The Fomorians
There are many oblique references to the presence of Black people in ancient Ireland. Ancient Irish mythology refers to the original inhabitants of the island as being a giant, sea-faring people called the Fomorians (Fomors), which means “dark of the sea”. According to the ancient lore, they were a cushitic people from the African continent. Often depicted as demons, they defeated the first few incoming waves of invaders, but could not defeat the Firbolgs, who settled the land and lived side-by-side with the native Fomors.
Those myths may have a factual historical basis. It is proposed that the Formorians were a real people who were in all likelihood sailors from the African continent.
Two more invasions, the first led by the godly Tuatha de Danaan, and the second by the Celtic Milesians, took control of Ireland, mixing together with the Fomorians until they were no more.
There are credible sources for the African association with Ireland. The most likely of these is that they were Phoenicians and/or Egyptians. The Phoenicians were Canaanites, which came from the line of Ham. Ham is the mythological ancestor of the Black nation.
The Phoenicians were also well-known for their sailing skills, and are said to have traveled to the British Isles, which they called the “Tin Islands”. Perhaps, before Ireland was a Celtic domain, which it wasn’t until a few centuries BCE, the Phoenicians colonized it. It is noteworthy that the name Fomorians sounds a bit like Phoenicians.
There is also a legend that an Egyptian princess, Scota, left Egypt with some followers and journeyed to Ireland. Legend has it that Egyptians left many ancient tin mines all over Britain but especially Ireland which was their major source of the valuable metal.
Another idea is that they were Taureg Berbers. The Berber language is Hamitic, and the Berber people live in an area from which travel to Ireland would be easily accessible. The Berbers perhaps set sail from western Morocco, and settled on Ireland before the Celts, making it their new home.
Moorish Science Temple founder Drew Ali teaches that Ireland was once part of a Moorish empire, and that the Irish are a Moorish people. Perhaps there is a common root between the “moor” sound in Fomor and the word Moor?
Selkies and Half-Breeds
Another Irish legend tells of the Selkies, a sort-of “wereseal” that is a seal during day, but a human by nightfall. Sometimes, in an Irish family of fair-skinned, light-haired people, a child is born with dark hair eyes, and skin, and is called a Selkie.
The concept of the Selkies appears to make subliminal reference to the half-breed children that resulted from the extensive miscegenation that occurred between the Celts and the dark skinned original inhabitants that they had met upon their arrival in Ireland.
Many people of Irish descent have distant and recent African roots, and these features can still be seen in the people and in the culture. There are some Irish people with Afros (just like Andre the Giant a late continental European wrestler with afro-hair). In Southern Ireland, some people, referred to as “Black Irish”, are noted for their strikingly dark features, as opposed to the fair-skinned, light-haired north.
Although many Irish descendants are particularly pale, they do have pronounced Africoid facial features, as well as dark brown eyes, and dark brown hair that is sort-of kinky, especially in moist conditions. A sub race of the Irish called the Bronn are noticeably Mediterranean (read: African) in features especially their hair.
In addition to all of this, Celtic music is distinctly different from the rest of Europe, and easily comparable to African music.
Black, Viking and Irish
Unlike Scotland and England, Ireland was never colonized by the Romans. As a result, Ireland remained relatively isolated.
The Vikings established port cities like Dublin. The Viking texts left stories and descriptions of African soldiers captured in Ireland whom they called blaumen[blue-men].
Most Viking references to ”black” in Norse would have signified having black hair as opposed to skin color but blaumen meant black skinned. Most of these blaumen were captured soliders from Moorish Spain. It was observed that:
”A prominent Viking of the eleventh century was Thorhall, who was aboard the ship that carried the early Vikings to the shores of North America. Thorhall was “the huntsman in summer, and in winter the steward of Eric the Red. He was, it is said, a large man, and strong, black, and like a giant, silent, and foul-mouthed in his speech, and always egged on Eric to the worst; he was a bad Christian.”"
“Another Viking, more notable than Thorhall, was Earl Thorfinn, “the most distinguished of all the earls in the Islands.” Thorfinn ruled over nine earldoms in Scotland and Ireland, and died at the age of seventy-five. His widow married the king of Scotland. Thorfinn was described as “one of the largest men in point of stature, and ugly, sharp featured, and somewhat tawny, and the most martial looking man… It has been related that he was the foremost of all his men.”"
What about Scotland and Wales?
“Any comprehensive account of the African presence in early Europe should include England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Scandinavia. The history and legends of Scotland confirm the existence of “purely Black people.” We see one of them in the person of Kenneth the Niger. During the tenth century Kenneth the Niger ruled over three provinces in the Scottish Highlands.
The historical and literary traditions of Wales reflect similar beliefs. According to Gwyn Jones (perhaps the world’s leading authority on the subject), to the Welsh chroniclers, “The Danes coming in by way of England and the Norwegians by way of Ireland were pretty well all black: Black Gentiles, Black Norsemen, Black Host.”"
Ogu Eji Ofo Annu
Sources:
Ancient And Modern Britons, by David Mac Ritchie
Nature Knows No Color-Line, by J.A. Rogers
196 Responses “African Roots of Ireland”
Hmmmmm…Interesting racial/social hybrid legacy in America and Europe that *nobody* save for researchers wants to aknowledge.
funny that!
February 17th, 2006 at 11:48 am. Permalink.
Our Elders always knew that there was something behind the harsh conquering of the African Empires back in the early 1400. It might be that the Europeans are striking back at the “The Dark Empires”. But they don’t want the child of this generation to know that they were once conquered by Africans..I mean real Africans(Not the North-Africans we see today)
February 19th, 2006 at 5:58 pm. Permalink.
The vikings took slaves in Europe and north Africa and brought them home to scandinavia. They married some of the slaves and got half viking and half black children who ofcause also were vikings. The vikings were not racists they believed in the right of the strongest therefor som of the black vikings ofcause also became kings. But Scandinivia has never been conquered by people from Africa
February 24th, 2006 at 6:44 am. Permalink.
Thorvald Blakson…interesting name. You have some black heritage in your family.
Africans were not slaves of anybody until the Arabs and then the 16th century Europeans began abusing war prisoners.
Slaves are from Slavia. I suppose you would know where the Slavs come from. Slavs means slaves.
Seen?
February 25th, 2006 at 9:54 am. Permalink.
Um..Andre the Giant was not Irish. He was born in France to parents of Bulgarian and Polish background. But nice fake points..
March 4th, 2006 at 9:14 am. Permalink.
the black irish, melungeons,garifunas,and the black moors of mexico and central america are all related to the black gypsies of europe, who are related to the falashas are israelites fthe the tribe of dan and i can prove it!these were the ancient viking danes and thutha de danaan celts, the whit irish is children of the dutch and oliver cromwells children of rapr black irish women who took over the british isles,,,,,,, the real irish is the danites who are socalled black moorish gypsies….peace
March 4th, 2006 at 1:38 pm. Permalink.
The point remains that there are irish people with afro hair.
March 4th, 2006 at 5:21 pm. Permalink.
Thorvald Blakson. I am of West African origin but I am going to probably adopt Asatru/Heathenism as my faith. I am not ashamed of West African culture I am just attracted to Norse culture more. If you can prove African involvement in Norse history it would be much appreciated.
March 6th, 2006 at 5:07 am. Permalink.
90% of Irish are descended through paternally to what appears to be the pre-Gaelic population who drove out the Neanderthal from France and Spain 30,000 years ago. See the R1b genetic marker of the Y-chromosome on the genographic study on the National Geographic web site, and compare to the archeological history of Europe. The question is, where did the other 10% come from? From further north, east or south? The genographic researchers should know this informaton, but it was too small of a detail to be mentioned by the genographic web site.
March 11th, 2006 at 9:56 pm. Permalink.
I am of Gypsy,Jamaican and Scottish roots,aside that human(un)kind come from Eden,Iteopia,Afrika.I and I all Afrikan to a degree.Point is some know,some don’t.”Know god and ye shall know yourself”.Africa for all Africans and people who acknowledge their African roots and heritage at home and abroad!one love and one I-nity,Selassie-I,Jah Rastafari,Fiquir Bandinet!
March 15th, 2006 at 6:29 am. Permalink.
The Celts originated in Central Europe, in the La Tene culture, not sub-Saharan Africa. They are genetically identical to other Europeans, the only significant difference existing in culture and language; but here, of course, there is great relatedness, especially to the Germanic people in culture, rather than to black African peoples. The music of the Celtic people also closely resembles Native American and East Asian music, but that doesn’t indicate influence or common origin. Ireland isn’t the only place of Celtic settlement, by the way. If Ogu Eji Ofo Annu had an education, he would know that Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany and Galicia are also strongly Celtic regions; but Celtic ancestry can be found in people from Iceland to Turkey, and from Portugal to Ukraine. There were no “black” Vikings, either. The Vikings encountered black Africans off the Iberian coast, but there’s no indication that they ever spirited any of them away back to Scandinavia, or made them kings. The Vikings made it to North America and the Middle East, too, yet there were no Vikings or Viking kings from these places, either. On this subject, the author could have at least cited Runoko Rashidi, whom he plagiarized in the “Black, Viking and Irish” and “What about Scotland and Wales?” sections. The Fomorians are *mythical*, and this essay is yet more support for the assertion that Afrocentrism is “an excuse to teach myth as history”. There is no intelligent reason to believe that Negroids somehow sailed to Ireland and laid the genetic foundations of the island, because, as I’ve indicated and has been pointed out, there’s no genetic or archaeological support for this contention. Also, what Irish person, or person of Irish descent, has “Negroid” features that distinguish them from other Europeans? Colin Ferrell? Catherine Zeta-Jones? Nicole Kidman? Liam Neeson? Pierce Brosnan? I, for one, have never observed anything particularly “Negroid” about the features of Irish people, because there *isn’t* anything particularly Negroid about Irish people, nor of Celtic people. Are dark hair and eyes, or curly hair and round features, proof of Negroid ancestry? No. Just ask a geneticist, or do some genetic research, or get some common sense if you don’t believe me. Here’s a good site. Another important point to make is that no Mediterranean is black; neither is any Berber (excluding some Tuaregs, who are highly mixed). An *actual* Mediterranean appearance can be seen in some of the individuals I’ve already listed, and none of them are black. I pity those of you vulnerable enough in intellect and constitution to submit to this garbage presented in this essay.
March 25th, 2006 at 6:03 pm. Permalink.
Well to be quite honest person i kinda agree with you. To let you understand where im coming from I am of West African origin, but I am deeply drawn to Heathenism ( The beliefs and customs of the vikings), but I dont think that European culture is better than African culture I am just drawn to the Vikings.
I can see why you are getting upset. Black people for a long time have always been told that they are inferior, which is obvoulsy not true, but the mistake that black people make is that they start saying that black people are responsible for everything.
The fact of the matter is both Europeans and Africans should both be proud of their cultures and both races have contributed to this planet.
I think it is highly unlikely that black people travelled to Ireland and set the genetic foundation, but you have to be aware that even far back in ancient times that people still travelled far. For example the vandals conquered part of North Africa when they got kicked out it is likely they may have taken some slaves with them. In the middle ages there were muslims in Spain and France alot of them were African. So it is not impossible for African people to have travelled as far as Ireland.
As for the formorians they are described as being black. Ok bare this in mind what happened between the formorians and the Tuatha de dannan is not clear cut proof that this happened but to be quite honest mythology sometimes can be used as a source of history.
For example alot of stuff that happened in the Trojan war can actually be verified. Some of the Norse Sagas help you to understand Scandanvian history eventhough they can be considered myth. You see in the past myth was actually used as away of telling history, so evnthough the tale of the Tuatha de danaan is myth it would not be wise to completely reject it or take it as a gospel truth.
Also bare in mind just because the Irish people dont look similar to black people doesnt mean that they have no black blood in them. I have portugese blood in me because some portugese people settled in West Africa but you cant tell by looking at me because the number of portugese people that settled in West Africa was not enough to leave a lasting influence.
So this is what I think, I dont believe that black people settled in Ireland and are responsible for the genetic make up of the Irish. I do suspect that the formorians could have possibly been African because there is a tendency for myth to be used as a source to record history and even in those days African and Europeans did travel to each others lands.
March 31st, 2006 at 2:28 am. Permalink.
This message goes to the spineless non-entity abusing the cover of annonymity trolling out racialist foolishness:
Africa is the roots of all Europe and Ireland is no exception.
The Neolithic graves in Europe and Africa throw some interesting light on the African roots of Ireland in particular and of Europe as a whole.
It is said of those graves that “they are constructed on similar lines, and the great majority of the skeletons they contain are remarkable for their uniformity of type.”
“So striking”, writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.” (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.)
What the Professor is saying is that Blacks have always lived in Somaliland. Blacks lie at the root of all that Europe claims to be, and all that it will ever be.
And finally:
The article relied on primary and secondary sources for its information many of which have been cited.
Runoko Rashidi the godfather of Afrocentrism was unintentionally omitted as a result of formatting error.
Rather than deny Runoko Rashidi’s inspiration we are always privileged to acknowledge his scholarship.
Yet, the point made in the essay remains unanswerable. Africa is the roots of Ireland.
Jahdey
April 1st, 2006 at 12:54 pm. Permalink.
Scientists, archaeologists and others have proven that all men originated out of Africa and migrated all over the world, thus the original African were black, the original Europeans were black, the original Asians were black and the original Native Americans and Australians were black too, til a mutated gene came in and became an albino (white) and then mixing in creating red, yellow and other so-called sub races!
April 2nd, 2006 at 1:40 am. Permalink.
“What the Professor is saying is that Blacks have always lived in Somaliland. Blacks lie at the root of all that Europe claims to be, and all that it will ever be.”
Uh, how? That’s not what the quote you used claims (could you at least have given a proper citation, even?) One could use that quote to argue that the reverse is true - that Somalis are actually more closely related to Europeans than to black Africans. It claims that the skeletal features of Neolithic Britons and Northeast Africans are similar, which isn’t surprising.
“Both Ethiopians and Yemenis contain an almost-equal proportion of Eurasian-specific M and N and African-specific lineages and therefore cluster together in a multidimensional scaling plot between Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African populations.”
In other words, the people of the Horn of Africa have a significant amount of Caucasoid admixture from Eurasia, which means that they’re actually only kinda black, and the people of Egypt aren’t, and never have been black, either. Would assert to any one of these Egyptians that their ancestors were actually Negroid? eaay.org/conf06.htm. And how do “blacks” lie at the root of “all that Europe claims to be, and all that it will ever be”? Do you mean culturally? As in sculpture, music, or architecture? Or scientifically, technologically or philosophically? Can you point out anything comparable to Michelangelo’s Pieta, Mozart’s Requiem, or to the Versailles Palace anywhere in a truly black country? No, you can’t, because no such comparable treasures exist in black Africa. Have black Africans ever left Earth? Did they develop computer and satellite technology? What about the technology to study DNA or to develop the world’s finest automobiles? How about writing, even? Anything that compares to Einstein’s relativity, Freudian psychiatry or Greek philosophy, which, contrary to popular fantasy, isn’t “African” in origin? You think black Africans did all that? Okey-dokey. If you must feel your worth by pretending that white people have been profoundly influenced by black people, then go ahead. I don’t suppose you really matter as such a marginal individual, anyway. Science and intelligent people know better. You can keep lying to yourself and perpetuating your inferiority complex that way. Apparently, the white man still owns you, only now, the whip’s in your own hand.
“Scientists, archaeologists and others have proven that all men originated out of Africa and migrated all over the world, thus the original African were black, the original Europeans were black, the original Asians were black and the original Native Americans and Australians were black too, til a mutated gene came in and became an albino (white) and then mixing in creating red, yellow and other so-called sub races!”
Yes, all humanity did originate in Africa, but the original human inhabitants of Europe and the Americas weren’t Negroid. There’s even doubt that the original humans were Negroid according to the modern definition of the term, and it’s thought that whatever race they were has now vanished. That’s happened, you know. Also, white people aren’t albinos. Albinism is a genetic abnormality (that may occur among any race) in which the individual’s body is incapable of producing dermatological melanin. All white people have melanin (unless, of course, they’re an albino).
The point I was originally making is that Ireland (or any European country) doesn’t have “African” roots, neither culturally nor genetically. They may have ancient African ancestors, as all people in the world do, but that fact doesn’t make any white homeland, or any non-black homeland, the creation of black Africans. You people really should get lives, instead of making up history to try to convince the world that black people have done more than they really have. You’ll get a really bad reputation that way, if you haven’t already acquired one (and I suspect that you have). How do you expect other people to respect you when you challenge their true identity?
April 2nd, 2006 at 8:24 pm. Permalink.
Ayannah Taylor - It is true that life originated in Africa. This does not mean everyone started off black, only that they started off African. That humans evolved surface differents - ie in skin colour, nasal structure etc - is only evidence that we spread into many different climatic zones. Africa is too varied a continent in terms of climate, topography etc to make assumptions about what the first Africans looked like. Africa is diverse, and so are we! Let’s not allow skin colour to dominate our thinking.
April 12th, 2006 at 9:15 am. Permalink.
Jahdey replies the “Skeptic” Troll:
Again I ask, why do you hide under the cover of annonymity? Because you know that you are chatting rank foolishness, odious racism and extreme ignorance.
Now, Mr. Annonymous Skeptic is arguing that original Africans were actually white. Really? Then by your logic we both would have the same white African ancestor? Right?
If that is your logic then, why are you so mad that we have suggested that Africans your admitted ancestors and mine gave birth to Ireland.
Are you just mad because we had dared add a colour connotation to Africa? Are you angry at the term Black Africa? Should we then have used the term “white Africa”? Are you just then afraid of the term Black? Of the word Black? Yes, my little pitiful annonymous racist albino, you are scared of the term Black?
Why? Because you have no melanine even though you claim melanine? Now, this Mr. Annonymous claims to be both white (albino) and also melaninated. Interesting!
His ancestors are Celts as he had righteous claimed in his first silly commentary but now he is also of African ancestry. What next?
He also claims that Africans are caucasians. Now, now we have heard that before. But such idiotic comments are so counter intuitive that one can only dismiss them with a wave of hand without further ado.
Your little revisionist neo-racist genetic anthropologic evidence that you cite are old racist arguments re-dressed in new clothes.
Both Ethiopians and Yemenis contain M and N. Thus there is nothing Euro-Specific about that haplotype. Ethiopians are black Africans and lie geographically in the so-called subsaharan region. Ethiopia is the original homeland of the black man as demonstrated by Dr. Leakey (who discovered the oldest human African fossil in Ethiopia.) Yemenis also are Black people ethnically similar to many Ethiopians.
That said, there is nothing Euro-Specific then in gene haplotypes M and N. They are Ethiopic genes. As you have admitted that Africans are your ancestors anyway, it should then be obvious to you that haplotypes M and N left from Africa to other continents. How ever your racist imagination is in denial. You would rather segmentize culturally and racially the self-obvious sameness of the black populations of Ethiopia and the rest of Africa.
There is nothing specifically African specific in the so called African-specific lineages because the EA and the EB haplotypes also predominate in the southern populations of Europe such as Portugeses, Spaniards, Italians, and Greeks and as far as the Irish people.
The only multidimensional scaling plot between Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African populations exists in the imagination of racist annonymous inadequate men and women, masquerading under whatever legitimacy pusedo-science can confer on them, to peddle racist garbage. Go read the sections of the blog on African Semites to disabuse your mind from confusion.
When racists are cornered with facts of black African cultural heritage shared by the entire world, they start seeing the black colour in terms of shades of white (i.e. they raise silly arguments like:the relative fairness of the Ethiopians which means black people, to the Congoleses).
When those same racists have to are asked to share equally in the material resources of the earth they begin seeing black colour in one shade. At such times, all prior designated shades of blacks become threats to them.
Africa is Ethiopia and Ethiopia is Africa. the present day modern capital of Africa is at Addis Ababa, the City of the Black Lion and the seat of the African Union.
Now, I will lecture you a bit on History:
It is said that the first men were Blacks because they originated in Africa, and had lived thousands of years before the appearance of the first white man. The Greeks thought so, the Romans held so, and the Ethiopians knew so of themselves.
The Black African is the first because he is most adapted to living on the hot continent where we all arose…Africa. Peoples of paler complexions suffer a great deal in Africa. Because the sun just burns them all up.
Mr. Skeptic, your America Doctors advise you and others of paler complexions to cover up properly while going outside in temperate North American climate. They are advised to keep away from the sunshine. If you seek cover in a temperate climate from the sun, how could your lily white arse have survived in sweltering hot Africa?
You would have burnt up and died of skin cancer. The pale skin originated in European paleness and cold. The black man has always lived in Africa and always will do. The law of natural selection makes it improbable that a paler complexion skin could have survived and thrived in Africa long ago and then vanished mysteriously.
Caucasian Race?
Mr. Annonymous, there is no caucasian race. that was a product of 17th century European inspired hubris and bladerbash. Pure humbug.
Pale skin is the result of years ice age living conditions which caused the African people that had moved over to Europe at that time to loose their original skin colour and become pale.
Subsequently, this substratum intermixed extensively with other conquering races and nations which at one timeor the other ruled the entire Europe. This would include historic African nations like Ethiopia, Egypt. Then there was Byzantine Empire, Morroco, Nigeria/Senegal (in the Islamic conquest era). Then there were the asiatics such as the Huns (Attilla the Hun), the Kazars (Askenazi Jews), the Turkmen (Turkmenistan and the Ottoman Empire), the Mongols (Genhigs Khan), and the Chinese (part of Genhigs Khan’s hordes).
The term Caucasian race was a political creation of peoples like Schlozer a benighted Germanic psuedo-philosopher of the baser racist rank.
They created that in the hey days of rape and pillage of resources of traditional people so that they could appropriate the cultural achievements of other people.
I will explain. Europe was a pale poor and wretched continent in the truest sense of it. It was a wild, savage, barbaric homeland of warmongers and cannibals. The inhabitants were incapable of any civilization until the last 800 years ago. The great Empires of Rome and Greece were uninterested in it as a result its foul climate, and intemperate tribes. They thus truned it into a pillaging ground for war practice and slaving.
2500 years ago, Herodutus tells us about the barbaric Sythians who predominated in Eastern and Central Europe. They allegedly dwelled happily in savagery, wickedness, cannibalism and human sacrifice. A most sorry tribe to behold.
There is recorded evidence of more than 2000 years of non-stop human sacrifice in Europe. All the boglands of western Europe contain bodies of ritually sacrificed victims, some old as 2000 years old and other killed as recently as 1950s.
This account of babaric savagery which reigned in Western and Central Europe was corroborated a thousand times in history by authors of classical literature and ancient text. Julius Ceasar thought the inhabitants of Brittany (Great Britain) to be peculiarly backward, and incapable of higher thoughts.
It was the Romans who named the European barbarians. They also first called the barbaric tribes of the Danube “goremen” or Germans. And then there were also the vandals your other barbarian lineage. Vandals because of their insolent and destructive nature.
It was the Greeks and the Romans who turned the entire Eastern Europe as far as Russia to a country of slaves. Plato in writing his great epic the Republic actually had the northern and western Europeans in mind when he spoke of naturally borne slaves who were only fit for hewing wood and fetching water. hence, the slaves (slavs) of Europe were much abused in Greek and Roman plantations.
Up to this very day the name of the entire white tribe that live from central Europe to Russia is the “slaves” or the French rendering “slavs”. They still answer to that proudly. Mr. Skeptic, who is owned by whom? Recall that there were no Roman or Greek slave camps in Africa.
Africa and the Mediterrenean
In ancient Rome and Greece, Africa was venerated and the focus and hub of each civilization was African Egypt. Ethiopian was seen as the home of the gods.
Those Mediterrenean civilizations disdained the so called western and eastern Europeans. They made them slaves, they called them sub-humans, and they controlled their population through wars. Why?
Because the ancient Mediterreneans did not consider themselves Europeans. They considered themselves to be one tribe of Africans. The Athenians claimed that their city was founded by Eygptians lead by Pharaoh Sesostris. Nearly all the ancient gods and goddesses of Greece were of African heroes of great antiquity. Zeus, Heracles, Demeter, Apollo, all were Greek names for ancient African heroes, whom they worshipped.
Almost all the famous Greek philosophers were educated by ancient Egyptian and Ethiopians - all Black African notwithstanding the wishful thinking of the likes of Mr. Inadequate skeptic Euro. Solon the law giver of Athens, was eductaed in Africa. While, Aristotle (another student of ancinet Egypt) declared that Mathematics was invented by Africans. Why did the Greeks not seek education in London, Paris and Moscow at that time. Because only barbaric races, half beast, half savage humans lived in western and northern Europe at that time.
Roman officers paid huge bribes to be reallocated from colonial duties in barbaric Europe to civilized pre-occupations in Africa. Alexander the great hence went to Africa and insisted that he be crown the King of Egypt because his real father was supposedly of the African blood lines.
The present day southern Italians and Spaniards know before anyone else of their Black African connections. Their sickle cell genes remind them should they seek to forget. Their EA and EB genetic haplotypes should remind them equally. Mediterranean European is not the same as the Alpine European nor the nordic Europe. They are of different originations. Different races.
The Mediterranean European comes from very recent African roots. Their brown skin, black eyes, and black and curly hair reveal the source of their origins. All modern genetic studies of the present day populations of the Mediterrenean confirm their African ancestry. Sustained mixture with the paler tribes of Euro-Slavia European Slave Territories of Rome and Greece) changed the demographics. It is interesting to note that, those paler type European peoples of the north used to call southern Italians, Greeks, Spaniards and Poturgese niggers in early 20th century United States.
African genetic haplotypes groups are prevalent and widespread in the entire Mediterrenean Europe. Africa dominates genetically in the mediterrenean areas of Europe because Africans were the first people to get to Southern Europe. The Aurignacians, Grimaldis were black African nations that gave birth to Mediterrenean (southern) Europe.
The Improbable Caucasian Race
So where then is the famous caucasian race? Where is its origin? Is it the present day caucasus area? No. A very different type of European than the slavs or the teutons live in the caucasus today.
So what is a caucasian? Noone knows? It is a loose term applied as a matter of political and cultural convenience by the slavs of western Europe to arrogate to themselves a pedigree which they lack.
Caucasian has been used for an Arab. Some inadequate boys of the type of Mr. Annonymous have applied the term to black skinned Indian like Sinhalese, and Tamils.
It has been used to describe Ethiopians, and Egyptians, creators of the most amazing civilizations in history living thousands of miles away from Northern Europe and being of the black skin Ethiopoid race.
Some bigger ignoramuses like King Leopold of Belgium and my little inadequate Annonymous friend have also claimed that Tutsis are whites, Fulanis are whites, Hausas (Nigerians) are caucasiods, Yorubas art workof Nigeria was equally claimed by skeptic and inadequate caucasians like Mr. skeptic. European weak kneed scholars have also claimed that the Kushites were whites, the ancient Zimbabweans were white.
Achievements?
Racists like Mr. Skeptic would claim that all those Black “but white” African built up the great African civilizations.
But sadly, there is not one ancient great civiliztion which originated in northern Europe. None. No pyramids, no great Zimbabwean court, no great artworks, no monumental ancient dams, or sculptures nothing. Just paleness and cold.
Europe did not invent writing, Africa did. Actually Africa had developed about 10 different writting systems of great sophistication. Africans were the first and greatest architects. Black Africans like Imhotep laid the ground works of mathemathics, architecture, stone masonry and medical sciences.
Chemistry is so called becasue it was a science discovered in the land of Chem (Khem) Egypt - Africa. The Canaanites a black group that lived in ancient Palestine gave the science of advanced ship building and sea travel to mankind.
Mr. skeptic, where were your ancestors in those days. Tomorrow people where is your past? Europe is but the youngest continent in terms of being civilized. It was in stark paleness when the other continents had made great advancements. Until 18th century, Europe was so ignorant that European Doctors still considered it dangerous to the health for one to take a bathe at least once a day.
What did northern Europeans achieve in antiquity, those celts, those teutonics and Germanics, those vandals, huns, and wretched vikings, what did they achieve 3000 years ago, 2000years ago, even 1000 years ago?
3000 years ago when my ancestors in Africa built the pyramid and mapped the stars, laid the foundations of science, government, religions and civilization, where were your ancestors? In some cave, hiding away from the cold?
When Africans sailed the seas and settled from India, to Philippines, where were the Europeans? Achievements? Been there, done that; what’s next little boy skeptic?
So returing to the theme of this section, there were various straggling barbarian tribes in ancient European. Some were more Mongoloid, like in the areas of old Russia, some more pale in skin tone almost albinos like the blonde and blue eyed Scandinavians, and others were very dark, like the mediterreneans.
These peoples do not represent a continous racial nationality. That they are considered one race today is because of political expediency created by the current European tribes who dominate discourse due to the great success their pirates had in destroying cultures and civilizations in Africa, Native Americas and China.
Conclusion
I doubt you have heard of Dr. Crees. Search her out and read her ground breaking work on the inherited albino genes found in many Europeans. Add two and two and figure out where your pale hatred is arising from.
If you are jealous of the Black colour, I cannot help you out. If you wish to advance your childish mind, humble yourself and learn with the elders.
Jahdey
See: Black Like The Ancient Europeans (April 1, 2006)
April 13th, 2006 at 5:59 pm. Permalink.
“Again I ask, why do you hide under the cover of annonymity? Because you know that you are chatting rank foolishness, odious racism and extreme ignorance.”
Enough with the melodramatic introductions, Jahdey. Would it make a difference to you if I called myself “Strawberry Shortcake” or “Jack the Ripper”? We’re *online*, buddy – anonymity’s part of it. I’ve entered my name as “Skeptic”. Deal with it. By the way, I’ve never attacked black skin the way you’ve attacked white skin, so it seems that racism is a bigger problem for you than it is for me. As for the “extreme ignorance” part, well, we’ll see about that.
Firstly I never argued that the original Africans were “white”. I just denied that they were Negroid and that they had black skin. As Steve Olson in “Mapping Human History” explains:
“Anthropologists have often speculated about the seemingly ‘European’ features of a number of groups in Asia and even the Americas, groups such as the Australian Aborigines or the Ainu. Now the connection among these groups is becoming clearer: they all mixed relatively little with groups that acquired the typically ‘Mongoloid’ features of eastern Asia. Thus the ‘Caucasoid’ features of various peoples around the world may simply reflect the features of the northeastern Africans who gave rise to all the people of Europe and Asia.”
To support this, and also since I know you’ll be tempted to deny these “European” features in some Australian Aborigines and the Ainu (and others), I’ll provide visual evidence:
Australian Aborigine Evonne Goolagong
Australian Aborigine Aden Ridgeway
Australian Aborigine Troy Cassar-Daley
Australian Aborigine Anthony Mundine
Anthony’s father, Tony Mundine
Ainu, Ainu, Ainu, Ainu, Ainu
“Kennewick Man”, of Washington State 9000 BP
Maori opera singer Kiri Te Kanawa
So you see, some scientists hold that the early humans who colonized the world outside Africa were rather “Caucasoid”, instead of “Negroid”. Also, many argue that the first humans had light skin:
“The earliest members of the hominid lineage probably had a mostly unpigmented or lightly pigmented integument covered with dark black hair, similar to that of the modern chimpanzee.”
“It is likely that the integument of the earliest protohominids was similar to that of our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, being white or lightly pigmented (PDF) and covered with dark hair.”
Therefore, it is anything but unanimous that the first humans in Africa, and the ones who colonized the rest of the world, looked like black-skinned Negroid West Africans.“my little pitiful annonymous racist albino”
This is my point. You have no room to be calling others racist.
“Why? Because you have no melanine even though you claim melanine? Now, this Mr. Annonymous claims to be both white (albino) and also melaninated. Interesting!”
I’ll go ahead and assume what you trying to say here and repeat that only albinos lack melanin. If you didn’t understand that, then look up the term “albino” and learn what it really means.
“Both Ethiopians and Yemenis contain M and N. Thus there is nothing Euro-Specific about that haplotype.”
Europeans aren’t the only white/Caucasoid people.
Queen Rania of Jordan
Farah Pahlavi of Iran
Dina Habib-Powell (her married name) of Egypt
Shireen Saif Nasr of Egypt
Nazanin Afshin-Jam of Iran
Andre Agassi (Assyrian and Armenian)
Mohammad Khatami of Iran
Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran
Ali Larijani of Iran
Mahammed A. Aldouri Iraq
Mohammed Al-Amili of Iraq
Feisal Istrabadi of Iraq
Jalal Talabani of Iraq
“Arab-American” Carol Chehade
Kathy Najimy, born to Lebanese immigrants to the US
Danny Thomas, also born to Lebanese immigrants to the US
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi of Jordan
Jacques Chirac beside Saddam Hussein
George W. Bush beside “a Saudi prince”
Hillary Clinton beside Iraqi women
Safia Taleb al-Suhail of Iraq beside Laura Bush
Iraqi women, Iraqi women, Iraqi women, Iraqi women
busts of Assyrian kings
Also, more on the not-so-blackness of the people of the Horn of Africa
“Africa is Ethiopia and Ethiopia is Africa. the present day modern capital of Africa is at Addis Ababa, the City of the Black Lion and the seat of the African Union.”
I’ve already explained to you that not everyone in Africa is “black” or Negroid. Also, you try way too hard to sound like you know what you’re talking about. Just take a deep breath and try not to injure your brain.
“It is said that the first men were Blacks because they originated in Africa, and had lived thousands of years before the appearance of the first white man. The Greeks thought so, the Romans held so, and the Ethiopians knew so of themselves.”
Support?
“The Black African is the first because he is most adapted to living on the hot continent where we all arose…Africa. Peoples of paler complexions suffer a great deal in Africa. Because the sun just burns them all up.”
That’s why their skin darkened, and then lightened again as some of them left.
“Mr. Skeptic, your America Doctors advise you and others of paler complexions to cover up properly while going outside in temperate North American climate. They are advised to keep away from the sunshine. If you seek cover in a temperate climate from the sun, how could your lily white arse have survived in sweltering hot Africa?”
It would have darkened, which is exactly what their “lilly-white arses” did. And no one says “keep away from the sunshine”. In fact, they actually advise sun exposure for about an hour a week to obtain adequate amounts of Vitamin D. However, *everyone* is advised to move into shade whenever their bodies tell them that they’ve had enough sunlight when it becomes uncomfortable, as all people are prone to heatstroke and sunburn and skin cancer, although some are more prone to the latter two than others are.
“You would have burnt up and died of skin cancer. The pale skin originated in European paleness and cold. The black man has always lived in Africa and always will do. The law of natural selection makes it improbable that a paler complexion skin could have survived and thrived in Africa long ago and then vanished mysteriously.”
“Pale skin originated in European paleness” – LOL, okay, whatever. “Pale skin” actually didn’t, though, otherwise many Middle Easterners, North Africans; and south, central and east Asians (and Australian Aborigines, Polynesians, and Native Americans) wouldn’t have light skin. It’s “vanishing” from Africa isn’t mysterious, either, as I’ve already explained.
“Subsequently, this substratum intermixed extensively with other conquering races and nations which at one timeor the other ruled the entire Europe.”
While there may be admixture in European populations from around the world, this hasn’t had a significant impact, and it’s the same case for most of the rest of the world as well.
This would include historic African nations like Ethiopia, Egypt. Then there was Byzantine Empire, Morroco, Nigeria/Senegal (in the Islamic conquest era). Then there were the asiatics such as the Huns (Attilla the Hun), the Kazars (Askenazi Jews), the Turkmen (Turkmenistan and the Ottoman Empire), the Mongols (Genhigs Khan), and the Chinese (part of Genhigs Khan’s hordes).”
Europe has never been entirely dominated by outside forces. Also, neither Ethiopia, Egypt, China, nor the Ashkenazi Jews (who are of Hebrew, not Turkic, descent, as has been proven by genetic studies) have ever “conquered” any part of Europe.
“I will explain. Europe was a pale poor and wretched continent in the truest sense of it. It was a wild, savage, barbaric homeland of warmongers and cannibals.”
What have you been reading? Firstly, these conditions have never been unique to any one part of the world. Secondly, Greece and Rome, and their people, were European, as could be described the Byzantines.
“The great Empires of Rome and Greece were uninterested in it as a result its foul climate, and intemperate tribes.”
Is that why Rome expanded into it?
“They thus truned it into a pillaging ground for war practice and slaving.”
No they didn’t. The Roman Empire tried to incorporate it into the empire, and Roman soldiers were the ones who suffered for that. The effort, obviously, was ultimately unsuccessful
“The inhabitants were incapable of any civilization until the last 800 years ago.”
800 years ago? Please. First of all, the definition of “civilization” is elastic. There’s no solid and universally agreed-upon criteria for what constitutes a “civilization”. But it’s accurate to call many European states that existed before the 13th century “civilized”, icluding the Frankish Empire (5th-10th c.), the Holy Roman Empire (10th-19th c.), and Kievan Russia (10th-13th c.). The great cathedrals and the earliest universities of Europe were built and established prior to 800 years before the present, and prehistoric sites like Stonehenge and Newgrange predate all other civilizations. Also, these developments may prove interesting.
So what does black Africa (or most of the rest of the world, for that matter) have to say for itself for being “incapable of any civilization until the last 800 years ago [sic]”? To understand why establishing a “civilization” isn’t a matter of “capability” but rather one of environment, read Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs, And Steel”.
“2500 years ago, Herodutus tells us about the barbaric Sythians who predominated in Eastern and Central Europe. They allegedly dwelled happily in savagery, wickedness, cannibalism and human sacrifice. A most sorry tribe to behold.”
Yeah, well that’s Herodotus – he denigrated just about anyone who didn’t speak Greek. If his testimonies have value, then perhaps harsh evaluations of natives from around the world by European explorers are accurate as well? Herodotus’ writings don’t confuse scholars as they seem to have confused you. They know better than to take them as unbiased, objective observations that provide a totally accurate window to the past. Academia knows the Scythians better than Herodotus did, and they weren’t like that.
“There is recorded evidence of more than 2000 years of non-stop human sacrifice in Europe. All the boglands of western Europe contain bodies of ritually sacrificed victims, some old as 2000 years old and other killed as recently as 1950s.”
Yet more wishful thinking. This may be true to an *extent*, but even if your statements were totally true, again, it’s not unique to Europe.
“This account of babaric savagery which reigned in Western and Central Europe was corroborated a thousand times in history by authors of classical literature and ancient text. Julius Ceasar thought the inhabitants of Brittany (Great Britain) to be peculiarly backward, and incapable of higher thoughts.”
Again, bias negates the accuracy of these testimonies; and I’ll remind you, again, that outsiders everywhere have harshly evaluated others whom they didn’t understand, and that such behavior, if it existed, wasn’t endemic to a small corner of the world; and also that modern scholarship knows the Celts better than Julius Caesar did.
“It was the Romans who named the European barbarians. They also first called the barbaric tribes of the Danube “goremen” or Germans. And then there were also the vandals your other barbarian lineage. Vandals because of their insolent and destructive nature.”
Actually, the word vandal is derived from the people, not vice-versa; and if any group was “barbaric” to the Romans, it was the *Berbers*, whom you apparently believe were black.
“It was the Greeks and the Romans who turned the entire Eastern Europe as far as Russia to a country of slaves. Plato in writing his great epic the Republic actually had the northern and western Europeans in mind when he spoke of naturally borne slaves who were only fit for hewing wood and fetching water. hence, the slaves (slavs) of Europe were much abused in Greek and Roman plantations.
“Up to this very day the name of the entire white tribe that live from central Europe to Russia is the “slaves” or the French rendering “slavs”. They still answer to that proudly. Mr. Skeptic, who is owned by whom? Recall that there were no Roman or Greek slave camps in Africa.”
The entirety of Eastern Europe has never been unified as a country, and neither Alexander nor the Romans ever expanded past the Danube. Also, there were no “plantations” in in either of these empires, and slaves in the Greek and Roman empires came from all over, not just from Europe, and there were no “slave camps” established anywhere therein. The word “slave”, by the way, has its origin in events that occurred in the 9th century, during the Holy Roman Empire, not in Classical Greek or Roman times.
“In ancient Rome and Greece, Africa was venerated and the focus and hub of each civilization was African Egypt. Ethiopian was seen as the home of the gods.”
No it wasn’t. The “focus and hub” of the Roman Empire was the *capital*, Rome; and the Greeks revolved around their own cities, and even when Greece was unified under Alexander’s Empire, the “focus and hub” was on the homeland, Greece, not any part of Africa. You want to support your claim that “Ethiopian [sic] was seen as the homeland of the gods”, or are you just going to pretend that asserting something makes it fact?
“Because the ancient Mediterreneans did not consider themselves Europeans. They considered themselves to be one tribe of Africans.”
They didn’t consider themselves “Africans” either. They had a concept of the Mediterranean, and identified with it. *All* non-Mediterraneans were outside the sphere of civilization to them. However, today, we know that Greece and Italy belong to Europe and that Egypt belongs to Africa.
“The Athenians claimed that their city was founded by Eygptians lead by Pharaoh Sesostris. Nearly all the ancient gods and goddesses of Greece were of African heroes of great antiquity. Zeus, Heracles, Demeter, Apollo, all were Greek names for ancient African heroes, whom they worshipped.”
The Greek gods weren’t imports from Africa, and neither the Greeks nor the Romans “worshipped” any “African heroes”. You’re just making crap up, either that or you’ve been reading the work of others who’ve made crap up.
“Almost all the famous Greek philosophers were educated by ancient Egyptian and Ethiopians”
No Greek was educated by either Egyptians or Ethiopians. They studied in their city of Alexandria in Egypt, which was a Greek city, inhabited and founded by Greeks, where thoughts and ideas flowed freely – that’s how scholarship flourished; and I’ve already revealed to you that the Egyptians have never been black anyway. No Greek ever studied south of that.
“all Black African notwithstanding the wishful thinking of the likes of Mr. Inadequate skeptic Euro.”
This sentence doesn’t even make any sense.
“Solon the law giver of Athens, was eductaed in Africa.”
All the inhabitants of which aren’t black-skinned Negroids.
“While, Aristotle (another student of ancinet Egypt) declared that Mathematics was invented by Africans.”
So. Mathematics achieved levels of sophistication in India, Mesopotamia, China, Greece and Rome, and Mesoamerica that weren’t reached in Egypt.
“Why did the Greeks not seek education in London, Paris and Moscow at that time.”
Because those cities didn’t exist then. Why didn’t they seek education in black Africa?
“Because only barbaric races, half beast, half savage humans lived in western and northern Europe at that time”
Need I point out *your* problem of racism?
“Roman officers paid huge bribes to be reallocated from colonial duties in barbaric Europe to civilized pre-occupations in Africa. Alexander the great hence went to Africa and insisted that he be crown the King of Egypt because his real father was supposedly of the African blood lines.”
“Civilized pre-ocupations in Africa”? – no such things existed except in the white north, and Alexander was welcomed as a hero by the Egyptians for liberating them from the Persian Empire and was crowned the son of God by a priest of Amun at Siwa.
“The present day southern Italians and Spaniards know before anyone else of their Black African connections. Their sickle cell genes remind them should they seek to forget. Their EA and EB genetic haplotypes should remind them equally.”
Sickle-cell anemia doesn’t indicate sub-Saharan ancestry. And Italians and Spaniards aren’t exceptionally Negroid “Mediterranean European is not the same as the Alpine European nor the nordic Europe. They are of different originations. Different races.”
Nonsense. That’s only true if you ask 19th-century anthropologists, who liked to shatter one group, such as Europeans, into a million little pieces. As Steve Olson states:
“The cranial index played a large role in some of the most bizarre racial theories ever concocted. According to the most notorious of these, the people of Europe could be divided into three distinct races. The Nordics of northern and northwestern Europe were tall and fair and had narrow heads. The Mediterraneans of southern Europe were short, dark, and also narrow-headed. In between were the Alpines, who were short, brown-haired, and broad-headed. These categories have only the vaguest relationship to the characteristics of actual Europeans; in fact, people with all of these features can be found in every pert of the continent. Yet for a time these ideas were used to divide the people of Europe into racial categories just as rigid – and as damning – as the racial categories applied to the rest of the world.”
No such divisions can be made among the people of Europe, and sometimes not even among the entire Caucasoid group. Take a look at those photo series from the Racial Reality website and try to divide those people into different races. You can’t do it.
“The Mediterranean European comes from very recent African roots. Their brown skin, black eyes, and black and curly hair reveal the source of their origins. All modern genetic studies of the present day populations of the Mediterrenean confirm their African ancestry.”
All of this has already been refuted.
“African genetic haplotypes groups are prevalent and widespread in the entire Mediterrenean Europe. Africa dominates genetically in the mediterrenean areas of Europe because Africans were the first people to get to Southern Europe.”
This also has already been refuted. There is genetic continuity throughout Europe because all native Europeans have a common origin. See Spencer Wells’ “The Journey of Man” to learn how anthropologists know that the first modern humans migrated to Europe from central Asia. There’s no indication of colonization of Europe across the Strait of Gibraltar.
“The Aurignacians, Grimaldis were black African nations that gave birth to Mediterrenean (southern) Europe.”
There have never been any “black African nations” in Europe. The Aurignacian culture spread into Europe from the Middle East, not North Africa, the indigines of which are Caucasoid anyway. The only thing “Negroid” about the human remains at Grimaldi is prognathism, which was ubiquitous in early humans. Therefore, the Grimaldi remains are Cro-Magnon, rather than “black African”.
“The Improbable Caucasian Race”
I’ll just skip over this section since you don’t even make a point here.
“Racists like Mr. Skeptic would claim that all those Black ‘but white’ African built up the great African civilizations.”
You’re just cherry-picking counterarguments and confusing yourself about what *I’ve* actually said.
“But sadly, there is not one ancient great civiliztion which originated in northern Europe.”
Nor has there ever been one in black Africa, and, as I’ve already shown you, white people have never been confined to Northern Europe.
“No pyramids”
You mean like the Nubian ones that are the size of the average master bedroom and which the Nubians learned to build from the Caucasoid Egyptians, or the ones that were actually built by the Egyptians?
“no great Zimbabwean court”
Which was built only in the 15th-century, and we all know what Europeans were doing at that time, as well as what they had already done.
“no great artworks, no monumental ancient dams, or sculptures nothing.”
You mean like the Cro-Magnon cave paintings in France and Spain, which also exhibit the earliest known calendar? Or like the two great structures I’ve already mentioned, Stonehenge and Newgrange? Or the prehistoric figurines that can be found throughout Europe?
“Just paleness and cold.”
Why does white skin bother you so much?
“Europe did not invent writing, Africa did.”
No it didn’t. No place in Africa originated writing. Only three places in the world have: Mesopotamia, China, and Mesoamerica. From Mesopotamia, writing spread to Egypt and to the Horn via trade with Mesopotamian states. Appropriation was all that occurred.
“Actually Africa had developed about 10 different writting systems”
Parts of northeastern Africa may have a variety of scripts, but that doesn’t mean that those people “invented” writing.
“Africans were the first and greatest architects.”
But not *black* Africans. This assertion is debatable anyway.
“Black Africans like Imhotep laid the ground works of mathemathics, architecture, stone masonry and medical sciences.”
Yet more fantasies.
“The Canaanites a black group that lived in ancient Palestine gave the science of advanced ship building and sea travel to mankind.”
The Canaanites weren’t black. That’s just another negrocentric fairy-tale, and the Canaanites didn’t have a monopoly on seafaring technology.
“Europe is but the youngest continent in terms of being civilized.”
No, that illustrious distinction goes to sub-Saharan Africa for persisting to the present without progressing beyond the Iron Age; and to New Guinea, Australia, Polynesia, and most of the Americas for remaining in the Stone Age, while Western Civilization has entered the Space Age. I’ll refer you again to Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs, and Steel” to understand why that is (and why your version of history is wrong).
“It was in stark paleness when the other continents had made great advancements.”
I see, yet again, that white skin really agitates you, and that you’re quite ignorant of world history.
“Until 18th century, Europe was so ignorant that European Doctors still considered it dangerous to the health for one to take a bathe at least once a day.”
Need we discuss all the many things of which black Africans have always been ignorant?
“What did northern Europeans achieve in antiquity, those celts, those teutonics and Germanics, those vandals, huns, and wretched vikings, what did they achieve 3000 years ago, 2000years ago, even 1000 years ago?”
Well, for one, archaeology reveals that over 3000 years ago their ancestors had an advanced concept of astronomy, as evidenced by their many stone monuments. The Vikings, as of 1000 years ago and before, had independently mastered shipbuilding and exploration, and they wrote their history and mythology in prose (with their own script). Now, what did *black Africans* do at this time? Hmm? Perhaps I should dismiss anything done by the kinda-black people of northeastern Africa from the story of black accomplishment the way you exclude southern Europeans from that of European accomplishment. But you miss my point that I made when I became involved here in the first place, and that was to refute your claims that all European accomplishments are attributable to black Africans, which they clearly aren’t (none of them are, actually).
“3000 years ago when my ancestors in Africa built the pyramid and mapped the stars, laid the foundations of science, government, religions and civilization, where were your ancestors? In some cave, hiding away from the cold?”
Your ancestors didn’t do those things, and responses to everything else you’ve claimed here have already been provided.
“When Africans sailed the seas and settled from India, to Philippines, where were the Europeans? Achievements? Been there, done that; what’s next little boy skeptic?”
Been where and done what? You haven’t proven anything. What can you prove black Africans have ever done?
“So returing to the theme of this section, there were various straggling barbarian tribes in ancient European.”
Actually, the “theme” of this section was “achievements”
“Some were more Mongoloid, like in the areas of old Russia, some more pale in skin tone almost albinos like the blonde and blue eyed Scandinavians, and others were very dark, like the mediterreneans.”
So now white people are “almost” albinos? Your consistency is impressive Jahdey.
“These peoples do not represent a continous racial nationality. That they are considered one race today is because of political expediency created by the current European tribes who dominate discourse due to the great success their pirates had in destroying cultures and civilizations in Africa, Native Americas and China.”
First off, what is a “racial nationality”. You just made up that nonsensical term. Secondly, all Europeans do belong to the same race, as I’ve already argued, and your diatribe of “political expediency” and “discourse” is incoherent and fallacious. There’s no “discourse” on the matter because people who don’t have an ax to grind can see these things clearly.
“I doubt you have heard of Dr. Crees. Search her out and read her ground breaking work on the inherited albino genes found in many Europeans. Add two and two and figure out where your pale hatred is arising from.”
I know very well who Frances Cress-Welsing is, and I don’t buy her garbage (which is dependent on the Freudian school of psychology, by the way), and neither does the sane academic world, which is why her work isn’t “groundbreaking”. We’ve already discussed albinism, and it’s time *you* learn more about it.
“If you are jealous of the Black colour, I cannot help you out. If you wish to advance your childish mind, humble yourself and learn with the elders.”
It seems that you’re the one who could use a dose of humility, Jahdey.
April 20th, 2006 at 2:46 pm. Permalink.
Very interesting! If you have ever seen children of interracial marraige between blacks and whites, you will have noticed that they frequently have red hair and freckles. Could this be where the red hair and freckles of the Irish came from?
April 22nd, 2006 at 4:50 am. Permalink.
There is no doubt of an African connection with Britain. Although it may be difficult to find hard evidence for the connection in pre-Roman Britain, it is certainly the case that during the Roman period at least two or possibly three Roman Auxhilliary legions were stationed in Britain. These Roman soldiers came from Ethiopia. Okay. Ethiopia has an historic connection with Britain certainly in the second century AD. More on this might be available from the British Library and/or British Museum. Clive - Brythonic Celt
April 22nd, 2006 at 11:36 pm. Permalink.
“Very interesting! If you have ever seen children of interracial marraige [sic] between blacks and whites, you will have noticed that they frequently have red hair and freckles. Could this be where the red hair and freckles of the Irish came from?”
I don’t think so, Nanette. First of all, there’s no genetic evidence of an influx of sub-Saharans into Ireland. Secondly, red hair in black people is attributable to what’s termed “rufous albinism” and is caused by a mutation on the TYRP1 gene, whereas red hair that naturally occurs in some white people is due to the MC1R gene.
So it seems that red hair originated in Northern Europe, and is not due to a mixing of sub-Saharan and Northern European genes.
“These Roman soldiers came from Ethiopia.”
No they didn’t. The Roman Empire never expanded down into Ethiopia. Those soldiers were Nubian, but they were an “African” influence on Britain, not Ireland.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:09 pm. Permalink.
seems like grace is the only person with any sense man originated in africa earliest evidence ethiopia but colour of skin is of no importance to anyone what is is that during life in different climates different attiudes and beliefs were formed and we must learn to appreciate each other and their beliefs as we all come frome one
one people onle love
irish steve
April 28th, 2006 at 1:12 am. Permalink.
Ok Skeptic you seem to be going overboard. On one hand you have a black guy saying that black people are superior to white people, I do not agree with this person. Now you seem to be implying that white people are superior to black people.You have to bare in mind that alot of european scientific develomment owes itself to Islam and Africa was part of the Islamic Empire.
The word Algebra was named after a muslim scholar, Chemistry comes from the word Al-Chemie which is arabic. Skeptic I could go on and on. I have no idea wether the scholars were African or not, the problem sometimes in studying muslim history is that sometimes people are refered to as muslim scholars instead of African or Arab, as you know there were many African muslims with Arabic names and who could speak Arabic. In the middle ages the Islamic world was seen to be more advanced than the European world and alot of European scholars used to learn from muslim countries. One part of the Islamic world was Spain. I know that the person who lead the army into Spain was African also I know the army consisted of lots of Arabs and Africans. Basically when the muslims took over Spain they improved it, scholars would come over from Europe to study there and the descriptions of the city show that the muslims were more advanced.
The point im trying to make is this…you cannot talk about scientifc development in Europe without talking about Islam because there are alot of scientifc discoveries you would not have acheieved without getting it from the Islamic world. The other point im trying to make is this..everyone has their time of greatness. There was a time when the Islamic world (Africa included) was seen to be superior to Europe and there is a good chance that the renaissance would not have happened. So one of the reasons why European civilization is seen as being superior is partialy because everyone has their time in the sun. I mentioned Spain because this was one part of the Islamic world which had a huge African involvement. You also have to bare in mind that there were alot of people in Europe that could not read or write and Africans did. For example the visigoths conquered North Africa for a while but did not have a lasting effect on Christanity because they could not read or write.
Another point I need to make is this. You can critcise a people for not developing when Europeans have a tendency throughout history to invade other peoples country and destroy their civilisation. Im aware that African people have to be responsible for their development but dont criticise African people so harshly when Europeans have played a huge part in keeping Africans down. Dont tell me you have forgotten about what the Europeans have done in America, South America, Australia, India and even China.
Skeptic you are aware that Europeans invaded Africa with guns carved up the country enslaved whole communities. Skeptic the reason why im Catholic is because my ancestors were forcibly converted, before that they were muslim. If you go to some parts of the West Indies you will see people with African, Indian and Chinese blood because Europeans used to get slaves from these countries. Skeptic do you know any other race of people that have acted so aggressively to other races on the whole?
What about today, are you telling me you dont know how unfair the economic system is? Africa has more resources than Europe and there are alot of natural resources that are taken from Africa, but somehow Africa is poorer than Europe. Are you going to sit here and tell me that its because African people are stupid…. or is it that the economic system is unfair. You also need to bear in mind that Europeans are selling weapons to developed countries….somehow I dont think that helps.
Skeptic you need to undertand what im saying. I am not trying to say that Europeans are entirely to blame why Africa is the way it is, Africans have responsibility as well, but you cant sit here and criticse African people for not developing when Europeans have done alot to ruin Africa.
Let me make a sceneario. This is like you coming into my house beating me up, taking my stuff, smashing the place up and then coming back to my house and saying “Why is this place a dump”. I am just trying to illustrate a point.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:12 am. Permalink.
sorry i have some errors on my post and i dont know why they are there
April 28th, 2006 at 4:13 am. Permalink.
Ignore the first paragraph and ignore “Quote Skeptic”
April 28th, 2006 at 4:18 am. Permalink.
Quote Skeptic
“The Vikings, as of 1000 years ago and before, had independently mastered shipbuilding and exploration, and they wrote their history and mythology in prose (with their own script).”
You are aware that Africans have actually travelled to America as well as the Vikings. Bear in mind Africa is alot further away from Europe.
Oh yeah the Vikings could only read or write runes. The reason why we know about their discoveries is because Christian scholars came after them and wrote it down. I should know im thinking of adopting Heathenism as my religon! Some of the phaorahes were black something tells me they knew astrology as well.
Ive read your post more carefully skeptic. Actually your quite racist what your saying is that black people are basically stupid.
April 28th, 2006 at 5:01 am. Permalink.
The Vikings were black and so where the Celts. Also, The Kings and Queens of early England were all Moorish Hebrews. Anglo Saxons mean Angelic Sons of Isaac, Jews.
May 9th, 2006 at 9:08 pm. Permalink.
Well, Svartgoth, I apologize if I seemed to be arguing that white people are superior to others. I don’t believe that. I was simply refuting Jahdey’s arguments that black Africans are responsible for every European achievement. I know about the contributions and accomplishments of Arabs and the people of the Islamic Empire. I agree with your point that “everyone has their time of greatness,” and I meant to make this point as well. I did, however, refer readers to “Guns, Germs, and Steel”, which is a good book that explains things on this subject.
“Skeptic do you know any other race of people that have acted so aggressively to other races on the whole?”
Everyone has, just not as efficiently and extensively as Europeans, but the tendency toward these things, to kill and destroy, etc., is inherent in everyone.
“Skeptic you need to understand what im saying. I am not trying to say that Europeans are entirely to blame why Africa is the way it is, Africans have responsibility as well, but you cant sit here and criticse African people for not developing when Europeans have done alot to ruin Africa.
“Let me make a sceneario. This is like you coming into my house beating me up, taking my stuff, smashing the place up and then coming back to my house and saying “Why is this place a dump”. I am just trying to illustrate a point.”
I see your point, but I’ll repeat that in order to refute Jahdey, I had to point these things out. I don’t disagree with your arguments.
“Actually your quite racist what your saying is that black people are basically stupid.”
No, you’re mistaken, because I don’t believe that. I’ll apologize again for offending you. Why are under the impression that I believe that?
“The Vikings were black and so where the Celts. Also, The Kings and Queens of early England were all Moorish Hebrews. Anglo Saxons mean Angelic Sons of Isaac, Jews.”
I really feel a lot of pity for those of you who read these things and think you’re educating yourself. None of this is true, Eleazer. Sorry.
May 10th, 2006 at 2:58 pm. Permalink.
I just wanted to add one quick comment.
“You are aware that Africans have actually travelled to America as well as the Vikings. Bear in mind Africa is alot further away from Europe.”
There’s actually no solid proof of this. As of the present, it’s only a hypothesis, as is the idea that the Chinese, Japanese. Australian Aborigines, Irish, Romans, Greeks, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Babylonians, Canaanites, Egyptians, Arabs, Persians, Indians, and Austronesians reached the Americas before Columbus or the Vikings. Not yet fact, but maybe eventually. So far, only the Vikings are known to have been the earliest Old World settlers of the Americas, after migrants from Siberia that became the Native Americans, of course.
May 10th, 2006 at 3:18 pm. Permalink.
“The Vikings were black and so where the Celts. Also, The Kings and Queens of early England were all Moorish Hebrews. Anglo Saxons mean Angelic Sons of Isaac, Jews.”
Skeptic I actually dont believe that. To be quite honest with you im as skeptic as you are, thats why when someone said there African Viking kings I asked for evidence.
Quote Skeptic
“Well, Svartgoth, I apologize if I seemed to be arguing that white people are superior to others. I don’t believe that.”
Well ok fair enough as you can imagine this is a touchy subject for me, I have had to deal with alot of racism at school where I was constantly told that African people were stupid.
To be quite honest I dont know as much as you do on this subject so im going to have to end this discussion. I also think youre wasting your time with these guys I think they have an agenda, and its a shame because there will be black people out there looking for knowledge and these guys are giving people the wrong information.
May 12th, 2006 at 8:31 am. Permalink.
Wow, what an interesting discussion. I surfed here from the other article about this, thanks for the link skeptic:
The Africans Who Discovered Europe — First Europeans Part II
It makes me laugh to be accused of racism for these kind of thoughts. Like Leakey, I’m the child of missionaries who worked in Africa. I ran with the African kids and learned their ways, and culturally if not in colour, I am probably more african than most of you all posting here. I knew I was different, but assumed I’d grow up to be black like normal people eventually.
And this is West Africa I’m talking about. Black people. 
My heritage is german/polish/czeck, and I’m a Canadian Pentecostal. I married a frisian/dutch Canadian fellow whose extremely old family history goes straight back to the Vikings (I kid you not, father to son right back to the first Christian convert, a Frisian Grand Jarl who was a paladin of Charlemagne in 778 AD). Hence the unusual surname.
I might add that my mother is a brown person, even though she is 100% german background, to our knowledge. I guess she’s a throwback to a mongolian or roman ancestor. She could be easily mistaken for a Hispanic. She by no means suffered under the hot African sun, in fact she loves the tropics and spends as much there (like many of us) as possible. lol she’s far from a “cold white” woman. But she’s a german Canadian. So much for that stereotype!
So given all that background, I assure you I do not think one colour or race is superior to another. But I do believe that there are generalized genetic/phenotypic qualities which I find interesting, particularly as clues to history and prehistory.
Race is a very nebulous concept, but differences exist and it is because of brain-stultifying political correctness and embittered emotionalism that people try to deny it.
Race seems to originate quite quickly by such things as founder’s effect, where a genetic bottleneck allows genotypes to double up and become fixed into the family heritage. An example of this is the “Blue Fugates of Kentucky,” a clan in which some had blue skin. Google it! Given a few thousand years of isolation and there might be a blue race!
One thing I like about these articles is that they take mythology and religious historical writings seriously. I think a lot of things there are based on oral history and perhaps even racial memories of actual historic, even prehistoric events.
Take the european tradition of trolls. These were very strong creatures that lived in caves and under bridges and were very strong. The would catch and eat people if they could, especially children. They liked gold and glittery objects. Their culture was not as advanced as ours. So, might this myth not be based on the Neanderthals?
Now I’m going to propose a half-way solution to this argument. According to Judeo-christian and Islamic tradition, mankind started in the levant and spread out from there. Now anthropology does indicate that mankind developed in northeast Africa and traveled northward. Might a group of very early homo sapiens sapiens have become populous in the area from Nubia to Iraq and disseminated into the whole world from there? I’m talking long ago, maybe say 60 thousand years ago?
Just kicking around a few ideas…
May 12th, 2006 at 7:07 pm. Permalink.
whoops, wrong website link. Try this one.
Oh, and by the way no one has a corner on cannibalism, human sacrifice and poor treatment of children, servants, aliens and women. Universally everyone has had a poor record.
I think it has been the Judeo-christian influence more than anything which has reduced this in history, since it teaches that humans are made in the image of God and therefore human life is sacred.
In our area of Africa where we worked for example, there used to be 4 ways to acquire a wife:
1. Buy one. yes, an african buying an african slave as a concubine.
2. Trade sisters with your bosom buddy.
3. Save up your money and cows and approach your chosen lady’s male relatives with the dowry, make a deal. This is the usual way.
4. Way back when, invade a neighboring tribe and steal one of the women. No longer a popular option, I must admit.
Consider also the treatment of unwanted children and babies worldwide. This is one source of slavery, in my opinion. Baal- worshipping Carthaginians in North Africa sacrificed many children for hundreds of years. In West Africa twins were often considered demonic and were exposed to die. Chinese cultures drowned newborn unwanted babies, usually girls. Romans and Greeks sacrificed them to the gods by exposure outside the city walls (where christians gathered them up, raising them in the Christian tradition).
There were only a few faiths way back then that despised human sacrifice, and Judaism was one. Christianity and Islam are founded on Judaic practice.
May 12th, 2006 at 7:33 pm. Permalink.
Slavic people were no slaves, please get your fact straight and do not talk about subjects you do not understand..
Here is a definition for you all.
The origin of the word Slav remains controversial. Excluding the ambiguous mention by Ptolemy of tribes Stavanoi and Soubenoi, the earliest references of “Slavs” under this name are from the 6th century. The word is written variously: Sklabenoi, Sklauenoi, Sklabinoi - in Byzantine Greek; Sclaueni, Sclauini, Sthlaueni - in Latin.
The oldest documents written in Old Slavonic and dating from the 9th century use the word “slověne”. Note the first vowel “o”, rather than an “a” as in Greek and Latin.
Folk etymologies and some scholars (e.g., Roman Jacobson) traditionally link the name either with the word slava (”glory”, “fame”) or with the word slovo (”word, talk”). Thus slověne would mean “people who speak (the same language)”, i.e. people who understand each other
May 24th, 2006 at 3:25 pm. Permalink.
Slav
The real etymology of “slav” is slave.
See: Definition of Slave from Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Etymology: Middle English sclave, from Old French or Medieval Latin; Old French esclave, from Medieval Latin sclavus, from Sclavus Slavic; from the frequent enslavement of Slavs in central Europe
See also: Definition of Slave from Bartleby
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English sclave, from Old French esclave, from Medieval Latin sclvus, from Sclvus, Slav (from the widespread enslavement of captured Slavs in the early Middle Ages). See Slav.
WORD HISTORY: The derivation of the word slave encapsulates a bit of European history and explains why the two words slaves and Slavs are so similar; they are, in fact, historically identical. The word slave first appears in English around 1290, spelled sclave. The spelling is based on Old French esclave from Medieval Latin sclavus, “Slav, slave,” first recorded around 800. Sclavus comes from Byzantine Greek sklabos (pronounced sklävs) “Slav,” which appears around 580.
You can also find additional sources in older versions of the Oxford English Dictionary.
Besides the slavs, virtually all the commoners of Europe were enslaved by Europeans Nobility. They were mostly called “Serfs” another euphemism for slavery. Serfs were part and parcel of the land which they lived on and which they were prohibited on the pain of death from leaving. They worked the land to attain certain set portions of crops payable to the Lordis who owned the estates and the serfs that lived on them. All the misery and injustice therein created were part of the “great European civilizing mission”.
This iniquity was spread all over the world by the “great christian missionaries” so much like someone on this board…hahaha.
Jahdey
May 25th, 2006 at 4:59 am. Permalink.
You have got it wrong AGAIN, it is something you obviously want to believe. Trying change the facts and to belittle other ethnic groups only shows you own insecurities about who you are and where you come from. How TYPICAL!..hahahahaha
Origin of the Word “Slav”
The actual origin of the term “Slav” can be readily determined in accordance with the way in which it was historically used by the Slavic peoples.
At the outset, the Latin (not Greek) word for “slave” was spelled quite differently from its anglicized derivative. Western words such as these in Latin would not have been used by the Slavs in the East in their earliest history. Far from being slaves to anyone, the early history of Rus’ demonstrates that the Slavs were not only war-like and independent-minded, but they actually made war several times against the Roman Empire at its later capital city of Byzantium. There are several Greek Church commemorations of Byzantium being saved through Divine intervention from the onslaught of the Slavic armies.
“Slava” means “glory.” In actual fact, this term has nothing to do with any other country’s assessment of Slavic culture and traditions, but with the spirit of Slavic values.
The glory that is talked about here is not about the egotism of achieving personal glory through heroic acts so that everyone else may acclaim it.
To achieve “Glory” has meant, to the Slavs in history, an heroic self-sacrifice of individuals and groups on behalf of the interests of their wider community and nation. To give one’s life for the preservation or in defence of one’s nation is to have truly achieved “Glory.” This meaning is also wonderfully captured in the phrase coined by Metropolitan Ilarion Ohienko, “To serve one’s people is to serve God.”
That “glory” doesn’t end with the sacrifice of the individuals, however. The story of such heroic struggles against all odds became deeply imbedded in the consciousness and oral and written tradition of the Slavic peoples who constantly referred to them, especially in times of crisis, as to sources of inspiration for the present. “Glory” is also a foundation of values to which Slavs aspire and point to as their glorious past. Even Slavic Saints are markedly different in their character than other Saints in that service to their nation/society is something that tends to be the guide-post of their lives.
Slavs are therefore very highly socially developed as a people. Their traditions reflect this brilliantly. For example, the formal prayers after meals are interrupted to allow for everyone to thank the person(s) who prepared it. There are many examples too numerous to list here.
This is also why the Orthodox Christian Faith took such a great hold on them, especially the Eastern Slavs. Orthodoxy is the religion of the worship of the Holy Trinity which is a social conception of God. All this relates back to the social understanding of glory and “Slava” which is at the root of Slavic history and values.
Dr. Alexander Roman
May 25th, 2006 at 12:53 pm. Permalink.
Slava
Your issues are not with me but with the authorities I cited. Oxford Dictionary of English Language to start with has given a similar definition of Slavs (to mean slaves) in its older editions.
I am sorry if you feel I mean to belittle you. I just meant to highlight often obscured facts about European history.
I have nothing against Slavs. Maybe the English writers of Oxford Dictionary do. But address your concerns directly.
In any event, all Europeans outside the nobility were the slavs of the privileged. Euphemistically called SERFS. Until as late as 1890s.
True or false??
Jahdey
May 25th, 2006 at 6:36 pm. Permalink.
A little tired of the subject….., but I suggest that Jahdey reads some books on the subjects rather then quotes various online encyclopedias!!!!!It might correct some of his outlandish views.
May 29th, 2006 at 7:24 am. Permalink.
The word “slave” is indeed derived from the name “Slav”, Jahdey, but the name “Slav” is Slavic in origin, derived from their name for themselves. Serfdom was like slavery in that a serf really had no choice regarding their niche in society, much as people of the Indian caste system, but the two, serfdom and slavery, are of decidedly differing natures.
May 31st, 2006 at 5:43 pm. Permalink.
The Huns, Vikings were black. I have proof. Also, did you know that the Gypsies were black too–The word comes form Egypt
June 1st, 2006 at 12:15 pm. Permalink.
Also…the tribe of Dan….Danes, Denmark and the Dantes…think about it….Who are the Tribe of Dan today….
June 1st, 2006 at 12:17 pm. Permalink.
The Irish as a people are more related to the Semitic tribes of North Africa than to the Celts of Europe. Ireland is an island of the Atlantic, and not an island of Europe, as modern archaeology would have us believe:
1. A visit to Ireland will confirm that the percentage of the population catogorized as the ‘tall, blond, blue-eyed Celt’ is most definitely in the minority, and their lineage most likely traces back to the Viking invasions of Ireland in the 4th-7th centuries. Thus the majority of the population, as verified by recent DNA evidence, do not have a bloodline back to the Celts of continental Europe.
2. The Celts arrived in Ireland (from Europe) around 700BC, yet Ireland had already been populated for at least 4000 years before their arrival. The antiquity of the amazing ancient monuments of Ireland (Newgrange, Tara) will attest to this. Archaeological dating confirms a steady building of astronomically-aligned stone monuments (dolmens, menhirs, barrows) from 4500BC to the present, yet we are led to believe the Celts (relative newcomers on the scene) are the sole identifying culture of Ireland.
3. Up to the early 20th century, historians made mention of the connections between Old Irish and Old Hebrew (Old Hebrew being the language of the Levant prior to Moses). Both languages are so similar it is possible to understand one if one is familiar with the other. The importance of this cannot be stressed enough, as it indicates a very strong cultural connection between the two regions - stronger than any cultural connection between Ireland and Continental Europe. Sadly, this connection is ignored (though not disproven) by today’s historians.
4. The Irish (Gaelic) words for a ‘black man’ (a man of dark skin tone) is ‘fear gorm’ which translates literally into a ‘blue man’. The Berbers of N Africa to this day are known as Blue Men, due to the traditional indigo robes which stain their skin. Berber tribes were an integral part of the evolution of commerce as we know it, originating in the Levant with the seafaring Phoneicians and following the Berber trade routes across North Africa.
5. The Levantine connection with Ireland is reinforced by the settlement in Ireland and Southwestern England by the Phoneicians in their search for tin. Tin mines dating back thousands of years dot southwestern Ireland and Cornwall, England. With steady mining from early ages over thousands of years it would be difficult to deny an import of Levantine cultural influences on the lands being mined.
6. The Levantine connection is yet further reinforced by music. In continental Europe, music evolved from the chanting of monks (point, counterpoint). Wind and string instruments dominated, and I am hard-pressed to find an example of a percussion instrument from Europe prior to the introduction of same during the Crusades in the 12th century. The musical history of Ireland, however, evolved in a very different way. The traditional musical instruments most associated with Ireland are the uileann pipes (put very simply - a leather bag of air from which reeds of different lengths protude) and the bodhran drum (a round wooden frame across which a goat’s skin is stretched, and played one-handed with a double-headed stick). The mizwid of the Levant is identical to the uilleann pipes in looks, sound and method of play. The bendir drum of the Berbers is identical to the bodhran. Why else would Ireland have North African instruments so connected to the Irish tradition of music if not for the fact that the aboriginal culture of Ireland was heavily impacted in the distant past by the culture of North Africa?
7. The musical connection continues with the traditional style of singing in Ireland. The style involves not holding a note, but running with the voice up and down the scale, quivering with emotion. The traditional ’sean-nos’ (old-style) singing of Ireland and Qawwali singing of the Middle East are strikingly similar.
8. The ‘Black Irish’ of the Aran Islands. On these 3 small islands off the shores of Galway, on the rugged Atlantic west coast of Ireland, the people are Irish - they speak the language, they have learned to carve a living off the unworkable thin soil and the powerful ocean around them, and have been settled on the Islands for as long as anyone can remember. But among these Aran Islanders is a look unique to them alone in this country - a dark sallow skin and Semitic facial characteristics - a narrow face, high cheekbones and a narrow nose with fine nostrils. Interesting to note also, on Inismore, the largest of the Aran Isands, perched on the edge of a 300 foot cliff that shears straight down into the wild Atlantic, is an ancient fort - Dun Aenghus. The people who built it and its purpose have been lost in time, but it remains a peculiar remote stronghold watching over the Atlantic. Aenghus was a magician of the Tuatha de Danann tribe, a mythical race that once inhabited Ireland.
Bealtaine (Baal’s Fire) is still celebrated in Ireland.
Ireland is linked by language, music and cultire to North Africa. The Irish need to take a long hard look at the facts and stop labelling themselves as Celts.
June 10th, 2006 at 7:01 am. Permalink.
Sigh… It appears as though some black people are so completely at a lost to answer Western power that they’ve resorted to trying to claim it as their own in mind-bogglingly awful acts of historical revisionism.
June 11th, 2006 at 3:24 pm. Permalink.
The Huns were Mongolian, and the Vikings were Germanic, as are the Danes. The Gypsies, or Roma, are from India, as revealed by genetic analysis. Why are these things so hard to understand and accept? But more importantly and more interestingly, why must you lie about it? It reveals a deep insecurity when one feels the need to appropriate another’s identity. Seriously Eleazar, I want to know what you’ve been reading.
And Dagmoon, claiming a Semitic or North African connection to Ireland is less absurd than claiming a black African one, but as for the “Celtic” and European identification, it is appropriate:
1) Stating that the “tall, blond, blue-eyed Celt” of Ireland is a minority and of *Viking* (tell Eleazar that) origin doesn’t negate the contention that the majority of the Irish population trace their ancestry back to the continent. Maybe not necessarily to the Celts, who greatly influenced Irish cultural identity, but yes, back to the continent. The people of Ireland are genetically most closely related to other Western Europeans of Britain and of the continent.
2) The Celts did arrive fairly late in Ireland, but surely no one argues that the Celts are all that Ireland is. The pre-Celtic inhabitants of Ireland are acknowledged and I’ve never known of anyone to claim that the Celts are the “sole identifying culture of Ireland”.
3) This alleged linguistic connection between Old Irish and Old Hebrew has never been confirmed. Ireland, even if it does have an undeniable connection to the Semitic people, is still indeed more closely related to other areas of Europe, linguistically and culturally and genetically, than to any place outside Europe. Ireland just hasn’t seen as much shifting as has the continent, but older European cultures were very different from that of Ireland.
4) Okay
5) Yes, the Phoenicians did arrive in Britain and Ireland (as well as in the North Sea), didn’t they; but can you explain any specific influence they had on the natives?
6) Okay, you’re talking about later continental European music (Classical), not traditional, which is still around and is similar to the music of Ireland. Again, Ireland is a bit out of the way, and has sometimes been left out of the picture of cultural osmosis, but that doesn’t separate it from Europe and connect it to another region. As for these instruments, I’m unconvinced that they represent an influence from the Middle East on Ireland exclusively. Can you pinpoint the origin of these instruments? Perhaps they didn’t appear in any one place, and then transmitted to another region. Extensive shifting has taken place throughout Europe, and throughout Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. I doubt these instruments can be identified more with one region than another (e.g. with Ireland more than continental Europe, or with the Levant or North Africa than with Ireland).
7) Well, can you demonstrate that this singing style is exclusive to Ireland? Once again, modern Irish culture is somewhat more ancient than that of continental Europe due to its insular condition; so considering Ireland’s other connections with the continent, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to conclude that Irish and European musical traditions are similar in origin, and subsequently similar to that of the Middle East and North Africa due to proximity and contact.
“Bealtaine [sic] (Baal’s Fire) is still celebrated in Ireland.”
So.
“Ireland is linked by language, music and culture to North Africa.”
Maybe so, but that doesn’t deny Ireland’s connections to Europe, and Europe’s connections to North Africa and the Middle East, and vise versa.
“The Irish need to take a long hard look at the facts and stop labelling [sic] themselves as Celts.”
It really pisses me off when someone declares that another group of people need to do a certain thing in regards to their identity. Why the Hell should your opinion about this be heeded, and why does it matter? The Irish have Celtic blood, because the Celts invaded their land and influenced it not only genetically but culturally as well. Yes, the people of Ireland have pre-Celtic roots as well, but you have no right to deny them their natural identity that is very much Celtic. Do Bolivians and Guatemalans need to stop identifying as “Hispanic”? Do Berbers, Egyptians, and the Lebanese (the Phoenicians) need to stop identifying as “Arabic”? No, because there’s a reason all these people, including the Irish, identify the way they do, and they don’t “need” to stop it. Ireland is very much a part of Europe, which has ties to its neighbors in the Middle East and North Africa. In this respect, there is a connection between Ireland and the Levant and North Africa, but the ties connect to all of Europe, not just Ireland, and the influence goes in all directions. So the Irish are European, specifically Celtic, with a link between North Africa and the Middle East to Europe connecting all these people in obvious ways.
June 12th, 2006 at 5:20 am. Permalink.
Thanks Sceptic, for the feedback. As a sceptic, I’m sure you are not willing to accept the prevailing dogma at face value, but seek tangible proof, which is an excellent trait. I’m Irish myself, born and raised, and it has been a personal quest to find out where my people are originally from. I could go into the lies of current orthodox archaeology and emonstrate their unwillingness to discuss anything that does not fall into the Standard Accepted Model Of The Universe As We Know It, but I’ll stick to the facts, for you.
It has been proven genetically that the Irish as a people are not related to the peoples of continental Europe. This can be verified, as cited by Steve above. There’s one exception - the Basques of NW Spain - a people with an unidentified language and scientifically unknown origins. The Irish (and the Basques) are the remnants of something that was, a long time ago, perhaps all across Europe. But the genetics of Europe has become muddled over the ages - the Goths, Franks, Vandals, Greeks and Romans all invaded the continent of Europe. It was the fact that Ireland was an island, and that the Scots and Welsh were not easily invaded, that kept the gene pool of Ireland from becoming dilute. What they are now is pretty much what they were 5000 years ago.
Growing up in a land where are the archaeological treasures are attributed to the Celts (and looking back, how twisted was the story they sold us) left a lot to be desired regarding an explanation for the much older monuments of Ireland. I want to know who built them, for they are the first, the oldest, and the most technologically advanced peoples of Europe, or anywhere else.
Regarding the connection with Gaelic and European languages…your comment doesn’t hold water. European languages fall into 2 groups: Romance or Germanic (or a mix of the two). Romance and Germanic tongues have absolutely no relationship to Gaelic. The structure of the sentences, the rules of grammar and the roots of the words could not be more different. The connection between Old Hebrew and Old Irish has been pointed out and studied by General Charles Vallancy, George Rawlinson, Willian Borlaise, Cyrus Gordon and Sir John Rhys, to name but a few historians who note the connection. This is actual fact.
I honestly can’t pinpoint the origin of Ireland’s traditional musical instruments, but I can say there are no instruments traditional to continental Europe that are similar, yet there there are in North Africa. That is a fact worth exploring - no? As for the singing style - how shall I demonstrate - a song, perhaps :). Again - just pointing out an old tradition of Ireland not found in continental Europe, but found in North Africa.
I’m not out to convince anyone, just to warn people from holding on to that Eurocentric view that everything not Greek or Roman must be savage. Genetics is turning history upside down. My fine friends in St. Kitts celebrate St. Patrick’s Day every March 17, and it’s a big day there. But they are not Irish, most were brought in from Africa only a few hundred years ago. Culture travels and leaves its mark behind. Genetics leave a strong trail. Language leaves clues, and ancient people leave ancient monuments.
I’ll stick to my guns and say the Irish are not Celts. What we are, I suspect, lies in North Africa.
June 14th, 2006 at 5:44 pm. Permalink.
“It has been proven genetically that the Irish as a people are not related to the peoples of continental Europe.”
No it hasn’t. As “Steve” has revealed, 90% of Irish men are R1b carriers. Y-chromosome lineages are the best trackers of migration and re