who could give a flying f*ck about this wedding.

 

Assuming Mel is serious, I suspect that there is a strong correlation between the genders (assuming two for simplicity sake) regarding interesting in the "royal" wedding. 

 

If there are any men Black heterosexual men who watched the wedding, I'd like to hear from you.  What motivated you to do it and what did you get out of it?

 

As far as the so called "race" of the bride, who cares? 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy

As far as the so called "race" of the bride, who cares?


Why do you care about promoting African American literature more than other types of literature?

Perhaps the same answer you give to THAT question......would also apply to YOUR question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2018 at 5:41 PM, Troy said:

Oh, hell-to-the-no!  

 

I doubt there are very many heterosexual Black men on Earth -- even --- the British ones, who could give a flying f*ck about this wedding.

 

Assuming Mel is serious, I suspect that there is a strong correlation between the genders (assuming two for simplicity sake) regarding interesting in the "royal" wedding. 

 

If there are any men Black heterosexual men who watched the wedding, I'd like to hear from you.  What motivated you to do it and what did you get out of it?

 

As far as the so called "race" of the bride, who cares? 

 

 

So shocked by glad to read your views! I did not watch it but saw a few videos days later. But, I'm not a man. HOwever, I am so not interested. Yes, I think they are a beautiful couple, but I just don't care for the deeper issues behind this affair.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1 I missed your reply.  The website is not based upon what you understand as "race." It is based upon culture, what you call "afro-american" culture.  However in recent years the site's scope has expanded beyond Afro-american culture, but lets leave that aside for a moment.  As a result, the site includes books written by white people because they have written books important to the culture.  

 

Again the so called "race" of the bride is irrelevant to me -- mostly because the royal wedding means less than nothing to me. But more generally who people choose to love is up to them why should I be concerned?

 

@Chevdove, my initial reaction may have been a bit harsh, but the fact is I could not help but hear about this wedding it short of becoming a hermit, it was impossible to avoid. I hate being force fed this type of information.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't George Washington fight a WAR to rid this land of the concepts of "royalty" and "royal families"?

I wonder how he'd feel about the way the U.S. media celebrated this event if he were alive today.....lol.


It's not the race of the bride or the love they may have for eachother that bothers me, but the REACTION of other AfroAmericans to this wedding; and for two reasons:

1. Many AfroAmericans....though not most thankfully.....see her as Black.

2. And many AfroAmerican women see this "Black woman" marrying a White prince as some sort of "step up" in the world.

These views aren't very widespread in the Black community as a whole but in many media and social media circles those views are being promoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr Umar Johnson breaks down the REAL reason behind the so-called "royal wedding".....lol.

 

 

 


Whether you agree with it or not, I think there is some truth behind what he's saying.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, what?!  Y'all really believe that they "let" a so called Black woman into the royal family as a way to weaken Black female support for Black men, as Dr. Umar asserts?

 

To my mind that sounds preposterous; one because I don't think those white folks arranged the marriage for this purpose, and two even if I brought into that conspiracy theory I don't think for one second that it would be effective. 

 

The conscious London based African sisters that I work with on a regular basis are not motivated by some stupid wedding -- they don't have time for it.  But you know what, I will ask a couple that, I'm trading emails with, now what they personally think, and what they think the broader Black community in London thinks about the royal wedding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yes I do. absolutely. Division is what has been done with great planning to organize this Big government, division on many levels. I definitely believe that GENDER DIVISION is a major tool used today just as it had been in the foundation making of America. 

 

It has been effective. It has been very effective in the past. But no, I don't believe it was the first goal at all. 

 

I believe this marriage is political though.

 

Maybe that London based African sister was not interested, but there were a lot of African-typed people that did put in their support for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with this reasoning is that anything that Black men and women disagree about can conceivably be attributed to some diabolical scheme hatched by white folk to divide us.

 

When these conspiracies are articulated by a charismatic Brother, like Dr Umar, it is are given credibility because he has a Phd (supposedly) and it just feels good to hear.

 

Think about it: you are saying that some cabal of white men told Harry to find him a "biracial" woman, because this will help destabilize the relationships between  Black Men and women in the UK, America -- indeed globally.  Do I understand what you believe correctly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol. I hope it's not taken wrong to laugh but, I don't agree with all that Dr. Umar stands for either. Some of what he says fits into the exact description you give to the point, it made me laugh. On the surface, he offers comfort food, and sometimes comfort food can be bad for us. 

 

But on a deeper, more histoical level, do I see this as being a reality. But let's not only look at the UK now, but on a global level. 

 

Do you know about the history of Genghis Khan? I am just learning about this and applying it to my other research. Genghis Khans grandsons come from a Keraite mother [ie. KARAITE, meaning Black Israelite]. HIs four grandsons leveled the Keraite empire and the Islamic power and political structure. It was a full blown genocidal attempt on the Black men. The Mongol force swept west all the way to Palestine and then turned to Egypt, but they were stopped by a force much like them. So yes, I do believe that this bi-racial woman was a planned event due to a global issue on a large scale and not just to be divisive on a gender basis. 

 

The ancient Persian empire do the same. The marriage to a Black woman became a positive aspect though, in this case. The Persians supported the cultures of many and they did not wish to destroy others in the quest to be the head. It is not the same in other governments though. But political and arranged marriages should not be taken for peace or just for love. In my opinion. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, laughing is much better than getting angry and shutting down. 

 

The mongolians were on a rampage trying to take over the entire world.  I don't think skin color was a motivation, but if there is a valid source (i.e. not Dr, Umar) that states this I would be happy to read it. 

 

Genghis khan raped so many people that 1 out of 200 people on Earth today are a direct descendant, 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Troy said:

No, laughing is much better than getting angry and shutting down. 

 

The mongolians were on a rampage trying to take over the entire world.  I don't think skin color was a motivation, but if there is a valid source (i.e. not Dr, Umar) that states this I would be happy to read it. 

 

Genghis khan raped so many people that 1 out of 200 people on Earth today are a direct descendant, 

 

ROFL Okay I'll be rounding some references; other references.

 

I'm learning now! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this discussion  acknowledge or reject the idea that there is but one human race? I entertain the idea that all that goes on within the  homo sapiens ranks is nothing more than family conflict that has degenerated into sibling rivalry.  Once we get over the idea that  "good"  triumphs over "evil", and are able to attach significance to the idea that the strong prevail, we  can spare ourselves some frustration.   Life is not fair. It is, what it is...   We must each embark on our own journey and blaze our own trail. 🤪

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cynique said:

Once we get over the idea that  "good"  triumphs over "evil", and are able to attach significance to the idea that the strong prevail, we  can spare ourselves some frustration.   Life is not fair. It is, what it is...  

 

YES!  I was just reading a story about the Moors in Britain and  ultimately this was the outcome.   According to the story, the Germans conquered the dark-skinned British {Moors) and took their land. It is what it is.  The Germans conquered the  "Blackamoors"  and we have who we have  Queen Elizabeth II - German in the house of Windsor.   

 

And then came Meghan to marry the six in line to the throne.  Maybe what we can't accomplish through war - we can accomplish in love. 

 

I didn't watch the Umar video - but what if he is right?  What if  black women begin to marry  men who currently hold the seat of power?   Meghan isn't the first black woman to marry into a German  "royal" family.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mel
 

YES! I was just reading a story about the Moors in Britain and ultimately this was the outcome. According to the story, the Germans conquered the dark-skinned British {Moors) and took their land. It is what it is. The Germans conquered the "Blackamoors" and we have who we have Queen Elizabeth II - German in the house of Windsor.


The Blacks that lived in England before the Germanic tribes (Angles and Saxons) invaded and conquered them are not the same as the Moors.

The original Blacks of England (and Ireland, Scotland, and Wales) were there thousands of years B.C. and practiced a more "nature" religion.

The Moors were a LATER group of Africans who came after 700 AD and practiced Islam.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Cynique said:

Does this discussion  acknowledge or reject the idea that there is but one human race? I entertain the idea that all that goes on within the  homo sapiens ranks is nothing more than family conflict that has degenerated into sibling rivalry.  Once we get over the idea that  "good"  triumphs over "evil", and are able to attach significance to the idea that the strong prevail, we  can spare ourselves some frustration.   Life is not fair. It is, what it is...   We must each embark on our own journey and blaze our own trail. 🤪

 

 

Greetings!

 

I agree with you mostly, however, can I add on another viewpoint?

 

It is refreshing and hopeful knowing that the strong prevail and it does relieve some frustration, but the other aspect that is frustrating is on a deeper level that you mentioned.

 

The evil aspect, IMHO, doesn't always come from our 'one human race' species. Some negativities do stem from our human race, but I've been doing some research, and even in regards to many scientiest, we are not representative of 'one human race' on this earth. I'm making this statement based on scientist findings on THE GENOME PROJECT and etc. Also the Mitochondrial Eve and etc. Even still though, as you have said, Good does triumph over evil no matter where evil stems from, I am hoping.

 

 

6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Mel
 

YES! I was just reading a story about the Moors in Britain and ultimately this was the outcome. According to the story, the Germans conquered the dark-skinned British {Moors) and took their land. It is what it is. The Germans conquered the "Blackamoors" and we have who we have Queen Elizabeth II - German in the house of Windsor.


The Blacks that lived in England before the Germanic tribes (Angles and Saxons) invaded and conquered them are not the same as the Moors.

The original Blacks of England (and Ireland, Scotland, and Wales) were there thousands of years B.C. and practiced a more "nature" religion.

The Moors were a LATER group of Africans who came after 700 AD and practiced Islam.

 

Yes! I agree! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Chevdove said:

. Even still though, as you have said, Good does triumph over evil no matter where evil stems from, I am hoping.

 

I guess i didn't make myself clear when i said "Once we get over the idea that  "good"  triumphs over "evil", and are able to attach significance to the idea that the strong prevail..."  i meant that "good" and "evil' are just words and what we think of as "good" has no tendency to triumph over "evil".  The strong do indeed prevail,  and they invariably do this because they engage in what we would refer to as "evil".  That's how the ball bounces.  And humans can only endeavor to exert some control over their own personal destinies.  

 

As for the complicated controversial subject of race, we are all variations of a  common theme, imho.  I am more amenable to the idea that there is an alien presence on this planet. Debating the subject of race has become a waste of time as far as i am concerned, because it leads down the rabbit hole of semantics.  And just out of curiosity, do you know who  these "blacks"  who preceded the Anglo Saxons and Moors were, and what specific studies support this vague statement?   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The migrations of people across the planet is very interesting.   Man. as the current evidence supports is that we left. Africa in two waves separated by tens of thousands of years.  The first wave led to the evolutions of neanderthals (virtually all white people have neanderthals in there DNA). spaiens left later and populated the earth.  One branch walked across the bering straits ultimately populating north and south america.  We call these native people, but there is evidence that African arrived in both north and south american and even europe much earlier. People we would call Black may have predated what we call native americans by 10K years.  

 

There are several books on the site that speak to there evidence. In fact I justed added one today:

 

The Dark Race in the Dawn: Proof of Black African Civilization in the America’s Before Columbus by Kathryn M. Johnson (I'm still collecting information on this book now)

 

But there are others of the top of my head:

 

Africa and the Discovery of America by Leo Wiener,

Black Star: The African Presence In Early Europe by Runoko Rashidi, and

anything by Ivan Van Sertima

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

he Moors were a LATER group of Africans who came after 700 AD and practiced Islam.

 

@Pioneer1 The author of the article I referred to would disagree.   He wrote that folks who believe your view are misinformed about the moors.  My world travels also point to the fact, that moors were first in europe and then were conquered.   This is why it is important to read books but also travel the world to see for yourself. 

Further, according to historical reports Moors existed all throughout europe and africa  They left their stamp in architecture and practiced all types of religions included none at all.   Also when you look at Queen's artifacts (sceptre jewels et al)  its designs are straight out of the motherland. 
,
 Also there's this article in the guardian
 

"It was initially assumed that Cheddar Man had pale skin and fair hair, but his DNA paints a different picture, strongly suggesting he had blue eyes, a very dark brown to black complexion and dark curly hair.

The discovery shows that the genes for lighter skin became widespread in European populations far later than originally thought – and that skin colour was not always a proxy for geographic origin in the way it is often seen to be today"


Still, since none of us were there; I tend to go with scientific proof... although I can be swayed stories that fit the narrative I subscribed to - lol

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Troy said:

The migrations of people across the planet is very interesting.   Man. as the current evidence supports is that we left. Africa in two waves separated by tens of thousands of years.  The first wave led to the evolutions of neanderthals (virtually all white people have neanderthals in there DNA). spaiens left later and populated the earth.  One branch walked across the bering straits ultimately populating north and south america.  We call these native people, but there is evidence that African arrived in both north and south american and even europe much earlier. People we would call Black may have predated what we call native americans by 10K years.  

 

There are several books on the site that speak to there evidence. In fact I justed added one today:

 

The Dark Race in the Dawn: Proof of Black African Civilization in the America’s Before Columbus by Kathryn M. Johnson (I'm still collecting information on this book now)

 

But there are others of the top of my head:

 

Africa and the Discovery of America by Leo Wiener,

Black Star: The African Presence In Early Europe by Runoko Rashidi, and

anything by Ivan Van Sertima

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes! When you said 'NEANDERTHAL' you are right up my ally!--and research.

 

And the two 'out of Africa' studies, well, I think the scientist are not really breaking down the real truth about this altogether, but what they report is the pathway to understanding more of what did happened on this earth. 

4 hours ago, Cynique said:

 

I guess i didn't make myself clear when i said "Once we get over the idea that  "good"  triumphs over "evil", and are able to attach significance to the idea that the strong prevail..."  i meant that "good" and "evil' are just words and what we think of as "good" has no tendency to triumph over "evil".  The strong do indeed prevail,  and they invariably do this because they engage in what we would refer to as "evil".  That's how the ball bounces.  And humans can only endeavor to exert some control over their own personal destinies.  

 

As for the complicated controversial subject of race, we are all variations of a  common theme, imho.  I am more amenable to the idea that there is an alien presence on this planet. Debating the subject of race has become a waste of time as far as i am concerned, because it leads down the rabbit hole of semantics.  And just out of curiosity, do you know who  these "blacks"  who preceded the Anglo Saxons and Moors were, and what specific studies support this vague statement?   

 

okay. Thank you for your clarification on how evil becomes an issue even when it is coming out of good. I guess I would call that 'warfare'.

 

Bro. Troy hit it when he brought the term 'NEANDERTHAL' but this too would be a term, a broad term that leads to other information.

 

The 'blacks' that preceded the Anglo Saxons and Moors by thousands upon thousands of years also cane be defined by many, many terms, but one term can lead back to a better understanding of Europe prior to the presence of the MOORS:

 

CELTS.

 

Also there are so many other terms that come out of terms that historians use such as the NAQADA PERIOD, THE BADARIAN PERIOD, THE AMRATION PERIOD, and then there is the CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD [ie. Copper Age] and so much more that go back to before 4500s BC. 

 

In Europe one key term used kind of hints at the Black presence as the earlier mankind migrated into Europe from Africa and the east world;

 

DANUBIAN. or the DANUBE RIVER pathway. The earlier people known the term DANAAN and then NUBIANS. And also up from North Africa, this term too followed earlier or pre-Moorish times thousands of years priod;

 

THE DOLMEN and then ther is so many more terms that reveal an very early presence of Black or darker skinned people. 

 

... Then there would be the time period of which scientist date the Neanderthals and prior to the presence of a time when 'beings' were referred to as such, scientist dates many, many, more beings to have been on earth much earlier prior to the Neanderthals, and if you visit the Smithsonian, you will see that they are all either Black or very dark skinned and the dates to which it is said they existed was millions of years before the Neaderthals even. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Chevdove said:

millions of years before the Neaderthals even. 

 

to be clear, homo spaiens have only roamed the earth for the last 2 to 3 hundred thousand years.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Troy said:

 

to be clear, homo spaiens have only roamed the earth for the last 2 to 3 hundred thousand years.  

 I can't remember the time put to it right now, but the species of modern man is termed 'homo sapaien sapaien'; modern homo sapiens. Then the more earlier homo sapien homonids are distinct. 

 

I think scientist classify and date the modern homo sapien sapien to BP 45,000.

 

Scientist are kind of vague and they also contradict some of their statments when it comes to their dating system. When I compare and contrast what they say about the two Out of Africa theories and their datings of the hominids, i see discrpancies. But I still can understand the consceutive aspect of the pre-presence prior to their dating the Neanderthals.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what do the dueling researchers say happened to all of these blacks that fanned out over the world, and were subsequently uprooted by different looking peoples.  Did the black-skinned ones just die out? Or were Natives Americans and Anglo Saxons invaders who drove  these blacks into extinction??? Or are y'all suggesting that Anglo Saxon and Native Americans are descendants of migrating Africans?   So many questions and what is more significant is there are so many "answers".  Add  to the mix what white revisionists are now contending about "Lucy" not being that ancestor of Caucasians. 

 

I continue to be fascinated with those who say we are aliens who ended up on earth via asteroids that crashed here and infested the planet with primitive forms of life from outerspace.  👽    Of course no body can prove this.  But that doesn't make it a unique situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the dates change. Presumably the newer information is more accurate.  I've send date range for homo sapien sapien range from 200K to 300K years -- which is a big swing, but no one will ever have a precise date nore is one really needed.  We can be fairly certain is has not been "millions of years."

 

Sure there were hominids a million years ago, but these creatures would never be confused with being human.

 

That said, I would still not be surprised if there were a race of people (of extraterrestrial origin or not) who were far more advanced that we are that lived and died out more than a million years ago.

 

@Cynique, as you know all men are descended from Africans.  However the Black people who arrived in the America's can separately.  It is common knowledge, thought not taught in schools, that African traveled to the America's long before Columbus.  Indeed the ship logs of european travelers who noted that they saw Black people here. It could have been in Columbus's logs (don't quote me on that).  In any case, Ivan Van Sertima writes extensively on this. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I repeat.  What happened to these black people who preceded Native Americans and Anglo Saxons?? And with claims made by the revisionist white researchers, i don't know if we all came from Africa or not.  Just sayin.

 

i like the alien theory and that's probably because i'm an alien.  🙃

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique, they died.

 

What revisionist white researchers are saying that we did not come from Africa?  

 

Unfortunately today you don't have to look very hard to find information that contradicts information that is generally accepted by the scientific community; evolution is a hoax, the earth is flat,..

 

Extraterrestrial origination does have an appeal.  Have you watched this film Prometheus?  It has an interesting origin story for humanity:

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The revisionists say that African Lucy is not the source of all human life; that there were other sources elsewhere. The "Petralona Man" for one.

                     ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/human-skull...

 

 How did theses primitive blacks from a warm continent manage to navigate vast oceans to get to the less temperate North America before the continents shifted and provided a shelf that enabled  the Eskimos to get here by foot. And of course, black is a loose term that can be used to describe anything other than pale white.   I bring all of this up because people of all colors like to romanticize their kind as being the "first". Hence the claim that Lief Erickson preceded the native Americans.  The truth is out there -- but we tend to embrace our own version of it.

 

I've heard of the movie Promethus. I'm going to see if i can track it down on my premium cable channels.  The trailer is compelling!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The clip is compelling but nit exactly representative of the film -- but I still enjoyed the flick.

 

I'll read the link later.

 

As far as how they got to North America they sailed (or flew), as the Pyramids demonstrate those Brothers and SIsters were not as primitive as western culture would like you to believe.

 

Brown African people were the first Homo Sapiens that is not in dispute. 

 

I'll check the article later.  I'm going off the grid for a few days; camping in an area without cellular service to look at stars and commune with nature 🙂

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the theory of evolution and claiming that human beings started off in Africa and as they evolved they left and migrated to different parts of the planet is the implication that Africans are LESS evolved than other groups.
It puts others as more evolved implying that they are "better improved" than the primatives they came from.

If it were a "theory of mutation" it would be more palatable to me because it suggests that the African is the penacle of humanity and those who came from them degenerated.  Ofcourse this isn't what's being taught.



Although I can't prove it, I personally believe that humanity didn't come OUT of Africa but a certain portion actually migrated TO Africa from a part of Asia.

If you look at the oral history of most of the Bantu nations and what they say about themselves, whether they are found in West Africa or South Africa....most claim they came from the direction of Egypt and Ethiopia before migrating to their present lands.




 

 

Chevdove

You and Cynique are discussing the strong vs the weak and the righteous vs evil, however......

If you look at many ancient societies, their entire concept of morality was totally different.

They saw WEAKNESS as evil.
Things like strength and courage (as in battle) was considered GOOD.

Perhaps where African people have been failing is in taking on Caucasian ideas of morality (which they don't even practice themselves) and accepting a dogmatic "scripture based" moral code that focuses on ritualistic behavior and written rules......and instead go back to a more nature based moral code that focuses on self preservation, procreation, and respect for  our ancestors.

 

 

 

 

Then there would be the time period of which scientist date the Neanderthals and prior to the presence of a time when 'beings' were referred to as such, scientist dates many, many, more beings to have been on earth much earlier prior to the Neanderthals, and if you visit the Smithsonian, you will see that they are all either Black or very dark skinned and the dates to which it is said they existed was millions of years before the Neaderthals even.


This is where the stories of "elves" "leprachauns" and "smurfs" and "fairies" come from.

This is all mythology that hides the truth of the little Brown/Black people who inhabited Europe for millenia before the Caucasians came.
 

 




Mel

Perhaps it's the wording.

I acknowledge that Black people lived in what is now called the United Kingdom (and other parts of Europe) for thousands of years before Caucasians arrived.  Again, they were later referred to as "elves" and "trolls" and written as mythology.

But to call them "Moors" is a problem for me because it's my understanding that Moors were a SPECIFIC group of people from North Africa and not just a generic name for any and all Black peoples.


 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cynique said:

So what do the dueling researchers say happened to all of these blacks that fanned out over the world, and were subsequently uprooted by different looking peoples.  Did the black-skinned ones just die out? Or were Natives Americans and Anglo Saxons invaders who drove  these blacks into extinction??? Or are y'all suggesting that Anglo Saxon and Native Americans are descendants of migrating Africans?   So many questions and what is more significant is there are so many "answers".  Add  to the mix what white revisionists are now contending about "Lucy" not being that ancestor of Caucasians. 

 

I continue to be fascinated with those who say we are aliens who ended up on earth via of asteroids that crashed here and infested the planet with primitive forms of life from outerspace.  👽    Of course no body can prove this.  But that doesn't make it a unique situation. 

 

Yes, that is what I am contending, -- that Native Americans and Anglo-Saxons are descendants of Africans. Black Africans. But the subject is broad for just a simple answer. 

8 hours ago, Cynique said:

I repeat.  What happened to these black people who preceded Native Americans and Anglo Saxons?? And with claims made by the revisionist white researchers, i don't know if we all came from Africa or not.  Just sayin.

 

i like the alien theory and that's probably because i'm an alien.  🙃

 

1251435.gif

 

This statement caught me off guard! It took me a minute to stop laughing. 

It's hard now, to be serious. But yeah, the word 'Africa' might not be the right word to use here. Black beings a long time ago prior to Afrian people we see today, would not be defined as African. A whole other concept.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Mel

Perhaps it's the wording.

I acknowledge that Black people lived in what is now called the United Kingdom (and other parts of Europe) for thousands of years before Caucasians arrived.  Again, they were later referred to as "elves" and "trolls" and written as mythology.

But to call them "Moors" is a problem for me because it's my understanding that Moors were a SPECIFIC group of people from North Africa and not just a generic name for any and all Black peoples.

 

@Pioneer1

 

Remember, I'm not wedded to this description of the moors. For once I can't even debate lol.     I'm still piecing together what I've seen in Europe, South America and even Asia as it relates to the "moors" and what I've read and am reading. 

You may have hit on something.   It may be the wording.  

Consider this article , I stumbled upon... Essays by Ekowa  <- Link http://www.essaysbyekowa.com/Black Briton.htm   

 

Here's an excerpt.   

 

 Wherever there is man or civilization there is the Black man. Wherever we have planted our seed civilization took root. Europe was not exception African had populated the isle long before Europe / Europa took its name:

Europa (Greek Ευρώπη) was a Phoenician [black] woman in Greek mythology, from whom the name of the continent Europe has ultimately been taken.

The etymology of her name (ευρυ- "wide" or "broad" + οπ� "eye(s)" or "face")[2] suggests that Europa represented a lunar cow, at least at some symbolic level.

Black%203.jpgWho was the Lunar Cow?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to Gerald Massey in his book ' A Book of Beginnings'  to the Egyptian origins of the British Isles':  He has evidence  that Stonehenge, the most famous ancient monument in England, was built by a Negro architect, named Morien. [That is the name MOR or Moor came from the ancient Egyptian].

'He says, as a Negro is still known as Morien in English [British tongue], may not this indicate that Morien belonged to the black race, the Kushite [African] builders?'

 The word 'Moor' is derived from Latin 'Maures' meaning black. Here are a few derivations on that name:


�Maurice, Morris, Morrero, Moore, Maureen, Morien, Mary, Marie are the names of ancient African people in Europe . Also; Blackwell, Blackwood, Cole, Coker, Lenoir and Brown refer to Black people. Coke is a derivative of Coal. Old King Cole was a merry Black Soul, and may be the reason Coca-Cola is a dark in color. Soul was always considered a dark thing, we added to this by our thinking that Black people were the 'Souful' ones. 

From the same root we derive:

Maur, Maurus, Marra, Moro, Morisco, Mohr, Moritz, Moor, Moru, Maru, Morelo, Maureta, Mauretania, Morocco, Maurice, Morien, Morin, Moryan, Moreto, and so on.�

The Oxford dictionary definition:

 "The Moors were," according to the Oxford English Dictionary, "commonly supposed to be mostly black or very swarthy, and hence the word is often used for Negro."

Swarthy - KEIR: Gaelic name meaning "dark-skinned, swarthy."  

Black Irish and the tide of Ignorance

"The term Black Irish is a term used by some descendants of Irish emigrants to describe their ancestors. The term is found in Australia, Canada, Great Britain and the United States. It refers to the possessing of dark hair and eyes as opposed to the caricature of Irish people with red hair, pale skin, and blue or green eyes, a difference which is possibly due to less Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian ancestry being found in people on the west of Ireland. The term is often accompanied by a claim that the darker features are due to Iberian descent.  A prominent theme of ethnology in the 1800s was that the Irish were related to African People and black people and both were inferior.

John Beddoe (1826-1911), one of the most prominent Victorian ethnologists in the United Kingdom supported these theories with his work. Beddoe believed that eye colour and hair colour were valuable evidence in the origins of the British people. He published The Races of Britain: A Contribution to the Anthropology of Western Europe in 1862 and again in 1885 and 1905 and it was republished again in 1971. Beddoe wrote in this book that all geniuses were "orthognathous" (that is, have receding jaws) while the Irish and the Welsh were "prognathous" (have large jaws). Beddoe also maintained that Celts were similar to Cromagnon man, and Cromagnon man was similar to the "African" race.  Celts in Beddoe's "Index of Negrescence" [ Negrescence is a word with a Latin origin and describes "a process of becoming black". It can also refer to having a dark complexion.] are very different than Anglo-Saxons, which was published in 1862 in his "Races of Britain" book, and also in an 1870 paper. In the 1870 paper, Beddoe describes various Celtic types, and describes the racial category of "Africanoid Celts"  This analysis was used to support Beddoe's theory that the Irish had the physical characteristics of the indigenous, aboriginal people of the British Isles.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Irish.

Well, that's white folks at it again . When  you find a black man you ha to label him inferior instead of looking at the whole context and understanding he is the basis for you civilization and culture..... "  

***

I haven't had time to source the information - but it might be fascinating to find "Moors"  was a description of people who later just wore the name like a badge of nobility.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Verrrrry interesting.  It seems like language is just as influential in exploring evolution as appearance is. We encapsulate syllables  and sounds into words  and use them to refer to conditions. You might all be talking about the same thing but just using difference utterances or written symbols  to express this.  Words, words, words...  (I put the words "good" and "evil" in quotations marks in previous post because they are just vibrations that refer to 2 different forces; the same goes for "strong" and "weak".  Humans  are the ones who subjectively decide that using "strength" to acquire "power" over "weakness", is "evil".  In the over-all scheme of things, however, this is just a natural process.)  The color black is non-white, non-white can be a spectrum of colors. Color aside, humans are mammals and all have 2 arms, 2 legs, walk upright, have  opposing thumbs and forefingers which allowed them to pick up objects and fashion them into tools - and the rest was history.  They also have tongues and vocal chords and use them to communicate.  They have brains that give rise to intellect and ideas, instincts that encompass needs and desires. Curiosity also seems to be a dominate trait. Who are we? What are we? Where did we come from? We are unique entities who are made up of the exact same elements as stars. In the final analysis, i am me.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mel

I forgot to tell you that you're absolutely right,  it's  best to travel and see things for YOURSELF instead of simply taking people's words for it or reading it in a book. That way you get the entire experience and use all of your senses in determining the facts.

That point you made is one of the reasons I separate KNOWLEDGE from mere BELIEF and put statistics and data in the "belief" catagory until I've had a chance to verify them.


Perhaps you're right that "Moor" was a generic name that White Europeans gave ALL Blacks they came in contact with whether it was the Blacks who were native to their lands in the past or the Blacks who came from North Africa later......and the North Africans just accepted that name for themselves.

Despite the actual name, I think we can both agree that there were 2 separate groups of Black people that we're talking about.

1.The "native" Blacks who occupied the British Isles and much of northern Europe before the Tuetonic tribes out of central Asia invaded their lands and drove them underground.

2. And the African Blacks (along with the Arabs and Berbers) who came later on under the banner of Islam to conquer the contemporary White civilization that was (and still is) established there at the time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

1.The "native" Blacks who occupied the British Isles and much of northern Europe before the Tuetonic tribes out of central Asia invaded their lands and drove them underground.

2. And the African Blacks (along with the Arabs and Berbers) who came later on under the banner of Islam to conquer the contemporary White civilization that was (and still is) established there at the time.

 

WHAT!!!  Sometimes it’s better to keep your mouth shut and give the impression that you’re stupid than open it and remove all doubt.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...