Thanks for this tireless analytical debunking. Such work on behalf of historical veracity should not go unrewarded in this age of egregiously constructed wall-to-wall falsehoods!
A couple of questions, if I may: is it not a bald fact that no direct European contact at all was made with any sub-Saharan Africans en masse (as it were) before the 19th century? And that such contact as was had prior to that occurred exclusively through the agency of the Arab slave trade; i.e., when blacks were purchased as oddities and curiosities for display by the rich?
I suppose it depends how you define direct 'en masse contact'. Herodotus stated that the huge multiethnic Achaemenid Army that invaded Greece included contingents of Aethiopians.
Roman armies clashed multiple times with Nubian Kushite raiders that harassed Roman Egypt, going so far as to raze the Nubian capital Napata.
Also, during the Crusader era the various Islamic caliphates kept large contingents of Black African/Nubian soldiers in their ranks, the Fatimids in particular. They would have clashed with the European crusaders in many battles.
Overall, it was rare, but in both antiquity and the middle ages, you could indeed say Europeans were at times in direct contact with groups of sub-Saharan Africans. However, this contact seems to be limited and rather hostile.
Very good points. Duly noted. I suppose I’m really talking about direct contact en masse IN OUR OWN countries. Would it not have been a fact that the 18th and early 19th centuries’ obscene trade in African slaves would still have brought about only the most minimal contact between the European public and such slaves - even in major ports such as Bristol and Liverpool (in England)?
Thanks for this good faith debunking. I'm Italian-American. Yes, the genetic distance between me and a Tunisian isn't that far. That doesn't mean I'm African-American. So tired of these games they play.
They'll do anything, say anything, grasp any straw to prove white people (as person on the street understands the term, to be primarily of European descent) don't exist, aren't human, aren't deserving of our own home, didn't actually accomplish great feats, and so forth. Such bitter and petty envy.
Thanks for this, the whole "Black Athena" racial cult never rests in their desire to repaint our entire past in their favorite colors and corresponding ideology.
They get very angry unless every person, place or thing mirrors their anxieties and their desperate need to prove their moral superiority to their political enemies, which usually boils down to: "I love the black and brown more than you do, and feel their pain deeply, thus I am a better person whom you should worship and obey."
Modern Left-liberals are more obsessed about race and one-drop rules and applying moral weight to skin tone than anyone since the days of Jim Crow and the KKK. This might have served some helpful social purpose 40 or 50 years ago but has now devolved into a creepy fetish that is one of the many crippling neuroses occupying the progressive brain.
"The racialization of the world has to be the most unexpected result of the anti-discrimination battle of the last half-century. It has ensured that the battle continuously recreates the curse from which it is trying to break free. —Pascal Bruckner
This is a good article, but in one part it doesn't go far enough:
> "It stems from the now antiquated classification of peoples into three major racial groups: Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid."
Such terminology has indeed fallen out of fashion (since the modern fashion is to declare -- quite falsely -- that races are purely social constructs with no biological validity), but the "antiquated" classification that dates back to Johann Blumenbach is actually correct and validated by modern genetics.
For example, see Figure 2 of Rosenberg et al 2005, which shows quite clearly that most humans can indeed be sensibly classified into three major groupings, Caucasian, East Asian, and sub-Saharan African.
So, to summarise in a way that the article could have done, all of the various civilisations around the Mediterranean (Rome, Greece, North Africa, Egypt, Anatolia, etc) were Caucasian ("white") and this is clearly different from sub-Saharan African populations ("black").
A first class work - thank you. Cultural appropriation is often criticised by intellectual and activist circles, especially when a dominant culture borrows from another culture without respect or accuracy.
But the issue becomes more troubling when it crosses into revisionist history, where historical figures are reshaped to fit modern political or DEI narratives. A visit to the Royal Shakespeare Company, BBC or many recent film production are heavily geared towards DEI and social engineering.
Cleopatra VII, has been claimed in certain circles as black, in total contradiction to historical fact. Cleopatra for example, was part of the Ptolemaic dynasty, a Macedonian Greek ruling class installed in Egypt after Alexander the Great.
While some details of her maternal ancestry remain uncertain, the claim that Cleopatra was Black is not supported by the mainstream historical evidence. In such cases, the concern is less about cultural exchange and more about historical replacement.
These academics are such clowns it's unbelievable. I don't know why anyone thinks these people are "reliable sources" anymore. Other than Candace Owens I would be hard pressed to say I trust anyone significantly less. Although according to them Candace Owens is probably a direct descendant of Roman nobility or something.
This is another case of egalitarian ideologies and blacks appropriating white culture and accomplishments. The success and advancements in engineering of the Roman Empire belie the idea that the Romans were black.
Thanks for this tireless analytical debunking. Such work on behalf of historical veracity should not go unrewarded in this age of egregiously constructed wall-to-wall falsehoods!
A couple of questions, if I may: is it not a bald fact that no direct European contact at all was made with any sub-Saharan Africans en masse (as it were) before the 19th century? And that such contact as was had prior to that occurred exclusively through the agency of the Arab slave trade; i.e., when blacks were purchased as oddities and curiosities for display by the rich?
I suppose it depends how you define direct 'en masse contact'. Herodotus stated that the huge multiethnic Achaemenid Army that invaded Greece included contingents of Aethiopians.
Roman armies clashed multiple times with Nubian Kushite raiders that harassed Roman Egypt, going so far as to raze the Nubian capital Napata.
Also, during the Crusader era the various Islamic caliphates kept large contingents of Black African/Nubian soldiers in their ranks, the Fatimids in particular. They would have clashed with the European crusaders in many battles.
Overall, it was rare, but in both antiquity and the middle ages, you could indeed say Europeans were at times in direct contact with groups of sub-Saharan Africans. However, this contact seems to be limited and rather hostile.
Very good points. Duly noted. I suppose I’m really talking about direct contact en masse IN OUR OWN countries. Would it not have been a fact that the 18th and early 19th centuries’ obscene trade in African slaves would still have brought about only the most minimal contact between the European public and such slaves - even in major ports such as Bristol and Liverpool (in England)?
Thanks for this good faith debunking. I'm Italian-American. Yes, the genetic distance between me and a Tunisian isn't that far. That doesn't mean I'm African-American. So tired of these games they play.
They'll do anything, say anything, grasp any straw to prove white people (as person on the street understands the term, to be primarily of European descent) don't exist, aren't human, aren't deserving of our own home, didn't actually accomplish great feats, and so forth. Such bitter and petty envy.
Thanks for this, the whole "Black Athena" racial cult never rests in their desire to repaint our entire past in their favorite colors and corresponding ideology.
They get very angry unless every person, place or thing mirrors their anxieties and their desperate need to prove their moral superiority to their political enemies, which usually boils down to: "I love the black and brown more than you do, and feel their pain deeply, thus I am a better person whom you should worship and obey."
Modern Left-liberals are more obsessed about race and one-drop rules and applying moral weight to skin tone than anyone since the days of Jim Crow and the KKK. This might have served some helpful social purpose 40 or 50 years ago but has now devolved into a creepy fetish that is one of the many crippling neuroses occupying the progressive brain.
"The racialization of the world has to be the most unexpected result of the anti-discrimination battle of the last half-century. It has ensured that the battle continuously recreates the curse from which it is trying to break free. —Pascal Bruckner
This is a good article, but in one part it doesn't go far enough:
> "It stems from the now antiquated classification of peoples into three major racial groups: Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid."
Such terminology has indeed fallen out of fashion (since the modern fashion is to declare -- quite falsely -- that races are purely social constructs with no biological validity), but the "antiquated" classification that dates back to Johann Blumenbach is actually correct and validated by modern genetics.
For example, see Figure 2 of Rosenberg et al 2005, which shows quite clearly that most humans can indeed be sensibly classified into three major groupings, Caucasian, East Asian, and sub-Saharan African.
So, to summarise in a way that the article could have done, all of the various civilisations around the Mediterranean (Rome, Greece, North Africa, Egypt, Anatolia, etc) were Caucasian ("white") and this is clearly different from sub-Saharan African populations ("black").
Open access link to Rosenberg et al 2005: https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070
A first class work - thank you. Cultural appropriation is often criticised by intellectual and activist circles, especially when a dominant culture borrows from another culture without respect or accuracy.
But the issue becomes more troubling when it crosses into revisionist history, where historical figures are reshaped to fit modern political or DEI narratives. A visit to the Royal Shakespeare Company, BBC or many recent film production are heavily geared towards DEI and social engineering.
Cleopatra VII, has been claimed in certain circles as black, in total contradiction to historical fact. Cleopatra for example, was part of the Ptolemaic dynasty, a Macedonian Greek ruling class installed in Egypt after Alexander the Great.
While some details of her maternal ancestry remain uncertain, the claim that Cleopatra was Black is not supported by the mainstream historical evidence. In such cases, the concern is less about cultural exchange and more about historical replacement.
Great article.
Great work debunking this!
Is it safe to say that the ancient Egyptians, being North Africans, were also some sort of olive complexion and not black as we understand it today?
These credentialed liars, the same who claim that ancient Egypt was created by black people - kek
I'm confused. So was we "Kangs" or not?
Not!
It really doesn't matter what skin color/ethnicity the Romans he identifies were.
What does matter is the use of specious sophistry to support his points.
These academics are such clowns it's unbelievable. I don't know why anyone thinks these people are "reliable sources" anymore. Other than Candace Owens I would be hard pressed to say I trust anyone significantly less. Although according to them Candace Owens is probably a direct descendant of Roman nobility or something.
This is another case of egalitarian ideologies and blacks appropriating white culture and accomplishments. The success and advancements in engineering of the Roman Empire belie the idea that the Romans were black.