The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Guardian: "Monica Lewinsky Defends Mary Beard in Twitter Row Over Black Roman Britons"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From The Guardian, an actual headline:

Monica Lewinsky defends Mary Beard in Twitter row over black Roman Britons

Classical historian’s support for accuracy of educational video draws fire from US academic, but support from President Clinton’s former intern and other stars

The depiction of a black Roman father, in the BBC educational animation Life in Roman Britain.

by Alison Flood
Monday 7 August 2017

Public figures from Monica Lewinsky to JK Rowling and Diane Abbott are lining up to support Mary Beard, after the the classical historian found herself at the centre of a storm of Twitter abuse at the weekend.

Beard came under fire after she wrote that a BBC educational video that showed a black Roman soldier was “pretty accurate”. The video, uploaded to YouTube by the BBC last December, had been criticised by some viewers as being anachronistic, but Beard wrote on Twitter that “there’s plenty of firm evidence for ethnic diversity in Roman Britain”.

What followed, according to Beard in her blogpost response on the TLS, was “a torrent of aggressive insults, on everything from my historical competence and elitist ivory-tower viewpoint to my age, shape and gender”. This was made worse after academic Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of the bestselling book on risk, The Black Swan, joined her critics.

“The BBC was effectively applying quotas retroactively (I mean, really retroactively),” Taleb wrote on his own blog. “Any dissent from the statistical errors made by the politically correct police is treated as apostasy. Effectively, scholarship is dead in the UK.”

Screenshot 2017-08-25 12.42.09

… Lewinsky added a graphic image of support to endorse a Beard tweet saying “the struggle goes on”.

Screenshot 2017-08-25 12.44.42

Blacks are so sacralized today that the main debate currently going on, save for a few Taleb-like non-team players, is between those who want to topple all monuments of the past and those who want to retcon the past to look like contemporary TV commercials.

P.S., here’s an article on Mary Beard’s recent book on the Roman Empire as embodying the modern globalist inclusive virtues of invade-the-world, enlist-the-world, including this bit on the good side of the rape of the Sabine women:

“Beard notes that the mass rape is portrayed not just as evidence of Roman aggression but as a way of creating a mixed society.”

 
Hide 180 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Monica Lewinsky? She sucks!

    Read More
    • Replies: @slumber_j
    When our daughter was maybe a year old we went to a friend's kid's birthday party at their apartment building in the West Village in Manhattan. Waiting for the elevator with us, and then stepping into it, was Monica Lewinsky.

    She was actually very sweet on the ride up, cooing over our kid and whatnot. Which was great, until she commented on our daughter's "great eyebrows." At which point I suddenly found the whole thing creepy.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Mary Beard is a perfectly pleasant woman but seems to have remarkably underdeveloped critical faculties. Better suited, I’d think, to Harvard than Cambridge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jason Liu
    I think she's quite capable of critical thinking. But like most leftists, they don't apply it to their own sacred beliefs.
    , @Olorin
    I was thinking Barnyard, Sarah Lawrence, or Bryn Mawr.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. “[T]he struggle goes on.” The only struggle these ladies have is walking up the stairs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Well, word of mouth is that Lewinsky is an expert in the oral history of Roman black emperors.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Good to know she has swallowed it whole and not lost faith.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    She didn't swallow, it was on the frigging dress.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Monica Lewinsky to JK Rowling to Diane Abbott? These are the creatures who wish to Blackwash British history by adding sub-Saharan Africans to Britain during the time the Roman Empire occupied Britain?

    I prefer Tinkers to Evers to Chance.

    Patriotic men must not go overboard in their condemnation of bird brain broads such as Monica Lewinsky to JK Rowling to Diane Abbott. Patriotic White women are just as appalled by the mentally deranged distaff nutcakes as men are, maybe more so. The anti-White Globalizers sometimes pull these stunts to elicit an overreaction in Whites. Whites must go on the attack. To be outraged does no good. Now is the time for Whites to go on the attack.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Other authors followed, with The Fault in Our Stars writer John Green praising her “great scholarship” in the “roaringly good read” on ancient Rome, SPQR.

    Well with a defense from the author of “The Fault in Our Stars” what is there left to criticize. Glad I read the Amazon reviews of SPQR before ordering the book.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Off The Street
    She is obviously part of that anti-vowelist sect intent on deplatforming whatever glories remain of Rome.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. It’s true! And feminist Boadicea was so fed up with this that, after one gang rape too many (on her own daughters) she antifaed an uprising to kick the gangbangers out.

    Sadly, her tactical skills were not up to scratch,

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Those were not gangbangers, but a fraternity of white males with a penchant for Greek letters and raping British matriarchal ebony queens. Adjust your language, peasant!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. I’m impressed that Monica Lewinsky is backing up her scholarship, but has Gennifer Flowers or Fanne Foxe weighed in? Unfortunately, due to her untimely death, we can’t know the views of Linda Lovelace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Perhaps Alicia Mochado would be available to share her opinion on this topic.
    , @Peripatetic commenter
    Oh come now. Linda Lovelace probably had better taste in men than Slick Willie!

    (I wonder if I could have used more innuendos?)
    , @Off The Street
    Dr. [yeah, I couldn't believe it either] Chelsea Clinton's views are eagerly anticipated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. There’s a school of thought in historical circles devoted to retroactively applying SJWism to the past, exaggerating the presence and impact of minorities, women, and so on as a way of saying “See? It’s always been like this.”

    It’s been around for decades, but what I saw in college a few years back shows a renewed surge for “diverse history”, mostly fueled by anger over non-diverse movies, books, games, etc.

    In China something like this would have been taken as a direct attack on our identity, and elicited a much bigger public, maybe even government response. The non-response in the west still kind of flabbergasts me. The Brits seem to view history as just a hobby, “nothing to do with our present day”. This disconnect is one of the reasons why westerners think we’re all human is a valid excuse for diversity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Altai
    As the Classics (As with the humanities generally) languish the enrolment is becoming more and more female and thus the proportion of academic feminists who have no other purpose than to push their religion increases. This creates a vicious cycle of these areas becoming more unattractive to men. And so the Classics are left to the Donna Zuckerbergs to deface and demoralise the West.

    As others have mentioned, the significant multicultural history of the British Isles was, with the exception maybe of the Huguenots never peaceful and never without intergroup conflict. Even today these various invasions had little impact outside the ruling classes and coastal cities which was small in nature and has been shrinking over time due to migration from the countryside. The Saxons left the biggest impression but even this is ultimately small at a national level and not even the majority in it's heartlands. The bizarre trait of the present is the absence of war to enforce this population replacement.

    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    What, you mean the CCP wouldn't officially accept a theory that "Back in the day, during the Tang dynasty, blacks from Liberia and of course Kenya were roaming all over the Yangzee River region, to say nothing of the Yellow River." I mean, isn't it obvious that ancient China has always had a significant Sub-Saharan African population for thousands of yrs? What isn't fully clear is why an educator has to attend an Ivy or Cambridge to arrive at this conclusion, when Henry Louis Gates, Louis Farrakahn etc would be more than happy and qualified to teach these ideas about Classical history.
    , @nebulafox
    There's an excellent, earthy Russian proverb for this: "A fish rots from the head."

    It all starts with the elite and their decline. What are embarrassments for someone in the upper-middle class, who can recover from college hedonism and go on to a responsible job, as Mr. Sailer has mentioned, can be disastrous for someone else. The decline of both the black and white working classes since the 1960s can be seen (*in part*) through this prism, as they have picked up on the self-destructive habits of societal superiors, with terrible consequences.

    Anyway, say what you will about the old British Establishment, they might have had their ridiculous class theories and boundaries that the Founders sought to escape. They might have been snobbish. But when push came to shove, they were expected to lead by example and put their necks on the line before asking anyone else to. If you were an upstanding English gentlemen, you were expected to be the first on the warship, the first to go administer far-off lands, the first over the trenches, the first to go up into the sky during the Blitz, etc. They wouldn't stand for this nonsense. But today's Western elite-not just in the UK-reserve their sense of noblesse oblige for others than their native compatriots, whom they view with indifference at best and active contempt at worst. Indeed, in some "better" circles, their eventual extirpation of as some sick historical achievement.

    , @Studley

    In China something like this would have been taken as a direct attack on our identity, and elicited a much bigger public, maybe even government response.
     
    Jason, you'd know more than me about this but the Chinese are skilled enough to double-play it? Those mysterious mummies out in the western desert, with red hair/plaid/conical hats (the Tocharians). The Uighurs claim them as ancestors so the Chinese authorities respond, "Sure. These people weren't Han Chinese. But they weren't you lot (i.e. Turkic Uighur people) either!"
    , @basque british are small brained
    yen liu chieh bananas, sellouts to the small brained british, you fools have you forgotten about forced heroin in china the killings of chinese and destructions of chinatowns by these curly haired small brained people with the weakest immune system in the world.
    , @Alec Leamas

    There’s a school of thought in historical circles devoted to retroactively applying SJWism to the past, exaggerating the presence and impact of minorities, women, and so on as a way of saying “See? It’s always been like this.”
     
    It's more sinister than that - this seems to be a retconning of history to prepare Britons for more MENA immigration - "see? Blacks have been here since Roman times."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. There were a couple of Confederates who said that their cause was not only essentially to the United States being saved, but that their cause also was essential to the Western world.

    Those kooks were absolutely correct, even in their wildest assertions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kyle Searle
    Wrong. The Southern plantation owners imported all the black slaves due to their own greed. If they had been satisfied with the sweat off their own brow, the USA would have a similar black population to Canada, i.e. around 1 %.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. I’m surprised that this is causing a stir. You see this kind of thing all of the time. Go to any national park showing films about colonial times, and you’ll see black guys in England or mixed in with English colonists as they head to America.

    Same thing on children’s shows. If it takes place in medieval times, you’ll see black guys, maybe a black women. Oddly, you don’t see Asians or native American types, but then, nobody cares about them.

    I point out to my kids all the time that what they just saw is ridiculous and never happened. At first, my one kid would just resspond, “Well, they’re just trying to be nice.” So then I asked her if she’d be OK with a movie about her where the lead actress was a short Hispanic girl living in L.A. My daughter wasn’t too keen on that.

    Btw, thanks to Steve, I showed my daughter just this morning the SAT scores breakdown by race. She was amazed, though she did say, “Well, whites do pretty well. I guess that we’re fairly smart. Wow, there are like no blacks at the high scores.”

    “No, honey, there’s not. (And let’s hope that you remember all of that stuff I’ve told you about how your kids’ brains and personality come from their parents.) But remember, keep your mouth shut about this in public.”

    “I know, dad.”

    Creating white rebels, one kid at a time.

    Read More
    • Agree: BenKenobi, Jim Christian
    • Replies: @Detective Club
    I hereby nominate you for Father of the Year!
    , @guest
    Britain's Establishment, as well as ours, is simply obsessed with blackness. They have it on their minds all day. I was watching a sitcom taking place in England recently. Most of the characters were English, Irish, or American, but a not insignificant number of speaking roles were black, most of them black women. And for whatever reason a good share of the extras were black.

    The female lead worked at what came off as a lower-class school, but the rest of the time was spent in upper-middleclass white society. So why all the black faces? What is even the point? Not diversity, specifically, because I don't really remember seeing Middle Easterners and other assorted browns, though there was a speaking Iranian role. I understand black stands for diversity all on its own. But really, it's not symbolism so much as fetishization.

    When will these weirdos get over their black obsession? They're not that interesting.

    , @Nigerian Nationalist
    What was it Ben Franklin said? something along the lines of in the time it took you to show your "little rebel" the score, 30,000 diverse Americans crossed the border.

    Do Better!
    , @Off The Street
    Extracurricular courses in Noticing, helpful for all matriculants at home and abroad. Steve is a marketing guy so he might have some catch phrase to help reach younger audiences.
    , @Jim Christian
    Good takes, Silly. Same for my daughter. I told her to keep her trap shut about these truths. She back-slid some during four years in college, but now, married, with a new baby and viewing the world at-large from her new circumstances, she moved back into reality with racial (and other liberal) notions of achievement, behavior, criminality. She sees what taxes mean now, she sees now how a bunch of old-assed baby-boomers, having ruined the world, are endeavoring to steal and loot the final scraps before they go.

    She sees the foolishness of women out in the world, too. If we could get them into a mindset of marriage and family, it would focus the minds of the young toward serious matters instead of the frivolous shit depicted in media. She's only 27, most of her contemporaries are out on the party carousel, still, spending their newfound earnings, investing nothing, aging rather poorly. Amazing what drugs and alcohol and lousy hours to do a girl.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Steve, is some of your writing mistakenly inside that blockquote?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. The correct title of the Guardian’s article should’ve been, “Monica Lewinsky, who [...] Bill Clinton’s [...], defends Mary Beard in Twitter row, etc.”

    Because if you think that a person’s opinion about some issue is newsworthy enough to report in a paper you should explain why upfront.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. James Cameron’s response to Wonder Woman was un-Woke:

    “All of the self-congratulatory back-patting Hollywood’s been doing over Wonder Woman has been so misguided,” Cameron said in a new interview with The Guardian. “She’s an objectified icon, and it’s just male Hollywood doing the same old thing!”

    The “self-congratulatory back-patting” Cameron is referring to is the fact that Wonder Woman, considered a risky endeavor for many years because the hero is a woman, ended up being the highest-grossing movie of the summer. Many see it as a shift of the tides when it comes to gender in Hollywood.

    “I’m not saying I didn’t like the movie but, to me, it’s a step backwards,” he continued.

    And if you are unsure why Cameron said that, he then explained.

    “Sarah Connor was not a beauty icon,” the Terminator director—who created Connor, among other female leads—said. “She was strong, she was troubled, she was a terrible mother, and she earned the respect of the audience through pure grit. And to me [the benefit of characters like Sarah] is so obvious. I mean, half the audience is female!”

    Basically, Cameron is saying that because he feels Gal Gadot is prettier than Linda Hamilton, and because Wonder Woman is a superhero instead of a real person, Wonder Woman is somehow less impactful because regular women can’t relate to her as much. That seems incredibly misguided and sexist. (Does an average man have to watch movies starring overweight bald guys to relate to them better, or can he watch movies starring Arnold Schwarzenegger?) Looks or ability should have nothing to do with it. Wonder Woman was a massive hit movie starring and directed by a woman, something that has rarely been allowed in Hollywood. It broke a mold and it’s a good thing. Period.

    http://io9.gizmodo.com/james-cameron-thinks-wonder-woman-was-a-step-backward-f-1798410202

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "considered a risky endeavor for many years because the hero is a woman"

    This B.S. again? When during that same "many years" Hollywood pumped out butt-kicking female after butt-kicking female movie? Do they think we didn't notice, or are they too stupid to think Angelina Jolie or Charlize Theron movies count, because they're not wearing superhero costumes as they pull off superhuman feats?

    , @guest
    And of course Cameron is overlooking the fact that Gadot isn't pretty. But I've seen his taste in women, and I guess I can understand the confusion.
    , @El Dato

    Wonder Woman was a massive hit movie starring and directed by a woman, something that has rarely been allowed in Hollywood.
     
    Fantastic.

    Why do Hollywood Jews not allow women to direct or star in "massive hit" summer movies targeted at the teenager demographic and how can we change this?

    Inquiring minds want to know!
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    “Sarah Connor was not a beauty icon"

    Ain't that the truth. Linda Hamilton brought new meaning to fugly, just awful. Compared to Linda Hamilton, the likes of Sigourney Weaver and Katherine Hepburn appear to be beautiful sexpots, and that's going a long way. Although to be fair, didn't Cameron divorce his first wife to marry Linda? She hasn't done too much since T2, at least as far as blockbusters.
    , @Off The Street

    “Sarah Connor was not a beauty icon,”
     
    Linda Hamilton was married to James Cameron at one time. She is on record as describing that union as "terrible on every level". The not a beauty icon quote is probably just the tip of the iceberg in their relationship.
    , @Desiderius

    she was a terrible mother
     
    Where did that come from?
    , @Jim Christian

    Does an average man have to watch movies starring overweight bald guys to relate to them better
     
    I can think of lots of shows that encouraged men to become overweight, drunken layabouts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @dearieme
    Mary Beard is a perfectly pleasant woman but seems to have remarkably underdeveloped critical faculties. Better suited, I'd think, to Harvard than Cambridge.

    I think she’s quite capable of critical thinking. But like most leftists, they don’t apply it to their own sacred beliefs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    Thomas Sowell called it 'The Vision of the Anointed.' It means that once you have it, neither facts nor logic matter.

    You see it in Leftists exactly as you see it in crazy totalitarian cults like the Moonies and Scientologists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Steve, I imagine the bottom portion in the block quote is your own commentary..

    Read More
    • Replies: @DeezNuts
    Never mind
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. These people are so weak, no wonder the foolhardy nazis thought they could get away with it in Charlottesville.

    But they have all the advantages. Think about it: this lady not only has a cushy university gig, she has entree to the worlds of television and publishing. Her ideas get play. ‘Course, she’s straight-jacketed and couldn’t say whatever she wants. But she doesn’t want to say anything that would prevent her from running and hiding to the safe spaces of power. Where MSM outlets write articles about your hurt feelz.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stacy235l
    These people are so weak, no wonder the foolhardy nazis thought they could get away with it in Charlottesville.

    They don't need to be strong. They have fools like you to gang up on anyone who dares oppose them.

    Get away with what? It was a perfectly legal protest. Everyone else, including the state and city government/police, broke the law.

    You wouldn't dare slander them to their faces keyboard warrior.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Beard is actually a decent read when she stays in her lane. One has to put up with a bit of postmodern cant, but I’ve learned a lot about the cultural history of antiquity from her.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    I’ve learned a lot about the cultural history of antiquity from her
     
    How do you know where the postmodern cant ends and the cultural history of antiquity begins?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @DeezNuts
    Steve, I imagine the bottom portion in the block quote is your own commentary..

    Never mind

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @syonredux
    James Cameron's response to Wonder Woman was un-Woke:

    “All of the self-congratulatory back-patting Hollywood’s been doing over Wonder Woman has been so misguided,” Cameron said in a new interview with The Guardian. “She’s an objectified icon, and it’s just male Hollywood doing the same old thing!”

    The “self-congratulatory back-patting” Cameron is referring to is the fact that Wonder Woman, considered a risky endeavor for many years because the hero is a woman, ended up being the highest-grossing movie of the summer. Many see it as a shift of the tides when it comes to gender in Hollywood.

    “I’m not saying I didn’t like the movie but, to me, it’s a step backwards,” he continued.

    And if you are unsure why Cameron said that, he then explained.
     

    “Sarah Connor was not a beauty icon,” the Terminator director—who created Connor, among other female leads—said. “She was strong, she was troubled, she was a terrible mother, and she earned the respect of the audience through pure grit. And to me [the benefit of characters like Sarah] is so obvious. I mean, half the audience is female!”

    Basically, Cameron is saying that because he feels Gal Gadot is prettier than Linda Hamilton, and because Wonder Woman is a superhero instead of a real person, Wonder Woman is somehow less impactful because regular women can’t relate to her as much. That seems incredibly misguided and sexist. (Does an average man have to watch movies starring overweight bald guys to relate to them better, or can he watch movies starring Arnold Schwarzenegger?) Looks or ability should have nothing to do with it. Wonder Woman was a massive hit movie starring and directed by a woman, something that has rarely been allowed in Hollywood. It broke a mold and it’s a good thing. Period.
     
    http://io9.gizmodo.com/james-cameron-thinks-wonder-woman-was-a-step-backward-f-1798410202

    “considered a risky endeavor for many years because the hero is a woman”

    This B.S. again? When during that same “many years” Hollywood pumped out butt-kicking female after butt-kicking female movie? Do they think we didn’t notice, or are they too stupid to think Angelina Jolie or Charlize Theron movies count, because they’re not wearing superhero costumes as they pull off superhuman feats?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    Heh, watch any Law And Order episode where you can see tiny, 80-lb cop-chicks spinning men three times their weight to the ground, knocking them out and then cuffing them. The delusions of the "Strong Woman" in these scenarios are nuts and encourage women to think it applies to them--right up until, in the real world, as cops, as a woman in a bar or wherever, they get their asses kicked, at which time they cry Domestic Abuse. So much for strong women.

    As for "Strong Women" in business, there aren't any, only failures, hence their absence at the top.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. how many black people could there have possibly been in the roman empire, let alone in roman britain? the latter; probably none. there were probably nilotic people in the empire somewhere, mostly egypt, and maybe a few black people in roman africa. i think the sub-saharan african population period, prior to colonisation in the 19th century was pretty small by historical standards.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. What are Monica Lewisky’s credentials in classical scholarship? Though I can see how she’s known a few bruthas intimately since getting acquainted with Bill Clinton’s small willy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. @syonredux
    James Cameron's response to Wonder Woman was un-Woke:

    “All of the self-congratulatory back-patting Hollywood’s been doing over Wonder Woman has been so misguided,” Cameron said in a new interview with The Guardian. “She’s an objectified icon, and it’s just male Hollywood doing the same old thing!”

    The “self-congratulatory back-patting” Cameron is referring to is the fact that Wonder Woman, considered a risky endeavor for many years because the hero is a woman, ended up being the highest-grossing movie of the summer. Many see it as a shift of the tides when it comes to gender in Hollywood.

    “I’m not saying I didn’t like the movie but, to me, it’s a step backwards,” he continued.

    And if you are unsure why Cameron said that, he then explained.
     

    “Sarah Connor was not a beauty icon,” the Terminator director—who created Connor, among other female leads—said. “She was strong, she was troubled, she was a terrible mother, and she earned the respect of the audience through pure grit. And to me [the benefit of characters like Sarah] is so obvious. I mean, half the audience is female!”

    Basically, Cameron is saying that because he feels Gal Gadot is prettier than Linda Hamilton, and because Wonder Woman is a superhero instead of a real person, Wonder Woman is somehow less impactful because regular women can’t relate to her as much. That seems incredibly misguided and sexist. (Does an average man have to watch movies starring overweight bald guys to relate to them better, or can he watch movies starring Arnold Schwarzenegger?) Looks or ability should have nothing to do with it. Wonder Woman was a massive hit movie starring and directed by a woman, something that has rarely been allowed in Hollywood. It broke a mold and it’s a good thing. Period.
     
    http://io9.gizmodo.com/james-cameron-thinks-wonder-woman-was-a-step-backward-f-1798410202

    And of course Cameron is overlooking the fact that Gadot isn’t pretty. But I’ve seen his taste in women, and I guess I can understand the confusion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Jason Liu
    There's a school of thought in historical circles devoted to retroactively applying SJWism to the past, exaggerating the presence and impact of minorities, women, and so on as a way of saying "See? It's always been like this."

    It's been around for decades, but what I saw in college a few years back shows a renewed surge for "diverse history", mostly fueled by anger over non-diverse movies, books, games, etc.

    In China something like this would have been taken as a direct attack on our identity, and elicited a much bigger public, maybe even government response. The non-response in the west still kind of flabbergasts me. The Brits seem to view history as just a hobby, "nothing to do with our present day". This disconnect is one of the reasons why westerners think we're all human is a valid excuse for diversity.

    As the Classics (As with the humanities generally) languish the enrolment is becoming more and more female and thus the proportion of academic feminists who have no other purpose than to push their religion increases. This creates a vicious cycle of these areas becoming more unattractive to men. And so the Classics are left to the Donna Zuckerbergs to deface and demoralise the West.

    As others have mentioned, the significant multicultural history of the British Isles was, with the exception maybe of the Huguenots never peaceful and never without intergroup conflict. Even today these various invasions had little impact outside the ruling classes and coastal cities which was small in nature and has been shrinking over time due to migration from the countryside. The Saxons left the biggest impression but even this is ultimately small at a national level and not even the majority in it’s heartlands. The bizarre trait of the present is the absence of war to enforce this population replacement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @syonredux
    James Cameron's response to Wonder Woman was un-Woke:

    “All of the self-congratulatory back-patting Hollywood’s been doing over Wonder Woman has been so misguided,” Cameron said in a new interview with The Guardian. “She’s an objectified icon, and it’s just male Hollywood doing the same old thing!”

    The “self-congratulatory back-patting” Cameron is referring to is the fact that Wonder Woman, considered a risky endeavor for many years because the hero is a woman, ended up being the highest-grossing movie of the summer. Many see it as a shift of the tides when it comes to gender in Hollywood.

    “I’m not saying I didn’t like the movie but, to me, it’s a step backwards,” he continued.

    And if you are unsure why Cameron said that, he then explained.
     

    “Sarah Connor was not a beauty icon,” the Terminator director—who created Connor, among other female leads—said. “She was strong, she was troubled, she was a terrible mother, and she earned the respect of the audience through pure grit. And to me [the benefit of characters like Sarah] is so obvious. I mean, half the audience is female!”

    Basically, Cameron is saying that because he feels Gal Gadot is prettier than Linda Hamilton, and because Wonder Woman is a superhero instead of a real person, Wonder Woman is somehow less impactful because regular women can’t relate to her as much. That seems incredibly misguided and sexist. (Does an average man have to watch movies starring overweight bald guys to relate to them better, or can he watch movies starring Arnold Schwarzenegger?) Looks or ability should have nothing to do with it. Wonder Woman was a massive hit movie starring and directed by a woman, something that has rarely been allowed in Hollywood. It broke a mold and it’s a good thing. Period.
     
    http://io9.gizmodo.com/james-cameron-thinks-wonder-woman-was-a-step-backward-f-1798410202

    Wonder Woman was a massive hit movie starring and directed by a woman, something that has rarely been allowed in Hollywood.

    Fantastic.

    Why do Hollywood Jews not allow women to direct or star in “massive hit” summer movies targeted at the teenager demographic and how can we change this?

    Inquiring minds want to know!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. If only David Hume were still around…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cortes
    But Hume was quite content to save his sorry arse when he fell into a hole and had to request salvation from a believer old woman.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. I expect she’s right, if British Tribes were excluded from the diversity sample.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. Maybe China’s rise to dominance might be a good thing……

    Setting off to spend a year teaching English in Zhejiang province in south-eastern China, I expected plenty of surprises. But what struck me most was something they tend not to tell you about in the guidebooks: the racism.

    It started when I went around the classroom, asking pupils which city they were from. When I got to a slightly darker-skinned boy, his classmates thought it was hilarious to shout ‘Africa!’ It’s a theme. A girl with a similar complexion was taunted with monkey sounds; her peers refused to sit next to her, saying she smelt bad. I apparently erred when, teaching the word for wife, I showed my students a picture of Michelle Obama. The image of the then First Lady was greeted with exaggerated sounds of repulsion: ‘So ugly!’ they said. ‘So black!’

    To many Chinese, ideas about racial hierarchies are not outdated anathema but unquestioned belief.

    In China, racism is a standard undercurrent of public debate. A few months ago, Pan Qinglin, a Tianjin politician, announced to reporters that he had found out how to ‘solve the problem of the black population in Guangdong’ — a province with a small amount of African migration. Warning that the new arrivals brought drugs, sexual assault and infectious diseases, he urged local policy-makers to tighten controls to prevent China turning ‘from a yellow country to a black-and-yellow country’.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/beyond-the-pale-chinas-cheerful-racists/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    syonredux:

    While the Spectator article cites many instances of general Chinese disdain for Africans, I nevertheless found disturbing its mention that Chinese boys idolize the African-American basketball star Kobe Bryant.

    I believe that this incipient black adulation by young Chinese boys will eventually develop into the all-out adulation that has occurred in Japan. While today's adult Japanese are inoculated against against black adulation, this is not the case for their progeny.

    , @Peripatetic commenter
    Poor snowflake!
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    China will be fine. They don't have a 5th column that controls the commanding heights of their society; therefore, the SWJ Chinese - if something could ever exist - will divert their energies elsewhere.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Look, I’ve put this up here before (the Unz site and Sailer in particular).

    The Romans had Nubians serving in their military. Including some that made it to officer.

    Now this site gets a pretty educated lot. If you can blow holes in my argument, fine.

    But it is not outside the realm of speculation that a “Nubian,” (by which I actually mean someone who is Ethiopean, with that whole Horn of Africa bodytype thing) led a Roman Military detachment and may well have intermarried with a Roman family.

    Feel free to disprove me with actual facts. But this one doesn’t seem besides the pale (as it were).

    And actually there was a fiction series not long ago, that held Arthur to be a leader of Roman era central european horse archers the Romans left behind when they abandoned Britain.

    Not sure how likely something like that was, but impossible? The Empire had a lot of different swinging dicks running around at the end. If a couple thousand wound up being left in Britain after Rome left, well maybe the 23andme folks can point it out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Not sure how likely something like that was, but impossible?
     
    But that's the whole point. Beard presents this Black Roman Briton as typical. In reality, he would have been an extreme outlier.
    , @NickG

    But it is not outside the realm of speculation that a “Nubian,” (by which I actually mean someone who is Ethiopean, with that whole Horn of Africa bodytype thing) led a Roman Military detachment and may well have intermarried with a Roman family.
     
    All well and good, and entirely besides the point.

    The BBC punted the picture with the Black legionnaire labeled as 'typical'. 'Not outside the realm of speculation' is not quite synonymous with 'typical'.

    The Beeb had been called on retconnning history to punt their narrative.

    This was also critiqued, Nassim Nicholas Taleb joined the fray. Mary Beard then engaged in ad hominem and quite bizarrely for a supposed historian, misrepresented what had happened and Taleb called her on that too.
    , @guest
    If you followed the story, you'd know the BBC passed off the black Roman in Britain as "typical." While it's theoretically possible that a black man had a family in Britain under Roman rule, it is by no means typical.

    For her part, Beard found the cartoon's representation "pretty accurate" because Roman Britain was supposedly ethnically diverse, beyond having different kinds of Europeans. On what basis does she claim the presence of blacks? Well, someone from North Africa was recorded somewhere at some time. And as we all know the only kind of people ever found in Africa are the color of midnight.

    What is this weird, pseudo-rationalistic insistence on cutting Beard slack for the mere possibility that there may have been a single black man in Ancient Britain? The obvious goal is to trick people into thinking the island was always as diverse as it is now, if not moreso. That's the point of her "pretty accurate" and her boldface assertion that Roman Britain was ethnically diverse. Which we know she wouldn't bother remarking upon if it was merely a collection of white ethnicities.
    , @dearieme
    Your point is irrelevant since the absurd claim being mocked was that the negro Roman was representative.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    That is the point. IF they lived in Britain then show us in the DNA. If you can't then admit defeat. Otherwise it sounds like you're just pulling it out of your hat, which we can get from Mary Beard.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @Jason Liu
    There's a school of thought in historical circles devoted to retroactively applying SJWism to the past, exaggerating the presence and impact of minorities, women, and so on as a way of saying "See? It's always been like this."

    It's been around for decades, but what I saw in college a few years back shows a renewed surge for "diverse history", mostly fueled by anger over non-diverse movies, books, games, etc.

    In China something like this would have been taken as a direct attack on our identity, and elicited a much bigger public, maybe even government response. The non-response in the west still kind of flabbergasts me. The Brits seem to view history as just a hobby, "nothing to do with our present day". This disconnect is one of the reasons why westerners think we're all human is a valid excuse for diversity.

    What, you mean the CCP wouldn’t officially accept a theory that “Back in the day, during the Tang dynasty, blacks from Liberia and of course Kenya were roaming all over the Yangzee River region, to say nothing of the Yellow River.” I mean, isn’t it obvious that ancient China has always had a significant Sub-Saharan African population for thousands of yrs? What isn’t fully clear is why an educator has to attend an Ivy or Cambridge to arrive at this conclusion, when Henry Louis Gates, Louis Farrakahn etc would be more than happy and qualified to teach these ideas about Classical history.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @syonredux
    James Cameron's response to Wonder Woman was un-Woke:

    “All of the self-congratulatory back-patting Hollywood’s been doing over Wonder Woman has been so misguided,” Cameron said in a new interview with The Guardian. “She’s an objectified icon, and it’s just male Hollywood doing the same old thing!”

    The “self-congratulatory back-patting” Cameron is referring to is the fact that Wonder Woman, considered a risky endeavor for many years because the hero is a woman, ended up being the highest-grossing movie of the summer. Many see it as a shift of the tides when it comes to gender in Hollywood.

    “I’m not saying I didn’t like the movie but, to me, it’s a step backwards,” he continued.

    And if you are unsure why Cameron said that, he then explained.
     

    “Sarah Connor was not a beauty icon,” the Terminator director—who created Connor, among other female leads—said. “She was strong, she was troubled, she was a terrible mother, and she earned the respect of the audience through pure grit. And to me [the benefit of characters like Sarah] is so obvious. I mean, half the audience is female!”

    Basically, Cameron is saying that because he feels Gal Gadot is prettier than Linda Hamilton, and because Wonder Woman is a superhero instead of a real person, Wonder Woman is somehow less impactful because regular women can’t relate to her as much. That seems incredibly misguided and sexist. (Does an average man have to watch movies starring overweight bald guys to relate to them better, or can he watch movies starring Arnold Schwarzenegger?) Looks or ability should have nothing to do with it. Wonder Woman was a massive hit movie starring and directed by a woman, something that has rarely been allowed in Hollywood. It broke a mold and it’s a good thing. Period.
     
    http://io9.gizmodo.com/james-cameron-thinks-wonder-woman-was-a-step-backward-f-1798410202

    “Sarah Connor was not a beauty icon”

    Ain’t that the truth. Linda Hamilton brought new meaning to fugly, just awful. Compared to Linda Hamilton, the likes of Sigourney Weaver and Katherine Hepburn appear to be beautiful sexpots, and that’s going a long way. Although to be fair, didn’t Cameron divorce his first wife to marry Linda? She hasn’t done too much since T2, at least as far as blockbusters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. If I were Trump I would troll the resistance by saying that Monica Lewinsky is the perfect woman to put on the twenty dollar bill…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. “Beard notes that the mass rape is portrayed not just as evidence of Roman aggression but as a way of creating a mixed society.”

    Are you kidding me!? They’re not just looking the other way as their pre-teens get raped, but they want it to happen?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    For many, yes. Their not responding to their children being raped by blacks and/or Moslems with calls for brutal punishment means they are not racists.

    So, their children are sacrificial victims to their desire to be anti-racist.

    Liberalism is the suicide of the West.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. I wonder if an editor at this paper didn’t frame the story this way to mock Beard but not make it look like that’s what s/he was doing.

    Someone, somewhere must have said “Let’s play up the Lewinsky angle. Forget what scholars think. What does Monica think?!”

    There’s no better way to discredit someone than to put them in the same category as a person who was disgraced worldwide. Either way, knowing what Monica thinks doesn’t exactly make me side with Beard, not that I would anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    I wonder if an editor at this paper didn’t frame the story this way to mock Beard but not make it look like that’s what s/he was doing.
     
    Good point. Or it could just be click bait.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I'm surprised that this is causing a stir. You see this kind of thing all of the time. Go to any national park showing films about colonial times, and you'll see black guys in England or mixed in with English colonists as they head to America.

    Same thing on children's shows. If it takes place in medieval times, you'll see black guys, maybe a black women. Oddly, you don't see Asians or native American types, but then, nobody cares about them.

    I point out to my kids all the time that what they just saw is ridiculous and never happened. At first, my one kid would just resspond, "Well, they're just trying to be nice." So then I asked her if she'd be OK with a movie about her where the lead actress was a short Hispanic girl living in L.A. My daughter wasn't too keen on that.

    Btw, thanks to Steve, I showed my daughter just this morning the SAT scores breakdown by race. She was amazed, though she did say, "Well, whites do pretty well. I guess that we're fairly smart. Wow, there are like no blacks at the high scores."

    "No, honey, there's not. (And let's hope that you remember all of that stuff I've told you about how your kids' brains and personality come from their parents.) But remember, keep your mouth shut about this in public."

    "I know, dad."

    Creating white rebels, one kid at a time.

    I hereby nominate you for Father of the Year!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Monica Lewinsky!

    Did I read that correctly? MONICA LEWINSKY??????

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. Monica Lewinsky is defending Mary Beard??

    What’s come over her?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    That deserves better than an LOL.

    Well done, sir.
    , @Desiderius
    She's always had a thing for beards.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I'm surprised that this is causing a stir. You see this kind of thing all of the time. Go to any national park showing films about colonial times, and you'll see black guys in England or mixed in with English colonists as they head to America.

    Same thing on children's shows. If it takes place in medieval times, you'll see black guys, maybe a black women. Oddly, you don't see Asians or native American types, but then, nobody cares about them.

    I point out to my kids all the time that what they just saw is ridiculous and never happened. At first, my one kid would just resspond, "Well, they're just trying to be nice." So then I asked her if she'd be OK with a movie about her where the lead actress was a short Hispanic girl living in L.A. My daughter wasn't too keen on that.

    Btw, thanks to Steve, I showed my daughter just this morning the SAT scores breakdown by race. She was amazed, though she did say, "Well, whites do pretty well. I guess that we're fairly smart. Wow, there are like no blacks at the high scores."

    "No, honey, there's not. (And let's hope that you remember all of that stuff I've told you about how your kids' brains and personality come from their parents.) But remember, keep your mouth shut about this in public."

    "I know, dad."

    Creating white rebels, one kid at a time.

    Britain’s Establishment, as well as ours, is simply obsessed with blackness. They have it on their minds all day. I was watching a sitcom taking place in England recently. Most of the characters were English, Irish, or American, but a not insignificant number of speaking roles were black, most of them black women. And for whatever reason a good share of the extras were black.

    The female lead worked at what came off as a lower-class school, but the rest of the time was spent in upper-middleclass white society. So why all the black faces? What is even the point? Not diversity, specifically, because I don’t really remember seeing Middle Easterners and other assorted browns, though there was a speaking Iranian role. I understand black stands for diversity all on its own. But really, it’s not symbolism so much as fetishization.

    When will these weirdos get over their black obsession? They’re not that interesting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Anon
    Monica Lewinsky? She sucks!

    When our daughter was maybe a year old we went to a friend’s kid’s birthday party at their apartment building in the West Village in Manhattan. Waiting for the elevator with us, and then stepping into it, was Monica Lewinsky.

    She was actually very sweet on the ride up, cooing over our kid and whatnot. Which was great, until she commented on our daughter’s “great eyebrows.” At which point I suddenly found the whole thing creepy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Technite78
    Was this at "XXXX" on Greenwich and Christopher streets?
    , @guest
    Look at it this way: if Lewinsky wasn't creepy, Clinton never would've been impeached.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @dearieme
    Mary Beard is a perfectly pleasant woman but seems to have remarkably underdeveloped critical faculties. Better suited, I'd think, to Harvard than Cambridge.

    I was thinking Barnyard, Sarah Lawrence, or Bryn Mawr.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Giver her credit. She had at least one Black rival.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. Not understanding furor. If Ms. Beard has the evidence to back her assertion, what is the basis for criticizing her?

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Because she doesn't?

    Also, because she had a decidedly unscholarly reaction to criticisms, in that she lied and resorted immediately to ad hominem attacks.

    Also again, because she's a coward for crying to mommy when mean, old Mr. Taleb said bad things to her on the internet.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Jason Liu
    There's a school of thought in historical circles devoted to retroactively applying SJWism to the past, exaggerating the presence and impact of minorities, women, and so on as a way of saying "See? It's always been like this."

    It's been around for decades, but what I saw in college a few years back shows a renewed surge for "diverse history", mostly fueled by anger over non-diverse movies, books, games, etc.

    In China something like this would have been taken as a direct attack on our identity, and elicited a much bigger public, maybe even government response. The non-response in the west still kind of flabbergasts me. The Brits seem to view history as just a hobby, "nothing to do with our present day". This disconnect is one of the reasons why westerners think we're all human is a valid excuse for diversity.

    There’s an excellent, earthy Russian proverb for this: “A fish rots from the head.”

    It all starts with the elite and their decline. What are embarrassments for someone in the upper-middle class, who can recover from college hedonism and go on to a responsible job, as Mr. Sailer has mentioned, can be disastrous for someone else. The decline of both the black and white working classes since the 1960s can be seen (*in part*) through this prism, as they have picked up on the self-destructive habits of societal superiors, with terrible consequences.

    Anyway, say what you will about the old British Establishment, they might have had their ridiculous class theories and boundaries that the Founders sought to escape. They might have been snobbish. But when push came to shove, they were expected to lead by example and put their necks on the line before asking anyone else to. If you were an upstanding English gentlemen, you were expected to be the first on the warship, the first to go administer far-off lands, the first over the trenches, the first to go up into the sky during the Blitz, etc. They wouldn’t stand for this nonsense. But today’s Western elite-not just in the UK-reserve their sense of noblesse oblige for others than their native compatriots, whom they view with indifference at best and active contempt at worst. Indeed, in some “better” circles, their eventual extirpation of as some sick historical achievement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. I don’t have much ruth for anyone, but this Monica chick’s story can’t be happy. I wish her well in her misguided journey through life.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. I always wondered about the Ellis Island scene in Godfather II. The place where Vito Andolini became Vito Corleone..

    In the line, there seemed to be many black immigrants in Fez hats. That technically made them from Mali or Mauritania, but were any such Afro-Saharans immigrating to the US in ~1901 (the time when the scene was set)?

    As Godfather 2 was made in 1974, it was long before the SJW cult gained power..

    So what gives?

    Scene here :

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. @Harry Baldwin
    I'm impressed that Monica Lewinsky is backing up her scholarship, but has Gennifer Flowers or Fanne Foxe weighed in? Unfortunately, due to her untimely death, we can't know the views of Linda Lovelace.

    Perhaps Alicia Mochado would be available to share her opinion on this topic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I (different Anon) predict she'll agree with Monica...
    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2016/09/27/06/38D486DF00000578-3809135-image-m-105_1474953413070.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Maybe I’m splitting hairs, but cannot ‘rape’ in the classical sense sometimes mean ‘abduct’ rather than ‘violate’?

    Read More
    • Replies: @HFR
    You're not splitting hairs. In Alexander Pope's "The Rape of the Lock," it means abduct. And the Sabine women were indeed abducted (as well as violated).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. but Beard wrote on Twitter that “there’s plenty of firm evidence for ethnic diversity in Roman Britain”.

    Sure. Except that ethnic diversity is not the same thing as racial diversity…….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    Correct.

    The Romans brought soldiers to Celtic Britain who were not Roman or even Italian peninsula natives. Many, probably most, of them were Gaulish or Iberian Celts and very close to Celtic Britons genetically and culturally. We know that the Romans brought some Germanic troops to Britain, and they brought a few Europeans from as far east as the Iranian-speaking tribe the Alans.

    And the Romans likely brought a very few soldiers to Britain who were Berber or Egyptian or Semitic. Black Africans are less likely than those three but possible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Harry Baldwin
    I'm impressed that Monica Lewinsky is backing up her scholarship, but has Gennifer Flowers or Fanne Foxe weighed in? Unfortunately, due to her untimely death, we can't know the views of Linda Lovelace.

    Oh come now. Linda Lovelace probably had better taste in men than Slick Willie!

    (I wonder if I could have used more innuendos?)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Any doubt that White women are the enemy eternally of White men is now erased.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    No. Fifty-three percent of them voted for Trump. What percentage of your group voted for Trump?
    , @anonHUN
    Women hate weak men, it's an instinctive reaction. Besides indoctrination maybe the mass pussification of the white men has lead to many white women flocking to black and brown men and wanting nothing from white males.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. OT

    Netanyahu’s empathy for Trump” by Caroline Glick

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was attacked by the media for not jumping on the bandwagon and condemning US President Donald Trump for his response to the far-right and far-left rioters in Charlottesville earlier this month. It may be that he held his tongue because he saw nothing to gain from attacking a friendly president. But it is also reasonable to assume that Netanyahu held his tongue because he empathizes with Trump. More than any leader in the world, Netanyahu understands what Trump is going through. He’s been there himself – and in many ways, is still there. Netanyahu has never enjoyed a day in office when Israel’s unelected elites weren’t at war with him.

    From a comparative perspective, Netanyahu’s experiences in his first term in office, from 1996 until 1999, are most similar to Trump’s current position. His 1996 victory over incumbent prime minister Shimon Peres shocked the political class no less than the American political class was stunned by Trump’s victory. And this makes sense. The historical context of Israel’s 1996 election and the US elections last year were strikingly similar.

    [...]

    Today it is clear that Trump is wrestling with how to proceed in governing, as the American elites openly seek his political and even personal destruction. One day he tacks to the establishment in the hopes of appeasing those who hate him, and the next day he embraces his supporters and repeats his campaign pledges to “drain the swamp.”

    The lessons of Netanyahu’s first term – and to a degree, his subsequent terms in office as well – are clear enough and Trump would do well to apply them.

    You cannot appease people who want to destroy you. And you cannot succeed by embracing the failed policies of your predecessors that you were elected to roll back. The elites who reject you will never embrace you. The only way to govern successfully when you are under relentless assault is to empower your supporters and keep faith with them.

    http://carolineglick.com/netanyahus-empathy-for-trump/

    Read More
    • Replies: @EdwardM
    Getting rid of Sebastian Gorka was not a good move in this regard. Actually it was an outrage.

    Sometimes we see Trump seeming to go the way of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who, when he was elected, had an ambitious conservative agenda. Then he suffered some setbacks, lost a few common-sense referendums, and the establishment basically ground him down. So he said, screw it, I'll go along to get along, and ended up governing like a Democrat.

    I have always thought that this was a plausible scenario for the Trump presidency. We're not there yet, and I hope we don't get there. Of course in Trump's case, the establishment will never accept him whereas they came around to tolerate Arnold.

    Maybe Trump figures sacrificing people like Bannon and Gorka is not that big of a deal if he keeps his compass (and maybe even keeps listening to them secretly), but I think that this is dangerous once (1) all of the ideas people who guide day-to-day policies are gone and (2) the lynch mob sees that it can bully Trump, and of course never be satisfied.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @syonredux
    Maybe China's rise to dominance might be a good thing......

    Setting off to spend a year teaching English in Zhejiang province in south-eastern China, I expected plenty of surprises. But what struck me most was something they tend not to tell you about in the guidebooks: the racism.
     

    It started when I went around the classroom, asking pupils which city they were from. When I got to a slightly darker-skinned boy, his classmates thought it was hilarious to shout ‘Africa!’ It’s a theme. A girl with a similar complexion was taunted with monkey sounds; her peers refused to sit next to her, saying she smelt bad. I apparently erred when, teaching the word for wife, I showed my students a picture of Michelle Obama. The image of the then First Lady was greeted with exaggerated sounds of repulsion: ‘So ugly!’ they said. ‘So black!’
     
    To many Chinese, ideas about racial hierarchies are not outdated anathema but unquestioned belief.

    In China, racism is a standard undercurrent of public debate. A few months ago, Pan Qinglin, a Tianjin politician, announced to reporters that he had found out how to ‘solve the problem of the black population in Guangdong’ — a province with a small amount of African migration. Warning that the new arrivals brought drugs, sexual assault and infectious diseases, he urged local policy-makers to tighten controls to prevent China turning ‘from a yellow country to a black-and-yellow country’.
     
    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/beyond-the-pale-chinas-cheerful-racists/

    syonredux:

    While the Spectator article cites many instances of general Chinese disdain for Africans, I nevertheless found disturbing its mention that Chinese boys idolize the African-American basketball star Kobe Bryant.

    I believe that this incipient black adulation by young Chinese boys will eventually develop into the all-out adulation that has occurred in Japan. While today’s adult Japanese are inoculated against against black adulation, this is not the case for their progeny.

    Read More
    • Replies: @sb
    Westerners familiar with China have told me that Americans generally greatly overstate the Chinese interest in the NBA and basketball generally and that interest in soccer is many multiple times greater.
    For every Chinese teenage boy's poster of Kobe Bryant et al there would be dozens of Lionel Messi , Christiano Ronaldo et al -who incidentally are white(ish) .
    Or so I'm told

    Which just shows you that people will see stuff through their own frame of reference

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Jason Liu
    I think she's quite capable of critical thinking. But like most leftists, they don't apply it to their own sacred beliefs.

    Thomas Sowell called it ‘The Vision of the Anointed.’ It means that once you have it, neither facts nor logic matter.

    You see it in Leftists exactly as you see it in crazy totalitarian cults like the Moonies and Scientologists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @syonredux
    Maybe China's rise to dominance might be a good thing......

    Setting off to spend a year teaching English in Zhejiang province in south-eastern China, I expected plenty of surprises. But what struck me most was something they tend not to tell you about in the guidebooks: the racism.
     

    It started when I went around the classroom, asking pupils which city they were from. When I got to a slightly darker-skinned boy, his classmates thought it was hilarious to shout ‘Africa!’ It’s a theme. A girl with a similar complexion was taunted with monkey sounds; her peers refused to sit next to her, saying she smelt bad. I apparently erred when, teaching the word for wife, I showed my students a picture of Michelle Obama. The image of the then First Lady was greeted with exaggerated sounds of repulsion: ‘So ugly!’ they said. ‘So black!’
     
    To many Chinese, ideas about racial hierarchies are not outdated anathema but unquestioned belief.

    In China, racism is a standard undercurrent of public debate. A few months ago, Pan Qinglin, a Tianjin politician, announced to reporters that he had found out how to ‘solve the problem of the black population in Guangdong’ — a province with a small amount of African migration. Warning that the new arrivals brought drugs, sexual assault and infectious diseases, he urged local policy-makers to tighten controls to prevent China turning ‘from a yellow country to a black-and-yellow country’.
     
    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/beyond-the-pale-chinas-cheerful-racists/

    Poor snowflake!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Dahlia
    “Beard notes that the mass rape is portrayed not just as evidence of Roman aggression but as a way of creating a mixed society.”

    Are you kidding me!? They're not just looking the other way as their pre-teens get raped, but they want it to happen?

    For many, yes. Their not responding to their children being raped by blacks and/or Moslems with calls for brutal punishment means they are not racists.

    So, their children are sacrificial victims to their desire to be anti-racist.

    Liberalism is the suicide of the West.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @syonredux

    but Beard wrote on Twitter that “there’s plenty of firm evidence for ethnic diversity in Roman Britain”.
     
    Sure. Except that ethnic diversity is not the same thing as racial diversity.......

    Correct.

    The Romans brought soldiers to Celtic Britain who were not Roman or even Italian peninsula natives. Many, probably most, of them were Gaulish or Iberian Celts and very close to Celtic Britons genetically and culturally. We know that the Romans brought some Germanic troops to Britain, and they brought a few Europeans from as far east as the Iranian-speaking tribe the Alans.

    And the Romans likely brought a very few soldiers to Britain who were Berber or Egyptian or Semitic. Black Africans are less likely than those three but possible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @currahee
    Good to know she has swallowed it whole and not lost faith.

    She didn’t swallow, it was on the frigging dress.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Kylie
    Monica Lewinsky is defending Mary Beard??

    What's come over her?

    That deserves better than an LOL.

    Well done, sir.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Well done, sir.
     
    Should be "Well done, Ma'am".

    Some hilarious comments hereabouts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    You guys get yourselves so needlessly bogged down. There’s a very easy rule to understand all of these things. A unified theory of everything, if you will.

    Good= black. Bad= white. Why? Because the reality is closer to the opposite. Who said liberals didn’t make any sense?

    Romans were a mighty group of people, so of course they must’ve been black. Or else they should be black. Otherwise history would be unacceptably racist.

    Hamilton- currently cool, also a noteworthy guy, so of course he must have been black.

    George Zimmerman- shot a black kid, so must’ve been a white guy. Even after everyone saw he couldn’t have been white.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. @syonredux
    Maybe China's rise to dominance might be a good thing......

    Setting off to spend a year teaching English in Zhejiang province in south-eastern China, I expected plenty of surprises. But what struck me most was something they tend not to tell you about in the guidebooks: the racism.
     

    It started when I went around the classroom, asking pupils which city they were from. When I got to a slightly darker-skinned boy, his classmates thought it was hilarious to shout ‘Africa!’ It’s a theme. A girl with a similar complexion was taunted with monkey sounds; her peers refused to sit next to her, saying she smelt bad. I apparently erred when, teaching the word for wife, I showed my students a picture of Michelle Obama. The image of the then First Lady was greeted with exaggerated sounds of repulsion: ‘So ugly!’ they said. ‘So black!’
     
    To many Chinese, ideas about racial hierarchies are not outdated anathema but unquestioned belief.

    In China, racism is a standard undercurrent of public debate. A few months ago, Pan Qinglin, a Tianjin politician, announced to reporters that he had found out how to ‘solve the problem of the black population in Guangdong’ — a province with a small amount of African migration. Warning that the new arrivals brought drugs, sexual assault and infectious diseases, he urged local policy-makers to tighten controls to prevent China turning ‘from a yellow country to a black-and-yellow country’.
     
    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/beyond-the-pale-chinas-cheerful-racists/

    China will be fine. They don’t have a 5th column that controls the commanding heights of their society; therefore, the SWJ Chinese – if something could ever exist – will divert their energies elsewhere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Coincidentally, we Calvinists are currently watching a docu-drama BBC series called Ancient Rome: Rise and Fall, or something like that, produced about 10 years ago.

    The episode we just finished told the story of Gracchus Tiberius, who led a revolt of the plebs in the late republic. The whole thing took place in Rome itself.

    We noticed that Tiberius — and all the evil senators who opposed him — were gleaming white. All of the plebs, however, were brown. My guess is they filmed the episode in north Africa somewhere, maybe Morocco or Tunisia, and just brought in crowds of locals to depict ‘ordinary Romans’.

    Oh, and the official historical expert consultant to the production? One Prof. Mary Beard.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    There's a clip from the BBC Rome docu-drama here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8SaB7O2JRM

    You can see the mob of plebs at about 00:48, and then the Senate a few seconds later.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I'm surprised that this is causing a stir. You see this kind of thing all of the time. Go to any national park showing films about colonial times, and you'll see black guys in England or mixed in with English colonists as they head to America.

    Same thing on children's shows. If it takes place in medieval times, you'll see black guys, maybe a black women. Oddly, you don't see Asians or native American types, but then, nobody cares about them.

    I point out to my kids all the time that what they just saw is ridiculous and never happened. At first, my one kid would just resspond, "Well, they're just trying to be nice." So then I asked her if she'd be OK with a movie about her where the lead actress was a short Hispanic girl living in L.A. My daughter wasn't too keen on that.

    Btw, thanks to Steve, I showed my daughter just this morning the SAT scores breakdown by race. She was amazed, though she did say, "Well, whites do pretty well. I guess that we're fairly smart. Wow, there are like no blacks at the high scores."

    "No, honey, there's not. (And let's hope that you remember all of that stuff I've told you about how your kids' brains and personality come from their parents.) But remember, keep your mouth shut about this in public."

    "I know, dad."

    Creating white rebels, one kid at a time.

    What was it Ben Franklin said? something along the lines of in the time it took you to show your “little rebel” the score, 30,000 diverse Americans crossed the border.

    Do Better!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.
     
    I can't stop 30,000 people crossing the border, but I can help my daughter.
    , @BenKenobi
    Quality has a quality all its own.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. We see a lot of this in movies. King Arthur’s most skilled knight is black in the latest ridiculous remake. How does a black person attain a hereditary position in England?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cortes
    MacDougall seems to be "son of black foreigner "?
    , @Anonymous
    I'm not certain what remake you're recollecting, but I do know that Palamedes was supposed to be a Saracen who converts to Christianity. I would not at all be surprised if this is the "historical" basis for your observation. (I'm not objecting to your observation of absurdity, but noting that there is a slim, if real, basis for it. Of course, most "Saracens" were not "black".)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Jason Liu
    There's a school of thought in historical circles devoted to retroactively applying SJWism to the past, exaggerating the presence and impact of minorities, women, and so on as a way of saying "See? It's always been like this."

    It's been around for decades, but what I saw in college a few years back shows a renewed surge for "diverse history", mostly fueled by anger over non-diverse movies, books, games, etc.

    In China something like this would have been taken as a direct attack on our identity, and elicited a much bigger public, maybe even government response. The non-response in the west still kind of flabbergasts me. The Brits seem to view history as just a hobby, "nothing to do with our present day". This disconnect is one of the reasons why westerners think we're all human is a valid excuse for diversity.

    In China something like this would have been taken as a direct attack on our identity, and elicited a much bigger public, maybe even government response.

    Jason, you’d know more than me about this but the Chinese are skilled enough to double-play it? Those mysterious mummies out in the western desert, with red hair/plaid/conical hats (the Tocharians). The Uighurs claim them as ancestors so the Chinese authorities respond, “Sure. These people weren’t Han Chinese. But they weren’t you lot (i.e. Turkic Uighur people) either!”

    Read More
    • Replies: @basque britis are brothers of louisiana french
    turks and uigher wished they were hun(pronounce it correctly) carrier of the mighty EDAR ,you are just a wanna be central asian nomad like most of your curly haired ,small brain basque british brothers, but alas your just another small brained"BASQUE" brothers of the loseriana french.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @syonredux
    If only David Hume were still around.....


    https://twitter.com/Juancorreillo/status/900986356528279552

    But Hume was quite content to save his sorry arse when he fell into a hole and had to request salvation from a believer old woman.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    This place [for witches]...once nearly swallowed up David Hume the historian, who was a native of Ninewells, in the neighbourhood. Hume missed his footing in the mire, stuck fast, called for assistance, and was at last heard by some people, who ran to give help; but when they saw it was Hume "the unbeliever," though he was in other respects an amiable man, they turned back saying, "Na, na, the deil has him, let the deil keep him." David Hume got out by some means, and wrote his famous history after that time.--The Autobiography of a Working Man by Alexander Somerville, 1848, p. 4

    ...a witch-haunted bog, memorable for having nearly swallowed up David Hume the historian, who was a native of Ninewells, in the neighbourhood. Hume missed his footing in the mire, and sticking fast, called for assistance, and was at last heard by some people, who ran to give help. Seeing, however, that it was Hume "the unbeliever," they turned back from the amiable philosopher, remarking, "Na, na, the deil has him, let the deil keep him." Mr Somerville mentions, that Hume got out of the bog, and wrote his history afterwards, but does not relate the means by which the philosopher and historian escaped an absorption of his body, analogous of the absorption his mind had undergone in metaphysical mier. The "deil" would have had him both ways, the story goes, but for a compassonate milkmaid, who helped him out, after compelling him to say the Lord's prayer, as a proof that he was a true Christian.--From a review of The Autobiography of a Working Man (by Alexander Somerville, pub. 1848) in The Eclectic Review (pub. 1848) by Thomas Price and Edwin Paxton Hood


    The story goes that over 1770-71, Hume was living in the Old Town of Edinburgh while supervising the construction of his new house in New Town. The North Bridge was not yet open, so he had to take a short cut across the bog left by Nor' Loch after that foul body of water had been drained away. As you might have already guessed, he slipped and fell into the bog and, try as he might, couldn't get himself out. After flailing about for some time he attracted the attention of a fishwife. She recognized him straightaway as "Hume the Atheist" and on that account was not sure whether to help him. Hume implored, "But my good woman, does not your religion as a Christian teach you to do good, even to your enemies?" "That may well be," she replied. "But ye shallna get out o' that, till ye become a Christian yoursell, and repeat the Lord's Prayer and the Belief!" What did Hume the Atheist do? Did he stand his ground and ridicule the superstitious beliefs of this woman? Of course not. To the surprise of the fishwife, he readily complied, and true to her word she helped him out of the bog. Hume retold this story frequently, always commending the fishwife as the most acute theologian he had ever encountered.--Charlie Huenemann at 3quarksdaily.

    The biographer of The Life of David Hume, Mossner, also tells the story (on p. 563) and refers to the Caldwell papers. (In fact, I suspect that Mossner's version is the source for Charlie's retelling; Charlie is himself an important Spinoza and Nietzsche scholar.) And, indeed, one can find Mossner's version of the story there in a discursive footnote added by an editor to a reproduction of the letter from Hume to Baron Mure. But that note does not give a further source. It seems to have been first published in 1854, that is, after Somerville's account. So, there is a good chance that Somerville, or the review of Somerville, is the source of their version of the story.

    There is, however, one key difference between the Somerville and Caldwell papers account: in Somerville the witch-infected bog is located near Hume's birth-place; the region of Chirnside. This is why the relatively youthtful Hume, once freed, goes on to write his History. Whereas in the Caldwell papers, the bog is in Edinburgh and the whole story has moved into Hume's retirement.

    Somerville, himself was born in 1811 long after Hume's death (1776). Somerville tells the story in the context of talking about his parents's birth-region, but even they were not contemporaries of Hume at the time their version of the story was supposed to have taken place. So, none of the sources are eye-witness reports or even traced back to contemporaries of Hume. So, I am now inclined to think that the whole story is myth. It is primarily useful in revealing something about the aims of the narrator and their preferred vision of Hume and his attitude toward theology, philosophy, or mortality (etc.; nobody being interested in Somerville's parents anymore). Such biogrophical and autobiographical narratives should not be treated as history but as clues to the explicit and tacit presentations and self-presentations of a narrator.


    One further reason why I think it is myth -- and why I would think it is a myth even if there are reports by self-proclaimed eyewitness or of Hume retelling the story dating back to Hume's life -- is that it echoes, as I noted yesterday, a famous story recounted by Socrates about Thales to illustrate paradigmatic philosophical pitfalls:

    Why, take the case of Thales, Theodorus. While he was studying the stars and looking upwards, he fell into a pit, and a neat, witty Thracian servant girl jeered at him, they say, because he was so eager to know the things in the sky that he could not see what was there before him at his very feet. The same jest applies to all who pass their lives in philosophy. Theaetetus, [174a]

    I conclude with one final twist: the association of Hume with Socrates, and a life of philosophy, was encouraged by Adam Smith, as I have also argued, in his narrative of Hume's dying days (which evoke Plato's description Socrates's last days) in (1776) Letter to Strahan. Smith was not alone in encouraging the identification; George Dempster coined the Meme that Hume is "the Socrates of Edinburgh" in a letter to Adam Ferguson written during Hume's life (as Mossner also notes). In my view, Hume invites the association artfully in the introduction to the Treatise, but I have written about that elsewhere.

    http://digressionsnimpressions.typepad.com/digressionsimpressions/2015/05/humeinbog.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Ooooh-kayyyyy. When Peter Weller did documentaries for History Channel, at least he had the excuse that he’d taken some time off from Hollywood to get a graduate degree at Syracuse…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. @The Last Real Calvinist
    Coincidentally, we Calvinists are currently watching a docu-drama BBC series called Ancient Rome: Rise and Fall, or something like that, produced about 10 years ago.

    The episode we just finished told the story of Gracchus Tiberius, who led a revolt of the plebs in the late republic. The whole thing took place in Rome itself.

    We noticed that Tiberius -- and all the evil senators who opposed him -- were gleaming white. All of the plebs, however, were brown. My guess is they filmed the episode in north Africa somewhere, maybe Morocco or Tunisia, and just brought in crowds of locals to depict 'ordinary Romans'.

    Oh, and the official historical expert consultant to the production? One Prof. Mary Beard.

    There’s a clip from the BBC Rome docu-drama here:

    You can see the mob of plebs at about 00:48, and then the Senate a few seconds later.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @SEAN C
    We see a lot of this in movies. King Arthur's most skilled knight is black in the latest ridiculous remake. How does a black person attain a hereditary position in England?

    MacDougall seems to be “son of black foreigner “?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grace Jones
    MacDougall Surname DNA Project - Y-DNA Classic Chart
    https://www.familytreedna.com/public/McDougall/default.aspx?section=yresults

    No African Ys in the lot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Barnard

    Other authors followed, with The Fault in Our Stars writer John Green praising her “great scholarship” in the “roaringly good read” on ancient Rome, SPQR.
     
    Well with a defense from the author of "The Fault in Our Stars" what is there left to criticize. Glad I read the Amazon reviews of SPQR before ordering the book.

    She is obviously part of that anti-vowelist sect intent on deplatforming whatever glories remain of Rome.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. The 2010s keep getting weirder.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. @Harry Baldwin
    I'm impressed that Monica Lewinsky is backing up her scholarship, but has Gennifer Flowers or Fanne Foxe weighed in? Unfortunately, due to her untimely death, we can't know the views of Linda Lovelace.

    Dr. [yeah, I couldn't believe it either] Chelsea Clinton’s views are eagerly anticipated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Nigerian Nationalist
    What was it Ben Franklin said? something along the lines of in the time it took you to show your "little rebel" the score, 30,000 diverse Americans crossed the border.

    Do Better!

    God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.

    I can’t stop 30,000 people crossing the border, but I can help my daughter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I'm surprised that this is causing a stir. You see this kind of thing all of the time. Go to any national park showing films about colonial times, and you'll see black guys in England or mixed in with English colonists as they head to America.

    Same thing on children's shows. If it takes place in medieval times, you'll see black guys, maybe a black women. Oddly, you don't see Asians or native American types, but then, nobody cares about them.

    I point out to my kids all the time that what they just saw is ridiculous and never happened. At first, my one kid would just resspond, "Well, they're just trying to be nice." So then I asked her if she'd be OK with a movie about her where the lead actress was a short Hispanic girl living in L.A. My daughter wasn't too keen on that.

    Btw, thanks to Steve, I showed my daughter just this morning the SAT scores breakdown by race. She was amazed, though she did say, "Well, whites do pretty well. I guess that we're fairly smart. Wow, there are like no blacks at the high scores."

    "No, honey, there's not. (And let's hope that you remember all of that stuff I've told you about how your kids' brains and personality come from their parents.) But remember, keep your mouth shut about this in public."

    "I know, dad."

    Creating white rebels, one kid at a time.

    Extracurricular courses in Noticing, helpful for all matriculants at home and abroad. Steve is a marketing guy so he might have some catch phrase to help reach younger audiences.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @syonredux
    James Cameron's response to Wonder Woman was un-Woke:

    “All of the self-congratulatory back-patting Hollywood’s been doing over Wonder Woman has been so misguided,” Cameron said in a new interview with The Guardian. “She’s an objectified icon, and it’s just male Hollywood doing the same old thing!”

    The “self-congratulatory back-patting” Cameron is referring to is the fact that Wonder Woman, considered a risky endeavor for many years because the hero is a woman, ended up being the highest-grossing movie of the summer. Many see it as a shift of the tides when it comes to gender in Hollywood.

    “I’m not saying I didn’t like the movie but, to me, it’s a step backwards,” he continued.

    And if you are unsure why Cameron said that, he then explained.
     

    “Sarah Connor was not a beauty icon,” the Terminator director—who created Connor, among other female leads—said. “She was strong, she was troubled, she was a terrible mother, and she earned the respect of the audience through pure grit. And to me [the benefit of characters like Sarah] is so obvious. I mean, half the audience is female!”

    Basically, Cameron is saying that because he feels Gal Gadot is prettier than Linda Hamilton, and because Wonder Woman is a superhero instead of a real person, Wonder Woman is somehow less impactful because regular women can’t relate to her as much. That seems incredibly misguided and sexist. (Does an average man have to watch movies starring overweight bald guys to relate to them better, or can he watch movies starring Arnold Schwarzenegger?) Looks or ability should have nothing to do with it. Wonder Woman was a massive hit movie starring and directed by a woman, something that has rarely been allowed in Hollywood. It broke a mold and it’s a good thing. Period.
     
    http://io9.gizmodo.com/james-cameron-thinks-wonder-woman-was-a-step-backward-f-1798410202

    “Sarah Connor was not a beauty icon,”

    Linda Hamilton was married to James Cameron at one time. She is on record as describing that union as “terrible on every level”. The not a beauty icon quote is probably just the tip of the iceberg in their relationship.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian

    She is on record as describing that union as “terrible on every level
     
    Linda Hamilton was one, Sandra Locke was another pissed-off ex-girlfriend, dumped by Clint Eastwood, ruined, the guys went on to ever-greater heights while the women descended into obscurity. They both have had lengthy "Poor Me, dumped victim of sexism" pieces in the Washington Post and anyone else that will write of their "struggles". Both of these (and all who followed) didn't understand, once the looks flew away, once their sexual value to these men didn't cover over their lack of talent, they were dumped, just like aging women in every societal segment where looks, not any particular talent or ability, propelled them for a bit. It's a hard fall and quite a shock to these gals who must wonder at the end, "What happened? And man, are they PISSED. Have a look at Ashely Judd, my God. Pissed! Hollywood is quite visible, of course. And the aging actresses are out there, shitting on Eastwood, Cruise, Stallone, Cameron and all the rest as well as the world at large for not paying the women equally to the male stars of today (who certainly work harder and are of far greater creativity than ANY woman). Mostly, these women are just pissed that their party is over in this life.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @slumber_j
    When our daughter was maybe a year old we went to a friend's kid's birthday party at their apartment building in the West Village in Manhattan. Waiting for the elevator with us, and then stepping into it, was Monica Lewinsky.

    She was actually very sweet on the ride up, cooing over our kid and whatnot. Which was great, until she commented on our daughter's "great eyebrows." At which point I suddenly found the whole thing creepy.

    Was this at “XXXX” on Greenwich and Christopher streets?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I'm going to apply my John Lennon-at-the-Dakota rule and xxx out the name of the building for being too precise about where somebody lives.
    , @slumber_j
    It was.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @syonredux
    James Cameron's response to Wonder Woman was un-Woke:

    “All of the self-congratulatory back-patting Hollywood’s been doing over Wonder Woman has been so misguided,” Cameron said in a new interview with The Guardian. “She’s an objectified icon, and it’s just male Hollywood doing the same old thing!”

    The “self-congratulatory back-patting” Cameron is referring to is the fact that Wonder Woman, considered a risky endeavor for many years because the hero is a woman, ended up being the highest-grossing movie of the summer. Many see it as a shift of the tides when it comes to gender in Hollywood.

    “I’m not saying I didn’t like the movie but, to me, it’s a step backwards,” he continued.

    And if you are unsure why Cameron said that, he then explained.
     

    “Sarah Connor was not a beauty icon,” the Terminator director—who created Connor, among other female leads—said. “She was strong, she was troubled, she was a terrible mother, and she earned the respect of the audience through pure grit. And to me [the benefit of characters like Sarah] is so obvious. I mean, half the audience is female!”

    Basically, Cameron is saying that because he feels Gal Gadot is prettier than Linda Hamilton, and because Wonder Woman is a superhero instead of a real person, Wonder Woman is somehow less impactful because regular women can’t relate to her as much. That seems incredibly misguided and sexist. (Does an average man have to watch movies starring overweight bald guys to relate to them better, or can he watch movies starring Arnold Schwarzenegger?) Looks or ability should have nothing to do with it. Wonder Woman was a massive hit movie starring and directed by a woman, something that has rarely been allowed in Hollywood. It broke a mold and it’s a good thing. Period.
     
    http://io9.gizmodo.com/james-cameron-thinks-wonder-woman-was-a-step-backward-f-1798410202

    she was a terrible mother

    Where did that come from?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Technite78
    Was this at "XXXX" on Greenwich and Christopher streets?

    I’m going to apply my John Lennon-at-the-Dakota rule and xxx out the name of the building for being too precise about where somebody lives.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Kylie
    Monica Lewinsky is defending Mary Beard??

    What's come over her?

    She’s always had a thing for beards.

    Read More
    • LOL: Kylie
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Days of Broken Arrows
    I wonder if an editor at this paper didn't frame the story this way to mock Beard but not make it look like that's what s/he was doing.

    Someone, somewhere must have said "Let's play up the Lewinsky angle. Forget what scholars think. What does Monica think?!"

    There's no better way to discredit someone than to put them in the same category as a person who was disgraced worldwide. Either way, knowing what Monica thinks doesn't exactly make me side with Beard, not that I would anyway.

    I wonder if an editor at this paper didn’t frame the story this way to mock Beard but not make it look like that’s what s/he was doing.

    Good point. Or it could just be click bait.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    That deserves better than an LOL.

    Well done, sir.

    Well done, sir.

    Should be “Well done, Ma’am”.

    Some hilarious comments hereabouts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. support from President Clinton’s former intern and other stars

    “other”

    Wonder Woman is somehow less impactful because regular women can’t relate to her as much. That seems incredibly misguided and sexist. (Does an average man have to watch movies starring overweight bald guys to relate to them better, or can he watch movies starring Arnold Schwarzenegger?)

    Obviously men can watch Arnold movies despite being vastly different from him, and obviously women need movies starring women so they can relate to the stars.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. ❝Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.❞
    George Orwell—’1984′

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  85. Unrelated but of interest about Afghanistan. Vicious prejudice by native born Afghans against Canadian-Afghans who return to run the country.

    http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/can-a-new-wave-of-intellectuals-save-afghanistan/

    Steve, could you have an open thread occasionally so that people who want to show you stuff they think you might find interesting could do so without clogging up other threads ?

    Read More
    • Agree: jim jones
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. http://www.unz.com/isteve/woke-medievalists-emotionally-labor-against-eurocentrism/#comment-1936811

    I was questioning the claims about Africans being in old timey Britain weeks before this blew up with Paul Joseph Watson/Mary Beard and then later with Taleb/Mary Beard /Vox Day. Where’s the genetic evidence, the genetic traces in current populations?

    I’ll add that many of my more distant British relatives have traces of “Caucasus, Middle East, South Asia, North Africa” but in non-American relatives I’ve seen none with Sub-Saharan African traces.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  87. @Cortes
    But Hume was quite content to save his sorry arse when he fell into a hole and had to request salvation from a believer old woman.

    This place [for witches]…once nearly swallowed up David Hume the historian, who was a native of Ninewells, in the neighbourhood. Hume missed his footing in the mire, stuck fast, called for assistance, and was at last heard by some people, who ran to give help; but when they saw it was Hume “the unbeliever,” though he was in other respects an amiable man, they turned back saying, “Na, na, the deil has him, let the deil keep him.” David Hume got out by some means, and wrote his famous history after that time.–The Autobiography of a Working Man by Alexander Somerville, 1848, p. 4

    …a witch-haunted bog, memorable for having nearly swallowed up David Hume the historian, who was a native of Ninewells, in the neighbourhood. Hume missed his footing in the mire, and sticking fast, called for assistance, and was at last heard by some people, who ran to give help. Seeing, however, that it was Hume “the unbeliever,” they turned back from the amiable philosopher, remarking, “Na, na, the deil has him, let the deil keep him.” Mr Somerville mentions, that Hume got out of the bog, and wrote his history afterwards, but does not relate the means by which the philosopher and historian escaped an absorption of his body, analogous of the absorption his mind had undergone in metaphysical mier. The “deil” would have had him both ways, the story goes, but for a compassonate milkmaid, who helped him out, after compelling him to say the Lord’s prayer, as a proof that he was a true Christian.–From a review of The Autobiography of a Working Man (by Alexander Somerville, pub. 1848) in The Eclectic Review (pub. 1848) by Thomas Price and Edwin Paxton Hood

    The story goes that over 1770-71, Hume was living in the Old Town of Edinburgh while supervising the construction of his new house in New Town. The North Bridge was not yet open, so he had to take a short cut across the bog left by Nor’ Loch after that foul body of water had been drained away. As you might have already guessed, he slipped and fell into the bog and, try as he might, couldn’t get himself out. After flailing about for some time he attracted the attention of a fishwife. She recognized him straightaway as “Hume the Atheist” and on that account was not sure whether to help him. Hume implored, “But my good woman, does not your religion as a Christian teach you to do good, even to your enemies?” “That may well be,” she replied. “But ye shallna get out o’ that, till ye become a Christian yoursell, and repeat the Lord’s Prayer and the Belief!” What did Hume the Atheist do? Did he stand his ground and ridicule the superstitious beliefs of this woman? Of course not. To the surprise of the fishwife, he readily complied, and true to her word she helped him out of the bog. Hume retold this story frequently, always commending the fishwife as the most acute theologian he had ever encountered.–Charlie Huenemann at 3quarksdaily.

    The biographer of The Life of David Hume, Mossner, also tells the story (on p. 563) and refers to the Caldwell papers. (In fact, I suspect that Mossner’s version is the source for Charlie’s retelling; Charlie is himself an important Spinoza and Nietzsche scholar.) And, indeed, one can find Mossner’s version of the story there in a discursive footnote added by an editor to a reproduction of the letter from Hume to Baron Mure. But that note does not give a further source. It seems to have been first published in 1854, that is, after Somerville’s account. So, there is a good chance that Somerville, or the review of Somerville, is the source of their version of the story.

    There is, however, one key difference between the Somerville and Caldwell papers account: in Somerville the witch-infected bog is located near Hume’s birth-place; the region of Chirnside. This is why the relatively youthtful Hume, once freed, goes on to write his History. Whereas in the Caldwell papers, the bog is in Edinburgh and the whole story has moved into Hume’s retirement.

    Somerville, himself was born in 1811 long after Hume’s death (1776). Somerville tells the story in the context of talking about his parents’s birth-region, but even they were not contemporaries of Hume at the time their version of the story was supposed to have taken place. So, none of the sources are eye-witness reports or even traced back to contemporaries of Hume. So, I am now inclined to think that the whole story is myth. It is primarily useful in revealing something about the aims of the narrator and their preferred vision of Hume and his attitude toward theology, philosophy, or mortality (etc.; nobody being interested in Somerville’s parents anymore). Such biogrophical and autobiographical narratives should not be treated as history but as clues to the explicit and tacit presentations and self-presentations of a narrator.

    One further reason why I think it is myth — and why I would think it is a myth even if there are reports by self-proclaimed eyewitness or of Hume retelling the story dating back to Hume’s life — is that it echoes, as I noted yesterday, a famous story recounted by Socrates about Thales to illustrate paradigmatic philosophical pitfalls:

    Why, take the case of Thales, Theodorus. While he was studying the stars and looking upwards, he fell into a pit, and a neat, witty Thracian servant girl jeered at him, they say, because he was so eager to know the things in the sky that he could not see what was there before him at his very feet. The same jest applies to all who pass their lives in philosophy. Theaetetus, [174a]

    I conclude with one final twist: the association of Hume with Socrates, and a life of philosophy, was encouraged by Adam Smith, as I have also argued, in his narrative of Hume’s dying days (which evoke Plato’s description Socrates’s last days) in (1776) Letter to Strahan. Smith was not alone in encouraging the identification; George Dempster coined the Meme that Hume is “the Socrates of Edinburgh” in a letter to Adam Ferguson written during Hume’s life (as Mossner also notes). In my view, Hume invites the association artfully in the introduction to the Treatise, but I have written about that elsewhere.

    http://digressionsnimpressions.typepad.com/digressionsimpressions/2015/05/humeinbog.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Interesting interchange! I know Socrates and the Thracian servant girl, and I'm somewhat intrigued by Hume the man, but I didn't know any of that particular story.
    , @dearieme
    Actually the whole thing is an elaborate joke for which the punchline is that the girl exhumed him.

    Else he'd have been ex-Humed.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Sunbeam
    Look, I've put this up here before (the Unz site and Sailer in particular).

    The Romans had Nubians serving in their military. Including some that made it to officer.

    Now this site gets a pretty educated lot. If you can blow holes in my argument, fine.

    But it is not outside the realm of speculation that a "Nubian," (by which I actually mean someone who is Ethiopean, with that whole Horn of Africa bodytype thing) led a Roman Military detachment and may well have intermarried with a Roman family.

    Feel free to disprove me with actual facts. But this one doesn't seem besides the pale (as it were).

    And actually there was a fiction series not long ago, that held Arthur to be a leader of Roman era central european horse archers the Romans left behind when they abandoned Britain.

    Not sure how likely something like that was, but impossible? The Empire had a lot of different swinging dicks running around at the end. If a couple thousand wound up being left in Britain after Rome left, well maybe the 23andme folks can point it out.

    Not sure how likely something like that was, but impossible?

    But that’s the whole point. Beard presents this Black Roman Briton as typical. In reality, he would have been an extreme outlier.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    It also depends on the Nubians of that time being the same as the 'Nubians' of today.
    , @Desiderius

    But that’s the whole point. Beard presents this Black Roman Briton as typical. In reality, he would have been an extreme outlier.
     
    She's (intentionally) never that specific. If you hate racists enough, you'll find the requisite wiggle-room to defend the BBC tokenism with the best defense you can muster - an offense against the racists!

    Truth, schmuth, what do racists care for truth?
    , @Anonymous
    That is really the point. I suspect it is somewhat more likely than not that there were actually "black" Roman soldiers in Britain. But they were not at all typical, and no black legionnaire would have found a mulatta wife.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    It does seem to be controversial, but in the European Ancient World, it was entirely possible to have been born and lived one's entire life without having ever glimpsed let alone talked to a non-white. That fact may be the one that proves to be most intolerable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. It turns out that the Babylonians wuz Kangs and any moment now their secret science is going to rule the universe!

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/25/3700-year-old-babylonian-tablet-rewrites-the-history-of-maths-and-shows-the-greeks-did-not-develop-trigonometry/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. For the statistically challenged who think all Jewish people are smart, that woman, Miss Lewinsky, has long been proof they are wrong.

    Remember people, even if the distribution curve of a group lies a standard deviation to the right, that still means a large portion of them is either mediocre or downright stupid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  91. @syonredux

    Not sure how likely something like that was, but impossible?
     
    But that's the whole point. Beard presents this Black Roman Briton as typical. In reality, he would have been an extreme outlier.

    It also depends on the Nubians of that time being the same as the ‘Nubians’ of today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Anon Chief
    OT

    "Netanyahu’s empathy for Trump" by Caroline Glick

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was attacked by the media for not jumping on the bandwagon and condemning US President Donald Trump for his response to the far-right and far-left rioters in Charlottesville earlier this month. It may be that he held his tongue because he saw nothing to gain from attacking a friendly president. But it is also reasonable to assume that Netanyahu held his tongue because he empathizes with Trump. More than any leader in the world, Netanyahu understands what Trump is going through. He’s been there himself – and in many ways, is still there. Netanyahu has never enjoyed a day in office when Israel’s unelected elites weren’t at war with him.

    From a comparative perspective, Netanyahu’s experiences in his first term in office, from 1996 until 1999, are most similar to Trump’s current position. His 1996 victory over incumbent prime minister Shimon Peres shocked the political class no less than the American political class was stunned by Trump’s victory. And this makes sense. The historical context of Israel’s 1996 election and the US elections last year were strikingly similar.

    [...]

    Today it is clear that Trump is wrestling with how to proceed in governing, as the American elites openly seek his political and even personal destruction. One day he tacks to the establishment in the hopes of appeasing those who hate him, and the next day he embraces his supporters and repeats his campaign pledges to “drain the swamp.”

    The lessons of Netanyahu’s first term – and to a degree, his subsequent terms in office as well – are clear enough and Trump would do well to apply them.

    You cannot appease people who want to destroy you. And you cannot succeed by embracing the failed policies of your predecessors that you were elected to roll back. The elites who reject you will never embrace you. The only way to govern successfully when you are under relentless assault is to empower your supporters and keep faith with them.

    http://carolineglick.com/netanyahus-empathy-for-trump/

    Getting rid of Sebastian Gorka was not a good move in this regard. Actually it was an outrage.

    Sometimes we see Trump seeming to go the way of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who, when he was elected, had an ambitious conservative agenda. Then he suffered some setbacks, lost a few common-sense referendums, and the establishment basically ground him down. So he said, screw it, I’ll go along to get along, and ended up governing like a Democrat.

    I have always thought that this was a plausible scenario for the Trump presidency. We’re not there yet, and I hope we don’t get there. Of course in Trump’s case, the establishment will never accept him whereas they came around to tolerate Arnold.

    Maybe Trump figures sacrificing people like Bannon and Gorka is not that big of a deal if he keeps his compass (and maybe even keeps listening to them secretly), but I think that this is dangerous once (1) all of the ideas people who guide day-to-day policies are gone and (2) the lynch mob sees that it can bully Trump, and of course never be satisfied.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. I do not follow Monica on Twitter, but I went to her Twitter feed to see what she had to say.

    According to Twitter I “may also like” Chelsea Clinton. Monica is certainly better looking, I will give her that much.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  94. @Roderick Spode
    Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but cannot 'rape' in the classical sense sometimes mean 'abduct' rather than 'violate'?

    You’re not splitting hairs. In Alexander Pope’s “The Rape of the Lock,” it means abduct. And the Sabine women were indeed abducted (as well as violated).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Lewinsky’s endorsement makes Beard’s arguments seem even weaker. If you have to rely on someone famous for …. To support a scholarly thesis times are tough indeed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. @syonredux

    Not sure how likely something like that was, but impossible?
     
    But that's the whole point. Beard presents this Black Roman Briton as typical. In reality, he would have been an extreme outlier.

    But that’s the whole point. Beard presents this Black Roman Briton as typical. In reality, he would have been an extreme outlier.

    She’s (intentionally) never that specific. If you hate racists enough, you’ll find the requisite wiggle-room to defend the BBC tokenism with the best defense you can muster – an offense against the racists!

    Truth, schmuth, what do racists care for truth?

    Read More
    • Replies: @TWS
    No she wrote, "typical". They have since changed it but the internet remembers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Maybe some of this racial retconning is a actually a way of getting around the having to teach the vengeful grievance mongering against YT version of history? Throw in a couple of dusky faces and maybe no one will notice you’re teaching regular old Western Civilization without the “Right Side of History” crap. As it stands currently, American kids spend well over half their time in history classes learning about slavery and the Holocaust, as if they were the only two events of consequence to ever occur. There’s also a lot of focus on the boring practices of Native American tribes, and Ellis Island. I imagine the situation in Britain may be similar.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  98. @Jake
    There were a couple of Confederates who said that their cause was not only essentially to the United States being saved, but that their cause also was essential to the Western world.

    Those kooks were absolutely correct, even in their wildest assertions.

    Wrong. The Southern plantation owners imported all the black slaves due to their own greed. If they had been satisfied with the sweat off their own brow, the USA would have a similar black population to Canada, i.e. around 1 %.

    Read More
    • Agree: MEH 0910
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Sunbeam
    Look, I've put this up here before (the Unz site and Sailer in particular).

    The Romans had Nubians serving in their military. Including some that made it to officer.

    Now this site gets a pretty educated lot. If you can blow holes in my argument, fine.

    But it is not outside the realm of speculation that a "Nubian," (by which I actually mean someone who is Ethiopean, with that whole Horn of Africa bodytype thing) led a Roman Military detachment and may well have intermarried with a Roman family.

    Feel free to disprove me with actual facts. But this one doesn't seem besides the pale (as it were).

    And actually there was a fiction series not long ago, that held Arthur to be a leader of Roman era central european horse archers the Romans left behind when they abandoned Britain.

    Not sure how likely something like that was, but impossible? The Empire had a lot of different swinging dicks running around at the end. If a couple thousand wound up being left in Britain after Rome left, well maybe the 23andme folks can point it out.

    But it is not outside the realm of speculation that a “Nubian,” (by which I actually mean someone who is Ethiopean, with that whole Horn of Africa bodytype thing) led a Roman Military detachment and may well have intermarried with a Roman family.

    All well and good, and entirely besides the point.

    The BBC punted the picture with the Black legionnaire labeled as ‘typical’. ‘Not outside the realm of speculation’ is not quite synonymous with ‘typical’.

    The Beeb had been called on retconnning history to punt their narrative.

    This was also critiqued, Nassim Nicholas Taleb joined the fray. Mary Beard then engaged in ad hominem and quite bizarrely for a supposed historian, misrepresented what had happened and Taleb called her on that too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Here's another point that Beard and others have totally ignored. IF there actually were black Romans that rose up the hierarchy, then it would be fairly easy to prove: Look at the surviving statues of famous historical military commanders. Are there any blacks represented? If not, that's not evidence for Beard's side. The fact that she can't point to a statue of an historical Roman and say, "See? QED, my side wins". Instead she has to make a big to do about a 21st century cartoon representation. When Mary Beard was still studying for her doctorate, this type of nonsense would've been laughed out of the classroom.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Dan Hayes
    syonredux:

    While the Spectator article cites many instances of general Chinese disdain for Africans, I nevertheless found disturbing its mention that Chinese boys idolize the African-American basketball star Kobe Bryant.

    I believe that this incipient black adulation by young Chinese boys will eventually develop into the all-out adulation that has occurred in Japan. While today's adult Japanese are inoculated against against black adulation, this is not the case for their progeny.

    Westerners familiar with China have told me that Americans generally greatly overstate the Chinese interest in the NBA and basketball generally and that interest in soccer is many multiple times greater.
    For every Chinese teenage boy’s poster of Kobe Bryant et al there would be dozens of Lionel Messi , Christiano Ronaldo et al -who incidentally are white(ish) .
    Or so I’m told

    Which just shows you that people will see stuff through their own frame of reference

    Read More
    • Replies: @üeljang
    Your comment about frame of reference is perspicacious.

    However, as to the relative popularity of various sports among the people in any East Asian country, I would caution people never to underestimate the fickleness of East Asians, at least as regards their behavior as a "voting bloc."

    What I mean by this is that there are plenty of East Asian individuals who are fond of basketball and admire NBA players like Kobe Bryant. However, basketball has never been "the in thing" in any East Asian country as long as I have been here. (Of course, it is not precluded from becoming "the in thing" at some time in the future, but that is not reliably predictable IMHO.) In Japan, "the in thing" has shifted -- veritably, as if it has been reassigned by some authority -- from baseball to soccer at a certain time around the beginning of the current decade. It gave me an eerie feeling that I had missed a notice on some piece of official mail that had declared, "Baseball is no longer the Japanese national sport. Henceforth, our national sport shall be soccer."

    Presently, I am getting vibes that suggest that the "national sport" may be due for another reassignment sometime soon. (As for the externally promulgated Japanese national sport, sumō, most young people would at least feign being somehow insulted if you even asked them whether they liked the sport.)

    , @basque britis are brothers are small brained
    Your wrong asians like the asians in america are nuts about bball like to play it ,like to watch nba games on tv and in person, dont see any asians who like the other major sports that whites are into, Hmm I wonder why.
    , @Dan Hayes
    sb,

    Thanks for the good news (relatively speaking) about the situation in Japan.

    I heard from some other place in the UR that the message went out from on high that soccer has replaced baseball as the Japanese national sport.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Cortes
    MacDougall seems to be "son of black foreigner "?

    MacDougall Surname DNA Project – Y-DNA Classic Chart

    https://www.familytreedna.com/public/McDougall/default.aspx?section=yresults

    No African Ys in the lot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @guest
    These people are so weak, no wonder the foolhardy nazis thought they could get away with it in Charlottesville.

    But they have all the advantages. Think about it: this lady not only has a cushy university gig, she has entree to the worlds of television and publishing. Her ideas get play. 'Course, she's straight-jacketed and couldn't say whatever she wants. But she doesn't want to say anything that would prevent her from running and hiding to the safe spaces of power. Where MSM outlets write articles about your hurt feelz.

    These people are so weak, no wonder the foolhardy nazis thought they could get away with it in Charlottesville.

    They don’t need to be strong. They have fools like you to gang up on anyone who dares oppose them.

    Get away with what? It was a perfectly legal protest. Everyone else, including the state and city government/police, broke the law.

    You wouldn’t dare slander them to their faces keyboard warrior.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    What are you talking about? My comments have nothing to do with the legality of the protest. Obviously, leftists are thugs seeking to drive everything they think can hurt them from the public square through violence. The cops cannot be trusted, and will impose the lawless commands of the state if called upon.

    But do you think the protesters got what they wanted? No, they got snookered and they lost the PR battle big time. By "get away with it," I mean be able to put their message across in a hostile, occupied city. They lacked discipline and foolishly thought the cops would make themselves look like the bad guys.

    We're beyond legal and illegal, here. If you want to "take it to the streets" and win, you have to trick your opponents into making mistakes. You can't make a bunch of mistakes then blame the results on the meanies opposing you. That is, if you're on the right. The left doesn't have to worry as much, because of their institutional advantages. Which is unfair, but boo-hoo, go cry to mommy.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @syonredux
    This place [for witches]...once nearly swallowed up David Hume the historian, who was a native of Ninewells, in the neighbourhood. Hume missed his footing in the mire, stuck fast, called for assistance, and was at last heard by some people, who ran to give help; but when they saw it was Hume "the unbeliever," though he was in other respects an amiable man, they turned back saying, "Na, na, the deil has him, let the deil keep him." David Hume got out by some means, and wrote his famous history after that time.--The Autobiography of a Working Man by Alexander Somerville, 1848, p. 4

    ...a witch-haunted bog, memorable for having nearly swallowed up David Hume the historian, who was a native of Ninewells, in the neighbourhood. Hume missed his footing in the mire, and sticking fast, called for assistance, and was at last heard by some people, who ran to give help. Seeing, however, that it was Hume "the unbeliever," they turned back from the amiable philosopher, remarking, "Na, na, the deil has him, let the deil keep him." Mr Somerville mentions, that Hume got out of the bog, and wrote his history afterwards, but does not relate the means by which the philosopher and historian escaped an absorption of his body, analogous of the absorption his mind had undergone in metaphysical mier. The "deil" would have had him both ways, the story goes, but for a compassonate milkmaid, who helped him out, after compelling him to say the Lord's prayer, as a proof that he was a true Christian.--From a review of The Autobiography of a Working Man (by Alexander Somerville, pub. 1848) in The Eclectic Review (pub. 1848) by Thomas Price and Edwin Paxton Hood


    The story goes that over 1770-71, Hume was living in the Old Town of Edinburgh while supervising the construction of his new house in New Town. The North Bridge was not yet open, so he had to take a short cut across the bog left by Nor' Loch after that foul body of water had been drained away. As you might have already guessed, he slipped and fell into the bog and, try as he might, couldn't get himself out. After flailing about for some time he attracted the attention of a fishwife. She recognized him straightaway as "Hume the Atheist" and on that account was not sure whether to help him. Hume implored, "But my good woman, does not your religion as a Christian teach you to do good, even to your enemies?" "That may well be," she replied. "But ye shallna get out o' that, till ye become a Christian yoursell, and repeat the Lord's Prayer and the Belief!" What did Hume the Atheist do? Did he stand his ground and ridicule the superstitious beliefs of this woman? Of course not. To the surprise of the fishwife, he readily complied, and true to her word she helped him out of the bog. Hume retold this story frequently, always commending the fishwife as the most acute theologian he had ever encountered.--Charlie Huenemann at 3quarksdaily.

    The biographer of The Life of David Hume, Mossner, also tells the story (on p. 563) and refers to the Caldwell papers. (In fact, I suspect that Mossner's version is the source for Charlie's retelling; Charlie is himself an important Spinoza and Nietzsche scholar.) And, indeed, one can find Mossner's version of the story there in a discursive footnote added by an editor to a reproduction of the letter from Hume to Baron Mure. But that note does not give a further source. It seems to have been first published in 1854, that is, after Somerville's account. So, there is a good chance that Somerville, or the review of Somerville, is the source of their version of the story.

    There is, however, one key difference between the Somerville and Caldwell papers account: in Somerville the witch-infected bog is located near Hume's birth-place; the region of Chirnside. This is why the relatively youthtful Hume, once freed, goes on to write his History. Whereas in the Caldwell papers, the bog is in Edinburgh and the whole story has moved into Hume's retirement.

    Somerville, himself was born in 1811 long after Hume's death (1776). Somerville tells the story in the context of talking about his parents's birth-region, but even they were not contemporaries of Hume at the time their version of the story was supposed to have taken place. So, none of the sources are eye-witness reports or even traced back to contemporaries of Hume. So, I am now inclined to think that the whole story is myth. It is primarily useful in revealing something about the aims of the narrator and their preferred vision of Hume and his attitude toward theology, philosophy, or mortality (etc.; nobody being interested in Somerville's parents anymore). Such biogrophical and autobiographical narratives should not be treated as history but as clues to the explicit and tacit presentations and self-presentations of a narrator.


    One further reason why I think it is myth -- and why I would think it is a myth even if there are reports by self-proclaimed eyewitness or of Hume retelling the story dating back to Hume's life -- is that it echoes, as I noted yesterday, a famous story recounted by Socrates about Thales to illustrate paradigmatic philosophical pitfalls:

    Why, take the case of Thales, Theodorus. While he was studying the stars and looking upwards, he fell into a pit, and a neat, witty Thracian servant girl jeered at him, they say, because he was so eager to know the things in the sky that he could not see what was there before him at his very feet. The same jest applies to all who pass their lives in philosophy. Theaetetus, [174a]

    I conclude with one final twist: the association of Hume with Socrates, and a life of philosophy, was encouraged by Adam Smith, as I have also argued, in his narrative of Hume's dying days (which evoke Plato's description Socrates's last days) in (1776) Letter to Strahan. Smith was not alone in encouraging the identification; George Dempster coined the Meme that Hume is "the Socrates of Edinburgh" in a letter to Adam Ferguson written during Hume's life (as Mossner also notes). In my view, Hume invites the association artfully in the introduction to the Treatise, but I have written about that elsewhere.

    http://digressionsnimpressions.typepad.com/digressionsimpressions/2015/05/humeinbog.html

    Interesting interchange! I know Socrates and the Thracian servant girl, and I’m somewhat intrigued by Hume the man, but I didn’t know any of that particular story.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @Sunbeam
    Look, I've put this up here before (the Unz site and Sailer in particular).

    The Romans had Nubians serving in their military. Including some that made it to officer.

    Now this site gets a pretty educated lot. If you can blow holes in my argument, fine.

    But it is not outside the realm of speculation that a "Nubian," (by which I actually mean someone who is Ethiopean, with that whole Horn of Africa bodytype thing) led a Roman Military detachment and may well have intermarried with a Roman family.

    Feel free to disprove me with actual facts. But this one doesn't seem besides the pale (as it were).

    And actually there was a fiction series not long ago, that held Arthur to be a leader of Roman era central european horse archers the Romans left behind when they abandoned Britain.

    Not sure how likely something like that was, but impossible? The Empire had a lot of different swinging dicks running around at the end. If a couple thousand wound up being left in Britain after Rome left, well maybe the 23andme folks can point it out.

    If you followed the story, you’d know the BBC passed off the black Roman in Britain as “typical.” While it’s theoretically possible that a black man had a family in Britain under Roman rule, it is by no means typical.

    For her part, Beard found the cartoon’s representation “pretty accurate” because Roman Britain was supposedly ethnically diverse, beyond having different kinds of Europeans. On what basis does she claim the presence of blacks? Well, someone from North Africa was recorded somewhere at some time. And as we all know the only kind of people ever found in Africa are the color of midnight.

    What is this weird, pseudo-rationalistic insistence on cutting Beard slack for the mere possibility that there may have been a single black man in Ancient Britain? The obvious goal is to trick people into thinking the island was always as diverse as it is now, if not moreso. That’s the point of her “pretty accurate” and her boldface assertion that Roman Britain was ethnically diverse. Which we know she wouldn’t bother remarking upon if it was merely a collection of white ethnicities.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @slumber_j
    When our daughter was maybe a year old we went to a friend's kid's birthday party at their apartment building in the West Village in Manhattan. Waiting for the elevator with us, and then stepping into it, was Monica Lewinsky.

    She was actually very sweet on the ride up, cooing over our kid and whatnot. Which was great, until she commented on our daughter's "great eyebrows." At which point I suddenly found the whole thing creepy.

    Look at it this way: if Lewinsky wasn’t creepy, Clinton never would’ve been impeached.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @syonredux

    Not sure how likely something like that was, but impossible?
     
    But that's the whole point. Beard presents this Black Roman Briton as typical. In reality, he would have been an extreme outlier.

    That is really the point. I suspect it is somewhat more likely than not that there were actually “black” Roman soldiers in Britain. But they were not at all typical, and no black legionnaire would have found a mulatta wife.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @pedro II
    Not understanding furor. If Ms. Beard has the evidence to back her assertion, what is the basis for criticizing her?

    Because she doesn’t?

    Also, because she had a decidedly unscholarly reaction to criticisms, in that she lied and resorted immediately to ad hominem attacks.

    Also again, because she’s a coward for crying to mommy when mean, old Mr. Taleb said bad things to her on the internet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @Whiskey
    Any doubt that White women are the enemy eternally of White men is now erased.

    No. Fifty-three percent of them voted for Trump. What percentage of your group voted for Trump?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Anonymous
    Perhaps Alicia Mochado would be available to share her opinion on this topic.

    I (different Anon) predict she’ll agree with Monica…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Wow! I wrote like three or four more intellectual posts tonight, but look at the glum look on that black dude in the middle. Sorry, none for you. "I feel your pain!" OK, he's probably thinking about something else entirely, but surely he knows that Bill is up in front with the beauty queen. Trump notwithstanding, murder rap notwithstanding, she's.... I get it Bill.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @sb
    Westerners familiar with China have told me that Americans generally greatly overstate the Chinese interest in the NBA and basketball generally and that interest in soccer is many multiple times greater.
    For every Chinese teenage boy's poster of Kobe Bryant et al there would be dozens of Lionel Messi , Christiano Ronaldo et al -who incidentally are white(ish) .
    Or so I'm told

    Which just shows you that people will see stuff through their own frame of reference

    Your comment about frame of reference is perspicacious.

    However, as to the relative popularity of various sports among the people in any East Asian country, I would caution people never to underestimate the fickleness of East Asians, at least as regards their behavior as a “voting bloc.”

    What I mean by this is that there are plenty of East Asian individuals who are fond of basketball and admire NBA players like Kobe Bryant. However, basketball has never been “the in thing” in any East Asian country as long as I have been here. (Of course, it is not precluded from becoming “the in thing” at some time in the future, but that is not reliably predictable IMHO.) In Japan, “the in thing” has shifted — veritably, as if it has been reassigned by some authority — from baseball to soccer at a certain time around the beginning of the current decade. It gave me an eerie feeling that I had missed a notice on some piece of official mail that had declared, “Baseball is no longer the Japanese national sport. Henceforth, our national sport shall be soccer.”

    Presently, I am getting vibes that suggest that the “national sport” may be due for another reassignment sometime soon. (As for the externally promulgated Japanese national sport, sumō, most young people would at least feign being somehow insulted if you even asked them whether they liked the sport.)

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @El Dato
    It's true! And feminist Boadicea was so fed up with this that, after one gang rape too many (on her own daughters) she antifaed an uprising to kick the gangbangers out.

    Sadly, her tactical skills were not up to scratch,

    Those were not gangbangers, but a fraternity of white males with a penchant for Greek letters and raping British matriarchal ebony queens. Adjust your language, peasant!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Whiskey
    Any doubt that White women are the enemy eternally of White men is now erased.

    Women hate weak men, it’s an instinctive reaction. Besides indoctrination maybe the mass pussification of the white men has lead to many white women flocking to black and brown men and wanting nothing from white males.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Composition of the Roman army in the first century AD.

    Under the founder–emperor Augustus (ruled 30 BC – 14 AD), the legions, c. 5,000-strong all-heavy infantry formations recruited from Roman citizens only, ….

    Alongside the legions, Augustus established the auxilia, a regular corps of similar numbers to the legions, recruited from the peregrini (non-citizen inhabitants of the empire – about 90% of the empire’s population in the 1st century)

    Roman auxiliaries in Britain:

    The overall size of the Roman forces in Roman Britain grew from about 40,000 in the mid 1st century AD to a maximum of about 55,000 in the mid 2nd century.[1] the proportion of auxiliaries in Britain grew from about 50% before 69 AD to over 70% in c. 150 AD. By the mid-2nd century, there were about 70 auxiliary regiments in Britain, for a total of over 40,000 men. These outnumbered the 16,500 legionaries in Britain (three Roman legions) by 2.5 to 1.

    Of the auxilia units stationed in Britain, none was originally native British – it was the custom not to deploy units in their home country or region. However, the majority came from the geographically and culturally close areas of northern Gaul and lower Rhineland e.g. Batavi, Tungri.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hadrianwall
    Fascinating article about a small number of Syrians in Britain under Hadrian. The Roman Empire was a very different geopolitical space from the nation states that later arose from its ruins!

    http://www.aramcoworld.com/en-US/Articles/July-2017/Hadrian-s-Syrians-1

    Anyway ret-conning history is silly. It's unfortunate when research about population movements in a multi-ethnic imperial polity is instrumentalized to support political agendas, whether SJW (in the case of the BBC cartoon) or other agendas. History is much more interesting when approached on its own terms; there's no need to try to project current preoccupations on the past.

    (By the way, Saudi oil money paid for the linked article!)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @SEAN C
    We see a lot of this in movies. King Arthur's most skilled knight is black in the latest ridiculous remake. How does a black person attain a hereditary position in England?

    I’m not certain what remake you’re recollecting, but I do know that Palamedes was supposed to be a Saracen who converts to Christianity. I would not at all be surprised if this is the “historical” basis for your observation. (I’m not objecting to your observation of absurdity, but noting that there is a slim, if real, basis for it. Of course, most “Saracens” were not “black”.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. I bet school kids will be taught in 2050 that Medieval Europe had a large Black and Muslim population too, “just like now”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  116. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    I (different Anon) predict she'll agree with Monica...
    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2016/09/27/06/38D486DF00000578-3809135-image-m-105_1474953413070.jpg

    Wow! I wrote like three or four more intellectual posts tonight, but look at the glum look on that black dude in the middle. Sorry, none for you. “I feel your pain!” OK, he’s probably thinking about something else entirely, but surely he knows that Bill is up in front with the beauty queen. Trump notwithstanding, murder rap notwithstanding, she’s…. I get it Bill.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Nigerian Nationalist
    What was it Ben Franklin said? something along the lines of in the time it took you to show your "little rebel" the score, 30,000 diverse Americans crossed the border.

    Do Better!

    Quality has a quality all its own.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Y’all should be more open minded;

    If LSE trained social psychologist Monica claims that some Bantu Centurion Blackligula was inseminating Cumbrian lasses in a shadows of Hadrian’s Wall, than she’s probably onto something.

    bored identity will remind commentariat that Mrs. Lewinski also did not have sexual relationship with America’s First Black President, who was merely practicing genital cigarification on his personal White House Messalina.

    So, everything is possible in the Current Year of Retconquista.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Okay, Retconquista, I have to figure out how to steal that one.

    That should be on a Top Ten List of Words Trump Is Least Likely to Use.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @bored identity
    Y'all should be more open minded;

    If LSE trained social psychologist Monica claims that some Bantu Centurion Blackligula was inseminating Cumbrian lasses in a shadows of Hadrian's Wall, than she's probably onto something.

    bored identity will remind commentariat that Mrs. Lewinski also did not have sexual relationship with America's First Black President, who was merely practicing genital cigarification on his personal White House Messalina.


    So, everything is possible in the Current Year of Retconquista.

    Okay, Retconquista, I have to figure out how to steal that one.

    That should be on a Top Ten List of Words Trump Is Least Likely to Use.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I'm surprised that this is causing a stir. You see this kind of thing all of the time. Go to any national park showing films about colonial times, and you'll see black guys in England or mixed in with English colonists as they head to America.

    Same thing on children's shows. If it takes place in medieval times, you'll see black guys, maybe a black women. Oddly, you don't see Asians or native American types, but then, nobody cares about them.

    I point out to my kids all the time that what they just saw is ridiculous and never happened. At first, my one kid would just resspond, "Well, they're just trying to be nice." So then I asked her if she'd be OK with a movie about her where the lead actress was a short Hispanic girl living in L.A. My daughter wasn't too keen on that.

    Btw, thanks to Steve, I showed my daughter just this morning the SAT scores breakdown by race. She was amazed, though she did say, "Well, whites do pretty well. I guess that we're fairly smart. Wow, there are like no blacks at the high scores."

    "No, honey, there's not. (And let's hope that you remember all of that stuff I've told you about how your kids' brains and personality come from their parents.) But remember, keep your mouth shut about this in public."

    "I know, dad."

    Creating white rebels, one kid at a time.

    Good takes, Silly. Same for my daughter. I told her to keep her trap shut about these truths. She back-slid some during four years in college, but now, married, with a new baby and viewing the world at-large from her new circumstances, she moved back into reality with racial (and other liberal) notions of achievement, behavior, criminality. She sees what taxes mean now, she sees now how a bunch of old-assed baby-boomers, having ruined the world, are endeavoring to steal and loot the final scraps before they go.

    She sees the foolishness of women out in the world, too. If we could get them into a mindset of marriage and family, it would focus the minds of the young toward serious matters instead of the frivolous shit depicted in media. She’s only 27, most of her contemporaries are out on the party carousel, still, spending their newfound earnings, investing nothing, aging rather poorly. Amazing what drugs and alcohol and lousy hours to do a girl.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    I think Sex and the City was a very destructive show. It gave women a lot of ideas that are just not true.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @syonredux
    James Cameron's response to Wonder Woman was un-Woke:

    “All of the self-congratulatory back-patting Hollywood’s been doing over Wonder Woman has been so misguided,” Cameron said in a new interview with The Guardian. “She’s an objectified icon, and it’s just male Hollywood doing the same old thing!”

    The “self-congratulatory back-patting” Cameron is referring to is the fact that Wonder Woman, considered a risky endeavor for many years because the hero is a woman, ended up being the highest-grossing movie of the summer. Many see it as a shift of the tides when it comes to gender in Hollywood.

    “I’m not saying I didn’t like the movie but, to me, it’s a step backwards,” he continued.

    And if you are unsure why Cameron said that, he then explained.
     

    “Sarah Connor was not a beauty icon,” the Terminator director—who created Connor, among other female leads—said. “She was strong, she was troubled, she was a terrible mother, and she earned the respect of the audience through pure grit. And to me [the benefit of characters like Sarah] is so obvious. I mean, half the audience is female!”

    Basically, Cameron is saying that because he feels Gal Gadot is prettier than Linda Hamilton, and because Wonder Woman is a superhero instead of a real person, Wonder Woman is somehow less impactful because regular women can’t relate to her as much. That seems incredibly misguided and sexist. (Does an average man have to watch movies starring overweight bald guys to relate to them better, or can he watch movies starring Arnold Schwarzenegger?) Looks or ability should have nothing to do with it. Wonder Woman was a massive hit movie starring and directed by a woman, something that has rarely been allowed in Hollywood. It broke a mold and it’s a good thing. Period.
     
    http://io9.gizmodo.com/james-cameron-thinks-wonder-woman-was-a-step-backward-f-1798410202

    Does an average man have to watch movies starring overweight bald guys to relate to them better

    I can think of lots of shows that encouraged men to become overweight, drunken layabouts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @guest
    "considered a risky endeavor for many years because the hero is a woman"

    This B.S. again? When during that same "many years" Hollywood pumped out butt-kicking female after butt-kicking female movie? Do they think we didn't notice, or are they too stupid to think Angelina Jolie or Charlize Theron movies count, because they're not wearing superhero costumes as they pull off superhuman feats?

    Heh, watch any Law And Order episode where you can see tiny, 80-lb cop-chicks spinning men three times their weight to the ground, knocking them out and then cuffing them. The delusions of the “Strong Woman” in these scenarios are nuts and encourage women to think it applies to them–right up until, in the real world, as cops, as a woman in a bar or wherever, they get their asses kicked, at which time they cry Domestic Abuse. So much for strong women.

    As for “Strong Women” in business, there aren’t any, only failures, hence their absence at the top.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Off The Street

    “Sarah Connor was not a beauty icon,”
     
    Linda Hamilton was married to James Cameron at one time. She is on record as describing that union as "terrible on every level". The not a beauty icon quote is probably just the tip of the iceberg in their relationship.

    She is on record as describing that union as “terrible on every level

    Linda Hamilton was one, Sandra Locke was another pissed-off ex-girlfriend, dumped by Clint Eastwood, ruined, the guys went on to ever-greater heights while the women descended into obscurity. They both have had lengthy “Poor Me, dumped victim of sexism” pieces in the Washington Post and anyone else that will write of their “struggles”. Both of these (and all who followed) didn’t understand, once the looks flew away, once their sexual value to these men didn’t cover over their lack of talent, they were dumped, just like aging women in every societal segment where looks, not any particular talent or ability, propelled them for a bit. It’s a hard fall and quite a shock to these gals who must wonder at the end, “What happened? And man, are they PISSED. Have a look at Ashely Judd, my God. Pissed! Hollywood is quite visible, of course. And the aging actresses are out there, shitting on Eastwood, Cruise, Stallone, Cameron and all the rest as well as the world at large for not paying the women equally to the male stars of today (who certainly work harder and are of far greater creativity than ANY woman). Mostly, these women are just pissed that their party is over in this life.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Desiderius

    But that’s the whole point. Beard presents this Black Roman Briton as typical. In reality, he would have been an extreme outlier.
     
    She's (intentionally) never that specific. If you hate racists enough, you'll find the requisite wiggle-room to defend the BBC tokenism with the best defense you can muster - an offense against the racists!

    Truth, schmuth, what do racists care for truth?

    No she wrote, “typical”. They have since changed it but the internet remembers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    I know. The wiggle-room is purported to be in the meaning of "typical." The meaning of is is redux.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Jason Liu
    There's a school of thought in historical circles devoted to retroactively applying SJWism to the past, exaggerating the presence and impact of minorities, women, and so on as a way of saying "See? It's always been like this."

    It's been around for decades, but what I saw in college a few years back shows a renewed surge for "diverse history", mostly fueled by anger over non-diverse movies, books, games, etc.

    In China something like this would have been taken as a direct attack on our identity, and elicited a much bigger public, maybe even government response. The non-response in the west still kind of flabbergasts me. The Brits seem to view history as just a hobby, "nothing to do with our present day". This disconnect is one of the reasons why westerners think we're all human is a valid excuse for diversity.

    yen liu chieh bananas, sellouts to the small brained british, you fools have you forgotten about forced heroin in china the killings of chinese and destructions of chinatowns by these curly haired small brained people with the weakest immune system in the world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Jim Christian
    Good takes, Silly. Same for my daughter. I told her to keep her trap shut about these truths. She back-slid some during four years in college, but now, married, with a new baby and viewing the world at-large from her new circumstances, she moved back into reality with racial (and other liberal) notions of achievement, behavior, criminality. She sees what taxes mean now, she sees now how a bunch of old-assed baby-boomers, having ruined the world, are endeavoring to steal and loot the final scraps before they go.

    She sees the foolishness of women out in the world, too. If we could get them into a mindset of marriage and family, it would focus the minds of the young toward serious matters instead of the frivolous shit depicted in media. She's only 27, most of her contemporaries are out on the party carousel, still, spending their newfound earnings, investing nothing, aging rather poorly. Amazing what drugs and alcohol and lousy hours to do a girl.

    I think Sex and the City was a very destructive show. It gave women a lot of ideas that are just not true.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Studley

    In China something like this would have been taken as a direct attack on our identity, and elicited a much bigger public, maybe even government response.
     
    Jason, you'd know more than me about this but the Chinese are skilled enough to double-play it? Those mysterious mummies out in the western desert, with red hair/plaid/conical hats (the Tocharians). The Uighurs claim them as ancestors so the Chinese authorities respond, "Sure. These people weren't Han Chinese. But they weren't you lot (i.e. Turkic Uighur people) either!"

    turks and uigher wished they were hun(pronounce it correctly) carrier of the mighty EDAR ,you are just a wanna be central asian nomad like most of your curly haired ,small brain basque british brothers, but alas your just another small brained”BASQUE” brothers of the loseriana french.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @sb
    Westerners familiar with China have told me that Americans generally greatly overstate the Chinese interest in the NBA and basketball generally and that interest in soccer is many multiple times greater.
    For every Chinese teenage boy's poster of Kobe Bryant et al there would be dozens of Lionel Messi , Christiano Ronaldo et al -who incidentally are white(ish) .
    Or so I'm told

    Which just shows you that people will see stuff through their own frame of reference

    Your wrong asians like the asians in america are nuts about bball like to play it ,like to watch nba games on tv and in person, dont see any asians who like the other major sports that whites are into, Hmm I wonder why.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Like Britain, America is and always has been a “diverse” country. I know this because I watch (too much) TV … especially the “feelz good” Hallmark Channel. My evidence is that every quality white person in the United States appears to need and have a “black” as their best friend, even in the “whitest” of communities. In fact, that best friend may be the only “black” in the community, but he or she is also a quality person because they are the sheriff … or the judge … or the CEO … or your business partner.

    But, at times I wonder, “Aren’t these “blacks” lonely?” I mean, where is the rest of their community? Why are they the only “black” in town? Don’t they have families? How did that happen?

    Oh, now I get it. The script calls for “diversity” even in lily-white “feelz good” productions. Square filled. But somehow I feel this “diversity” is somewhat shallow. Why can’t a Hispanic or Asian be your best friend and fill the “diversity” square? Isn’t that discrimination?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  130. @Jason Liu
    There's a school of thought in historical circles devoted to retroactively applying SJWism to the past, exaggerating the presence and impact of minorities, women, and so on as a way of saying "See? It's always been like this."

    It's been around for decades, but what I saw in college a few years back shows a renewed surge for "diverse history", mostly fueled by anger over non-diverse movies, books, games, etc.

    In China something like this would have been taken as a direct attack on our identity, and elicited a much bigger public, maybe even government response. The non-response in the west still kind of flabbergasts me. The Brits seem to view history as just a hobby, "nothing to do with our present day". This disconnect is one of the reasons why westerners think we're all human is a valid excuse for diversity.

    There’s a school of thought in historical circles devoted to retroactively applying SJWism to the past, exaggerating the presence and impact of minorities, women, and so on as a way of saying “See? It’s always been like this.”

    It’s more sinister than that – this seems to be a retconning of history to prepare Britons for more MENA immigration – “see? Blacks have been here since Roman times.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. A sort of meta-question: why is it that the Mary Beard contretemps seems to have legs, while, say, Obama’s “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.” was grist for the Breitbart mill for a while, but didn’t seem to have the same impact? Are we that tired of seeing Idris Elba?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Probably because Taleb sank his teeth into it and then Beard responded by dissing Taleb, which is not a good way to make a controversy go away.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Patrick Harris
    Beard is actually a decent read when she stays in her lane. One has to put up with a bit of postmodern cant, but I've learned a lot about the cultural history of antiquity from her.

    I’ve learned a lot about the cultural history of antiquity from her

    How do you know where the postmodern cant ends and the cultural history of antiquity begins?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @anonymous
    Composition of the Roman army in the first century AD.

    Under the founder–emperor Augustus (ruled 30 BC – 14 AD), the legions, c. 5,000-strong all-heavy infantry formations recruited from Roman citizens only, ....

    ...

    Alongside the legions, Augustus established the auxilia, a regular corps of similar numbers to the legions, recruited from the peregrini (non-citizen inhabitants of the empire – about 90% of the empire's population in the 1st century)

     

    Roman auxiliaries in Britain:

    The overall size of the Roman forces in Roman Britain grew from about 40,000 in the mid 1st century AD to a maximum of about 55,000 in the mid 2nd century.[1] the proportion of auxiliaries in Britain grew from about 50% before 69 AD to over 70% in c. 150 AD. By the mid-2nd century, there were about 70 auxiliary regiments in Britain, for a total of over 40,000 men. These outnumbered the 16,500 legionaries in Britain (three Roman legions) by 2.5 to 1.
     

    Of the auxilia units stationed in Britain, none was originally native British - it was the custom not to deploy units in their home country or region. However, the majority came from the geographically and culturally close areas of northern Gaul and lower Rhineland e.g. Batavi, Tungri.
     

    Fascinating article about a small number of Syrians in Britain under Hadrian. The Roman Empire was a very different geopolitical space from the nation states that later arose from its ruins!

    http://www.aramcoworld.com/en-US/Articles/July-2017/Hadrian-s-Syrians-1

    Anyway ret-conning history is silly. It’s unfortunate when research about population movements in a multi-ethnic imperial polity is instrumentalized to support political agendas, whether SJW (in the case of the BBC cartoon) or other agendas. History is much more interesting when approached on its own terms; there’s no need to try to project current preoccupations on the past.

    (By the way, Saudi oil money paid for the linked article!)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @Sunbeam
    Look, I've put this up here before (the Unz site and Sailer in particular).

    The Romans had Nubians serving in their military. Including some that made it to officer.

    Now this site gets a pretty educated lot. If you can blow holes in my argument, fine.

    But it is not outside the realm of speculation that a "Nubian," (by which I actually mean someone who is Ethiopean, with that whole Horn of Africa bodytype thing) led a Roman Military detachment and may well have intermarried with a Roman family.

    Feel free to disprove me with actual facts. But this one doesn't seem besides the pale (as it were).

    And actually there was a fiction series not long ago, that held Arthur to be a leader of Roman era central european horse archers the Romans left behind when they abandoned Britain.

    Not sure how likely something like that was, but impossible? The Empire had a lot of different swinging dicks running around at the end. If a couple thousand wound up being left in Britain after Rome left, well maybe the 23andme folks can point it out.

    Your point is irrelevant since the absurd claim being mocked was that the negro Roman was representative.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @syonredux
    This place [for witches]...once nearly swallowed up David Hume the historian, who was a native of Ninewells, in the neighbourhood. Hume missed his footing in the mire, stuck fast, called for assistance, and was at last heard by some people, who ran to give help; but when they saw it was Hume "the unbeliever," though he was in other respects an amiable man, they turned back saying, "Na, na, the deil has him, let the deil keep him." David Hume got out by some means, and wrote his famous history after that time.--The Autobiography of a Working Man by Alexander Somerville, 1848, p. 4

    ...a witch-haunted bog, memorable for having nearly swallowed up David Hume the historian, who was a native of Ninewells, in the neighbourhood. Hume missed his footing in the mire, and sticking fast, called for assistance, and was at last heard by some people, who ran to give help. Seeing, however, that it was Hume "the unbeliever," they turned back from the amiable philosopher, remarking, "Na, na, the deil has him, let the deil keep him." Mr Somerville mentions, that Hume got out of the bog, and wrote his history afterwards, but does not relate the means by which the philosopher and historian escaped an absorption of his body, analogous of the absorption his mind had undergone in metaphysical mier. The "deil" would have had him both ways, the story goes, but for a compassonate milkmaid, who helped him out, after compelling him to say the Lord's prayer, as a proof that he was a true Christian.--From a review of The Autobiography of a Working Man (by Alexander Somerville, pub. 1848) in The Eclectic Review (pub. 1848) by Thomas Price and Edwin Paxton Hood


    The story goes that over 1770-71, Hume was living in the Old Town of Edinburgh while supervising the construction of his new house in New Town. The North Bridge was not yet open, so he had to take a short cut across the bog left by Nor' Loch after that foul body of water had been drained away. As you might have already guessed, he slipped and fell into the bog and, try as he might, couldn't get himself out. After flailing about for some time he attracted the attention of a fishwife. She recognized him straightaway as "Hume the Atheist" and on that account was not sure whether to help him. Hume implored, "But my good woman, does not your religion as a Christian teach you to do good, even to your enemies?" "That may well be," she replied. "But ye shallna get out o' that, till ye become a Christian yoursell, and repeat the Lord's Prayer and the Belief!" What did Hume the Atheist do? Did he stand his ground and ridicule the superstitious beliefs of this woman? Of course not. To the surprise of the fishwife, he readily complied, and true to her word she helped him out of the bog. Hume retold this story frequently, always commending the fishwife as the most acute theologian he had ever encountered.--Charlie Huenemann at 3quarksdaily.

    The biographer of The Life of David Hume, Mossner, also tells the story (on p. 563) and refers to the Caldwell papers. (In fact, I suspect that Mossner's version is the source for Charlie's retelling; Charlie is himself an important Spinoza and Nietzsche scholar.) And, indeed, one can find Mossner's version of the story there in a discursive footnote added by an editor to a reproduction of the letter from Hume to Baron Mure. But that note does not give a further source. It seems to have been first published in 1854, that is, after Somerville's account. So, there is a good chance that Somerville, or the review of Somerville, is the source of their version of the story.

    There is, however, one key difference between the Somerville and Caldwell papers account: in Somerville the witch-infected bog is located near Hume's birth-place; the region of Chirnside. This is why the relatively youthtful Hume, once freed, goes on to write his History. Whereas in the Caldwell papers, the bog is in Edinburgh and the whole story has moved into Hume's retirement.

    Somerville, himself was born in 1811 long after Hume's death (1776). Somerville tells the story in the context of talking about his parents's birth-region, but even they were not contemporaries of Hume at the time their version of the story was supposed to have taken place. So, none of the sources are eye-witness reports or even traced back to contemporaries of Hume. So, I am now inclined to think that the whole story is myth. It is primarily useful in revealing something about the aims of the narrator and their preferred vision of Hume and his attitude toward theology, philosophy, or mortality (etc.; nobody being interested in Somerville's parents anymore). Such biogrophical and autobiographical narratives should not be treated as history but as clues to the explicit and tacit presentations and self-presentations of a narrator.


    One further reason why I think it is myth -- and why I would think it is a myth even if there are reports by self-proclaimed eyewitness or of Hume retelling the story dating back to Hume's life -- is that it echoes, as I noted yesterday, a famous story recounted by Socrates about Thales to illustrate paradigmatic philosophical pitfalls:

    Why, take the case of Thales, Theodorus. While he was studying the stars and looking upwards, he fell into a pit, and a neat, witty Thracian servant girl jeered at him, they say, because he was so eager to know the things in the sky that he could not see what was there before him at his very feet. The same jest applies to all who pass their lives in philosophy. Theaetetus, [174a]

    I conclude with one final twist: the association of Hume with Socrates, and a life of philosophy, was encouraged by Adam Smith, as I have also argued, in his narrative of Hume's dying days (which evoke Plato's description Socrates's last days) in (1776) Letter to Strahan. Smith was not alone in encouraging the identification; George Dempster coined the Meme that Hume is "the Socrates of Edinburgh" in a letter to Adam Ferguson written during Hume's life (as Mossner also notes). In my view, Hume invites the association artfully in the introduction to the Treatise, but I have written about that elsewhere.

    http://digressionsnimpressions.typepad.com/digressionsimpressions/2015/05/humeinbog.html

    Actually the whole thing is an elaborate joke for which the punchline is that the girl exhumed him.

    Else he’d have been ex-Humed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Sertorius
    A sort of meta-question: why is it that the Mary Beard contretemps seems to have legs, while, say, Obama's "Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding." was grist for the Breitbart mill for a while, but didn't seem to have the same impact? Are we that tired of seeing Idris Elba?

    Probably because Taleb sank his teeth into it and then Beard responded by dissing Taleb, which is not a good way to make a controversy go away.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    The British media is of course portraying it as Taleb being a sexist pig to Beard, and tsk-tsk-ing Taleb for pointing out he has more scholarly citations then Beard does. However it was Beard who choose to react to Taleb's criticism not with data and citations but with denigrating him for attacking a historian when he isn't one himself.

    The British "experts" who attack Taleb apparently also think that the existence of a single North African skeleton in Yorkshire proves there was sub-Saharan blacks in Roman Britain, even though DNA sequencing proved that the woman had a fair complexion and North Africans are generally similar in appearance to Mediterranean Europeans (They only know she spent time in North Africa because of certain trace chemicals in her body).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Stacy235l
    These people are so weak, no wonder the foolhardy nazis thought they could get away with it in Charlottesville.

    They don't need to be strong. They have fools like you to gang up on anyone who dares oppose them.

    Get away with what? It was a perfectly legal protest. Everyone else, including the state and city government/police, broke the law.

    You wouldn't dare slander them to their faces keyboard warrior.

    What are you talking about? My comments have nothing to do with the legality of the protest. Obviously, leftists are thugs seeking to drive everything they think can hurt them from the public square through violence. The cops cannot be trusted, and will impose the lawless commands of the state if called upon.

    But do you think the protesters got what they wanted? No, they got snookered and they lost the PR battle big time. By “get away with it,” I mean be able to put their message across in a hostile, occupied city. They lacked discipline and foolishly thought the cops would make themselves look like the bad guys.

    We’re beyond legal and illegal, here. If you want to “take it to the streets” and win, you have to trick your opponents into making mistakes. You can’t make a bunch of mistakes then blame the results on the meanies opposing you. That is, if you’re on the right. The left doesn’t have to worry as much, because of their institutional advantages. Which is unfair, but boo-hoo, go cry to mommy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. It is possible there was a black Roman or two around in classical Britain. They certainly imported black slaves, some of whom wound up freed and could have gotten a political or military career going, not to mention his sons.

    But it would likely have been one or two. Kind of the way there were probably a few Muslims in America at the time of the Founding. Not enough to make any difference.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "Kind of the way there were probably a few Muslims in America at the time of the Founding"

    But there simply weren't any. Unless one is stretching to count black slaves newly arrived in 18th century from having been first enslaved by Arabs and some slave traders which then in turn quickly converted to Christianity before the first generation. That's at least possible, but that's probably not what you mean.

    A few Muslims in the US would have bred into a fairly noticeable enclave by the early 1800's. In other words, some of the Founding Fathers or intellectuals who kept abreast of trends would certainly have written about it. The fact is, the history books are silent, which means they never were here to begin with. Sorry if that sounds un-PC.

    But as to there being Islamic colonists? They simply didn't exist. As a whole they didn't exist to any degree before ca.1930's or so. And you can tell, because Dearborn claims to have the US's oldest mosque, which was built around 1939. Remember, the fist Federal laws regarding immigration limited it to white people, and in those days, Arabs and Mid.Eastern folks simply wouldn't be counted as whites. And also "From the shores of Tripoli", when the US battled Barbary Pirates (who were Muslim) it simply doesn't stand to reason that any one from that region ever came here, much less were invited to settle here.

    But this does tend to suggest how far the "everyone knows that non-whites have always existed in Europe, the US, etc." Well, no that's simply inaccurate to state. Hard to believe, but the US was settled by white folks with African slaves imported.

    Is it that the PC propaganda keeps at it long enough until finally "Yeah, ok, ok already! You're right, blacks and Islamics probably always were in America and Europe. Everyone knows that."


    "It is possible there was a black Roman or two around in classical Britain."

    No. And the DNA or scientific evidence bears this out. They weren't living in Britain thousands of yrs ago. Also, again: If there were a couple of slaves in Britain, then they would've bred and had a noticable community that others would've written about. Simply isn't the case.

    This has to be a late Millennial, who's gone thru the PC indoctrinated school system. Just has to be.


    "They certainly imported black slaves,"

    Who they? Not Britain. Unless you're referring to the Romans. But they never explored the interior of Africa and mainly stuck to the coastal regions (North of Sahara).


    "some of whom wound up freed and could have gotten a political or military career going, not to mention his sons."

    Speculation without written evidence to back it up doesn't make for accurate history. Much like those tearing down the statues "Everyone knows that all the Confederates were racist slaveowners and so their monuments should be torn down." Same thing. Again, we would tend to see this in the DNA in Western Europe and also from the contemporary written accounts of different peoples at the time of the Empire.

    This is one of the problems for the 21st century. If one teaches that ancient Rome was a diverse Empire with tons of diversity, in the US it's automatically assumed that that means black folks lived in all corners of Western Europe 2000 yrs ago. Best to read the older historical sources that didn't have the PC interpretations or spin on Classical Europe.

    This has got to be a millennial or maybe a joke. If its sincere our educational system is really going down the toilet in a hurry.


    "They certainly imported black slaves, some of whom wound up freed and could have gotten a political or military career going, not to mention his sons."

    Speculation without direct DNA or written evidence isn't accurate history.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Technite78
    Was this at "XXXX" on Greenwich and Christopher streets?

    It was.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @Logan
    It is possible there was a black Roman or two around in classical Britain. They certainly imported black slaves, some of whom wound up freed and could have gotten a political or military career going, not to mention his sons.

    But it would likely have been one or two. Kind of the way there were probably a few Muslims in America at the time of the Founding. Not enough to make any difference.

    “Kind of the way there were probably a few Muslims in America at the time of the Founding”

    But there simply weren’t any. Unless one is stretching to count black slaves newly arrived in 18th century from having been first enslaved by Arabs and some slave traders which then in turn quickly converted to Christianity before the first generation. That’s at least possible, but that’s probably not what you mean.

    A few Muslims in the US would have bred into a fairly noticeable enclave by the early 1800′s. In other words, some of the Founding Fathers or intellectuals who kept abreast of trends would certainly have written about it. The fact is, the history books are silent, which means they never were here to begin with. Sorry if that sounds un-PC.

    But as to there being Islamic colonists? They simply didn’t exist. As a whole they didn’t exist to any degree before ca.1930′s or so. And you can tell, because Dearborn claims to have the US’s oldest mosque, which was built around 1939. Remember, the fist Federal laws regarding immigration limited it to white people, and in those days, Arabs and Mid.Eastern folks simply wouldn’t be counted as whites. And also “From the shores of Tripoli”, when the US battled Barbary Pirates (who were Muslim) it simply doesn’t stand to reason that any one from that region ever came here, much less were invited to settle here.

    But this does tend to suggest how far the “everyone knows that non-whites have always existed in Europe, the US, etc.” Well, no that’s simply inaccurate to state. Hard to believe, but the US was settled by white folks with African slaves imported.

    Is it that the PC propaganda keeps at it long enough until finally “Yeah, ok, ok already! You’re right, blacks and Islamics probably always were in America and Europe. Everyone knows that.”

    “It is possible there was a black Roman or two around in classical Britain.”

    No. And the DNA or scientific evidence bears this out. They weren’t living in Britain thousands of yrs ago. Also, again: If there were a couple of slaves in Britain, then they would’ve bred and had a noticable community that others would’ve written about. Simply isn’t the case.

    This has to be a late Millennial, who’s gone thru the PC indoctrinated school system. Just has to be.

    “They certainly imported black slaves,”

    Who they? Not Britain. Unless you’re referring to the Romans. But they never explored the interior of Africa and mainly stuck to the coastal regions (North of Sahara).

    “some of whom wound up freed and could have gotten a political or military career going, not to mention his sons.”

    Speculation without written evidence to back it up doesn’t make for accurate history. Much like those tearing down the statues “Everyone knows that all the Confederates were racist slaveowners and so their monuments should be torn down.” Same thing. Again, we would tend to see this in the DNA in Western Europe and also from the contemporary written accounts of different peoples at the time of the Empire.

    This is one of the problems for the 21st century. If one teaches that ancient Rome was a diverse Empire with tons of diversity, in the US it’s automatically assumed that that means black folks lived in all corners of Western Europe 2000 yrs ago. Best to read the older historical sources that didn’t have the PC interpretations or spin on Classical Europe.

    This has got to be a millennial or maybe a joke. If its sincere our educational system is really going down the toilet in a hurry.

    “They certainly imported black slaves, some of whom wound up freed and could have gotten a political or military career going, not to mention his sons.”

    Speculation without direct DNA or written evidence isn’t accurate history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    There probably have always been random flotsam in port cities, whether a few sub-Saharan blacks in Roman London or a few Muslims or ex-Muslims in New York.

    But, yeah, I've never heard of A Muslim Community in 18th Century America. I wouldn't rule it out as completely impossible that there were, say, three Muslim families on one block down by the docks in Providence or wherever. But I've never heard of it.

    In the 18th Century, it was much more common for Christians to be enslaved by non-black Muslims than for non-black Muslims to move into the Christian world, so the flow of people was overwhelmingly the opposite direction. But there could have been a few. For example, there is a century old horse race in Kentucky named after a wealthy American family with a Turkish name.

    The very murky back story is that the founder of the family was an Ottoman Muslim soldier who was taken prisoner fighting the Austrians, converted to Christianity, and wound up in America. That doesn't sound impossible. But that could be totally made up as well.

    To give you an example of the randomness of history, Mozart's best librettist, Da Ponte, a Jew who became a Venetian Catholic priest, friend of Casanova, and pimp, wound up spending from about 1800 to his death around 1830 in America. He was a delightful fellow but generally had to flee the law after a few years in any one place. He wound up as Professor of Italian Literature at Columbia, helped introduce opera to New York City, and went back to the Catholic Church on his deathbed in a particularly operatic scene that enthralled the newspaper-reading public of Gotham.

    , @Logan
    Steve already covered it well, as usual.

    Your position requires that - not one - Muslim made it to colonial America and - not one - sub-Saharan African made it to Britain in Roman times.

    To look at your DNA argument. Let's assume one or ten Africans in Roman Britain. They have children. Will their DNA show up today? Not really. Too few of them to make a difference. In fact, there's not a whole lot of evidence in British DNA of Roman admixture, though I've not yet found an actual percentage.

    There were, BTW, crypto-Muslims in Spanish and Portuguese colonies, just as there were crypto-Jews. Some of the latter certainly wound up here. It's not impossible some of the former did also.

    Once again, I'm not saying any of these things happened. Only that they could have happened. Whereas you insist they did not.

    Which of these opinions is better supported by the absent evidence?
    , @Logan
    Ran across an interesting article about possible archeological evidence for Africans in Britain.

    http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/07/african-community-in-roman-britain.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @NickG

    But it is not outside the realm of speculation that a “Nubian,” (by which I actually mean someone who is Ethiopean, with that whole Horn of Africa bodytype thing) led a Roman Military detachment and may well have intermarried with a Roman family.
     
    All well and good, and entirely besides the point.

    The BBC punted the picture with the Black legionnaire labeled as 'typical'. 'Not outside the realm of speculation' is not quite synonymous with 'typical'.

    The Beeb had been called on retconnning history to punt their narrative.

    This was also critiqued, Nassim Nicholas Taleb joined the fray. Mary Beard then engaged in ad hominem and quite bizarrely for a supposed historian, misrepresented what had happened and Taleb called her on that too.

    Here’s another point that Beard and others have totally ignored. IF there actually were black Romans that rose up the hierarchy, then it would be fairly easy to prove: Look at the surviving statues of famous historical military commanders. Are there any blacks represented? If not, that’s not evidence for Beard’s side. The fact that she can’t point to a statue of an historical Roman and say, “See? QED, my side wins”. Instead she has to make a big to do about a 21st century cartoon representation. When Mary Beard was still studying for her doctorate, this type of nonsense would’ve been laughed out of the classroom.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "Kind of the way there were probably a few Muslims in America at the time of the Founding"

    But there simply weren't any. Unless one is stretching to count black slaves newly arrived in 18th century from having been first enslaved by Arabs and some slave traders which then in turn quickly converted to Christianity before the first generation. That's at least possible, but that's probably not what you mean.

    A few Muslims in the US would have bred into a fairly noticeable enclave by the early 1800's. In other words, some of the Founding Fathers or intellectuals who kept abreast of trends would certainly have written about it. The fact is, the history books are silent, which means they never were here to begin with. Sorry if that sounds un-PC.

    But as to there being Islamic colonists? They simply didn't exist. As a whole they didn't exist to any degree before ca.1930's or so. And you can tell, because Dearborn claims to have the US's oldest mosque, which was built around 1939. Remember, the fist Federal laws regarding immigration limited it to white people, and in those days, Arabs and Mid.Eastern folks simply wouldn't be counted as whites. And also "From the shores of Tripoli", when the US battled Barbary Pirates (who were Muslim) it simply doesn't stand to reason that any one from that region ever came here, much less were invited to settle here.

    But this does tend to suggest how far the "everyone knows that non-whites have always existed in Europe, the US, etc." Well, no that's simply inaccurate to state. Hard to believe, but the US was settled by white folks with African slaves imported.

    Is it that the PC propaganda keeps at it long enough until finally "Yeah, ok, ok already! You're right, blacks and Islamics probably always were in America and Europe. Everyone knows that."


    "It is possible there was a black Roman or two around in classical Britain."

    No. And the DNA or scientific evidence bears this out. They weren't living in Britain thousands of yrs ago. Also, again: If there were a couple of slaves in Britain, then they would've bred and had a noticable community that others would've written about. Simply isn't the case.

    This has to be a late Millennial, who's gone thru the PC indoctrinated school system. Just has to be.


    "They certainly imported black slaves,"

    Who they? Not Britain. Unless you're referring to the Romans. But they never explored the interior of Africa and mainly stuck to the coastal regions (North of Sahara).


    "some of whom wound up freed and could have gotten a political or military career going, not to mention his sons."

    Speculation without written evidence to back it up doesn't make for accurate history. Much like those tearing down the statues "Everyone knows that all the Confederates were racist slaveowners and so their monuments should be torn down." Same thing. Again, we would tend to see this in the DNA in Western Europe and also from the contemporary written accounts of different peoples at the time of the Empire.

    This is one of the problems for the 21st century. If one teaches that ancient Rome was a diverse Empire with tons of diversity, in the US it's automatically assumed that that means black folks lived in all corners of Western Europe 2000 yrs ago. Best to read the older historical sources that didn't have the PC interpretations or spin on Classical Europe.

    This has got to be a millennial or maybe a joke. If its sincere our educational system is really going down the toilet in a hurry.


    "They certainly imported black slaves, some of whom wound up freed and could have gotten a political or military career going, not to mention his sons."

    Speculation without direct DNA or written evidence isn't accurate history.

    There probably have always been random flotsam in port cities, whether a few sub-Saharan blacks in Roman London or a few Muslims or ex-Muslims in New York.

    But, yeah, I’ve never heard of A Muslim Community in 18th Century America. I wouldn’t rule it out as completely impossible that there were, say, three Muslim families on one block down by the docks in Providence or wherever. But I’ve never heard of it.

    In the 18th Century, it was much more common for Christians to be enslaved by non-black Muslims than for non-black Muslims to move into the Christian world, so the flow of people was overwhelmingly the opposite direction. But there could have been a few. For example, there is a century old horse race in Kentucky named after a wealthy American family with a Turkish name.

    The very murky back story is that the founder of the family was an Ottoman Muslim soldier who was taken prisoner fighting the Austrians, converted to Christianity, and wound up in America. That doesn’t sound impossible. But that could be totally made up as well.

    To give you an example of the randomness of history, Mozart’s best librettist, Da Ponte, a Jew who became a Venetian Catholic priest, friend of Casanova, and pimp, wound up spending from about 1800 to his death around 1830 in America. He was a delightful fellow but generally had to flee the law after a few years in any one place. He wound up as Professor of Italian Literature at Columbia, helped introduce opera to New York City, and went back to the Catholic Church on his deathbed in a particularly operatic scene that enthralled the newspaper-reading public of Gotham.

    Read More
    • Agree: Logan
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "But, yeah, I’ve never heard of A Muslim Community in 18th Century America. I wouldn’t rule it out as completely impossible that there were, say, three Muslim families on one block down by the docks in Providence or wherever. But I’ve never heard of it."

    And that's the point. Why should after two centuries of public school and official history should we suddenly accept that there were without any direct written proof.

    Someone would have noticed it back in the day. The laws were explicit on keeping immigration white. Someone could've stood up and said "Yeah, but lets make an exception for the Turks. They're good people, etc etc". We don't have that in the historical record anywhere. They simply weren't here until the mid. 20th century. Also, until the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1924, the Middle East region and Islamic world in particular weren't able to just freely leave and immigrate willy nilly anywhere they pleased. If they were here, we'd have some written evidence about it somewhere. The fact that we don't does tend to show that they weren't here. And also "from the shores of Tripoli". Contrary to Jeb! wanting to invite those nations we invaded to live here, historically that simply wasn't done. Thomas Jefferson didn't suddenly decide on inviting five or ten Turks into VA or MA just cause. Didn't happen.

    "There probably have always been random flotsam in port cities, whether a few sub-Saharan blacks in Roman London or a few Muslims or ex-Muslims in New York."

    We would've heard about it way before now. That's speculation and only feeds into the whole black athena thing down the road. Today it might be "Yeah, a few could've been here" and then tomorrow it's "Well everyone knows that Alexander Hamilton was a mulatto, after all Carribbeans were 99% black, etc."

    I'm sorry, but the DNA in Britian during the Roman Era would bear this out. Some trace would be there and there isn't. Just turn it around. How it would it be received if someone stated "You know, back 2,000yrs ago there were whites living in modern South Africa." Well, that'd be rightfully dismissed because its well known that Europeans didn't reach the bottom of Africa for another 1,500 yrs or so. Same thing. There's something called the Sahara which wasn't a weeks walk in the park to cross with just camels. If there were blacks in Britain we would've heard about it long before now. Now that we have the whole Black Athena theology and people believe this sort of thing it has to be addressed.


    I don't get it. How is telling the truth about history now considered to be pearl clutching?

    The story regarding Mozart is not the same thing, as that was a white person, a Veinnan so it makes sense. And we have written account of it, which we don't have regarding this entire "Muslims have always lived here or they could have" type of thing.

    Also, remember that Greece was conquered by the Turks ca.1450-1900, and most likely those that immigrated were ethnically Greek.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "Kind of the way there were probably a few Muslims in America at the time of the Founding"

    But there simply weren't any. Unless one is stretching to count black slaves newly arrived in 18th century from having been first enslaved by Arabs and some slave traders which then in turn quickly converted to Christianity before the first generation. That's at least possible, but that's probably not what you mean.

    A few Muslims in the US would have bred into a fairly noticeable enclave by the early 1800's. In other words, some of the Founding Fathers or intellectuals who kept abreast of trends would certainly have written about it. The fact is, the history books are silent, which means they never were here to begin with. Sorry if that sounds un-PC.

    But as to there being Islamic colonists? They simply didn't exist. As a whole they didn't exist to any degree before ca.1930's or so. And you can tell, because Dearborn claims to have the US's oldest mosque, which was built around 1939. Remember, the fist Federal laws regarding immigration limited it to white people, and in those days, Arabs and Mid.Eastern folks simply wouldn't be counted as whites. And also "From the shores of Tripoli", when the US battled Barbary Pirates (who were Muslim) it simply doesn't stand to reason that any one from that region ever came here, much less were invited to settle here.

    But this does tend to suggest how far the "everyone knows that non-whites have always existed in Europe, the US, etc." Well, no that's simply inaccurate to state. Hard to believe, but the US was settled by white folks with African slaves imported.

    Is it that the PC propaganda keeps at it long enough until finally "Yeah, ok, ok already! You're right, blacks and Islamics probably always were in America and Europe. Everyone knows that."


    "It is possible there was a black Roman or two around in classical Britain."

    No. And the DNA or scientific evidence bears this out. They weren't living in Britain thousands of yrs ago. Also, again: If there were a couple of slaves in Britain, then they would've bred and had a noticable community that others would've written about. Simply isn't the case.

    This has to be a late Millennial, who's gone thru the PC indoctrinated school system. Just has to be.


    "They certainly imported black slaves,"

    Who they? Not Britain. Unless you're referring to the Romans. But they never explored the interior of Africa and mainly stuck to the coastal regions (North of Sahara).


    "some of whom wound up freed and could have gotten a political or military career going, not to mention his sons."

    Speculation without written evidence to back it up doesn't make for accurate history. Much like those tearing down the statues "Everyone knows that all the Confederates were racist slaveowners and so their monuments should be torn down." Same thing. Again, we would tend to see this in the DNA in Western Europe and also from the contemporary written accounts of different peoples at the time of the Empire.

    This is one of the problems for the 21st century. If one teaches that ancient Rome was a diverse Empire with tons of diversity, in the US it's automatically assumed that that means black folks lived in all corners of Western Europe 2000 yrs ago. Best to read the older historical sources that didn't have the PC interpretations or spin on Classical Europe.

    This has got to be a millennial or maybe a joke. If its sincere our educational system is really going down the toilet in a hurry.


    "They certainly imported black slaves, some of whom wound up freed and could have gotten a political or military career going, not to mention his sons."

    Speculation without direct DNA or written evidence isn't accurate history.

    Steve already covered it well, as usual.

    Your position requires that – not one – Muslim made it to colonial America and – not one – sub-Saharan African made it to Britain in Roman times.

    To look at your DNA argument. Let’s assume one or ten Africans in Roman Britain. They have children. Will their DNA show up today? Not really. Too few of them to make a difference. In fact, there’s not a whole lot of evidence in British DNA of Roman admixture, though I’ve not yet found an actual percentage.

    There were, BTW, crypto-Muslims in Spanish and Portuguese colonies, just as there were crypto-Jews. Some of the latter certainly wound up here. It’s not impossible some of the former did also.

    Once again, I’m not saying any of these things happened. Only that they could have happened. Whereas you insist they did not.

    Which of these opinions is better supported by the absent evidence?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    On the other hand, were there self-propagating Muslim communities in 18th Century America? I don't doubt that a few Muslim sailors washed up in 18th Century America, but did they establish reproducing Muslim communities?

    For example, the Ben Ali Haggin family that got rich in the California gold rush and then went into Kentucky horse racing was founded by a, according to his unverifiable story, an Ottoman Janissary convert to Christianity who came to America as an individual and married a Baptist lady.

    I bring up Da Ponte in part because there was, as far as I can tell, no community in America of which Da Ponte was representative. The author of the libretto of Don Giovanni, modeled upon Da Ponte's friend Casanova, was sui generis in the early United States.

    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "Only that they could have happened. Whereas you insist they did not."

    Anything "could have" happened. I'm going with established history which has always stated that they did not happen until a verifiable time in history.

    "In fact, there’s not a whole lot of evidence in British DNA of Roman admixture, though I’ve not yet found an actual percentage."

    No, you didn't address all that I said. I also made mention that it would be in the written accounts of non-whites living in Roman Britian. We know the Romans were in Britain by the numerous written accounts, as well as things that they built there (e.g. Hadrians Wall, paved roads, bridges, etc). We know by the written historical accounts that the Romans were there. We have no evidence whatsoever that non-whites were there during that time period.

    For something like this to be taught as official history, its up to you to demonstrate conclusively that they were in fact in Britain. And we don't have that for fact that they ever did.


    "Your position requires that – not one – Muslim made it to colonial America and – not one – sub-Saharan African made it to Britain in Roman times."

    Uh, yeah, this is common sense. It would've been written about somewhere that total strangers were living in a place like Colonial US. You're going with the idea that since it "could have" happened, then it did. I'm going with the established official verdict of history for several centuries. When someone wants to make an absurd claim to the contrary based on little to very dubious evidence that doesn't rise above the level of "Well, they could have been there!" Then its up to your side to show the evidence and prove it. If you can't then the official version of history stands until its been disproven.

    And I've heard nothing in your speculation to conclusively demonstrate that black Romans were in Britian. We would've heard about it in the official chronicles of the time and its not there.

    I do think the problem for millennials is that they hear the buzzword 'Diversity' and automatically assume, that all of Europe had non-whites in every single era of history.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Steve Sailer
    There probably have always been random flotsam in port cities, whether a few sub-Saharan blacks in Roman London or a few Muslims or ex-Muslims in New York.

    But, yeah, I've never heard of A Muslim Community in 18th Century America. I wouldn't rule it out as completely impossible that there were, say, three Muslim families on one block down by the docks in Providence or wherever. But I've never heard of it.

    In the 18th Century, it was much more common for Christians to be enslaved by non-black Muslims than for non-black Muslims to move into the Christian world, so the flow of people was overwhelmingly the opposite direction. But there could have been a few. For example, there is a century old horse race in Kentucky named after a wealthy American family with a Turkish name.

    The very murky back story is that the founder of the family was an Ottoman Muslim soldier who was taken prisoner fighting the Austrians, converted to Christianity, and wound up in America. That doesn't sound impossible. But that could be totally made up as well.

    To give you an example of the randomness of history, Mozart's best librettist, Da Ponte, a Jew who became a Venetian Catholic priest, friend of Casanova, and pimp, wound up spending from about 1800 to his death around 1830 in America. He was a delightful fellow but generally had to flee the law after a few years in any one place. He wound up as Professor of Italian Literature at Columbia, helped introduce opera to New York City, and went back to the Catholic Church on his deathbed in a particularly operatic scene that enthralled the newspaper-reading public of Gotham.

    “But, yeah, I’ve never heard of A Muslim Community in 18th Century America. I wouldn’t rule it out as completely impossible that there were, say, three Muslim families on one block down by the docks in Providence or wherever. But I’ve never heard of it.”

    And that’s the point. Why should after two centuries of public school and official history should we suddenly accept that there were without any direct written proof.

    Someone would have noticed it back in the day. The laws were explicit on keeping immigration white. Someone could’ve stood up and said “Yeah, but lets make an exception for the Turks. They’re good people, etc etc”. We don’t have that in the historical record anywhere. They simply weren’t here until the mid. 20th century. Also, until the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1924, the Middle East region and Islamic world in particular weren’t able to just freely leave and immigrate willy nilly anywhere they pleased. If they were here, we’d have some written evidence about it somewhere. The fact that we don’t does tend to show that they weren’t here. And also “from the shores of Tripoli”. Contrary to Jeb! wanting to invite those nations we invaded to live here, historically that simply wasn’t done. Thomas Jefferson didn’t suddenly decide on inviting five or ten Turks into VA or MA just cause. Didn’t happen.

    “There probably have always been random flotsam in port cities, whether a few sub-Saharan blacks in Roman London or a few Muslims or ex-Muslims in New York.”

    We would’ve heard about it way before now. That’s speculation and only feeds into the whole black athena thing down the road. Today it might be “Yeah, a few could’ve been here” and then tomorrow it’s “Well everyone knows that Alexander Hamilton was a mulatto, after all Carribbeans were 99% black, etc.”

    I’m sorry, but the DNA in Britian during the Roman Era would bear this out. Some trace would be there and there isn’t. Just turn it around. How it would it be received if someone stated “You know, back 2,000yrs ago there were whites living in modern South Africa.” Well, that’d be rightfully dismissed because its well known that Europeans didn’t reach the bottom of Africa for another 1,500 yrs or so. Same thing. There’s something called the Sahara which wasn’t a weeks walk in the park to cross with just camels. If there were blacks in Britain we would’ve heard about it long before now. Now that we have the whole Black Athena theology and people believe this sort of thing it has to be addressed.

    I don’t get it. How is telling the truth about history now considered to be pearl clutching?

    The story regarding Mozart is not the same thing, as that was a white person, a Veinnan so it makes sense. And we have written account of it, which we don’t have regarding this entire “Muslims have always lived here or they could have” type of thing.

    Also, remember that Greece was conquered by the Turks ca.1450-1900, and most likely those that immigrated were ethnically Greek.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "Kind of the way there were probably a few Muslims in America at the time of the Founding"

    But there simply weren't any. Unless one is stretching to count black slaves newly arrived in 18th century from having been first enslaved by Arabs and some slave traders which then in turn quickly converted to Christianity before the first generation. That's at least possible, but that's probably not what you mean.

    A few Muslims in the US would have bred into a fairly noticeable enclave by the early 1800's. In other words, some of the Founding Fathers or intellectuals who kept abreast of trends would certainly have written about it. The fact is, the history books are silent, which means they never were here to begin with. Sorry if that sounds un-PC.

    But as to there being Islamic colonists? They simply didn't exist. As a whole they didn't exist to any degree before ca.1930's or so. And you can tell, because Dearborn claims to have the US's oldest mosque, which was built around 1939. Remember, the fist Federal laws regarding immigration limited it to white people, and in those days, Arabs and Mid.Eastern folks simply wouldn't be counted as whites. And also "From the shores of Tripoli", when the US battled Barbary Pirates (who were Muslim) it simply doesn't stand to reason that any one from that region ever came here, much less were invited to settle here.

    But this does tend to suggest how far the "everyone knows that non-whites have always existed in Europe, the US, etc." Well, no that's simply inaccurate to state. Hard to believe, but the US was settled by white folks with African slaves imported.

    Is it that the PC propaganda keeps at it long enough until finally "Yeah, ok, ok already! You're right, blacks and Islamics probably always were in America and Europe. Everyone knows that."


    "It is possible there was a black Roman or two around in classical Britain."

    No. And the DNA or scientific evidence bears this out. They weren't living in Britain thousands of yrs ago. Also, again: If there were a couple of slaves in Britain, then they would've bred and had a noticable community that others would've written about. Simply isn't the case.

    This has to be a late Millennial, who's gone thru the PC indoctrinated school system. Just has to be.


    "They certainly imported black slaves,"

    Who they? Not Britain. Unless you're referring to the Romans. But they never explored the interior of Africa and mainly stuck to the coastal regions (North of Sahara).


    "some of whom wound up freed and could have gotten a political or military career going, not to mention his sons."

    Speculation without written evidence to back it up doesn't make for accurate history. Much like those tearing down the statues "Everyone knows that all the Confederates were racist slaveowners and so their monuments should be torn down." Same thing. Again, we would tend to see this in the DNA in Western Europe and also from the contemporary written accounts of different peoples at the time of the Empire.

    This is one of the problems for the 21st century. If one teaches that ancient Rome was a diverse Empire with tons of diversity, in the US it's automatically assumed that that means black folks lived in all corners of Western Europe 2000 yrs ago. Best to read the older historical sources that didn't have the PC interpretations or spin on Classical Europe.

    This has got to be a millennial or maybe a joke. If its sincere our educational system is really going down the toilet in a hurry.


    "They certainly imported black slaves, some of whom wound up freed and could have gotten a political or military career going, not to mention his sons."

    Speculation without direct DNA or written evidence isn't accurate history.

    Ran across an interesting article about possible archeological evidence for Africans in Britain.

    http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/07/african-community-in-roman-britain.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Believe that one which isn't peer reviewed, and we'll tell you another, especially on the internet, where you can believe everything you read about Africa's impact on world history, to give an example.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @syonredux

    Not sure how likely something like that was, but impossible?
     
    But that's the whole point. Beard presents this Black Roman Briton as typical. In reality, he would have been an extreme outlier.

    It does seem to be controversial, but in the European Ancient World, it was entirely possible to have been born and lived one’s entire life without having ever glimpsed let alone talked to a non-white. That fact may be the one that proves to be most intolerable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @Logan
    Steve already covered it well, as usual.

    Your position requires that - not one - Muslim made it to colonial America and - not one - sub-Saharan African made it to Britain in Roman times.

    To look at your DNA argument. Let's assume one or ten Africans in Roman Britain. They have children. Will their DNA show up today? Not really. Too few of them to make a difference. In fact, there's not a whole lot of evidence in British DNA of Roman admixture, though I've not yet found an actual percentage.

    There were, BTW, crypto-Muslims in Spanish and Portuguese colonies, just as there were crypto-Jews. Some of the latter certainly wound up here. It's not impossible some of the former did also.

    Once again, I'm not saying any of these things happened. Only that they could have happened. Whereas you insist they did not.

    Which of these opinions is better supported by the absent evidence?

    On the other hand, were there self-propagating Muslim communities in 18th Century America? I don’t doubt that a few Muslim sailors washed up in 18th Century America, but did they establish reproducing Muslim communities?

    For example, the Ben Ali Haggin family that got rich in the California gold rush and then went into Kentucky horse racing was founded by a, according to his unverifiable story, an Ottoman Janissary convert to Christianity who came to America as an individual and married a Baptist lady.

    I bring up Da Ponte in part because there was, as far as I can tell, no community in America of which Da Ponte was representative. The author of the libretto of Don Giovanni, modeled upon Da Ponte’s friend Casanova, was sui generis in the early United States.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Unverifiable was the word that stands out. Much like the whole Jefferson-Hemings thing. And as you've said, if an entire community existed, there would be a written account of it. The US tended to notice someone who was one/eighth white or Octomoroon, and they had the one drop rule. If they were that conscious of who and who was not counted as "white", it stands to reason that they'd definitely noticed a non-Christian faith member such as Islam living in Appalachia. No records exist anywhere of any setting foot on the shores, so why give credence to it?

    Da Ponte living in the US is akin to Alexis DeToqueville who lived in the US for several yrs while writing his massive tome. Same thing. And his Democracy in America makes observations of all kinds of peoples, except of course Muslims. Both Da Ponte and DeToqueville were members of the intellectual classes or top 1% who did have some freedom to move around more than the average person.

    , @Logan
    I know of no evidence of a Muslim community in colonial or early America. My comment was simply that given the polyglot nature of a commercial society, it's not at all unlikely a few got in.

    Recently went through the roster of the crew of a Royal Navy frigate from around 1800. There were crewmen from all over the place. Chinese, Africans, Malays (who were probably Muslim), Tamils, Arabs (also probably Muslims), Polynesians, etc. Not many of each, to be sure. But RN was desperate for men and got them wherever they could.

    The merchant shipping crews were also very diverse. Hence Queequeeg in Moby Dick.
    , @Sertorius
    Steve/Yojimbo--

    It was the Fake News folks people at CNN I believe who recently floated the assertion that 10-30% of African slaves in the US were Muslim--the idea being that West Africa, especially the Gambia region which did in fact send many slaves to these shores, is currently majority Muslim. Unfortunately for their theory, Islam didn't consolidate its hold over the former animist region until very late in the 18th Century/early 19th Century. As a result, there was a window of at most a decade where slave ships from there might have legally berthed at American ports. That said, the WPA slave narrative project does pick up a few memories of individual Muslim slaves (as does local folklore from the St. Augustine region.) Of course, the very fact that these people were indeed memorable is a good argument for their being outliers.

    FWIW, the most famous Muslim slave in the American colonies has to be Job ben Solomon--a Fula slave trader from the Gambia region who was shanghai'd by a couple of n'er do wells and introduced himself to the Middle Passage. He wound up in Maryland, where his plight captured the imagination of both American and English philanthropists--the Royal African Company soon had him back in London, where he became minor celebrity, before transshipping him back home to mete his revenge upon his erstwhile captors. Douglas Grant's "Fortunate Slave" is a great telling of the tale, as well as an accessible introduction to the mid-18th C slave trade.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @Sunbeam
    Look, I've put this up here before (the Unz site and Sailer in particular).

    The Romans had Nubians serving in their military. Including some that made it to officer.

    Now this site gets a pretty educated lot. If you can blow holes in my argument, fine.

    But it is not outside the realm of speculation that a "Nubian," (by which I actually mean someone who is Ethiopean, with that whole Horn of Africa bodytype thing) led a Roman Military detachment and may well have intermarried with a Roman family.

    Feel free to disprove me with actual facts. But this one doesn't seem besides the pale (as it were).

    And actually there was a fiction series not long ago, that held Arthur to be a leader of Roman era central european horse archers the Romans left behind when they abandoned Britain.

    Not sure how likely something like that was, but impossible? The Empire had a lot of different swinging dicks running around at the end. If a couple thousand wound up being left in Britain after Rome left, well maybe the 23andme folks can point it out.

    That is the point. IF they lived in Britain then show us in the DNA. If you can’t then admit defeat. Otherwise it sounds like you’re just pulling it out of your hat, which we can get from Mary Beard.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @Steve Sailer
    On the other hand, were there self-propagating Muslim communities in 18th Century America? I don't doubt that a few Muslim sailors washed up in 18th Century America, but did they establish reproducing Muslim communities?

    For example, the Ben Ali Haggin family that got rich in the California gold rush and then went into Kentucky horse racing was founded by a, according to his unverifiable story, an Ottoman Janissary convert to Christianity who came to America as an individual and married a Baptist lady.

    I bring up Da Ponte in part because there was, as far as I can tell, no community in America of which Da Ponte was representative. The author of the libretto of Don Giovanni, modeled upon Da Ponte's friend Casanova, was sui generis in the early United States.

    Unverifiable was the word that stands out. Much like the whole Jefferson-Hemings thing. And as you’ve said, if an entire community existed, there would be a written account of it. The US tended to notice someone who was one/eighth white or Octomoroon, and they had the one drop rule. If they were that conscious of who and who was not counted as “white”, it stands to reason that they’d definitely noticed a non-Christian faith member such as Islam living in Appalachia. No records exist anywhere of any setting foot on the shores, so why give credence to it?

    Da Ponte living in the US is akin to Alexis DeToqueville who lived in the US for several yrs while writing his massive tome. Same thing. And his Democracy in America makes observations of all kinds of peoples, except of course Muslims. Both Da Ponte and DeToqueville were members of the intellectual classes or top 1% who did have some freedom to move around more than the average person.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Steve Sailer
    On the other hand, were there self-propagating Muslim communities in 18th Century America? I don't doubt that a few Muslim sailors washed up in 18th Century America, but did they establish reproducing Muslim communities?

    For example, the Ben Ali Haggin family that got rich in the California gold rush and then went into Kentucky horse racing was founded by a, according to his unverifiable story, an Ottoman Janissary convert to Christianity who came to America as an individual and married a Baptist lady.

    I bring up Da Ponte in part because there was, as far as I can tell, no community in America of which Da Ponte was representative. The author of the libretto of Don Giovanni, modeled upon Da Ponte's friend Casanova, was sui generis in the early United States.

    I know of no evidence of a Muslim community in colonial or early America. My comment was simply that given the polyglot nature of a commercial society, it’s not at all unlikely a few got in.

    Recently went through the roster of the crew of a Royal Navy frigate from around 1800. There were crewmen from all over the place. Chinese, Africans, Malays (who were probably Muslim), Tamils, Arabs (also probably Muslims), Polynesians, etc. Not many of each, to be sure. But RN was desperate for men and got them wherever they could.

    The merchant shipping crews were also very diverse. Hence Queequeeg in Moby Dick.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights is said to look like a "lascar," which meant some kind of mixed race sailor from, roughly, the Indian Ocean.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Exactly, and that makes the point that they weren't here during that time period. Anything is possible, but not probable. In law, one can't make a claim based on possibilities, it must be probable. I think its the example that people think "diversity" always existed everywhere at everytime.

    Can't wait to hear that its possible that China in the second century also had a few African sailors. After all, its possible. And if the proof doesn't line up to support the supposition, well that's even more reason to believe its possible that it could've happened.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @Logan
    Steve already covered it well, as usual.

    Your position requires that - not one - Muslim made it to colonial America and - not one - sub-Saharan African made it to Britain in Roman times.

    To look at your DNA argument. Let's assume one or ten Africans in Roman Britain. They have children. Will their DNA show up today? Not really. Too few of them to make a difference. In fact, there's not a whole lot of evidence in British DNA of Roman admixture, though I've not yet found an actual percentage.

    There were, BTW, crypto-Muslims in Spanish and Portuguese colonies, just as there were crypto-Jews. Some of the latter certainly wound up here. It's not impossible some of the former did also.

    Once again, I'm not saying any of these things happened. Only that they could have happened. Whereas you insist they did not.

    Which of these opinions is better supported by the absent evidence?

    “Only that they could have happened. Whereas you insist they did not.”

    Anything “could have” happened. I’m going with established history which has always stated that they did not happen until a verifiable time in history.

    “In fact, there’s not a whole lot of evidence in British DNA of Roman admixture, though I’ve not yet found an actual percentage.”

    No, you didn’t address all that I said. I also made mention that it would be in the written accounts of non-whites living in Roman Britian. We know the Romans were in Britain by the numerous written accounts, as well as things that they built there (e.g. Hadrians Wall, paved roads, bridges, etc). We know by the written historical accounts that the Romans were there. We have no evidence whatsoever that non-whites were there during that time period.

    For something like this to be taught as official history, its up to you to demonstrate conclusively that they were in fact in Britain. And we don’t have that for fact that they ever did.

    “Your position requires that – not one – Muslim made it to colonial America and – not one – sub-Saharan African made it to Britain in Roman times.”

    Uh, yeah, this is common sense. It would’ve been written about somewhere that total strangers were living in a place like Colonial US. You’re going with the idea that since it “could have” happened, then it did. I’m going with the established official verdict of history for several centuries. When someone wants to make an absurd claim to the contrary based on little to very dubious evidence that doesn’t rise above the level of “Well, they could have been there!” Then its up to your side to show the evidence and prove it. If you can’t then the official version of history stands until its been disproven.

    And I’ve heard nothing in your speculation to conclusively demonstrate that black Romans were in Britian. We would’ve heard about it in the official chronicles of the time and its not there.

    I do think the problem for millennials is that they hear the buzzword ‘Diversity’ and automatically assume, that all of Europe had non-whites in every single era of history.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @Logan
    I know of no evidence of a Muslim community in colonial or early America. My comment was simply that given the polyglot nature of a commercial society, it's not at all unlikely a few got in.

    Recently went through the roster of the crew of a Royal Navy frigate from around 1800. There were crewmen from all over the place. Chinese, Africans, Malays (who were probably Muslim), Tamils, Arabs (also probably Muslims), Polynesians, etc. Not many of each, to be sure. But RN was desperate for men and got them wherever they could.

    The merchant shipping crews were also very diverse. Hence Queequeeg in Moby Dick.

    Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights is said to look like a “lascar,” which meant some kind of mixed race sailor from, roughly, the Indian Ocean.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Logan
    Ran across an interesting article about possible archeological evidence for Africans in Britain.

    http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/07/african-community-in-roman-britain.html

    Believe that one which isn’t peer reviewed, and we’ll tell you another, especially on the internet, where you can believe everything you read about Africa’s impact on world history, to give an example.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Logan
    I know of no evidence of a Muslim community in colonial or early America. My comment was simply that given the polyglot nature of a commercial society, it's not at all unlikely a few got in.

    Recently went through the roster of the crew of a Royal Navy frigate from around 1800. There were crewmen from all over the place. Chinese, Africans, Malays (who were probably Muslim), Tamils, Arabs (also probably Muslims), Polynesians, etc. Not many of each, to be sure. But RN was desperate for men and got them wherever they could.

    The merchant shipping crews were also very diverse. Hence Queequeeg in Moby Dick.

    Exactly, and that makes the point that they weren’t here during that time period. Anything is possible, but not probable. In law, one can’t make a claim based on possibilities, it must be probable. I think its the example that people think “diversity” always existed everywhere at everytime.

    Can’t wait to hear that its possible that China in the second century also had a few African sailors. After all, its possible. And if the proof doesn’t line up to support the supposition, well that’s even more reason to believe its possible that it could’ve happened.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    I don't think we really disagree all that much.

    But I think you don't realize how little we know about some of these periods. For instance, we know almost nothing about the collapse of Roman rule in Britain, and the following gradual conquest by the Anglo-Saxons. This leads to all kinds of competing theories involving King Arthur and such. It is simply ludicrous to expect that we would have documentary evidence of the presence of six black soldiers in 5th century Britain, and that if we don't it proves they weren't there.

    But I agree that it is even more ludicrous for the BBC to insert a black man into Roman Britain without any evidence he was ever there. Recently watched a BBC production about the War of the Roses. Pretty good, for the most part, as usual. But they cast a half-Nigerian actress to play Margaret of Anjou, Henry VI's queen. Margaret was of course famous for both her political and military acumen and her blond, blue-eyed beauty. Doing something like this is just stupid.

    But I think it's clear that Rome was an entirely multi-cultural empire and people from all over it and outside it got scattered across the entire empire, if nothing else due to the institution of slavery. If a civil servant in Egypt was transferred to Britain, the type of thing that happened regularly, he took his slaves with him, some of whom would probably have been Nubians or peoples from further south.

    So I think it's reasonable to assume that individuals from extremely wide origins got scattered across the entire empire, including Britain. Just not anywhere near enough of them, assuming they even reproduced, to make a dent in the local DNA. Assuming 1M natives in Britain, and 10 Africans, I believe there would be zero trace in the DNA after even a few generations, much less the dozens between today and then.

    I also think you don't realize how cosmopolitan the shipping world was once Europeans spread out. One of the biggest problems every captain had was getting a crew, and they didn't have a color bar. If they were short a hand in the East Indies, they'd recruit locals if necessary. Heck, they'd kidnap them sometimes. Also there is the fairly obvious fact that in every nation at every time there are always those who've run afoul of local authorities or irate fathers and have great incentive to get out of town quickly. For which, during this period, foreign shipping worked wonderfully. Then, of course, some of them would later desert in random ports over conflict with the captain or some other reason.

    Hence, (very) small numbers of men from almost every ethnic group bordering the sea wound up scattered in odd places around the world from the 15th thru 19th centuries.

    Never enough of them to leave records, except perhaps in cases where they ran into local legal trouble. And seldom if ever enough to influence the local DNA significantly. These were, after all, the very definition of marginal people who nobody noticed or cared about.

    But it's still stupid to insert people you don't know were there into what are supposed to be historical portrayals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Steve Sailer
    On the other hand, were there self-propagating Muslim communities in 18th Century America? I don't doubt that a few Muslim sailors washed up in 18th Century America, but did they establish reproducing Muslim communities?

    For example, the Ben Ali Haggin family that got rich in the California gold rush and then went into Kentucky horse racing was founded by a, according to his unverifiable story, an Ottoman Janissary convert to Christianity who came to America as an individual and married a Baptist lady.

    I bring up Da Ponte in part because there was, as far as I can tell, no community in America of which Da Ponte was representative. The author of the libretto of Don Giovanni, modeled upon Da Ponte's friend Casanova, was sui generis in the early United States.

    Steve/Yojimbo–

    It was the Fake News folks people at CNN I believe who recently floated the assertion that 10-30% of African slaves in the US were Muslim–the idea being that West Africa, especially the Gambia region which did in fact send many slaves to these shores, is currently majority Muslim. Unfortunately for their theory, Islam didn’t consolidate its hold over the former animist region until very late in the 18th Century/early 19th Century. As a result, there was a window of at most a decade where slave ships from there might have legally berthed at American ports. That said, the WPA slave narrative project does pick up a few memories of individual Muslim slaves (as does local folklore from the St. Augustine region.) Of course, the very fact that these people were indeed memorable is a good argument for their being outliers.

    FWIW, the most famous Muslim slave in the American colonies has to be Job ben Solomon–a Fula slave trader from the Gambia region who was shanghai’d by a couple of n’er do wells and introduced himself to the Middle Passage. He wound up in Maryland, where his plight captured the imagination of both American and English philanthropists–the Royal African Company soon had him back in London, where he became minor celebrity, before transshipping him back home to mete his revenge upon his erstwhile captors. Douglas Grant’s “Fortunate Slave” is a great telling of the tale, as well as an accessible introduction to the mid-18th C slave trade.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    I actually agreed that it was more than possible that IF there were any muslims in colonial US, it would have been from slaves owned by former Muslims (Arabs in particular dominated the African slave trade for centuries) and would've sold them to traders who in turn brought them to the US. But I then said that since there wasn't any real consolidation among the black slaves with their Islamic religion, (probably because they weren't Muslim for multiple generations), over time they tended to convert to Christianity.

    And one can see that for the most part today, ca.well north of 95-97% of all African-Americans profess the Christian religion. Whether they are active participants is not relevant here. The point is, that over time, they converted to the religion of their owners, Christianity. It wasn't even debatable much less arguable that up til the '60's historically, America was always a Christian nation in the sense that the culture reflected the dominant morality structure and that was Christianity.

    This Logan, on the other hand, would have us believe that individual Muslims per se were consciously immigrating to the US centuries ago. I maintain that that is a total crock, because the evidence isn't there, and we'd certainly see something in the written record to bear it out if it were the case. "Could've happened, maybe so" isn't proof of anything and makes for very poor understanding of the actual historical record of what did happen.

    Another thing: This actually reinforces my original point. The US has always been a Christian nation. Whatever alleged Islamic practices that existed (probably bowlderdized over time since they were thousands of miles away from their original source once here in the US) weren't reinforced because the dominant, vast dominant society in colonial US was Christian.

    I mean, think about it. Technically there are still about the same numbers of Jews in the US right now as there are Muslims. There has been a consistent Jewish presence in the US since at least founding of Philadelphia (1683) or perhaps even in Peter Styvesants's New Amsterdam (ca.1660's). Jews have been here for far longer than Muslims beyond any doubt, some of their oldest surviving synogogues date back to 1690's. But for all that, numerically speaking, Jews have never been more than about 2-3% of the total US population and have never directly affected the culture with their religion to the extent that Christianity has. We do know that Jews have been here and have for the most part maintained their faith, because of the houses of worship.

    Muslim black slaves, on the other hand, over time pretty much all converted to their master's religion, Christianity, much as they took their master's surnames. The slaves merely exchanged one religion from their former masters for their new ones once here in the US. You simply don't find any mosques dating from colonial times in the US, which you certainly would have if there had been an Islamic presence of any kind. Just because Obama said otherwise, doesn't mean he was correct.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Steve Sailer
    Probably because Taleb sank his teeth into it and then Beard responded by dissing Taleb, which is not a good way to make a controversy go away.

    The British media is of course portraying it as Taleb being a sexist pig to Beard, and tsk-tsk-ing Taleb for pointing out he has more scholarly citations then Beard does. However it was Beard who choose to react to Taleb’s criticism not with data and citations but with denigrating him for attacking a historian when he isn’t one himself.

    The British “experts” who attack Taleb apparently also think that the existence of a single North African skeleton in Yorkshire proves there was sub-Saharan blacks in Roman Britain, even though DNA sequencing proved that the woman had a fair complexion and North Africans are generally similar in appearance to Mediterranean Europeans (They only know she spent time in North Africa because of certain trace chemicals in her body).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    It certainly says something these days that a Moslem has to defend the historical consensus that "yes, Virginia, the Ancient Romans and Greeks were white", a consensus in the Classics discipline that wasn't argued for centuries. Meanwhile, those that should know better are set on fighting him tooth and nail over something that was so obvious that to suggest the contrary branded one a fool, an idiot, as well as receiving an F on one's exam. And Mary Beard isn't Rachel Jeantel, so clearly she has an ulterior motive or something's going on at her time of life.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Sertorius
    Steve/Yojimbo--

    It was the Fake News folks people at CNN I believe who recently floated the assertion that 10-30% of African slaves in the US were Muslim--the idea being that West Africa, especially the Gambia region which did in fact send many slaves to these shores, is currently majority Muslim. Unfortunately for their theory, Islam didn't consolidate its hold over the former animist region until very late in the 18th Century/early 19th Century. As a result, there was a window of at most a decade where slave ships from there might have legally berthed at American ports. That said, the WPA slave narrative project does pick up a few memories of individual Muslim slaves (as does local folklore from the St. Augustine region.) Of course, the very fact that these people were indeed memorable is a good argument for their being outliers.

    FWIW, the most famous Muslim slave in the American colonies has to be Job ben Solomon--a Fula slave trader from the Gambia region who was shanghai'd by a couple of n'er do wells and introduced himself to the Middle Passage. He wound up in Maryland, where his plight captured the imagination of both American and English philanthropists--the Royal African Company soon had him back in London, where he became minor celebrity, before transshipping him back home to mete his revenge upon his erstwhile captors. Douglas Grant's "Fortunate Slave" is a great telling of the tale, as well as an accessible introduction to the mid-18th C slave trade.

    I actually agreed that it was more than possible that IF there were any muslims in colonial US, it would have been from slaves owned by former Muslims (Arabs in particular dominated the African slave trade for centuries) and would’ve sold them to traders who in turn brought them to the US. But I then said that since there wasn’t any real consolidation among the black slaves with their Islamic religion, (probably because they weren’t Muslim for multiple generations), over time they tended to convert to Christianity.

    And one can see that for the most part today, ca.well north of 95-97% of all African-Americans profess the Christian religion. Whether they are active participants is not relevant here. The point is, that over time, they converted to the religion of their owners, Christianity. It wasn’t even debatable much less arguable that up til the ’60′s historically, America was always a Christian nation in the sense that the culture reflected the dominant morality structure and that was Christianity.

    This Logan, on the other hand, would have us believe that individual Muslims per se were consciously immigrating to the US centuries ago. I maintain that that is a total crock, because the evidence isn’t there, and we’d certainly see something in the written record to bear it out if it were the case. “Could’ve happened, maybe so” isn’t proof of anything and makes for very poor understanding of the actual historical record of what did happen.

    Another thing: This actually reinforces my original point. The US has always been a Christian nation. Whatever alleged Islamic practices that existed (probably bowlderdized over time since they were thousands of miles away from their original source once here in the US) weren’t reinforced because the dominant, vast dominant society in colonial US was Christian.

    I mean, think about it. Technically there are still about the same numbers of Jews in the US right now as there are Muslims. There has been a consistent Jewish presence in the US since at least founding of Philadelphia (1683) or perhaps even in Peter Styvesants’s New Amsterdam (ca.1660′s). Jews have been here for far longer than Muslims beyond any doubt, some of their oldest surviving synogogues date back to 1690′s. But for all that, numerically speaking, Jews have never been more than about 2-3% of the total US population and have never directly affected the culture with their religion to the extent that Christianity has. We do know that Jews have been here and have for the most part maintained their faith, because of the houses of worship.

    Muslim black slaves, on the other hand, over time pretty much all converted to their master’s religion, Christianity, much as they took their master’s surnames. The slaves merely exchanged one religion from their former masters for their new ones once here in the US. You simply don’t find any mosques dating from colonial times in the US, which you certainly would have if there had been an Islamic presence of any kind. Just because Obama said otherwise, doesn’t mean he was correct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    "This Logan, on the other hand, would have us believe that individual Muslims per se were consciously immigrating to the US centuries ago."

    Never said any such thing, nor implied that there was ever a "Muslim community" sufficient in number to establish a mosque, reproduce themselves or establish a conscious group, in colonial times.

    I simply agree with Sailer that all kinds of human flotsam washed up in ports during the great days of sail. To assume that not one of these people over several centuries was Muslim is not believable.

    IMO, of course.

    The difference being that I'm stating this as my opinion, while you are stating, without evidence, that your opinion is indeed fact. To be fair, your case is essentially unprovable, since it requires proving a negative.
    , @Logan
    A while back ran across some interesting stories about the Delaware Moors, a group of about 1000 people living in DE and NJ, who have been viewed as a separate people for at least 150 years.

    They call themselves this because they believe themselves to be descended partially from "Moors" arriving during the colonial people, with a variety of explanations as to how these Moors got here. They are all, of course, Christians today. And there is little scientific evidence that Moors/Muslims have anything at all to do with their ancestry.

    There are little groups of this type scattered all throughout the eastern states, usually claiming white, black and Indian ancestry to avoid classification as "Negro" during the days of Jim Crow. Quite interesting. Many of them are now trying to get recognized as Indian tribes for the federal privileges thus acquired. Probably the largest of them is the Lumbee tribe of NC.

    It would be fascinating if somebody were to do DNA research on these groups and get some actual data on their ancestry.

    http://nativeamericansofdelawarestate.com/MoorsOfDelaware/trirace3.html

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @Unladen Swallow
    The British media is of course portraying it as Taleb being a sexist pig to Beard, and tsk-tsk-ing Taleb for pointing out he has more scholarly citations then Beard does. However it was Beard who choose to react to Taleb's criticism not with data and citations but with denigrating him for attacking a historian when he isn't one himself.

    The British "experts" who attack Taleb apparently also think that the existence of a single North African skeleton in Yorkshire proves there was sub-Saharan blacks in Roman Britain, even though DNA sequencing proved that the woman had a fair complexion and North Africans are generally similar in appearance to Mediterranean Europeans (They only know she spent time in North Africa because of certain trace chemicals in her body).

    It certainly says something these days that a Moslem has to defend the historical consensus that “yes, Virginia, the Ancient Romans and Greeks were white”, a consensus in the Classics discipline that wasn’t argued for centuries. Meanwhile, those that should know better are set on fighting him tooth and nail over something that was so obvious that to suggest the contrary branded one a fool, an idiot, as well as receiving an F on one’s exam. And Mary Beard isn’t Rachel Jeantel, so clearly she has an ulterior motive or something’s going on at her time of life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Taleb's not Muslim.
    , @Unladen Swallow
    BTW, Taleb was raised a Lebanese Christian, and Beard must know she's selling a fantasy, but decided to do so anyway.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    It certainly says something these days that a Moslem has to defend the historical consensus that "yes, Virginia, the Ancient Romans and Greeks were white", a consensus in the Classics discipline that wasn't argued for centuries. Meanwhile, those that should know better are set on fighting him tooth and nail over something that was so obvious that to suggest the contrary branded one a fool, an idiot, as well as receiving an F on one's exam. And Mary Beard isn't Rachel Jeantel, so clearly she has an ulterior motive or something's going on at her time of life.

    Taleb’s not Muslim.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    All right, fair enough.

    Thanks
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Exactly, and that makes the point that they weren't here during that time period. Anything is possible, but not probable. In law, one can't make a claim based on possibilities, it must be probable. I think its the example that people think "diversity" always existed everywhere at everytime.

    Can't wait to hear that its possible that China in the second century also had a few African sailors. After all, its possible. And if the proof doesn't line up to support the supposition, well that's even more reason to believe its possible that it could've happened.

    I don’t think we really disagree all that much.

    But I think you don’t realize how little we know about some of these periods. For instance, we know almost nothing about the collapse of Roman rule in Britain, and the following gradual conquest by the Anglo-Saxons. This leads to all kinds of competing theories involving King Arthur and such. It is simply ludicrous to expect that we would have documentary evidence of the presence of six black soldiers in 5th century Britain, and that if we don’t it proves they weren’t there.

    But I agree that it is even more ludicrous for the BBC to insert a black man into Roman Britain without any evidence he was ever there. Recently watched a BBC production about the War of the Roses. Pretty good, for the most part, as usual. But they cast a half-Nigerian actress to play Margaret of Anjou, Henry VI’s queen. Margaret was of course famous for both her political and military acumen and her blond, blue-eyed beauty. Doing something like this is just stupid.

    But I think it’s clear that Rome was an entirely multi-cultural empire and people from all over it and outside it got scattered across the entire empire, if nothing else due to the institution of slavery. If a civil servant in Egypt was transferred to Britain, the type of thing that happened regularly, he took his slaves with him, some of whom would probably have been Nubians or peoples from further south.

    So I think it’s reasonable to assume that individuals from extremely wide origins got scattered across the entire empire, including Britain. Just not anywhere near enough of them, assuming they even reproduced, to make a dent in the local DNA. Assuming 1M natives in Britain, and 10 Africans, I believe there would be zero trace in the DNA after even a few generations, much less the dozens between today and then.

    I also think you don’t realize how cosmopolitan the shipping world was once Europeans spread out. One of the biggest problems every captain had was getting a crew, and they didn’t have a color bar. If they were short a hand in the East Indies, they’d recruit locals if necessary. Heck, they’d kidnap them sometimes. Also there is the fairly obvious fact that in every nation at every time there are always those who’ve run afoul of local authorities or irate fathers and have great incentive to get out of town quickly. For which, during this period, foreign shipping worked wonderfully. Then, of course, some of them would later desert in random ports over conflict with the captain or some other reason.

    Hence, (very) small numbers of men from almost every ethnic group bordering the sea wound up scattered in odd places around the world from the 15th thru 19th centuries.

    Never enough of them to leave records, except perhaps in cases where they ran into local legal trouble. And seldom if ever enough to influence the local DNA significantly. These were, after all, the very definition of marginal people who nobody noticed or cared about.

    But it’s still stupid to insert people you don’t know were there into what are supposed to be historical portrayals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "I don’t think we really disagree all that much."

    Then you haven't been paying attention.

    "But I think you don’t realize how little we know about some of these periods."

    We know who lived in Britain and Western Europe during late Antiquity, duh.

    I don't think you understand that its best not to over-speculate about things where there's no direct evidence. That leads down to potentially dangerous roads. "Because we don't know one way or the other, then obviously such and such happened." No, it didn't. Making an argument from silence when the record doesn't bear you out with facts is asinine. Anything can be then stated.

    "For instance, we know almost nothing about the collapse of Roman rule in Britain"

    We know who lived in Britain and who was there at the time. It does not follow that because no blacks were in Britain during this time that we have to find them in history. Why is it so controversial to state facts that up til maybe the late 90's were considered just stating the historical record? Doesn't add up. Why do you continue to hold out hope that of course there "must" have been some, any, a couple, a few non-whites living in Britain? I can see why Al Sharpton or Henry Louis Gates would like to make this claim, that's obvious.

    Once again. It would be in the DNA or skeletal remain of some kind to provide the proof. There isn't any. I am beginning to think that this is the result of the US educational system and its constant and consistent dogwhistling of "diversity". It becomes pablovian for some. Say the word 'diversity' and automatically everyone assumes that it meant black people lived every single place. Waiting for you to make the case that Sub Saharans lived in ancient China two thousand yrs ago. Argument from silence will fit in nicely here as well. See, diversity two thousand yrs ago didn't mean what it means today. Some words change their meaning over time. Diversity for 21st century US means non-whites, whereas multi-ethnic diverse nations two millennia ago meant something totally different.

    Here's a way to think about it. Diversity in the Roman Empire meant all sorts of different ethnics and tribes like as in the Commanches, the Apaches, the Iroquois, the Aztecs, etc. Are all these Indians different? Yes, to an extent. Are they are different biological races? Of course not. But they are different from each other in a cultural and linguistic sense. There's the diversity of Roman Empire.


    "and the following gradual conquest by the Anglo-Saxons."

    Anglo-Saxons were white. At least last time checked the history books.

    "This leads to all kinds of competing theories involving King Arthur and such."

    Nope. King Arthur was white as well. But I see the point. Give Mary Beard time and she'll soon be parroting "Well, everyone knows that some black Roman soldier had offspring, one of whom married Arthur's father and so King Arthur is a mulatto."


    "It is simply ludicrous to expect that we would have documentary evidence of the presence of six black soldiers in 5th century Britain, and that if we don’t it proves they weren’t there."

    No, it's simply asinine to make a nonsensical statement, backed up with no evidence, that we SHOULD automatically overturn established historical consensus of several centuries that stated that there were no non-whites in Britain til thousands of yrs later. Again. This was established history til very recently.

    "Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence"--you are making a claim that goes vs established history. If you have evidence then should be easy to back it up. If you can't, then let it go. Just admit that its a total crock. Why should any clear thinking person just accept it on...on what? Faith? That its possible that non-whites lived in Britain during Roman times? Accept it on faith? With no evidence, and when we ask for proof, we're told we don't need any? You seem to realize that the DNA as proof isn't there, and yet the DNA is there for the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Druids (pre-Roman era Britains), Normans, etc. Everybody who contributed to Britain is represented. Also, we have their skeletal remains. So if this alleged non-white was there, we'd have their skeletal remains somewhere to back up the claims. This is a very poor way to go about studying of history. No evidence and scant details equals well, it mustve happened. No, it didn't happen.

    Then you change the rules and move on to the East Indies. The East India Company was established in 1600, and I don't think the Roman empire was still in Britain during the late Tudor period. No one argues that the East Indies voyages employed all sorts of people. But to suggest that they all touched down in colonial US and lived there, where is the evidence?

    It seems as though you backtrack a bit when necessary. On the one hand, you seem to think a few non-whites lived in Britain but we can't prove it, but hey, its possible. And then you also want to assume that some who worked on the trading ships came to the US. Possibly some settled here. But we don't really know. But hey, it's possible.

    You do see that before Darwin came along, every and anyone could make stuff up about the origins of man, right? On account of it's possible. And with no actual facts or proof to back it up.


    "But it’s still stupid to insert people you don’t know were there into what are supposed to be historical portrayals."

    And that is what you've been doing regarding Roman Britain. No facts, no evidence, but hey, maybe it could've happened.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    I actually agreed that it was more than possible that IF there were any muslims in colonial US, it would have been from slaves owned by former Muslims (Arabs in particular dominated the African slave trade for centuries) and would've sold them to traders who in turn brought them to the US. But I then said that since there wasn't any real consolidation among the black slaves with their Islamic religion, (probably because they weren't Muslim for multiple generations), over time they tended to convert to Christianity.

    And one can see that for the most part today, ca.well north of 95-97% of all African-Americans profess the Christian religion. Whether they are active participants is not relevant here. The point is, that over time, they converted to the religion of their owners, Christianity. It wasn't even debatable much less arguable that up til the '60's historically, America was always a Christian nation in the sense that the culture reflected the dominant morality structure and that was Christianity.

    This Logan, on the other hand, would have us believe that individual Muslims per se were consciously immigrating to the US centuries ago. I maintain that that is a total crock, because the evidence isn't there, and we'd certainly see something in the written record to bear it out if it were the case. "Could've happened, maybe so" isn't proof of anything and makes for very poor understanding of the actual historical record of what did happen.

    Another thing: This actually reinforces my original point. The US has always been a Christian nation. Whatever alleged Islamic practices that existed (probably bowlderdized over time since they were thousands of miles away from their original source once here in the US) weren't reinforced because the dominant, vast dominant society in colonial US was Christian.

    I mean, think about it. Technically there are still about the same numbers of Jews in the US right now as there are Muslims. There has been a consistent Jewish presence in the US since at least founding of Philadelphia (1683) or perhaps even in Peter Styvesants's New Amsterdam (ca.1660's). Jews have been here for far longer than Muslims beyond any doubt, some of their oldest surviving synogogues date back to 1690's. But for all that, numerically speaking, Jews have never been more than about 2-3% of the total US population and have never directly affected the culture with their religion to the extent that Christianity has. We do know that Jews have been here and have for the most part maintained their faith, because of the houses of worship.

    Muslim black slaves, on the other hand, over time pretty much all converted to their master's religion, Christianity, much as they took their master's surnames. The slaves merely exchanged one religion from their former masters for their new ones once here in the US. You simply don't find any mosques dating from colonial times in the US, which you certainly would have if there had been an Islamic presence of any kind. Just because Obama said otherwise, doesn't mean he was correct.

    “This Logan, on the other hand, would have us believe that individual Muslims per se were consciously immigrating to the US centuries ago.”

    Never said any such thing, nor implied that there was ever a “Muslim community” sufficient in number to establish a mosque, reproduce themselves or establish a conscious group, in colonial times.

    I simply agree with Sailer that all kinds of human flotsam washed up in ports during the great days of sail. To assume that not one of these people over several centuries was Muslim is not believable.

    IMO, of course.

    The difference being that I’m stating this as my opinion, while you are stating, without evidence, that your opinion is indeed fact. To be fair, your case is essentially unprovable, since it requires proving a negative.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "To assume that not one of these people over several centuries was Muslim is not believable."

    Well, for centuries this was in fact the orthodox understanding of hisory. So the burden rests with you to prove that they did in fact come here. You make an unorthodox statement, perhaps conditioned by yrs of "diversity" and what that all entails. Muslims, unlike Western Europeans weren't in the habit of discovery of lands outside their own sphere. They weren't known for venturing outside the Mediterranean and into the Atlantic. Also, up til about the 19th century, relations between the Muslim World and Christendom weren't very cordial to say the least.


    "while you are stating, without evidence, that your opinion is indeed fact."

    You just said that DNA, skeletal remains, written accounts about various people (including physical descriptions etc) aren't facts. Might want to rethink that. I'm just stating what has been universal consensus of established historical fact that was always taught in Classical studies. I get that times have changed and that PC, diversity, cucking hard on established facts so we don't hurt others feelings has become the norm.


    "To be fair, your case is essentially unprovable, since it requires proving a negative."

    No, that's on you. My side has always remained constant, based on the historical record. You state something and then offer no facts to back it up. Just that it could've happened, it's possible. I present facts, evidence (DNA, skeletal remains, contemporary written accounts etc) and you say that's not evidence for the consensus.

    I dunno, maybe you saw Kevin Costner's Robin Hood too many times and the seed of possibility was sown. It's like, no, it didn't happen. And then to state the facts and evidence is called not facts and evidence.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    So, want to make sure. DNA, Skeletal remains, and primary written accounts describing local inhabitants (and also makeup of Roman citizens where they traveled etc) is not credible evidence. Even though this was in fact consensus for teaching official Clasical history for centuries.

    Admittedly its the humanities that aren't as cut and dry as math. No one would dare question that 2 and 2 equals 4, because that's asinine. It's a fact. But one would think that something as scientific as DNA would help to seal the deal. You also seem to think that crossing the Sahara was a simple walk in the park. The Romans didn't explore teh interior of Africa and it wasn't until the Arabs in the late 9th or 10th century before SubSaharan Africans directly encountered North of Saharan groups.

    And you can see this when some yrs ago Nature or Science did in fact do a national DNA scan of the UK's historical inhabitants and the Left was up in arms because the DNA only confirmed that Britian for the last 2k+ yrs was in fact inhabited by whites only. Why is that such a controversy?

    Also, there was a film last yr filmed in Wales during WW2 era and only showed white people, and the Left had a problem with that representation as well. This is all part of sowing doubt in Western Man and Western Civ. along lines of "Well, maybe it really wasn't as white as we always thought". And yet most of the time no evidence is presented.

    If you would only present some proof, evidence, to back up your claims. That would go a long way to help them. Otherwise it appears as though this is a result of millennial education where anything goes in history just cause we wish it to be so. This multiculti idea where a la Star Trek, explorations always existed of multi races throughout history, and we have to simply accept it on faith, without credible direct evidence. I'm sorry, but that simply isn't credible.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    I actually agreed that it was more than possible that IF there were any muslims in colonial US, it would have been from slaves owned by former Muslims (Arabs in particular dominated the African slave trade for centuries) and would've sold them to traders who in turn brought them to the US. But I then said that since there wasn't any real consolidation among the black slaves with their Islamic religion, (probably because they weren't Muslim for multiple generations), over time they tended to convert to Christianity.

    And one can see that for the most part today, ca.well north of 95-97% of all African-Americans profess the Christian religion. Whether they are active participants is not relevant here. The point is, that over time, they converted to the religion of their owners, Christianity. It wasn't even debatable much less arguable that up til the '60's historically, America was always a Christian nation in the sense that the culture reflected the dominant morality structure and that was Christianity.

    This Logan, on the other hand, would have us believe that individual Muslims per se were consciously immigrating to the US centuries ago. I maintain that that is a total crock, because the evidence isn't there, and we'd certainly see something in the written record to bear it out if it were the case. "Could've happened, maybe so" isn't proof of anything and makes for very poor understanding of the actual historical record of what did happen.

    Another thing: This actually reinforces my original point. The US has always been a Christian nation. Whatever alleged Islamic practices that existed (probably bowlderdized over time since they were thousands of miles away from their original source once here in the US) weren't reinforced because the dominant, vast dominant society in colonial US was Christian.

    I mean, think about it. Technically there are still about the same numbers of Jews in the US right now as there are Muslims. There has been a consistent Jewish presence in the US since at least founding of Philadelphia (1683) or perhaps even in Peter Styvesants's New Amsterdam (ca.1660's). Jews have been here for far longer than Muslims beyond any doubt, some of their oldest surviving synogogues date back to 1690's. But for all that, numerically speaking, Jews have never been more than about 2-3% of the total US population and have never directly affected the culture with their religion to the extent that Christianity has. We do know that Jews have been here and have for the most part maintained their faith, because of the houses of worship.

    Muslim black slaves, on the other hand, over time pretty much all converted to their master's religion, Christianity, much as they took their master's surnames. The slaves merely exchanged one religion from their former masters for their new ones once here in the US. You simply don't find any mosques dating from colonial times in the US, which you certainly would have if there had been an Islamic presence of any kind. Just because Obama said otherwise, doesn't mean he was correct.

    A while back ran across some interesting stories about the Delaware Moors, a group of about 1000 people living in DE and NJ, who have been viewed as a separate people for at least 150 years.

    They call themselves this because they believe themselves to be descended partially from “Moors” arriving during the colonial people, with a variety of explanations as to how these Moors got here. They are all, of course, Christians today. And there is little scientific evidence that Moors/Muslims have anything at all to do with their ancestry.

    There are little groups of this type scattered all throughout the eastern states, usually claiming white, black and Indian ancestry to avoid classification as “Negro” during the days of Jim Crow. Quite interesting. Many of them are now trying to get recognized as Indian tribes for the federal privileges thus acquired. Probably the largest of them is the Lumbee tribe of NC.

    It would be fascinating if somebody were to do DNA research on these groups and get some actual data on their ancestry.

    http://nativeamericansofdelawarestate.com/MoorsOfDelaware/trirace3.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "And there is little scientific evidence that Moors/Muslims have anything at all to do with their ancestry."

    And with that, you just made my point. Thank you. In other words, they'd like to believe but don't have any direct proof of any kind whatsoever to make their case. In a court of law, this case would be thrown out immediately (or laughed out).

    Actually what this sounds like, if dated from 19th century, is similar to all kinds of quackery and cultic fringe elements that were springing up in the US. Example: In the 1820's in SW NY State, a young farmer's kid fervently believed that an angelic being had communicated with him and that among the most fantastic claims he made (and there were several), was that the American Indians were direct blood line relatives to the ancient Hebrews. Also, that he had in possession some ancient writings dating back to possibly ancient Egypt. With some followers of his fantastic claims he later left NY for the far west. The group that his successor led is still very well known.

    The point is that these sorts of outlandish tall tales, fantastic claims of all sorts, etc. were quite commonplace in the US during the 19th century. Some of these legendary claims are similar to what you'd hear in the carnival or at Barnum & Bailey's Circus, usually as the building for the more exotic peoples. What did PT Barnum comment about this phenomenon? "There's a sucker born every minute."

    Again, one can find plenty of things on the internet to support just about anything.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @Logan
    A while back ran across some interesting stories about the Delaware Moors, a group of about 1000 people living in DE and NJ, who have been viewed as a separate people for at least 150 years.

    They call themselves this because they believe themselves to be descended partially from "Moors" arriving during the colonial people, with a variety of explanations as to how these Moors got here. They are all, of course, Christians today. And there is little scientific evidence that Moors/Muslims have anything at all to do with their ancestry.

    There are little groups of this type scattered all throughout the eastern states, usually claiming white, black and Indian ancestry to avoid classification as "Negro" during the days of Jim Crow. Quite interesting. Many of them are now trying to get recognized as Indian tribes for the federal privileges thus acquired. Probably the largest of them is the Lumbee tribe of NC.

    It would be fascinating if somebody were to do DNA research on these groups and get some actual data on their ancestry.

    http://nativeamericansofdelawarestate.com/MoorsOfDelaware/trirace3.html

    “And there is little scientific evidence that Moors/Muslims have anything at all to do with their ancestry.”

    And with that, you just made my point. Thank you. In other words, they’d like to believe but don’t have any direct proof of any kind whatsoever to make their case. In a court of law, this case would be thrown out immediately (or laughed out).

    Actually what this sounds like, if dated from 19th century, is similar to all kinds of quackery and cultic fringe elements that were springing up in the US. Example: In the 1820′s in SW NY State, a young farmer’s kid fervently believed that an angelic being had communicated with him and that among the most fantastic claims he made (and there were several), was that the American Indians were direct blood line relatives to the ancient Hebrews. Also, that he had in possession some ancient writings dating back to possibly ancient Egypt. With some followers of his fantastic claims he later left NY for the far west. The group that his successor led is still very well known.

    The point is that these sorts of outlandish tall tales, fantastic claims of all sorts, etc. were quite commonplace in the US during the 19th century. Some of these legendary claims are similar to what you’d hear in the carnival or at Barnum & Bailey’s Circus, usually as the building for the more exotic peoples. What did PT Barnum comment about this phenomenon? “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

    Again, one can find plenty of things on the internet to support just about anything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Steve Sailer
    Taleb's not Muslim.

    All right, fair enough.

    Thanks

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Logan
    I don't think we really disagree all that much.

    But I think you don't realize how little we know about some of these periods. For instance, we know almost nothing about the collapse of Roman rule in Britain, and the following gradual conquest by the Anglo-Saxons. This leads to all kinds of competing theories involving King Arthur and such. It is simply ludicrous to expect that we would have documentary evidence of the presence of six black soldiers in 5th century Britain, and that if we don't it proves they weren't there.

    But I agree that it is even more ludicrous for the BBC to insert a black man into Roman Britain without any evidence he was ever there. Recently watched a BBC production about the War of the Roses. Pretty good, for the most part, as usual. But they cast a half-Nigerian actress to play Margaret of Anjou, Henry VI's queen. Margaret was of course famous for both her political and military acumen and her blond, blue-eyed beauty. Doing something like this is just stupid.

    But I think it's clear that Rome was an entirely multi-cultural empire and people from all over it and outside it got scattered across the entire empire, if nothing else due to the institution of slavery. If a civil servant in Egypt was transferred to Britain, the type of thing that happened regularly, he took his slaves with him, some of whom would probably have been Nubians or peoples from further south.

    So I think it's reasonable to assume that individuals from extremely wide origins got scattered across the entire empire, including Britain. Just not anywhere near enough of them, assuming they even reproduced, to make a dent in the local DNA. Assuming 1M natives in Britain, and 10 Africans, I believe there would be zero trace in the DNA after even a few generations, much less the dozens between today and then.

    I also think you don't realize how cosmopolitan the shipping world was once Europeans spread out. One of the biggest problems every captain had was getting a crew, and they didn't have a color bar. If they were short a hand in the East Indies, they'd recruit locals if necessary. Heck, they'd kidnap them sometimes. Also there is the fairly obvious fact that in every nation at every time there are always those who've run afoul of local authorities or irate fathers and have great incentive to get out of town quickly. For which, during this period, foreign shipping worked wonderfully. Then, of course, some of them would later desert in random ports over conflict with the captain or some other reason.

    Hence, (very) small numbers of men from almost every ethnic group bordering the sea wound up scattered in odd places around the world from the 15th thru 19th centuries.

    Never enough of them to leave records, except perhaps in cases where they ran into local legal trouble. And seldom if ever enough to influence the local DNA significantly. These were, after all, the very definition of marginal people who nobody noticed or cared about.

    But it's still stupid to insert people you don't know were there into what are supposed to be historical portrayals.

    “I don’t think we really disagree all that much.”

    Then you haven’t been paying attention.

    “But I think you don’t realize how little we know about some of these periods.”

    We know who lived in Britain and Western Europe during late Antiquity, duh.

    I don’t think you understand that its best not to over-speculate about things where there’s no direct evidence. That leads down to potentially dangerous roads. “Because we don’t know one way or the other, then obviously such and such happened.” No, it didn’t. Making an argument from silence when the record doesn’t bear you out with facts is asinine. Anything can be then stated.

    “For instance, we know almost nothing about the collapse of Roman rule in Britain”

    We know who lived in Britain and who was there at the time. It does not follow that because no blacks were in Britain during this time that we have to find them in history. Why is it so controversial to state facts that up til maybe the late 90′s were considered just stating the historical record? Doesn’t add up. Why do you continue to hold out hope that of course there “must” have been some, any, a couple, a few non-whites living in Britain? I can see why Al Sharpton or Henry Louis Gates would like to make this claim, that’s obvious.

    Once again. It would be in the DNA or skeletal remain of some kind to provide the proof. There isn’t any. I am beginning to think that this is the result of the US educational system and its constant and consistent dogwhistling of “diversity”. It becomes pablovian for some. Say the word ‘diversity’ and automatically everyone assumes that it meant black people lived every single place. Waiting for you to make the case that Sub Saharans lived in ancient China two thousand yrs ago. Argument from silence will fit in nicely here as well. See, diversity two thousand yrs ago didn’t mean what it means today. Some words change their meaning over time. Diversity for 21st century US means non-whites, whereas multi-ethnic diverse nations two millennia ago meant something totally different.

    Here’s a way to think about it. Diversity in the Roman Empire meant all sorts of different ethnics and tribes like as in the Commanches, the Apaches, the Iroquois, the Aztecs, etc. Are all these Indians different? Yes, to an extent. Are they are different biological races? Of course not. But they are different from each other in a cultural and linguistic sense. There’s the diversity of Roman Empire.

    “and the following gradual conquest by the Anglo-Saxons.”

    Anglo-Saxons were white. At least last time checked the history books.

    “This leads to all kinds of competing theories involving King Arthur and such.”

    Nope. King Arthur was white as well. But I see the point. Give Mary Beard time and she’ll soon be parroting “Well, everyone knows that some black Roman soldier had offspring, one of whom married Arthur’s father and so King Arthur is a mulatto.”

    “It is simply ludicrous to expect that we would have documentary evidence of the presence of six black soldiers in 5th century Britain, and that if we don’t it proves they weren’t there.”

    No, it’s simply asinine to make a nonsensical statement, backed up with no evidence, that we SHOULD automatically overturn established historical consensus of several centuries that stated that there were no non-whites in Britain til thousands of yrs later. Again. This was established history til very recently.

    “Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence”–you are making a claim that goes vs established history. If you have evidence then should be easy to back it up. If you can’t, then let it go. Just admit that its a total crock. Why should any clear thinking person just accept it on…on what? Faith? That its possible that non-whites lived in Britain during Roman times? Accept it on faith? With no evidence, and when we ask for proof, we’re told we don’t need any? You seem to realize that the DNA as proof isn’t there, and yet the DNA is there for the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Druids (pre-Roman era Britains), Normans, etc. Everybody who contributed to Britain is represented. Also, we have their skeletal remains. So if this alleged non-white was there, we’d have their skeletal remains somewhere to back up the claims. This is a very poor way to go about studying of history. No evidence and scant details equals well, it mustve happened. No, it didn’t happen.

    Then you change the rules and move on to the East Indies. The East India Company was established in 1600, and I don’t think the Roman empire was still in Britain during the late Tudor period. No one argues that the East Indies voyages employed all sorts of people. But to suggest that they all touched down in colonial US and lived there, where is the evidence?

    It seems as though you backtrack a bit when necessary. On the one hand, you seem to think a few non-whites lived in Britain but we can’t prove it, but hey, its possible. And then you also want to assume that some who worked on the trading ships came to the US. Possibly some settled here. But we don’t really know. But hey, it’s possible.

    You do see that before Darwin came along, every and anyone could make stuff up about the origins of man, right? On account of it’s possible. And with no actual facts or proof to back it up.

    “But it’s still stupid to insert people you don’t know were there into what are supposed to be historical portrayals.”

    And that is what you’ve been doing regarding Roman Britain. No facts, no evidence, but hey, maybe it could’ve happened.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    I'm afraid I've gotten tired of this discussion.

    One side claims that something happened, you state it absolutely positively did not happen. I point out that while there isn't any real evidence it did happen, there is plenty of evidence that conditions existed where it could have happened. Whereupon you get into multiple rants to the effect that we aren't allowed to speculate about possibilities without conclusive evidence.

    I have read enough history to know that it is much less neat then we like to think it is. For instance, there is almost zero evidence from China that there were Europeans there during the Yuan Dynasty. And we'd be stuck with assuming this is proof there were none. Except that Marco Polo the Venetian got captured by the Genoese and amused his time in captivity dictating the stories of his adventures in Asia. Had MP died in that battle, no evidence.

    I don't know everything about the past, you don't, nobody does. As I said, proving that something DID NOT HAPPEN is very nearly impossible.

    My comment about agreeing with you was because I don't think possibilities, especially somewhat remote ones, should be inserted into historical accounts, especially those aimed at children and the general public.

    Where we disagree is that I don't stomp around claiming that I have the right to pontificate about what did not happen in the past.

    Or, to put it another way, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @Logan
    "This Logan, on the other hand, would have us believe that individual Muslims per se were consciously immigrating to the US centuries ago."

    Never said any such thing, nor implied that there was ever a "Muslim community" sufficient in number to establish a mosque, reproduce themselves or establish a conscious group, in colonial times.

    I simply agree with Sailer that all kinds of human flotsam washed up in ports during the great days of sail. To assume that not one of these people over several centuries was Muslim is not believable.

    IMO, of course.

    The difference being that I'm stating this as my opinion, while you are stating, without evidence, that your opinion is indeed fact. To be fair, your case is essentially unprovable, since it requires proving a negative.

    “To assume that not one of these people over several centuries was Muslim is not believable.”

    Well, for centuries this was in fact the orthodox understanding of hisory. So the burden rests with you to prove that they did in fact come here. You make an unorthodox statement, perhaps conditioned by yrs of “diversity” and what that all entails. Muslims, unlike Western Europeans weren’t in the habit of discovery of lands outside their own sphere. They weren’t known for venturing outside the Mediterranean and into the Atlantic. Also, up til about the 19th century, relations between the Muslim World and Christendom weren’t very cordial to say the least.

    “while you are stating, without evidence, that your opinion is indeed fact.”

    You just said that DNA, skeletal remains, written accounts about various people (including physical descriptions etc) aren’t facts. Might want to rethink that. I’m just stating what has been universal consensus of established historical fact that was always taught in Classical studies. I get that times have changed and that PC, diversity, cucking hard on established facts so we don’t hurt others feelings has become the norm.

    “To be fair, your case is essentially unprovable, since it requires proving a negative.”

    No, that’s on you. My side has always remained constant, based on the historical record. You state something and then offer no facts to back it up. Just that it could’ve happened, it’s possible. I present facts, evidence (DNA, skeletal remains, contemporary written accounts etc) and you say that’s not evidence for the consensus.

    I dunno, maybe you saw Kevin Costner’s Robin Hood too many times and the seed of possibility was sown. It’s like, no, it didn’t happen. And then to state the facts and evidence is called not facts and evidence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. “P.S., here’s an article on Mary Beard’s recent book on the Roman Empire as embodying the modern globalist inclusive virtues of invade-the-world, enlist-the-world, including this bit on the good side of the rape of the Sabine women”

    I would certainly hope that Ms. Beard is educated enough to understand that the phrase “rape of the Sabine women” did not as such refer to mass sexual assault. It used the word “rape” in its older sense, and referred to their kidnapping.

    It’s entirely possible and even probable that many of them were raped, in the modern sense of the term, but that’s simply not what the account refers to.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  168. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    It certainly says something these days that a Moslem has to defend the historical consensus that "yes, Virginia, the Ancient Romans and Greeks were white", a consensus in the Classics discipline that wasn't argued for centuries. Meanwhile, those that should know better are set on fighting him tooth and nail over something that was so obvious that to suggest the contrary branded one a fool, an idiot, as well as receiving an F on one's exam. And Mary Beard isn't Rachel Jeantel, so clearly she has an ulterior motive or something's going on at her time of life.

    BTW, Taleb was raised a Lebanese Christian, and Beard must know she’s selling a fantasy, but decided to do so anyway.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Logan
    "This Logan, on the other hand, would have us believe that individual Muslims per se were consciously immigrating to the US centuries ago."

    Never said any such thing, nor implied that there was ever a "Muslim community" sufficient in number to establish a mosque, reproduce themselves or establish a conscious group, in colonial times.

    I simply agree with Sailer that all kinds of human flotsam washed up in ports during the great days of sail. To assume that not one of these people over several centuries was Muslim is not believable.

    IMO, of course.

    The difference being that I'm stating this as my opinion, while you are stating, without evidence, that your opinion is indeed fact. To be fair, your case is essentially unprovable, since it requires proving a negative.

    So, want to make sure. DNA, Skeletal remains, and primary written accounts describing local inhabitants (and also makeup of Roman citizens where they traveled etc) is not credible evidence. Even though this was in fact consensus for teaching official Clasical history for centuries.

    Admittedly its the humanities that aren’t as cut and dry as math. No one would dare question that 2 and 2 equals 4, because that’s asinine. It’s a fact. But one would think that something as scientific as DNA would help to seal the deal. You also seem to think that crossing the Sahara was a simple walk in the park. The Romans didn’t explore teh interior of Africa and it wasn’t until the Arabs in the late 9th or 10th century before SubSaharan Africans directly encountered North of Saharan groups.

    And you can see this when some yrs ago Nature or Science did in fact do a national DNA scan of the UK’s historical inhabitants and the Left was up in arms because the DNA only confirmed that Britian for the last 2k+ yrs was in fact inhabited by whites only. Why is that such a controversy?

    Also, there was a film last yr filmed in Wales during WW2 era and only showed white people, and the Left had a problem with that representation as well. This is all part of sowing doubt in Western Man and Western Civ. along lines of “Well, maybe it really wasn’t as white as we always thought”. And yet most of the time no evidence is presented.

    If you would only present some proof, evidence, to back up your claims. That would go a long way to help them. Otherwise it appears as though this is a result of millennial education where anything goes in history just cause we wish it to be so. This multiculti idea where a la Star Trek, explorations always existed of multi races throughout history, and we have to simply accept it on faith, without credible direct evidence. I’m sorry, but that simply isn’t credible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @TWS
    No she wrote, "typical". They have since changed it but the internet remembers.

    I know. The wiggle-room is purported to be in the meaning of “typical.” The meaning of is is redux.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. as a way of creating a mixed society

    “Mixed society”? Is Beard positing that the Sabines were black?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  172. The Romans actually did practice the modern “invade the world, invite the world”, and it contributed to their decline and fall. Roman Britain was a cosmopolitan hodge-podge of people from all over the empire, and that certainly included black Africans.

    The legions withdrew in 410AD, and things got tribal real fast. The Roman multicultural diversitopia disappeared overnight and was replaced with an Anglo-Saxon monoculture. Imagine Detroit suddenly deprived of EBT cards, so its residents can either stay and starve or wander into rural areas and be shot on sight — that’s England in the 410s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "Roman Britain was a cosmopolitan hodge-podge of people from all over the empire, and that certainly included black Africans."

    No, the evidence doesn't bear this out. The Roman Empire did have some black slaves, yes. They weren't as numerous as some would assume. But that doesn't follow that these black slaves were transported willy nilly all over the Empire's reaches. If it did, then we'd have skeletal remains and DNA to back this up, which we dont.

    That's the problem with the US, say the world "slavery" and everyone thinks tons of blacks. Britain in those days was like Iceland a millennia later. The last outpost of the Empire and most educated elite Britains wound up moving to Rome to try and make their way, and not staying behind out in the hinterland of an island. Roman Britain was never the jewel, wealth and power of the Roman Empire in the way that the East was. It was always just above what it had been pre-Roman and that's druid, pagan barbarians.

    And again, if blacks lived in Britain, then we should have records of them in the DNA, skeletal remains, etc. Otherwise they certainly weren't there to make any kind of lasting impact the way the Danes, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Normans did. There was a study some yrs ago on Britain's DNA and it came back that it was all white. So for all practical purposes they weren't in Britain at this time.

    It either has to be millennial or post-modern thinking, "yeah everyone knows", without proof btw. Or it's cultural rot like Costner's Robin Hood which influences contemporary thinking.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. That bit about Romans and Sabines and a mixed society sounds like the Angles and Saxons.

    In an early Simpsons, Homer’s brother takes a shot at the WASP member of his company board for saying his roots go back to when the Angles met the Saxons. Brother says, so “When white met bread”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  174. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "I don’t think we really disagree all that much."

    Then you haven't been paying attention.

    "But I think you don’t realize how little we know about some of these periods."

    We know who lived in Britain and Western Europe during late Antiquity, duh.

    I don't think you understand that its best not to over-speculate about things where there's no direct evidence. That leads down to potentially dangerous roads. "Because we don't know one way or the other, then obviously such and such happened." No, it didn't. Making an argument from silence when the record doesn't bear you out with facts is asinine. Anything can be then stated.

    "For instance, we know almost nothing about the collapse of Roman rule in Britain"

    We know who lived in Britain and who was there at the time. It does not follow that because no blacks were in Britain during this time that we have to find them in history. Why is it so controversial to state facts that up til maybe the late 90's were considered just stating the historical record? Doesn't add up. Why do you continue to hold out hope that of course there "must" have been some, any, a couple, a few non-whites living in Britain? I can see why Al Sharpton or Henry Louis Gates would like to make this claim, that's obvious.

    Once again. It would be in the DNA or skeletal remain of some kind to provide the proof. There isn't any. I am beginning to think that this is the result of the US educational system and its constant and consistent dogwhistling of "diversity". It becomes pablovian for some. Say the word 'diversity' and automatically everyone assumes that it meant black people lived every single place. Waiting for you to make the case that Sub Saharans lived in ancient China two thousand yrs ago. Argument from silence will fit in nicely here as well. See, diversity two thousand yrs ago didn't mean what it means today. Some words change their meaning over time. Diversity for 21st century US means non-whites, whereas multi-ethnic diverse nations two millennia ago meant something totally different.

    Here's a way to think about it. Diversity in the Roman Empire meant all sorts of different ethnics and tribes like as in the Commanches, the Apaches, the Iroquois, the Aztecs, etc. Are all these Indians different? Yes, to an extent. Are they are different biological races? Of course not. But they are different from each other in a cultural and linguistic sense. There's the diversity of Roman Empire.


    "and the following gradual conquest by the Anglo-Saxons."

    Anglo-Saxons were white. At least last time checked the history books.

    "This leads to all kinds of competing theories involving King Arthur and such."

    Nope. King Arthur was white as well. But I see the point. Give Mary Beard time and she'll soon be parroting "Well, everyone knows that some black Roman soldier had offspring, one of whom married Arthur's father and so King Arthur is a mulatto."


    "It is simply ludicrous to expect that we would have documentary evidence of the presence of six black soldiers in 5th century Britain, and that if we don’t it proves they weren’t there."

    No, it's simply asinine to make a nonsensical statement, backed up with no evidence, that we SHOULD automatically overturn established historical consensus of several centuries that stated that there were no non-whites in Britain til thousands of yrs later. Again. This was established history til very recently.

    "Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence"--you are making a claim that goes vs established history. If you have evidence then should be easy to back it up. If you can't, then let it go. Just admit that its a total crock. Why should any clear thinking person just accept it on...on what? Faith? That its possible that non-whites lived in Britain during Roman times? Accept it on faith? With no evidence, and when we ask for proof, we're told we don't need any? You seem to realize that the DNA as proof isn't there, and yet the DNA is there for the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Druids (pre-Roman era Britains), Normans, etc. Everybody who contributed to Britain is represented. Also, we have their skeletal remains. So if this alleged non-white was there, we'd have their skeletal remains somewhere to back up the claims. This is a very poor way to go about studying of history. No evidence and scant details equals well, it mustve happened. No, it didn't happen.

    Then you change the rules and move on to the East Indies. The East India Company was established in 1600, and I don't think the Roman empire was still in Britain during the late Tudor period. No one argues that the East Indies voyages employed all sorts of people. But to suggest that they all touched down in colonial US and lived there, where is the evidence?

    It seems as though you backtrack a bit when necessary. On the one hand, you seem to think a few non-whites lived in Britain but we can't prove it, but hey, its possible. And then you also want to assume that some who worked on the trading ships came to the US. Possibly some settled here. But we don't really know. But hey, it's possible.

    You do see that before Darwin came along, every and anyone could make stuff up about the origins of man, right? On account of it's possible. And with no actual facts or proof to back it up.


    "But it’s still stupid to insert people you don’t know were there into what are supposed to be historical portrayals."

    And that is what you've been doing regarding Roman Britain. No facts, no evidence, but hey, maybe it could've happened.

    I’m afraid I’ve gotten tired of this discussion.

    One side claims that something happened, you state it absolutely positively did not happen. I point out that while there isn’t any real evidence it did happen, there is plenty of evidence that conditions existed where it could have happened. Whereupon you get into multiple rants to the effect that we aren’t allowed to speculate about possibilities without conclusive evidence.

    I have read enough history to know that it is much less neat then we like to think it is. For instance, there is almost zero evidence from China that there were Europeans there during the Yuan Dynasty. And we’d be stuck with assuming this is proof there were none. Except that Marco Polo the Venetian got captured by the Genoese and amused his time in captivity dictating the stories of his adventures in Asia. Had MP died in that battle, no evidence.

    I don’t know everything about the past, you don’t, nobody does. As I said, proving that something DID NOT HAPPEN is very nearly impossible.

    My comment about agreeing with you was because I don’t think possibilities, especially somewhat remote ones, should be inserted into historical accounts, especially those aimed at children and the general public.

    Where we disagree is that I don’t stomp around claiming that I have the right to pontificate about what did not happen in the past.

    Or, to put it another way, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "I’m afraid I’ve gotten tired of this discussion."

    It does get tiring, that's true. Much like school was when one persisted longer than necessary. But I can appreciate what you're saying.

    "One side claims that something happened, you state it absolutely positively did not happen."

    Now see, I have not misrepresented your arguments. This is a misrepresentation. I have stated that it didn't happen based on evidence that we have had for a few centuries and that that is or was the consensus for established historical opinion.


    "I point out that while there isn’t any real evidence it did happen, there is plenty of evidence that conditions existed where it could have happened."



    And I've stated that that alleged evidence is scant to nil in most all cases. And that that has been the established consensus of opinion up to very, very recently. But I haven't misstated or distorted your opinions. If it could have happened, then DNA, written accounts etc would bear it out and it doesn't.


    "Whereupon you get into multiple rants to the effect that we aren’t allowed to speculate about possibilities without conclusive evidence.

    I see, going off that there "could possibly" have been black Romans in Britains (even though we don't actually know for certain that blacks served in Roman armies. Do remember that there's something called the Sahara which wasn't easy to cross) but then not offering any tangible anything? I'm sorry, this is a distortion and a bit ad hominen, to be frank. Speculation of course has its place, but certainly not with established historical facts, unless one has evidence to present to back up one's claim. For instance: Speculation has occured many times over the centuries as to why Julius Ceasar invaded Gaul around the time that he did. That makes for excellent political theory, military history, and adding to the overall excitement of discovering a new subject, Classical Antiquity, that makes it thrilling for students to learn an otherwise dreary subject. Where it crosses the line, however, is when one decides to go off on a tangent, as you have, and with words to the effect "Well, since we really don't know about every single legion of Ceasars, obviously he had some blacks." Say what? Where'd that come from? There's a difference between reasonable responsible speculation and frankly, speculation coming from the mouth of Bart Simpson. When someone who's studied the subject and is interested in going further in depth reasonably speculates, that's one thing. When Al Sharpton or Bart Simpson speculates, well, one can humor for so long, but after awhile, the person has to be gently reminded that 'no, Euclid wasn't black and neither were the ancient Spartans, sorry to hurt the feelings.' 'But, they owned slaves! So obviously they must've had blacks' And again, this kind of speculation is akin to the ancient proverb "Everything was going well until the stupid began to think."



    "I have read enough history to know that it is much less neat then we like to think it is."

    True that.

    "For instance, there is almost zero evidence from China that there were Europeans there during the Yuan Dynasty."

    Careful....not so fast, there is the historical written accounts that survive on both sides.


    "And we’d be stuck with assuming this is proof there were none."

    Unless we actually, you know...had written evidence that non-Chinese (e.g. white folks) actually visited the court of China. Which as you do state, we do. We also have written accounts from the Chinese side that Marco Polo visited them. The records do exist, and I believe some art work of Polo and the Venetians's general descriptions. So by consulting the written records (and later art works) we know that MP was there. But we didn't just find out about it twenty yrs ago. MP's visiting in China was known for about half a millennia.

    Also, China as a land and place was fairly well known to Western Europeans due to their trading with the Arabs acting as middlemen over the spice routes (as well as for other trading goods). MP paved the way for other adventurers such as Columbus to find a way to China via the Ocean.

    Also notice that this is largely the work of white people desiring to find out what's on the other side, so to speak. You don't find that sense of adventure among other groups by and large.

    And notice how amazed and shocked both sides were to view the other. Why is that? Because for Marco Polo, who had only see whites his entire life, and vice versa for the Chinese, actually coming into direct contact with each other, both from entirely different races and entirely different cultures etc. It was literally a culture shock. But the written evidence we have on both sides and again, I believe we have the art work of MP's visit to the Chinese court. Coupled with Europeans knew that China existed and was part of the known world, they had just never gotten around to exploring it directly before MP. Once the Turks cut off the trade routes to China, Columbus and others decided to set out and find their own route there.


    "I don’t know everything about the past, you don’t, nobody does. As I said, proving that something DID NOT HAPPEN is very nearly impossible."

    We can teach what we do know for certainty. Again I think its the millennial mindset that since no one really knows much about anything including the past, anything could've happened. We do know the basics about the past, however, and its good that we continue to teach that.

    And I have said all along, as in a court of law, IF someone DOES have evidence or proof to the contrary, then present it. Otherwise its best to go with established consensus on what we do know for 100% certainty DID happen. Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence. If making such a bizarre claim that has no basis in the realm of reasonable speculation, then its really the responsibility for that side to provide the evidence.

    Example: For millennia, the West believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. That was the general consensus. It took amazing courage to present evidence that the Earth revolved around the Sun. The evidence wasn't mere speculation. It was presented, initially met resistance but over time was accepted. So it never hurts to present evidence to back up one's claims, if one has evidence to present. Otherwise, the consensus remains since there isn't anything to directly (or even indirectly) challenge it.


    "Where we disagree is that I don’t stomp around claiming that I have the right to pontificate about what did not happen in the past."

    No, you simply stomp around stating that because it didnt happen, it could have and everyone knows it. Huh? What are you smoking? So now stating basic facts about history, those things which we DO know, is now tantamount to pontificating. Amazing. Just amazing. Basic facts based on DNA, skeletal remains, primary written sources about various peoples including vaious ethnics, all of that doesn't count. Even though it does in court of law, and in the classroom. Well, it used to count in the classroom, can't vouch for the "safe spaces" and everyone can't be offended by basic facts.

    "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

    Wow, that non-sequitur is so deep.

    It is evidence, however, that the established consensus on what we do know for certain shouldn't be overturned because someone had a desire to, you know, state it could've happened. And then when direct evidence is used to back up the consensus, the other side gets in a tizzy huff and says "well, we don't know, maybe never will, but we can't know for certain." Yeah, ok, Bart, time to settle down.

    It is also evidence that any competing theories should not be entertained by the established historical consensus until the day when one offers direct evidence to the contrary. Just like with Mary Beard. She should know better and in fact hasn't presented any evidence to overturn centuries of consensus. But the PC forces decided that the Classics Dept is too white, and well, in order to attract non-whites, they have to change things a bit.

    But this definitely reflects millennial thinking: No one ever knows anything about history, so everyone can just make it up and one sides good as another. And we wonder why the US is falling behind on world education tests to other first world nations.








    And we don't have that kind of thing in the written records regarding Romans in Britain. Which we would have if there were non-whites in Britain during the first century.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Logan
    I'm afraid I've gotten tired of this discussion.

    One side claims that something happened, you state it absolutely positively did not happen. I point out that while there isn't any real evidence it did happen, there is plenty of evidence that conditions existed where it could have happened. Whereupon you get into multiple rants to the effect that we aren't allowed to speculate about possibilities without conclusive evidence.

    I have read enough history to know that it is much less neat then we like to think it is. For instance, there is almost zero evidence from China that there were Europeans there during the Yuan Dynasty. And we'd be stuck with assuming this is proof there were none. Except that Marco Polo the Venetian got captured by the Genoese and amused his time in captivity dictating the stories of his adventures in Asia. Had MP died in that battle, no evidence.

    I don't know everything about the past, you don't, nobody does. As I said, proving that something DID NOT HAPPEN is very nearly impossible.

    My comment about agreeing with you was because I don't think possibilities, especially somewhat remote ones, should be inserted into historical accounts, especially those aimed at children and the general public.

    Where we disagree is that I don't stomp around claiming that I have the right to pontificate about what did not happen in the past.

    Or, to put it another way, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    “I’m afraid I’ve gotten tired of this discussion.”

    It does get tiring, that’s true. Much like school was when one persisted longer than necessary. But I can appreciate what you’re saying.

    “One side claims that something happened, you state it absolutely positively did not happen.”

    Now see, I have not misrepresented your arguments. This is a misrepresentation. I have stated that it didn’t happen based on evidence that we have had for a few centuries and that that is or was the consensus for established historical opinion.

    “I point out that while there isn’t any real evidence it did happen, there is plenty of evidence that conditions existed where it could have happened.”

    [MORE]

    And I’ve stated that that alleged evidence is scant to nil in most all cases. And that that has been the established consensus of opinion up to very, very recently. But I haven’t misstated or distorted your opinions. If it could have happened, then DNA, written accounts etc would bear it out and it doesn’t.

    “Whereupon you get into multiple rants to the effect that we aren’t allowed to speculate about possibilities without conclusive evidence.

    I see, going off that there “could possibly” have been black Romans in Britains (even though we don’t actually know for certain that blacks served in Roman armies. Do remember that there’s something called the Sahara which wasn’t easy to cross) but then not offering any tangible anything? I’m sorry, this is a distortion and a bit ad hominen, to be frank. Speculation of course has its place, but certainly not with established historical facts, unless one has evidence to present to back up one’s claim. For instance: Speculation has occured many times over the centuries as to why Julius Ceasar invaded Gaul around the time that he did. That makes for excellent political theory, military history, and adding to the overall excitement of discovering a new subject, Classical Antiquity, that makes it thrilling for students to learn an otherwise dreary subject. Where it crosses the line, however, is when one decides to go off on a tangent, as you have, and with words to the effect “Well, since we really don’t know about every single legion of Ceasars, obviously he had some blacks.” Say what? Where’d that come from? There’s a difference between reasonable responsible speculation and frankly, speculation coming from the mouth of Bart Simpson. When someone who’s studied the subject and is interested in going further in depth reasonably speculates, that’s one thing. When Al Sharpton or Bart Simpson speculates, well, one can humor for so long, but after awhile, the person has to be gently reminded that ‘no, Euclid wasn’t black and neither were the ancient Spartans, sorry to hurt the feelings.’ ‘But, they owned slaves! So obviously they must’ve had blacks’ And again, this kind of speculation is akin to the ancient proverb “Everything was going well until the stupid began to think.”

    “I have read enough history to know that it is much less neat then we like to think it is.”

    True that.

    “For instance, there is almost zero evidence from China that there were Europeans there during the Yuan Dynasty.”

    Careful….not so fast, there is the historical written accounts that survive on both sides.

    “And we’d be stuck with assuming this is proof there were none.”

    Unless we actually, you know…had written evidence that non-Chinese (e.g. white folks) actually visited the court of China. Which as you do state, we do. We also have written accounts from the Chinese side that Marco Polo visited them. The records do exist, and I believe some art work of Polo and the Venetians’s general descriptions. So by consulting the written records (and later art works) we know that MP was there. But we didn’t just find out about it twenty yrs ago. MP’s visiting in China was known for about half a millennia.

    Also, China as a land and place was fairly well known to Western Europeans due to their trading with the Arabs acting as middlemen over the spice routes (as well as for other trading goods). MP paved the way for other adventurers such as Columbus to find a way to China via the Ocean.

    Also notice that this is largely the work of white people desiring to find out what’s on the other side, so to speak. You don’t find that sense of adventure among other groups by and large.

    And notice how amazed and shocked both sides were to view the other. Why is that? Because for Marco Polo, who had only see whites his entire life, and vice versa for the Chinese, actually coming into direct contact with each other, both from entirely different races and entirely different cultures etc. It was literally a culture shock. But the written evidence we have on both sides and again, I believe we have the art work of MP’s visit to the Chinese court. Coupled with Europeans knew that China existed and was part of the known world, they had just never gotten around to exploring it directly before MP. Once the Turks cut off the trade routes to China, Columbus and others decided to set out and find their own route there.

    “I don’t know everything about the past, you don’t, nobody does. As I said, proving that something DID NOT HAPPEN is very nearly impossible.”

    We can teach what we do know for certainty. Again I think its the millennial mindset that since no one really knows much about anything including the past, anything could’ve happened. We do know the basics about the past, however, and its good that we continue to teach that.

    And I have said all along, as in a court of law, IF someone DOES have evidence or proof to the contrary, then present it. Otherwise its best to go with established consensus on what we do know for 100% certainty DID happen. Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence. If making such a bizarre claim that has no basis in the realm of reasonable speculation, then its really the responsibility for that side to provide the evidence.

    Example: For millennia, the West believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. That was the general consensus. It took amazing courage to present evidence that the Earth revolved around the Sun. The evidence wasn’t mere speculation. It was presented, initially met resistance but over time was accepted. So it never hurts to present evidence to back up one’s claims, if one has evidence to present. Otherwise, the consensus remains since there isn’t anything to directly (or even indirectly) challenge it.

    “Where we disagree is that I don’t stomp around claiming that I have the right to pontificate about what did not happen in the past.”

    No, you simply stomp around stating that because it didnt happen, it could have and everyone knows it. Huh? What are you smoking? So now stating basic facts about history, those things which we DO know, is now tantamount to pontificating. Amazing. Just amazing. Basic facts based on DNA, skeletal remains, primary written sources about various peoples including vaious ethnics, all of that doesn’t count. Even though it does in court of law, and in the classroom. Well, it used to count in the classroom, can’t vouch for the “safe spaces” and everyone can’t be offended by basic facts.

    “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

    Wow, that non-sequitur is so deep.

    It is evidence, however, that the established consensus on what we do know for certain shouldn’t be overturned because someone had a desire to, you know, state it could’ve happened. And then when direct evidence is used to back up the consensus, the other side gets in a tizzy huff and says “well, we don’t know, maybe never will, but we can’t know for certain.” Yeah, ok, Bart, time to settle down.

    It is also evidence that any competing theories should not be entertained by the established historical consensus until the day when one offers direct evidence to the contrary. Just like with Mary Beard. She should know better and in fact hasn’t presented any evidence to overturn centuries of consensus. But the PC forces decided that the Classics Dept is too white, and well, in order to attract non-whites, they have to change things a bit.

    But this definitely reflects millennial thinking: No one ever knows anything about history, so everyone can just make it up and one sides good as another. And we wonder why the US is falling behind on world education tests to other first world nations.

    And we don’t have that kind of thing in the written records regarding Romans in Britain. Which we would have if there were non-whites in Britain during the first century.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @DaveA
    The Romans actually did practice the modern "invade the world, invite the world", and it contributed to their decline and fall. Roman Britain was a cosmopolitan hodge-podge of people from all over the empire, and that certainly included black Africans.

    The legions withdrew in 410AD, and things got tribal real fast. The Roman multicultural diversitopia disappeared overnight and was replaced with an Anglo-Saxon monoculture. Imagine Detroit suddenly deprived of EBT cards, so its residents can either stay and starve or wander into rural areas and be shot on sight -- that's England in the 410s.

    “Roman Britain was a cosmopolitan hodge-podge of people from all over the empire, and that certainly included black Africans.”

    No, the evidence doesn’t bear this out. The Roman Empire did have some black slaves, yes. They weren’t as numerous as some would assume. But that doesn’t follow that these black slaves were transported willy nilly all over the Empire’s reaches. If it did, then we’d have skeletal remains and DNA to back this up, which we dont.

    That’s the problem with the US, say the world “slavery” and everyone thinks tons of blacks. Britain in those days was like Iceland a millennia later. The last outpost of the Empire and most educated elite Britains wound up moving to Rome to try and make their way, and not staying behind out in the hinterland of an island. Roman Britain was never the jewel, wealth and power of the Roman Empire in the way that the East was. It was always just above what it had been pre-Roman and that’s druid, pagan barbarians.

    And again, if blacks lived in Britain, then we should have records of them in the DNA, skeletal remains, etc. Otherwise they certainly weren’t there to make any kind of lasting impact the way the Danes, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Normans did. There was a study some yrs ago on Britain’s DNA and it came back that it was all white. So for all practical purposes they weren’t in Britain at this time.

    It either has to be millennial or post-modern thinking, “yeah everyone knows”, without proof btw. Or it’s cultural rot like Costner’s Robin Hood which influences contemporary thinking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Keep in mind that Costner's Robin Hood movie went to the trouble of coming up with a back story to explain Morgan Freeman's presence in England (involving the Crusades). Plus, peak Morgan Freeman, so I'll make allowances.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "Roman Britain was a cosmopolitan hodge-podge of people from all over the empire, and that certainly included black Africans."

    No, the evidence doesn't bear this out. The Roman Empire did have some black slaves, yes. They weren't as numerous as some would assume. But that doesn't follow that these black slaves were transported willy nilly all over the Empire's reaches. If it did, then we'd have skeletal remains and DNA to back this up, which we dont.

    That's the problem with the US, say the world "slavery" and everyone thinks tons of blacks. Britain in those days was like Iceland a millennia later. The last outpost of the Empire and most educated elite Britains wound up moving to Rome to try and make their way, and not staying behind out in the hinterland of an island. Roman Britain was never the jewel, wealth and power of the Roman Empire in the way that the East was. It was always just above what it had been pre-Roman and that's druid, pagan barbarians.

    And again, if blacks lived in Britain, then we should have records of them in the DNA, skeletal remains, etc. Otherwise they certainly weren't there to make any kind of lasting impact the way the Danes, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Normans did. There was a study some yrs ago on Britain's DNA and it came back that it was all white. So for all practical purposes they weren't in Britain at this time.

    It either has to be millennial or post-modern thinking, "yeah everyone knows", without proof btw. Or it's cultural rot like Costner's Robin Hood which influences contemporary thinking.

    Keep in mind that Costner’s Robin Hood movie went to the trouble of coming up with a back story to explain Morgan Freeman’s presence in England (involving the Crusades). Plus, peak Morgan Freeman, so I’ll make allowances.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    I agree, but still wondered about that for years. It was Richard Nixon's "hatchetman" Chuck Colson (later converted to Christianity, prison fellowship ministry etc) of all people who made a passing aside about postmodern culture in general that made me further think about the matter.

    Colson's point was basically "What exactly would a Muslim be doing in Medieval England to begin with?" That started me thinking and later on at University in one of my classes on the Middle Ages I realized that that was so outside the realm of any kind of possibility that now I'd have to say it was probably a cynical attempt by producers to get Freeman (who's star was rising in the early '90's) in the film by any means.

    People shouldn't forget that England was in the Crusades at this point, with their King Richard having been briefly held hostage. It doesn't stand to reason that one of their hated enemies would have landed on their shores, and England wouldn't have invited a Moor at this point in time so it's balderdash. I would maintain this kind of revisionism leads to Mary Beard's type of thinking. Cecil B. DeMille's 1935 The Crusades actually has King Richard meeting Saladin, while not historically accurate, at least could have been possible albeit that film has some problems of its own.

    I still think the 1938 Adventures of Robin Hood with Errol Flynn and Olivia DeHaviland (still alive at 101) remains the definitive version of the Robin Hood tale during the 20th century. Wolfgang Korngold's Oscar winning musical score is among the best of that generation.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Steve Sailer
    Keep in mind that Costner's Robin Hood movie went to the trouble of coming up with a back story to explain Morgan Freeman's presence in England (involving the Crusades). Plus, peak Morgan Freeman, so I'll make allowances.

    I agree, but still wondered about that for years. It was Richard Nixon’s “hatchetman” Chuck Colson (later converted to Christianity, prison fellowship ministry etc) of all people who made a passing aside about postmodern culture in general that made me further think about the matter.

    Colson’s point was basically “What exactly would a Muslim be doing in Medieval England to begin with?” That started me thinking and later on at University in one of my classes on the Middle Ages I realized that that was so outside the realm of any kind of possibility that now I’d have to say it was probably a cynical attempt by producers to get Freeman (who’s star was rising in the early ’90′s) in the film by any means.

    People shouldn’t forget that England was in the Crusades at this point, with their King Richard having been briefly held hostage. It doesn’t stand to reason that one of their hated enemies would have landed on their shores, and England wouldn’t have invited a Moor at this point in time so it’s balderdash. I would maintain this kind of revisionism leads to Mary Beard’s type of thinking. Cecil B. DeMille’s 1935 The Crusades actually has King Richard meeting Saladin, while not historically accurate, at least could have been possible albeit that film has some problems of its own.

    I still think the 1938 Adventures of Robin Hood with Errol Flynn and Olivia DeHaviland (still alive at 101) remains the definitive version of the Robin Hood tale during the 20th century. Wolfgang Korngold’s Oscar winning musical score is among the best of that generation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @sb
    Westerners familiar with China have told me that Americans generally greatly overstate the Chinese interest in the NBA and basketball generally and that interest in soccer is many multiple times greater.
    For every Chinese teenage boy's poster of Kobe Bryant et al there would be dozens of Lionel Messi , Christiano Ronaldo et al -who incidentally are white(ish) .
    Or so I'm told

    Which just shows you that people will see stuff through their own frame of reference

    sb,

    Thanks for the good news (relatively speaking) about the situation in Japan.

    I heard from some other place in the UR that the message went out from on high that soccer has replaced baseball as the Japanese national sport.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Not quite. It has gained in importance over the past couple decades but overall baseball (and Sumo) still remain ahead, at least for now anyway.

    Also, I think what the larger point of this post is that Mary Beard's argument was largely all supposition, an argument from silence, much like someone else here was doing. No need to rehash it all again.

    The point being, an argument with no proof or facts on one's side (example: people don't know either way if blacks ever visited Ancient Britain and therefore they could have) at best is an argument from silence and at worst is complete Bart Simpson. Thus it isn't a credible argument at all. In 99.9% of the time, facts aren't silent but speak loud and clear. May have to work a bit to ascertain them, but they're there and always are. Just have to mine and sift a bit through the murkiness to get them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @Dan Hayes
    sb,

    Thanks for the good news (relatively speaking) about the situation in Japan.

    I heard from some other place in the UR that the message went out from on high that soccer has replaced baseball as the Japanese national sport.

    Not quite. It has gained in importance over the past couple decades but overall baseball (and Sumo) still remain ahead, at least for now anyway.

    Also, I think what the larger point of this post is that Mary Beard’s argument was largely all supposition, an argument from silence, much like someone else here was doing. No need to rehash it all again.

    The point being, an argument with no proof or facts on one’s side (example: people don’t know either way if blacks ever visited Ancient Britain and therefore they could have) at best is an argument from silence and at worst is complete Bart Simpson. Thus it isn’t a credible argument at all. In 99.9% of the time, facts aren’t silent but speak loud and clear. May have to work a bit to ascertain them, but they’re there and always are. Just have to mine and sift a bit through the murkiness to get them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored