PDA

View Full Version : The rulers of ancient Europe were Black Jews


Kohen El Shaddai
05-10-2006, 06:34 PM
This thread is about a topic that is a known fact, but not to many: That in 193 A.D., under the direction of a Black man named Septimus Severus, Black people conquered the Roman Empire and began what was known as the Holy Roman Empire. These Blacks were not "Africans" or "Hamitic" people, but direct descendants of the ancient and original Shemetic Black Hebrew Israelite Jews written of in the Holy Bible. After they conquered Europe, these same Blacks, who are the ancestors of the so-called "African-American" people, ruled Europe during the entire period of the Dark Ages and established countries such as England, Germany, Ireland, and Scotland and were the original Anglo-Saxons, Germans, Irish, Scottish, Jutes, Celtics, Danes, Goths, Visigoths, Russians, among others.

All this time, we as Afro-Americans have been lied to and taught that so-called "European" history revolves around Caucasians. Now, the truth is coming out that the ancient kings and queens of Europe were not only Black, but the ancestors of the so-called Negroes in America.

Check out these pictures of the Black Jews that ruled Europe. Prepare to be shocked and amazed.

The Ancient Black Jews Who Ruled Germany (i67.photobucket.com/albums/h316/judahitewarrior/File0016.jpg)

Another picture of the Black Jews who ruled Germany (i67.photobucket.com/albums/h316/judahitewarrior/File0017.jpg)


A picture of Black Jews who ruled Germany, Holland, and Portugal (i67.photobucket.com/albums/h316/judahitewarrior/File0018.jpg)


And one last picture of the Black Jews who ruled Germany and Portugal (i67.photobucket.com/albums/h316/judahitewarrior/File0019.jpg)


A part of the last picture blown up to show Shields of David on of the family crests of the Blacks who ruled medieval Europe, showing that they are indeed Jews: (i67.photobucket.com/albums/h316/judahitewarrior/File0019edit3.jpg)

Shalam.

denaturat
05-13-2006, 01:42 PM
you need to stop believing everything you read on the net.

Aqueous Moon
05-13-2006, 01:47 PM
Why do you think he believes everything on the internet??

It seems to me that he presented some information that makes you have to think outside of the box.

I appreciate it.

denaturat
05-13-2006, 01:56 PM
there is absolutely no good evidence that supports his conclusions

Aqueous Moon
05-13-2006, 02:04 PM
How do you know?

I see pictures....so, what evidence do you have to the contrary.

We know that blacks are the mothers and fathers of civilization....so why doesn't it make since that their rule extended beyond Africa and into Europe?

Aqueous Moon
05-13-2006, 02:06 PM
What up, Gato?

Of course not!

You know I gotchu.

denaturat
05-13-2006, 02:16 PM
pictures don't mean much. these pictures could be fake. and even if they are not, how do you know where they come from? they could even be from some merchant house that traded slaves. you don't know that.

besides you cannot recreate the history of europe based on a couple of mysterious pictures, that's very bad reasoning. that is the same way white supremacists got their theories, which were based on evidence that was as bad as what you read in this thread above.

Aqueous Moon
05-13-2006, 02:19 PM
ahhh...so that what this is about!

Wow...I should have guessed, I didn't see that coming.

You have taken a giant leap from this thread to white supremacy.

Pictures are worth a thousand words.

What evidence do you have that it's not true?

denaturat
05-13-2006, 02:24 PM
wrong question, you should be asking what evidence do you have that this is true. the pictures could have a myriad of more raitonal explanations. the propostion that europe was ruled by black jews seems far fetched. you need better evidence, such as archeological findings or written records.

Aqueous Moon
05-13-2006, 02:28 PM
Check his other threads....he mentioned his sources in this one.

He said the holy bible.

And, in another thread he went into details about how it describes the Blacks and their Jewish ties.

If there is info that the powers that be don't want you to know then you might have to think outside of the box and rely on your own logic capabilites, because physical evidence might not be in abundance.

If you don't agree with it...fine.

denaturat
05-13-2006, 02:41 PM
rational conclusions require evidence. his evidence in other threads was faulty. he pointed to the uses of the word "black" in the bible, but he needs to look at the bible in its original, not english language.

I also don't believe in conspiracies. they are naive and far fetched and there are always more logical explanations.

He also cites the book of Lamentations 4:8, but if you look at the previous verse, 4:7 it says something else. Anyhow, the bible is not a good source. although it may include many facts, it also includes fairy tales. hence it is tainted evidence.

HANZO
05-13-2006, 02:49 PM
man wats next the mongols and ottomans were rules by blacks. man please. The roman empire one of the greatest to be on this planet the first super power, how could an empire who practically started the slave trade be run by blacks.
and read up on how the roman empire ended, run down by the visigoths who were pushed into roman lands by the huns. Were do the huns fit in this, surely the black jews must have encountered the huns in this time period???
Another reason is what army did these black jews have??? they couldnt have been generals of large armies because they were black no white man at that time period would have listened to a black general.
Im sorry yeah you cannot re-write european history, and certainly cannot say one of the greatest empires was rules over by blacks.
And now i ask you a question if the blacks did rule medieval europe why did they end up on the plantations of america?????

Aqueous Moon
05-13-2006, 02:51 PM
Hahaha...

Europeans wouldn't even be able to read and write and do basic arithmetic if it wasn't for the ancient Blacks.

The Greeks had to go to Africa to learn the sciences.

It's not so far fetched if you think about it.

Aqueous Moon
05-13-2006, 02:56 PM
Blacks ended up on plantaions because white people were so fucking evil to them...duh

HANZO
05-13-2006, 03:02 PM
if the ancient blacks were so great were are they now, they failed they got run over by the europeans, if they were so smart africa wouldnt have been ruled by foreigners eversince they discovered the place.
if the greeks learnt from the ancient blacks they utilised the knowledge better and took over africa.

who taught the chinese how to read and write then??

denaturat
05-13-2006, 03:06 PM
obviously you cannot argue rationally with those who are irrational

HANZO
05-13-2006, 03:09 PM
Blacks ended up on plantaions because white people were so fucking evil to them...duh

and zulu warriors are the most peaceful on this planet. And not only white people took blacks as slaves everyone did, and didnt blacks sell their own people to the whites over a few coins???
always remember history was not only written by the white europeans other civilizations have their own accounts of history. These accounts may not entirely match but they all have similarities. Apart from black history, who do you expect the ppl to believe??

Aqueous Moon
05-13-2006, 03:16 PM
You may not know this...

But, White people were created by the Blackman.

And allowed to do their evil.

I know that ths is too deep for most of you to understand.

But, the European is only as powerful as the Blackman allows him to be.

The Blackman didn't teach the White man Truth. No, he taught him trick-knowledge.

And watch...we are gonna rise like the pheonix outta the flames. Our beautiful culture of peace wil be restored.

All you followers and haters will relish in your own demise and want to commit suicide.

God will show and prove.

Rational?

Is keeping the faith in Western Society rational??

I think not.....they will taste the suffering they put on others.

denaturat
05-13-2006, 03:22 PM
good luck with your phoenix and all that...

Aqueous Moon
05-13-2006, 03:28 PM
Thanks...but, we don't rely on luck.

It's all about math.

And it's our time to rise and shine baby.

HANZO
05-13-2006, 03:35 PM
man i say this you chatting in your fantasy world man, serious you lot are nothing its been proven before. Stop wishing for flaming phoenixes to raise you lot to rule the world. if your culture was of peace then why are there still cannibals in africa killing and eatin each other. You call this peace??

You have been mislead my friend i dont kno wat religion you follow or wat race you are but all this information could be as much of a lie as you claim the white history is just a lie.
dont give me this the white man is the devil to be honest man im a turk my roots are from the steppes of central asia, i follow islam, the white man may have tried to wipe out my race many times. they hate us more than the blackman, why?? because we pose a threat to the white civilization, the blacks hate the white so much because the whites wiped out black civilization, its a circle you hate the race which poses a threat to your own race.
You say the european is only as powerful as the blackman wants him to be. The blackman must be very generous because they allowed the european to walked all over them.

denaturat
05-13-2006, 03:52 PM
You may not know this...

But, White people were created by the Blackman.

And allowed to do their evil.

I know that ths is too deep for most of you to understand.

But, the European is only as powerful as the Blackman allows him to be.

The Blackman didn't teach the White man Truth. No, he taught him trick-knowledge.

And watch...we are gonna rise like the pheonix outta the flames. Our beautiful culture of peace wil be restored.

All you followers and haters will relish in your own demise and want to commit suicide.

God will show and prove.

Rational?

Is keeping the faith in Western Society rational??

I think not.....they will taste the suffering they put on others.


what you are saying is racist and has the potential of making white racists even more hateful. all people are by nature equal, all deserve equal opportunities, all deserve happiness and no one should be opressed or made to suffer

Aqueous Moon
05-13-2006, 03:52 PM
Ain't no fantasy...western society will fall.

And we'll be there to pick up the people with truth and righteousness...

The Black man followed the scientific method.

We are here to show and prove the power of truth.

and the weakness of lies and evil.

Aqueous Moon
05-13-2006, 03:56 PM
what you are saying is racist and has the potential of making white racists even more hateful. all people are by nature equal, all deserve equal opportunities, all deserve happiness and no one should be opressed or made to suffer

I didn't say white people should suffer by the hand of Blacks.

But, Blacks have the truth and whites only have lies and intimidation.

That is how they have achieved their power...by raping and pilaging across the planet.

Ain't nothing racist about it.

As soon as all the original people realize that they are God, including mexicans and asians and indians - so - called.

Then we will rise we outnumber white folks 11 to 1.

It's just a matter of time.

denaturat
05-13-2006, 04:08 PM
likening "original" people to God and white people to devil implies that the "original " people are superior, and that is racist.

you should also realise that a whole lot of the "original" people, just like white people, are racist against black, or others.

racism is everywhere, and white people arre not the only ones responsible for it. but because of the course of history they became powerful and they could act on their hatred or ignorance. who is to say that other races wouldn't have done the same? look at Sudan, there Arabs are still inslaving the southern Blacks. racism is not just a white phenomenon, and white people are not the devil.

HANZO
05-13-2006, 04:31 PM
man i aint a fan of western soceity at all like i say my race has suffered a lot from whites, how many times have crusaders invade our lands. Even now they try to embarass us and cripple the economies of my race. at this moment i hate the european union and all their bullshit and wished that the ottoman empire would have taken the whole of europe or the huns or the mongols terrorised the europeans even more.
but man i aint against the white race at all.
and i dont find it being true that the black man hasnt done no evil in his history.
anyways man im done argueing because, its not going anywere and this is as far as we can get with this. we have gone off topic, to round it off, No the black jews didnt end the western roman empire in 475 AD. I say western roman empire becuase those familiar with roman history will know the empire was split in 2 and the eastern empire didnt fall in this time. Like i said the visigoths were driven into central italy by the huns and they sacked rome. The roman emperor wasnt even killed just sent into retirement. the empire fell because of the barbarians (huns, goths, vandals, saxons etc etc) these peoples had before lived in the empire but they revolted they werent created by the black jews.
Also to prove this wrong if the black jews conquered the western empire wouldnt it make more sense for it to conquer the eastern empire which held jerusalem and cities in africa??? this is why i dont believe this, the black jews would have concentrated conquering there homeland of jerusalem and africa, to free their ppl from roman rule. If black jews did conquer the western empire it may not be written in western history, but eastern history would certainly have recorded such events. this would have gone into the texts of the byzantium empire, the sassanid empire, the hunnic ppl who settle around the black sea after the empire collapsed would have almost certainly recorded it as they hated romans and this event would be apart of their history. Arabs would have recorded it. they would have all recorded it because it was a major event in that age and one of the biggest events that ever took place in history. It would have almost certainly be found in the archives of the civilizations that were there at the time.
so to evaluate all this , the black jews didnt rule europe in the dark ages. the simple reason is overwhelming proof given by all the civilzations that were around at the time recording this history, that the barbarians from the north had sacked rome. And at the end of it europe was split into many different nations so no one actually ruled the whole of europe.

Aqueous Moon
05-13-2006, 05:05 PM
So, you say^^^

I take that with a grain of salt like you take Black Rulers with a grain of salt.

Fuck the idea that european cave people are the masters of civilization.

I won't buy into it.

Your evidence means diddly squat to me.

HANZO
05-13-2006, 05:12 PM
^^well its not my evidence, its the evidence written my all civilizations apart form the black one. I aint saying european cave ppl are the masters of civilization. im just sayin they were never ruled by black ppl, as a matter of fact blacks have never ruled over another race. Accept it, its the truth.

Aqueous Moon
05-13-2006, 05:31 PM
aahaha...have you ever heard of the Moors???

Seriously, just because Blacks don't rule by conquering with violence don't mean that they don't rule by using their intelligence.

ie...the Moors.

4-Bar Killer
05-13-2006, 05:31 PM
Well this might be true, at least there is a possibility, cause we know that the original man was from Africa, so why shouldn't the original human being be the "master of civilization"..

Besides, I have never heard that European Caucasians was supposed to be the "masters of civilization" ??

Cause personally I believe that the PERSON of civilization was K'ung Fu Tzu.. His thoughts build the probably most complete civilization ever - China. That system (which now is looking more and more like USA's) has never really been out ruled (except when Mao destroyed the country) It's almost a bullet-proof society, build upon ancient thoughts.. Also the Asians has been much further than Europeans for a long while.. And I wouldn't be surprised if China was to be the next superpower in this world..

Also the different chinese dynastys was extreme powerful, and they was also build upon K'ung Fu Tzu's thoughts..

http://www.friesian.com/confuci.htm

denaturat
05-13-2006, 05:55 PM
aahaha...have you ever heard of the Moors???

Seriously, just because Blacks don't rule by conquering with violence don't mean that they don't rule by using their intelligence.

ie...the Moors.

ruling a southern tip of spain hardly constitutes ruling over european civilization. this argument is weak. moreover, you don't think they conquer with violence? well, the north africans were not exactly distinguished by their benevolence. they were just as ruthless as any white european power.

anyhow, I am bored of this, you people need to read some books or go to class. you really have no idea what you are talking about. your ideas are just as cluttered as your writing.

HANZO
05-13-2006, 06:05 PM
aahaha...have you ever heard of the Moors???

Seriously, just because Blacks don't rule by conquering with violence don't mean that they don't rule by using their intelligence.

ie...the Moors.

moors = arabs. they jus conquered spain and then what happened??? muslims empires were weak until the seljuks, timurids and ottomans came along. Islam would be nothing without these empires to spread it across the globe. the moors didnt have any impact on the growth of islam. it was just another nation who followed islam nothing more.
Man serious listen to what you are saying it makes no sense, all this was never to be all these claims have jus arisen from the sky. Why because blacks in america hate the white ppl. when have blacks rules with intelligience?? oh wait im sorry they rule the world now right. I apoligise.
man you have been blinded by hate.
how can you say the great roman empire was ruled by blacks you just jealous that the roman empire is recognised by everyone for being one of the greatest empire, not only for their supreme military but for other things to. man jus respect that and lets all get along.

Aqueous Moon
05-13-2006, 06:09 PM
hahaaaaaaaaaaa

Roman empire???

How can they be?

When they had to go to Africa to be educated?

white society is bullshit.

Aqueous Moon
05-13-2006, 06:11 PM
White folks don't want to get along they want to rule over others.

The whites with power make this happen.

If you are different then stop hating and realize evil as your open enemy.

denaturat
05-13-2006, 06:19 PM
Han, there is no point arguing. some people are just naive or ignorant or both. this is no debate or a dialectic. this argument is like a game of tennis without a net. it's pointless.

Aqueous you are a racist. you make sweeping remarks about white people. have you considered the slavs, who constitute a great chunk of the white population? where have they ever ruled over blacks? in fact they subjugated other white people. the problem is not with a race, but with corruption that comes with power.

I take offense to your racist remarks. I hope that whatever crack pot underground philosphy you subscribe to has brainwashed very few people.

HANZO
05-13-2006, 07:45 PM
ok question did the ottomans go to africa to be educated as well???

Koolish
05-14-2006, 12:04 AM
check it out everybody i'm Aqueous Moon, my answer to everything is the white man is the devil!

do you think you're some kind of philosopher because you claim to think "deep", have an "interesting" name, and space your sentences out differently than most people? when you provide no basis for your argument and include nothing but bias, and use bias as your back up, you have GREATLY failed at any chance of proving your argument.

you're not even on topic! my issue with the main topic is if it is fact (i'm not saying that it can't be) then is it included in history books?

denaturat
05-14-2006, 03:01 AM
check it out everybody i'm Aqueous Moon, my answer to everything is the white man is the devil!

do you think you're some kind of philosopher because you claim to think "deep", have an "interesting" name, and space your sentences out differently than most people? when you provide no basis for your argument and include nothing but bias, and use bias as your back up, you have GREATLY failed at any chance of proving your argument.

you're not even on topic! my issue with the main topic is if it is fact (i'm not saying that it can't be) then is it included in history books?

I think anything is possible, and there may be historical facts that have not come to light or that have been obscured over time. however, the person who posted this thread provides no good evidence for these so called facts. it is an interesting conclusion but one that rests on sketchy assumptions. the reasoning is not merely flawed. it is fundamentally flawed.

Kephrem
05-14-2006, 09:21 AM
I think anything is possible, and there may be historical facts that have not come to light or that have been obscured over time.

Actually there exists at this present time volumes of historic facts which lend vailidity to the thesis which has been presented.

however, the person who posted this thread provides no good evidence for these so called facts.

Can you explain the pictures, then? Let's start with that. And the fact that at least one of those shows a crowned blackman (denoting KINGSHIP), and discernable Jewish symbology.


it is an interesting conclusion but one that rests on sketchy assumptions. the reasoning is not merely flawed. it is fundamentally flawed.

Where are your facts to counter the pieces of evidence which were presented in the original post? All you have done here raised is DOUBT, but beyond that nothing of any real substance.



Here's some further historic background relating to the current subject:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/tyne/roots/2003/10/blackhistoryromans.shtml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/11/nswall11.xml

"racial prejudices displayed towards the Black Moors and the other blacks ruling throughout Europe at different times. Septimius Severus, a black man, conquered Rome and took the rulership of Europe once held by whites and put in the hands of blacks. European hatred and resentment for blacks stem from this act. According to David MacRitchie, in reference to European hatred for blacks,

‘The black giants of the Welsh, and other tales, are hateful and horrid. The Welsh Black Oppressor, and the Black Knight of Lancashire are fierce tyrants, the cruel foes of all white people. At a later date, when the whites were gaining the ascendancy, and the blacks were cut up into straggling bands, or lurking, like the Black Morrow of Galloway, in solitary dens and forest-shades, out of which they issued by night, intent on murder and rapine, -even at this stage of their history the blacks were the dreaded enemies of the whites.’
From the time of Septimius Severus, Europe was plunged into the Dark Ages, or European rulership under black people. J.A. Rogers, concerning the Black Moors, writes, “They dominated the Mediterranean and the North Atlantic and plundered the coasts of Western European and the British Isles. They even conquered and ruled parts of Scotland.” The Black Moors were also present in many of the royal families of Europe whom we thought were white. J.A. Rogers writes, “Moorish blood came into the English royal family. Elizabeth, daughter of Edward IV and mother of Henry VIII, had several Moors in her family.” J.A. Rogers wrote about black rulership of Europe throughout the Dark, or Middle, Ages, and he has substantial proof of this condition. The Sephardim Jews, or the Jews living in Spain, are also described as being dark-skinned.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0939222116.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg


THE FIRST WORLD
ANCIENT AND MODERN BRITONS Vol 1
-----------------------------------------------------------

This two-volume work of Scottish Historian David Mac Ritchie, 1851-1925, first published in 1884 and long out of print and until now almost impossible to find except in a few libraries, is when viewed from the Black perspective, among the most important books ever written.
* <br>Its impact upon Blacks will be as profound as the books of Gerald Massey and Godfrey Higgins. The two volumes takes us from Blacks in antiquity, up to the nineteenth century in Britain.

In the process we meet with descriptions of ancient Britons by Claudius, Pliny, Tacitus and others describing the latter as 'Nimble-footed Blackamoors', 'Ethiopians', 'Cum Nigris Gentibus', 'Niger', 'Black', 'Black Oppressors' and Dubh (one of quite a few words in the several dialects of Celtic meaning Black, such as Du, Dou, Dhubh, Duff, Duffe).

The author makes it clear that some of the most ancient and important Scottish clans, including Douglass and Mac Dougall, had names that tell us that Negroes were the progenitors of these clans.

The author provides us with a long list of surnames that he states were those of people with Black roots and includes King Arthur and Alpin, founder of the royal Scottish line that includes Macbeth and Duncan, both of whom Mac Ritchie believed to be Negroes.

How could it be otherwise, considering that Black Alpin's Black son Kenneth Mac Alpin, took a Pictish bride to be the mother of his progeny? In the words of the author, 'Let it once be understood, that the Picts of history were Blackamoors. 'Macbeth and his cousin and victim, Duncan, were direct descendants of the Alpins.
*

HANZO
05-14-2006, 11:24 AM
lucius septimus sevurus wasnt black for one, he was born in north africa yes in the city of lepcis magna, this city was ruled by the romans eversince the fall of carthage. The romans didnt want carthaninian blood in the citys they conquered form them, so they killed all the people in the north african cities. Read into the history of this man only romans were allowed in the senate, not a chance that someone who wasnt roman to be a quastor as well. and also look at statues of this man his facial features dont look like the one of a black man.
About the moors in england this is true, the moors being black maybe but they were most likely peasents sent to the north of england to protect hadrians wall from invading scots. the romans did this a lot sarmatian and alans from the steppes of russia also served in england as officers. most auxilia troops were from central europe. Nubians were the only black soldiers that european nations would have in their armies, and these were only skirmish troops. none would ever make it to officer because most likely they would be the first to die in battle.

europe didnt go into the middle ages in the time of severus, once the western empire fell and the holy roman empire was formed then the dark ages started some 500 years after severus.

Kephrem
05-14-2006, 01:31 PM
lucius septimus sevurus wasnt black for one,

Assertion. Sources have been cited above, where then are yours to challenge their positions??


he was born in north africa yes in the city of lepcis magna, this city was ruled by the romans eversince the fall of carthage.

What does being born in north africa have to do with him being black, or in your opinion being non black?


The romans didnt want carthaninian blood in the citys they conquered form them, so they killed all the people in the north african cities.

Source?

Read into the history of this man

Last I checked I'm the first one in the thread to bring up the history of this man (via links), so who are you addressing here?



only romans were allowed in the senate, not a chance that someone who wasnt roman to be a quastor as well.


Are you implying here that being called Roman in those days or living in Roman controlled provinces made one essentialy a so-called white person?


and also look at statues of this man his facial features dont look like the one of a black man.

It seems to be your reasoning here that all so-called black people share similar features, and if the statues of SS don't exhibit some general alleged morphology of black men, then he wouldn't be what we today identify as black, which is a falsehood.


About the moors in england this is true, the moors being black maybe


Th origin of the word itself means black, there's no "maybe" in that I'm certain.



but they were most likely peasents sent to the north of england to protect hadrians wall from invading scots.

Bring your facts, I don't much care for opinion, thank you.


Nubians were the only black soldiers that european nations would have in their armies,

Please be more specific what you meant here by "european nations".



and these were only skirmish troops. none would ever make it to officer because most likely they would be the first to die in battle.


These Nubians that you bring up would most likely first die in battles, because....??



europe didnt go into the middle ages in the time of severus,

It didn't say the Middle Ages began with him, it said the Dark Ages, which in case you didn't know, all scholars don't always agree on a concrete timeframe for it's beginnng.


once the western empire fell and the holy roman empire was formed then the dark ages started some 500 years after severus.


See above.

HANZO
05-14-2006, 03:53 PM
lepcis magna the city he was born was ruled by romans since scipio invaded carthage. Romans hated carthage, ever heard of ethnic clensing. Well this is what the romans did to carthaginians they wiped out the entire north west africa of carthaginian existance. Why do you think there isnt much left of ancient carthage. the sevurus family was of equestrian rank not, they had strong links to the roman senate. To be accepted in the senate you must be roman meaning from roman bloodline. Roman bloodline meaning they were white, caucasian. They would be the only ones in which senators would trust, if a black person was in the senate his word wouldnt even be listened to.
The word moor was used by europeans to describe darker skinned people not neccesserily black people. The moors were made up of arabs and berbers. Moorish kings were of arab and berber decent. meaning they had the middle easter look. Blacks were jus regular soldiers.
The romans didnt like to send in legionnaries to deal with barbarians from the north a reason why they built hardrians wall was that scotland held no importance to rome. Instead of wasting good legionnairy troops protecting the wall they brought in soldiers from the conquered provinces. Like i said they brought sarmatians and alans from the east to do this job because they were skilled horsemen.
The nubians were skilled warriors mainly used by the egyptians to fight the romans. When egypt was conquered the romans would also incorporate nubians into their armies. If you understand ancient warfare you would kno skirmishers were sent into war as a weakening force. Most would die because they would be the first to go in and most of the time run down by cavalry that was their job. Thats why most would die, but they would weaken the enemy and the main force will do the rest. Reason why nations that have conquered africa have used nubians in their armies.
by middle ages i meant dark ages, when medieval europe became to life, the invading muslims from the east the declining of the byzantines. this all started in the 9th century once the predeccsors from the western empire settled down they all declared war on each other. Also the beginning of the holy crusades. These were the dark ages.

denaturat
05-14-2006, 04:07 PM
Kephrem: I don't need to show evidence for non-existence of something. that is bad reasoning. on the other hand, the person who posted the thread did not provide good evidence supporting his theory.

for example, these pictures could be fake. in fact they don't look at all like dark ages art work. they have not been authenticated. second, even if they are real, there could be a number of other explanations. not convincing at all.

the books you cited, on the other, I cannot say anything about them unless I read them. however, just because you cited literature it doea not mean your theory is proven. there are many crack pot authors who write that elvis is alive. just because someone cites them, it does not make it a fact.

Kephrem
05-14-2006, 09:00 PM
lepcis magna the city he was born was ruled by romans since scipio invaded carthage.

I was well aware of this fact, and the reason your bringing this up is?


Romans hated carthage, ever heard of ethnic clensing. Well this is what the romans did to carthaginians they wiped out the entire north west africa of carthaginian existance. Why do you think there isnt much left of ancient carthage.

See above.


the sevurus family was of equestrian rank not, they had strong links to the roman senate. To be accepted in the senate you must be roman meaning from roman bloodline.

Please cite your source that being Roman consisted of a "bloodline".


Roman bloodline meaning they were white, caucasian.

I was also aware what the classic era Romans would only naturally be identified as so-called white people, but here I'm getting you're saying that all Romans were white people, is that correct?


They would be the only ones in which senators would trust, if a black person was in the senate his word wouldnt even be listened to.

Assertion. But anyway, see above please.


The word moor was used by europeans to describe darker skinned people not neccesserily black people.

What were the Numerus Maurorum Aurelianorum if not so-called blackmen?

Moor
"North African, Berber," 1390, from O.Fr. More, from M.L. Morus, from L. Maurus "inhabitant of Mauritania" (northwest Africa, a region now corresponding to northern Algeria and Morocco), from Gk. Mauros, perhaps a native name, or else cognate with mauros "black" (but this adj. only appears in late Gk. and may as well be from the people's name as the reverse). Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;" later (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India.


The moors were made up of arabs

At one time, yes, but not exclusively made of them. (let me add that Arabs in the 7th century which came from south Saudi Arabia were not caucasian Turk looking people) And the earliest use of the word, and it's roots, by all indications denoted so-called black and brown people. (as well as being tied to a historically black geographic location)


and berbers.



Moorish kings were of arab and berber decent.

What does that say of the color they were? You do realize that even today there exists black Arabs and Berbers, yes?

http://www.cod.edu/middle/culture/slides/3.jpg


meaning they had the middle easter look.

Assertion. See above.

Blacks were jus regular soldiers.

Assertion. Source?


It would not be inaccurate to say that the Moors helped reintroduce Europe to civilization.* But just who were the Moors of antiquity anyway?* As early as the Middle Ages, and as early as the seventeenth century, "The Moors were," according to the Oxford English Dictionary, "commonly supposed to be mostly black or very swarthy, and hence the word is often used for negro."* Dr. Chancellor Williams stated that "The original Moors, like the original Egyptians, were Black Africans."

At the beginning of the eighth century Moorish soldiers crossed over from Africa into Spain, Portugal, and France, where their swift victories became the substance of legends.* To the Christians of early Europe there was no question regarding the ethnicity of the Moors, and numerous sources support the view that the Moors were a black-skinned people.* Morien, for example, is the adventure of a heroic Moorish knight supposed to have lived during the days of King Arthur.* Morien is described as "all black: his head, his body, and his hands were all black."* In the French epic known as the Song of Roland the Moors are described as "blacker than ink."*

William Shakespeare used the word Moor as a synonym for African. Christopher Marlowe used African and Moor interchangeably.* Arab writers further buttress the Black identity of the Moors.* The powerful Moorish emperor Yusuf ben-Tachfin is described by an Arab chronicler as "a brown man with wooly hair."

Black soldiers, specifically identified as Moors, were actively recruited by Rome, and served in Britain, France, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Poland, and Romania.* St. Maurice, patron saint of medieval Europe, was only one of many Black soldiers and officers under the employ of the Roman Empire.

SOURCES:
Golden Age Of The Moor, Edited by Ivan Van Sertima
Natures Knows No Color-Line, by J.A. Rogers

http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/moors1.html


by middle ages i meant dark ages, when medieval europe became to life,

I don't understand what you meant here by "when medieval became to life"?


the invading muslims from the east the declining of the byzantines.

The invasion of Muslims to the west began in the 8th century, the Byzantines fell during the 15th century, do you mean to tell me that the great Byzantine empire was "declining" for 700 plus years??


this all started in the 9th century

What started in the 9th century? Tarik went into Spain in 711 a.d., and the Byzantines were still strong in the 1100's.


Also the beginning of the holy crusades. These were the dark ages.

I never argued that these were not the dark ages, but rather that the BEGINNING of it is not something always agreed on by scholars.

Kephrem
05-14-2006, 10:09 PM
Kephrem: I don't need to show evidence for non-existence of something.

Contrary to your assetion here, informatin of a historic nature was in fact presented and remains yet to be addressed properly.


that is bad reasoning. on the other hand, the person who posted the thread did not provide good evidence supporting his theory.

Opinion. Also, I added to what the original poster was saying which relatees to the subject at hand.


for example, these pictures could be fake.

Have you taken the liberty to ask him for sources, or is it your m.o. here to cast dispersion on the subject of ancient black European rulership?


in fact they don't look at all like dark ages art work.

If I recall correctly some had dates on them, though I don't know if they were of a historic nature (at the time) or if they were depicting people alive during those dates.


second, even if they are real, there could be a number of other explanations. not convincing at all.


Please explain the crown(s) and the Jewish symbology (the Magen David) for one.


the books you cited, on the other, I cannot say anything about them unless I read them.

I cited volumes I and II of Ancient and Modern Britons and quoted very specific information within them, (which relates to the subject) but if you choose to not address it at this time, that is before reading them, I understand.


however, just because you cited literature it doea not mean your theory is proven.

It does however lend more credibilty to the assertions previously made, the same, I will say, can't be said for yours.



there are many crack pot authors who write that elvis is alive.

Straw Man. David MacRitchie's writings on ancient European history can't be compared to 20th century rock star fanaticism.


just because someone cites them, it does not make it a fact.

That's correct, but it does open the discussion to a much broader perspective.

denaturat
05-14-2006, 10:54 PM
the dates are all wrong, the roman empire did not fall at the time the poster claims it did, but much later. there was also no germany at that time. all of this is supported by massive amounts of evidence. your theory which goes contrary to all of that is supported by what evidence? I never learned any of this in university or high school. You are making radical claims: first that Jews are black, and second they ruled Europe in the middle ages (or whatever time frame, the poster wasn't entirely clear). If there is good evidence for this, why is it not available anywhere? you are telling me that one day everyone in europe just got rid of those black rulers, took down their statutes, monumnets, frescos, burnet all the books, and took all of that knowledge to the grave with them. no traces. only a few individuals knew this and passed on the secret. it's all same conspiracy theory stuff like the freemasons, rosicrucians and the order of hermes. too far fetched to be belivable.

on the other hand, I looked at some of the links your provided. it's fascinating and do not doubt what they say is true. but the presence of a few north africans, and septimus severus holding a very high office, does not ammount to blacks conquering rome and ruling europe. that is a ridiculous, irrational claim.

Aqueous Moon
05-14-2006, 11:29 PM
Yeah, there'a a lot of things they don't teach you in high school and so-called universities.

Evidence??? By George!...the man has supplied links, quotes and pics.

You obviously don't understand the evidence.

Or you just don't want to admit that it's true, for some reason.

But, please stop asking for evidence when there is an abundance of it here for you.

denaturat
05-14-2006, 11:38 PM
Yeah, there'a a lot of things they don't teach you in high school and so-called universities.

Evidence??? By George!...the man has supplied links, quotes and pics.

You obviously don't understand the evidence.

Or you just don't want to admit that it's true, for some reason.

But, please stop asking for evidence when there is an abundance of it here for you.

no offense, but I will not longer respond to you on this thread. nothing personal.

Aqueous Moon
05-14-2006, 11:49 PM
ok no offense.

maybe you shouldn't respond to this thread at all....no offense.

Visionz
05-15-2006, 12:55 AM
really the assupmtion that this thread is based off of where true I'd think that you'd she more of it's effects in modern-day society, which i don't think is the case. I do agree that originall jews were most likely black, I just don't think they played a large part in european history.

Kephrem
05-15-2006, 01:05 AM
the dates are all wrong, the roman empire did not fall at the time the poster claims it did, but much later.

The subject of Rome "falling" is subjective, we know it did not fall at all but had a continual and crucial presence in european Dark Age history. (perhaps you should've asked the poster what was meant by Romes 'fall')

there was also no germany at that time.

Please be more specific, what time (and portion of the original post) are you refering to exactly?

all of this is supported by massive amounts of evidence.

All of "this"? In my opinion throwing out blanket unsubstantiated statements like this only confuses the issue at hand.


your theory which goes contrary to all of that is supported by what evidence?

See above.


I never learned any of this in university or high school.

Are you playing like your nieve, or are you being serious here?


You are making radical claims: first that Jews are black,


Going by the origins of the word radical (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=radical) I'd say I agree with your assesment of my claims.


and second they ruled Europe in the middle ages (or whatever time frame, the poster wasn't entirely clear).

Care to explain how Europe transformed from a so-called pagan land to the seat of Christiandom? (which in case you didn't know is essentialy ISRAELITE-DOM only called by another name)


If there is good evidence for this, why is it not available anywhere?

What exactly is "not available anywhere"? That the Jews were black? (refer to the physical descriptions of color in the Bible, the Roman Catacombs, and at your leisure perhaps do the knowedge on some books (http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/madonbib.html) on the subject ), or that people called Christians (originally being Israelites) ruled Europe? (refer to Christian Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire)


you are telling me that one day everyone in europe just got rid of those black rulers, took down their statutes, monumnets, frescos, burnet all the books,

No I'm not telling you that, that's what YOU're saying here.

and took all of that knowledge to the grave with them.

David MacRitchie, did he 'take it to the grave' with him? Was he not a HISTORIAN (a compiler of historical occurences) who lived some 100 years ago?


no traces.

Assertion. See above.


only a few individuals knew this and passed on the secret.

It depends on what portion of the history you are refering to, for one the Black Madonna (and the other volumes of icons located in museums worldwide, old churches, etc) are pretty well known artifacts among the learned as well as held sacred by religous people. (specifically Orthodox Christians)


it's all same conspiracy theory stuff

Opinion. To my knowledge everything presented thus far is far removed from the secret societies (that you mention) and more in line with the overall subject of HISTORY.


like the freemasons, rosicrucians and the order of hermes. too far fetched to be belivable.

What about these groups is "conspiracy stuff"? Are you also casting doubt that these groups exist(ed) like you have the black rulers of Europe?


does not ammount to blacks conquering rome and ruling europe.

Their "conquering" Europe is a matter of perspective, given that they were (as my studies have indicated) among, if not the first Europeans.


that is a ridiculous, irrational claim.

And that is your opinion and your entitled to it.

As for those who have considered the knowledge being presented, they can read this related piece (http://www.timbooktu.com/horton/misrep.htm) if interested in the subject.

Right.
05-15-2006, 01:15 AM
He's typing that all the way from Babylon the great and then you're saying he's lying.

Right.
05-15-2006, 01:46 AM
Animal history.

denaturat
05-15-2006, 01:47 AM
yes I am being serious. there have been many instances where universities have been biased for political reasons. you can question what you learn on that basis. I see no reason for covering up your version of history. perhaps there is a good reason why no one teaches this in university - there is no credible evidence. The one author you mentioned and a couple of pictures do not constitute good evidence.

The pagan world transformed into a christian world through the roman empire, which later became the holy roman empire.

Again you point to the bible as evidence. And I tell you again, that it is a book with a lot of fiction with moses parting the sea and stories like that. It has little credibility --it's like calling a witness in court that has been previously convicted of perjury. even if there were a few other writers, I never learned about them, I never read anything on my own about their finidings. Mind you these studies may not be well known. However, since what you say here has profound implications, the only reason they are not know is most likley because they are academically bad or inadequte. If they were well argued then they would have widely publicised.

As to black Icons, those could be stylistic elements. moreover the black madonna does not have the features of a black person, only her skin is black. what about the halos over the saint's heads? would you say that is a stylistic element or these people actually had halos over their heads? medieval art was not reperesentational. modern artists also paint blue and red trees. do you think that a couple of thousand years from now someone will be able to conlude that in 2000 the flaura of north america was affected by gacious substances from outer space --- look there are paintings that prove this, how else do you explain the blue and red tress? catch my drift with regard to your story.



Quting you:

Their "conquering" Europe is a matter of perspective, given that they were (as my studies have indicated) among, if not the first Europeans.

Not exactly sure what you mean. But again there is a well established evidence on the various significant groups that populated europe over the course of history. Your studies have not indicated that they were among the first eurpeans. so far you only demonstrated to me that there was some presence of blacks in europe, and some held positions of some authority. that is not the same as to say that blacks ruled europe. an illogical leap. there are many blacks in powerful positions in the US. can you say they control the course of history in the US in the same way the poster claimed black jews did in europe?


I do not need to to prove to you that something did not exist. However if you wish to tell me something existed, the onus is on you to prove with good evidence. this would be a reasonable approach. You have no good evidence, thus you proved nothing. this whole debate is circular.

Right.
05-15-2006, 01:49 AM
I don't even want to know.

denaturat
05-15-2006, 01:55 AM
there are not foot notes of any kind available with the last link you sent...again: arguments not supported by evidence.there is no method in it. rumours, hearsay until substantiated. all not convincing.

Kephrem
05-15-2006, 04:08 AM
yes I am being serious. there have been many instances where universities have been biased for political reasons. you can question what you learn on that basis. I see no reason for covering up your version of history.

That blacks once ruled whites in the cradle of white civiliztion doesn't constitue in your opinion a reason to cover up said history?


perhaps there is a good reason why no one teaches this in university - there is no credible evidence.

Of course this is only your assertion here that this has never been taught in any university.


The one author you mentioned and a couple of pictures do not constitute good evidence.

I actually posted one picture (relating to the BERBERS) and the cover a book, perhaps you are confusing me with the author of this post. I also cited various news articles, via links, a few (not one) authors, and the etymology of the word MOOR. (who were in fact RULERS over a portion of Europe for several hundred years)


The pagan world transformed into a christian world through the roman empire, which later became the holy roman empire.

We were not talking about the pagan world, but of the ancient European world, please let's remain clear on what I stated.

And I'm aware of the particulars of how it transformed, but I was alluding more to the fact of how a DRASTIC cultural change happened within the form of rulership of Rome, later effecting the whole of Europe itself. (which pertains to the topic, of Jews ruling Europe, via their discipline known as ancient Christianity)


Again you point to the bible as evidence.

I point(ed) to the specificity of the scriptures presented within the context of the issue of skin color.


And I tell you again, that it is a book with a lot of fiction with moses parting the sea and stories like that. It has little credibility

See above.


As to black Icons, those could be stylistic elements.

See above. The scriptures and the historic (and original) icons highlight what is essentialy the core issue of this post, that is of the ancient JEWS, their COLOR, and a position of RULERSHIP.



moreover the black madonna does not have the features of a black person, only her skin is black.

To paraphrase bioanthropologist Shomarka Keita there's a tendency of some experts to restrict the definition of "black" only to those blacks who exhibit the most exaggerated "negroid" features (such as extreme prognathism). Keita writes: "In general, this restricted view presents all tropical black with narrower noses and faces as being related to or descended from external, ultimately non-black peoples. However, narrow-faced, narrow-nosed populations have long been resident among black people... and their origin need not be sought elsewhere. These traits are also indigenous.


what about the halos over the saint's heads? would you say that is a stylistic element or these people actually had halos over their heads?

The color used for their skin is a far cry from the utilization of the artists stylized halos (which represented the particular saints face shining, with knowledge, wisdom, understanding of God).


medieval art was not reperesentational.

Source?

But anyway this is mere conjecture, this painting (see below) to me is quite "representational", contrary to the assertion that they were not.


http://www.scsv.nevada.edu/~werthp/Ivanterrible2.jpg


modern artists also paint blue and red trees.

Straw man. We're talking about the antiquitous paintings of ancient people not of any "modern artists".

do you think that a couple of thousand years from now someone will be able to conlude that in 2000 the flaura of north america was affected by gacious substances from outer space --- look there are paintings that prove this, how else do you explain the blue and red tress? catch my drift with regard to your story.

Straw Man. See above.


Quting you:

Their "conquering" Europe is a matter of perspective, given that they were (as my studies have indicated) among, if not the first Europeans.

Not exactly sure what you mean. But again there is a well established evidence on the various significant groups that populated europe over the course of history. Your studies have not indicated that they were among the first eurpeans.

Your going to tell me what my studies have indicated? Origin of the Anglo-Saxon race: A study of the settlement of England and the tribal origin of the Old English people by Thomas William Shore, African Presence in Early Europe by Ivan Van Sertima, Nature Knows No Color Line and Sex and Race by J.A. Rogers, Ancient and Modern Britons Volumes I and II by David MacRitchie,
and other source materiel (http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/europe.html).


Do you know the origin of the word Europe?

Etymology

In Greek mythology, Europa was a Phoenician princess who was abducted by Zeus in bull form and taken to the island of Crete, where she gave birth to Minos. For Homer, Europé (Greek: Eurw<pi>h; see also List of traditional Greek place names) was a mythological queen of Crete, not a geographical designation. Later Europa stood for mainland Greece, and by 500 BC its meaning had been extended to lands to the north.

The Phoenicians, ever heard of them? (where Europe got its name from), and do you know if these people were around in Europes earliest times?


http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/westasia.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia


so far you only demonstrated to me that there was some presence of blacks in europe, and some held positions of some authority. that is not the same as to say that blacks ruled europe. an illogical leap. there are many blacks in powerful positions in the US. can you say they control the course of history in the US in the same way the poster claimed black jews did in europe?


http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/ThM_580_Bioethics/05_End_Withdraw/Nicea-Icon_SK_Sinai1800s.JPG

Would Constantine being a blackman constitute blacks ruling Europe?

Also, who promoted the Black Icons if not for Constantine and his mother Helena?

Who are those four men in the famous Tetrarchs statue today found in Italy, why are their noses chopped off, and why do at least two of their faces appear to clearly show blackmen?

Why do all of the original icons depict dark skinned people, Biblical saints and in some cases european Christian royalty?

Why were many of these paintings later whitweashed?

What is "whitewash"?

Who is this man?

http://www.peterwestern.f9.co.uk/maximilia/king%20john.JPG

Who were the Black Vikings author Gwyn Jones wrote about?

Are there blackmen today who look very much like that Czar Ivan IV icon?

What do the main icons of Christiandom located in Jerusalem look like?

What does the main statue of Saint Peter located in Saint Peters Basilica in Italy look like?

Who was Queen Charlotte Sophia? Was she of any descernable black ancestry?

Why was Joan of Arc described as being dark skinned?


Why are these Moor-ish names being associated with a black face, and with Jewish symbology?

http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/polcrt/Moir.html


I do not need to to prove to you that something did not exist.

The more pertient question is why you're still trying to tell others that information pertaining to subject is not being presented, which contrary to your assertions, and opinions, is lending more credibility to the assertions made by the author of this post.


However if you wish to tell me something existed, the onus is on you to prove with good evidence.

I refer you to all of my previous posts in this thread, then.

this would be a reasonable approach. You have no good evidence,

Opinion.

thus you proved nothing.

Assertion. Last I checked YOU had admitted that Severus (you know the RULER of Rome at one time, and founder of the Severan dynasty) and the Moors, who were working with Romans military in England, were in fact men of colour.

Klawful
05-15-2006, 05:19 AM
White folks don't want to get along they want to rule over others...


Why are you generalsing white folks, I'm starting to get just a little insulted.
Somebody should punch your snot box for talking garbage like you do.
I would like to know how many of these "White folks" you surveyed to come to the conclusion that "White folks don't want to get along they want to rule over others."

How many white folks did you personaly question like.

Aqueous Moon- Hey I was just wondering if I could ask you some questions?

Random White Guy1- sure go ahead.

Aqueous Moon- So. Do you as a White man want to get along?

Random White Guy1- Hell no, I want to rule over you, pillage your land and rape your women. *[insert evil laughter]


Aqueous Moon you appear to me to be a hateful individual who is either just here trying to stir up shit or in need of professional help. Slow your roll, how about you realise that you are spreading what may be seen as a message of hate and racism. It seems to me also in your posts that you want to rule over white people. So how does that make you better?
The simple answer is it doesn't.
I seriously hope one of these days you find Jesus, Allah or whoever just something that makes you realise that aslong as people are writing messages about conquering another race, ruling over another race, being better than another race and seriously meaning it that we will never be able to come together as Human beings solve the problems of the world.

TRONIX
05-15-2006, 05:24 AM
Kohen El Shaddai is totally brainwashed

Dude needs some proper history lessons.

Coming with some wack ass books that aint authentic in real history. Some made up fairytales.

LMAO at the books you referenced.

Kephrem
05-15-2006, 12:16 PM
Harvard University Press, the book "The Image of the Black in Westen Art" look up 'Wild Men and Moors' and come back and tell us here who were depicted as the wild men and who were depicted as Moors.

denaturat
05-15-2006, 12:58 PM
You dissect everything I say and provide bad reponses. For example, you say that my assertion about medieval art is unsubstantiated. I took a few courses in art history university. it is a fact tha medieval art is not representational. the artists used iconic representaions and did paint in proper perspective proportion. consequently, you cannot rely on such art as accurate depiction of reality. and even you were to do that, why not assume that black maddonna is not Indian? she certainly look more Indian than african. You make giant leaps towards your conclusion. In fact I sense that you began with your conlusion and work your backwards trying to substantiate with shoddy evidence and arguments.

I do not accept your refutations as valid. I challanged your evidence, and you did not properly refute my objections. your line of reasoning is flawed and your methods inquiry are not academic. I will not repeat what I have already said. you did not refute it successfully, so it stands.

HANZO
05-15-2006, 02:12 PM
Let me begin with this Sevurus dilemma. Him being born in a roman city with a roman family and by roman i mean having italian roots makes him an italian. Romans are considered to be italian, and imperial rome conquered the roman armies were mixed with the population from the conquered populations. But family members and senators always remaind either Italian greek german or spanish. Mainly italian, german and spanish for the western empire.

With the byzantine yes they were declining ever since the turks showed their faces up in the middle east. the arabs didnt have the military and economical power to over power the byzantine. in the 9th century the seljuk turks invaded anatolia and slowly drained the life out of the byzantines. yes they did decline for 700 years. Arabs in saudi arabia looked middle eastern brown skin, turks are not caucasians. Turkic ppls are from central asia they are mongoloid, nomads from asia. reason why their style of warfare was so effective against anyone.

With the moors. Moorish kings and higher stateman were arab. The blacks jus made up the bulk of the army. I dont think you have a good understanding of military history. I dont kno why we talk about the moors because there impact was small, they were never a strong muslim state.

When roma ruled europe it wasnt considered the dark ages. After it fell there were a lot of predessor states, when they all started war with each other it was the beginning of the dark ages. There were constant wars.

Aqueous Moon
05-15-2006, 02:14 PM
Originally Posted by Aqueous Moon
White folks don't want to get along they want to rule over others.

The whites with power make this happen.

If you are different then stop hating and realize evil as your open enemy.
Look at everything that I said if you want to get insulted, becuase that would make more sense then just taking out one sentence. I was clearly referring to powerful white folks like the ones who run Amerikkka and govern the world with evil politics.

If they wanted to get along....they would stop being soo greedy and they would stop creating war and bloodshed.


Why are you generalsing white folks, I'm starting to get just a little insulted.
Somebody should punch your snot box for talking garbage like you do.
I would like to know how many of these "White folks" you surveyed to come to the conclusion that "White folks don't want to get along they want to rule over others."

How many white folks did you personaly question like.

Aqueous Moon- Hey I was just wondering if I could ask you some questions?

Random White Guy1- sure go ahead.

Aqueous Moon- So. Do you as a White man want to get along?

Random White Guy1- Hell no, I want to rule over you, pillage your land and rape your women. *[insert evil laughter]


Aqueous Moon you appear to me to be a hateful individual who is either just here trying to stir up shit or in need of professional help. Slow your roll, how about you realise that you are spreading what may be seen as a message of hate and racism. It seems to me also in your posts that you want to rule over white people. So how does that make you better?
The simple answer is it doesn't.
I seriously hope one of these days you find Jesus, Allah or whoever just something that makes you realise that aslong as people are writing messages about conquering another race, ruling over another race, being better than another race and seriously meaning it that we will never be able to come together as Human beings solve the problems of the world.

I have no reason to be concerned about some random white guy who is not causing me any direct harm....You random white folks should realize how fucked up the system is and admit that your people are ruining lives instead of being righteous and treating the masses fairly.

And just because I ain't talking like cumbya, or watever don't mean I'm hateful. However, I do reserve my hate for those that deserve to be hated because of their ways and actions.

I don't want to rule over whites either...I would prefer us to be seperated from them so my people can leave in peace. But, we have to make provisions before that can happen.

Kephrem
05-15-2006, 02:28 PM
You dissect everything I say and provide bad reponses.


Opinion. Perhaps if you would offer up some examples of these "bad responses" I will do my best to try and clarify them for you.

For example, you say that my assertion about medieval art is unsubstantiated. I took a few courses in art history university. it is a fact tha medieval art is not representational.

Again, do you have a source for this claim, or should we accept this assertion at face value?

And please give us your definition of "representational" -- because if the Dark Ages didn't have painters painting their contemporaries and leaders, what were they "representing" in the various busts, tomb effigies, icons, tapestries and the like?



the artists used iconic representaions and did paint in proper perspective proportion.

Explain this in laymens terms if you can, and provide examples.


consequently, you cannot rely on such art as accurate depiction of reality.

Which leads me back to my previous question-- "if the Dark Ages didn't have painters painting their contemporaries and leaders, what were they "representing" in the various busts, tomb effigies, icons, tapestries, manuscripts, and the like?"


and even you were to do that, why not assume that black maddonna is not Indian? she certainly look more Indian than african.

What does an "African" look like exactly? I've seen Indians who look more so-called African then those who have long held ties to that continent.

And we know she was not "Indian" because the cultural and historical ties do not derive from the Indus Valley, but from the Levant.


You make giant leaps towards your conclusion. In fact I sense that you began with your conlusion and work your backwards trying to substantiate with shoddy evidence and arguments.

Opinion. Please address my specific points rather then offering blanket unsubstantiated statements.


[QUOT]I do not accept your refutations as valid. I challanged your evidence, and you did not properly refute my objections.[/QUOTE]

Opinion. Accoding to what bar have I not refuted and met your challenge?

Please provide empirical evidence that caucasians ruled Europe for a over 1,000 years from the year 193 a.d. with Septimus Severus (whom you admitted to be of color) to the ascension of Constantine, Byzantium, and the Holy Roman Empire, up to the 15th century.


your line of reasoning is flawed and your methods inquiry are not academic.

Show us examples of this 'flawed reasoning' with your given definition of academic inquiry.


I will not repeat what I have already said.

Then your allegations will remain unsubstantiated.

you did not refute it successfully, so it stands.

Sir, what did I not refute exactly? Again did you or did you not ADMIT Septmius Severus (a RULER of EUROPE) was a person of color??

HANZO
05-15-2006, 02:29 PM
Would Constantine being a blackman constitute blacks ruling Europe?


Well Constantine was no black man

you guys do realise you are trying to change history. i could make claims and alter history as well its not hard to do.
for example would the nation of god and earth even be without islam?? who saved islam from extinction?? who saved it from the christians and protected mekka and medina form crusaders for more than a 1000 years??
The turks did, so this means we saved islam and gave birth to the nation of god and earth.
It not hard to add spin to history. quit trying to steal history accept what happened no point argueing on what happened in the past. My people were great once but i dont go on about how the arabs stole form us how the arabs stabbed us in the back. its all good taking my words and questioning them but for most they is a conclusion of the views many different cultures have on this issue. Always remember i dont look at it from a western perspective.

Kephrem
05-15-2006, 04:22 PM
Let me begin with this Sevurus dilemma. Him being born in a roman city with a roman family and by roman i mean having italian roots makes him an italian.

Again is it your supposition that all Romans were white people? And if so, please give us you definition of what these ITALIANS from some 2,000 years 'all' looked like.


Romans are considered to be italian, and imperial rome conquered the roman armies were mixed with the population from the conquered populations. But family members and senators always remaind either Italian greek german or spanish. Mainly italian, german and spanish for the western empire.


This was probably true at one time, but you do realize what epoch in Roman history we are presently discussing, right? and with the climate of the age?

Bcause, this was not, by any means, a time of normality or stability in the Roman government or society.


During the centuries that CHRISTIANITY was struggling to survive, the ROMAN EMPIRE was DECLINING. After the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 a.d., Rome plunged into CIVIL WARS anfd CHAOS. At one point, Roman soldiers AUCTIONED OFF THE OFFICE of Emperor to the highest bidder. (note: by this time former black slaves had in some instances amassed large fortunes) But when he did not pay up, they murdered him. A more succesful Emperor Septimus Severus, advised his son from his deathbed, "Make the soldiers rich and don't worry about the rest."

End of the Pax Romana

The Romans never set up an effective way for one emperor to succeed another. Often, an emperor would name his son or an adopted son as his heir, and the Senate would approve the new ruler. However, after the death of Marcus Aurelius, THIS SYSTEM BROKE DOWN, and the Pax Romana ended. CIVIL WARS PLAGUED ROME as GENERALS COMPETED FOR THE THRONE.

During the years of TURMOIL, the AUTHORITY OF ROME WEAKENED. LAW AND ORDER DECLINED.

WORLD HISTORY
Patterns of Civilization
Pretence Hall
1990


Let's see what this "succesful emperor" looked like admist the downfall of this known great so-called white civilization.

http://kingarthura-z.home.att.net/SeptimiusFamily.gif
http://www.livius.org/a/1/romanempire/severus_family.jpg

This is the portrait of Septimus and his family, two photographs, one in color, showing clearly that the man was of color, even with the deterioration (done on purpose or not) of it over the centuries.




With the byzantine yes they were declining ever since the turks showed their faces up in the middle east.

Your previous assertion was that the Byzantines were declining from the 9th century on, which, according to my studies, is not true. As for the the Turks, they showed up in the middle east, not in the 9th century, but in the LATE 1100'S. (source: WORLD HISTORY, Pretence Hall 1990)


the arabs didnt have the military and economical power to over power the byzantine.

I wouldn't disagree with this.

in the 9th century the seljuk turks invaded anatolia and slowly drained the life out of the byzantines.

Please explain how these Turks in the 9th cent., having invaded Anatolia , allegedly "slowly drained the life out of the byzantines".


yes they did decline for 700 years.

According to who? If one would take the 700 years off from the year of Constantioples fall in 1453, you'd be left with the year 753, which would still make your "9th century" assertion incorrect.

To say that the Byzantines were declining in the mid 700's and for *700 years* thereafter is merely an opinion, and a apparent bias one at that.


Arabs in saudi arabia looked middle eastern brown skin,

Right, and I never argued to the contrary.

turks are not caucasians. Turkic ppls are from central asia they are mongoloid, nomads from asia.

Assertion. The Turks are in fact are among the so-called Europeans with the closest ties to the Caucasus mountain region.

http://www.american.edu/cgp/track2/images/caucasus_region_1994small.jpg


The history sometimes attributed to ancient Turks sounds at times more like "white Aryan" myths then of actual history. But I digress, please show us these "Mongoloid" looking Turks, and their alleged closest REAL Mongolian relative.


reason why their style of warfare was so effective against anyone.

Assertion. Their style of warfare would've been, before their contact with real civilized peoples, i.e. Arab Muslims and Christian Byzantines, a style more wild and 'barbaric' then like whatever strategies they had later developed during their rise to power.


With the moors. Moorish kings and higher stateman were arab. The blacks jus made up the bulk of the army.


I provided information on the subject of the Moors which you consequently failed to properly address, or yet provide the sources for your own positions.

Here I would like to cite these articles within the discussion, that is if you don't mind the name of the site, and can look beyond it to the actual content and the information presented therein.

http://playahata.com/pages/bhfigures/bhfigures20.html
http://playahata.com/pages/bhfigures/bhfigures18.html


I dont think you have a good understanding of military history. I dont kno why we talk about the moors because there impact was small, they were never a strong muslim state.

Opinion. What led you to this conclusion exactly? Though I'm not an scholar on the so-called politics of Muslim Spain, I'm sure there are people who frequent KTL who would strongly disagree, and take up an issue with your assesment here.



When roma ruled europe it wasnt considered the dark ages.

No one said when Rome ruled Europe that it was considered the Dark Ages, perhaps you have misread that somewhere.


After it fell there were a lot of predessor states, when they all started war with each other it was the beginning of the dark ages. There were constant wars.

I was well aware of this, thanks for sharing though.

denaturat
05-15-2006, 05:09 PM
arguing with you is pointless. it's like playing tennis without a net. your objections are ridiculous and sophistical.

but just to clarify on point for your information, representational means having the correct colour, perspective, proportion, etc. The art work of Michaelangelo was for the most part representational. abstract art is not. medieval art was obviously not as distorted as picasso, but the techniques were nevertheless stylized and so to speak less realstic. now that's something you can look up real easy, unlike your . bizarre account of european history.

Klawful
05-15-2006, 09:56 PM
I don't want to rule over whites either...I would prefer us to be seperated from them so my people can leave in peace. But, we have to make provisions before that can happen.


Ok I will admit that I blew up that one sentence and it was fun doing so.
Would you serioulsy like to go back to a place like africa.
There are many countries in Africa that are not currently peacful, infact I would say they were at war with Other blacks, that is other people of color. Chaos with hundreds of thousands being killed every year, children dying of malnutrition, Rebels (black rebels) killing other Blacks


http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr81.html
"The past dozen years of warfare in West Africa have led to the death, injury, and mutilation of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of millions more."



There have been over 9.5 million refugees and hundreds and thousands of people have been slaughtered in Africa from a number of conflicts and civil wars. If this scale of destruction and fighting was in Europe, then people would be calling it World War III with the entire world rushing to report, provide aid, mediate and otherwise try to diffuse the situation. Why has Africa been largely ignored?



It seems to me that when Black men are in this so to speak White society they bitch and complain about the white man being unjust and racist and some of them are. There is no denying that some white people are racist but so are blacks, asians and everybody else.

White society as such doesnt seem to sit well with the African-Americans because their own people knowingly sold their Ancestors into slavery and there seems to be an underlying mistrust of white folk and sometimes hatred. Black people are being slaughtered wholesale by other blacks in black countries under black rule and you are saying you want to be seperated from White folks to live in peace, It just doesnt happen.

Kephrem
05-15-2006, 10:16 PM
Well Constantine was no black man

In my previous post I put up a link to an icon which depicts the historic Council of Nicea, in this icon you can see Constantine sitting within the middle of the council, this relic, likely commisioned by the Emperor, or by his physical or ideological descendants, without a doubt depicts dark skinned men -- those are the Bishops of the ancient Christian Chuch.

One of those bishops, who was close to Emperor Constantine was Nicholas of Myra, known to the world as the famous Saint Nicholas.

http://www.auburn.edu/academic/liberal_arts/foreign/russian/icons/nicholas-pskov.jpg

Do you see now where all this evidence is going? Maybe not, but it is one of the greatest cover-ups in history, the true history of the Dark Ages.

you guys do realise you are trying to change history. i could make claims and alter history as well its not hard to do.

Listen if something is being "changed" it's what Europes historical revisionists and whitewashers have turned upside down.


for example would the nation of god and earth even be without islam??

Not to answer a question with a question, but, is it your supposition that Islam as a concept was born in the 7th century?

who saved islam from extinction??

It can be argued that Islam became "extinct" in it's native form when it was no longer in the hands of the original Arabs and Moors, and adopted (via conversion) by the Khazar, Turk, and caucasian entity.

who saved it from the christians and protected mekka and medina form crusaders for more than a 1000 years??

I don't understand what you're saying here. I gathered that you're implying something like the Crusaders having attempted to seize Mecca and Medina (for a 1,000 years no less!), what is your SOURCE for this??


The turks did, so this means we saved islam and gave birth to the nation of god and earth.

I strongly disagree that the Nation of Gods and Earths wouldn't exist if not for the alleged accomplishments of the ancient Turks, to teach that is to grossly mislead people and ignore the prevalent esoteric, Kemetic, Afro-Asiatic, Semetic, Freemasonic influences of said nation.

And another thing, where were the Turks when Islam was having a golden era in West Africa with Mansa Musa and those great Islamic rulers?


It not hard to add spin to history. quit trying to steal history

It is ironic isn't it? that a person of Turkish extraction would say this. First of all, where would your people be if not for the real Arabs --who in fact civilized and brought you into the modern world with their civilizing gift of Islam, which, at present time, your country no longer rules under? Can you answer this?


accept what happened

I do accept what happened, but not what YOU would have me to accept.

no point argueing on what happened in the past.

Then perhaps you should bow out of the conversation, and maybe rejoin it only when you are ready to deal with Europes true history which had begun to be covered up starting May 29th, 1453.


My people were great once but i dont go on about how the arabs stole form us how the arabs stabbed us in the back.

I was taught it was the other way around in fact, but I would love for an original Arab brother or sister to deal with this statement, because I'm not in a position to do so.


its all good taking my words and questioning them but for most they is a conclusion of the views many different cultures have on this issue. Always remember i dont look at it from a western perspective.

Interesting you would say this, because to my knowledge there isn't any other self-professed Islamic-influenced country more WESTERN minded then the present government of TURKEY.

Kephrem
05-15-2006, 10:36 PM
but just to clarify on point for your information, representational means having the correct colour, perspective, proportion, etc. The art work of Michaelangelo was for the most part representational.

Interesting how Dark Age art is painted with the broad stroke of being non-"representational" -- but when a great deal of art depicting white people in them starts to appear in history (the RENASAINCE), suddenly, the color of people within paintings is life-like, and shows the "correct color"....denaturat are you perhaps a Jesuit?


but the techniques were nevertheless stylized and so to speak less realstic.

Let's see, was art depicting people with dark brown skin "realistic", or, in your opinion, some bizarre stylized technique?

denaturat
05-15-2006, 10:51 PM
KLAWFUL: Would you serioulsy like to go back to a place like africa.
There are many countries in Africa that are not currently peacful, infact I would say they were at war with Other blacks, that is other people of color. Chaos with hundreds of thousands being killed every year, children dying of malnutrition, Rebels (black rebels) killing other Blacks
.......
Black people are being slaughtered wholesale by other blacks in black countries under black rule and you are saying you want to be seperated from White folks to live in peace, It just doesnt happen.

europe was invloved in many wars, even more devasting than in Africa. However with time they colonised the rest of the world and began using indigenous peoples to fight their wars abroad. they all got rich of plunder. fighting resumed again with WWI and WWII. after such mass destruction, Europe finally learned the cost of war. In addition, having prospered over the years through colonialization, they could afford to live in peace.

Africa, thus, cannot be easily compared to Europe. Poverty is one of the causes of conflict. In some instances, their fighting is insidrectly caused by wealthy people in the west: for example, consider blood diamonds or coltan used in cellphones. If Africa had adequate food and education the situation in my opinion would be different. Africans do not fight between each other because they are Africans, but because in many places they are poor, desparate or uneducated. Aqueous is not wrong in saying that she wants to live with her people. Perhaps she wouldn't want to be with them as they live now, but she would want to be with them as they ought to live - in peace, as every human being deserves.

denaturat
05-15-2006, 10:58 PM
Interesting how Dark Age art is painted with the broad stroke of being non-"representational" -- but when a great deal of art depicting white people in them starts to appear in history (the RENASAINCE), suddenly, the color of people within paintings is life-like, and shows the "correct color"....denaturat are you perhaps a Jesuit?




Let's see, was art depicting people with dark brown skin "realistic", or, in your opinion, some bizarre stylized technique?



no Jesuit, lol. and yes in rennasaisance art became more accurate because people began to rediscover old philophers and thinkers and began to take a more intellectual, rather than supersticious appraoch to the world around them. So they began developing theories on perspective and proportion in art. thus art looked more like what it was meant to represent.

Kephrem
05-16-2006, 12:03 AM
and yes in rennasaisance art became more accurate

I understand what you mean, but that style can never challenge the color (or stylizations for that matter) used by the ancient icon painters and other Medieval artists, unless of course we begin to deal with figures of a Biblical, and pre-Renasaince European nature.

because people began to rediscover old philophers and thinkers and began to take a more intellectual, rather than supersticious appraoch to the world around them.

Hagia Sophia is as much or greater work of art then anything with the Renasaince style.

So they began developing theories on perspective and proportion in art.

I fail to see how this nullifies the very specific color used for the skin within the earliest authentic icons.


thus art looked more like what it was meant to represent.


It is mere conjecture for anyone to suggest that the color used by icon painters was all symbolic, or that it was not at all meant to represent what they knew the earliest Christians and Jews to look like.

denaturat
05-16-2006, 12:21 AM
yes, Hagia Sophia is indeed a phenomenal piece of architecture. I had the privilege of experiencing it in first person. However, that fact does not change antyhing about renaissance. The christian iconic art within the building that was later covered by Islamic motifs still lacked the same sort of proportions and correctness as the art of Michaelangelo or Raphael.

I do not say that therefore black colour used must be just a stylistic element. I say it may be. Furthermore, I agreed with you that it is possible that there was a presence of blacks in Europe, and perhaps quite influencial blacks. Some of them may be represented in the icons you mentioned. but those representations could also be stylization, or perhaps representation of jews or arabs (not the african jews you are refering too).

however even if those are blacks, and I admit it is possible, this in no way proves that they actually conquered rome and ruled europe.


Hagia Sophia icon - notice poor proportions, in particular the child who looks like a small adult and not like a baby

http://www.iconsexplained.com/iec/lib/02704_virgin&child_enthroned_oldest_surviving_mosaic_hagia_soph ia_ca850_mod.jpg


Renaissance Madonna - notice better proportions and perspective. the child has the proportions and expression of a baby

http://www.leafpile.com/TravelLog/Italy/Florence/HolyFamily.jpg

Kephrem
05-16-2006, 12:42 AM
I do not say that therefore black colour used must be just a stylistic element. I say it may be.

This possibility is decreased considerably when one considers the specific verbage used within the Biblical text which describes the Jews and early Christians to be the same.


or perhaps representation of jews or arabs (not the african jews you are refering too).

Have I used, or suggested in this thread that I speak of African Jews?

however even if those are blacks, and I admit it is possible, this in no way proves that they actually conquered rome and ruled europe.

It lends a great deal of evidence to those assertions, though. Considering that Septimus Severus, which you have conceded to be a man of color, was ruler over Rome in a time of Romes breakdown, which subsequently rode a succession of his descendents until Constantine ascended to power and by his commission promulgated these very icons and the churches that would house them throughout his newly united empire.

Klawful
05-16-2006, 01:21 AM
Africa, thus, cannot be easily compared to Europe. Poverty is one of the causes of conflict. In some instances, their fighting is insidrectly caused by wealthy people in the west: for example, consider blood diamonds or coltan used in cellphones. If Africa had adequate food and education the situation in my opinion would be different. Africans do not fight between each other because they are Africans, but because in many places they are poor, desparate or uneducated. Aqueous is not wrong in saying that she wants to live with her people. Perhaps she wouldn't want to be with them as they live now, but she would want to be with them as they ought to live - in peace, as every human being deserves.
9:|6...9:|6...9:|6...9:|6...9:|6

I thank you for you Valid Points


I wasn't actualy attempting to actualy compare Africa to Europe and I think that the wealthy wests desire for what Africa can provide is in all reality a very direct influence. But if It wasnt for the corrupt governments in these places than workers would be treated more fairly and people would be educated or given more of a chance to be educated and they would be looked after a little better.
Money doesnt realy solve problems it makes them, Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely.


Perhaps she wouldn't want to be with them as they live now, but she would want to be with them as they ought to live - in peace, as every human being deserves.

Kephrem
05-16-2006, 10:41 AM
http://www.essaysbyekowa.com/Roads%20to%20Rome.htm

Though I don't agree with everything stated in this interpretation of the era of Septimus Severus (see link above) it's still very much an interesting take of those events.

denaturat
05-16-2006, 10:43 AM
9:|6...9:|6...9:|6...9:|6...9:|6

I thank you for you Valid Points


I wasn't actualy attempting to actualy compare Africa to Europe and I think that the wealthy wests desire for what Africa can provide is in all reality a very direct influence. But if It wasnt for the corrupt governments in these places than workers would be treated more fairly and people would be educated or given more of a chance to be educated and they would be looked after a little better.
Money doesnt realy solve problems it makes them, Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely.


definitely agree with you here

HANZO
05-16-2006, 01:21 PM
the picture with severus and his family severus is dark but wat appears to be his children are white. ???? a sark skinned man would have dark skinned children.

With the turks man im sorry you have no idea wat your talking about. We are mongoloids, turkic people range from siberia to modern day turkey. The seljuks invaded anatolia in the 12th century yes, but that was the seljuks. The word turk means nomad in chinese. The oghuz and gokturks were chinese factions in the 6th century, oguz turks are also known to be huns, the huns used to be a faction in asia after the fall of hunnic armies in europe the hunnic people returned to central asia, it is known that the oghuz turks are descendents of the huns. the seljuks were the first to have an impact in moving west. The byzantine was under constant attack from various persian dynasty's they lost anatolia slowly. When the seljuks arrived they took more. The main wave of turks came with the movement of mongols. Like the mongols turks are a tribe of people. The armies of ghengis kahns sons had a majority of turks in them. you want proof of mongoloia looking turkish people. All nations in central asia are turkic peoples, uzbekistan turkmenistan. These people have mongoloid features.

Saying that the turks gained civilization from the arabs is just wrong because we taught arabs about honour law and respect. Remember turkish civilization stems from ancient china.

The nomad style of warfare which is mainly cavalry was very effective against christian byzantine and arab muslims. The mongols used it and destroyed hungarian and polish armies. battle of manzikert 1071 byzantine army against turkish seljuk army. The byzantine army was destroyed. The ottomans used the same tactic but this time had the finest infantry units in the janniseries as well. Crusader armies always stuggled when they faced the turks. A 100,000 army of the german king, when marching through anatolia was destroyed by the turks. They all died including the german king. The turkish style of warfare was so suprerior no arab or european could match it, and this was with the seljuks. The mongols conquered the biggest land empire with these tactics. Subotais campaigns in russia will come up to mind here. Tamerlane was also very effective with this method of warfare reason why with the timurid turk and ottoman turk wars the timurids more than matched the ottomans.

for one constantine the great was not black, think deep nobody can cover this up such an emperor his colour could not be covered up. the arabs would have certainly showed that he was black, but they donts. I have no idea what your trying to prove here.

Italians were white, 2000 years ago they were white. Julius caeser an italian, he was white. Alexander the great a greek he was also white. Augustus caeser was white, the people from this part of the meditarranian was white. You cannot this prove this it is written in the history of these people and shown in their descendents.

The ottomans were considered to be the protectors of mekka and medina for the entire time they held the cities. I like to remind you that when the christians held jerusalem they attempted to siege mekka, it didnt happen they never reached the city. When the ottomans ruled the holy lands islam was protected no foreign invaders came close. They were the greatest muslim empire ever, no arab or african empire could match there influence. Constantinople was taken by the turks and rome was also close to be conquered. I see no arabs or africans muslims get this close. Holding the christians on the backfoot was what protected the holy lands. and saved islam because we all know that the european nations was attempt to invade this land and they would have conquered it easily. I gave this example to show how anybody can change a story to suit their race. Its simple saying that black ruled europe. why i said turks made islam the wide spread religion it is today. Nobody wanted to invade the holy lands because the turks would be too strong. As you can say the greeks and romans taught everyone about civilization because they were the ones who spread it out.

Your trying to disprove written history, this history is written down and accepted by all civilizations accept you lot.

TRONIX
05-17-2006, 03:58 AM
Your trying to disprove written history, this history is written down and accepted by all civilizations accept you lot.

They are in denial. It dont matter if you took them back in time and they came face to face with them it will not change there opinion. So full of hate and rage.

Kephrem
05-17-2006, 12:48 PM
They are in denial. It dont matter if you took them back in time and they came face to face with them it will not change there opinion. So full of hate and rage.

Of course this isn't based on anything within the thread itself, or can you SHOW us where you got "rage" and "hate" from any of the words written thus far?

denaturat
05-17-2006, 01:53 PM
Of course this isn't based on anything within the thread itself, or can you SHOW us where you got "rage" and "hate" from any of the words written thus far?

though one person here is a racist and is thoroughly ignorant, other than that no hate or rage from anyone else. although at times frustrating, it's just a discussion. not really personal.

Kephrem
05-17-2006, 02:54 PM
the picture with severus and his family severus is dark but wat appears to be his children are white. ???? a sark skinned man would have dark skinned children.

So you do concede to my original point that SS was a dark-skinned man, and that's all I'm concerned with at this point of the discussion, so I will move on....


With the turks man im sorry you have no idea wat your talking about. We are mongoloids


Mongol
1738, native name, said to be from mong "brave." Mongolian as a classification for "the Asiatic race" is from 1868; mongoloid is 1899 for the genetic defect causing mental retardation (see Down's Syndrome), from Mongol + Gk. -oeides "like, resembling." Such people were called Mongolian from 1866.

Perhaps at least one of you is a Mongoloid,...but as for the rest of you, you are not Asiatic in any sense. (unless of course you concede here that you are "cauc-asiatic")


turkic people range from siberia to modern day turkey.

Please provide many examples of these european Turks who appear Mongolian or those real Mongolians who are you closest relative.


The word turk means nomad in chinese.

Is this supposed to be proof that you are related to them??


The oghuz and gokturks were chinese factions in the 6th century, oguz turks are also known to be huns, the huns used to be a faction in asia after the fall of hunnic armies in europe the hunnic people returned to central asia, it is known that the oghuz turks are descendents of the huns.

I don't doubt that mixing occured, but to say you are the descendents of the historic Huns is a quite a different assertion.


the seljuks were the first to have an impact in moving west. The byzantine was under constant attack from various persian dynasty's they lost anatolia slowly. When the seljuks arrived they took more.

Your assertion was that the taking of Anatolia "weakened" the Byzantine Empire, without providing any facts of HOW it was in fact weakened, thus this will remain as mere conjecture.


The main wave of turks came with the movement of mongols. Like the mongols turks are a tribe of people. The armies of ghengis kahns sons had a majority of turks in them.

I never doubted that the Mongols and Turks mixed with each other (Ghengis Khan and his people may be an example of that caucasian-asiatic miscgenation), I however stated that you (European Turks) are not their (Mongolians) DIRECT descendents, or for that matter, their kin.


you want proof of mongoloia looking turkish people. All nations in central asia are turkic peoples, uzbekistan turkmenistan. These people have mongoloid features.


If this man (http://www.sladurana.com/free_dating/7290.html) is a Mongolian person, you might as well add many white Russians into that classification.

But it was my understanding that Eurasian nations more to the east have in some cases a visible admixture, but my previous point was that in TURKEY this 'Mongolian ancestry' is a myth (maybe a handful of you have that ancestry, but certainly not the majority), and neither are you Asiatic, unless of course you will concede here that you are 'CAUC-ASIATIC'.


Saying that the turks gained civilization from the arabs is just wrong because we taught arabs about honour law and respect.

I'm not in a postion to respond to this, I'll let a real Arab tackle this statement.

Remember turkish civilization stems from ancient china.

I'll let a Chinese brother or sister deal with your (some would argue, leaning towards revisionist 'neo-aryan') assertion.


or one constantine the great was not black

ASSERTION.

The pieces of evidence I presented in my previous 2-3 posts havn't been properly addressed by you, thus you're not in a position to regurgitate this statement once again.

Constantine was born at Naissus (today's Nis<caron>, Serbia) in the province of Upper Moesia on 27 February 272 or 273, to Roman general, Constantius Chlorus, and his first wife Helena,

IMP CAESAR FLAVIVS CONSTANTINVS PIVS FELIX INVICTVS AVGVSTVS as we read above was born in Serbia, but, were there any black people in Serbia in those times? Yes, there were black people all over the known world, these black people I speak of were not "Africans", but Jews, living in Europe, in Asia, and Africa. The "people of the book", as the Quran calls us, were located in Asia Minor, in Central Asia, in Easten Europe, and in Europe proper. (for those students of the Bible you can read II Kings 17:6 which gives the locations where these migrations into those areas first began, and which took place *before* the time of the Greco-Roman Empire. Some of their locations *during* the Roman Empire in the 1st century is mentioned in Acts 2:5, 9-11)

So his father, Constantius Florus, is shown here in the famous "Tetrarchs" statue in Italy.

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~amiddltn/unitone/tetrarchs.jpg
This clearly shows us not only that their noses have been hacked off, but the broad faced features commonly seen in some black people (especially the one to the far right).

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/romanciv/Romancivimages23/tetrarchs.jpgTheir noses have been hacked off because it would've shown that they were clearly negro, or so-called blackmen.

more:
http://harpy.uccs.edu/roman/tetrarchs2.jpg
http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/romantetrarchs/view1.jpg
http://www.coco.cc.az.us/apetersen/_ART201/_images/tetrarchs.jpg
http://hal.lamar.edu/~LOKENSGALU/slides/tetrarchs.JPG

One of those men above (Constantius) sired Helena who was Constantines mother, below you can see both of them depicted in this famous ancient icon, and they both are shown having dark brown "chocolate" complexions.

http://www.uploadfile.info/uploads/7760470f42.jpg (http://www.uploadfile.info)
(though this image is blurry, because there are only a few authentic icons left of him, I found this one in a google image search and wasn't able to get the original from the the original site because it had been taken down. One can still clearly see the contrast between the many colors of their garments, and the brown coloring of the skin. Also notice the wooly hair coming out from Constantines crown!)

another image:
http://collections.ic.gc.ca/bulletin/num26/images/b26helena.jpg

Let's not forget that it was Constantine and his mother themselves who promoted the BLACK MADONNA (with BLACK BABY CHRIST), and the other icons of the saints (originally all showing dark skinned people), throughout CHRISTIAN BYZANTIUM. (East and West)


think deep nobody can cover this up such an emperor his colour could not be covered up

And I will advise you to think even deeper and read this book:

"The Power of Images: Studies In The History and Theory of Response" by David Freedberg, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989).

This book is important because it discusses the power an image has over people and what happens when an image is not liked. It also discusses what happens to images belonging to an old order when a new order assumes rulership.

And then meditate on this photograph and be truthful to yourself as to what you're looking at:

http://www.uploadfile.info/uploads/b9e4d480a6.jpg (http://www.uploadfile.info)

the arabs would have certainly showed that he was black,

Which Arabs? The Ottomans pretty much made sure that many of the icons in what became Instanbul were whitewashed from their original true darker origins -- not to mention they had a secret alliance with the lords of the whitewash movement themselves, the Vatican. (yeah I said it)


Italians were white, 2000 years ago they were white. Julius caeser an italian, he was white. Alexander the great a greek he was also white. Augustus caeser was white, the people from this part of the meditarranian was white. You cannot this prove this it is written in the history of these people and shown in their descendents.


No one said that these people were other then white, you have no point here.


The ottomans were considered to be the protectors of mekka and medina for the entire time they held the cities. I like to remind you that when the christians held jerusalem they attempted to siege mekka, it didnt happen they never reached the city.

Please provide a credible SOURCE that Christian Crusaders attempted to siege "Mekka". This is the SECOND time I'm asking you for that.


When the ottomans ruled the holy lands islam was protected no foreign invaders came close. They were the greatest muslim empire ever, no arab or african empire could match there influence.

I'll let the Kemetic brothers and sisters handle this one.


Constantinople was taken by the turks and rome was also close to be conquered. I see no arabs or africans muslims get this close.

It was not meant for them too, ever think of that? It was rather meant for imposters (and frankly speaking the Devil) to rise on the world scene, hence this era (15th century) sees much disruption and destruction (from both the so-called Christian (Spanish) and so-called Muslim (Ottoman) side) towards the original peoples of the earth.


Holding the christians on the backfoot was what protected the holy lands. and saved islam because we all know that the european nations was attempt to invade this land and they would have conquered it easily.

Actually they were trying to reconquer NOT invade the land as you suggest here, anybody with knowledge of the Levant knows these lands were occupied first by pre-Islamic (the religion) people, specifically the Hebrews of color who also were the first Christians.


As you can say the greeks and romans taught everyone about civilization because they were the ones who spread it out.

I don't wish to stray from the topic at hand, maybe someone else will engage this outdated and some would argue racist belief.


Your trying to disprove written history,

Wrong, I'm disproving revisionist history.


this history is written down and accepted by all civilizations accept you lot.

Assertion. Many people accept Jesus as a European looking man, but it doesn't mean that everyone within those civilizations accept it. I accept written history where no Eurocentric myth has polluted or distorted the original account.

Kephrem
05-17-2006, 03:13 PM
http://www.uploadfile.info/uploads/cde88e85de.jpg (http://www.uploadfile.info)

http://www.uploadfile.info/uploads/6ca6e8ea85.jpg (http://www.uploadfile.info)

whitewash (v.)
1591, "to wash a building surface with white liquid," from white + wash. Fig. sense of "to cover up, conceal" is attested from 1762. The noun is recorded from 1697.

HANZO
05-17-2006, 05:11 PM
man you have no idea of history you are blinded. Go to wikipedia type turk see what comes up. A recent exhibition in the royal college of art about turks showed our descendency from mongols and chinese. The peoples from central asia are turks. arent you getting it turkic is one race we are tribal people. The turks were a tribe in central asia just like the mongols, tartars, and chinese were. We are the same the turks just carried their nomadic lifestyles to the east and adopted islam. the same way that tamerlane did, they were timurid turks, and the ottoman turks. The huns entered europe from central asia yes??? after the empire collapsed the huns settled in parts of eastern europe while others returned to central asia.

And to say the ottomans had a secret alliance with the vatican is the stupidist thing i have ever heard. if we did do you think mehmet the conqueror would have invaded italy??? and march on rome??? I like to remind you the ottomans didnt destroy every part of istanbul mehmet saw the destruction occuring and stopped it immediatley. Why do you think so much still remains from the byzantine era??

with the weakeaning of the byzantine, were do you think the byzantines economical power came from??? the east through anatolia. Once the turks took control of anatolia this economical power was taken away from the byzantine. An empire with no economy is not such an empire.
the Lusignans who controlled jerusalem attempted a march on mekka, they never made it and returned because the crusaders didnt have enough resources to take mekka. Remember the seljuk turks weakened and destroyed most of the crusader armies even before they reached the holy lands. jus read up on the crusades.

well the ottomans spread islam into christians cities, and into asia. The ottomans protected islam, they were the largest and wealthiest islamic empire ever. They lasted the longest.

The Yassa the series of laws created by the mongols was used by all turkish empires when they conquered land. The yassa was apart of turkish empire. It was implemented in every province the turks took over.

i didnt say ss was a black guy becuase if he was then his children would be people of colour the coin doesnt show that.
The statues, jus because they are made from dark material doesnt mean the people depicted are black. If you look a lot of statues have their noses chopped off. Even ones with ottoman kings and greek gods. the statues of the greek gods apollo and zeus on the mountains of antalya have their noses chopped off. the sphinz of giza doenst have a noise.

the arabs did try to take constantinople, but they couldnt even march into anatolia so didnt get close. Look up on military history arabs were nothin special in terms of warfare. what can i do if the ottomans dominated the east and the spanish the west. The original people should have used their skills because they were orginal to do somethin about it. No they waitied until they could stab us in the back a couple centuries down. And saying the so called muslims the ottomans. Research ottoman history it put islam on the map it made it get recognised by the world. Without the ottomans islam would be nothing. im not jus saying the ottomans the timurids and moghuls also assisted with the spread of islam. You cant argue or disprove islamic history. Its written and every nation agrees on it. callin the ottomans imposters and that is what your getting at actually will offend a lot of muslims, and frankly piss the turks right off. i guess following the qu'ran makes the ottomans imposters then. So that makes the qu'ran wrong, maybe that not what your trying to get. But remember ottomans were close followers of islam. So saying their imposters means that islam is wrong. the history of the turk or any other empire is written and its their cannot be manipulated. if there was something to be found it would be found. Like carthage which was meant to be wiped clean but it was found. Troy was seen to be a myth but it was found. The city of Cend the birthplace of the seljuks was just found. Why cant we find this evidence and proof that black jews ruled europe. oh i see white people are stopping you from doing it right.

Kephrem
05-17-2006, 11:42 PM
man you have no idea of history you are blinded.

Address my specific points and please refrain from throwing out these random statements.

Go to wikipedia type turk see what comes up. A recent exhibition in the royal college of art about turks showed our descendency from mongols and chinese.

So essentialy you are saying that you are Chinese, yes?

And please reproduce some of the findings of this exhibition here for us.

The peoples from central asia are turks. arent you getting it turkic is one race we are tribal people. The turks were a tribe in central asia just like the mongols, tartars,

How does occupying a specific geographic location within a specific time period prove that you were kin of the ancient Mongolians?

and chinese were.

Are you saying the origin of the modern Chinese were in Central Asia during that time period?

I would agree with that, as many of them I have learned did in fact mix with the Caucasians of those areas.

We are the same the turks just carried their nomadic lifestyles to the east and adopted islam.

You say you "adopted Islam"? or rather were you converted for military purposes in an alliance with the Arabs against the Byzantines?

the same way that tamerlane did, they were timurid turks, and the ottoman turks. The huns entered europe from central asia yes???

I fail to see how the Huns entering in from C. Europe correlates with your assertions that you are one in the same with those people.

after the empire collapsed the huns settled in parts of eastern europe while others returned to central asia.

I don't doubt some of them settled in parts of E. Europe, but this still does not lend evidence that the people of Turkey are Mongolians, or even that you are the descendents of the Chinese. (!)

And to say the ottomans had a secret alliance with the vatican is the stupidist thing i have ever heard. if we did do you think mehmet the conqueror would have invaded italy???

Did I give a time period for that alliance or even what the it consisted of? No, I didn't.


I like to remind you the ottomans didnt destroy every part of istanbul mehmet saw the destruction occuring and stopped it immediatley. Why do you think so much still remains from the byzantine era??

Who said anything about the infrastructure of Byzantium being destroyed by the Turks?


with the weakeaning of the byzantine, were do you think the byzantines economical power came from??? the east through anatolia.

ASSERTION. Provide your source{s}.

Once the turks took control of anatolia this economical power was taken away from the byzantine. An empire with no economy is not such an empire.

See above.


the Lusignans who controlled jerusalem attempted a march on mekka, they never made it and returned because the crusaders didnt have enough resources to take mekka.

Source?

Remember the seljuk turks weakened and destroyed most of the crusader armies even before they reached the holy lands. jus read up on the crusades.

I have read up on the Crusades. Now please provide a credible source for "most" of the Crusader army being destroyed before reaching the holy land, which I take you meant during the First Crusade?

The ottomans protected islam,

What else were they going to protect? It was what civilized them...and another thing, one would think the Turks would've returned to this alleged Chinese or Mongolian culture after amassing so much power, but alas here you are admitting that they were in fact "protecting Islam", even when they were free of Arab influence, which speaks greatly against them EVER being Chinese or Mongolian.


they were the largest and wealthiest islamic empire ever. They lasted the longest.

I'm not a scholar on Islamic history, so I can't answer to your assertion here, a credible source would benefitt the discussion however.


The Yassa the series of laws created by the mongols was used by all turkish empires when they conquered land. The yassa was apart of turkish empire. It was implemented in every province the turks took over.

So? I don't see why you bring this up, was it to prove that the people of Turkey are Mongolian?


i didnt say ss was a black guy becuase if he was then his children would be

And I didn't say you said that either, because you originally said he was a whiteman but now you've recently admitted that he was a dark skinned man and only AFTER I brought my evidence, so at this point, what his children (actually only 1 son appears in the image, the other was BUFFED out) looked like is beside the point.


his children would be people of colour the coin doesnt show that.

The image doesn't show his "children", it shows ONE of his sons.


The statues, jus because they are made from dark material doesnt mean the people depicted are black.

STRAW MAN.

No one argued that the "color of the statues" shows they were black.

If you look a lot of statues have their noses chopped off.

We're not dealing with "alot" of statues but this one. The statue was but a link to other facts concerning Constantine.


the arabs did try to take constantinople, but they couldnt even march into anatolia so didnt get close. Look up on military history arabs were nothin special in terms of warfare.

Why are you telling me this? Whatever military failures the Arabs had against the Byzantines doesn't prove your assertion that the taking of Anatolia by the Ottomans "weakened" the great Byzantine Empire.


what can i do if the ottomans dominated the east and the spanish the west.

Nothing, because the world has experienced the greatest atrocities and darkness ever since. (15th century on)

Research ottoman history it put islam on the map it made it get recognised by the world. Without the ottomans islam would be nothing.

Opinion. I'm sure there are Muslims on KTL that would take up issue with this.

callin the ottomans imposters and that is what your getting at actually will offend a lot of muslims,

What supposed Islamic country is more Western minded then Turkey? I'm still waiting you to answer this. And you are not original Muslims, your wild assertions of the Turkish legacy, and statements against Moors and Arabs only lends strength to my point.


i guess following the qu'ran makes the ottomans imposters then.

Please show us the Yassa laws in the Quran.

Why cant we find this evidence and proof that black jews ruled europe.

For one because we were known as Christian, and the Bible (book of the Jews) was the regime that ruled Europe. The evidence of Constantine, the Black Madonna, and the legacy of the Icons shown previously also still stand. The history of the Israelite tribes migrating into ancient Europe is abundant, and also available on the internet, with the external sources that you may research at your own leisure.

Kohen El Shaddai
05-18-2006, 12:32 AM
you need to stop believing everything you read on the net.

These are scans from a book called Nature Knows No Color Line by J.A. Rogers. I didn't just pull this off some website.

HANZO
05-18-2006, 09:46 AM
ok you have to understnad this for one for you to get the entire perception here. Turks arent turks in the country of turkey. Turks are a race of people. not just in turkey. There are turks in western china, mongolia, siberia, central asia, eastern europe, parts of arabia, and russia. dont you understand the first turks came from central asia, as the population grew most migrated west. The turks didnt adopt islam because they wanted to align with the arabs against the byzantines. The karahan turks lived in the regions of uzbekistan they were the first muslim turks. why would the byzantine pose a threat to them at that time?? You have no idea what your talking about here. Your looking at turks in turkey, turkey was just the base of the ottoman empire it is not were turks come from. With the yassa i am showing you the relations with the turks and mongols we use the same laws, we have the same names, everytime i hear mongols talk i can pick out certain phrases and understand. Turks have mongol names, my real name is cengizhan which is actually ghengis kahn. the seljuk empire started in kazakhistan, i believe kazakhistan is in central asia.
turks were just another tribe from central asia like the mongols and other peoples. We didnt occupy that land they just were born there.

the weakeaning of the byzantine, ever heard of the silk road?? the east is full of economical power, how do empires make money, through taxes and mainly trade. If the byzantines cannot trade with the east this mean them being weak economically. Meaning the empires weak. You dont understnad eastern history too much im not gonna bother going in deep.

If you dont have great understanding of islam they why argue with me about it. The turks were one of the first people to adopt islam, we are as islamic as the arabs. The ottomans helped islam grow, i dont know why you dont see this. look at every muslim empire, the ottomans seljuks timurids and moghuls are the best of them, and none were of arab descendency.

i do know that the country turkey is western minded because nowadays its full of idiots and fools who forgotten their ancestors and dont even follow islam properly. and the ones that do follow islam use it to build an islamic republic, just like the arabs. im talking about history a time when turks were honourable muslims and did a lot for the religion of islam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples
all about the turkic peoples.

im telling you most things so you can learn, its good to learn.

I say the ottomans taught arabs a lot because the disipline contained in a nomad lifestyle would benefit following islam a lot. most arab nations just abuse islam, like they do now. look at saudi arabia their kings are fools. Al queda dont follow islam, neither does the taliban. under ottoman control most of this stopped. Saladin is a good example as well to stop this abuse of the religion. the ottomans showed respect to other religions as well. they allowed christians and jews to live in the empire. the only other islamic state the ottomans had known war with was the iranian safavids, this was mainly the ottomans being sunni and the safavids being sh'ire muslims. Also the timurids had war with the ottomans the reason for this was that tamerlane wanted the ottomans rule to end and the turks represented by the seljuks, as tamerlane belived the seljuks were the rightful descendents from the mongol empire. so the ottomans didnt go on a destruction war in the 15th century. review your facts please.
arabs may be the original muslims but as islam teaches anyone can be muslim it doesnt matter about race. So arabs being original doesnt really matter. its what the arabs did to aid the growth of islam. all im saying is that the turkish dynasties have done more.

back to SS, if the image shows one of his sons then why would the other be different. from your terms we must look at the possibility that this mans wife cheated on him.
if SS was black then why would rome have a statue of him in the capitolian museam. from what you claim of the europeans hiding the true rulers of europe why aint they hiding him??

Kephrem
05-18-2006, 05:29 PM
ok you have to understnad this for one for you to get the entire perception here. Turks arent turks in the country of turkey. Turks are a race of people. not just in turkey.


Sir you have yet to show many examples of these Turks from Turkey (the BASE of the Empire, as you stated) who are visibly Mongolian (or even Chinese!) to lend credence to your previous assertions.


There are turks in western china, mongolia, siberia, central asia, eastern europe, parts of arabia, and russia.

That there are Turks in these aras I don't doubt, but it doesn't lend proof that the Turkish people are Mongolian or even Chinese.

dont you understand the first turks came from central asia, as the population grew most migrated west.

If "Central Asia" means Caucasia, South Georgia Russia and adjacent areas then I would agree.


The turks didnt adopt islam because they wanted to align with the arabs against the byzantines.

I never suggested that they did either, please read my statement carefully, I rather asked if that alleged "adoption" of Islam was simply a conversion based off a military alliance sought by the Arabs who were themselves enemies of the Byzantines.


The karahan turks lived in the regions of uzbekistan they were the first muslim turks. why would the byzantine pose a threat to them at that time??

They wouldn't have posed a threat, but if you knew military history as you've claimed you do, you would've known that the region of the Caucasus, Khazaria, and adjacent lands was a strategic military outpost that was procured by the Emperor and the Caliphate.

You have no idea what your talking about here. Your looking at turks in turkey, turkey was just the base of the ottoman empire it is not were turks come from.

Turks were cave dwellars in the early Dark Ages, and even to modern times there was examples of that, your general area of occupation was the region of South Georgia Russia and the Caucasus.



With the yassa i am showing you the relations with the turks and mongols we use the same laws,

I don't doubt mixing occured between the two groups in question, but that you are the same people based on your ancestors using the laws of the Mongols isn't proof that you were the same people. The Mongols would have been more civilized then the inhabitants of the previously mentioned areas.


we have the same names, everytime i hear mongols talk i can pick out certain phrases and understand. Turks have mongol names, my real name is cengizhan which is actually ghengis kahn. the seljuk empire started in kazakhistan, i believe kazakhistan is in central asia.


That the Mongols got to your ancestors before the Arabs did (with Islam) and gave you language, some customs, and laws isn't PROOF that you were the same people.


turks were just another tribe from central asia like the mongols and other peoples. We didnt occupy that land they just were born there.

See above.


the weakeaning of the byzantine, ever heard of the silk road??

Yes, I have.

the east is full of economical power, how do empires make money, through taxes and mainly trade.

I was well aware of this.

If the byzantines cannot trade with the east this mean them being weak economically.

Please provide proof that the Byzantines were unable to trade with the east starting in the "9th centur"y and for "700 years'" thereafter. (your given figures of their gradual decline)


Meaning the empires weak. You dont understnad eastern history too much im not gonna bother going in deep.

I understand it plenty, but anyway, see above.



If you dont have great understanding of islam they why argue with me about it.

I won't argue with your assertions that that Moors and Arabs were basically insignificant and that the Ottoman converts were the superstars of world Islam, because I would rather see a Muslim, Arab, or Moor engage your ascertations with more knowledge concerning their own culture.


The turks were one of the first people to adopt islam, we are as islamic as the arabs.

This is incorrect, continental Africans and the original black Jews were Muslims before the barbarian Turks.


The ottomans helped islam grow, i dont know why you dont see this. look at every muslim empire, the ottomans seljuks timurids and moghuls are the best of them, and none were of arab descendency.

The Turks in fact inherited their empire on the back of Arabs and Moors, your lot basically converted some caucasians in eastern europe, and asians in western Asia.


i do know that the country turkey is western minded because nowadays its full of idiots and fools who forgotten their ancestors and dont even follow islam properly.

So why did you previously mention your place of birth to try and convince us that you're not coming into this discussion with a western perspective?



I say the ottomans taught arabs a lot because the disipline contained in a nomad lifestyle would benefit following islam a lot. most arab nations just abuse islam, like they do now. look at saudi arabia their kings are fools. Al queda dont follow islam,

I don't wish to engage you in this subject here, perhaps if you make a seperate post I will add my thoughts to it.


neither does the taliban.

And your reasoning as to why the Taliban don't follow Islam, is?


so the ottomans didnt go on a destruction war in the 15th century. review your facts please.

I never brought up their 'war path', I was alluding to the fact that original Arabs and Muslims were pushed back with the ascendency of the caucasian white turks. (just as the original people of Spain, and Jews, and Arabs, and Moors, and West Africans, and Native Americans were put down by the Spaniards)


arabs may be the original muslims but as islam teaches anyone can be muslim it doesnt matter about race. So arabs being original doesnt really matter.

Opinion. Again, I'm sure there are Arabs and Muslims who would take issue with your statements.


its what the arabs did to aid the growth of islam. all im saying is that the turkish dynasties have done more.

See above.


back to SS, if the image shows one of his sons then why would the other be different.

What we do know is SS was of Phoenician descent, that he is shown as a man of color, and that one of his sons was buffed out of the image for whatever reason. *If* his wife was of Italian descent their sons would've been of a so-called mulatto look. Which can be seen in this bust of his son CARACALLA.


http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/gaddis/HST354/Jan23/Caracalla.jpg



if SS was black then why would rome have a statue of him in the capitolian museam. from what you claim of the europeans hiding the true rulers of europe why aint they hiding him??

I'm well aware that SS has many statues which are shown in many famous museums, but I don't recall saying they "hide" anything concerning him, that they may distort the facts in general, and conceal some things was more to my original point.





http://www.uploadfile.info/uploads/292cedc6c0.jpg (http://www.uploadfile.info)

http://www.uploadfile.info/uploads/b86a1b36a8.jpg (http://www.uploadfile.info)

http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/severus.html

Kenny Powers
05-18-2006, 08:09 PM
this is all false, you need to find a crediable source...

Kephrem
05-18-2006, 08:32 PM
The images in the first post of the thread come from Fairbairns Book of Crests and other books dealing with Heraldry, which were featured in reknown black scholar J.A. Rogers book "Nature Knows No Color Line". Instead of saying "this is all false" let's start with any evidence which you may have to refute that.

HANZO
05-19-2006, 12:26 PM
man i quit with you cause you just dont understand and dont want to believe the truth. you still dont get it do you. The original turks came from central asia, in the areas of western china and mongolia. They moved east and spread all over central asia, the seljuk turks built an empire from western china to anatolia. Once they blocked the eastern routes from the byzantine they stopped the byzantines from trading. When the mongolian empire of ghengis kahn started to grow they consumed the seljuk empire. split anatolia and the ottomans were formed. This is what im saying the turks dont come from anatolia, yes many turks who live in turkey may look caucasian or arabic. but orginal turks will most definetly have central asian descendency. Have you seen how people in uzbekistan Turkmenistan kazakhistan look. they have no separation from mongols.
Have you seen the size of the turkish empires calling us dwellers in the dark ages is foolish. The ottoman empire was bigger than the roman empire, the seljuk empire ruled the whole of central asia, anatolia and parts of the middle east. you really have no idea what your talking about, i am serious now you dont know nothing about the ottoman empire. it is considered to be one of the greatest empires to step foot on this earth. no one can disagree with that it stretched from vienna to iran, the whole of arabia, north africa and parts of russia.
the only caucasian white people the ottomans had in their armies were janniserries. The rest were all the nomad horsemen from central asia. the ottoman lifestyle had a closer relationship to arab lifestlye. but the seljuks lived a typical nomad lifestlye. both empires used nomadic tactics which they gained from them living in central asia.
what im saying with turks is that the original turks came from western china, and mongolia they were just like the yuan or han dynasty much smaller though. is this hard to understand??? many turks will have ancestors from these areas although they may not look mongol or chinese they do have a bloodline. i even remember japanese researchers detecting turkish bloodline to japan. some turks in turkey may even look chinese, for all the people who are familiar with football(soccer) a turkish player named ilhan mansiz became very famous in japan because he looked eastern. if you go to north turkey there are a lot of turks who have distinctive relationships to mongols or chinese people. I am not saying that turks arents mixed, turkey was ruled by romans and greeks for milleniums and am not doubting that there blood would have mixed in with turks. But turk the turk people are known to be descendents of the mongols or the chinese. nomadic people tend to mix with the population they conquer. but my point is that most turks will almost definetly have descendents from the east. some may show it some may not.

You have the same mentality that westerners have on turks. Just another bunch of muslim barbarians. The turks did not inherit their empire from the arabs and moors. please be serious your just now again trying to manipulate history by making it sound that other races are useless. get your facts right, what has made you hate turks as much as white people. turkish history is always written just like mongol history by the losers. As i had said before westerners hate turks becuase they conquered their lands and arabs also hate turks becuase they didnt like the fact that they were ruled by another race. the saudi arabians destroyed every mosque and palace built by the ottomans. why??? pure jealousy. the reason for such lust for hate against one race of people. it is difficult to understand a bunch of nomads can run in and conquer your lands and do soo much and last so long. The west and arabs just couldnt take it. you are doing the same as what you claim the whites did to the black people and thats destroying a races history. There are hardly any ottoman artifacts left in arabia because they were destroyed by the arabs. The fact that we know so much about ottoman history was that they power was too much to conceal. and that the turkic race which is so big doesnt hide it like the rest of the world.

as for me i have had enough of this arguement because trust i have done it a lot and am getting sik and tired of writing the same shit over and over again. So kephram peace to you. much respect. please dont be offended if i said anything to upset you or your peoples.

Kephrem
05-19-2006, 03:41 PM
man i quit with you cause you just dont understand and dont want to believe the truth. you still dont get it do you. The original turks came from central asia, in the areas of western china and mongolia.

Assertion. It seems like somebody is attempting to escape the classification of being a Caucasian.


They moved east and spread all over central asia, the seljuk turks built an empire from western china to anatolia.

Irregardless of where they built their empire it doesn't make them of the real authentic Mongol and Asian people.

Once they blocked the eastern routes from the byzantine they stopped the byzantines from trading.

Assertion. Source, please.


When the mongolian empire of ghengis kahn started to grow they consumed the seljuk empire. split anatolia and the ottomans were formed. This is what im saying the turks dont come from anatolia, yes many turks who live in turkey may look caucasian or arabic. but orginal turks will most definetly have central asian descendency.

Again, a geographic location doesn't make you of the authentic Asian or Mongolian peoples, and I had already conceded that there was mixing between the two groups.


Have you seen how people in uzbekistan Turkmenistan kazakhistan look. they have no separation from mongols.

Again I have already conceded that caucasians more east do have in some cases visible admixture, you are making no new point here.


Have you seen the size of the turkish empires calling us dwellers in the dark ages is foolish.

Where were you before the Muslims and Byzantines even noticed you, please answer this.


The ottoman empire was bigger than the roman empire, the seljuk empire ruled the whole of central asia, anatolia and parts of the middle east. you really have no idea what your talking about, i am serious now you dont know nothing about the ottoman empire.


No one said that they didn't rule those areas, you have no point here.


it is considered to be one of the greatest empires to step foot on this earth. no one can disagree with that it stretched from vienna to iran, the whole of arabia, north africa and parts of russia.

See above. And without the Byzantines and Arabs setting up in and influencing those places there would'nt have been such an expansive empire for your romanticized Turks.


the only caucasian white people the ottomans had in their armies were janniserries.

The Ottomans were Caucasians (as are the modern people of Turkey) with some Mongol admixture, that is all.



what im saying with turks is that the original turks came from western china, and mongolia they were just like the yuan or han dynasty much smaller though. is this hard to understand???

Let's say a caucasian group migrated east and had a faction of themselves in that area (W. China and then moved west as the original Turks), that still would NOT make you Mongolians back THEN and it certainly does NOT make you descendents of the Chinese. (!)



many turks will have ancestors from these areas although they may not look mongol or chinese they do have a bloodline.

Having a so-called bloodline does NOT make you descendents of those people. There are many caucasians in North America that have Native and Black blood but they are neither descendents of these people or of West Africans.


i even remember japanese researchers detecting turkish bloodline to japan. some turks in turkey may even look chinese,

So now you're Japanese as well?

Anything but Caucasian I take it??

for all the people who are familiar with football(soccer) a turkish player named ilhan mansiz became very famous in japan because he looked eastern.

See above. Johnny Depp may look Native American (because of a "bloodline") but they're not ready to make him a chief anytime soon.


if you go to north turkey there are a lot of turks who have distinctive relationships to mongols or chinese people.

Having "relationships" doesn't qualify to make them Mongols or Chinese(!) either. Perhaps some of the offspring are that, but not the people of Turkey in general.


I am not saying that turks arents mixed, turkey was ruled by romans and greeks for milleniums

And what makes you think you are not their descendents --and that it was simply a faction who migrated east to mix with Mongols? Rather then your assertions that you are descendents of some far off peoples such as the Chinese, and allegedly the Japanese. (!)

and am not doubting that there blood would have mixed in with turks. But turk the turk people are known to be descendents of the mongols or the chinese.

The topic is controversial to say the least.

While most historians believe that the actual migration of Turks was relatively small, genetic testing has revealed that as much as 30% of Turks have varying degrees of Central Asian ancestry.[22] However, there are also other researches showing that paternal gene flow from Central Asia could be as low as 9%, indicating the minor genetic influence of Turkic speakers on existing population of Anatolia.[23]


Turkish phenotypes and diversity


While the MAJORITY of Turks do bear a common brunette Mediterranean appearance similar to that of neighboring countries, there are large visible exceptions that are a testament to the legacy of population movements into the region. People walking in a Turkish street or watching a Turkish movie can see Turks of most physical types prevalent in the country, from the blond haired and-blue-eyed to Asiatic-looking individuals. Turkey, like so many other vast former imperialist powers such as the Romans and the British, in part reflects its imperial past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_people





nomadic people tend to mix with the population they conquer. but my point is that most turks will almost definetly have descendents from the east. some may show it some may not.

Please provide empirical evidence that "most" are descendents of the Mongols and Chinese.

The turks did not inherit their empire from the arabs and moors.

I said they "inherited" it on the BACKS of the Arabs and Moors (implying non compliance), so please, if you're going to quote me, try to quote the whole statement.

please be serious your just now again trying to manipulate history by making it sound that other races are useless.

Are you really one to talk? Should I quote what you have said in regards to Arabs, Moors, and Turks in this thread?


get your facts right, what has made you hate turks as much as white people.

No one mentioned anything about "hating" anything, please get YOUR facts straight and refrain from LYING to booster your point.


turkish history is always written just like mongol history by the losers. As i had said before westerners hate turks becuase they conquered their lands and arabs also hate turks becuase they didnt like the fact that they were ruled by another race. the saudi arabians destroyed every mosque and palace built by the ottomans. why??? pure jealousy. the reason for such lust for hate against one race of people. it is difficult to understand a bunch of nomads can run in and conquer your lands and do soo much and last so long.

No, it's actually not difficult to understand. That's if one has knowledge that it was 'pretenders to the throne' that rose on the world scene (and the Devil) -- hence Renasaince (the Rebirth of) Europe, the Western oppressor (to Blacks, Native Americans, and Asians), and the Turks all gaining the ascendency at the same time, we can begin to understand WHY the world has experienced much degradation, atrocities, and lies concerning history.


The west and arabs just couldnt take it. you are doing the same as what you claim the whites did to the black people and thats destroying a races history.

See above.


There are hardly any ottoman artifacts left in arabia because they were destroyed by the arabs. The fact that we know so much about ottoman history was that they power was too much to conceal. and that the turkic race which is so big doesnt hide it like the rest of the world.

Boasting that you were on top when evil began to be multiplied by the rulers of this world (500 plus years ago) is nothing to glory in, IMHO.

as for me i have had enough of this arguement because trust i have done it a lot and am getting sik and tired of writing the same shit over and over again. So kephram peace to you. much respect. please dont be offended if i said anything to upset you or your peoples.

No offense taken.

PEACE

HANZO
05-20-2006, 09:01 AM
are you familiar with timur, leader of the timurid empire. Tamerlane as some people call him, he invaded anatolia with his army of turkic-mongols. An army of turkic-mongols. This is what the timurid empire mainly consisted of. Also to prove that ottomans werent caucasian, look at pictures of fatih sultan mehmet (mehmet the conqueror) and suleyman the magnificent. They dont look caucasian. You see the ottomans are the only empire ever to have one blood line, its always been father son no one else has taken the throne. The golden horde which was the khanate of jochi, ghenghis kahns oldest son was recognized as a turkic horde. what i am saying and you not getting is that turks and mongols share a lot, just like tartars merkits and mongols. tartars and merkits didnt migrate west, the turks and mongols did. the turkish culture resembles eastern culture a lot the only impact if the arabs is the impact of islam and thats it. Anthing else is turkey is prodominetly eastern. what made the ottomans suprerior cavalry men in warfare?? our caucasian roots, i dont think so. janniseries were christian born caucasian brought up to be fanatical muslims. As the turks knew that they would make much better foot soldiers. If the turks were mainly caucasian in ottoman times why the need for this then. always remember that most of central asia are turkic peoples. the migration to the west was with the mongols and seljuks. and this was mainly soldiers that migrated. the turks controlled central asia before they invaded the west. you still cant call us dwellers in the dark ages, its the same as saying the chinese or indian were dwellers in the dark ages because they didnt come in contact with any of the western powers. the impact of the turks were clear as soon as they stepped there foot in western terrotories. a but like when the huns first appeared in europe, no one knew anthing about them and the europeans would make up stories saying that they were monsters, with 3 heads and 10 arms or something like that.
as with all turkic people turks in turkey do mainly have caucasian looks, but i wouldnt say they are totally caucasian. As for fact i know when the country was occupied in world war 1, when greeks, russians, italians, french, arabs, armenians and english occupied the country they had raped and spoiled the population. It is well known that turkish commanders ordered the killing of everyone that was raped by the invading forces, and all traces of these peoples being wiped out of existance in turkey. but after living in these lands for 900 years, it is inevitable that mixing has occured with turks who live in the west in the country. remember this that turks dont just consist of turks in turkey most turks live in central asia. i would call these people real turkish people as they still speak old turkish and write in old turkish. as tamerlane said that they are the main descendents of the seljuk turks. also to get a good understanding of the ottoman empire look up the seljuk turks. they are an empire who were still muslim but resembled central asians much more than mongols. the seljuks didnt allow mixing like the ottomans. when they conquered lands either they will allow the original population to live and place a seljuk governer. the main seljuk turks lived in the big cities. and didnt move into conquered cities.

the ottoman turks never opressed people in africa or arabia, only the wars with the shia safavid empire is were the turks went on killing spree's. the growth of the turkish empire was just one of provocation, when they settled in the west, the egyptians would attack turkish settlements more then often. This lead to the turkic-mongol armies to invade arabia. When they did that the byzantines attacked the turks, this again made the turks invade anatolia. when the crusades started, the turks and muslims were slaughtered by them. reason why the ottoman empire became an imperial empire, the turkish people grew up hating everyone around them, reason why they conquered arabia and eastern europe. The same scenario as with the mongol empire. the turks were only seen as a destructive empire by the west. but isnt every super power seen as destructive by their enemies.
i aint romanticizing turks, ok i may be a turk and may be a bit biased but as for a fact i am not the greatest fan of the turkish people who live in turkey because they are a very good representation of what the nation of gods and the earths say when they say the 85%. turks are blind they want to be western, i always say we have been fighting the westerners for years they never liked us why dont turkey align themselves closer with their blood brothers in asia. only a few who realise the truth behind turkish history knows. we arent greek, roman or arab. we are turks. its as simple as that we are from central asia, no one has credible source that we are direct descendance of any other far eastern civilzation. but because the turkic people resemble mongols and chinese more it is said that turkic ppl's are very close to them. think of it this way not every arab is the same, you get white arabs, black arabs, and brown skinned arabs. but they are all arabian. the same falls for turks, you get white turks, chinese turks, mongol turks, kazakh turks, russian turks, siberian turks. they are will have a link to each other. unlike arabs, turks spread out wider as the nomad lifstyle allowed for this to happen. a very good example of this and the first turk tribe was the gokturk empire. Gok or kok meaning roots in turkish thus meaning the 'roots of turks'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Chinese_history
find tujue, this shows that the first turk people are the gokturks. and that they migrated to the west. this shows that the turks were an ethnic group in china.
think of it this way if they ottoman empire wasnt to be, but it was still the seljuk empire, i believe that there would be a very large decrease in the number of caucasian looking turkish people.

peace.

Big Risk
05-20-2006, 10:11 AM
Im no scholar but..