Just browsing through some books by W.P. Theunissen on Russian Icons I wondered if they depicted Black Europeans.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Egmond - Just browsing through some books by W.P. Theunissen on Russian Icons I wondered if they depicted Black Europeans.
Yes Egmond, they do. Russia was the site of Europe’s last surviving Black nation. Which was Colchis, an ancient country bordering on the Black Sea, South of the Caucasus Mountains. The area now constitutes the western part of the Republic of Georgia.
We know for sure that it existed until 400 B.C. because Herodotus wrote of it. Though his conjecture of it's beginnings, cannot be taken seriously.
The Persian Wars by Herodotus Written 440 BCE Translated by George Rawlinson
Book 2 - EUTERPE
[2.104] There can be no doubt that the Colchians are an Egyptian race. Before I heard any mention of the fact from others, I had remarked it myself. After the thought had struck me, I made inquiries on the subject both in Colchis and in Egypt, and I found that the Colchians had a more distinct recollection of the Egyptians, than the Egyptians had of them. Still the Egyptians said that they believed the Colchians to be descended from the army of Sesostris. My own conjectures were founded, first, on the fact that they are black-skinned and have woolly hair, which certainly amounts to but little, since several other nations are so too; but further and more especially, on the circumstance that the Colchians, the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians (Nubians), are the only nations who have practised circumcision from the earliest times.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
Theunissen mentions that these icons are derived from the Fayoum Portraits that were produced until about 400AD. The Russian Icons are from the 14th till the 16th century.
The Colchian lead leaves us with a space from 400BC-1600AD. What happened during this period.
But I would also like to find proof that the original Black Europeans who arrived 40.000 years earlier did not become extinct but rather lived on until the 19th century.
Colchis ancient region, Transcaucasia Main ancient region at the eastern end of the Black Sea south of the Caucasus, in the western part of modern Georgia. It consisted of the valley of the Phasis (modern Riuni) River. In Greek mythology Colchis was the home of Medea and the destination of the Argonauts, a land of fabulous wealth and the domain of sorcery. Historically, Colchis was colonized by Milesian Greeks to whom the native Colchians supplied gold, slaves, hides, linen cloth, agricultural produce, and such shipbuilding materials as timber, flax, pitch, and wax. The ethnic composition of the Colchians, who were described by Herodotus as black Egyptians, is unclear. After the 6th century bc they lived under the nominal suzerainty of Achaemenidian Persia and passed into the kingdom of Mithradates VI (1st century bc) and, then, under the rule of Rome.
Sigmond - I CAN help you with that, but if your browser does not support translation (Russian), then you will have to install it. This is necessary because if you use English sites, you will get the usual European White man, lies and Bullsh1t. BTW - this work will test your mettle, the translations are often poor, so you will need to have your thinking cap on.
In Russia, Blacks were prominent until the Medieval; Look-up Prince Theodore de Smolensk and Yaroslavl, and St. Theodore Stratelate, these were Black Russian prince-warriors. Have fun.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
A Black Russian
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Sigmond - I CAN help you with that, but if your browser does not support translation (Russian), then you will have to install it. This is necessary because if you use English sites, you will get the usual European White man, lies and Bullsh1t. BTW - this work will test your mettle, the translations are often poor, so you will need to have your thinking cap on.
In Russia, Blacks were prominent until the Medieval; Look-up Prince Theodore de Smolensk and Yaroslavl, and St. Theodore Stratelate, these were Black Russian prince-warriors. Have fun.
St. Theodore Stratelate
Can´t install nothing workin from a library. Could not find first one, Th. de Smolensk.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Egmond - I got this from a French site, it's not much, and has no picture (French are White Europeans you know), but I thought that it might help you. Sorry that I can't help you more, but this is not really my field of interest. {The translation is NOT great}.
BTW - In reading this, you might want to remember that the great majority of Russia is in Asia. And perhaps (I don't know the numbers), the majority of the population is non-white.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- He he, Just having a little fun with White Europeans:
The definition of "Black Russian"
The Black Russian is a cocktail of vodka and coffee liqueur (usually three parts vodka to two parts coffee liqueur, per the Kahlúa bottle's label, or five parts vokda to two parts coffee liqueur, per IBA specified ingredients). It is traditionally poured over ice cubes or cracked ice in an old-fashioned glass. This combination first appeared in 1949, and is ascribed to a Belgian barman who created it at the Hotel Metropole in Brussels in honor of Perle Mesta, then U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg.[citation needed] The cocktail owes its name to the use of vodka, a stereotypical Russian spirit, and the blackness of the Kahlúa.
The saint Prince Theodore de Smolensk and Yaroslavl, called the “Black”, was born during terrible years for Rus': the time of the Mongolian invasion, about 1237-1239. With the saint Baptism, it accepted the name of the saint large martyr Theodore Stratélate who was particularly considered among the Russian prince-warriors.
Prince Theodore was famous for his military exploits. In 1239, by the prayers of the Very Holy Mother of God, the saint Merkourios martyr-warrior delivered Smolensk which was going to fall vis-a-vis Batu, the Theodore child was not in the city. They had taken it along and hidden in a sure place during the war. In 1240, his/her father, prince Rostislav, mourrut. His/her older brothers, of heirs, divided the paternal grounds between them, allocating with the Theodore child the small possession of Mozahisk. It passed its childhood there, and studied there the Holy Scriptures, the Offices of church and military science.
In 1260, prince Theodore was married in Maria Vasilievna, girl of the saint prince Basile de Yaroslav), and Theodore became thus prince de Yaroslav. They had a son named Michael, but holy Theodore quickly became widowed. He spent most clearly his time to military campaigns, and his/her son was raised by his mother-in-law, the Xénia princess.
In 1277, the allied forces with the Russian princes, plain with the Tatares forces, took share in the countryside in Ossétie, and took “its famous Tetyakov city”. During this war, the allied forces gained a total victory. Since the time of saint Alexandra Nevsky (November 23), the khans of the Gold Horde, seeing the invincible spiritual force and the military power of Orthodoxe Russia, were forced to change attitude. They started to conclude from alliances with the Russian princes, and the kahns turned to them for the military aid.
The Russian Church made use of this providential improvement of the relations for the Chrétienne illumination from abroad. Already in 1261, thanks to the efforts of saint Alexandre Nevsky and of the métropolite Cyril 3 in Sarai, the capital of the Gold Horde, a diocese of the Russian Orthodoxe Church was establishes. In 1276, a Council in Constantinople chaired by the patriarch Jean Bekkos (1275-1282) answered the questions of the Russian bishop Théognostos de Sarai concerning the order of baptizing Tatars, and also the reception of the Christians Monophysites and Nestoriens among them in Orthodoxy.
During these years, prince Theodore was with the Horde. Being distinguished by the military exploits from the countryside of Ossétie, it gained the favours of Khan Mengu-Temir, which looked at the Orthodoxe Church with respect, Khan which édicat for the métropolite Cyril the first decree exempting the Church of the taxes.
The Chronicle known as: “The Mengu-Temir emperor and his empress loved much prince Theodore Rostislavich, and did not want that it turns over in Rus' because of his bravery and the beauty of his face”. Saint Theodore spent 3 years to the Horde. Finally, “the emperor returned it with great honor”, and the prince arrived at Yaroslav. His Maria wife had already died, and in the city, it was the Xénia princess who directed with her Michael grandson. The people of Yaroslav did not want to receive the prince who returned from the Horde, “not allowing him to enter the city but saying to him, “this is the city of the princess Xénia and Michael is our prince”.” Saint Theodore had to turn over to the Horde. The empress, marries khan Mengu-Temir, “appreciated it much, and wished that he marry his daughter”. Such a marriage had an importance considéralbe for Rus'. A long time during, Khan did not want to agree to it, regarding the Russian princes as the vassal ones or subjects. To give his/her daughter in marriage to a Russian prince would have meant that he recognized it like his equal.
More important still, that would have meant that he recognized the primacy of Orthodoxy, because before the marriage, the Tatar princess was to accept the Baptême saint. The khan hesitated a long time, but owing to the fact that an alliance with Russia was important for him, “it ordered that his/her daughter is given to prince Theodore, and that she is initially baptized, and it ordered that the Orthodoxe Faith is not insulted”. Thus, holy Theodore married the girl of powerful the khan, and she was baptized under the name of Anne. “The emperor held it in great regard and ordered that he sat opposite him, he builds a palate to him, and gave him princes and the noble ones for escort.”
It is there, with the Horde, that the wire of saint Theodore, princes David (+ 1321) and Constantine were born. The important influence that holy Theodore acquired with the Horde, it used it for the glory of the Russian ground and the Russian Church. Orthodoxy progressed among Tatars, and the Horde started to adopt the Russian habits, morals and piety. The Russian merchants, architects, and skilful craftsmen brought the Russian culture on banks of the Gift, the Volga, the Ural, and even to Mongolia.
From this period, the archaeologists found icons orthodoxe, and sticks and lampadas, through all the old territories of the Gold Horde, since then built-in Russia. Thus started the great movement missionary of the Russian Church towards the East, and the illumination of all the tribes with the light of the truth of the Gospel throughout the way to the Large Ocean (i.e. the Pacific). The orthodoxe Russian princes and their escorts, taking part as combined in the campaigns of the Mongols, learned much, and became familiar with the extents without terminals of Asia, Siberia and of Far East. In 1330, about thirty years after the death of saint Theodore, the Chinese Chronicles mention the Russians with Péking.
Saint Theodore lived in Sarai until 1290, when “the news came from to him of Rus, of the town of Yaroslav, that its first wire, prince Michael, had died”. Having given to the prince rich person present and a great escort, the khan returned it in Rus'. It became again prince de Yaroslav. Saint Theodore was worried with zeal of the reinforcement and the construction of his city and his principality. He had a particular love for the monastery of the Transfiguration of the Lord. Its celebrity spread herself through Rus', and all the princes sought his friendship and alliance with him. But over all, he was appreciated by the son of saint Alexandre Nevsky, André Alexandrovich, who supported it in all his initiatives.
When prince André became Large Prince de Vladimir, it accompanied it in its military campaigns. He was delighted by his victories, and was afflicted his defeat. In 1296, a bloody fratricidal war burst between 2 groups of princes: on a side, holy Theodore and Large Prince André, and other, Holy Michael de Tver (November 22) etsaint Daniel of Moscow (March 4). But with the assistance of God, the blood bath was avoided.
At a meeting of the princes (in 1296), the Syméon bishops of Vladimir and Ismaël de Sarai were arranged to bring the peace on the 2 sides. This fact, that the saint prince Theodore and the Ismaël bishop took part in the meeting, shows that holy Theodore used all his diplomatic talents with the Horde to establish peace on the Russian ground.
The attachments of Saint Theodore the Black with his origins with Smolensk were not disappeared, although it would have been difficult for him to be a prince de Smolensk. Consequently, in 1297, holy Theodore left to shift in Smolensk to claim his legitimate rights on the principality of Smolensk, which had been usurped by its nephews. But he did not manage to take again the town of Smolensk and to become again prince de Smolensk.
Shortly after this countryside, the saint prince-warrior fell sick. On September 18, 1299, the saint gave the order that one transports it to the monastery of the Transfiguration of the Saver, and there it accepted the monastic tonsure. Towards the end of the ritual, holy Theodore asked that the service be stopped. With the blessing of higoumene, and to answer the wish of the mourrant prince, one transported it in the garden of the monastery, where a crowd of people of Yaroslav had already gathered. “And the prince repented in front of all the people, if he had sinned against anyone or have bad feelings towards anyone. He blesses all those which had sinned against him or had conceived enmity in its connection, and begged their forgiveness. He accepted his responsibility for all his acts in front of God and the men.” It is only after that the humble war supplemented its desire to complete its life not very common and disturbed by accepting the design angelica.
All the night during, the higoumene and the brothers requested on the saint prince. Per second hour of the night, they started to sound the bells for the Crossbred ones. Saint Theodore lay silently on his berth of monk, and accepted Sacred mysterieies of Christ. When the monks started to sing the third “Glory” of Psautier, it made the Sign of Criox and returned its heart to the Lord. Its aspect with the tomb was extraordinary: “Marvellous indeed was the appearance of the happy one. It lay on the layer not like a death, but like alive. Its face was shining like the rays of the sun, decorated its worthy gray hair, testifying to its purity of heart and its benevolence”.
After that, his/her son, holy David (+ 1321) directed Yaroslavl. The second of its sons, Constantine, must obviously have earlier deceased. The veneration of the Church for prince Theodore began shortly after his death in the area of Yaroslav.
During the years 1322-1327, the bishop Prokhor de Rostov made realize celebrates it Evangile Théodorov, decorated with miniatures, in memory of Theodore saint. Previously, the Prokhor bishop had been higoumene of the monastery of the Transfiguration of the Saver with Yaroslavl. He knew the saint prince personally, and had been pilot of his tonsure and his repentance public in front of the people. The historians think that the delicate miniatures woven in this invaluable manuscript come from a Gospel that holy Theodore had itself, and that it had taken along to Yaroslavl like a blessing of his native Smolensk.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Of course those paintings are much darker than they originally were due to chemical damage. Anybody who knows about Medieval art and the Russian environment would know that.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^He he, The little cracker shows up. We must be getting too close for comfort. Posted by JMT (Member # 12050) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Of course those paintings are much darker than they originally were due to chemical damage. Anybody who knows about Medieval art and the Russian environment would know that.
What's the explanation for the subjects depicted in the paintings with coiled, afro style hair? Is that an accident also due to the "Russian environment"?
Posted by Alive (Member # 10819) on :
# 1: Get help. (most of those photos aren't of black people)
# 2: Yes, there are a pocket of black Georgians. (The Kemetian myth of Sesostris says they conquered not only there, but inland Europe as well.)
# 3: Perhaps their phenetypes are echoes of the Neolithic incursions of Africans into Western Eurasia. Africans have never been static. Especially not today due to globalization.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Of course those paintings are much darker than they originally were due to chemical damage. Anybody who knows about Medieval art and the Russian environment would know that.
^ This is but an echo of the argument against Black Madonnas in Europe: they were burnt by the candles or the environment made them dark. I told you guys Mary is an undercover Eurocentric. Recall his Lefkowitz-ian arguments against the Stolen Legacy and bigoted dismissal of Prof. James, his claim that Kushites and Egyptians being phenotypically differentiated, and on and on.
quote:Well then if you believe there are pockets of black Georgians, and there were neolithic incursion of blacks into Western Eurasia, then reasonable logic would suggest there was a presence of blacks at some point and time which existed in this region of the world.
I don't think he even cares about the subject. He's just taking up for his friend again. He's a socialite, think Paris Hilton. lol
Posted by JMT (Member # 12050) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alive: # 1: Get help. (most of those photos aren't of black people)
# 2: Yes, there are a pocket of black Georgians. (The Kemetian myth of Sesostris says they conquered not only there, but inland Europe as well.)
# 3: Perhaps their phenetypes are echoes of the Neolithic incursions of Africans into Western Eurasia. Africans have never been static. Especially not today due to globalization.
Well then if you believe there are pockets of black Georgians, and there were neolithic incursion of blacks into Western Eurasia, then reasonable logic would suggest there was a presence of blacks at some point and time which existed in this region of the world. Again, perhaps this is why several of the subjects depicted in the paintings have coiled, afro style hair. Thanks.
Posted by Alive (Member # 10819) on :
Yes, but looking DESPERATE is Eurocentrism's job, not ours.
You're just opening yourself up for ridicule
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Kid-without-his-box - Yes, but looking DESPERATE is Eurocentrism's job, not ours. You're just opening yourself up for ridicule.
That's a pretty lame reason for taking ANY position. You lost the box, but now you need to get some balls. Best way to do that, is to know what you are talking about.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:the Openass spouts: This is but an echo of the argument against Black Madonnas in Europe: they were burnt by the candles or the environment made them dark. I told you guys Mary is an undercover Eurocentric. Recall his Lefkowitz-ian arguments against the Stolen Legacy and bigoted dismissal of Prof. James, his claim that Kushites and Egyptians being phenotypically differentiated, and on and on.
Incorrect, as usual dirtyass. What do all these darkened images of white saints have to do with the Black Madonnas which were rooted in Egyptian Isis worship or more ancient chthonic European mother-goddesses?? So spare me your sh*tty strawmen.
quote:I don't think he even cares about the subject. He's just taking up for his friend again. He's a socialite, think Paris Hilton. lol
Actually, Alive is just taking up accurate facts and scholarship unlike YOU. Perhaps YOU should join Paris Hilton since you're a bigger whore than she is. You could perhaps teach her your tricks on men. Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Yes there are early Medeival images of the trinity in Europe that are depicted as black. There are early Christian illuminated manuscripts with blacks in them. Some of them look like the Ethiopian illuminated Bibles and manuscripts. But most of these are not images of people deliberately painted black. They are simply darkened images of old paintings that don't prove anything.
quote: In the middle of the 14th century, one of the most profound examples of the symbol of the blackamoor can be seen in the use of this image to represent Christ. It is clear from the documentation we have for the city of Lauingen in Germany, for example, that at about this time, the city's seal with the head of Christ wearing a crown of thorns is transformed to the head of a blackamoor wearing a golden crown. That the latter insignia is meant to represent the former is quite obvious from the accompanying inscriptions. One of the earlier ones read: "Sigillum civium de Lougingin" (seal of the city of Lauingen), while a later version clearly explains itself as the "Sigillum secretum civitatis palatinae Lavgingen (secret seal of the palatinate city of Lauingen)."
A German heraldic scholar writing before World War II offered two other reasons for a similar coats of arms. He pointed out that Ethiop (sun burnt) the black was a sun sign and therefore a symbol of divinity that could alternately be used for the Son of God or the Son of Man. He also pointed out that from what we know of the cult of the Black Madonna, the blazon of the blackamoor queen was a reference to Mary, the Queen of Heaven or her prefiguration as the Queen of Sheba and that the male versions of these insignia were therefore references to her Son.
Edmond likes posting images of whites and claiming they represent blacks making a joke of himself.
Most of the illuminated manuscripts that were heavily influential in early Christianity came from Spain, but of course most of those were destroyed or are hidden in private collections.
Not to mention the fact that Egypt, Nubia and Ethiopia were some of the earliest places to accept Christianity and produce such artwork. And of course the whole idea of such illuminated manuscripts goes back to the ancient illuminated scrolls from Egypt to begin with. So that is why many of the earliest such Medieval images would have featured blacks.
Christ is nothing but Horus and of course Horus represents Kingship. The pharaoh was the living Horus and therefore child of Isis who crowned him with her glory. He was the ultimate manifestation of the "risen god" in life or risen essence of the divine Sun (Ra) in the flesh who shone forth brilliance crowned with the sun's rays (original halo).
Oddly enough some Ethiopian painters still use light complexions in their work:
Of course this tradition is as old as any illumination in Europe and the similarities between the two is striking, which likely reflects influence from Ethiopia to early Europe. Yet the evidence for early works of Ethiopian illumination are hard to come by, even though Ethiopia converted to Christianity in the 4th century A.D.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^He he, The little cracker shows up. We must be getting too close for comfort.
ROTFL I'm not even white, dumbass! And NO you're not close to anything that is true or valid. Never have been and never will be. I already feel embarassed by the ridiculous statements you make in this forum and I'm not even black, so just imagine how I would feel if I was.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Yes there are early Medeival images of the trinity in Europe that are depicted as black. There are early Christian illuminated manuscripts with blacks in them. Some of them look like the Ethiopian illuminated Bibles and manuscripts. But most of these are not images of people deliberately painted black. They are simply darkened images of old paintings that don't prove anything...
Correct. These idiots are so crazy to misappropriate white European culture as 'black' that they obviously don't realize the obviously white European looks of the manuscripts besides the obvioiusly darkened paint, which again is due to a number of reasons such as pollution or fungal decomposition.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Funny how the pollution or fungal decomposition only affected the face and hands. There are a number of other pictures of Black Madonnas (some even darker) that just so happen to exhibit similar "pollution or fungal decompositions" in the same places. Wow! Nature works in mysterious ways!
quote:obviously white European looks
^ Echos of the Hamitic myth, the rational being blacks can't have these "European looks". Mary when will you give up? Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^I have often found that the "not-quite-White-but-desperately-wannabes", or as some say, "light Browns". Are often quite anxious to demonstrate their undying love and supplication to the pale ones, by attacking all things Black that they don’t feel SHOULD BE BLACK, as if that show of affection would somehow lighten their skins.
Their logic is simple, since they are closer to White, rather than Black, White is obviously the end to defend. And because so many confused and intellectually limited Blacks, confuse a little pigmentation with shared interest, they are very useful to the White man as surrogates. That is why the little cracker has doggedly defended his master’s interests, even in the face of overwhelming evidence and logic. Because in his mind, he says, “Ya, I’ll give the Niggas Egypt, tough to fight that one” but nothing else, the rest gotta be White! Well little cracker, don’t give a sh1t what you think should be Black – it is what it is!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
akoben - nice, the fool still doesn't see it.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
All these pics of Jesus speak for themselves. I have heard about the Black Madonnas. I don't know how paintings in Europe somehow proves that they were painted by black people. What it shows me is that people were looking at how the people in that region looked and decided to paint a close to, look of Jesus and other Biblical figures.
Instead of trying to claim people who painted these as somehow not being europeans or White, we should embrace the fact that Jesus was such a strong part of these people, that the race of Christ did not matter to them.
Peace
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
King - You know, I do try to be understanding, but sometimes you just make it impossible.
First of all, By all accounts Jesus was a Hebrew, They (Hebrews) looked like this..
NOT LIKE THIS!! Which was obviously a Russian attempt not to burn in hell for purposedly mis-representing Jesus. So they made him look "somewhat" Black.
Now in modern times, they have said, "to hell with it" if he can't be White, then he can't be! Think about it King, if these people REALLY believed it that Jesus stuff, could they have done this????
King, I know that you are all about being a good person, but does that mean that you must be a stooge and a fool for the White Man and his lies and bullsh1t?? Posted by Honi B (Member # 12991) on :
Does anyone know who or what this image is?--> ..or represents?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
I would say it is a stylized peacock/gryphon/bird of some sort.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Egmond, I thought that you might be interested in this.
Face to Face: The African Presence in Renaissance Europe
This groundbreaking exhibition will explore the wealth of European art to reveal the hidden presence of Africans in Renaissance society and the many roles they played. The exhibition will include approximately 75 paintings, drawings, prints, and sculptures drawn from the Walters own holdings as well as significant international loans from public and private collections. Visitors will encounter these individuals and their stories through the eyes of some of the greatest artists of the Renaissance.
Tour itinerary:
* The Walters Art Museum: October 17, 2010- January, 2, 2011
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Honi B - I think this answers your question.
Double-Sided Gospel Leaf, first half of 14th century Ethiopia; Tigray region Tempera on parchment; 11 x 7 1/2 in. (27.8 x 19 cm) Purchase, Oscar de la Renta Ltd. Gift, 2005 (2006.100)
The Tigray region of Ethiopia converted to Christianity in the fourth century and became a very important ally of the Byzantine empire, ruled from Constantinople (Istanbul), in controlling the trade routes to India. Tigray also maintained contacts with other Christian communities of the eastern Mediterranean, including those in Syria and Egypt. The compelling images on this double-sided leaf are from a group of early fourteenth-century Gospels that feature a revival of motifs that reached Ethiopia from the eastern Mediterranean, probably in the seventh century.
Both sides of the leaf are inscribed in Ge'ez, the ancient language of Ethiopia. On the front is a dramatic octagonal Fountain of Life flanked by peacocks, which are identified in the inscriptions as "ostriches" (royal birds in Ethiopia), and gazellelike "babula." The text within the domed space refers to the arrangement of the Eusebian Canon Tables, or index to the Gospels, which preceded the image in the original manuscript. On the reverse, the Crucifixion is represented by a monumental jeweled cross topped by a Lamb of God, symbol of Christ's sacrifice. At the sides are the two thieves bound to their crosses. Other leaves from this Gospel are in the Nationalmuseum in Stockholm.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Am I the only one who finds it strange that Ethiopians used PINK and ORANGE pigments to indicate flesh tones in their art.
I also always found it strange that Ethiopians since the Aksumite Empire (which officially used the name "Ethiopia" in the 4th century), would use such a name.
For the un-indoctrinated, Ethiopia is a Greek word, it means "Burnt Face".
The point of all of this, is that if I didn't already know that those images were suppose to depict Black people, I would NEVER know it from the pictures - what's going on here. Are Ethiopians Oreo's?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
I'm still wondering about the Ethiopian color thing. Don't see where the Pink would come in.
Ethiopian Images
Wonder if this had something to do with it.
They had a close relationship with the Byzantine Empire.
AND
The Monumental Stelae of Aksum (3rd–4th century A.D.)
Some of the stelae also possess stone base plates depicting a two-handled Greek wine cup known as a kylix. Although it is well known that Greek cultural influences through trade were important at Aksum, where money was minted and inscriptions written in Greek, the significance of these plates has yet to be determined. Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Europeans introduced Christianity to Ethiopia even as far back as the 4th century. And they had an artistic tradition that influenced the whole Nile Valley from Egypt to Ethiopia. Sudan at this early period was also Christian and many of their images were of European looking figures, similar to the Copts in Egypt. However, Ethiopia's art while receiving influence from the Byzantines and Greeks, seems to have developed its own artistic styles, with the almond eyes and simplified shapes we see today. Because they were working under the direct influence of European missionaries it is only logical that these Europeans would have made an impact on their artistic representations of the divine. The question is whether this Ethiopian style is purely indigenous or again the result of influence from the Portuguese and others in the 14th and 15th century. Part of the problem is that Christianity had a early foothold in Africa and the Nile Valley and across Northern Africa and this chapter of Christianity's history has largely been destroyed and is missing mostly due to the arrival of Islam and the turbulence that followed throughout the Mediterranean.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: I'm still wondering about the Ethiopian color thing. Don't see where the Pink would come in.
Ethiopian Images
Wonder if this had something to do with it.
They had a close relationship with the Byzantine Empire.
AND
The Monumental Stelae of Aksum (3rd–4th century A.D.)
Some of the stelae also possess stone base plates depicting a two-handled Greek wine cup known as a kylix. Although it is well known that Greek cultural influences through trade were important at Aksum, where money was minted and inscriptions written in Greek, the significance of these plates has yet to be determined.
So who ARE the people in those images? What ethnic group or area in Ethiopia and where are these images from?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Doug M - The link says that the pictures were shot near Lake Tana, Gondar, Axum, Mekele, and Lalibela around May 21, 1998.
So are you saying that the Ethiopians didn't really know what Hebrews looked like, and so relied on European characterization? Or are you saying that the Ethiopians simply kowtowed to their European masters?
According to Stewartsynopsis, Hebrews have been in Ethiopia since ancient times.
The Tribe of Judah--the Ethiopian Jews are descended from Jews who accompanied Menelik, the son of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, from Jerusalem to Ethiopia. More scientific theories place the Falasha in the Agau family of tribes. Isaiah 11:11 strongly implies that there was an established Ethiopian Jewish community in the days of that prophet, approximately 740 BC. European Jews and others in different parts of the world were barely aware of the Falasha for many years. The Falasha thought they were the only remaining Jews. They continued to follow Judaism as it was practiced before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Most Westerners and Protestant churchmen learned of the existence of the Ethiopian Jews from James Bruce's five-volume work, Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile, published in Edinburgh in 1790.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
OLD RUSSIAN ICONS ARE SYMBOLS OF BLACK SUPERIORITY
The whole thing boils down to how we define 'Black.' What is Black, who is Black and why do we bother? Just a black skin tone is of little meaning and interest. A Black identity and Black identified domination of a culture or a nation or a state has much more meaning.
The two books by Theunissen, a great icon-specialist, speak about the pigments used, and he mentions browns, blacks and reds, mixed up with egg-yolk. In my first posting I point out the white robes, to forestall the ‘they have oxidized’ bullshit.
But what irritated me forever was that no mention is made why these people look black, to anyone who has functioning eyes. This is something which goes on in most eurocentric works: they dutifully print personal descriptions which say 'black or chimneysweep or basané (brown black), swarthy, very dark,’ but then merrily precede and print a so-called 'portrait' of a blond, blue eyed noble or royal person. Or they print a black portrait but do not explain why Madam so and so or Chevalier so and so looks black of skin! I have decided that this is a PROBLEM!
Then what they seem to think is that there are 'True Negroes' and 'African Caucasians.' So even if we would get hold of a pitch black portrait of say one Charles II Stuart 'The Black Boy,' and looking pitch black, they still can say 'Oh, he is a Caucasian, who happens to look black, but he is just white, honey. Go back to sleep! Massa has it al figured out for you, little Sambo.' What these two book just mentions but do not explain is that these icons are derived from Fayoum portraits. I guess by suggesting this they want to tell us these people are not Black but Caucasian. The production of Fayoum portraits ended about 400AD when embalming was declared a heathen practice.
The Black Madonna's from Europe are just part of this style of religious images. But because of the schism between east and west in around 1054, the western church seems to have abandoned this art form. Now, if black researchers would just stick together we could unearth the whole truth and see if they are again cutting Blacks out of the picture, so to speak. To me afro centrism is also about finding Blacks in the Diaspora and giving them their true place in history.
Right now I really want to know if the Africans who entered Europe 40.000 years ago really became extinct. I do not believe the crap that they suddenly turned white, as there are many sources which say that the whites came out of Asia, 6000 years ago.
So my hypothesis about the icons, as well for the Black Madonna's, is that they are symbols of Black Superiority in Europe. There was a black and coloured elite who did not have any use for a white Maria, a white Jesus or a white god. Maximillian of Habsburg even depicted himself as god, sitting on his throne, after or before he was crowned Holy Roman Emperor.
The Black Europeans are supposed to have looked like 'Oceanic' people. I defined them as a fixed mulatto race, freely intermarrying, with some looking more African, Asian or white. But most importantly they had a black identity called Blue Blood, which derives from Black blood. Most people believe Barack Obama to have a Black identity because he married a Black woman, to have blacker off spring as well.
To arrive at this piece one has to understand that Egmond Codfried’s entire postings feed into one research: Blue blood is Black blood. For this I have done many little researches and have linked all my conclusions to arrive at this simple title. This theory explains many things and show them to be connected: Why is there racism against blacks starting in the 17 and 18th century and still raging on, why we have museums full with whitened portraits, what does the Moor on portraits and heraldry symbolises but blue blood, why we have white supremacy, why we have black Madonna’s, why we have houseniggers posting and insulting away: because the oppressor always uses the oppressed themselves to keep each other in prison.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Edmond you are talking absolute nonsense. Blue blood has nothing to do with blacks and is actually a mark of whiteness.
So whatever research you are doing, it is mostly bogus and has nothing to do with the true history of blacks in Europe.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Doug M - The link says that the pictures were shot near Lake Tana, Gondar, Axum, Mekele, and Lalibela around May 21, 1998.
So are you saying that the Ethiopians didn't really know what Hebrews looked like, and so relied on European characterization? Or are you saying that the Ethiopians simply kowtowed to their European masters?
According to Stewartsynopsis, Hebrews have been in Ethiopia since ancient times.
The Tribe of Judah--the Ethiopian Jews are descended from Jews who accompanied Menelik, the son of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, from Jerusalem to Ethiopia. More scientific theories place the Falasha in the Agau family of tribes. Isaiah 11:11 strongly implies that there was an established Ethiopian Jewish community in the days of that prophet, approximately 740 BC. European Jews and others in different parts of the world were barely aware of the Falasha for many years. The Falasha thought they were the only remaining Jews. They continued to follow Judaism as it was practiced before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Most Westerners and Protestant churchmen learned of the existence of the Ethiopian Jews from James Bruce's five-volume work, Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile, published in Edinburgh in 1790.
I am saying that they depicted figures based on their conversion to Christianity and the lore of Christianity that identified these figures as white to begin with as an artistic tradition. All along the Nile Valley you will find ancient Churches with white images of saints, angels and the holy family. This is nothing new or strange. Seeing as the Byzantines introduced this religion to the Ethiopians, it would only make sense that those Byzantine/Coptic bibles and images that were introduced to Ethiopia would have had white skin.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
They All Laughed Ella Fitzgerald
They all laughed at Christopher Columbus When he said the world was round They all laughed when Edison recorded sound They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother When they said that man could fly
They told Marconi Wireless was a phony It's the same old cry They laughed at me wanting you Said I was reaching for the moon But oh, you came through Now they'll have to change their tune
They all said we never could be happy They laughed at us and how! But ho, ho, ho! Who's got the last laugh now?
They all laughed at Rockefeller Center Now they're fighting to get in They all laughed at Whitney and his cotton gin They all laughed at Fulton and his steamboat Hershey and his chocolate bar
Ford and his Lizzie Kept the laughers busy That's how people are They laughed at me wanting you Said it would be, "Hello, Goodbye." And oh, you came through Now they're eating humble pie
They all said we'd never get together Darling, let's take a bow For ho, ho, ho! Who's got the last laugh? Hee, hee, hee! Let's at the past laugh Ha, ha, ha! Who's got the last laugh now?"
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Doug M - I am saying that they depicted figures based on their conversion to Christianity and the lore of Christianity that identified these figures as white to begin with as an artistic tradition. All along the Nile Valley you will find ancient Churches with white images of saints, angels and the holy family. This is nothing new or strange. Seeing as the Byzantines introduced this religion to the Ethiopians, it would only make sense that those Byzantine/Coptic bibles and images that were introduced to Ethiopia would have had white skin.
Like I said above: So are you saying that the Ethiopians simply kowtowed to their European masters?
Doug, you seem to be hemming-n-hawing; but you can't have it both ways. Ethiopians knew that Hebrews were Black people, hell some of their own population was Hebrews: Ethiopians knew that Jesus was suppose to be a Hebrew. YET they still depicted him as a White person. It seems clear to me, either they were VERY scared of the Greeks and Romans, or they were OREO'S.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Egmond - have you tried to track down any of the paintings from the upcoming Walters Art Museum event that I posted above?
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Egmond - have you tried to track down any of the paintings from the upcoming Walters Art Museum event that I posted above?
[Cosimo de Medici, son of the man who started the dynasty]
Is this one of them? While I studied Medici portraits and personal descriptions I developed the idea of a 'fixed mulatto race.' The portraits are a mix of more realistic and whitened portraits of coloured folks. As I wrote; it boils down to the definition of Black. To me Maria Salvati, as well as the little girl is black. The family De Medici was black and married black. I found that there is a tradition of not idealising or 'whitening' small children. I also think that they were happy when a child with Classical African looks popped out, because it proved there is truly Blue blood in the family’s bloodline. For some time the little girl was over painted and not visible. Then they had it restored, but wanting to show that the child was Cosimo, to fetch a higher price. The reason for this over paint was explained as a rift in the family. But I belief that the afrocentric look of the girl was considered a problem as these eurocentrist still regard this family as white. So they covered her face. Now off course they say that only Alessando was (half-) black which I disagree with. They are a typical black family from the coloured race that took power with the Renaissance.
[Lorenzo de Medici: this is the type we find on these Russian icons. He does not look white to me!]
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Nice work Egmond, the woman and child is supposed to be one of the featured items of the exhibit. I hope you didn't put too much stock in the B.S. at the site that you linked to. Even when White people claim that they are coming clean - they STILL LIE!
BTW - Ever wonder why, in their explanations the first one was ALWAYS a Slave? Like I said, they LIE. Always!
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Doug M - I am saying that they depicted figures based on their conversion to Christianity and the lore of Christianity that identified these figures as white to begin with as an artistic tradition. All along the Nile Valley you will find ancient Churches with white images of saints, angels and the holy family. This is nothing new or strange. Seeing as the Byzantines introduced this religion to the Ethiopians, it would only make sense that those Byzantine/Coptic bibles and images that were introduced to Ethiopia would have had white skin.
Like I said above: So are you saying that the Ethiopians simply kowtowed to their European masters?
Doug, you seem to be hemming-n-hawing; but you can't have it both ways. Ethiopians knew that Hebrews were Black people, hell some of their own population was Hebrews: Ethiopians knew that Jesus was suppose to be a Hebrew. YET they still depicted him as a White person. It seems clear to me, either they were VERY scared of the Greeks and Romans, or they were OREO'S.
You asked the question and I gave you the answer. I wasn't there so I have no idea whether they were forced to paint these images white or whether it was simply their own choice. There are also quite black African images from the same time period so the most likely answer is that it was artistic choice by the artist. Like I said in my original post, some artists STILL paint those images with very light skin. I doubt that this has anything to do with Byzantine "masters".
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Egmond - have you tried to track down any of the paintings from the upcoming Walters Art Museum event that I posted above?
[Cosimo de Medici, son of the man who started the dynasty]
Is this one of them? While I studied Medici portraits and personal descriptions I developed the idea of a 'fixed mulatto race.' The portraits are a mix of more realistic and whitened portraits of coloured folks. As I wrote; it boils down to the definition of Black. To me Maria Salvati, as well as the little girl is black. The family De Medici was black and married black. I found that there is a tradition of not idealising or 'whitening' small children. I also think that they were happy when a child with Classical African looks popped out, because it proved there is truly Blue blood in the family’s bloodline. For some time the little girl was over painted and not visible. Then they had it restored, but wanting to show that the child was Cosimo, to fetch a higher price. The reason for this over paint was explained as a rift in the family. But I belief that the afrocentric look of the girl was considered a problem as these eurocentrist still regard this family as white. So they covered her face. Now off course they say that only Alessando was (half-) black which I disagree with. They are a typical black family from the coloured race that took power with the Renaissance.
[Lorenzo de Medici: this is the type we find on these Russian icons. He does not look white to me!]
Actually Edmond you are still telling lies and half truths. The only person in any of those portraits with African blood is the little girl. The GIRL is the daughter of Alessandro De Medici, who was of mixed ancestry. Therefore it makes sense that the girl would have African features. But that does not make the entire family of DeMedici into mixed Africans. That is NON sense.
quote: Along with her father Alessandro de Medici's uniquely racial place in history, Giulia de Medici's portrait could also prove of some importance since an apologia for her blackness forms the basis of the iconographical elements of the painting. Due more than likely to Giulia de Medici's social position as a princess and the descendant of a number of popes, whoever assisted the artist with the symbolism he used obtained it from the Neo platonic concept of God as Divine Darkness still current in the theology of the time. Probably the most readily available exposition of this particularly Franciscan brand of mysticism was St. Bonaventure's Itenarium mentis in Deum orThe Soul's Journey to God. To fully appreciate the symbolism that was attempted in this portrait it should be pointed out that the Medici were in religious state matters, officially devoted to St. Francis.
quote:Like I said in my original post, some artists STILL paint those images with very light skin. I doubt that this has anything to do with Byzantine "masters".
Talk about half truths. It may not have anything to do with Byzantine but Jesuit masters. The ancient churches with white images in them today are recent corruptions. Ashra Kweisi video on African origins of Christianity talks about this.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
What's this about Euros introducing Christianity to Abyssinia? Officially Abyssinia's ruler imported it from Syria via a slave. No? And what's to say some of the population unofficially were already practicing it as an export from Sudan, remember Philip and the Aithiopian (Sudani) royal official written up in the Greek Scriptures Christianity's holiest texts?
Posted by Honi B (Member # 12991) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I would say it is a stylized peacock/gryphon/bird of some sort.
Thank You (both)I couldn't figure out whether that was a plume or a flower over it's head. It appears that there's a barely visible egg in the side of the beak too.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Egmond – The post by Doug (supposedly Written and Researched by Mario de Valdes y Cocom an historian of the African diaspora). Didn’t really strike me as right, so I decided to do a little digging of my own. As I always say, “Whites Lie” so of course there was some surprises.
Cosimo di Giovanni de' Medici
Cosimo di Giovanni de' Medici (September 27, 1389 – August 1, 1464), was the first of the Medici political dynasty, de facto rulers of Florence during most of the Italian Renaissance; also known as "Cosimo 'the Elder'". Born in Florence, Cosimo inherited both his wealth and his flair for business from his father, Giovanni di Bicci de' Medici. In 1415 he accompanied the Antipope John XXIII at the council of Constance, and in the same year he was named Priore of the Republic. Later he acted frequently as ambassador, showing a prudence for which he became renowned. On his death in 1464 at Careggi, Cosimo was succeeded by his son Piero 'the Gouty'.
Piero 'the Gouty'
In 1444 Piero married the wise, tolerant and cultured Lucrezia Tornabuoni (1425-1482), a link to the old Florentine nobility. Piero had two sons, Lorenzo and Giuliano,
Lorenzo de' Medici
Lorenzo de' Medici (1 January 1449 – 9 April 1492) was an Italian statesman and de facto ruler of the Florentine Republic during the Italian Renaissance. Known as Lorenzo the Magnificent (Lorenzo il Magnifico) by contemporary Florentines, he was a diplomat, politician and patron of scholars, artists, and poets. His life coincided with the high point of the early Italian Renaissance; his death marked the end of the Golden Age of Florence. The fragile peace he helped maintain between the various Italian states collapsed with his death.
Lorenzo married twice - Lorenzo first married Clarice Orsini by proxy on February 7, 1469. She was a daughter of Giacomo Orsini, Lord of Monterotondo and Bracciano by his wife and cousin Maddalena Orsini. They had nine children:
Lucrezia de' Medici Piero di Lorenzo de' Medici Maddalena di Lorenzo de' Medici Pope Leo X Luisa de' Medici Contessina de' Medici Giuliano di Lorenzo de' Medici
His first son and his political heir, Piero di Lorenzo de' Medici (Piero 'the Unfortunate'), squandered his father's patrimony and brought down his father's dynasty in Florence. Another Medici, his brother Giovanni, restored it, but it was only made wholly secure again on the accession of a distant relative from a branch line of the family, Cosimo I de' Medici.
Piero de' Medici
Piero de' Medici (February 15, 1472 – December 28, 1503), called Piero the Unfortunate, was the Gran maestro of Florence from 1492 until his exile in 1494. Born in Florence, Piero di Lorenzo de' Medici was the oldest son of Lorenzo de' Medici (the Magnificent) and Clarice Orsini, and older brother of Pope Leo X.
Piero married Alfonsina Orsini in 1488. She was a daughter of Roberto Orsini, Count of Tagliacozzo and Caterina Sanseverino. They had two children:
Lorenzo II, Duke of Urbino (September 12, 1492 - May 4, 1519). {MAKE NOTE: Lorenzo II, Duke of Urbino STARTS THE NEXT LINE!!!!!!}
Clarice de' Medici (1493 - May 3, 1528). (She married Filippo Strozzi the Younger (1488 - 1538).
Daughter Lucrezia di Lorenzo de' Medici
Lucrezia de' Medici (4 August 1470 - between 10 and November 15 1553) was the eldest daughter of Lorenzo de' Medici and Clarice Orsini She married on the 10 September 1489 to Jacopo Salviati. By Salviati, she had 10 children, some of who were of great importance for the history of Renaissance Europe:
Her son Giovanni Salviati, was a cardinal from 1517 until his death. Her portrait was considered (as a newborn) as the baby Jesus in Our Lady of the Magnificat of Sandro Botticelli
Daughter Maria Salviati (1499 - 1543), married to Giovanni dalle Bande Nere. This marriage united the main branch and Popolano branch of the Medici family. His son, Cosimo, was named to lead Florence after the death of Duke Alessandro de' Medici
Maria Salviati c. 1537 A.D. and Giulia de' medici; see next page
Maria died on December 29, 1543 - note the other picture of her six years later, just before her death (Wiki). It's not the same woman.
Maria’s husband Giovanni de' Medici, also known as Giovanni dalle Bande Nere (April 5, 1498 - November 30, 1526) was an Italian condottiero, (A mercenary leader).
Giovanni dalle Bande Nere
Cosimo I de' Medici was their only child
Cosimo I de' Medici
Cosimo I de' Medici (June 12, 1519 – April 21, 1574) was Duke of Florence from 1537 to 1574, reigning as the first Grand Duke of Tuscany from 1569. Cosimo was born in Florence, the son of the famous condottiere Giovanni dalle Bande Nere from Forlì and Maria Salviati. Cosimo came to power at 17, when Duke Alessandro de' Medici was assassinated in 1537, as Alessandro's only male issue was illegitimate. He was from a different branch of the family, and so far had lived in Mugello, being almost unknown in Florence: however, many of the influential men in the city favored him, in some cases perhaps hoping to rule through him, taking advantage of his age. However, as Benedetto Varchi famously put it "One bill had the glutton in mind, and another the innkeeper". Cosimo proved strong-willed, astute and ambitious, and soon rejected the clause he had signed, which entrusted much of the power to a council of Forty-Eight.
Continued on next page Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Lorenzo II di Piero de' Medici
Lorenzo II di Piero de' Medici (September 12, 1492 – May 4, 1519) was the ruler of Florence from 1513 to his untimely death from syphilis in 1519. He was also Duke of Urbino from 1516 to 1519. Born in Florence, he was a son of Piero di Lorenzo de' Medici and Alfonsina Orsini. His paternal grandparents were Lorenzo the Magnificent and Clarice Orsini.
His maternal grandparents were Roberto Orsini, Conte Tagliacozzo and Catherine San Severino. Niccolò Machiavelli dedicated The Prince to Lorenzo to inform him of tactics to use in unifying Italy, though the entire intent behind this dedication is shrouded in mystery.
Lorenzo II di Piero de' Medici Married Madeleine de La Tour d'Auvergne (c. 1495? – April 28, 1519) was a penultimate representative of the senior branch of the house de La Tour d'Auvergne. She married Duke Lorenzo II de' Medicis in Château d'Amboise on May 5, 1518.
Madeleine's parents were Jean III de La Tour (1467–March 28, 1501), Count of Auvergne and Lauraguais, and Jeanne de Bourbon-Vendôme (1465–1511).
She died in Italy shortly before her husband, of the plague, having just given birth to a daughter, Catherine de' Medici (1519–1589), the future Queen Consort of France.
Madeleine's elder sister Anne, who inherited Auvergne and married John Stewart, 2nd Duke of Albany, outlived Madeleine by five years but died childless, after which the Counties of Auvergne and Boulogne as well as the barony of La Tour passed to Madeleine's daughter Catherine de' Medici and then to the French crown.
Madeleine de La Tour d'Auvergne
They had two children Catherine de' Medici and Alessandro de' Medici, Duke of Florence (said to be illegitimate)
Catherine de' Medici
Catherine de' Medici (April 13, 1519 – January 5, 1589) was born in Florence, Italy, as Caterina Maria Romula di Lorenzo de' Medici. Her parents, Lorenzo II de' Medici, Duke of Urbino, and Madeleine de la Tour d'Auvergne, Countess of Boulogne, both died within weeks of her birth. In 1533, at the age of fourteen, Caterina married Henry, second son of King Francis I of France and Queen Claude. Under the gallicised version of her name, Catherine de Médicis, she was queen consort of King Henry II of France from 1547 to 1559.
Alessandro de' Medici
Alessandro de' Medici (July 22, 1510 – January 6, 1537) called "il Moro" ("the Moor"), Duke of Penne and also Duke of Florence (from 1532), ruler of Florence from 1530 until 1537. Though illegitimate, he was the last member of the "senior" branch of the Medici to rule Florence and the first to be a hereditary duke.
Born in Florence, he was recognized as the illegitimate son of Lorenzo II de' Medici (grandson of Lorenzo de' Medici, the Magnificent), but many scholars today believe him to be in fact the illegitimate son of Giulio de' Medici (later Pope Clement VII)- nephew of Lorenzo de' Medici, the Magnificent. Historians (such as Christopher Hibbert) believe he had been born to a black or Moorish serving-woman in the Medici household, identified in documents as Simonetta da Collavechio. The nickname is said to derive from his features
When Emperor Charles V sacked Rome in 1527, the Florentines took advantage of the turmoil in Italy to reinstall the Republic; both Alessandro and Ippolito fled, along with the rest of the Medici and their main supporters, including the Pope's regent, Cardinal Silvio Passerini, with the exception of the eight-year-old Caterina de' Medici, who was left behind. Michelangelo, then occupied in creating a funerary chapel for the Medici, initially took charge of building fortifications around Florence in support of the Republic; he later temporarily fled the city. Clement eventually made his peace with the Emperor, and with the support of Imperial troops, the Republic was overwhelmed after a lengthy siege, and the Medici were restored to power in the summer of 1530. Clement assigned Florence to nineteen-year-old Alessandro, who had been made a duke, an appointment that was purchased from Charles. He arrived in Florence to take up his rule on July 5, 1531, and was created hereditary Duke of Florence 9 months later by the Emperor (for Tuscany lay outside the Papal States), there by signalling the end of the Republic
the Emperor supported Alessandro against the republicans. In 1533, he married his natural daughter Margaret of Austria to Alessandro. For his own inclinations, Alessandro seems to have remained faithful to one mistress, Taddea Malespina, who bore his only children Giulio de' Medici (c. 1540-1600), who also had illegitimate issue, and Giulia de' Medici, who married her cousin Bernardetto de' Medici, Signore di Ottaiano, and had issue.
Four years later his distant cousin Lorenzino de' Medici, nick-named "Lorenzaccio" ("bad Lorenzo"), assassinated him. (This event is the subject of Alfred de Musset's play "Lorenzaccio.") Lorenzino entrapped Alessandro through the ruse of a promised arranged sexual encounter with Lorenzino's sister Laudomia, a beautiful widow. For fear of starting an uprising if news of his death got out, Medici officials wrapped Alessandro's corpse in a carpet and secretly carried it to the cemetery of San Lorenzo, where it was hurriedly buried.
Lorenzino, in a declaration published later, said that he had killed Alessandro for the sake of the republic. When the anti-Medici faction failed to rise, Lorenzino fled to Venice, where he was killed in 1548. The Medici supporters (called "Palleschi" from the balls on the Medici arms) ensured that power then passed to Cosimo I de' Medici, the first of the "junior" branch of the Medici to rule Florence.
Alessandro was survived by two natural children of Taddea's: a son, Giulio (aged four at the time of his father's death) married to Lucrezia Gaetani, and a daughter, Giulia married firstly to Francesco Cantelmo, the Count of Alvito and the Duke of Popoli and then Bernadetto de' Medici, prince of Ottaiano.
Giulia de' medici - age 24
Giulia Romola di Alessandro de' Medici[1] (c. 1535 – c. 1588) was the illegitimate, possibly biracial, daughter of Alessandro de' Medici, Duke of Florence and his mistress Taddea Malaspina who was an Italian marchesa, (an Italian noblewoman next in rank above a count : a marquess).
Her mother Taddea Malaspina (1505 - ?) was an Italian marchesa. She was the mistress of Alessandro de' Medici, Duke of Florence from the early 1530s to about 1537 and was likely the mother of at least two of his children, Giulio di Alessandro de' Medici and Giulia de' Medici. Giulio de' Medici was associated with the Malaspina family at different points throughout his life.[1] Taddea was the younger daughter of Antonio Alberico Malaspina, sovereign marchese of Massa,[2] and Lucrezia d'Este. She married Count Giambattista Boiardo di Scandiano.[3] After his death and the death of her father, Malaspina lived with her mother in Florence and had a number of lovers, including Alessandro. Her sister Ricciarda inherited the title after their father's death. Through Ricciarda's marriage, the family was related to Pope Innocent VIII. Ricciarda was probably also one of Alessandro de' Medici's lovers.
Giulia, following her father's assassination, she was reared at the court of Cosimo I de' Medici and married advantageously twice. She is an ancestor of many of today's European royal houses.
A second advantageous marriage was arranged for her soon after with Bernadetto de' Medici, a first cousin of Cosimo I. She married him on August 14, 1559. Their son Alessandro, who was named for her father, was born the following year on December 17, 1560. During the early years of her marriage to Bernadetto, they entertained lavishly and she may have accompanied her husband on diplomatic missions.[3]
Sometime in the 1560s, her relationship with her former guardian may have cooled when Giulia insisted that she be treated as an equal to Cosimo I's mistress, who was regarded with general disdain at court. Other sources indicate that she and her husband were still in good standing with the court when they moved to Naples in 1567. There they battled successfully to win the title and lands to the principality of Ottaiano, which their descendants hold today. Through her son's descendants, Giulia is an ancestor of most Italian noble houses and of the Habsburg and Bonaparte royal lines.
Giulia also had an older full brother, Giulio di Alessandro de' Medici, and at least one half-sister, Porzia de' Medici.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^Sure was a lot of color in those two lines - and that's only what they admit to. And through them, most of the royal houses in Europe. LMAO! Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^Sure was a lot of color in those two lines - and that's only what they admit to. And through them, most of the royal houses in Europe. LMAO!
A lot of color where? Alessandro was the only Medici with direct African ancestry.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Here is an ethiopian artist who still paints Christian portraits in the orthodox style, with both black and white people depicted as saints and martyrs: http://www.h-net.org/~etoc/Pages/adamu_info.html Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
From page above - Cosimo di Giovanni de' Medici (the elder’s) son Piero 'the Gouty' In 1444 married Lucrezia Tornabuoni.
Her brother, Giovanni Tornabuoni was one of the wealthiest and most influential men in Florence. In the family chapel in Santa Maria Novella, Giovanni appears with his wife (not shown) Francesca Pitti.
Giovanni Tornabuoni
Their father was Francesco di Simone TORNABUONI.
He was Curly haired (the picture wouldn't post)
Their Mother was Marianna GUICCIARDINI
(No picture)
This is a mask of POZZOLI FABRIZIO I GUICCIARDINI
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: From page above - Cosimo di Giovanni de' Medici (the elder’s) son Piero 'the Gouty' In 1444 married Lucrezia Tornabuoni.
Her brother, Giovanni Tornabuoni was one of the wealthiest and most influential men in Florence. In the family chapel in Santa Maria Novella, Giovanni appears with his wife (not shown) Francesca Pitti.
Giovanni Tornabuoni
Their father was Francesco di Simone TORNABUONI.
He was Curly haired (the picture wouldn't post)
Their Mother was Marianna GUICCIARDINI
(No picture)
This is a mask of POZZOLI FABRIZIO I GUICCIARDINI
Here is a close up of that painting Mike. He was white:
All this stuff about white Europeans in Renaissance art being blacks is ludicrous.
Yes there were images of black royalty in Europe from prior to and including the Renaissance in Europe. Most were from Spain and most of those were either destroyed or are in private collections. But they exist and you don't need to try and claim white Renaissance Europeans as blacks when they weren't.
The "key" here if you want to call it that, is that much of the black presence in Southern Europe was destroyed by the rise of the Western Christian powers. Even though Asia, the Levant and Africa had a tremendous influence on the development of Medieval European culture, most of that history has been destroyed or lost and only fragments of it survive.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: All this stuff about white Europeans in Renaissance art being blacks is ludicrous
If you want to argue this fine. But it is disingenuous to argue that the Black Madonnas in Europe are a result of "pollution or fungal decomposition", wouldn't you agree?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Doug - I can't help but wonder why you would think yourself more expert in this than me. But in any event, the people below are self professed Black. Given time, I am sure that I could find a match for Giovanni Tornabuoni.
Cab Calloway (1907 -1994) American jazz musician, band leader. writer of the song 'Reeferman'
Adolph Caesar (December 5, 1933 – March 6, 1986) was an American actor.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: All this stuff about white Europeans in Renaissance art being blacks is ludicrous
If you want to argue this fine. But it is disingenuous to argue that the Black Madonnas in Europe are a result of "pollution or fungal decomposition", wouldn't you agree?
No. All Madonnas in Europe are not black Madonnas.
Heck even the Catholic grade school I went to (all white Nuns and Priests) had paintings of a black Jesus and half (or a good portion) of the students were white.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Doug - I can't help but wonder why you would think yourself more expert in this than me. But in any event, the people below are self professed Black. Given time, I am sure that I could find a match for Giovanni Tornabuoni.
Cab Calloway (1907 -1994) American jazz musician, band leader. writer of the song 'Reeferman'
Adolph Caesar (December 5, 1933 – March 6, 1986) was an American actor.
The fact is that the Medici family of Italy never identified as black were primarily white and only had a few members who had direct black African ancestry. To say otherwise with no evidence other than misinterpretations and distortions of paintings from their time is nonsense. Those who did have African ancestry in that family were famously identified as such, hence Alessandro the Moor. But to say ALL these people had black African blood is ridiculous.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
No. All Madonnas in Europe are not black Madonnas.
Now quote me saying All Madonnas in Europe are black Madonnas. And are you saying the one above is not "real"? If so why?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
No. All Madonnas in Europe are not black Madonnas.
Now quote me saying All Madonnas in Europe are black Madonnas. And are you saying the one above is not "real"? If so why?
The black Madonnas of Europe are famous and identified as such by name. It isn't the case that they are hidden and need someone to "find" them. Some art in Europe is darkened by grime and some isn't. So like I said all of them are not black Madonnas, meaning INTENDED to represent a black woman and/or child.
And on top of that you never asked me specifically about the image. You asked a general question and I gave you a general answer.
So, what image of the Madonna is this and where is it located? And regardless of whether it is or isn't intended to be a black madonna, that still doesn't change the point that all portraits of the Madonna that are dark are black Madonnas. Some are indeed darkened by age or grime. There are more than enough black Madonnas in Europe that are undeniably black, without trying to claim any portrait of the Madonna that looks dark as being such.
It is simply a representation of mother nature and mothers come in all colors. The key here though is that the tradition of Isis as the black mother goddess is part of the ancient traditions that led to the black Madonna in many cases.
Some of these were used as battle standards in Medieval times:
No. All Madonnas in Europe are not black Madonnas.
Now quote me saying All Madonnas in Europe are black Madonnas. And are you saying the one above is not "real"? If so why?
The black Madonnas of Europe are famous and identified as such by name. It isn't the case that they are hidden and need someone to "find" them. Some art in Europe is darkened by grime and some isn't. So like I said all of them are not black Madonnas, meaning INTENDED to represent a black woman and/or child.
And on top of that you never asked me specifically about the image. You asked a general question and I gave you a general answer.
So, what image of the Madonna is this and where is it located?
And are you saying you need some white person to tell you that an obvious picture of a Black mother and child is a "Black Madonna"? And if they don't say so it is not a black Madonna? Are you saying you need whites to validate what is obvious? And you are being dishonest when you say that the black Madonnas of Europe are famous and identified as such by name. Some are denied and explained away by the very excuses you give. But neither them, nor you, can explain why only the hands and feet seem to be so affected.
quote:that still doesn't change the point that all portraits of the Madonna that are dark are black Madonnas.
So dark is not equal to black now? LOL
Oh boy, this is a new twist coming from YOU.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
No. All Madonnas in Europe are not black Madonnas.
Now quote me saying All Madonnas in Europe are black Madonnas. And are you saying the one above is not "real"? If so why?
The black Madonnas of Europe are famous and identified as such by name. It isn't the case that they are hidden and need someone to "find" them. Some art in Europe is darkened by grime and some isn't. So like I said all of them are not black Madonnas, meaning INTENDED to represent a black woman and/or child.
And on top of that you never asked me specifically about the image. You asked a general question and I gave you a general answer.
So, what image of the Madonna is this and where is it located?
And are you saying you need some white person to tell you that an obvious picture of a Black mother and child is a "Black Madonna"? And if they don’t say so it is not a black Madonna? Are you saying you need whites to validate what is obvious? And you are being dishonest when you say that the black Madonnas of Europe are famous and identified as such by name. Some are denied and explained away by the very excuses you give. But neither them, nor you, can explain why only the hands and feet seem to be so affected.
quote:that still doesn't change the point that all portraits of the Madonna that are dark are black Madonnas.
So dark is not equal to black now? LOL
Oh boy, this is a new twist coming from YOU.
No, what I said stands for itself. All images of the Madonna in Europe are not intended to be black Madonnas and it has nothing to do with what someone tells me. It has to do with intent of the artist. Some portraits of the Madonna were INTENTIONALLY made to be black and others were not.
But again, you still have not answered the question about this particular portrait, which means that you don't really care enough to go further than just post any old image of a madonna that looks dark whether it was intended to be a black madonna or not. You need that information in order to know for sure. It has nothing to do with a white person telling anyone anything it has to do with facts. But you can believe that any darkened image of the Madonna in Europe is black all you want, but all darkened images of the Madonna are not black Madonnas.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
No. All Madonnas in Europe are not black Madonnas.
Now quote me saying All Madonnas in Europe are black Madonnas. And are you saying the one above is not "real"? If so why?
The black Madonnas of Europe are famous and identified as such by name. It isn't the case that they are hidden and need someone to "find" them. Some art in Europe is darkened by grime and some isn't. So like I said all of them are not black Madonnas, meaning INTENDED to represent a black woman and/or child.
And on top of that you never asked me specifically about the image. You asked a general question and I gave you a general answer.
So, what image of the Madonna is this and where is it located?
And are you saying you need some white person to tell you that an obvious picture of a Black mother and child is a "Black Madonna"? And if they don’t say so it is not a black Madonna? Are you saying you need whites to validate what is obvious? And you are being dishonest when you say that the black Madonnas of Europe are famous and identified as such by name. Some are denied and explained away by the very excuses you give. But neither them, nor you, can explain why only the hands and feet seem to be so affected.
quote:that still doesn't change the point that all portraits of the Madonna that are dark are black Madonnas.
So dark is not equal to black now? LOL
Oh boy, this is a new twist coming from YOU.
No, what I said stands for itself. All images of the Madonna in Europe are not intended to be black Madonnas and it has nothing to do with what someone tells me. It has to do with intent of the artist. Some portraits of the Madonna were INTENTIONALLY made to be black and others were not.
But again, you still have not answered the question about this particular portrait, which means that you don't really care enough to go further than just post any old image of a madonna that looks dark whether it was intended to be a black madonna or not. You need that information in order to know for sure. It has nothing to do with a white person telling anyone anything it has to do with facts. But you can believe that any darkened image of the Madonna in Europe is black all you want, but all darkened images of the Madonna are not black Madonnas.
Oh Jesus. You don't need a tourist guide book or a sign under a portrait of a black mother and child that says "Black Madonna" to convince you that it is. The fact that some are denied and explained away means that you can't always go by what whites say. You have to use your eyes and common sense. Which of course it seems you have none. As for the meaning, yes they are varied and fluid: representative of primordial earth goddess, Isis or combination of both. But weather elements is an excuse not fact.
A Black Madonna is a Black Madonna "Doug M". Now look at the picture and tell me if the dark areas are due to environment or they are INTENTIONALLY made so? Well?
Posted by Herukhuti (Member # 11484) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
(black Madonna of Barcelona)
The tour guide when I visited Barcelona emphasised that this one had been darkened by age.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ Well according to Doug M we can tick this one off too as not a "real" Black Madonna. lol
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Herukhuti - did they also explain why the White robes and the White figures in the adjacent paintings were not similarly effected??
It is axiomatic, WHITE PEOPLE LIE. Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herukhuti:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
(black Madonna of Barcelona)
The tour guide when I visited Barcelona emphasised that this one had been darkened by age.
The black madonna at Barcelona is a copy of the black Madonna of Montserrat. It was made to look exactly like the original, right down to the color. Therefore it cannot be darkened due to age. The reason the tour guide said that is truly based on socio-politics as opposed to reality.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ Was this Madonna intentionally made to look black or was it a victim of weather also?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
I don't know and who cares? There are many actual black Madonnas that were intentionally created as black. There are others that were not originally painted black but have darkened over time and are called black Madonnas. You aren't the first one to see such images and call them black. It isn't new and it isn't a secret.
quote:The Origin of the Black Madonna and Child
In the Fourth Century, the cathedral at Chartres, France was dedicated to the Black Madonna. Black Madonnas, however, may even precede this date. Numerous Madonnas have been created all over the world - Germany, Italy, France, Poland, Switzerland and Spain. Our Lady of Montserrat in Spain is perhaps the best known Black Madonna statue. Legend contends that this statue was carved by St. Luke in Jerusalem, taken to Barcelona, and hidden in a cave near Montserrat to be rediscovered in 880 A.D.
There are three distinct categories of Black Madonnas:
1. Madonnas of dark brown or black skin pigmentation and physiognomy resembling the populace indigenous to the area; 2. Madonnas that became black due to smoke damage, deterioration, oxidation, or other physical changes; and 3. miracle-working Black Madonnas with black or dark brown pigmentation originating in regions inhabited by Caucasians.
The third category is significant; for physical deterioration, accident nor resemblance to the native population can logically explain their color or account for their discovery in areas populated by whites. These Black Madonnas were considered to be exceedingly powerful miracle workers and held in high esteem. They were worshipped for their power rather adored due to their grace.
An eighteen foot chancel mural of the Black Madonna, painted by Detroit artist Glanton Dowdell was unveiled and dedicated on Easter Sunday, March 26, 1967, at the Shrine of the Black Madonna by the Reverend Albert Cleage. This mural became Detroit's first representation of the Black Madonna and Child.
The point being that there are hundreds of black Madonnas in Europe, but this thread focuses only on those that 'may' be due to weathering and age, but doesn't even show the ones that are undeniably black, of which there are also quite a few in Europe.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Point is you opened your damn mouth and ended up looking stupid as usual. Now that you realise just how stupid you look applying the "pollution or fungal decomposition" argument to this obvious Black Madonna you scream in surrender "who cares!"
Wow! Not so long ago you implied it wasn't a "real" Black Madonna and dismissed it as some "old image of a Madonna"! You are so full of it.
Look at her "Doug M", look at her and apologise to the black Queen of Heaven, Mother of the Earth!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
With the Egyptian, it's offering jars. With the Madonna, it's golden balls. Any idea if there is a connection.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Doug - How did "Racist Lies" suddenly become "socio-politics"? It must hurt, talking out of both sides of the mouth is not natural.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Point is you opened your damn mouth and ended up looking stupid as usual. Now that you realise just how stupid you look applying the "pollution or fungal decomposition" argument to this obvious Black Madonna you scream in surrender "who cares!"
Wow! Not so long ago you implied it wasn't a "real" Black Madonna and dismissed it as some "old image of a Madonna"! You are so full of it.
Look at her "Doug M", look at her and apologise to the black Queen of Heaven, Mother of the Earth!
Actually I asked you where it was from. Is that something too hard to provide or do you just like spamming unknown and unidentified images?
And what I said was there are MANY black madonnas in Europe, you only care about the ones that COULD be darkened with age, not the ones that ARE SIMPLY BLACK. There are black Madonnas in Europe that are unambiguously intended to be black. YES Europeans lie about them. But that has nothing to do with whether SOME black Madonnas were INTENTIONALLY created as black women and whether others are simply labeled as such after being darkened due to age.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
[Catherine de Medici: this is her real colour. Doesn't she look like one of these Black Madonna's? The Medici family is described as, most of them, having bulging eyes. Her son is described as 'swarthy.' They wanted to be perceived as divine rulers, so Maria and God were also black]
Dear Mike111,
You are starting to catch up! By looking at these paintings and saying they look black you have freed your mind. When we find that these people have lied many times to cut out blacks from history, we do not have to keep on analysing each new lie. We reject their vision entirely. But because they monopolise the data, we still have to use their books and visit their museums of lies to be able to see the artefacts they lie about. Its disgusting how these houseniggers over here just swallow all this crap.
But I would advise you to study more portraits of these same people because you have posted the most whitened images, and images which they reproduce in such a way that the person looks very white skinned. The old prints and drawings usually show colour. Prints are harder to repress because they were published widely and are found in books in many collection. The paintings usually are the fakes.
Then we are not getting the whole picture because we do not see the whole body of portraits ever produced. We see the one's on which eurocentrism is based on. Some whitened portraits are authentic; some are over paints, whitened copies or downright fakes showing another person. They are idealised, making otherwise ugly or misshapen people beautiful and regal. There is a lot going on with portraits that they are not telling us. And I still believe that one does not have to be a professor to say that someone looks black. These people are a mixed race, they would look like all other black nations.
Posted by Herukhuti (Member # 11484) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Herukhuti:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
(black Madonna of Barcelona)
The tour guide when I visited Barcelona emphasised that this one had been darkened by age.
The black madonna at Barcelona is a copy of the black Madonna of Montserrat. It was made to look exactly like the original, right down to the color. Therefore it cannot be darkened due to age. The reason the tour guide said that is truly based on socio-politics as opposed to reality.
Thanks for your comment, I was actually talking about the Madonna of Montserrat. That's the one I went to see, on a coach tour from Barcelona.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
[Catherine de Medici, Queen of France]
FRANCIS, DUC D'ALENÇON AND ANJOU
BORN: 1554 DIED: 1584
Sketch of Alençon by J Decourt Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris
Suitor of Elizabeth I. Youngest child of Catherine de Medici, brother to Charles IX of France. Took the title of Duke of Anjou after the death of his brother Henri.
Born in Saint-Germain-en-Laye, fith son of king Henri II and of Caterina de' Medici, Hercule François de Valois, Duke d'Évreux 1560, Duke d'Alençon et Château-Thierry 1566, Duke d'Anjou, de Berry et de Touraine 1576, was the brother of king Henri III.
Small and swarthy, ambitious and cunning, François was leader of the moderate Roman Catholic faction called the Politiques, who supported Bodin's theory of sovereignty. He courted Queen Elizabeth and even succeeded in negotiating a marriage contract with her in 1579; despite two visits to London to woo her, the mariage never took place, possibly because he was discovered being homosexual. His lover was Louis de Clermont Sieur de Bussy d'Amboise (five years his elder). Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
Now that we have decided they lie about the damn Black madonna's, we might try to find out what they mean. One famous one was destroyed during the French revolution. I think because the French revolution was against this elite which was black and had all these black divine images produced.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: With the Egyptian, it's offering jars. With the Madonna, it's golden balls. Any idea if there is a connection.
Symbolism in European renaissance art is a subject of study all to itself. Yes, the globes mean something and mostly it relates to world power.
Here is an example of a Renaissance portrait rich with symbolism (Elizabeth I Armada Portrait):
But keep in mind that this use of symbolism in royal portraits does indeed trace back to more ancient cultures, whether Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Asia, Greece or Rome. In fact many of the motifs in Renaissance art are taken from these cultures. I remember posting an image of one of the Kushite queens where she had very similar styles of dress and various symbols as seen in the images of Elizabeth. Then you have the art of South East Asia (Cambodia,Thailand,Vietnam,etc) where the goddesses and female queens were decked out in many layers of pearls, elaborate head dresses and rich textiles. Then you have the elaborate textile traditions of the Moors, Persians and other Islamic peoples of the late 1st millennium, with elaborate brocaded and embroidered textiles and head dresses. All of this directly influenced the style of European royal custom, even though many may not know it. As a matter of fact, the use of polylobed arches as a symbol of divinity as an architectural element goes back to India and some of the early Buddhist temples there, where figures of the Buddha or other divine figures are seen sitting under such arches. This is also found in other parts of South Asia as well.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Actually I asked you where it was from. Is that something too hard to provide or do you just like spamming unknown and unidentified images?
And what I said was there are MANY black madonnas in Europe, you only care about the ones that COULD be darkened with age, not the ones that ARE SIMPLY BLACK. There are black Madonnas in Europe that are unambiguously intended to be black. YES Europeans lie about them. But that has nothing to do with whether SOME black Madonnas were INTENTIONALLY created as black women and whether others are simply labeled as such after being darkened due to age.
How old are you dude? I "only care about" those that could be darkened with age? lol
Look, I don't have any "favorites" if that's what you're asking, all I'm saying is that the one Egmond posted is obviously a Black Madonna. "Doug M", you're obviously saving face. Who cares where its from, its obviously a Black Madonna. Clearly its not "darkened by age" which is why you have yet to demonstrate this to us, even though you keep blabbing on about it.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Actually I asked you where it was from. Is that something too hard to provide or do you just like spamming unknown and unidentified images?
And what I said was there are MANY black madonnas in Europe, you only care about the ones that COULD be darkened with age, not the ones that ARE SIMPLY BLACK. There are black Madonnas in Europe that are unambiguously intended to be black. YES Europeans lie about them. But that has nothing to do with whether SOME black Madonnas were INTENTIONALLY created as black women and whether others are simply labeled as such after being darkened due to age.
How old are you dude? I "only care about" those that could be darkened with age? lol
Look, I don't have any "favorites" if that's what you're asking, all I'm saying is that the one Egmond posted is obviously a Black Madonna. "Doug M", you're obviously saving face. Who cares where its from, its obviously a Black Madonna. Clearly it not "darkened by age" which is why you have yet to demonstrate this to us, even though you keep blabbing on about it.
Why don't you answer the question? Simple as that. I didn't ask for a whole bunch of talk. If you CARE about the image and its history then you SHOULD know where it is and something about it no?
Otherwise you are just arguing for sake of argument not for any purpose of understanding or history of such images in European art.
I take it you don't know anything about the picture other than it looks dark and MIGHT be a "black" Madonna. If that is as far your research or interest goes in this subject then obviously your research is limited to the nonsense talking points of people like Edmond. Anyone who would START a discussion on the black Madonnas of Europe and SKIP the the numerous OBVIOUSLY BLACK images of the Madonnas in Europe to focus on the ones that are ambiguous, are not serious about the subject.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ clearly you're the one arguing on and saving face. I already told you I don't care where its from. You were the one who objected to it implying it wasnt "intended" to be a Black Madonna. The onus is on you to demonstrate this. But we all know why you can only spam your "three categories" nothing else.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Point is, if you don't know where it's from, don't care where it's from, can't make any conclusions since you obviously know nothing about it right?
...and hence your assertions are likely incorrect and you don't even know if the portrait was intended to be a black Madonna, other then what Doug said, that it looks dark to you, so it might be.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ clearly you're the one arguing on and saving face. I already told you I don't care where its from. You were the one who objected to it implying it wasnt "intended" to be a Black Madonna. The onus is on you to demonstrate this. But we all know why you can only spam your "three categories" nothing else.
You must care about it because you are the only one arguing about it. So if you don't care about it why are you pestering me about it? The only one saving face is you because you don't care about the subject enough to even do your own research on it. There are lists of black Madonnas published all over the place. There are tours to sites of black Madonnas all over Europe. Such black madonnas are famous and not secret. Therefore, it should be a simple case to find out if this is one of them...
But I forgot, you think this is some sort of "secret" only you have figured out and exposed.
Sure.
quote: Black Virgin is a statue or painting of Mary in which she is depicted with dark or black skin. This name applies in particular to European statues or pictures of a Madonna which are of special interest because her dark face and hands is thought by some to be the true color. In this specialised sense "Black Madonna" does not apply to images of the Virgin Mary portrayed as explicitly black African, which are popular in Africa and areas with large black populations, such as the United States. However, it has been argued that European Black Madonnas have their roots in African traditions (see below).
Some statues get their color from the material used, such as ebony or other dark wood, but there is debate about whether this choice of material is significant. Others were originally light-skinned but have become darkened over time, for example by candle soot. For a time this was thought to be the explanation for all medieval "black" images of Mary, but this has been contested by commentators starting in the 1950s with Leonard Moss, who believed the color of originally-dark Madonnas had significance. Occasionally, a Madonna's face has been re-painted black after restoration had returned it to its original pale-skinned coloring, though the blackness of even these is sometimes significant to devotees.
The Black Madonnas are generally medieval, or copies of medieval figures, and are found in Catholic areas. The statues are mostly wooden but occasionally stone, often painted and up to 75 cm tall, many dating from between the 11th and 15th centuries. They fall into two main groups: free-standing upright figures and seated figures on a throne. The pictures are usually icons: Byzantine in style though sometimes made in 13th or 14th century Italy. Most are an image of Mother and Child. Their faces tend to have recognizably European features. There are about 450-500 Black Madonnas in Europe, depending on how they are classified. There are at least 180 Vierges Noires in France, and there are hundreds of non-medieval copies too. A few are in museums, but most are in churches or shrines and are venerated by devotees. Many are associated with miracles and some attract substantial numbers of pilgrims.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Point is, if you don't know where it's from, don't care where it's from, can't make any conclusions since you obviously know nothing about it right?
...and hence your assertions are likely incorrect and you don't even know if the portrait was intended to be a black Madonna, other then what Doug said, that it looks dark to you, so it might be.
Oh you are really showing your mindlessness now. I know its an obvious Black Madonna. And if you, like "Doug M", don't think it is really dark, it only "looks" dark then fine. Like "Doug M" prove it was darked by age or candle burns or shut the **** up.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Point is, if you don't know where it's from, don't care where it's from, can't make any conclusions since you obviously know nothing about it right?
...and hence your assertions are likely incorrect and you don't even know if the portrait was intended to be a black Madonna, other then what Doug said, that it looks dark to you, so it might be.
I know its an obvious Black Madonna.
...and you base this on what?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Point is, if you don't know where it's from, don't care where it's from, can't make any conclusions since you obviously know nothing about it right?
...and hence your assertions are likely incorrect and you don't even know if the portrait was intended to be a black Madonna, other then what Doug said, that it looks dark to you, so it might be.
Oh you are really showing your mindlessness now. I know its an obvious Black Madonna. And if you, like "Doug M", don't think it is really dark, it only "looks" dark then fine. Like "Doug M" prove it was darked by age or candle burns or shut the **** up.
I asked you for information about the portrait. If you can't provide it then that's the end of it. You can call it what you want. But in order to know for sure you need to know where it was from, who painted it and when. Since you POSTED the images but didn't feel the need to go any further in researching it, then the question isn't answered. I never said it WASN'T a black Madonna, but that there are MANY OTHERS that aren't as ambiguous. I have posted them, identified them and located them. So whatever image it is, or wherever it is from, it doesn't matter because I KNOW that there are black Madonnas in Europe and it isn't something SO OBSCURE that I need to argue over some UNKNOWN and UNIDENTIFIED image with you.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote: ...and you base this on what?
On the fact that you are a color blind gringo.
quote:I have posted them, identified them and located them.
And prey tell, how did you "identify" them? Because the whites, that you admit lie about them, said they were Black Madonnas? And if they said an obviously Black Madonna wasn't intended to be a Black Madonna – it was darkened by age, its just the dark color of the material used, its really pollution or fungal decomposition - then it isn't a black Madonna? It has already been establish that whites lie about them yet you still insist they must be validated by the same white people! You schizophrenic loser! lol
Look, quit with your signature photo spam. Nothing you posted from Wiki (you pathetic internet "scholar") that I havent read already long ago. You were the one who objected to it hence the onus is on you to explain how an obviously black Madonna wasn't "intended" to be Black Madonna.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by akoben: [QB] [QUOTE] ...and you base this on what?
On the fact that you are a color blind gringo.
So....you pretty much base this on nothing, and like I said you made an erroneous assertion, since you had no idea of where this portrait even came from. Btw, you're the only gringo on here, Kennedy.
No big deal, you do this all the time which is why you end up getting intellectually smacked everywhere you go.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: there are MANY OTHERS that aren't as ambiguous.
You're so clueless you don't even understand the meaning of "secret" in reference to the Black Madonna phenomena. In essence the so-called "cult" of the Black Madonna has an ambiguous essence to it. It's a "secret" little Doug M precisely because there are many explanations for them. Why are they dark? Decomposition, materials used, a throw back to primordial earth goddess, African goddess archetype, Masonic symbolism, representative of Mary because she was dark skinned. Does the dark have any significance or is it just coincidence? There are many explanations for it hence their "true" nature is a "secret". Not that they have to be "identified" as Black Madonnas, you simpleton.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: there are MANY OTHERS that aren't as ambiguous.
You're so clueless you don't even understand the meaning of "secret" in reference to the Black Madonna phenomena. In essence the so-called "cult" of the Black Madonna has an ambiguous essence to it. It's a "secret" little Doug M precisely because there are many explanations for them. Why are they dark? Decomposition, materials used, a throw back to primordial earth goddess, African goddess archetype, Masonic symbolism, representative of Mary because she was dark skinned. Does the dark have any significance or is it just coincidence? There are many explanations for it hence their "true" nature is a "secret". Not that they have to be "identified" as Black Madonnas, you simpleton.
Well as I said, the only one making up nonsense history is you.
Black Madonnas are listed and identified by name all over Europe in many different languages. So it isn't a secret. And since such symbolism PREDATES any "masons" in Europe, how on earth can they keep something secret they did not originate? Black symbolizing the origin of all life is found all over the planet, so how on earth is it some "special" secret of Europeans? Such symbolism and its meaning predates any European conceptions of such and they maintain it PRECISELY out of respect for the obvious TRUTH that they represent on many levels. The lies are because such symbolism also relates to national identity and power. Therefore, in the context of expanding European empires it is necessary to portray Europeans and European leaders as the epitome of divinity on earth.
But again, you posted an image, don't have any information on it and then proceed to argue on everything BUT that which YOU posted. Seems to me your argument is null and void. Let's stick to that.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: Black Madonnas are listed and identified by name all over Europe in many different languages. So it isn't a secret.
Then why are there so many explanations for them? Which one is "true"?
quote:And since such symbolism PREDATES any "masons" in Europe, how on earth can they keep something secret they did not originate? Black symbolizing the origin of all life is found all over the planet, so how on earth is it some "special" secret of Europeans? Such symbolism and its meaning predates any European conceptions of such and they maintain it PRECISELY out of respect for the obvious TRUTH that they represent on many levels.
Again, you're simply exposing yourself as a simpleton Doug M. The varied explanations doesn't have to represent "truth" for the phenomena to be ambiguous in nature. Poor you.
quote: But again, you posted an image, don't have any information on it
The only information I need is the ones my eyes can give: i.e. Egmond posted an obvious Black Madonna. You already admit that it is dark, your only contention is why it is dark. This is why you threw in the darken by age argument. You objected to it, you failed to substantiate your objections.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: With the Egyptian, it's offering jars. With the Madonna, it's golden balls. Any idea if there is a connection.
Symbolism in European renaissance art is a subject of study all to itself. Yes, the globes mean something and mostly it relates to world power.
Here is an example of a Renaissance portrait rich with symbolism (Elizabeth I Armada Portrait):
But keep in mind that this use of symbolism in royal portraits does indeed trace back to more ancient cultures, whether Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Asia, Greece or Rome. In fact many of the motifs in Renaissance art are taken from these cultures. I remember posting an image of one of the Kushite queens where she had very similar styles of dress and various symbols as seen in the images of Elizabeth. Then you have the art of South East Asia (Cambodia,Thailand,Vietnam,etc) where the goddesses and female queens were decked out in many layers of pearls, elaborate head dresses and rich textiles. Then you have the elaborate textile traditions of the Moors, Persians and other Islamic peoples of the late 1st millennium, with elaborate brocaded and embroidered textiles and head dresses. All of this directly influenced the style of European royal custom, even though many may not know it. As a matter of fact, the use of polylobed arches as a symbol of divinity as an architectural element goes back to India and some of the early Buddhist temples there, where figures of the Buddha or other divine figures are seen sitting under such arches. This is also found in other parts of South Asia as well.
Some Chinese royal portraits from 1000 years prior to Elizabeth:
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: Black Madonnas are listed and identified by name all over Europe in many different languages. So it isn't a secret.
Then why are there so many explanations for them? Which one is "true"?
quote:And since such symbolism PREDATES any "masons" in Europe, how on earth can they keep something secret they did not originate? Black symbolizing the origin of all life is found all over the planet, so how on earth is it some "special" secret of Europeans? Such symbolism and its meaning predates any European conceptions of such and they maintain it PRECISELY out of respect for the obvious TRUTH that they represent on many levels.
Again, you're simply exposing yourself as a simpleton Doug M. The varied explanations doesn't have to represent "truth" for the phenomena to be ambiguous in nature. Poor you.
quote: But again, you posted an image, don't have any information on it
The only information I need is the ones my eyes can give: i.e. Egmond posted an obvious Black Madonna. You already admit that it is dark, your only contention is why it is dark. This is why you threw in the darken by age argument. You objected to it, you failed to substantiate your objections.
The point is YOU referenced the image so YOU are the one who has to PROVE that it is a black Madonna.
You keep trying to avoid this obligation by talking and talking and talking but not proving YOUR image is a black Madonna. I posted my own and stand behind such an identification of such images through references AND the obvious PHYSICAL evidence that is readily seen with the naked eyeball. I never really said the image you posted WASN'T a black Madonna, what I said was that it was an AMBIGUOUS image.
You and Edmond on the other hand have provided nothing but a bunch of pictures with little references as to their location and origin.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote: The point is YOU referenced the image so YOU are the one who has to PROVE that it is a black Madonna.
Proof is in the physical evidence: it is dark and you already admitted this. Your only contention was why it is dark hence your, and Mary's, explanations of age and pollution or fungal decomposition.
If you admit it is dark why isnt it a Black Madonna? Or are you saying now that dark does not equal black. Like I said, dark not being synonymous with black is a new twist from you.
quote: I never really said the image you posted WASN'T a black Madonna, what I said was that it was an AMBIGUOUS image.
Actually because of your initial flap implying that it wasn't "a real" Black Madonna but darken by age, you ended up saying a number of erroneous and contradictory things that demonstrated your ignorance of the Black Madonna phenomena.
You thought the "secret" was merely not identifying them as Black Madonnas, which is rubbish.
You admit whites lie about them anyway yet you insist they must be validated by the said liars.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote: The point is YOU referenced the image so YOU are the one who has to PROVE that it is a black Madonna.
Proof is in the physical evidence: it is dark and you already admitted this. Your only contention was why it is dark hence your, and Mary's, explanations of age and pollution or fungal decomposition.
If you admit it is dark why isnt it a Black Madonna? Or are you saying now that dark does not equal black. Like I said, dark not being synonymous with black is a new twist from you.
quote: I never really said the image you posted WASN'T a black Madonna, what I said was that it was an AMBIGUOUS image.
Actually because of your initial flap implying that it wasn't "a real" Black Madonna but darken by age, you ended up saying a number of erroneous and contradictory things that demonstrated your ignorance of the Black Madonna phenomena.
You thought the "secret" was merely not identifying them as Black Madonnas, which is rubbish.
You admit whites lie about them anyway yet you insist they must be validated by the said liars.
Stop trying to reverse the burden of proof. YOU posted the image YOU claim it is a black madonna so YOU prove it. It is that simple.
Oh... but wait, you don't even know where it came from!
LOL!
So much for your reliability and ability to address facts.
Meanwhile, those images I have posted are easily referenced and observable as black Madonnas.
So don't get mad that all you have is a photo and nothing more than pure rhetoric to justify your claims......
Maybe at some point you will TRY and look through your browser history to see where it comes from, instead of trying to push your obligations on everyone else.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Doug you make no sense, as usual. You abandoned your dark-by-age argument in favor of Black by white validation. Yet you admit whites lie about them.
Are they then Black Madonnas until whites say they are or are they Black Madonnas because they are dark skinned? Which one?
And if they are Black Madonnas because of white validation then this means "all medieval "black" images of Mary" werent really Black Madonnas until the 1950s! lol
Child, you are one walking contradiction.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Since Akoben is too LAZY to do his own work, let me do it for him.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Doug you make no sense, as usual. You abandoned your dark-by-age argument in favor of Black by white validation. Yet you admit whites lie about them.
Are they then Black Madonnas until whites say they are or are they Black Madonnas because they are dark skinned? Which one?
And if they are Black Madonnas because of white validation then this means "all medieval "black" images of Mary" werent really Black Madonnas until the 1950s! lol
Child, you are one walking contradiction.
How about YOU provide evidence of why that image is a black Madonna.
Simple enough isn't it?
It should be obvious to everyone by now that you CAN'T and all you are doing is avoiding the fact that YOU cannot prove it. So don't keep asking me to prove something YOU posted to begin with.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Oh Jesus, more face saving spam. Look loser, quite with your photo spam it disproves nothing. We are not debating Russian saints but an obvious portrait of a dark skinned (admitted even by you) Madonna. Even your Madonna spam isn't dark as the one in question. This again is mere desperation on your part.
quote:How about YOU provide evidence of why that image is a black Madonna.
Because its dark skinned.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
LOL! I said it was dark skinned? No I didn't. YOU are the one who keeps saying this but has YET to provide anything to support your claim.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
So the Madonna in question isnt dark skinned? And if you didn't think it why did you bring in the dark by age explanation?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben: So the Madonna in question isnt dark skinned? And if you didn't think it why did you bring in the dark by age explanation?
Why do you keep asking the same question over and over again? It is up to YOU to prove that it is a "dark skinned" portrait. You posted it.
^ come on dude, you're obviously photo spamming to avoid the dark skinned Madonna in question.
quote: Why do you keep asking the same question over and over again? It is up to YOU to prove that it is a "dark skinned" portrait. You posted it.
Ok, so by avoiding the question you indirectly admit that you do see it as dark but not dark skinned. Then why are the face and hands dark? Or does that not constitute "skin" in your view?
And if you are going to use "OBVIOUSLY BLACK" or "it only looks dark" argument against the Madonna in question, you should have read your own Wiki source.
It groups the "not so black as Europe's Black Madonnas" as Black Madonnas, "Her skin is not as black as the European Black Madonnas but she is not white. The general opinion is that she represents an indigenous woman. A comparative religious belief traces her figure to the Egyptian Goddess Isis"
The same for Russia. The Black Madonna is not "OBVIOUSLY BLACK" as your spam but it is grouped as such by your source.
Poor "Doug M". Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ come on dude, you're obviously photo spamming to avoiding the dark skinned Madonna in question.
quote: Why do you keep asking the same question over and over again? It is up to YOU to prove that it is a "dark skinned" portrait. You posted it.
Ok, so by avoiding the question you indirectly admit that you do see it as dark but not dark skinned. Then why are the face and hands dark? Or does that not constitute "skin" in your view?
Still asking me? I thought you were the expert?
Silly dude. If you feel it is a black icon then say so, don't ask me to prove it for you.
How odd is it you keep asking the same question over and over and over again. Why don't you simply say you think it is black and be done with it. I am not going to sit here and PROVE your point of view for you. To me it is ambiguous and can be interpreted in multiple ways.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
People have to understand that there are "official" icons in Churches and holy places and then HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS of icons mass produced for the lay people. Depending on the artist, some are indeed black, while others are not. It is simply mother nature and of course she comes in all colors.
Like I said earlier, ALL of it traces back to the worship of Isis in Roman colonies of Europe and other traditions in the East, so it isn't surprising that the image of a black mother goddess is still worshiped in some parts of Europe.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Why don't you simply say you think it is black and be done with it.
Why are you pretending as if I never said it was a Black Madonna?
quote:I am not going to sit here and PROVE your point of view for you. To me it is ambiguous and can be interpreted in multiple ways.
It is ambiguous because it isn't as dark as the ones you selectively posted? Strange since even your own source Wiki has ones lighter than the one in question, as Black Madonnas. As for their varied interpretation, why are you pretending as if that was in debate? It is precisely this point that renders your whole exercise futile.
quote:there are "official" icons
Is this your way of saying you do subscribe to white validation? It must really be hard speaking from both sides of your mouth.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Why don't you simply say you think it is black and be done with it.
Why are you pretending as if I never said it was a Black Madonna?
quote:I am not going to sit here and PROVE your point of view for you. To me it is ambiguous and can be interpreted in multiple ways.
It is ambiguous because it isn't as dark as the ones you selectively posted? Strange since even your own source Wiki has ones lighter than the one in question, as Black Madonnas. As for their varied interpretation, why are you pretending as if that was in debate? It is precisely this point that renders your whole exercise futile.
Actually the wiki article proves that YOU aren't the FIRST one to look at certain icons and call them BLACK whether they WERE BLACK or not.
YOU still have to prove whether ANY portrait that YOU call black is actually a BLACK Madonna. You keep trying to run away from the fact that ALL Madonnas aren't black and that some that ARE identified as black are indeed darkened due to time, but STILL called black.
But again, we are ONLY talking about the image YOU posted and it is YOU who needs to provide evidence that it is indeed a black Madonna.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Why don't you simply say you think it is black and be done with it.
Why are you pretending as if I never said it was a Black Madonna?
quote:I am not going to sit here and PROVE your point of view for you. To me it is ambiguous and can be interpreted in multiple ways.
It is ambiguous because it isn't as dark as the ones you selectively posted? Strange since even your own source Wiki has ones lighter than the one in question, as Black Madonnas. As for their varied interpretation, why are you pretending as if that was in debate? It is precisely this point that renders your whole exercise futile.
quote:there are "official" icons
Is this your way of saying you do subscribe to white validation? It must really be hard speaking from both sides of your mouth.
LOL! Akoben you are so dumb it is retarded.
What does anything I say have to do with the picture YOU posted? I am not trying to prove anything YOU are. So I am waiting for YOU to prove it..... Try as you may you simply don't get it. You posted an image, with no references or information and then proceed to make a fool of yourself because YOU didn't care enough to TRY and dig up info on it. Now you sit here and try and recover yourself by acting as if somebody else needs to PROVE something for you. Face it, you can't even defend your OWN points of view and therefore rely on silly innuendo to avoid that fact.
Simply put, you are trolling as usual.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Actually the wiki article proves that YOU aren't the FIRST one to look at certain icons and call them BLACK whether they WERE BLACK or not.
What makes the icon in question not black to you?
quote:YOU still have to prove whether ANY portrait that YOU call black is actually a BLACK Madonna.
We are not talking about "any" portrait, but an obviously dark skinned one, darker than the ones even your own source cites as Black Madonnas.
quote:You keep trying to run away from the fact that ALL Madonnas aren't black and that some that ARE identified as black are indeed darkened due to time, but STILL called black.
You bring this up again thinking I will forget to say that you still have yet to show where I said all Madonnas are Black and you have yet to prove the one in question was made dark with time. And unlike you Doug M, I don't think I need white "officialdom" to convince me an obviously dark skinned Madonna is in fact a Black Madonna.
quote:But again, we are ONLY talking about the image YOU posted and it is YOU who needs to provide evidence that it is indeed a black Madonna.
It is dark skinned. Darker than some of the ones your own source cites as Black Madonnas.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Don't ask me to support your points of view. I gave my opinion that it is an ambiguous image, which means it looks like it could simply be darkened due to age. That is my opinion and I stand by it. So stop asking me the same thing over and over. If you feel it is black then SUPPORT your point of view.
Now as to the presence of black Icons in the Russion orthodox church, look here for some images of the icons held within the Church as sacred. Some of them look as if they could indeed be black:
Most of the icons are named as "xxx" mother of god and the name is based on the location or the person who found it or something else about the portrait itself.
quote: Znamenie is one of the 350 images of the Mother of God in Russian Orthodox religion. There is a legend behind this icon, and it is a Russian legend not found in the Bible. The army of Suzdal, which is a small town near Moscow, and which was an ancient capital of Russia, went to Novgorod (another town near Moscow) to fight a battle and armies of this time always carried icons into battle with them, in hopes that the Mother of God would provide a miracle.
So, the army of Novgorod carried this icon into battle. A Suzdal arrow hit the Mother of God image, and she began to cry, according to the legend. So the Novgorod army immediately said, "We must have the Mother of God on our side," and they won the battle. This particular icon is highly venerated and is one of the most popular ones in Russia.
But you have to remember that there is one 'original' icon, meaning the original image that is adored and kept within a sanctuary or shrine at a church. Then there are the copies that are made for the faithful. So, what you want to do is to look for the 'original' at the church sanctuaries and see if they are indeed black. Then you will have the proof you need. Keep in mind that many of the copies may or may not be like the original.
Other potential black icons from the Russian church:
Lesna Mother of God
Kursk Root Icon
and others.
'Original' Kursk root icon which has a feast day every year:
Like I said, especially in the eastern orthodox, the only represent the traditions of the symbolism of mother nature as a woman, where the stars are related to the body of Nut and the womb as the mother of the "sun" and mysteries of creation in the Egyptian tradition.
They can come in various colors, because the tradition spread all over and each area had artists that made many copies of icons. So, like I said, mother nature comes in all colors as she is the nature of motherhood as an aspect of creation.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Dude stop choking up the ******* thread with your face saving bullshit. You're now switching from arguing they have to be sanctioned by "officialdom" to saying they have to be "originals"?
But even your own source undermines you here, "The Black Madonnas are generally medieval,or copies of medieval figures, and are found in Catholic areas" it says nothing about them having to be one 'original' icon.
In fact it what your source seems to be saying is that Orthodox icons arent really Black Madonnas! LOL
You are running all over the place "Doug M", all because you made an initial **** up. You did admit "officialdom" do lie about them, you called it "socio-politics". Yet you rely on said officialdom to tell you what they are and their meaning? You color blind simpleton, the very ambiguity of the phenomena renders their validation by "officialdom" irrelevant! In fact there are instances when they were victims of officialdom! Remember too that it was "officialdom" that largely denied their very existence and meaning before 1950. So telling me this is not a Black Madonna because "officialdom" doesn't say so makes you look like the retarded contradictory troll you are.
Until you can prove that the Madonna in question is "simply darkened due to age" then your posts remain choked up spam.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
LOL! Your antics are tiring. You are going in circles because you have nothing to back up your opinions so you are resorted to meaningless dribble. YOU have to prove that the image is a black Madonna, so if you got it then show it. Otherwise, stop blowing smoke out your behind.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Poor you. Lost this debate before you even started.
Here is my proof "Doug M", I think it is because of its obvious dark face and hands. According to your own source (that you now seem to be throwing away) that's pretty much all I need. This is how it defines Black Madonnas:
"A Black Madonna or Black Virgin is a statue or painting of Mary in which she is depicted with dark or black skin. This name applies in particular to European statues or pictures of a Madonna which are of special interest because her dark face and hands is thought by some to be the true color."
There you have it, no originals, no official consensus, sanctioning by tours guides or church fathers and not all are jet black. Are you going to now throw away your old source for a new spin that you think will save you face?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
In other words, you are going by your eyeballs which is all you feel is needed as proof.
Fine by me. I don't care either way.
Simply put there is a tradition of black Madonnas in Europe. I don't need to quibble with you about which ones are or aren't black. There are also black Madonnas in Russia. But it is up to you as to how you want to define a black Madonna, but I really could care less as it doesn't change the facts as stated.
I never doubted there were black Madonnas in Europe and Russia. Therefore there was no argument to lose. The proof of their existence for me is not based around arguments with you over images that may or may not be actual black Madonnas. I can find evidence for myself and don't need to rely on dumb arguments from you on this board.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Yes, it's called eye witness account. Diop et al. thought it as valid re AE and your own source sees it as valid too in this context. Although it doesn't really matter as you're not going by your own source anymore it seems. Go figure.
And please. Stop pretending as if you didnt content that the Madonna Egmond posted was darken by age. You only backed down from this when you realised how stupid you looked.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
I think you have it backwards. You just discovered black Madonnas in Europe. Something many other people have discovered A LONG time ago. Blackened, darkened, black, ebony or otherwise it is nothing NEW. You have nothing to back up YOUR OWN points, so you rely on ME to post something to back it up.
So please save me the rhetoric.
The presence of black Madonnas in Europe is a fact and nobody needs your eyewitness accounts or Edmond's conspiracy theories to identify them.
So go back to looking for blacks in white portraits.
So what does your eyewitness accounts say about these Russian Icons:
Are they black Madonnas "secretly" hidden by the Russian Church?
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
O Jesus dude, give it up. I never claimed to "discover" Black Madonnas before anybody else. However, I do know that based on our exchanges that you are a neophyte when it comes to this particular phenomena.
quote:Are they black Madonnas "secretly" hidden by the Russian Church?
I don't think I ever said they were "hidden" by the church. Indeed I made it quite clear that the so-called "secret" was in their "true" meaning. There are many explanations for them, some I buy others I reject. Simple. Stop saving face, go away.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
LOL!
Now it is some accept it some don't huh?
What happened to all these images HAD to be black Madonnas because of your eyewitness accounts?
And their true meaning isn't really a secret either as the symbolism is old as man himself and certainly do not originate in Europe.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
¨
Catherine de Medici
DO RUSSIAN ICONS SHOW BLACK PEOPLE? YES, YES AND YES!
O, You Blacks, why not start to free yourself instead of this stupid bickering.
We already know that this dried turd is stupid and tries to win arguments with three and four nicks at the same time. A housenigger does not trust his own eyes or his own mind, he needs his Master to tell him what is what. And master says, these images happen to look black, but they are white, because I say they are white, and I know best because I´m white and superior.
Now if we could concentrate and think why a supposedly white civilisation would show their divinity as blacks.
I have found there was a black and coloured European elite who perhaps were descendents of the Africans who came to Europe 40.000 years ago, and dominated again from 1500 to 1789. Black religious and royal imagery in Europe seem to have started between 1100 and 1200, in the south of Germany and Bohemia.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
Madonna with white and black saints Fra Angelico
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: ¨
Catherine de Medici
DO RUSSIAN ICONS SHOW BLACK PEOPLE? YES, YES AND YES!
O, You Blacks, why not start to free yourself instead of this stupid bickering.
We already know that this dried turd is stupid and tries to win arguments with three and four nicks at the same time. A housenigger does not trust his own eyes or his own mind, he needs his Master to tell him what is what. And master says, these images happen to look black, but they are white, because I say they are white, and I know best because I´m white and superior.
Now if we could concentrate and think why a supposedly white civilisation would show their divinity as blacks.
I have found there was a black and coloured European elite who perhaps were descendents of the Africans who came to Europe 40.000 years ago, and dominated again from 1500 to 1789. Black religious and royal imagery in Europe seem to have started between 1100 and 1200, in the south of Germany and Bohemia.
Catherine Medici was not black Edmond. That icon is not necessarily black either Edmond. Seems odd how the only supposedly black icons you can find are so questionable.
Seems like you are either color blind or dumb as all your so called black Madonnas look so white.
Please don't pick out images for me, because you seem to be hellbent on promoting nonsense.
Any and all Madonnas cannot simply be called black Madonnas. Some are and some aren't and YOU seem to be only able to find ones that aren't even the least bit dark. So I think the conspiracy starts with you trying to portray white images as representing blacks, when they don't.
Black Saint George (actually looking Moorish as he is wearing Islamic attire as can be seen from the Arabic inscriptions). Many early Christian works like this were inspired by Moorish and Islamic work, as Islamic work of this time featured various mythical creatures, including dragons and gryphons.
quote: his icon of Saint George and the dragon is one of the most famous icons in Russia, and this particular icon is 500 years old. According to legend, there was a terrible dragon living in a lake in Libya. The local people were pagans, and worshipped the dragon as a god. They made sacrifices to him as a god, and appeased him by giving him their children one by one. It came time for the daughter of Queen Elisiba to be sacrificed. Saint George appeared on a white horse, and with the words "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," he charged the dragon and struck him with his lance, while his horse trampled on him.
Then Saint George told the young maiden to bind the dragon with her belt and lead him through town. In the town center, Saint George then slew the dragon with his sword. Since the dragon symbolized evil, the image of George slaying the dragon is considered a symbol of a heathen country being converted to Christianity. This was one of the most popular icons in early Christian and Byzantine painting. Saint George is the patron saint of Moscow.
Again, converting a heathen country was a strong theme throughout the spread of Early Islam.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Now it is some accept it some don't huh?
Yes, some explanations for their dark or black skin I accept (e.g. African archetype, goddess (Isis) worship promoted largely by freemasons) others I reject (materials used, soot, meant to depict Mary as dark skinned Hebrew). What's your point? You have none. You're a loser.
quote:What happened to all these images HAD to be black Madonnas because of your eyewitness accounts?
Stop clouding the issue you face saving loser. All images of a mother and child with "dark or black skin" are Black Madonnas, even by your own source.
quote:And their true meaning isn't really a secret either as the symbolism is old as man himself and certainly do not originate in Europe.
Don't be an arrogant fool; their "true" meaning are obscure, its up to you to believe the most plausible.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Now it is some accept it some don't huh?
Yes, some explanations for their dark or black skin I accept (e.g. African archetype, goddess (Isis) worship promoted largely by freemasons) others I reject (materials used, soot, meant to depict Mary as dark skinned Hebrew). What's your point? You have none. You're a loser.
quote:What happened to all these images HAD to be black Madonnas because of your eyewitness accounts?
Stop clouding the issue you face saving loser. All images of a mother and child with "dark or black skin" are Black Madonnas, even by your own source.
quote:And their true meaning isn't really a secret either as the symbolism is old as man himself and certainly do not originate in Europe.
Don't be an arrogant fool; their "true" meaning are obscure, its up to you to believe the most plausible.
What source says all Madonnas in Europe are black Madonnas? Certainly not mine. YOU are the one trying to use MY SOURCE as justification for your claims. YOU have no source for identifying the image you posted as a black Madonna other than YOUR OWN opinion. You have provided NO SOURCE or EVIDENCE that identifies it as a black Madonna other than YOURSELF. So the only loser here is YOU because there are HUNDREDS of black Madonnas in Europe and the only thing you can focus on are the ones that are very light or ambiguous. Sorry, you are a fool and nobody needs your phony pro-black Madonna logic to know that there ARE black Madonnas in Europe and they are UNQUESTIONABLY black.
You simply want to parade around images of YOUR choosing as being the EPITOME of a black Madonna when they aren't. So stop kidding yourself with your nonsense. Your logic is flawed all Madonnas in Europe are not black Madonnas, all darkened images of the Madonna are also NOT black Madonnas and my "source" does not say this. All of which goes back to the fact that you are an UNRELIABLE source on ANYTHING regarding the traditions of black Madonnas in Europe, as you yourself are clinging to images that 1) you haven't identified 2) haven't proven are black and 3) can't even say who painted it and where it is. All you are doing by your OWN admission is using your "eyewitness testimony" to identify images ON YOUR OWN and call them black Madonnas. Nobody needs your eyewitness testimony to identify black Madonnas. And there is NO SOURCE that says what you see as a black Madonna IS a black Madonna.
I have posted NUMEROUS black Madonnas on this thread, something YOU haven't done once. Seems to me that PROVES who is able to identify a black Madonna and who is begging and pleading for others to follow their own ways of seeing things. So I don't need to save face as I have provided images of black Madonnas and I don't have to rely on silly arguments to support what I posted. But are you saying that those black Madonnas don't count?
Of course, because you are an idiot.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Again you're just a bold face liar as I never said your Wiki source says all Madonnas were Black Madonnas. And your "true negro" argument re Black Madonnas is truly entertaining. Prey tell, what is an "unquestionably black" black Madonna "Doug M"; those you selectively posted on page two or those that church fathers and tour guides identify as black Madonnas?
Again you're a desperate lying loser. I never paraded any image as the "epitome" of anything, it was you that did this with your "unquestionably black" selective pics on page two. Fact is you jumped on the image Egmond posted as not a "real" Black Madonna; you were ask to explain why you think this; as a consequence you fail to prove your "dark by age" argument (even though you raised it) and your own source ended up contradicting you. Why? Because you're a loser. Now you're just upset and going through the motions.
quote:all darkened images of the Madonna are also NOT black Madonnas and my "source" does not say this.
"A Black Madonna or Black Virgin is a statue or painting of Mary in which she is depicted with dark or black skin. This name applies in particular to European statues or pictures of a Madonna which are of special interest because her dark face and hands is thought by some to be the true color."
Aren't her face and hands dark Dougy? You already admitted it; your only contention is why they are dark.
quote:I don't have to rely on silly arguments to support what I posted.
Of course you dont Dougy, you only need them to be sanctioned by officialdom, whom you admit lie about them anyway. lol
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Again you're just a bold face liar as I never said your Wiki source says all Madonnas were Black Madonnas. And your "true negro" argument re Black Madonnas is truly entertaining. Prey tell, what is an "unquestionably black" black Madonna "Doug M"; those you selectively posted on page two or those that church fathers and tour guides identify as black Madonnas?
Again you're a desperate lying loser. I never paraded any image as the "epitome" of anything, it was you that did this with your "unquestionably black" selective pics on page two. Fact is you jumped on the image Egmond posted as not a "real" Black Madonna; you were ask to explain why you think this; as a consequence you fail to prove your "dark by age" argument (even though you raised it) and your own source ended up contradicting you. Why? Because you're a loser. Now you're just upset and going through the motions.
quote:all darkened images of the Madonna are also NOT black Madonnas and my "source" does not say this.
"A Black Madonna or Black Virgin is a statue or painting of Mary in which she is depicted with dark or black skin. This name applies in particular to European statues or pictures of a Madonna which are of special interest because her dark face and hands is thought by some to be the true color."
Aren't her face and hands dark Dougy? You already admitted it; your only contention is why they are dark.
quote:I don't have to rely on silly arguments to support what I posted.
Of course you dont Dougy, you only need them to be sanctioned by officialdom, whom you admit lie about them anyway. lol
And again, the only loser here is you because you are contradicting yourself. You take that quote and claim it applies to your image, but can provide NO SUBSTANTIATION that ANYONE other than yourself sees it as a black madonna. But those black madonnas that ARE identified on that page you claim are based on 'officialdom'. What kind of loony tune argument is that? Most black madonnas were identified by LAY PEOPLE and Christian believers not 'officialdom', either that or the images were ALWAYS black to begin with and created that way. The key point is that such black Madonnas are FAMOUS, widely seen as having miraculous powers and the subject of yearly pilgrimages by believers. It is the large body of people who venerate such images AS BLACK madonnas that is the key to that quote. Which means you can't simply look at some portrait and say it is a black Madonna, especially one that is not OBVIOUSLY BLACK and COULD be the result of darkening.
So where is it ANYWHERE that this image is identified as a black madonna BY ANYBODY other than you and Edmond?
That is the point. WHERE is the evidence that this image is considered by ANYONE other than you as a black Madonna?
You keep talking that smack out the crack of your behind about this image, yet REJECT those images that ARE IDENTIFIED and VENERATED by thousands of people as black Madonnas, many of which are JET BLACK. So who is the loser? Seems to me the loser is the one who looks at a portrait that is fairly light and spends all his time trying to make it the epitome of a black Madonna and in over a day and a half has not provided ONE SHRED of evidence to back it up.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So where is it ANYWHERE that this image is identified as a black madonna BY ANYBODY other than you and Edmond?
That is the point. WHERE is the evidence that this image is considered by ANYONE other than you as a black Madonna?
Lol, gaykoben will ignore this, as he will have no answer for it.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Oh Lord the squirming loser keeps coming back for more embarrassment.
That quote (your source) clearly says those dark or black skinned are considered Black Madonnas, no mention of them having to be sanctioned by officialdom.
quote:Where is it ANYWHERE that this image is identified as a black madonna BY ANYBODY other than you and Edmond?
Actually you eye balled it too, loser, and concluded it was dark which is why you threw in the "dark by age" argument.
quote:yet REJECT those images that ARE IDENTIFIED and VENERATED by thousands of people as black Madonnas
I reject those identified? You're such a bold face liar when you are exposed, if this wasn't entertaining I would've ignored your bullshit long ago.
quote:Seems to me the loser is the one who looks at a portrait that is fairly light
Oh! so now to disqualify it from your own source Wiki you now label it "fairly light"? I thought you saw it as dark but that it "could be darkened with age". So now its "fairly light", not dark, and you conjured up the "dark by age" argument because it was "fairly light" by age?!?!
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Akoben is simply reduced to sounds.
quote: Actually you eye balled it too, loser, and concluded it was dark which is why you threw in the "dark by age" argument.
To which you have not provided ANY evidence that darkened means intended to portray a black person. So your laughter fits your insane rhetoric and empty logic which ignores the fundamental fact that darkened does not mean black person.
That is what YOU STILL have not proven in over a page and a half of talk and inane chatter.
Your brain is fried and you must laugh in order to release the pressure build up of ignorant nonsense bubbling up inside your head.
I am still waiting for ANYONE other than yourself and Edmond that says this is a black Madonna......
Why is that?
If it is a black madonna why can't you provide something to support this?
Maybe the Evil Russians at the University of Oregon where the portrait is located are in denial.
Do they have an explanation for the color of the painting? Do they accept that it may be a black Madonna? Or are you simply pulling making up stuff?
[Two portraits of Anna Boleyn: one dark, one whitened]
[Anna Boleyn’s daughter , Queen Elizabeth I
ANNA BOLEYN’S APPEARANCE
quote:The Venetian diarist Marino Sanuto, who saw Anne during the meeting between Henry VIII and Francis I of France at Calais in October 1532, described her as "not one of the handsomest women in the world; she is of middling stature, swarthy complexion, long neck, wide mouth, bosom not much raised ... eyes, which are black and beautiful".[26] Simon Grynée wrote to Martin Bucer in September 1531 that Anne was "young, good-looking, of a rather dark complexion". Lancelot de Carles called her "beautiful with an elegant figure", and a Venetian in Paris in 1528 also reported that she was said to be beautiful.[27] Other descriptions of her were less neutral. An observer at her coronation wrote that "the crown became her very ill, and a wart disfigured her very much. She wore a violet velvet mantle, with a high ruff of gold thread and pearls, which concealed a swelling she has, resembling a goitre".[26] The most influential description of Anne, but also the least reliable, was written by the historian and polemicist Nicholas Sanders as late as 1586: "Anne Boleyn was rather tall of stature, with black hair, and an oval face of a sallow complexion, as if troubled with jaundice. She had a projecting tooth under the upper lip, and on her right hand six fingers. There was a large wen under her chin, and therefore to hide its ugliness she wore a high dress covering her throat ... She was handsome to look at, with a pretty mouth".[28] Sanders' description contributed to what biographer Eric Ives calls the "monster legend" of Anne Boleyn.[29]
quote:In 1532, a new Venetian ambassador described Anne thusly: 'not one of the handsomest women in the world. She is of middling stature, with a swarthy complexion, long neck, wide mouth, bosom not much raised, and in fact has nothing but the King's great appetite, and her eyes, which are black and beautiful - and take great effect on those who served the Queen when she was on the throne. She lives like a queen, and the King accompanies her to Mass - and everywhere.'
Anne Boleyn was very dark. All writers agree on this point. Wyatt says she was "not so whitely as . . . above all we may esteem." Sander said she had a "sallow complexion, as if troubled with jaundice", and the Venetian ambassador said she had a "swarthy complexion". Dark brown or black hair, along with eyes so dark they were almost black and a very dark skin, combined to make Anne Boleyn conspicuously dark - and the opposite of the contemporary ideal, with golden hair, blue eyes and a pink-and-white complexion. Anne had small breasts, when a voluptuous figure was the ideal. The Venetian ambassador said she was of "middling stature" and Sander said she was "rather tall in stature". One of her favourite chaplains felt that Bessie Blount was more beautiful, although Anne was quite pretty. Much of this lukewarm praise would have been due to the fact that she was the opposite of the aforesaid contemporary ideal.
In all honesty, the following description of Anne Boleyn is ridiculous; the culmination of a legend built up by Roman Catholics who blamed her for the break with Rome. Therefore, it owes much to the deeply ingrained idea that evil people had hideous exteriors, very much like Richard III's alleged hunchback. However, it goes a long way to illuminate the degree to which Anne was slandered long after her death.
Anne Boleyn was rather tall of stature, with black hair and an oval face of sallow complexion, as if troubled with jaundice. She had a projecting tooth under the upper lip, and on her right hand, six fingers. There was a large wen under her chin, and therefore to hide its ugliness, she wore a high dress covering her throat. In this she was followed by the ladies of the court, who also wore high dresses, having before been in the habit of leaving their necks and the upper portion of their persons uncovered. She was handsome to look at, with a pretty mouth.1
Queen Elizabeth I She may have had the "body of a weak and feeble woman"... but what did she look like? Although lots of portraits exist of Elizabeth, she did not pose for many of them. Perhaps she was a little vain - if she disliked a particular picture she would have it destroyed. Her Secretary of State, Robert Cecil, an astute diplomat, worded it carefully...."Many painters have done portraits of the Queen but none has sufficiently shown her looks or charms. Therefore Her Majesty commands all manner of persons to stop doing portraits of her until a clever painter has finished one which all other painters can copy. Her Majesty, in the meantime, forbids the showing of any portraits which are ugly until they are improved."
So what did she really look like? Quotes from visitors to her Court can perhaps shed some light.
In her Twenty-Second Year: "Her figure and face are very handsome; she has such an air of dignified majesty that no-one could ever doubt that she is a queen"
In her Twenty-Fourth Year: "Although her face is comely rather than handsome, she is tall and well-formed, with a good skin, although swarthy; she has fine eyes and above all, a beautiful hand with which she makes display.
In her Thirty-Second Year: "Her hair was more reddish than yellow, curled naturally in appearance."
In her Sixty-Fourth Year: "When anyone speaks of her beauty she says she was never beautiful. Nevertheless, she speaks of her beauty as often as she can."
In her Sixty-Fifth Year: "Her face is oblong, fair but wrinkled; her eyes small, yet black and pleasant; her nose a little hooked; her teeth black (a fault the English seem to suffer from because of their great use of sugar); she wore false hair, and that red."
It is known however that she contracted smallpox in 1562 which left her face scarred. She took to wearing white lead makeup to cover the scars. In later life, she suffered the loss of her hair and her teeth, and in the last few years of her life, she refused to have a mirror in any of her rooms.
So, because of her vanity, perhaps we shall never know exactly what Elizabeth I looked like.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
Joachim Mürat, King of Naples and the Two Sicily’s, brother in law of Napoleon Bonaparte
He looks Black to me!
Joachim Mürat 'whitened', his black colour given to the little Moor, a symbol for blue blood.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
Joachim Mürat, King of Naples and the Two Sicily’s, brother in law of Napoleon Bonaparte
He looks Black to me!
Joachim Mürat 'whitened', his black colour given to the little Moor, a symbol for blue blood.
Where is your proof other than a painting Edmond? How do you show his ancestry had direct African heritage?
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
Queen Anne of Denmark, wife of King James I and grandmother to Charles II Stuart, named 'The Black Boy.' Design for Masque of Blackness (1612), The Niger River played by Queen Anne, a play in praise of black beauty, describes how Blacks, the Sun People, came to Europe, in search for a milder sun and praises black beauty because it does not fade.
Charles II Stuart, King of Britain, grandson of Anne of Denmark, named 'The Black Boy.'
Anne of Denmark, looking blindingly white indeed! With a Black boy, a Moor to show her nobility.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
What does it mean if someone is "swarthy"?
having a dark-skinned complextion; naturally having skin of a dark color
Alessandro de Medici, Duke of Florence, named Il Moro.
Sometimes they would use the image of a real ancestor as the Moor, to symbolise their nobility.
whitened Alessandro by Pontormo
Alessandro's wife, Margareth of Parma, daughter of Charles V Habsburg. Half sister of Filips II, Governess of the Netherlands. Her mother was also a servant. Whitened.
Alessandro as a child, whitened.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
Leopold I Habsburg, Holy Roman Emperor Swinburne: 'a short, hale black man.'
Black Is, Black Ain’t The Renaissance Society, Chicago, USA
[Andres Serrano, The Interpretation of Dreams (White Nigger) (2001). Cibachrome print 60 x 50 inches framed.]
Both polarized by race and, at turns, seamlessly integrated, what better place than Chicago to host an exhibition titled ‘Black Is, Black Ain’t’? The Renaissance Society’s thematic group show follows seven years after the similarly themed ‘Freestyle’ at the Studio Museum in Harlem. In a catalogue essay for the latter show, Hamza Walker, the curator of ‘Black Is, Black Ain’t’, argued that the characteristics of blackness depend largely on external representations rather than innate personality traits. (‘A ‘we’ was assumed,’ Walker states, ‘imposing itself on whatever meager sense of self I could muster.’) It is on this point that ‘Black Is, Black Ain’t’ departs from the earlier exhibition’s free-for-all multiculturalism, wherein all art made by black people was deemed ‘black art’. Instead, Walker’s exhibition re-introduces specific landmarks from the history of black society in America, and, with a twist, welcomes non-black artists into the discussion. Their inclusion highlights an attempt to define race as largely a community effort.
Paul D’Amato, 624 W. Division (2007), archival Inkjet print, 47 x 39 inches. The art in the show does not ‘represent’ blackness, says Walker, toying with the term’s double duty on the street and in art history. Instead, many pieces express an identity tempered by complexity, contradiction and subjectivity far from easy black-and-white conclusions. Joanna Rytel’s video about interracial love and curiosity stokes an outmoded taboo, but its persistence acts as reminder and warning to successive generations. Likewise, Jason Lazarus’s photograph, Standing at the Grave of Emmitt Till, The Day of Exhumation, June 1, 2005 (2005), epitomizes the exhibition’s theme of historical restoration. The image documents the murdered civil rights leader’s unearthed grave after Till’s body was carted away for autopsy. The exhumed plot registers as a small disruption, hardly as turbulent as the day Till died, in the otherwise serene, park-like cemetery on a calm sunny day in Chicago. The history of blackness in America includes revolution and liberation during advertising’s golden age. Hank Willis Thomas’ It’s About Time (2006) is a store window prop, cut in the shape of the Black Power salute, the wrist adorned with a gold watch. The symbol of strife and solidarity is reduced to a single note, but it also illustrates that every revolution does sport its own style. Mickalene Thomas’ photograph, Lovely Six Foota (2007), re-issues a Blaxploitation-era foxy female stereotype, replete with afro, hoop earrings and leopard print. David Levinthal’s photographs from the ‘Blackface’ series include knick-knack figurines in the ‘Aunt Jemima’ style, subservient with a dash of sass, with exaggerated lips and kooky eyes. Like Rytel’s video about the interracial taboo, it’s difficult to see Levinthal’s figurines as anything but memorabilia, especially as racial slurs are today so often used in light-hearted comedic refrain. Andres Serrano’s The Interpretation of Dreams (White Nigger) (2001), a photograph of a white man who passes for black beneath black-face makeup, prompts the physiognomy question, as does a nude family portrait by Willis Thomas, The Johnson Family (1981/2006). Here, a happy, loving and black family smiles with Normal Rockwell-esque sincerity as if to say, this is what black looks like. Separating out the trite from the true – the ‘is’ from the ‘ain’t’ – is not the task that the exhibition sets itself. Instead, things get necessarily muddled: Glenn Ligon’s Warm Broad Glow (2005) declares the phrase ‘negro sunshine’ in neon, but the tubes have been painted black on the front, eclipsing any dazzle of sunburst. Rodney McMillian’s Chair (2003) is a found broken lounge chair, its feet askew, cover torn and filling gutted. Absent a body, but included in this exhibit, the chair is poised to question assumptions about race and class. Amid what amounts to a retrospective of stereotypes, it’s the poetic flourishes that prove most satisfying. Sze Lin Pang’s small floor-bound Fétichito (2006) sums up and echoes many of the show’s themes. Emerging from a dollar-store purse in the shape of a leather-clad big booty is a grotesque lump of a body covered in black tar. Afro-picks decorated with fists and peace symbols puncture the tarred, or charred, body, as do flamboyant peacock feathers. Mixing humility with dejection, wit and pride, the fallen do rise.
And in all of that spam you have not proven ancestry from Africa.
That is the problem. If any of these people were black, then it should be easy to show their African ancestry through the family lineage, which you can't.
There were notable black royals in Europe, but unfortunately you seem NOT to pick those WHO WERE BLACK, but those who were not.
As an example, General Dumas in France was a notable black General. Then you have Pushkin in Russia who was the Grandson of a black man who was adopted by Peter the Great. Pushkin was very light, but his black ancestry is proven.
SO where is your proof of black ancestry for any of these other people. Anecdotes about them being swarthy mean nothing, you need proof of African ancestry, which you have not provided.
Posted by ex-Andriano (Member # 15552) on :
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
A Black Russian
He is caucasian from mountains. He can`t to be russian.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
[According to eurocentrism these Wodaabe men are 'African Caucasians' whites, because they do not resemble 'True negroes.' So if idealized portraits of black Europeans fail to show prognatism, they are whites who just happen to have pitch black skin!]
There is a strange cacophony of voices on this forum whit people who are creationist and believe in Adam and Eve but pretend to be scientist, ignorant persons who approach science as if it where the Bible, which by the way is also fake, a psycho who uses forty nicks . Or people who are in awe of white supremacy and have no concept of mental slavery at all.
The very eurocentrist people who consciously lie about history, who cut out blacks from history, arealso the people who will decide by which method we have to show that some historic person was black. And then they also define what is black. They believe the idea of a black identity to be non-existent. That there is no bond between black people, that blacks are not capable to achieve anything. In y view a black identity i of more importance then how a person looked like, how black, how thick his lips or broad his nose. These elite European blacks married black, just like Obama married black and displayed a black identity called Blue blood.
So this is a set up where anybody who challenges this status quo willforever fail. By reading this forum I’m growing ever happier with all the facts, turns and circumstances in my life because they have enabled me to cut through the bulls h i t and see that Black blood is Blue blood.
By now we have many sources which speak of blacks coming to Europe, 40.000 years ago, medieval Blue Men,spotting of blacks among white nations, whites only coming to Europe 6000 years ago, the abundance of images of the Moor (a classical African) in European art, personal descriptions of noble and royal people being ‘very dark,’ nicks and family names which point to a black phenotype.
People who cannot understand the tension between descriptions of a person as ‘chimney sweep,’ which really means black as soot, and a portrait which show them as blue eyed blonds, are really not very perceptive people.
When we are talking about 40.000 years of black presence how can we find a named ancestor to come out of Africa? The oldest credible genealogies go back to 1100-1200, and they usually do not mention somebody’s looks. Then I noticed it was understood that a noble person was black of colour, the blacker the nobler. I would like these stupid people to stay out of my threads.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
[Descartes (1596-1650)]
[Anthonie van Leeuwenhoek]
[whitened fake]
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Edmond those people are all white. Your posting of portrait "evidence" does not prove anything other than you are desperate to see blacks where there are none. Like I said, where is the evidence of direct black African ancestry in any of these people? There is none.
There WERE people of African descent who were part of some European royal families but they were NOT blue bloods and blue blood had nothing to do with having African blood.
You have been laughed off almost every board you have posted on and since there is no moderation here I guess you feel that your claims make sense, but they do not.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
There is something unusual with the man on the left: he looks very white of skin. I immediately thought of a Wodaabe man who might have lived in Europe, married a white woman, but brought his mixed son to Africa to learn his African roots.
This also shows that identity is more important then looks. It's not that because off-spring which might look ‘white’ would move away from the black family to live with the white's. I rather believe they would marry a suitable darker coloured partner to upgrade the blue blood or black blood in their off-spring.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
To return to the topic: Do these Russian Icons show Black people? The answer should be: some do, some don’t.
Is there a correlation between phenotype of the religious images and the phenotype of the people who made, ordered or used these images? To answer this I have collected some Indian, Japanese and Russian images. I guess it would be strange if white people would believe their deities to be black and blacks to think of their deities as white.
So to me, in regard to my research, the black or coloured types on Russian icons resemble the people who at least ordered these paintings.
revive
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
Egmond. I just noticed this thread. You have lots of excellent images in here from Russia.
Last spring and summer in Budapest I spent a fair amount of time in book stores looking for religious images such as these.
For another thread and time, if you could also find material on the Moors of Medieval France and Germany and also pictures of (by phenotype) the African Jesus, disciples, and madonnas of France and Germany, I'd like to see what you come up with.
When Runoko and I were together last August going to Bratislava, he spoke at length about how France had the lion's share of black madonnas in Europe. To date, though, I've not seen many but look forward to what you might find and make a thread on at some future time.
Marc
. .
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
There was colour all over the place. If you are familiar with mixed families you will see all kinds of types, some have classical african looks, others don't. But it does not mean they are not capable to have classical african looking children. Or that the straight nosed family members move to a different part of town, away from their more African looking brethren? The portraits are a difficult part because we are shown an edited collection. I have studied enough portraits to understand how much they can differ from each other; from full Black to full white and anything in between. By comparing and guessing you can arrive at an idea. But descriptions are stronger proof and the fact that blue blood was symbolised by a classical african. They were estatic if a child showed these classical looks, because it proofed the family was noble and this child had the purest blood. Like how Jane Austen was described as her cheecks showing the eloquence of her blood. But we never get to see her portrait for this reason.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote: Rate Member posted 12 January, 2009 03:33 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course those paintings are much darker than they originally were due to chemical damage. Anybody who knows about Medieval art and the Russian environment would know that.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^He he, The little cracker shows up. We must be getting too close for comfort.
Its amazing how these eurocentrist view the world, and the blacks are obviously too stupid to understand dark varnish etc. But then this black Surinamese has been eating that eurocentric **** and brownnosing for so long he thinks he is white. The Russian would use brown, black and red paint for the faces. The dark skin was intentional, and they still do it today.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
At this time before the invasion there was still a sense of unity. Now they are advertising fake pass ports. So it looks as if Blacks are always existing in a messed up, even criminal environment, but this is not our doing.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
http://www.artoflegendindia.com/productimages/PBAAC_001.jpg 
http://www.triplemind.com/images/gods/vishnu-painting2.jpeg 
http://www.russianartgallery.org/front/oldicons/front5.jpg 
