A "Lost White Tribe" That Created A Global Racial Caste
A "Lost White Tribe" That Created A Global Racial Caste
A "Lost White Tribe" That Created A Global Racial Caste
———————————————————
———————————————————
———————————————————
———————————————————
———————————————————
———————————————————
———————————————————
——
100,000 YA We all evolved in the last 100,000
years from the same small number of tribes that
migrated out of Africa and colonized the
world". "All human beings are 99.99% the
same at the DNA level and the remaining 0.1%
genetic variation that exist seldom segregate in a
manner that confirms to the racial boundaries
constructed by social political means.”
———————————————————
———————————————————
———————————————————
———————————————————
——————————————
The common African mutation has also been found in Zambia and
Cameroun, amongst African-Americans, in Saudi Arabia and in
Greece on the same chromosome background (haplotype),
suggesting a single origin. The origin of the mutation is the African
Continent.
———————————————————
———————————————————
———————
In Biblical times people with albinism were
banished or thrown out, and forced to live in
colonies just as people with leprosaria or
Hansen's Disease were forced to live in leper
colonies and away from other people. The Black
Race believed that God was delivering judgment
on a family with albinism and that the
individual with albinism is cursed or is the
embodiment of sin.
His-story of the
Khazars/Ashkenazi/Phoenician/Druids/Nephili
m bloodlines:Copyright Naomi Astral © 17
March 2013
Seems that everyone is talking about the last
Pope [Malachy prophecies] and the ‘Black
Pope’ [Nostrodamus prophecies] but after
scouring the internet, no one has made the
connection between the new Pope, Jorge Mario
Bergoglio and the prophecies of Gog and
Magog from the bible. The new Pope even has
the word, ‘Gog’ in the middle of his surname!
[‘Google’ also contains the word, Gog and
‘Yahoo’ means a beast masquerading as a hue-
man..not too dissimilar to Yahu as in, Neten-
yahoo]
Share
in
101Save
155Shares
“The Welsh chroniclers, for example, made no such clear distinction. The Danes coming
in by way of England and the Norwegians by way of Ireland were pretty well all black:
Black Gentiles(y Kenedloed Duon), Black Norsemen(y Normanyeit Duon), Black Host,
Pagans, Devils and the like.”(CONT.) See A HISTORY OF THE VIKINGS by Gwyn
Jones(1968)
“Prince of Maine Mor(moor) was accompanied by his father Eochaidh, and his two sons
Breasal and Amlaff.” Eochaid mac Run, known in English simply as Eochaid, was king
of the Picts from 878 to 889 He was a son of Run, King of Strathclyde, and his mother
was the daughter of Kenneth MacAlpin (NIGER VAL DUBH)
“There are turning hither to our shore lithe keels, ring-stags [ships] with long sail-yards,
many shields, shaven oars, A NOBLE SEA-LEVY, MERRY WARRIORS. Fifteen
companies are coming ashore, but out in Sogn there lie seven thousand more. There lie
here in the dock off Cliff-holt surf-deer [ships] SWART-BLACK and GOLD
ADORNED. There is by far the most of their host.” Helge Lay, i. 197-
206.” See SCANDINAVIAN BRITAINby William Gershom Collingwood(1908)
“There was a man hight Thorvard; he married Freydis, a natural daughter of Erik the Red;
he went [219] also with them, and Thorvald the son of Erik (100), and THORHALL who
was called the hunter; he had long been with Erik, and served him as huntsman in
summer and steward in winter; he was a large man, and strong, BLACK AND LIKE A
GIANT, silent and foul-mouthed in his speech, and always egged on Erik to the
worst” See SAGA OF THORFINN KARLSEFNI.
“According to Egils Saga, of the 2 famous sons of Kveldulf, Thorolf was tall and
handsome like his mothers people, but Grim took after his father was black and ugly.
Grim’s sons Thorolf and Egill, born out in Iceland, repeated the pattern- Thorolf was the
image of his uncle, tall, handsome and sunny-natured, and many Egill was black, even
uglier than his father, totuous and incalculable,…..etc. craggy head, broad nose, heavy
jaw and swart visage.” See A HISTORY OF THE VIKINGS, GWYN JONES pg 86
“The evidence indicates that Blacks in ancient times came to Britian from Spain, Felix
Arabia, Egypt, Ethiopia, West Africa, India, Persia and what is today named Denmark.
These Negroes were builders, scientists, masters of ocean travel and inventors of letters,
according to Higgins, they built Stonehende, Gerald Massey agrees pg 11 Book of The
Beginnings.” See Ancient and Modern Britons- MacRitchie pg 2
“The Danes, then were like the ‘MOORs’ -black. Like them, too, they were Picts, as
more than one eminent writer has proved. The title of’GROM’ (WOAD-STAINED) is
not confined to Highland genealogies, it was the actual name of a grim old pagan Dane
who ruled over Denmark,(it meant daub).” See page 121, -David MacRitchie- Ancient
and Modern Britons: Volume One (Ancient & Modern Britons)
DUBH, BLACK,SWARTHY,SWARTI
Related Posts:
• The Swarthy Kings of Europe: Moorish Kings of Europe…
• British Academics Angry At New GCSE Course That
Says…
• Moorish (Black) Kings of Europe: Henry II (972-1024)…
• Jack Brown: Rastafari comes in all colours and races
• Black Mata Africa, the Mother of God!
Share
in
101Save
155Shares
Post navigation
PREVIOUS POST
German Mohrs/Moors of Strasbourg – By – Marc
Washington
NEXT POST
Only Rastafari Shall Save Them Kenyans – By – Jah Rateng
Skabeli
129 THOUGHTS ON “THE BLA-MAORS – THE BLACK
VIKINGS AND THE BLACK DANES – COMPILED BY
INVASION2012”
COMMENT NAVIGATION
← OLDER COMMENTS
. NorthsideRastaMARCH 9, 2011 AT 5:16 AMTacitus
in 70 or 90
b.c.e. a Roman historian notes that the “Silures”of
Britania have some who are dark skinned with
“unusally curly hair”.In J.A.Rogers Sex&Race vol.1and
other booksmention these darker,ancient,Brits. why
do some whites and blacks doubt any ancient
presence of blacks in ancient Europe? Mind control to
confuse and keep minds dull withoutresearch
capabilities is strong and malevolent today as ever.
REPLY
. lwMAY 14, 2013 AT 2:11 PMIt is silly to try and rewrite
history… the same people who live on Irish soil
today lived on Irish Soil 10,000 years ago! The
black vikings in Ireland were called so as they
were dark haired unlike native Irish and the
blonde fair vikings and finally the fair Norman
invaders. Irish people know where they come
from so just ask and families can tell you which
people they come from.REPLY
. JahdeyMAY 14, 2013 AT 2:39 PMIgnorance and hubris!
Pride goes before a fall…REPLY
. CeeB-ElOCTOBER 5, 2016 AT 9:54 AMNo they didn’t
lmao the Caucasian race is less than 10,000
old.REPLY
. Rahel Saddiq Musawwir ELOCTOBER 3, 2018 AT
1:57 PM?its 20,000 my dna 275000yrs
the original y chromosome is in my dna
REPLY
Vikings
Ancient History
History
Ad by Grammarly
18 Answers
Francesco Brosolo
Answered Apr 20, 2018 · Author has 1.4k answers and 2.1m answer
views
The vikings were familiar enough with african people to give their
ethnicity / appearance a name - blámaðr. Literally blue
men translated into English. (The colours black and blue
apparantly had the same name for the vikings, a common pet
name for a black sheep was blåmann, or blue man in English, but
I digress.) The word is not unlike the word "blackamoor" which is
Middle English for native africans.
So we know that the vikings met africans, and we know that they
tended to trade with the people they met. It's not a great leap to
assume that some vikings must at some point have traded with
africans. But I am not sure there is any hard evidence for much
trading with africans, on the african continent.
To let me expand upon my previous reply, the vikings attacked
and raided Arzilla and Nakur in present day Morocco. There is
evidence for raids at Rabat on the Atlantic coast, at Al-Jazair and
at Tunis. It's what referred to (I presume) in this map at
wikipedia. (Forgive me for using a map on wikipedia as a source,
it was the most relevant I could online.) In 1108 King Sigurd
Jorsalfar sent 300 ships with 10.000 warriors to Palestine and
beat the Muslims forces at Saifa in Syria in 1110.
Sponsored by TruthFinder
Have you ever googled yourself? Do a “deep
search” instead.
Americans can't believe how this new site can reveal so much
more. Enter a name to begin.
learn more at truthfinder.com
Related Questions
Anonymous
Answered Sep 21, 2017
Some good answers here. Chances are excellent there was at least
one. The tendency of people to move around in earlier times is
underestimated by modern people. For example, when pilgrims
first arrived in an Indian town, they were greeted in fluent
English. An Indian had been kidnapped to England and France,
and managed to make his way home.
Sponsored by Honey
ii. Some canoes were 80 feet (24 m) in length, carrying 100 men
or more. Documents from 1506 for example, refer to war-canoes
on the Sierra Leone river, carrying 120 men. Others refer to
Guinea coast peoples using canoes of varying sizes – some 70 feet
(21 m) in length, 7–8 ft broad, with sharp pointed ends, rowing
benches on the side, and quarter decks or focastles build of reeds,
and miscellaneous facilities such as cooking hearths, and storage
spaces for crew sleeping mats.
Middle Age Swahili kingdoms are known to have had trade port
islands and trade routes[95] with the Islamic world and Asia and
were described by Greek historians are "metropolises".
[96] Famous African trade ports such
as Mombasa, Zanzibar, Mogadishu and Kilwa[97] were known to
Chinese sailors such as Zheng He and medieval Islamic historians
such as the Berber Islamic voyager Abu Abdullah ibn Battuta.
[98] The dhow was the ship of trade used by the Swahili. They
could be massive.
912 Views
Related Questions
Ask
Related Questions
3
The Viking Explorer
Who Beat
Columbus to
America
Leif Eriksson Day commemorates
the Norse explorer believed to have
led the first European expedition to
North America.
CHRISTOPHER KLEIN
So who were the people who really deserve to be called the first
Americans? VOA asked Michael Bawaya, the editor of the
magazine American Archaeology. He told VOA that they came
here from Asia probably "no later than about 15,000 years ago."
They walked across the Bering land bridge that back in the day
connected what is now the U.S. state of Alaska and Siberia.
Fifteen-thousand years ago, ocean levels were much lower and the
land between the continents was hundreds of kilometers wide.
The area would have looked much like the land on Alaska's
Seward Peninsula does today: treeless, arid tundra. But despite its
relative inhospitality, life abounded there.
But there's more. Today, it's widely believed that before the Clovis
people, there were others, and as Bawaya says, "they haven't really
been identified." But there are remants of them in places as far-
flung as the U.S. states of Texas and Virginia, and as far south as
Peru and Chile. We call them, for lack of a better name, the Pre-
Clovis people.
Today the area is barren, but a thousand years ago there were
trees everywhere and the area likely was used as winter stopover
point, where Vikings repaired their boats and sat out bad weather.
It's not quite clear if the area was a permanent settlement, but it is
clear that the expansion-minded Norsemen were here long before
Columbus.
The sweet potato, native to South America was around in Polynesia 1,000
years ago. (Credit: Miya)
Yes, that's right the sweet potato. This humble pinkish-red tuber
is native to South America. And yet, there have been sweet
potatoes on the menu in Polynesia as far back as 1,000 years ago.
So how did it get there?
There are other theories out there. A retired British Naval officer
named Gavin Menzies has been pushing the idea that the Chinese
colonized South America in 1421.
Well, here at VOA, we are trying to tell the story of America. And
what is clear is that America was a melting pot hundreds of years
before the Statue of Liberty began urging the world, "Give me
your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe
free."
Your opinion
This forum has been closed.
All comments (3)
victorOctober 13, 2016 9:19 AMColumbus was trying
to find a route to China. Along the way he knew he had to pass India
before he hit China. (Check out Marco Polo) He found a land mass,
and thought he had found India. And he thought the natives were
Indians. And that's why the redskins were called Indians. Did anyone
try to find out why the natives of the present USA were called
Indians?
in Share
2Save
190Shares
References:
5. Ibid, p.352.
6. Ibid., p.353.
7. Ibid., p.352.
8. Ibid., p.353.
Black celts
The Europeans make it clear that the early Welsh
were Black Celts. They were a small black race that
came to Britain from Iberia. They were forced off the
mainland by whites.
Black Celts 5
Black Celts 6
Save
95% Upvoted
BEST
level 1
[deleted]
63 points
·
4 years ago
One of my favourite historical factoids about the use of the word
"black" is that, when Charles II was on the run from Cromwell's
forces, the wanted poster described him as a "tall black man".
I'm just waiting for some tumblroid to explain to us that the
English royal family are descended from Africans.
Share
Report
Save
level 2
[deleted]
46 points
·
4 years ago
Here you go.
The Bad History starts almost immediately:
King Edward III of England was the son of Edward II and Philippa of
Hainault.
Philippa of Hainault was Edward III's wife, not mother.
That is as good as the history gets from that point on.
Share
Report
Save
level 3
recondition
52 points
·
4 years ago
·
edited 4 years ago
It's been revealed that medievalpoc was a blog with good
intentions but run by a white person from america pretending to
be a person of color. She didn't understand how race works in
europe now or in the medieval period and claimed jewish and
roma people counted as white people in the medieval period. Just
all sorts of bad history and it's for the best the blog is no more.
Update: I hope people aren't downvoting this thinking i'm some le
epic anti-sj dude because I'm just a concerned person of color not
wanting people spreading disinfo and I'm against white people
pretending to be black.
Share
Report
Save
level 4
millrun
level 5
StoicSophist
level 6
Turnshroud
level 7
[deleted]
10 points
·
4 years ago
That is not dead that can eternal lie.
And over strange eons even death may die.
Share
Report
Save
level 8
[deleted]
3 points
·
4 years ago
The correlation of the contents...
shudder
Share
Report
Save
level 4
alynnidalar
11 points
·
4 years ago
http://omgstopbeingashittyperson.tumblr.com/post/88420355773/
omgstopbeingashittyperson-this-is-girljanitor here ya go, there's
more on that site. She's still running the blog but I'm realllly
uncomfortable with a white person pretending to be a person of
color for internet social justice points.
Share
Report
Save
level 6
[deleted]
2 points
·
4 years ago
I don't even particularly like the term "person of color" since it
seems to kinda lump in any non-white person into one group,
which is what I thought we were trying to move away from.
Share
Report
Save
level 7
recondition
5 points
·
4 years ago
Well I'm a person of color, so I feel comfortable talking about this
with you and that's commonly something said by white people.
It's not so much lumping all non-white people together and then
going "okay we're all team mates against racism" so much as
acknowledging that we're who experience racism on a systematic
level and so it gives us common footing to discuss our
experiences with racism. Though the term itself is problematic in
that it often erases anti-blackness from non-black people of color
and it doesn't pay attention to things like native american treaties
(I.e. the racism felt by natives is from one sovereign nation to
another in many cases) however, it's the best term we currently
have.
Share
Report
Save
level 8
[deleted]
1 point
·
4 years ago
Alright, I kinda see what you're saying.
Share
Report
Save
level 6
dancesontrains
level 4
zabulistan
3 points
·
4 years ago
Where did you find this out? If that's true that's very amusing.
Share
Report
Save
level 4
CantaloupeCamper
I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to type here, and did I sp
4 points
·
4 years ago
What the... why would... OMG.
Share
Report
Save
level 4
theothercoldwarkid
1 point
·
4 years ago
I'm sorry, I don't use tumblr, twitter activism is more of my thing
so I can't really give you any info on diasporic roots.
Share
Report
Save
level 6
theothercoldwarkid
level 3
[deleted]
7 points
·
4 years ago
He was his own grandpa. Bam, solved.
Share
Report
Save
level 2
yoshiK
level 3
[deleted]
8 points
·
4 years ago
Don't forget the Black Prince!
Share
Report
Save
level 4
[deleted]
6 points
·
4 years ago
He wasn't even called that during his lifetime. And, as I linked
above, Medieval POC uses that as proof he was black.
Share
Report
Save
level 4
frezik
level 3
[deleted]
5 points
·
4 years ago
There's a gaelic term for someone with dark skin, but it translates
to 'blue man' (fear gorm) so I wouldn't take any gaelic sources
talking about black men (like Kenneth the Black) at face value, it's
most likely referring to something else.
This is the same logic behind Ancient Egypt = Kemet = Black
Share
Report
Save
level 4
autowikibot
Dub of Scotland:
level 2
Ilitarist
Indians can't lift British tea. Boston tea party was inside job.
9 points
·
4 years ago
I'd like to be a tall black man one day too.
Share
Report
Save
level 1
StoicSophist
level 2
Ilitarist
Indians can't lift British tea. Boston tea party was inside job.
9 points
·
4 years ago
I've almost expected some sort of caricature carvings. Cause how
the hell else can you determine race of carved person?
Share
Report
Save
level 2
forwormsbravepercy
2 points
·
4 years ago
Comic sans was a nice touch.
Share
Report
Save
level 1
NotSquareGarden
32 points
·
4 years ago
The people of Scandinavia between the 8th and 11th century are
called Norsemen, not vikings. Vikings were the Norsemen who
chose to go on boats and plunder and trade and colonize and all
of that. The vast majority of the Norsemen were however farmers,
much like in the rest of Europe. They were also very white,
obviously.
Share
Report
Save
level 2
[deleted]
12 points
·
4 years ago
I assume they meant the Vikings specifically, since they also say
"Danes".
Share
Report
Save
level 3
NotSquareGarden
17 points
·
4 years ago
So basically, a bunch of Africans came to Scandinavia and started
their plundering journeys from here, and everyone was totally
okay with this? Huh.
Share
Report
Save
level 4
[deleted]
12 points
·
4 years ago
That's what I can't quite figure out. Does he mean that the people
living in Scandinavia were black, or that the people doing the
raiding were black? If the former, it's definitely wrong. In the case
of the latter, I'm not really sure why so many people would have
thought they were Norsemen if they were black.
Share
Report
Save
level 5
Lord_Hoot
5 points
·
4 years ago
It's certainly not beyond the bounds of credibility to say there
may have been black African Vikings. They travelled far and wide
and like most naval travellers they likely recruited new crew in
any port they came across.
To say Scandinavians were predominantly black is of course rather
absurd.
Share
Report
Save
level 4
henry_fords_ghost
4 points
·
4 years ago
haven't you read Eaters of the Dead
Share
Report
Save
level 5
wowSuchVenice
-
4 points
·
4 years ago
Nah but I've heard Eat Of The Dead, were Norsemen Lovecraftian
Egyptian cultists? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66M5-
26Uqdc&feature=kp
Share
Report
Save
level 5
gar-dena
1 point
·
4 years ago
I read the shit out of that book.
Share
Report
Save
level 2
gh333
3 points
·
4 years ago
To be fair, even within Scandinavia people use Viking to refer to
8th-11th century Norsemen. Heck, even saying 'people of
Scandinavia' isn't "correct" in a technical sense since Denmark
(and Iceland, and Norway, and parts of Finland) isn't even part of
the Scandinavian peninsula. These days I think people mostly use
the term "Viking raider" to distinguish from everyday
Scandinavians.
Share
Report
Save
level 3
Spaceraider
2 points
·
4 years ago
Heck, even saying 'people of Scandinavia' isn't "correct" in a
technical sense since Denmark (and Iceland, and Norway, and
parts of Finland) isn't even part of the Scandinavian peninsula.
Scandinavia and the Scandinavian peninsula are different.
The Scandinavian peninsula covers Norway, Sweden and some of
Finland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Peninsula
Scandinavia is slightly different than the peninsula and consist of
Denmark, Norway and Sweden. This is the definition of
Scandinavia that gets used so refering to the population of either
country as Scandinavian is
correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia
Iceland, Finland, Åland, Greenland and the Faeroes is often placed
in Scandinavia as well, but they're part of the Nordic
countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_countries
Share
Report
Save
level 4
gh333
7 points
·
4 years ago
As an Icelander I'm aware of all that. My point is that all of those
definitions notwithstanding, people's everyday use of those terms
isn't necessarily consistent with those definitions.
Share
Report
Save
level 4
[deleted]
5 points
·
4 years ago
Oh man, not the "what is Scandinavia" discussion again...
Share
Report
Save
level 2
[deleted]
2 points
·
4 years ago
That is the origin of the word, absolutely, but nowadays it's fairly
standard to refer to the entire culture and the people as "Viking".
Source: Am Swedish.
Share
Report
Save
level 3
[deleted]
6 points
·
4 years ago
I'm sorry, but your national identity and popular usage don't
change the academic definition of something. It might be okay if
we're having a conversation, but if we're speaking in historical
terms, "viking" has a specific meaning that does not apply to all
Medieval Scandinavians.
Share
Report
Save
level 4
[deleted]
2 points
·
4 years ago
·
edited 4 years ago
You may well be right, but I've never ran into or heard of a
problem relating to someone using the word like that. I think it's
not and previously on the /r/badhistory subreddit that I've ever
come across it.
But, then again, I'm not an historian.
EDIT: I scimmed through a few books I have on this and swedish
scholars seem to agree with you, the definition has
been wrongly expanded. I stand corrected.
Share
Report
Save
level 3
NotSquareGarden
1 point
·
4 years ago
So am I. The distinction is still an important one if you wish to say
something about Norse history.
Share
Report
Save
level 4
[deleted]
1 point
·
4 years ago
In some instances I guess, but as long as one is aware of the
background I don't see it as very troublesome to use the word like
that.
Share
Report
Save
level 1
[deleted]
29 points
·
4 years ago
I just want to say that trying to racially identify Vikings,
Phoenicians, or ancient Ethiopians using today's terminology of
white/black/Asian is almost bad history in itself. "Race" did not
really exist as anything other than a shorthand until the 1500s at
the earliest, so an ancient Roman could easily see a Germanic
and an Iberian as, respectively, a white person and a black
person. It would be better to say that Vikings were "proto-white"
or "ancestors of whites" than to say they were "white" as they
never would have seen themselves as members of a group called
"white people." Since race is two social constructs, one a
shorthand and the other the creation of a globalized caste
system, confusion is very commonplace.
Please correct me if I'm propagating further bad history here.
Share
Report
Save
level 2
[deleted]
22 points
·
4 years ago
I mean, I think you are technically correct, but I would at least do
the author the favor of assuming that he means that Celts and
Vikings would be black under our current racial classification. On
that point, he is categorically wrong, but it's fairly clear what he
meant.
If an ancient author described a people as having skin as black as
ebony or coal we would understand they would be called "black"
under current racial ideas.
Share
Report
Save
level 3
GothicEmperor
level 4
[deleted]
3 points
·
4 years ago
I meant it purely from an appearance perspective, not from the
perspective of ethnic identity. I only used the phrase "white" once,
and if I rephrased it as "appeared to be white by modern
standards", would it still be presentism?
I don't think I tried to say that any of the people would have
considered themselves one or the other. Simply that there was no
similarity in appearance between Celts/Norse and sub-Saharan
Africans.
Share
Report
Save
level 5
GothicEmperor
level 6
[deleted]
2 points
·
4 years ago
Oh, okay. I'm having a hard time parsing which criticisms are
leveled at me, the source material, or both. I tried to avoid the
whole "race isn't what it is today" thing, because I felt like that
was more social science, and simply tried to attack their
interpretations of their sources, specifically with regards to Tacitus
and Ephorus.
I'm also aware that there may be a flaw in my interpretation of
Ephorus, as he does differentiate between peoples that we would
consider "white" today. However, he also lumps in all the peoples
of Africa as "Ethiopian", saying that their lands stretched from
sunrise to sunset. So, there is precedent for him being less
discerning with darker or African peoples.
Share
Report
Save
level 2
ohgodtheyarealltaken
3 points
·
4 years ago
·
edited 4 years ago
This Clyde Winters guy has posted a lot all over amateur genetics
blogs and forums from what I recall. Perhaps he understands
"race" biologically as well, in the sense of "distinct
subpopulation."
In that sense, it'd be correct, for example, to say that medieval
Scandinavians would cluster with contemporary Western Eurasian
and North African populations on a PCA plot and not with sub-
Saharan Africans, whatever one thinks of the social construction
of race, when the current categorization began and so on.
Share
Report
Save
level 2
Mr5306
6 points
·
4 years ago
so an ancient Roman could easily see a Germanic and an Iberian
as, respectively, a white person and a black person.
Look, i don't really want to get into the extent of how race is
a social construct in society, but what you just said is defiantly not
representative of the reality at the time.
The ancient Celts by all manners of today's standers would be
considered white, same as the Vikings. They would have fair skin
and different facial features than those of north of Africa and
Ethiopia, please, lest not pretend that skin tone has no influence
on the habitat zone and vice-versa. Fair skin facilitates the
absorption of vitamin D from the sun which lacks in northern
regions and darker skin prevents sun damage to the skin which is
abundant in south regions, and while "ignoring" those facts might
not be considered bad history by some* its definitely Bad Science
& Bad Anthropology, very bad.
Just saying.
Share
Report
Save
level 3
ohgodtheyarealltaken
1 point
·
4 years ago
·
edited 4 years ago
I think you missed their points, judging by your reference to skin
color and going back and forth from ancient to modern
categorizations (and why would you not get into how race is a
"social construct in society" if you specifically mention skin color
that prominently?). Or perhaps I misunderstood you.
Of course, to cover another possibility, skin color has no particular
importance in population genetics, either, when it comes to
defining "races" (it's a bit like the argument that wants to,
instead, debunk "biological race" by arguing you could use sickle
cell alleles or height to classify "races") and I'm not that sure that
you would be absolutely able to reliablytell Europeans
and Northern Africans apart based on "facial features." There's a
reason old time physical anthropologists thought various "physical
types" (as flawed as typology was...something later
anthropologists clearly recognized) were present both inside and
outside Europe, for example.
Share
Report
Save
level 1
lizardflix
7 points
·
4 years ago
There are groups of people who would lead us all to believe that
white people magically sprang up just before 1492. Probably
created in a mad scientist's (black) lab.
Share
Report
Save
level 2
HobieSailor
6 points
·
4 years ago
There are people who believe pretty much exactly that, although
the timing isn't quite what you were talking about.
Share
Report
Save
level 3
PaedragGaidin
level 1
borticus
level 2
[deleted]
8 points
·
4 years ago
I mean, he coulda been. I haven't read any Space Viking accounts.
Share
Report
Save
level 1
PaedragGaidin
Catherine the Great: Death by Horseplay
4 points
·
4 years ago
Heh, I have a (genuine hippie) friend who once told me that my
Irish half was so cool because it meant I had partly African blood.
I was like, wut....
Share
Report
Save
level 2
[deleted]
3 points
·
4 years ago
I mean, assuming the "Out of Africa" theory is true, everyone
does. But it's asinine to link a shared African lineage to our
modern perceptions of race.
Share
Report
Save
level 3
PaedragGaidin
level 2
[deleted]
1 point
·
4 years ago
Oh shit, I've heard that one before. I can't for the life of my
remember where I've read it, but I'm half-ashamed to say it might
be in a Sitchin book. I think it was mentioned in a cultural context,
like music or language. Across northern Africa, into Iberia, and
then up to Ireland. Ugh, it was probably "Uriel's Machine" or
something like that.
And then there's this from "Rasta Livewire".
http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/articles/african-roots-of-
ireland/
Share
Report
Save
level 3
PaedragGaidin
level 1
TaylorS1986
level 2
_TB__
1 point
·
4 years ago
1st 2nd or 3rd gen?
Share
Report
Save
level 3
TaylorS1986
level 4
_TB__
2 points
·
4 years ago
cool, know any norwegian?
Share
Report
Save
level 5
TaylorS1986
level 6
_TB__
2 points
·
4 years ago
Cool, I live in western Norway actually! Do you know more specific
where he is from?
Share
Report
Save
level 7
TaylorS1986
level 8
_TB__
2 points
·
4 years ago
Hm, not quite. I'm from Ålesund so that's 1.5 hours away. Still
pretty cool though!
Share
Report
Save
level 1
Sks44
2 points
·
4 years ago
Wait...so are my ancestors black or Belgian? Or black Belgian?
Share
Report
Save
level 2
Lorgramoth
4 points
·
4 years ago
Blalgian.
Share
Report
Save
level 3
Lordveus
1 point
·
4 years ago
That sounds like a vomiting sort of noise.
Share
Report
Save
level 1
chrisps989
3 points
·
4 years ago
The people who write these kinds of articles don't really care if it's
true or not. It doesn't affect their goals.
Share
Report
Save
level 3
chrisps989
level 1
redwhiskeredbubul
level 2
[deleted]
14 points
·
4 years ago
but the Romans definitely didn't have modern race concepts
That's why I tried to show that the primary sources referred to
differentiated between the Celts and sub-Saharan Africans,
instead of looking for references to their skin tone.
Share
Report
Save
level 2
[deleted]
4 points
·
4 years ago
Agreed. Race is not a social construct; it is a number of social
constructs, from a handy shorthand for describing traits that
occur together ("John is black" is a lot less wordy than saying
"John is distantly descended from sub-Saharan Africans" or even
"John has dark skin, curly hair, and full lips"), to a global hierarchy
of power to a categorization of continents that bears a loose
relationship with genetic differences.
Racial purity is basically nonexistent; medieval Danes had
substantial "middle-eastern" ancestry
(http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/05/ancient-viking-mtdna-
from-denmark.html) but their descendants have been accepted as
white because of their predominantly light skin, light hair, and
characteristically European features. (Don't say medieval Danes
were white except as a shorthand for their appearance, as
whiteness didn't exist in 1300 AD.)
Share
Report
Save
level 1
hblond3
-1 points
·
4 years ago
Also, Black meant something different to early peoples - usually it
meant evil, not the skin color - like how the "black Irish" are
thought to have that name because they descended from the
Vikings who raped and pillaged Ireland before settling there...
Share
Report
Save
level 2
[deleted]
5 points
·
4 years ago
I was under the impression that "black Irish" was in reference dark
hair, not moral alignment.
Either way, the definition of "black Irish" isn't really standardized,
and the origin of whatever group it's supposed to apply to isn't
either. I've heard that they were the original Celts, that they were
Iberians who came over to Ireland during Antiquity, that they
were survivors of the sinking of the Spanish Armada, and now
that they're evil Vikings.
So, basically, the term Black Irish can be used as liberally as the
term "white".
Blending of cultures
Developments in archaeology in recent decades have highlighted
how people and goods could move over wider distances in the
early Middle Ages than we have tended to think. In the eighth
century, (before the main period of Viking raiding began), the
Baltic was a place where Scandinavians, Frisians, Slavs and Arabic
merchants were in frequent contact. It is too simplistic to think of
early Viking raids, too, as hit-and-run affairs with ships coming
directly from Scandinavia and immediately rushing home again.
The fact that these myths, when committed to writing, were not
accurate accounts is suggested by self-contradictory stories and
folklore motifs. For example, medieval legends concerning the
foundation of Dublin (Ireland) suggest either a Danish or
Norwegian origin to the town (a lot of ink has been spilt over this
matter over the years) – and there is a story of three brothers
bringing three ships which bears comparison with other origin
legends. Ironically, it was the growth of nation states in Europe
which would eventually herald the end of the Viking Age.
Unrecognisable nationalism
In the early Viking Age, modern notions of nationalism and
ethnicity would have been unrecognisable. Viking culture was
eclectic, but there were common features across large areas,
including use of Old Norse speech, similar shipping and military
technologies, domestic architecture and fashions that combined
Scandinavian and non-Scandinavian inspirations.
When the Thor movie came out, there was an uproar and
backlash from people claiming it was wrong to change the
Thor character Heimdall from white to black. Mainly this was
on racist and white supremacist websites, but some in the
media picked it up as a real thing. In the end, the backlash
was unfounded because as Harry from Ain't It Cool News said,
"To those people who asked, 'Why cast a black man as a
Viking', every scene Elba is in is [a] resounding THAT IS
WHY!" He's incredible.
So, to end the controversy once and for all, here are reasons
why it makes sense for there to be a black man in Thor: The
Dark World.
The most obvious reason is that it's a movie. They can have
Vikings played by Latinos if they want to. The casting call
for Thor: The Dark World said "any ethnicity" so there's not
reason not to hire black people as Asgardians. Thor 2 wasn't
the only movie to do this. In the movie The Norsemen (1978)
the late Deacon Jones played an African slave named Thrall.
Starring Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Stellan Skarsgård, Idris Elba,
Christopher Eccleston, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Kat Dennings, Ray Stevenson, Zachary
Levi, Tadanobu Asano and Jaimie Alexander with Rene Russo and Anthony Hopkins as Odin,
Marvel’s “Thor: The Dark World” is directed by Alan Taylor, produced by Kevin Feige, p.g.a.,
from a story by Don Payne and Robert Rodat and screenplay by Christopher L. Yost and
Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely, and is based on Marvel’s classic Super Hero Thor,
who first appeared in the comic book “Journey into Mystery “ #83 in August, 1962.
“Thor: The Dark World” is presented by Marvel Studios. The executive producers are Louis
D’Esposito, Victoria Alonso, Craig Kyle, Alan Fine, Nigel Gostelow and Stan Lee. The film
releases November 8, 2013, and is distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures.