Blue Blood is Black Blood – By – Egmond Codfried
During the Middle Ages Black peoples in Europe were called Blue men. There seem to be images of this period which show Bleu people. I know of a Renaissance crucifixion scene with a light blue Jesus. In the Renaissance we start seeing many, many images of blacks, called The Moor.
Mike Nassau writes about Nubians and Iranians which were brought to Europe in 50 BC by Caesar to fight the Germanic nations. They stayed on and had their own communities along the Rhine and the Danube. Nassau states that in the 17th century Europeans arrived in America who were called Black Dutch. They were not treated like the Africans who were held in slavery. Many Whites were also kept as slaves or slave like conditions. Later on Black and coloured families claimed descend from these Black Dutch to prevent re-enslavement or being treated as niggers. The point is that somehow Black and coloured people were present in Europe and managed to keep their Black looks through intermarriage till at least the 17 century.
I suggest we look at the Moor in European Art and take it from there. In European Art the Moor is always a Classical African: pitch black, frizzled hair, a flat and wide face, flat nosed, thick lips, and subnasal prognasty.
When you study the symbol of the Moor from The Renaissance (1500) you will find that it did not start out like a Black Servant or a Black Page. The Drake Jewel (1575) shows the profile of a Black King dominating the profile of a White woman. This symbolises Africa dominating Europe and Black superiority in Europe.
The symbol of the Moor shows a Blue man which is a Black man and means Blue Blood. We see many portraits of the nobility in which they pose very intimate with a little Black boy or girl which gives the sitter riches, mostly pearls which seem to symbolise Europe.The nobility was coloured, and some showed more African or Asian or White treats. These portraits are kept hidden or are destroyed around the French Revolution (1789).
Inside The Drake Jewel is a miniature of Queen Elizabeth I. Her father’s sister Mary Tudor was the grandmother of Mary of Scots. Mary of Scots son was James I who married Anne of Denmark. They were the grandparents of Charles II Stuart who was named “The Black Boy.”
He was described on a wanted poster issued by parliament as a tall Black man and I do not think they were fooling around.
Anne of Denmark had ordered a play “The Masque of Blackness” (1605) in praise of Black beauty which did not fade. The play was performed by members of the court and it explained how Blacks, The Sun People, came to Europe to look for a milder sun. In the play was a personage of The Niger River. The costume design shows a tall Black woman. Strange as this might sound; it took me after all three years to believe my own findings: Anne of Denmark which we know as a blindingly blond woman was almost certainly Black. As the whole Stuart dynasty was Black of skin.
When one looks for portraits of Charles II Stuart “The Black Boy” one finds many which show a White man, with long black hair and mustachio. But if one persists there are portraits which show black skin. Especially the National Portrait Gallery site shows many portraits of a Black skinned boy and later a Black adult. Still there is a lot of variations, but I have one pitch black portrait which show his classical African treats under a huge afro-like wig.
So there were Black Kings in Europe, who somehow traced their origins in Africa and symbolised their Blue blood with the image of a Moor. The portraits which show Blacks as White’s I would explain as propaganda to make them look as the White people they so despotically oppressed. Other white portraits are over painted authentic Black portraits, or whitened copies of these or outright fakes. All European museums show portraits of the European elite, with fake white skin colour. We know that all the European royal families were blood relatives.
The Black Boy’s mother, for instance, Henrietta Maria, was the daughter of Maria de Medici, Queen of France and the aunt of Louis XIV, The Sun King. The sister of The Black boy was Maria Henrietta Stuart who married the Dutch Stadholder William II. Their son was King Stadholder William III, who ruled Britain as William and Mary.
(All this can be verified in google)
Oh my! How fascinating,enlightening!
What do you think, was it jealousy or fear of the black skin?
The Masque of Blackness seems pretty racist to me, as it was followed up by The Masque of Beauty where the Africans had been “cured” for their blackness. Atleast thats what Wikipedia says, but thats not really a good source.
This is still a work in progress and I believe to have found the source of racism today. Europe was dominated and despotically oppressed by a Black and Coloured race which claimed Blue Blood (1500-1789). The fear of this happening again made Europeans revise history and go and oppress Blacks and Coloureds worldwide. A Barack Obama, presidential candidate, could not be possible in Europe today. Some European museum curators seem to know of this past, as they knowingly hide Black portraits and show white fakes or over paintings. Most White’s are just indoctrinated and victims in a way. But the personal descriptions are clear: they were not White looking and they sat on thrones all over Europe. White supremacy is based on fake portraits of Black and Coloured European Kings.
Egmond Codfried
Mr. Egmond the facts of Alhambra and the very decree that was forced on the then ruling class, seem at least to demonstrate that the remnant of the Moors and their continent were forced into extreme conditions, conditions that may have started by the so-called Blue Blood as you mention. The beginning of hash assault on Africans, the trouble with slave trade a few centuries latter, all started with the rise of Europe in terms of identity which was the result that came from all manner of treatment towards the former Black royalty of Spain, and from Spain the racial issue took on an added weight in terms of exploitation and in terms of legalised commercial wholesale of Human lives. Part taking advantage, part vengers. Don’t forget, the Moors also bought and sold slaves including their fellow Africans…and of course others.
Very strange, but after seeing the recent rendition of Tut by forensic specialists in the recent 2008 tour in the U.S. I believe many such things as painting over earlier darker renderings of European royalty to be very possible in many cases. Too bad.
The black European nobility and royalty left many leads about their black identity called Blue blood. There are so many Moors in western art, jewellery, art works, paintings, statues, heraldry and family names. My research is based on personal descriptions which mention black looks. Eurocentrism talks about these people as Black caucasians, white people with black skin. How is this possible? Even while many show real classical african looks. Blacks should start writing their own history and not rely anymore on white supremacy nonsense.
egmond u r so right but then again the plight of white americas pride in being white will spell and is spelling their downfall like the bible says pride comes before the fall and white people dont even see it happenning the world is fading back to black and the world for all arguments sake is black u cant escape just accept it as fact balck is superior over white and this fact eats away at white `people to no end.
the universe is black for when the sun goes down its pitch black the food we eat grows in the rich fertile blak soil when a child in conceived its with in the blackness of a woman s womb and lastly for life to exist on this planet we must have carbon carbon is black and lastly a white woman having my baby the child will be dark complected.
Im convinced that white people suffer from a condition i will call ignorance plain and simple and the belief that they have done it all which on its face is utterly ridiculous and doesnt deserve any space here for me to recite or debate for debating stupidity ignorance and lies only drives that indidual down the road to no where the road to self destruction for all lies and liars shall be proven just that and suffer the ridicule of th world of which they deserve and this will be the plight of white america which has stolen the history of black people and have lied about thier role in history and their great accomplishment only to embellish their own while denigrating another.
this cant happen for long for right wins always in the end and those who seek to do wrong shall be the price for their insolence and destructive behavior and made to correct the lies in the end and for the true doer of that history shall be lifted upon high to take their rightful place in history.
certainly the wanna be jews is included in this since i am also a jew and black white people cant be jews this is a joke and a farce and shall be made clear as the world becomes more and more clear as to who the real jews are and who really gave the world civilization.
the black man and woman did
iisrael@prodigy.net 1 829 990 8267
shalom one and all to stay black always
Dear friends, I’m happy to see that more people are putting up my theory blue blood is black blood (1500-1789) on their website.
Sadly enough I have noticed that whites, any white person, will respond with blind panic, irrationality and ridicule if I try to explain these matters to them. Perhaps they are even in fear off each other and do not want to be labelled ‘nigger lover.’ Who knows?
Yet I believe they deserve some consideration as they were dominated by blacks, so they were taught to fear blacks. This fear is instilled through education, media, movies, anything. The indoctrination is so strong and pervasive that other coloureds and even blacks are affected.
To change this we have to combat the religious believe called white supremacy. The idea is that whites because of their colour are better, have better intelligence, better moral values, less likely to make a mess of some undertaking, more honest, more considered, less violent, better in looks etc.
This fallacy can easily be deconstructed by realizing that whites came out of blacks. Whites are descendents of albino’s as both lack the ability to produce melanin and some are still very white and immediately burn in the sun, while others are mixed with darker phenotypes and are able to tan. Human albinism is more then the classical albino with red eyes. There are albino variations which in description sound like what we consider normal whites with darker hair, darker eyes and the ability to tan. Albinism is hereditary.
There seems to be a need to medicalise albinism while they are normal, functioning people who just need to take some precautions before they venture out in the sun. Believe it or not, blacks were described in the 19th century as riddled with diseases and their extinction was eminent. Whites do this today against albino’s and recent this obvious comparison. They respond with some strange Wikipedia science saying that blacks slowly turned white in a mysterious process, about 6000 years ago. That’s actually when the whites left central Asia and settled in Europe, where they met the first Europeans, who were black and coloured.
While in the whole of nature every white life form comes from albinism. We have white roses and dark roses, white mice and grey mice, white cat and black cat and white gorilla and black gorilla. Yet we do not consider a white cat as defect or sick or put a higher or lower value on white cats, white dogs, white roses or white squirrels. White and black in regard to humans are political terms to divide and to oppress.
I feel that the first step needed is to eradicate white supremacy by showing every black person images of albinism among flowers, animals, primates and humans. Whites came out of blacks and are in no way superior. If they appear superior there must be other machinations in play. Like white supremacy is based on whitened, fake over painted portraits of a European elite which was described as black and coloured.
Moors are classical Africans found in Western art. I would like to advice blacks to come away from discussions about the Spanish Mores because this confuses the matter. The Arab Moors encountered black, coloured and white Europeans. The cultured black, noble and royal Europeans made Europe what it is today, but became cruel and despotic. This resulted in the French Revolution. Blacks abducted and held other blacks in slavery, and there are still blacks today who collaborate to keep other blacks down.
Mr Codfried, the Egytian literature ‘Instructions of Menekhare’ speak of affection that make us do things, the Greeks, just like Marcus Arielus in his ‘Meditation’, William Shakespeare ‘Romeo & Juliet’ also believe that ‘affection makes him (us) false’. For that, it is seriously necessary to spun aside the dividing theme of color in the world of Ancient History and sciences. There is no such thing as White in Biology, no such thing as balck in Biology and if there is ever such group called the Blacks, they are the Humans.
The teaching that insist on Whites as Europeans is entirely wrong, for this much in history that much of the current vestigies of History theme directly from Africa. Europe until the 18th century was entirely uncivilised. The Moors provide us the last connecting point but from seems like a connection ‘comes the Main’ /Wordsworth.
As such no useful argument can possibly exist about the Europe as Ante-Dem/os to Africa, no useful biological need exist for studying Africa through Europe. All the genes of all men on earth and beyond converge in Africa and in the last 25thousand years, the spread of the humans from Tangyanika/ and lower Africa through Iberian Peninsula/Spain to Europe, from the parts of North Africa into the Jordan into the reaches of the Ural mountain and Catal Hayak, and down and up of the Sumer which is known as South of Babylon, to the rise of the chromatised pottery/ Halaf culture, to the Uruk Jemdat and the rove into the first cataract of Egyptian, the collision in Egyptian and the rove on and off, all conclude from Africa
What we call SPECIATION is a new field of Biology that attempts to demonstrate the lingering and persistent problem of the differentiation within the races. The subject of this nature is well treated by Darwin but he was intent on demonstrating the history of the human being from a chronology standpoint without indicating the very presenc eof world history to which England as at 1859 played very lucrative hand. But the changes that take place among the humans are due to changes that place within the chromatase. This is the enzyme that binds that the walls of the Chromosome that contain the genes that carry the allelles about six of them in number.
The changes that take place on the surface of the skin and of the body is due to changes that place in the side the body, where the position of the genes that code for the range of activity in human body assumes significance. So from inside the body codes for the outside, promoting a certain exchange that from inner to outer that made Claude and homostasis very popular, as it did Mendel and gene distribution. The changes that you see on the surface of the body like Blond head and blue eyes are not hereditary at all, they are not genetic at all, for blond head, blue eyes are part of decaying metas of the human body. More like the recividist breakdown of alleles within the genes, shifting from the highest density which 6 of 6 reprsenting high density blacks and African and only Africans to 5 of 6, 4 of 6, 3 of 6, 2 of 6, 1 of 6 alleles all coding the range of colors and species within the human race or anyother race.
Needless to say that White skin, especially Blond is 1 out of 6 alleles for skin color and sometimes 0 out of 6 for color, hence prone to cnacerous edifices. This formulae applies to all parts of the body, all responding to the position to the position of the geentic information, alleles, DNA, MtDNA, etc. The blue eyes, the blond head, the child born well and the child ‘impaired’ and so on are due to selective exposure of the genes within the body. This changes can be effected by the ‘reproductive isolation’ where one group of Africas in the last 25thousand years departing the continent got isolated from the major genetic pool and then begin to exchange the genes within their small group till a point that a reverse order is achieved and then the degree of the reservals determine the range of speciation. This is the case with many races of the peoples of the world whose ancient and modern history converge in Africa for no particular reason, but no only that, the genes speak as well, louder and clearer than the soil and movement and genetic template which is the currency in todays evolution biology.
In such circumstance, the binding enzymes like Chromatase weaking the hold on the slippery alleles within the gene within the chromosome and then the breakdown from 6 alleles to 1 begins to occur hence Speciation. I think personally that I have
the right to say that I know what happens and how, and personally, I can testify that understanding chromotase is subjected to heat, leading to the break of the enzymes and
that the this act of breakdown among other things is the reason why HIV has eluded us
and why we can kick the ass of the Virus and its AIDS.
The bi product of the body’s fatty acid which is the melanin, that pulsate to the surface of the body, demurly on contact with the sun and then the color and the terseness of body is due to the rich residue of leftovers from the body, as whites emaniate from thier darker hue and the race hoping to survive.
Personally, there is need to encourage better research and programs of education in Nigeria, especially in my Abia State where am positing on the PDP platform as the Governor to be and I know, I will encourage serious business of education and hope that Nigerians keen on research and experts of African history and Igbo can be allowed to change the curriculla.
WHITES ARE ALBINO’S
I’m all for simplicity. There should be no mystery to science otherwise you are being tricked. So there can be no mystery about where white people came from. I consider whites albinos and descendents of albino’s. This is important because we are dealing today with white supremacy. Even modern, or especially modern and educated whites believe they are biologically and morally superior to blacks. That’s why I want each and every black to know that whites came out of blacks and can never, ever be superior to blacks. I believe that there are no races, just phenotypes which are just an adaptation to environment. If you believe in the Evolution you know that human DNA had a long way coming. Travelling first through the primordial pool, and picking up some useful tools to survive by adaptation. The albinism mutation was useful if there was suddenly less sun. Humans could already adapt within one generation to a new sunless environment. Just like they adapt to famine by producing off spring that can better synthesis and store nutrients, food in the body. A genetic function which lay dormant just kicks in. Human DNA is very old, older then humans. I suddenly think off images of babies who swim under water, knowing by their DNA not to hold their breath. According to an internet source 25% of the off spring of two albinos’ might be albino too. So this makes albinism also hereditary. And two off this type of off spring should have an even higher rate of albino off spring. Those are the whites, cold adapted in shape. All white life forms in nature; flowers, birds, mammals, horses, apes, whales, are a result from albinism. Yet when it comes to humans these whites will have nothing of that. Why? Just look at them, all of them. I have been looking at them for the past thirty years and I see albinos. Darker white types are whites mixed with darker ancestors. Albino’s are not less capable then non-albino’s, they only should take precautions before they go in the sun. They are not sick or retarded. Their organs are normal, just there skin lacks the possibility to produce melanin. Just like normal whites do. And we do not put a higher value on a white cat or a white flower over a black or a red one. So why should whites think off themselves as better? Or why should we be brainwashed to think that they have better abilities? As they are albinos, coming out of blacks there will always be whites. Coming from Central Asia, 6000 years ago, they probably overwhelmed the first European Blacks in numbers, who became a minority, because whites are better adapted to the European climate. I think that whites flocked to milder climates like how migratory birds find places to over winter. It’s just in their DNA. As we see with Australian Aboriginals with blond hair and black skin, blondness is also part of the black DNA, but seems to favour the albino’s.
@Codfried. Albino is a shortfall in protein transmutation from a parent gene, which happens when proteins that code for color in body that did not open. Albino is a condition that is transferable and as such not genetic. There is nothing in the history of the world that suggest that Albinos are the ancestors of Whites. They aren’t. White is mechanical breakdown of human genes, a condition that is neither natural or genetic. There is no gene in the human body that code for ‘white’, non. But the mechanism through which natural selection takes place in human beings occur in the genes and can mix and flow either way. Why are humans that different? humans are different from each other because of the history of the world and anthropology, because humans began to migrate out of Africa along time along and ever since, live in isolation. From that isolation, reproductive isolation occur and from reproductive isolation, genetic breakdown happen. Communities and tribes have also managed to hang on to each and that’s why little connection is evident in today’s world. Once more…, Albinos are not the ancestors of WHITES. In fact, the Whiter the outer skin and bluer the eyes, the lesser the chances of Albinos. Albino rate occur highest in blacks with A blood antigen.
Albino…a condition that is ‘not’ transferable
Then please explain white flowers, white mammals and white birds to me.
We don’t think of a white rose as diseased or less then a red rose. Or a white cat or a white horse? Why should we think of human albino’s as less, or as sick?
The albino’s I saw in my native Surinam are normal and able. No skin lesions or thick eyeglasses because today precations are taken. They are educated along with the normal black kids. They are blacks with a white skin. We just need more black oriented, black based research, because these eurcentrist lie about anything which shows them as less favored or less superior or domiant over blacks. So they invented antropology and human races towards declaring whites superior and blacks inferior.
Are you aware of a white gorilla, now deceased, named Snowflake? Read in google about how they wanted to breed with him, to make more albino gorilla’s for zoo’s.
The great apes are our nearest ancestors, and they all have albino members, which are normal animals.
I have heard of an entire village in Nigeria peopled by albino’s.
Whites, in many cases look like albino’s, especially if they get older. Never mind the painted, made up, sun tanned white beaties in movies and the media: that’s not how the lot of them looks like.
There are some albino’s in the media, show bizz, who show that they are 100% capable people, they only need to take precautons before they go in the sun.
The idea that albinism is a sickness is wrong. Allison Blakely has searched nineteen century handbooks which racistically explain blackness as a disease: like failures of evolution, riddled with diseases, misshapen, about to be extinct.
Women were described as permanently ill and biological inferior, racked by hormones.
Lefthandedness was once considered a disease.
Masturbation was thought to cause weaknesses and grave illnesses.
So if you get my drift…its just a matter of time we will overcome the notion that albinism is a sickness. We will understand hat whites came from blacks and are never, ever superior to blacks.
I have come to think of eurocentrist as liars, every thing they have made up was to hide black dominance over them. We have to liberate our black minds and reject all eurocentric lies.
Codfried
I would like to see these books that Allison Blakey lifted the saying that Black is a disease and their skin color. I would like to know what medical school these people go to and how they arrived at the conclusion. This issue should not detain us and I have reasons to believe that a gap exist in our knowledge of medicine. When we say Albinism is a sickness, it does not mean that it is necessarily a disease, nor does it mean that Albinos need treatment. A sickness is brief and a disease has pattern and tend to repeat, but both has casaulty. But Albino is not sick neither is Albinism a disease. They are ‘sick’ due to the natural outcome of genetic translation of their protein arrangement and world.
Albinism is a just any genetically ‘effected’ disease, and it is due to the fact that the body itself works like an system, what we find outside the body, like the skull, the legs, the eyes and its color can only tell us an end point of a protein circle. Our color of the hair, our blue eyes (I have dark blue eyes) are nothing else than final product (not the raw material) of our genetic materials. So birth defect are just a disease ofr sickness, the good doctors can it a medical condition. Albino is a condition that can not be treated. It does not mean that it cannot be found in large number within a gentic pool, but there is no gene in the body or in a pool of humans that code essentially for Albinism
write in at sunsetstudios@hotmail.com
The great apes are not our ancestors but our nearest relatives. I wrote erronously : ancestors instead of relatives
the colours that are in people are not the same as the ones in animals that are called white ,,for example ,,,,a white bird is really the color white like this backround not colour of law white ,same with white gorilla,,humans arent really white or black so if the bird had a blue red or black wing it would not be called a white bird but people who come from us call them self the color white not knowing there is only colour of law white .skin color that black as these type letters or as white as this back round does not exist , black has no shades nor does white as the people do that call themself white or black.ive neve hearcanother animal like bird dog or cat call them self a color that’s an illusion we create a reality with put asking just like peol call us what the want without asking ,negro afro centric colored .this would make it along the abnormal behavoir pattern of them to replace to true with their color blue that you see when they stand in the the sun cause they so bleac,,so clear you can see blue in their veins an you cant see that in ours cause it blends in with the ebony hue that we have but light skin sisters an brothers can see blue veins when they stand in the sun cause all blood is blue before it hits air
I like to offer this quote from an interesting site which I stumbled upon while researching Blacks in Nazi Germany. Some here have objected to my view on whites as albinos, but they do not seem to understand what Blacks are up against. In my experience, though nobody says these horrible things about blacks anymore aloud, where blacks and their friends can hear it; these ideas are ingrained in educated whites. Many blacks are under the spell of white supremacy too because that’s all they hear and see, day and night in the media, TV and cinemas. That’s why I urge for new insights in how the whites came to exist and have offered my own humble view. Noteworthy is that my detractors here do not use this opportunity to offer their supposedly superior view on why there are whites, how whites came to be and why we find them in northern regions.
QUOTE:
“A portion of Christian Pross’ exhibition, “The Value of the Human Being, “Medicine in Germany 1918 1945, depicts Germany’s lethal science and anthropological practices in Africa. Pross is also a physician and medical historian in Berlin.
“The scientists and anthropologists who did the research on
the skulls and their so called racial characteristics in the
South West African colonies became leading anthropologists and
geneticists during the Third Reich,” said Pross. “Their ideology
of racism was based on the work they had done on blacks during
the imperial period.”
Pross’ exhibition on medicine in Nazi Germany was on
display in 1992 at the National Museum of Health and Medicine
and is currently back in Germany. It will return to Washington
this year through a joint effort of the museum and the
Goethe Institute. After a brief stay in Washington, organizers
hope the exhibit will tour the United States.
Pejorative attitudes toward unwanted blacks in Germany were
in place and ingrained in the population long before the Nazi
era. The worth of blacks had been unquestionably defined through
years of scientific research. If it meant the advancement of the
superior German race, any harm that befell the Negro in the name
of science and the state was justified.
In Robert N. Proctor’s book “Racial Hygiene,” he writes that
Fritz Lenz, foremost in the field of racial hygiene concluded
that “the Negro is not particularly intelligent in the proper
sense of the term, and above all he is devoid of the power of
mental creation, is poor in imagination, so that he has not
developed any original art and has no elaborate folk myths. He
is, however, clever with his hands and is endowed with
considerable technical adroitness, so that he can easily be
trained in the manual crafts.”
Lenz also concluded that the intelligence of the Negro is
appreciably enhanced when he is mixed with white blood. He said
that blacks, much like women, are at an intellectual low during
childhood because they suffer from developmental retardation.
The childlike behavior of the Negro accounts for his lack of
sexual restraint and should not be attributed to an exceptional
impulse.
In 1923, Lenz was named Germany’s first professor of racial
hygiene at the University of Munich.
Medical journals not only took note of the physiological
differences between the Negro and the European, but they also
talked about the offensive smell of the Negro, “even when he is
clean,” according to Proctor. “
source: writer@lencooper.eu
http://www.greatlinx.com/articles.htm
skin color is polygenic no?
Erupeans are just wannabe’s and copycats.Ask why they want sun tanned?Because we have what they can only dream of.They suffer from skin cancer and night blindness because of their degenerative make up.We Have Melanin Period,there is nothing they can do about it.They kill black to extract the MELATONIN from.
Check out Sister Maat’s video on Melatonin.There is no need to argue with white TRASH,
in fact there is no white race.
It is just a mind game,they are running scared because their time of BRUTALITY is coming to an end.
Moors in Europe were very brutal people. The syrian who gave birth to Britain’s Englesiare (East Angles) and Engla (Anglo) were not exactly light people not Arabic. These were community of Nestorians and their Judeo-Christian forwards, forced out of what is now middle east of their about sometime in the 5th or 6th century, but where met with invading brutality of their African Berbers and Muslims who sailed by the wind. Known as the Farad/Harad I vikein. As much human brutality is something endemic and systemic – not necessariyl white. Even the so-called Saxons – mainly from Syria and Sassonids, were put to sword by their fellow Africans and middle easternians in the name of Religion. They called the people lived there wweala, natives which they forced into slavery and captivity. The wealas of land owners are the Wales/Welsch of nowadays. Cross check ‘Absent Voice’ by Altman for better insight and consult the ‘Fight for English’ by David Altman
Absent voices….Rochelle Altman
Fight for English…By David Altman
Fight for English by David Crystal
There is a site that has been used awesomely to open my eyes to information. I came across it a while back. I do not know if you are aware of it. I admit, there are some things that I do not agree with on that site but, there is an awful lot that I do agree with. It is very informative and insightful. Maybe, you can take a look at it and make up your mind about it. The site is http://suzar.com/BOTW/BOTW-ch5a-pages53-54.html#anchor2625974
iroabuchi onwuka says Absent voices….Rochelle Altman
I have been pouring over thiswonderful book, but what I really want to know is how things changed with the Renaissance. How does the Renaissance changed these matters?
WAS JANE AUSTEN BLACK?
“In person she was very attractive; her figure was rather tall and slender, her step light and firm, and her whole appearance expressive of health and animation. In complexion she was a clear brunette with a rich colour; she had full round cheeks, with mouth and nose small and wellformed bright hazel eyes, and brown hair forming natural curls close round her face.”
James-Edward Austen,
Jane’s nephew
~
“… certainly pretty-bright & a good deal of colour in her face – like a doll – no that would not give at all the idea for she had so much expression – she was like a child – quite a child very lively and full of humour.”
Mr Fowle,
family friend
~
“… her’s was the first face I can remember thinking pretty … Her hair, a darkish brown, curled naturally – it was in short curls round her face…Her face was rather round than long – she had a bright but not a pink colour – a clear brown complexion and very good hazel eyes. Her hair, a darkish brown, curled naturally, it was in short curls around her face. She always wore a cap … before she left Steventon she was established as a very pretty girl, in the opinion of most of her neighbours.”
Caroline Austen,
Jane’s niece
~
“Her hair was dark brown and curled naturally, her large dark eyes were widely opened and expressive. She had clear brown skin and blushed so brightly and so readily.”
An early description of young Jane at Steventon by Sir Egerton Brydges
~
“She was tall and slender; her face was rounded with a clear brunette complexion and bright hazel eyes. Her curly brown hair
escaped all round her forehead, but from the time of her coming to live at Chawton she always wore a cap, except when her nieces had her in London and forbade it.”
Edward Austen Leigh of Jane’s appearence in the years just after the family left Southampton
~
” Her stature rather exceeded the middle height; her carriage and deportment were quiet but graceful; her complexion of the finest texture, it might with truth be said that her eloquent blood spoke through her modest
cheek.”
” Her pure and eloquent blood spake in her cheeks and so distinctly wrought that you had almost said her body thought.”
Henry Austen said of his sister
~
http://www.jasa.net.au/images/austen.htm
WAS JANE AUSTEN (1775-1817) BLACK?
By Egmond Codfried
SOURCES: Quotes from her books
and “Gowland’s Lotion.’
[quote] ‘[Henry Crawford], was not handsome; no, when they first saw him, he was absolutely plain, black and plain; but still he was the gentleman, -Northanger Abbey[/quote]
[quote] Oh! They give themselves such airs. They are the most conceited creatures in the world, and think themselves of so much importance! By the by, though I have thought of it a hundred times, I have always forgot to ask you what is your favourite complexion in a man. Do you like them best dark or fair?”
“I hardly know. I never much thought about it. Something between both, I think. Brown–not fair, and–and not very dark.”
“Very well, Catherine. That is exactly he. I have not forgot your description of Mr. Tilney–’a brown skin, with dark eyes, and rather dark hair.’ Well, my taste is different. I prefer light eyes, and as to complexion–do you know–I like a sallow better than any other. You must not betray me, if you should ever meet with one of your acquaintance answering that description.” -Northanger Abbey[/quote]
[quote] Emma Watson was not more than of the middle height, well made and plump, with an air of healthy vigour. Her skin was very brown, but clear, smooth, and glowing, which, with a lively eye, a sweet smile, and an open countenance, gave beauty to attract, and expression to make that beauty improve on acquaintance. […]The next morning brought a great many visitors. It was the way of the place always to call on Mrs. Edwards the morning after a ball, and this neighbourly inclination was increased in the present instance by a general spirit of curiosity on Emma`s account, as everybody wanted to look again at the girl who had been admired the night before by Lord Osborne. Many were the eyes, and various the degrees of approbation with which she was examined. Some saw no fault, and some no beauty. With some her brown skin was the annihilation of every grace, and others could never be persuaded that she was half so handsome as Elizabeth Watson had been ten years ago. -The Watsons[/quote]
[quote] Miss Dashwood had a delicate complexion, regular features, and a remarkably pretty figure. Marianne was still handsomer. Her form, though not so correct as her sister’s, in having the advantage of height, was more striking; and her face was so lovely, that when, in the common cant of praise, she was called a beautiful girl, truth was less violently outraged than usually happens. Her skin was very brown, but, from its transparency, her complexion was uncommonly brilliant; her features were all good; her smile was sweet and attractive; and in her eyes, which were very dark, there was a life, a spirit, an eagerness, which could hardily be seen without delight. From Willoughby their expression was at first held back, by the embarrassment which the remembrance of his assistance created. But when this passed away, when her spirits became collected, when she saw that to the perfect good breeding of the gentleman, he united frankness and vivacity, and above all, when she heard him declare, that of music and dancing he was passionately fond, she gave him such a look of approbation, as secured the largest share of his discourse to herself for the rest of his stay.-Sense and sensibility[/quote]
[quote] “Did you ever see such a skin? — such smoothness! such delicacy! — and yet without being actually fair. –One cannot call her fair. It is a most uncommon complexion, with her dark eye-lashes and hair — a most distinguishing complexion! So peculiarly the lady in it. –Just colour enough for beauty.”
“I have always admired her complexion,” replied Emma, archly; “but do not I remember the time when you found fault with her for being so pale? –When we first began to talk of her. –Have you quite forgotten?”-Emma[/quote]
[quote] “How very ill Eliza Bennet looks this morning, Mr Darcy,” [Caroline Bingley] cried; “I never in my life saw any one so much altered as she is since the winter. She is grown so brown and coarse! Louisa and I were agreeing that we should not have known her again.”
However little Mr Darcy might have liked such an address, he contented himself with coolly replying that he perceived no other alteration than her being rather tanned — no miraculous consequence of traveling in the summer.
“For my own part,” she rejoined, “I must confess that I never could see any beauty in her. Her face is too thin; her complexion has no brilliancy; and her features are not at all handsome. Her nose wants character; there is nothing marked in its lines. Her teeth are tolerable, but not out of the common way; and as for her eyes, which have sometimes been called so fine, I never could perceive any thing extraordinary in them.”-Pride and Prejudice[/quote]
Quote;
“Gowland’s Lotion
During the Regency the Gowland’s Lotion may have been the most famous of them all. Prepared by Macdonald, Humbert, & co. in Longacre, it was priced at 9d. 3d. per Half Pints, 2s. 3d. for a Pint and 6s. the Quart. e Said to cure everything from pimples to scrophula, this lotion was a must have for the fashionable lady of the era. It was not for everyday use but to combat sudden eruptions of the skin, sunburn etc. In Modern domestic medicine f Thomas John Graham commented “These red, stationary pimples in the face, form a complaint called by professional men gutta rosea, and are often a source of much disgust to the female part of society. Gowland’s lotion is a favourite remedy for their removal; but, as it is a solution of corrosive sublimate, it is by no means safe.”
The Medical lexicon g gives the following information on the recipe: “Lotion, Gowland’s. An empirical preparation (Bitter almond, sugar, distilled water. Grind together, strain and add corrosive sublimate, previously ground with spiritus vini rectified.) Used on obstinate eruptions.” and The Modern Practice of Physic h further explains the formula as “A remedy much employed by women who are troubled with eruptions in the face is Gowland’s lotion, the basis of which is the oxymuriate of mercury or superacetate of lead; but it is a hazardous application when continued for any length of time.” It was obviously best suited to oily skin, although the addition of mercury and/or lead would indeed make it unsafe!
© 1999-2010 Yvonne Forsling
PS: Dear Rasta Livewire, Why don’t you start a new Jane Austen thread?
[Dear Rasta Livewire, this is the introductory article for a new thread we have discussed. The two postings in this present thread should be added as sources to this new thread. I will be adding other sources and answer questions]
WAS JANE AUSTEN (1775-1817) BLACK?
The chief glory of nations is derived from their writers wrote Dr. Samuel Johnson (1708-1784). And many around the world deeply enjoy Jane Austen’s books and letters, of which the interpretation is constantly fine-tuned and made into movies and TV series. They study human behaviour and are satirical of human failings. Her style was based on Dr. Samuel Johnson’s: ‘cool, well-ordered, witty and incisive observations of life.’ But because Austen’s live straddled the decisive period around the French Revolution (1789-1795), her life, her books and surviving letters can also be mined for her ideas about the radical changing times. Although she wrote novels in the Romantic fashion: ‘The passion of Romantism did not inspire her.’ So I, because of my research interests, look for Austen’s ideas about the changing views on the emergence and the controversial role of Race. In this light, the fact that there is no credible portrait of Britain’s finest nineteen-century female writer should be considered as highly problematic. Jane Austen, properly read, might grow into our greatest activist in proclaiming the glory of Blacks.
Austen is very insistent about the brown and very brown complexion and the special beauty of her heroines. There can be no doubt that she is writing about brown, very brown and black skinned persons belonging to the gentry and aristocracy. Henry Crawford in Mansfield Park is ‘absolutely plain, black and plain.’ His description can be compared to the Moor, always a Classical African, in many eighteen-century scenes by painter Hogart, which show a Moor in the middle of a noble assembly. The Moor, often disguised as a servant, is one symbol of blue blood, and informs us about the true looks and high birth of the rest. In Northanger Abbey two women talk about there favourite complexion in a man: ‘dark or fair.’ This is answered as: ‘I hardly know. I never much thought about it. Something between both, I think. Brown—not fair, and not very dark.’ The other woman prefers light eyes and likes ‘a sallow better then any other.’ Marianna Dashwood from Sense and Sensibility is Austen’s ‘so lovely,’ ‘uncommonly brilliant’ and a delightful beauty: ‘in the common cant of praise, she was called a beautiful girl, truth was less violently outraged then usually happens.’ But only after all this staggering praise we are told that: ‘Her skin was very brown.’ The most famous of Austen’s heroines, Eliza Bennet from Pride and Prejudice is described deprecatingly by her rival in love, Miss Caroline Bingley, as: ‘grown brown and coarse.’ However, Mr. Darcy, their love interest; does not find any fault in that but perceives her as ‘tanned’ because of ‘travelling in summer.’ From The Watsons, we learn about its heroine Emma Watson: ‘Her skin was very brown, but clear, smooth, and glowing.’
Austen is clearly not talking about whites who happen to be more or less tanned. In a letter to her sister Cassandra Austen she mentions a Mrs. Blount with: ‘Her Pink husband & Fat neck.’ White skin is referred to as ‘Pink.’ She rather discusses the many shades we see among Blacks, in a way that Blacks today have abandoned. We consider this talk today as colorism, the dangerous antagonism between ‘good’ and ‘bad complexion.’ Emma Watson’s beauty does not ‘improve on acquaintance’ with everybody. Austen states: ‘Some saw no fault, and some no beauty.’ And: ‘With some her brown skin was the annihilation of every grace.’ But Miss Austen is clearly not fooling around when she discusses complexion. In Persuasion (1818) she never mentions brown or black complexion, but subtle yet with devastating force mentions ‘Gowland’ twice. She refers to real life Gowland’s Lotion, a skin-bleaching potion introduced in 1760. So it had grown into quite an institution in her lifetime. Although advertised as a panacea for many beauty problems, the real purpose was to bleach a black or brown skin by peeling with lead white, a corrosive ingredient. Lead white was also used during the Renaissance by Elizabeth I and Catherine de Medici, Queen of France, as a whitening make-up and bleaching agent named Venetian Cruse. By the addition of mercury derivates, another corrosive substance and called Spirit of Saturn, to Gowland’s, it also functions as our botox today, as it paralyses the facial muscles and causes a youthful radiance, but an immobile facial expression. Both substances are poisonous and their constant and excessive use attracted censure by scientists. Austen ascribes the use of Gowland to Sir Walter Elliot, the father of the heroine Anne Elliot, a personage with ‘an elegance of mind and sweetness of character.’ She had taken after her mother who was: ‘ an excellent woman, sensible and aimable.’ Austen introduced Sir Elliot, ‘Handsome with the blessing of beauty,’ through Anne’s eyes as a ‘failing’ and ‘conceited, silly father.’ So Austen decidedly rejects the skin-bleaching practises by the black and brown Europeans in her books.
The brown beauty of Emma and Eliza and the very brown beauty of Marianne and Emma Watson are reflected in the six detailed descriptions of Jane Austen by family and friends. Even to the controversial nature of the views of black and brown looks that we derive from her books. Austen is described as ‘in complexion she was a clear brunette with a rich colour’ (1864) and ‘- she had a bright but not a pink colour – a clear brown complexion’ and ‘she had clear brown skin.’ But the language also becomes cryptic: ‘Her pure and eloquent blood spoke in her cheeks,’ and needs deciphering. Her niece Eliza de Feuillide married a French aristocrat, who was guillotined during the French revolution (1789-1795), describes her looks as: ‘add to all this a very share of Tan with which I have contrived to heighten the native brown of my Complexion, during a two years residence in the country.’ One takes notice of the self-deprecating tone of voice, which is also encountered in the works by contemporary Isabelle de Charrière (1740-1805). She described herself as: ‘She does not have the white hands, she knows this and even jokes about it, but its not a laughing matter.’(1764) And in Lettres écrites de Lausanne (1785) her heroine Cécile is described by her doting mother as: ‘she would have been beautiful if her throat was whither.’(1
Jane Austen died young from a still unidentified disease and she wrote in a final letter: ‘I’m recovering my Looks a little, which have been bad enough, black and white & every wrong colour.’
The prevailing emphasise on brown and very brown skin in both her works and the way she herself was described, forces us to consider Jane Austen’s personal identity as Black. And there we are double crossed by the absence of a authenticated portrait which shows her own rich brown complexion and prettiness. In my ongoing research, my Blue Blood is Black Blood (1500-1789) Theory, I have already encountered so-called ‘missing’ portraits, or existing portraits which are not put on display in a museum, or those portraits which show the same person who is described as ‘basané’ (dark brown) and ‘chimney sweeper’ as a blue eyed, white man. This scandalous falsehood we also encounter in the present day depictions of Austen’s personages by white actors and actresses. Marianne Dashwood, who was ‘very brown,’ is played by the lovely Kate Winslet, who is blond and white. Jennifer Ehle is white but has ethnic looks, derived from her Rumanian grandmother, but does not look ‘brown’ nor ‘tanned’ as Austen describes Eliza Bennet.
Apparently, I’m not the only one who has discovered Jane Austen’s blackness. Yet where I welcome this as a valuable addition to my research after Blacks and coloured Europeans who were a dominating elite, others seek to deny, hide and submerge; denying Blacks the glory that derives from Black achievement and Black writers. The one un-authenticated portrait, which was acquired in 2002 by The Jane Austen Trust is supposed to show Cassandra Austen, but can be considered to be Jane’s, as it perfectly conforms to all her descriptions. Yet she will not be identified as Black because eurocentrism claims ‘There were no Blacks!’ Or what one might perceive as a Black is most likely a ‘Black Caucasian’ and not a ‘True Negro.’ As some might know that according to eurocentrism Africans should be divided in African Caucasians, who might be pitch black but display no prognatism, and True Negroes who are prognastic. Apparently an unforgivable offence. And eurocentrism will insist that there is no proof because we cannot employ biometric pliers to measure her skull to proof her a Negress. Or some easily disproved nonsense about Blacks who cannot be rendered in paintings. And their final obstacle is demanding a named Black ancestor, a ‘True Negro’ who is a ‘South of Sahara,’ person. Someone like Alexander Pushkin’s great-grandfather, Alexander Hannibal. Or Alexander Dumas’ father, General Dumas whose mother was an enslaved woman from Martinique. Yet Africa is just across the very narrow Straights of Gibraltar and Africans arrived 43.000 years ago. Whites, descendents of Albino’s who are in my experience just normal and healthy people who need a sunblock, are only 6000 years in Europe, coming from Central Asia. But mostly whites claim, unconvincingly, not to be the least interested in whether Jane Austen was white or Black, but rather focus on her work and personality. As if personality is not also informed by an ethnic identity. As if a writer can be studied without any reference to the personal context. Jane Austen also wrote about persons whose fortune was derived from slavery, as Isabelle de Charrière did about her own wealth. Fanny Price’s outburst against slavery is met with silence, in Mansfield Park, by the slaveholding Bertram family. Reverend George Austen, Jane’s father, acted as a trustee for a plantation on Antigua owned by Mr. Nibbs. Jane Austen was perfectly in the know about emerging views of Blacks. Does she refer to this when she cries out in a letter to her sister: ‘If I’m a wild Beast I cannot help it’ and ‘It is not my own fault.’ The Classical African who symbolised blue blood and black superiority was demoted to the base of the evolutionary ladder, a creature between the superior white Human and Apes. This also highlights the role of European Blacks in exploiting Africans in slavery. Yet eurocentrism blocks any dialogue or argument as if these views are dangerous and extremely pernicious and would threaten the very fundaments of the whole western civilisation. Any solicitation is met with rudeness and next dead silence. And even sabotage by library workers, as I have found out. Interesting is that on the Internet this portrait is shown out of focus which renders her prognastic lips fuzzy. And therein I find the reason for suppressing her portrait: Jane Austen displays clear Classical African features that make her Blackness undeniable.
The suppression of Jane Austens true portrait had already started during her lifetime and apparently no public portrait was issued by her in 1811 when she debuted with Sense and Sensibility. She knew that her ‘peculiar charm,’ which pointed to ‘the purity and eloquence of her blood’, put her straight in the line of fire of revolutionaries who violently brought down the Ancien Regime. This regime I have defined as Reversed Apartheid. Sadly, I sometimes have to point out to some that South African Apartheid was an unjust and a wholly evil system. Likewise Reversed Apartheid, but this Black and Coloured nation shaped Europe in the way we know it today. My research shows a great and universal scramble to amend ancestral portraits to hide Blackness, even to the point of defacement. Now I can safely place this panic around 1811. I have concluded that there most certainly were many portraits of Jane Austen adorning the walls of the stately homes of family and friends were she was received as a favourite relative and guest. Yet they displayed her Classical African features, a mark of ‘her pure blood,’ and thus became a liability. Black Europeans who considered their blackness as proof of their superiority over whites, who they derisively called ‘pink’ or ‘t Graauw’ (the Grey’s), were bullied into abstaining the propagation of Black Supremacy. As total revisionism was aimed at, I seriously doubt any documents toward this directive will be found. They would have defeated the revisionist purpose.
I consider the horrible practice of using white human skin for bookbinding’s by the Black nobility as further proof how some viewed their white subjects. But they still alluded to their superiority in jewellery and imagery with a Moor and what I perceive as cryptic phrases: ‘blue blood’ or ‘purity and eloquence of her blood.’ Austen’s heroines could have only been Blacks as she was Black and her pride was based on her blackness. She considered herself through her accomplishments as a writer combined with her blackness as a true aristocrat. The titled aristocrats are often portrayed in her books as: ‘ill-bred’, ‘sickly and crossed,’ ‘cold,’ ‘insignificant’ and ‘plain and awkward.’ And even the final blow by sweet Anne Elliot: ‘they are nothing.’ Jane Austen who was Black did not renounce Black Superiority if it was enforced by personal brilliance by applying ones talents to become accomplished. Mr. Darcy, the hero who ravaged Eliza Bennet’s heart, was extremely rich, but not a titled noble. His fortune was achieved by trade, thus by accomplishment. Austen’s family and publishers would have been perceived as promoters of Ancien Regime values and would have placed themselves in great danger if they would have promoted her portrait. Even Austen herself might have experienced ridicule, hatred, violence and harsh rejection based on her Black appearance. Yet through restorations the nobility slashed its way back into power but was finally subdued in 1848. And only then whites came into power, whitewashed European history, and claimed the glory like any conqueror would usurp the spoils of war.
The absence of a portrait of Jane Austen and the portrayal of her personages by white actresses should be viewed as the ongoing revisionism of history. Any European museum should be regarded as a church of revisionism because they show whitened copies, over painted authentic portraits and outright fake images of the black kings and nobles. A practice facilitated by these persons themselves by issuing whitened portraits. A look they achieved in real life with white face paint and bleaching crèmes. It seems that views from whites about Blacks were frozen in 1760, when nationhood was hence identified by colour. Queen Alexandra (1844-1925)(1902-1910) was famous for her beauty in advanced age, achieved by a practice called enamelling. She preferred an application of paint which made her pink all over. This technique also prescribed the careful application of blue pigments to the temple veins to heighten the illusion of a translucent, super white skin. Her rather lifeless and ethereal look suggests paralysed facial muscles by mercury derivates, as well. This miraculous vision of beauty was further enhanced with veils that blurred the view. Yet there are photographs which show her and her mother, Queen Louise of Denmark, as brown and frizzy haired. Her husband, Edward VII was a son of Queen Victoria, who was a granddaughter of Queen Charlotte-Sophie who’s ‘true mulatto’ and ‘brown’ looks were deemed ‘propagandistic’ and gave rise to many comments. Some over painted portraits of the elite show a solid pink face, and excessive and gruesome blue veins in the face and on the hands. This undoubtedly gave rise to the nonsense about the nobility to be very white and that blue blood meant blue veins showing. It could only be that frightened and indoctrinated coloured Europeans took to protecting themselves from the sun with umbrellas, veils and gloves, as Blacks tan easily.
This article should be understood in connection with my Blue Blood is Black Blood (1500-1789) thread elsewhere on this site and in Google. Any writer writes less then he knows; for sake of brevity, yet all my conclusions are based in facts. Voltaire was accused by his detractors of ‘inventing his own facts.’ What are facts? I reject eurocentrism which is supposedly based in ‘fact’ and ‘empirism’ yet its a fake and evil science to hide the traumatic fact that Europe was a Black Civilisation, with Blacks despotically oppressing whites. Nobody observed Evolution, no one reproduced Evolution, and there are many ‘Missing Links,’ yet to Evolutionist, the Evolution Theory is a fact, as it better explains nature and human descent then Genesis’s Believers can. No one should believe anything; they should research everything by google. The more sources to confirm a fact, the better. I will post more sources and welcome serious questions from readers. Whites seem to perceive Blacks as biased and therefore not capable to research these matters. But whites do not seem to suffer the same bias when researching the same matter. How come?
Egmond Codfried
The Hague
June 2010
Now we are cooking with gas.This is how you erase this lie,with HUEMAN truth. CAGOTS have taken over Afrikans lives all over the world and ran it into the ground we were fine without an albino race,and will be o.k again. They know it’s over for them doing what they did to the superior melanin enriched inhabitants they came across in their barbaric raids across the world.Trust me the albinos in charge know exactly whats about to happen,they can no longer support their lies.All good things must come to an end,and have.Ahhh truth and non can hide from it.These cursed people became the leper royalty who they trace their Hueman existence, the popes were the cursed and helped pave the way for the lie.In short Afrikans are responsible for the cursed race known as whites,and lets not forget they are in every tribe, if you are not, i repeat NOT COLORED you too are a CAGOT.A non- melaninated mind is the cause of these delusions in mutated albinos.Any and all so-called royality got their title from someone that was full fledged Afrikan in origin.Cagots were not to rule over the animals let alone the creator. No more peace Revolution.