Review;Racism is a liberation ideology;BLACK AFRICANS IN RENAISSANCE EUROPE

Dear T.F.Earle and KJP Lowe,

Illustrations: Human albinism, book cover, human leather, whiteUS slaves, Alessandro the Medici, Margaretha of Parma, Masque of Blackness, Queen Anne of Denmark whitened, Dorothea of Denmark, Princess von Metternich, Prince Alexander of Orange Nassau, Jamnitzer Moorhead, Maurice of Saxony, Maurice Huygens,Black Madonna, Jane Austen, Greek statue, Louis XIV, Charles IIStuart.

(Mother with a pink child)

INTRODUCTION

When your ancestors, the European pinks, the third estate, who were emancipated serfs and villains, and they were the pariahs from Europe and also kept as shoe leather cattle; gained universal suffrage during the Final Revolutions in 1848, they started a process to completely eradicate their former brown and black noble and bourgeoisie masters from history. Jane Austen (1775-1817), who was against giving pinks equal rights, referred to this process as ‘total annihilation,’ in ‘Emma’ (1816). This process which started in 1760, when human races and a race hierarchy were invented, was however only possible with the aid of bourgeoisie scientist who hated the nobility. Everything that was ever said about human races, a unscientificconcept, was to free Europe from its African founders. Inventedby Blacks, racism was a liberation ideology to free Europe fromaristocratic rule. The blackness of the master was the least ofthe pinks problems, the extreme and cruel oppression, and backwardness causing economic stagnation; were more harmful. Both of these African European tribes among the masters were black and brown complexioned African Europeans, 3 % of the Europeans, and descendants of the North Africans who were the first to people thawing Europe, 45.000 years ago: after the Second Ice Age. The pinks had left Africa as a group around thesame time, went overland to Central Asia, where they settled and became a fixed pink nation. Next, they started to immigrateto Europe from 3000 BC. Then in 400 AD, but mostly in 1000 AD, when Europe suffered its greatest Barbarian invasions, and thisgave rise to the finding of the modern nobility and state formation in Europe. The Great Peoples Movement is about pinks invading Europe. They were never considered citizens, and all the cruelty of the Greeks and Roman was directed at them. They were not perceived as human and thrown as bait to the lions in the circuses for ancient snuff games. The pinks, your ancestorswere thus immigrants in Europe, and consisted of travelling hordes, who never founded a civilization nor contributed to theEuropean civilization.

(Allessandro de Medici)

By over painting all old master portraits of their former master from 1848, they gave themselves, or were given a historyand declared superior over Blacks. All history is about Blacks,and the so-called ‘restoration’ done on these painting against the supposedly ‘darkened’ paint; the figures duly appeared dark, is reversible. Blacks should realize it were these European bourgeoisie Blacks who enslaved Africans, after they enslaved pinks and even brought them to the Americas as white slaves, where Africans slaves and masters alike referred to them as ‘white trash.’ So, its no use to blame pinks and wait for them to do right by Blacks who enslaved themselves and still keep themselves and each other in the oppression. Pinks are the most unfree people in the world and I think they were genetically selected, like barnyard cattle, to accept being fedand them culled during holocausts. Historical plagues should beconsidered culling by the masters, like we have AIDS and Ebola today. They consider white supremacy their faith and perceive me as a HERETIC. By spreading all this nonsense about slavery, by Blacks, Blacks are intimidated to view pinks as super humans, and to keep frightened Blacks from fighting oppression.For now, I suggest Blacks who pay taxes; take interest in the way old master paintings are managed by museums, and how the fake over painting is maintained. So, we will understand that the true history of Blacks is enshrined in all prestigious museums in the world. History was the other way around, as Blacks civilized the pagan hell out of pinks.

(Book covered in human leather) This process to eradicate Blacks as founders of the European civilization is still going strong and your so-called scholarlybook is extremely racist in its purpose to show that the only Blacks in Europe were slaves, or second-generation slaves. Thateven as freedmen, they were kept poor and segregated, and were hated by the pinks. As the Europeans in this study can only be pinks, even the European soil and the air is supposedly hostileto Blacks. You invariably referred to them, as just ‘black Africans,’ and not as Guineans, Congolese, Ghanaians, while this study also addresses Tartars, Circassians, Greeks and Indians who were enslaved in Renaissance Europe. Blacks are identified by their colour, not geography like supposedly other, white slaves. While it was well known and recorded wherefrom Africa they came from. In Suriname, it was possible to tell their nation of origin till 1848, because they were employed in different professions and were recognizable from their body markings, ornaments, and other cultural traits. It seemed there was a need among the writers of this study ‘African Blacks In Renaissance Europe’ to denigrate Blacks intoone amorphous black mass, to make them less human, and incapable of living in an organized state. The hatred against

these Black Africans was according to this book mostly their colour, but the colour was also linked to bad behaviour, sexuallicentiousness, violence, laziness etc. The few Africans who managed to learn to write and could sign with their own names are presented in this book as miracles, like we would look and be astonished by an ape who can write his own name. You seem topush the fallacy that pinks have a natural abhorrence against Blacks, who they invariably perceive as ugly apes.

(Greek statues show North Africans)

Your book is to stamp out all ideas that the Renaissance was brought on by Blacks. It’s like the misogynistic 19th century books, like the one by Dr. White who claims that pink women areactually Blacks for having large areas of brown skin and have apregnancy mask, and turn brown in the face. These ‘scientific’ studies proofed by soundly use of the scientific method that a woman was inherently, inescapably inferior to man.

In my own research, I have found slavery of Blacks just a part of the last 500 years of the Black civilization that already lasts 10.000 years. Blacks should better discuss the pyramids if they want to derive some benefit or inspiration from the toils of their ancestors. Next Sheikh Anta Diop published a study, ‘Pre-colonial Black Africa’ in which he shows that the Africans that were abducted into slavery since 1444 came from well established, well ordered African States boasting the samekind of civilized institutions as any European state during thesame period. Europe is a North African civilization, and noble culture is still to be seen in North Africa. Europe’s history should be considered in connection with the finding of states and cities in North Africa. Diop compares Europe and Africa andcompares African slaves in Africa to the European feudal serfs and villains, who had even less rights. Slavery indoctrination just demoralizes and saddens Blacks, and is used by pinks and their houseniggers to intimidate Blacks. By telling them they

are slaves, they were always slaves and will always be slaves. That’s also the intention of your book, like all books by pinksabout Blacks. While the majority of European pinks were also slaves during the so-called Slavery Era. They were also the first slaves brought to the Americas and were looked down upon by both African slaves as slave masters as ‘white trash.’ BlackHistory Museums in the US, except my own Suriname Blue Blood IsBlack Blood Museum at The Hague, are always about the slavery era and about descendents of slaves, the only group that according to whites can legitimately be identified as Blacks. Their exploits and accomplishments are always seen in the lightof slavery, also their failings and problems. The ostensibly given solution is to wait till pinks will give them equality. And the Black leaders, which are acceptable to pinks, the black fat cats or houseniggers, always argue from a position of victim hood. And their deliverance will only come when they get reparations. Blacks in mine view have themselves to thank for any wrong they suffered as all of history is aboutBlacks. Their so-called leaders are selling them out. Slavery and reparations should be about ‘back pay,’ like in ‘I have worked for you for 350 years and you never paid me, but made millions that your descendents even now enjoy. How much will weagree upon to be a fair back pay to give back to communities?’

(Costume design for Masque of Blackness, showing Queen Anne of Denmark as the River Niger.)

All history is about Blacks as slavery of Africans in Europe and the Americas was invented while the brown and black complexioned Europeans ruled (1100-1848). They were in power when Europeans states were formed. The colonial slave masters were members of the European bourgeoisie and were brown or black complexion. They were often fairer in looks then their slaves, but also as black of skin as some of their slaves. The requirement to the nobility to intermarry might have given thema blacker aspect, then the bourgeoisie. Recently I found daguerreotypes of Princess Pauline von Metternich, a granddaughter of the famous Von Metternich, and Prince Alexander of Orange of Nassau, a son of king William II of The Netherlands, and they are pure Blacks: dark complexioned and prognastic. The Black Europeans looked down on Africans not because of looks, but as heathens and uncivilized. Jane Austen (1775-1817), a member of the brown and black complexioned

gentry wrote about slavery and was described as ‘a brunette of complexion.’ In ‘Mansfield Park’, Fanny Price is based on real life Dido Elizabeth Longsay, who is portrayed by A.Ramsay as a dark mulatto type. Dido is the favourite niece of Lord Mansfield, who lived with his family. She was the child of his cousin and a former enslaved woman. Fanny Price is a favourite house slave in the noble Bertram household of her mother’s sister: yet as a half-black she has a lower status. When visitors call, she cannot eat with the family. This is how in reality the house slaves were often children, brothers, sistersand kin of the masters. This accounts for their preferential status, and after manumission, they could inherit and marry a European. Austen shows how Blacks misuse their own brethren andteach others how to mistreat and look down on Blacks, and offers this as a cause for the downfall of Blacks by their own follies.

(Queen Anne of Denmark, sporting an afro)

Next to the falsifying of portraits since 1848 after the claim was made the paint had ‘darkened’ and in need of ‘restoration’ to return the complexion the painters are supposed to have intended, there is J.F.Blumenbach (1752-1840). Engravings takenafter newly finished portraits still show the dark complexion, and which is mentioned in personal descriptions. Blumenbach wasan anthropologist who coined ‘The Caucasian Race,’ claiming he based his racial taxonomy on skull shape and not complexion. Sohe came to classify also the dark complexioned Europeans, the elite, as pinks, but outwardly degenerated through mostly external factors. In this way he ended the controversies about race and superiority inside Europe, by claiming the European Blacks are just externally degenerated pinks. In this way BlackEuropeans were given a grace period to biologically assimilate,and marry light skinned persons, to become pink looking. As a way of keeping their positions, possessions, and their power. Yet, images, even in profile show classical African ness, due to scull shape. Scholars seem to resist such tell tale images as if they do not believe Blumenbach who has declared them to be pinks. A famous case is Charlotte Sophie Mecklenburg-Strelitz, wife of George III. Her strong classical African looks are explained as ‘She just looks Black, but is not Black.’ Or that her looks are caused by a genetic ‘throw back’ to Black Portuguese ancestors from sixteen or so generations back. Others insist Ibrahim Hannibal, Alexander Pushkin’s wholly African greatgrandmother, impregnated her grandmother while he made his way from Paris to Moscow. More rational is that what we call Black today, is a face type, which prevailed in the brown complexioned Mecklenburg ducal family. Her father and other family members show this, according to Austen, ‘distinguished’ type, regarded as pure of blood, and proof of nobility. Entirely fake, whitened portraits also represent Queen Charlotte, so her looks need not be an object for discussion among scholars. Presumably, the Sir Ramsay crowning portrait as well as other portraits is whitened to hide her brown skin.

(Dorothea of Denmark)

Interesting is the front cover showing African Man by Jan Mostaert, considered by me a true portrait of Emperor Charles VHapsburg. By all accounts, he had thick lips or at least a protruding chin, that we call sub nasal prognathism, a small facial angle, which is regarded as crucial to identify a personas Black. His mummy was photographed in the 19th century, even turned in a postcard, and was described as ‘black, with massiveprognathism.’ Comparably, Le Notre described Louis XIV mummy inthe 18th century as ‘well preserved and black as ink.’ Yet, some present his black skin as a result of the embalming and the burial in the lead coffin. However, his cousin Charles II

Stuart, was called ‘The Black Boy,’ and was depicted as such, and described as ‘a tall black man’ in a wanted poster. This offers a better explanation for his looks. A miniature of Princess Dorothea of Denmark, a niece of Charles V Hapsburg andthe wife of the Palatine Elector shows a Black woman. It took some time for me to realize pinks have a very limited way of thinking, and childish imagery about bad pinks degenerating andbecoming Blacks and next apes; had to be invented for them to liberate themselves. This is how I arrived at the vision that pinks are genetically selected after 5000 years, to accept their degradation and status as shoe leather. There should be personal descriptions of the Emperor, but these are never mentioned. Even when they are discussing the Mostaert portrait in the Rijksmuseum Bulletin, deciding the image has all the features of a Habsburg gentleman: except in complexion. But they put in front that he cannot be Charles V, just a bodyguardwho wears the Habsburg colours and a golden medal of the Black Madonna of Halle, making him a distinguished rather then casual, and a rich visitor of the shrine. He is wearing the bodyguard uniform as a safety precaution, so a would be attacker could not tell who was the Emperor and who was his bodyguard. For states function, he would change back in his Renaissance finery.

(Princess Pauline von Metternich, daguerreotype, and whitened by Winterhalter)

The book offers interesting details of slave life’s, slave trade, and the arrival of the first Africans in 1444. How some owners treated their slaves well while others did not. Most illuminating was an African foundation that aided in the redemption of slaves who wanted to be free. In Suriname historiography there was a 19th century Muslim community, with a mosque near New Amsterdam in the Commewijne District, dedicated to buying Muslims slaves free. From mine Maria Suzanne Du Plessis research (2001) emerges an accusation that she had forcibly relocated her manumitted slave to a Caribbean island, of St. Eustatius. This enslaved woman might have been the mother of her nephew or nieces, as its report stated that Du Plessis kept the children hidden on her plantation. This book hardly condemns slavery and the hardship suffered by slaves, as if slavery is really something due to Blacks. It also seems to teach pinks to be harsh on Blacks no matter what.

Pinks in general do not seem to have a strong notion of freedom, because after emancipation their pink leaders kept them un-free and ignorant through obscurantism. In their thinking, they thus remain close to their serf ancestors. Even their sassing and posturing against Black individuals today, owes more to a powerless, poor pink serfs remonstrating with his Black noble masters. Mine research is viewed as the work ofa heretic, as this is the limit of their thinking ability. It is this 166-year-old event, of pink pariahs gaining their long fought equality and freedom, that is kept alive by pinks as racism, while they should move on, like Blacks have moved on.

(Prince Alexander of Orange of Nassau, compare white shirt and black face)

Exceptional is the chapter about Alessandro de Medici and the Moorhead drinking vessel by Jamnitzer. There is a longish list of personal description of Alessandro, and they are compared toa few depictions that confirm he was the face type we call Black today. Its however automatically assumed he got his looksfrom his mother, a servant woman from peasant stock, Simonetta from a village Colle Vechio. Many portraits of the Medici family show classical African facial traits, as the family was Black. None of his enemies attacked his blackness, but only hislow birth from a servant mother. This is remarked but not worked upon, as to find out why? Mainly because they were brownand black themselves, while the elite self-identified with heraldic images of Moors, as Black. Simonetta was married, and asked him by letter for money, meaning he was not close to his mother and might have disavowed her, and his half-siblings. I was surprised about these details that I had not encountered before. It was Charles V who ennobled De Medici and made him Duke of Florence. After which he was married off to a natural daughter of Charles V, Marguerite of Parma. She was also a daughter of another servant, in Bruges. Yet, her half-brother Philips II made her governor of the Netherlands. She also had her bastardness thrown at her. Some 19th century historians disputed De Medici’s blackness, one suggested he just ‘looked’ Black, as his mother was ‘Eastern.’ Blackness is often presented as a ‘strain,’ or an infection, a disease on pinks who are presented as the norm, and the beginning of everything.As if the pinks never overcame their shock of being regarded immigrants and pariahs in Europe, by the Black Europeans, and such already during the Greek Civilization. And they still needto proof their European ness by writing and painting the Blacksout of history.

(Jamnitzer Moorhead)

The many splendid, opulent and priceless images of Blacks, and the use of resplendidly turned out Black musicians or courtiersduring royal processions is never questioned as antithetical totheir supposedly low, foreign status, their supposed ugliness and who are hated by the pink Europeans. Why would a royal person antagonise the majority of his pink subjects by showing such outright preference for Blacks? Why would they employ them

among pink servants or give them leading positions in their households? Why display golden Black imagery like the Moritzburg Cup? Why call a place Moritzburg? Why use so many Moors as heraldic Symbols for families, cities and nations? If they are so low and animalistic, why such an obsession with blackness among the supposedly pink European nobility? Why givethem leading rolls in plays set among the royalty, like in ‘Othello’ by Shakespeare, and also in ‘The Masque of Blackness’commissioned by Anne of Denmark, wife of James I Stuart?

(Maurice of Saxony)

After study, I found that the heraldic Moors symbolised blue blood, and Black Supremacy. These symbols are not real persons,but are regularly, without any base, identified as slaves or servants. The European elite who brought the Renaissance were the first Europeans who came from Africa and remained brown andblack complexioned because of intermarriage. They were called ‘blue men’ in the medieval period (500-1500), and some of theirdescendants elevated themselves into a nobility rightly called Blue Bloods. They saw themselves as true Europeans, from the soils, while pinks were immigrants who came from Central Asia, and became their serfs. They even traded in the skin of these pinks to line church door, bind books, make clothing and shoes for the elite. The non-noble Blacks became the bourgeoisie and were also looked down upon. This is why the bourgeoisie philosophers started the Enlightenment and conspired to make the French Revolution to topple the nobility, together with thepink majority. Racism is the only remaining part of the

Enlightenment, and mine research only stopped its success in its tracks (2005). And do I suffer from persecution.

(Louis XIV, black as ink.)

The launch of the Modern nobility in 1100-1200 coincided with the introduction of King Balthasar and Black Madonna’s, and Black saints like St. Maurice. They were to present the Black identified king as a good Christian. As this elite forced Christianity on the pink Europeans, who had kept their native religions well after the medieval period. The French Revolutioncaused many of these symbols of Black superiority to be destroyed, but many were recreated, and are still visible and venerated in many great European churches. Like how Isis was still worshipped during the Christian era, the Black Madonna’s are still venerated, while the Black noble elite has disappeared. The only way to cope is to ignore these symbols, or assert they are blackened by candle soot. A childish nonsense explanation still holding sway among pink scientists. But only on the hands and the face of these statues, not on thebody etc. This is how blackness is explained away, by putting the idea in front that there were ‘no Blacks.’ And to identify a historical person as Black, it must be shown he had a Black great-grandfather. How does the King of Britain, Charles II Stuart, can have a slave ancestor to cause him to be so Black? If I read well, all of Europe had only three Blacks of merit: Alessandro de Medici, Alexander Pushkin and Alexander Dumas. But then supposedly they were only half-blacks, and their pink DNA that managed to over shadow the base, evil stupid, animalistic African DNA, and caused all the merit. Even in our

times, a biographer of Pushkin tries to equate bad behaviour among the Hannibal’s as caused by their race. While there is noproof his noble contemporaries shunned him, or condemned him because of his supposed ‘race.’ There must have been more like him, and he was seen as just a noble man. From my study of JaneAusten, I understand that the elite numbered 2-3%, that they were light brown, brown, very brown and black, and the 10% withclassical African facial traits were regarded as ‘distinguished,’ ‘pure of blood,’ and ‘proof of noble blood.’

Like Hamlet, Othello is the most famous Black fictional character and totally misunderstood. The people of Venice couldnot have been racist if they would make a Moor their highest military leader. The objections against Othello are those of the bourgeoisie against the nobility. Othello marrying Desdemona is how the nobility married bourgeois heiresses from trade, as nobles were forbidden to trade; to get the money. Emma Woodhouse in ‘Emma’ (1816), is the black Queen of Highbury, and wants to have Mr. Elton (‘Mr. Elton, black, spruce, and smiling’) marry her pink friend Miss Harriet Smith.This part displays Austen disdain for mix-marriages, as a greatfolly by which Blacks lost their power. By diluting their pure blood with pinks, the ‘lower ranks.’ The supposedly racist jokes in Othello are just mild stabbings at the nobility, but not against Black superiority. Shakespeare was a member of brown and black complexioned gentry, and the many Blacks in hisplays are heraldic Moors, who are symbols and persons, like Mr.Elton. The historical role of the nobility, the aspects of Nobilitas and its superiority, and its weaknesses and failings are argued.

(Charles II Stuart, The Black Boy, cousin of Louis XIV)

Black is a face type, and colour is just skin deep, yet this superficial trait is used to distinguish Blacks from others, and to define them as hardly humans. There must be a reason forthis obsessive, organized hatred, which is reflected in books like this, expositions and articles. To show Blacks as less, asunimportant, as permanent slaves: as if slavery is stamped on their DNA. The pinks who were treated as shoe leather for 5000 years or longer by these brown and black complexioned Europeansdefinitely have an axe to grind.

But we still have a small window of opportunity to over throw their purpose to completely revise history and completely exercise Blacks from history. While all of history is about Blacks, with pinks in the supporting roll of barbarians, plebeians, serfs, villains, the ordinary people, the greys (hetgrauw), the pinks, rapaille, canaille and pariahs of Europe. The Early Modern nobility styled itself on the Greek nobility by claiming seniority to rule over late coming pinks, as the true Europeans ‘of the soils.’ Subsequently the Greek and the Roman Civilizations were Black civilizations with all their rulers brown or black of complexion. Greek classical statues show North Africans. Alexander the Great was described as ‘swarthy’, which means (zwart, schwartze) black in colour, and depicted by Apelles as black of complexion. The European nobility knew the Greek civilization was Black. This civilization was whitened along with the whitening of European history in 1848. this is only partly understood by Martin Bernal in ‘Black Athena,’ while he comes close to pinpointing 1848 as the pivotal year, but thinking of racist hatred againstblacks as something natural for pinks, he does not discover whyhistory and Greece was whitened.

(Karl Marx was called Mohr)

Many scientists do not question the process which had started with over painting the portraits in 1848 claiming the paint had‘darkened;’ yet at least confirming that the paintings showed

dark people. again I have to point to genetical selection to breed in stupid ness. Next, they ignored personal descriptions in fact or fiction, printing whitened portraits of the same person who in the same book is described as ‘more brown then white’ (William I of Orange 1533-1584). In this book ‘Black Africans in Renaissance Europe,’ as well; as Alessandro de Medici is described as dark or very brown in colour, yet they still show the (half) whitened portraits, that still show the classical African facial traits. A strange internalised obscurantism to contradict oneself in this regard of images. The description does not match the image, and it does not lead to questions as its already pre-decided that a Black could never be a ruler, or a European person of merit. So this otherwise useful method, as it is to me as the blue blood theory is firmly based on personal descriptions: is used to their revisionist convenience. They not even understand that fair or even ‘blank’ does not necessarily mean pink. ‘Sallow’ meant light brown, not some sickly hue. The context shows that a person could not have been pink, if married to a noble or seen as part of the elite. The social distance between elite and serf was too great. The pinks were pariahs and shoe leather. North Africans came in all complexions, so some nobleswere lighter in colour, but did not identify as pinks, and werenot looked on as pinks, as those would not be tolerated among society. Poetry about a ‘white lady’ was about a ivory skinned North African European noble lady, not a pink outcast woman. This is the truth they want to bury with this racist book.

(Maurice Huygens)

Egmond CodfriedCurator Suriname Blue Blood Is Black Blood MuseumThe Hague.19 Augustus 2013.Marrakech.3 June 2015