Santa Klause was originally a black saint 'San Nicola Nero'

These concepts are socially constructed and have been given much weight. What are your thoughts?
User avatar
Tre
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 426
Joined: May 8th, 2005, 6:19 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Unread post by Tre » December 20th, 2006, 6:57 am

You are probably right Peron :wink: Just a little history lesson for those that don’t know that the Moors was black!

When the Romans entered West Africa in 46 B.C., they called the black Africans they saw Maures, from the Greek adjective Mauros, meaning dark-skin or black. It is from Mauros and the Latin term Marues that the word Moor is derived. Since the inhabitants of North Africa were black, the Romans and later the Europeans called them Moors.

In the beginning of the seventh century, the prophet, Muhammad, began to preach the word of Islam. Moors (black people) in large numbers converted to Islam.

After the fall of the Roman Empire (fifth century), Spain was held by a barbaric white tribe, called the Visigoths. Tarik, a great African chief, was given the rank of general in the Arab army and sent to raid Spain. On April 30, 711, Tarik landed on the Spanish Coast with 7,000 troops. His troops consisted of 300 Arabs and 6,700 native Africans (Moors). An ancient source, Ibn Husayn (ca. 950, recorded that these troops were "Sudanese", an Arabic word for Black people.

The Moors of Africa were the real conquerors. :wink: When the Arabs arrived, the hardest part of the job had been done. (The History of Spain by Louis Bertrand and Sir Charles Petrie - published by Eyre & Spottiswood, London, 1945, page 36). Ultimately, the Moors acquired two-thirds of the peninsula, which they named Al-Andulus.

johnnny
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1183
Joined: September 13th, 2006, 5:05 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Unread post by johnnny » December 20th, 2006, 7:51 am

-i just want to add that it says santa claus was from "asia Minor", thats always been a arab or byantine controlled territory, thats all i want to say

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Unread post by Sentenza » December 20th, 2006, 7:53 am

johnnny wrote:-i just want to add that it says santa claus was from "asia Minor", thats always been a arab or byantine controlled territory, thats all i want to say
Yes, it is todays Anatolia/Turkey.

johnnny
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1183
Joined: September 13th, 2006, 5:05 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Unread post by johnnny » December 20th, 2006, 7:55 am

^--- just saying, the area was used to breed horses for the arabic and byzantine armies way back in the day, so id imagine they would have that area on lockdown from most africans and europeans

johnnny
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1183
Joined: September 13th, 2006, 5:05 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Unread post by johnnny » December 20th, 2006, 8:02 am

Tye wrote:so anyone hear havin a good xmas dinner in the next few days?
-well at my parenst place there will be turkey, and the usually stuff
-but for me its either going to be eating at wendy's, alpha getti or whatever i steal from work 8)

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Unread post by Sentenza » December 20th, 2006, 8:10 am

johnnny wrote:^--- just saying, the area was used to breed horses for the arabic and byzantine armies way back in the day, so id imagine they would have that area on lockdown from most africans and europeans
The time St. Nicolas lived, the Roman Empire had that area locked down:

Under the Roman Emperor Diocletian, who ruthlessly persecuted Christians, Bishop Nicholas suffered for his faith, was exiled and imprisoned. The prisons were so full of bishops, priests, and deacons, there was no room for the real criminals—murderers, thieves and robbers. After his release, Nicholas attended the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. He died December 6, AD 343 in Myra and was buried in his cathedral church, where a unique relic, called manna, formed in his grave. This liquid substance, said to have healing powers, fostered the growth of devotion to Nicholas. The anniversary of his death became a day of celebration, St. Nicholas Day.

Nicholas was born in Asia Minor during the third century in the Greek colony of Patara in the Roman province of Lycia, at a time when the region was Hellenistic in its culture and outlook. Nicholas became bishop of the city of Myra. He was very religious from an early age and devoted his life entirely to Christianity.


The Byzantine Empire emerged not earlier as 395 a.d., when eastern and western rome splitted up. But the Anatolian Area has always been a popular area for horse-breeding, because of its far-stretched plains.
The Arabs invaded it in the 7th century a.d. but didnt manage to kick the Byzantinians out. It were the Ottomans, who in 1453 defeated the Byzantine Empire by conquering Constantinople.
So....what did he look like? We dont know, everything is possible. Because there is little to no account about his looks.


Here are some pics:

Image

Image


This one is definitely a fraud, cause it displays him as Anglo-white, which he most probably wasnt:

Image

johnnny
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1183
Joined: September 13th, 2006, 5:05 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Unread post by johnnny » December 20th, 2006, 8:21 am

so can we stop the hate and just have a merry christmas?

Capo
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 34
Joined: December 11th, 2006, 5:57 pm

Unread post by Capo » December 20th, 2006, 2:56 pm

By african BLACK I meant somebody looking black BLACK, not brown, you know the tone. Like I said it's like some of you are playing with the words just like politicians play with statistics to make 'em say whatever you want them to say. Where do YOU draw YOUR line to YOUR own imaginary boundaries of 'white' people and 'black'? By the way both white and black aren't even different skin COLORS, they are tones (shades) of the exact same thing, so like I said, where do you draw YOUR line? :roll:

As for the moors, nobody's denying Moors being black (you just have to look at the symbol of CORSICA's flag to know nobody's hiding Moorish history) but they were also arabic AND berber AND whatever else you want to call other people who were also Moors (funny you say that peron):
The Roman Term "Maur" described the native inhabitants of North Africa west of modern Tunisia. Ancient to modern authors, as well as portraits, show them with a variety of features, just as the modern population contains. This was contrasted with other peoples described as "Aethiopes", or Ethiopians, who lived further south, and Egyptians, or "Aegyptus". As described above, they composed a variety of peoples in this region who probably had origins in the Sahara when it desiccated in the late Holocene period. Whether they were light skinned and blond hair, dark skinned, or somewhere in between, Dr. Keita has noted that this diversity was indigenous to the North African region, and not the result of foreign settlement (Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors


As for Santa check out what I found:
What are believed to be the bones of St. Nicholas are kept in a sacred crypt in Bari, Italy. They were exhumed in 1953, during some work that was being done on the church, and an anatomist from a local university, Luigi Martino, was given permission to examine and x-ray the remains. A half-century later, an anthropologist named Caroline Wilkinson used those data to produce a clay model of St. Nicholas, employing the same techniques that are used to build an identity onto the skull of the victim of a suspected crime.

If the face that Wilkinson produced had been that of an actor looking for work as an extra in Hollywood’s golden era, he would have been plucked right off the street, broken nose and all, and cast as a longshoreman or a mob thug. The features are square and heavy, and he probably had a swarthy cast to his complexion. It’s hard to picture him in the outfit that Clement Moore assigned to him, but then, he was a fourth-century Catholic bishop and probably usually wore something a bit more ceremonial.
Image
A computer-generated image of the reconstructed face of St. Nicholas that was produced
by Image Foundry Studios based on the model that was made by Caroline Wilkinson.
Courtesy of Image Foundry Studios/Anand Kapoor.

http://www.inquiringminds.org/newslette ... -lore.html

SniperSVD
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 333
Joined: August 16th, 2006, 4:35 pm
Contact:

Unread post by SniperSVD » December 20th, 2006, 10:25 pm

santa is black cause he fell his fat ass down a dirty ass chimeny.

User avatar
Tre
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 426
Joined: May 8th, 2005, 6:19 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Unread post by Tre » December 21st, 2006, 3:20 am

Capo wrote:By african BLACK I meant somebody looking black BLACK, not brown, you know the tone, Like I said it's like some of you are playing with the words just like politicians play with statistics to make 'em say whatever you want them to say. Where do YOU draw YOUR line to YOUR own imaginary boundaries of 'white' people and 'black'? By the way both white and black aren't even different skin COLORS, they are tones (shades) of the exact same thing, so like I said, where do you draw YOUR line?
If you don't believe there is no real definition for black or white. Then how can you argue so passionately that St. Nicholas the Black is not black?? Your definition for black doesn't fit any mainstream source. Please show me your source that says african BLACK is somebody looking black BLACK, not brown???

YourDictionary.com defines "black" with regard to race as: "Of or belonging to a racial group having brown to black skin, especially one of African origin: the Black population of South Africa.

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the term ‘black’ with regard to race as follows: "a person belonging to a dark-skinned race or one stemming in part from such a race; esp. Negro.

Dictionary.com and thefreedictionary.com defines "Black person" as: "a person with dark skin who comes from Africa (or whose ancestors came from Africa) [syn: Black, Black person, blackamoor, Negro, Negroid]

Oxford English Dictionary, which is the probably the most-widely accepted authority on the English language, defines black as: relating to a human group having dark-coloured skin, especially of African or Australian Aboriginal ancestry.

Capo
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 34
Joined: December 11th, 2006, 5:57 pm

Unread post by Capo » December 21st, 2006, 4:41 am

Oxford definitions are no bottom conclusive 'truth' they're just definitions for the time being and when the time comes where the 'word' has changed definition, the word itself changes its sense. JUST LIKE the word Moor later in History started meaning the people from the Maghreb (muslims of different origin) didn't have the same signification of the word Mauros of Greek before (as in dark skinned or black).

So I'm in your way of thinking using that vague and very generalised definition as soon as a person has the slightest brownish skin (any black or brown skin deeeep down being all from Africa in a way since with History we changed skin tones to adapt) he is considered black? What a great way to regroup ANY load of slightly skin colored people under a 'black' label, just like playing with statistics. I'm still not getting where you draw your line personally (or if you strictly go by that definition and call any slightly brown person black as well). And by the way he wasn't FROM (as in born there among a negroid looking people) Africa, he was from where modern Turkey lies like the above people said but 'believe' what you want if it makes you happy. It's really just getting confusing when people start saying what people of old were when in their time they didn't even go around calling themselves that.

Capo
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 34
Joined: December 11th, 2006, 5:57 pm

Unread post by Capo » December 21st, 2006, 4:48 am

I don't know if it was with hidden intentions or just an accident but after looking at the definition you talked about I found this:

1. Of or belonging to a racial group having brown to black skin, especially one of African origin: the <<Black>>

What majority Black population was in ancient Turkey at the time in a hellenized society??


2. Of or belonging to an <<<<American>>>> ethnic group descended from African peoples having dark skin; African-American.

So Saint Nicholas was American?


As for the modern usage of 'Black' as a race term even the dictionary itself speaks on how it's vague and confusing and always changes (one time being geographic as in African, the other being skin color (replacing the word 'Negro' to Black).

The Oxford English Dictionary contains evidence of the use of black with reference to African peoples as early as 1400, and certainly the word has been in wide use in racial and ethnic contexts ever since. However, it was not until the late 1960s that black (or Black) gained its present status as a self-chosen ethnonym with strong connotations of racial pride, replacing the then-current Negro among Blacks and non-Blacks alike with remarkable speed. Equally significant is the degree to which Negro became discredited in the process, reflecting the profound changes taking place in the Black community during the tumultuous years of the civil rights and Black Power movements. The recent success of African American offers an interesting contrast in this regard. Though by no means a modern coinage, African American achieved sudden prominence at the end of the 1980s when several Black leaders, including Jesse Jackson, championed it as an alternative ethnonym for Americans of African descent. The appeal of this term is obvious, alluding as it does not to skin color but to an ethnicity constructed of geography, history, and culture, and it won rapid acceptance in the media alongside similar forms such as Asian American, Hispanic American, and Italian American. But unlike what happened a generation earlier, African American has shown little sign of displacing or discrediting black, which remains both popular and positive. The difference may well lie in the fact that the campaign for African American came at a time of relative social and political stability, when Americans in general and Black Americans in particular were less caught up in issues involving radical change than they were in the 1960s. • Black is sometimes capitalized in its racial sense, especially in the African-American press, though the lowercase form is still widely used by authors of all races. The capitalization of Black does raise ancillary problems for the treatment of the term white. Orthographic evenhandedness would seem to require the use of uppercase White, but this form might be taken to imply that whites constitute a single ethnic group, an issue that is certainly debatable. Uppercase White is also sometimes associated with the writings of white supremacist groups, a sufficient reason of itself for many to dismiss it. On the other hand, the use of lowercase white in the same context as uppercase Black will obviously raise questions as to how and why the writer has distinguished between the two groups. There is no entirely happy solution to this problem. In all likelihood, uncertainty as to the mode of styling of white has dissuaded many publications from adopting the capitalized form Black.

Capo
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 34
Joined: December 11th, 2006, 5:57 pm

Unread post by Capo » December 21st, 2006, 4:50 am

Missed something:
Capo wrote:1. Of or belonging to a racial group having brown to black skin, especially one of African origin: the <<Black>>
1. Of or belonging to a racial group having brown to black skin, especially one of African origin: <<the>>

Capo
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 34
Joined: December 11th, 2006, 5:57 pm

Unread post by Capo » December 21st, 2006, 4:51 am

Maaaaaan, somebody please put up an edit button!

I meant this!:
1. Of or belonging to a racial group having brown to black skin, especially one of African origin: the Black population of South Africa.

johnnny
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1183
Joined: September 13th, 2006, 5:05 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Unread post by johnnny » December 21st, 2006, 8:14 am

SniperSVD wrote:santa is black cause he fell his fat ass down a dirty ass chimeny.
bump, and probally had black lungs llike me

User avatar
Tre
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 426
Joined: May 8th, 2005, 6:19 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Unread post by Tre » December 21st, 2006, 1:45 pm

Capo wrote:By african BLACK I meant somebody looking black BLACK, not brown.
You do realize 'black' is a colloquial expression, a designation for those of us with sub-Saharan African ancestry. In reality black people's skin tone can range from dark brown to light brown. So when you say african BLACK is somebody looking black BLACK, not brown??? You lost me man, maybe if you can provide some pics showing me how you define black??

WIP
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 778
Joined: July 17th, 2003, 10:15 pm
Location: State Hoppin

Unread post by WIP » December 22nd, 2006, 12:09 am

The easter bunnys a n*gga too.

johnnny
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1183
Joined: September 13th, 2006, 5:05 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Unread post by johnnny » December 22nd, 2006, 8:55 am

WIP wrote:The easter bunnys a n*gga too.
only in the summer

dutch
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 291
Joined: January 9th, 2005, 7:08 am
Location: enschede,holland

Unread post by dutch » December 22nd, 2006, 9:06 am

Tre wrote:
Capo wrote:By african BLACK I meant somebody looking black BLACK, not brown.
You do realize 'black' is a colloquial expression, a designation for those of us with sub-Saharan African ancestry. In reality black people's skin tone can range from dark brown to light brown. So when you say african BLACK is somebody looking black BLACK, not brown??? You lost me man, maybe if you can provide some pics showing me how you define black??
That's why calling Africans blacks in Holland is racist.No Black man in Holland accepts to be called black.If you don't know his name we just say that brown dude.

EmperorPenguin
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1155
Joined: February 21st, 2006, 3:01 am

Unread post by EmperorPenguin » December 22nd, 2006, 10:22 am

dutch wrote:
Tre wrote:
Capo wrote:By african BLACK I meant somebody looking black BLACK, not brown.
You do realize 'black' is a colloquial expression, a designation for those of us with sub-Saharan African ancestry. In reality black people's skin tone can range from dark brown to light brown. So when you say african BLACK is somebody looking black BLACK, not brown??? You lost me man, maybe if you can provide some pics showing me how you define black??
That's why calling Africans blacks in Holland is racist.No Black man in Holland accepts to be called black.If you don't know his name we just say that brown dude.
So Africans in Holland accept the term 'brown' but not 'black'? Wierd. I understand what you're saying as far as just calling them by their names. I know growing up anybody I knew of colour was simply just "frank" or "bob" or whatever their name was. They were just friends, they weren't "The black kid" or "the brown kid".

It reminds me of a story with my friend who was my best man at my wedding. He happens to be of polynesian decent. The wedding party was at the head table and we were the only table to be waited on. Drinks, food, whatever you didn't get up someone would bring you anything you wanted. So my friend turns to me and says "So this is how it feels to be white". Course that has no bearing on this thread what so ever, but I found it funny none the less. More so because he's my friend and has been since I can remember and it was never like that.

User avatar
Tre
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 426
Joined: May 8th, 2005, 6:19 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Unread post by Tre » December 22nd, 2006, 10:27 am

In all seriousness, this is not an isolated incident (black folks color being erased and made white). There was another Moor (black), St Benedict the Black. Benedict was born of Negro parents who were slaves on an estate near Messina, Sicily. Just like St. Nicholas the Black, St Benedict the Black was first shown dark-skinned, but in subsequent portraits when he's ascending into heaven, they show him as a white man! You also have the Pope Victor I and Pope Gelasius (below).... African blacks changed to white by the Catholic church (I wish I was making this shit up). This practice was more common than people realize! In the minds of white folks a black man doing something good was parallel to whiteness, and thus they portrayed the blackman as white..... as if to say he (the black man) has transcended blackness and now is acceptable..... one with us!

ImageImage

dutch
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 291
Joined: January 9th, 2005, 7:08 am
Location: enschede,holland

Unread post by dutch » December 22nd, 2006, 10:36 am

EmperorPenguin wrote:
dutch wrote:
Tre wrote:
Capo wrote:By african BLACK I meant somebody looking black BLACK, not brown.
You do realize 'black' is a colloquial expression, a designation for those of us with sub-Saharan African ancestry. In reality black people's skin tone can range from dark brown to light brown. So when you say african BLACK is somebody looking black BLACK, not brown??? You lost me man, maybe if you can provide some pics showing me how you define black??
That's why calling Africans blacks in Holland is racist.No Black man in Holland accepts to be called black.If you don't know his name we just say that brown dude.
So Africans in Holland accept the term 'brown' but not 'black'? Wierd. I understand what you're saying as far as just calling them by their names. I know growing up anybody I knew of colour was simply just "frank" or "bob" or whatever their name was. They were just friends, they weren't "The black kid" or "the brown kid".

It reminds me of a story with my friend who was my best man at my wedding. He happens to be of polynesian decent. The wedding party was at the head table and we were the only table to be waited on. Drinks, food, whatever you didn't get up someone would bring you anything you wanted. So my friend turns to me and says "So this is how it feels to be white". Course that has no bearing on this thread what so ever, but I found it funny none the less. More so because he's my friend and has been since I can remember and it was never like that.
They accept the colour brown because they are really brown.Have you ever seen a African who is really black like the colour black.I haven't,so why say that you are black while you are dark brown or light brown.To me or anybody else in Holland that is racist and i also think it is racist because some monkeys and gorillas are black.And most white people say you are black because monkeys are black.In Holland that's why they say to Africans they are black.

EmperorPenguin
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1155
Joined: February 21st, 2006, 3:01 am

Unread post by EmperorPenguin » December 22nd, 2006, 11:00 am

dutch wrote:
EmperorPenguin wrote:
dutch wrote:
Tre wrote:
Capo wrote:By african BLACK I meant somebody looking black BLACK, not brown.
You do realize 'black' is a colloquial expression, a designation for those of us with sub-Saharan African ancestry. In reality black people's skin tone can range from dark brown to light brown. So when you say african BLACK is somebody looking black BLACK, not brown??? You lost me man, maybe if you can provide some pics showing me how you define black??
That's why calling Africans blacks in Holland is racist.No Black man in Holland accepts to be called black.If you don't know his name we just say that brown dude.
So Africans in Holland accept the term 'brown' but not 'black'? Wierd. I understand what you're saying as far as just calling them by their names. I know growing up anybody I knew of colour was simply just "frank" or "bob" or whatever their name was. They were just friends, they weren't "The black kid" or "the brown kid".

It reminds me of a story with my friend who was my best man at my wedding. He happens to be of polynesian decent. The wedding party was at the head table and we were the only table to be waited on. Drinks, food, whatever you didn't get up someone would bring you anything you wanted. So my friend turns to me and says "So this is how it feels to be white". Course that has no bearing on this thread what so ever, but I found it funny none the less. More so because he's my friend and has been since I can remember and it was never like that.
They accept the colour brown because they are really brown.Have you ever seen a African who is really black like the colour black.I haven't,so why say that you are black while you are dark brown or light brown.To me or anybody else in Holland that is racist and i also think it is racist because some monkeys and gorillas are black.And most white people say you are black because monkeys are black.In Holland that's why they say to Africans they are black.
I don't know how things are in Holland, so if they are upset with the association of being called black because it's linked to monkeys or apes I can understand. I just thought it was odd that they accept the term 'brown' but not 'black' based solely on the term being of colour not association.

dutch
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 291
Joined: January 9th, 2005, 7:08 am
Location: enschede,holland

Unread post by dutch » December 22nd, 2006, 11:36 am

EmperorPenguin wrote:
dutch wrote:
EmperorPenguin wrote:
dutch wrote:
Tre wrote:
Capo wrote:By african BLACK I meant somebody looking black BLACK, not brown.
You do realize 'black' is a colloquial expression, a designation for those of us with sub-Saharan African ancestry. In reality black people's skin tone can range from dark brown to light brown. So when you say african BLACK is somebody looking black BLACK, not brown??? You lost me man, maybe if you can provide some pics showing me how you define black??
That's why calling Africans blacks in Holland is racist.No Black man in Holland accepts to be called black.If you don't know his name we just say that brown dude.
So Africans in Holland accept the term 'brown' but not 'black'? Wierd. I understand what you're saying as far as just calling them by their names. I know growing up anybody I knew of colour was simply just "frank" or "bob" or whatever their name was. They were just friends, they weren't "The black kid" or "the brown kid".

It reminds me of a story with my friend who was my best man at my wedding. He happens to be of polynesian decent. The wedding party was at the head table and we were the only table to be waited on. Drinks, food, whatever you didn't get up someone would bring you anything you wanted. So my friend turns to me and says "So this is how it feels to be white". Course that has no bearing on this thread what so ever, but I found it funny none the less. More so because he's my friend and has been since I can remember and it was never like that.
They accept the colour brown because they are really brown.Have you ever seen a African who is really black like the colour black.I haven't,so why say that you are black while you are dark brown or light brown.To me or anybody else in Holland that is racist and i also think it is racist because some monkeys and gorillas are black.And most white people say you are black because monkeys are black.In Holland that's why they say to Africans they are black.
I don't know how things are in Holland, so if they are upset with the association of being called black because it's linked to monkeys or apes I can understand. I just thought it was odd that they accept the term 'brown' but not 'black' based solely on the term being of colour not association.
Yeah also because blacks in Holland don't see themselves as blacks.There colour is dark brown or light brown not black.That's why i found it real strange that Afro-Americans on this site called themselves blacks.While in Holland you don't dare to call somebody black while he's black.It's a racial slur,only racist say black people are black.We call them brown.I think it's a American thing,it's just how American racism works.

EmperorPenguin
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1155
Joined: February 21st, 2006, 3:01 am

Unread post by EmperorPenguin » December 22nd, 2006, 11:55 am

dutch wrote:
EmperorPenguin wrote:
dutch wrote:
EmperorPenguin wrote:
dutch wrote:
Tre wrote:
Capo wrote:By african BLACK I meant somebody looking black BLACK, not brown.
You do realize 'black' is a colloquial expression, a designation for those of us with sub-Saharan African ancestry. In reality black people's skin tone can range from dark brown to light brown. So when you say african BLACK is somebody looking black BLACK, not brown??? You lost me man, maybe if you can provide some pics showing me how you define black??
That's why calling Africans blacks in Holland is racist.No Black man in Holland accepts to be called black.If you don't know his name we just say that brown dude.
So Africans in Holland accept the term 'brown' but not 'black'? Wierd. I understand what you're saying as far as just calling them by their names. I know growing up anybody I knew of colour was simply just "frank" or "bob" or whatever their name was. They were just friends, they weren't "The black kid" or "the brown kid".

It reminds me of a story with my friend who was my best man at my wedding. He happens to be of polynesian decent. The wedding party was at the head table and we were the only table to be waited on. Drinks, food, whatever you didn't get up someone would bring you anything you wanted. So my friend turns to me and says "So this is how it feels to be white". Course that has no bearing on this thread what so ever, but I found it funny none the less. More so because he's my friend and has been since I can remember and it was never like that.
They accept the colour brown because they are really brown.Have you ever seen a African who is really black like the colour black.I haven't,so why say that you are black while you are dark brown or light brown.To me or anybody else in Holland that is racist and i also think it is racist because some monkeys and gorillas are black.And most white people say you are black because monkeys are black.In Holland that's why they say to Africans they are black.
I don't know how things are in Holland, so if they are upset with the association of being called black because it's linked to monkeys or apes I can understand. I just thought it was odd that they accept the term 'brown' but not 'black' based solely on the term being of colour not association.
Yeah also because blacks in Holland don't see themselves as blacks.There colour is dark brown or light brown not black.That's why i found it real strange that Afro-Americans on this site called themselves blacks.While in Holland you don't dare to call somebody black while he's black.It's a racial slur,only racist say black people are black.We call them brown.I think it's a American thing,it's just how American racism works.
It's funny how terms work from place to place. I know up in Canada the term for Native changes from place to place. In Manitoba it's Aboriginal/Native, in Saskatechwan it's Indian, in Alberta it's Native, in B.C. and in the Territories it's First Nations. All accepted terms in their locations but if what is accepted by one tribe in turn is called another term can be deemed offensive.

dutch
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 291
Joined: January 9th, 2005, 7:08 am
Location: enschede,holland

Unread post by dutch » December 22nd, 2006, 12:00 pm

Yeah you are right and if blacks in America see themselves as blacks,hey aint no harm done.Just different culture.

Capo
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 34
Joined: December 11th, 2006, 5:57 pm

Unread post by Capo » December 22nd, 2006, 12:57 pm

There was another Moor (black), St Benedict the Black. Benedict was born of Negro parents who were slaves on an estate near Messina, Sicily. Just like St. Nicholas the Black, St Benedict the Black was first shown dark-skinned, but in subsequent portraits when he's ascending into heaven, they show him as a white man![/i] You also have the Pope Victor I and Pope Gelasius (below).... African blacks changed to white by the Catholic church (I wish I was making this shit up). This practice was more common than people realize! In the minds of white folks a black man doing something good was parallel to whiteness, and thus they portrayed the blackman as white..... as if to say he (the black man) has transcended blackness and now is acceptable..... one with us!

ImageImage
His parents, Christopher and Diana, were slaves who had been taken from Africa to Sicily. Granted his freedom at age 18, but remained as an employee of his former master. Scorned and mocked by others as poor as himself, due to his origin and skin, he retained a natural cheerfulness.

He met with, and became enamored of a group of Franciscan hermits near Palermo. Benedict sold and gave away what little he had, and joined this group. Novice master and reluctant superior of the friars in Palermo. When his term ended, he happily returned to in the friary kitchen. Benedict never referred to possessions as "mine" but always "ours." Had gifts for prayer and the guidance of souls. His humility and cheerfulness set an example that helped reform his order. On his death, King Philip III of Spain paid for a special tomb for the simple friar.

Benedict was not a Moor, but the Italian "il Moro" for "the Black" has been misinterpreted as referring to a Moorish heritage.
There they clearly say he was of African origin (but NOT a Moor by the way) and he was known as such from the beginning (as in 100% recently from Africa for that time AND coming from the 'commonly known' looking africans thrown into slavery as well to add on top of that = black)

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saintS/saintb20.htm


Back to Saint Nicholas, they said he had 'very dark skin' (does it say he had recently come from Africa in that time? was he coming from a slave family (being born in a rich family in THAT society)? and like I said, deep down, ANYBODY with darkish skin could be traced to Africa so if you wanna exagerate on that aspect (being that white people came from black to white and not the opposite and not forgetting that there is no such thing as a pure race) so you just wanna pile up ANYBODY with a slightly darker melanin tone up in there in 'Black' now (not limiting yourself only to US born citizens of its History such as African Americans)? That's the idiocy of vaguely and up to anybody's choice of putting the line as to what separates 'white' from 'black' and its use (politically? skin color? culturally? the meaning changes CONTINUOUSLY AND depending on the situation).

Does that take away from the fact that he WASN'T known as an African (Blacks of America called African Americans, keep it for US version of racism) and lived in where modern Turkey lies. He was dark skinned but was he a 'black', a 'nigga', looked down as a 'negro' (since the word 'black' automatically seems to be synonymous to those degrading terms after hearing so many african americans say it as such and hold on to them)? No he wasn't.

Of course you got people of different tones of colors living a society in those parts, does that make him known as an African like its his trademark characteristic as in 'the' african? NO. People are just exporting modern day versions of racism and its terms worldwide like it can be applied anywhere and above that, naming ancient people in 'our' image or whatever instead of telling who they were as they were. WTF. You understand where I'm getting? Say it how it is, Saint Nicholas was a dark skinned man living Asia Minor among ITS people (not living in the US among african americans and its 'blacks' however YOU define that for youself). Culture OVER skin color. I just hate it when 'african americans' or anybody for that matter speaks and twists on things among which they have completely NO relationship with aside from a measly detail and they can call it like they call themselves. That's like me speaking on science developing in ancient Islam's golden era, 'arabs invented algebra'. Whatever distorted idea you got in your head, how do you know some black skinned dude was working with a paler skin dude and they just figured out themselves but people with a not open enough mind just lower it down to the most comon denominator and say 'arabs' invented algebra' and there you have it. Skin color tones are limitless so you better have a open enough mind to realize you can't divide 'infinity' (black and white being THE two tones of the exact same nature that make any color darker or whiter).

It's almost as if african americans people really think they are 'different to its root' from white people, as if they REALLY were a race (with a different way of thinking, of living, of eating, i dont know). Dark skinned people and light skinned people are THE same, environments make up how your melanin comes up and those environments INCLUDE culture. Go ask Saint Nicholas if he saw himself as 'white' or 'black' if you want to know if he really EVEN gave it a thought before you asking him the question if you really wanna know. I'd just love to see the average 'african american' taking up on those 'race side' things go up to some 'same as him black dude' and see how much that OTHER person really sees how much they are either alike or not alike (just gotta see at Hutus and Tutsis where they thought they really were of different races to the root EVEN if they had the same skin color, opposite of how it is in the US where all 'dark skinned' people seem to be 'alike'?). I bet you'd get that same opening of the mind Malcolm X had where he realized his 'pure racist' ways of before (even though he thought he was right AND was working with the KKK since both really believed they were two completely different species or something) were complete BS since when he arrived at Mecca he saw as much light skinned people as dark skinned people praying and saw eachother as the SAME.

CULTURE OVER SKIN COLOR, exactly like dutch said. I think African Americans have a problem with that being that they feel kind of insecure as to what history is theirs and after having lived in slavery so they have to remake one or resolidify one (although they DO have one in America musically, socially, inventions as in the thing for ironing clothes and etc). African American culture. Stick with that. Saint Nicholas is part of another culture, if not to say MANY cultures today. Like I said, you can take some from anybody, but you better leave some for anybody as well, no matter the skin color.

SniperSVD
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 333
Joined: August 16th, 2006, 4:35 pm
Contact:

Unread post by SniperSVD » December 23rd, 2006, 4:28 pm

johnnny wrote:
SniperSVD wrote:santa is black cause he fell his fat ass down a dirty ass chimeny.
bump, and probally had black lungs llike me
i just came across these rolling leaves... Gosh dangit, they put mad tar in ya lungs, fuccin gotta scrub the grill after a B, Juicy wraps or some BS, cut strait from a tabacco plant, hard to wrap but the flamest buzz.

User avatar
Tre
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 426
Joined: May 8th, 2005, 6:19 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Unread post by Tre » December 23rd, 2006, 6:41 pm

Capo wrote:Benedict was not a Moor, but the Italian "il Moro" for "the Black" has been misinterpreted as referring to a Moorish heritage..
All dark-skinned people was considered Moors man, not necessarily Moorish. Didn't you read my Moor history lesson??

User avatar
Tre
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 426
Joined: May 8th, 2005, 6:19 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Unread post by Tre » December 23rd, 2006, 6:46 pm

Capo wrote: Back to Saint Nicholas, they said he had 'very dark skin' (does it say he had recently come from Africa in that time? was he coming from a slave family (being born in a rich family in THAT society)? and like I said, deep down, ANYBODY with darkish skin could be traced to Africa so if you wanna exagerate on that aspect (being that white people came from black to white and not the opposite and not forgetting that there is no such thing as a pure race) so you just wanna pile up ANYBODY with a slightly darker melanin tone up in there in 'Black' now (not limiting yourself only to US born citizens of its History such as African Americans)? That's the idiocy of vaguely and up to anybody's choice of putting the line as to what separates 'white' from 'black' and its use (politically? skin color? culturally? the meaning changes CONTINUOUSLY AND depending on the situation).

Does that take away from the fact that he WASN'T known as an African (Blacks of America called African Americans, keep it for US version of racism) and lived in where modern Turkey lies. He was dark skinned but was he a 'black', a 'nigga', looked down as a 'negro' (since the word 'black' automatically seems to be synonymous to those degrading terms after hearing so many african americans say it as such and hold on to them)? No he wasn't.

Of course you got people of different tones of colors living a society in those parts, does that make him known as an African like its his trademark characteristic as in 'the' african? NO. People are just exporting modern day versions of racism and its terms worldwide like it can be applied anywhere and above that, naming ancient people in 'our' image or whatever instead of telling who they were as they were. WTF. You understand where I'm getting? Say it how it is, Saint Nicholas was a dark skinned man living Asia Minor among ITS people (not living in the US among african americans and its 'blacks' however YOU define that for youself). Culture OVER skin color. I just hate it when 'african americans' or anybody for that matter speaks and twists on things among which they have completely NO relationship with aside from a measly detail and they can call it like they call themselves. That's like me speaking on science developing in ancient Islam's golden era, 'arabs invented algebra'. Whatever distorted idea you got in your head, how do you know some black skinned dude was working with a paler skin dude and they just figured out themselves but people with a not open enough mind just lower it down to the most comon denominator and say 'arabs' invented algebra' and there you have it. Skin color tones are limitless so you better have a open enough mind to realize you can't divide 'infinity' (black and white being THE two tones of the exact same nature that make any color darker or whiter).

It's almost as if african americans people really think they are 'different to its root' from white people, as if they REALLY were a race (with a different way of thinking, of living, of eating, i dont know). Dark skinned people and light skinned people are THE same, environments make up how your melanin comes up and those environments INCLUDE culture. Go ask Saint Nicholas if he saw himself as 'white' or 'black' if you want to know if he really EVEN gave it a thought before you asking him the question if you really wanna know. I'd just love to see the average 'african american' taking up on those 'race side' things go up to some 'same as him black dude' and see how much that OTHER person really sees how much they are either alike or not alike (just gotta see at Hutus and Tutsis where they thought they really were of different races to the root EVEN if they had the same skin color, opposite of how it is in the US where all 'dark skinned' people seem to be 'alike'?). I bet you'd get that same opening of the mind Malcolm X had where he realized his 'pure racist' ways of before (even though he thought he was right AND was working with the KKK since both really believed they were two completely different species or something) were complete BS since when he arrived at Mecca he saw as much light skinned people as dark skinned people praying and saw eachother as the SAME.

CULTURE OVER SKIN COLOR, exactly like dutch said. I think African Americans have a problem with that being that they feel kind of insecure as to what history is theirs and after having lived in slavery so they have to remake one or resolidify one (although they DO have one in America musically, socially, inventions as in the thing for ironing clothes and etc). African American culture. Stick with that. Saint Nicholas is part of another culture, if not to say MANY cultures today. Like I said, you can take some from anybody, but you better leave some for anybody as well, no matter the skin color.


I'm not interested in your long commentaries man, and your attempt to belittle African American culture and identity. Whites identify with other Anglo-Saxon cultures that are not necessarily their own culture, Nordic cultures, European cultures. So what’s the problem with African Americans, identifying with other dark skinned people on this planet, and others involved in the African Diaspora?

User avatar
Tre
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 426
Joined: May 8th, 2005, 6:19 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Unread post by Tre » December 23rd, 2006, 7:06 pm

Capo wrote:Back to Saint Nicholas, they said he had 'very dark skin' (does it say he had recently come from Africa in that time? was he coming from a slave family (Saint Nicholas was born an orphan. His adoptive parents might have been rich, however both died when he was young).
Look man, you asked me how I interpret black, and I gave you several definitions. All you did was repeat my definitions, and than continue to argue that it’s too vague for you. I than asked you to provide me a pic of what you think black is, and you couldn’t even do that for me! Seriously how can you argue what black isn’t, if you can’t even articulate or show me what black is??

According to mtDNA, African blacks are naturally more diverse than other groups. So you can’t categorize black people by just going by their lips and eyes since there are different stocks, and types. With that being said.....

If you want to ignore, and pretend the dark-skinned man portrayed in this painting doesn’t have an unusually broad nose on him (what you term Negroid), than you go right ahead!

If you want to believe that you are are looking at a white-skin (Turk) with a dark sun tan, even though Christ and Mary, the mother of Christ, and the three children surrounding Saint Nicholas are all obviously how the Turks viewed themselves (White) That’s your prerogative!

So let me make this really easy for you man, show me a picture, any picture where you see Turks portraying themselves in this manner (black)... and I'll shut the fuck-up!

Image

User avatar
'X'
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 3127
Joined: May 31st, 2004, 10:36 am
Country: Hong Kong, China
If in the United States: North Dakota
What city do you live in now?: ........

Unread post by 'X' » December 24th, 2006, 7:52 am

Image

Post Reply

Return to “Race and Ethnicity, Racial Relations & Racism”