RSS
From Lotus Eaters:
The Strange Myth of Black Romans in Britain
Simon Webb
Published 19th Jan at 10:00 amThe Museum of London is relocating to a new site in Smithfield. While it will not open for a year or two, its curators have already decided that a display about Roman London should feature a ‘typical’ London household of the 2nd century AD.
Of course, a young Black single mother will serve as the head of the display.
No doubt there were a few North Africans in Roman Britain. For example, the British theologian Pelagius’s arch-rival was St. Augustine of what’s now Algeria. But in 2023, the term “African” doesn’t imply St. Augustine, it implies St. George Floyd.
The author goes on to say that there’s no evidence that there were any blacks in Roman Britain, but that’s probably an exaggeration. There’s one ancient source, although not a very reliable one, that describes what sounds like a sub-Saharan in Roman Britain.
The Roman Empire was huge and it sprawled up to near blackish populations in eastern Africa, and some people got bounced around long distances.
Let’s consider possible migration routes from west to east.
There wasn’t much trade between West Africa and the Roman Empire. The Sahara was particularly difficult to cross until the Romans introduced the Arabian camel in late antiquity. Rome did send a few legionary expeditions across the Sahara. Two reached Lake Chad:
But there didn’t seem all that much of economic interest in West Africa to compensate for the huge expense of crossing the Sahara. (Rome had lots of white slaves).
In Eastern Africa, however, trade was not as difficult Transport on the lower Nile was famously easy up to the Cataracts, where the Roman Empire usually ended, at different times at the First or Second or in-between. Then came a mixed race area in what’s now Sudan that was not ruled by Rome but did trade with it. However, Nero’s expedition up the Nile to conquer what’s now black Southern Sudan faltered when it reached the huge Sudd swamp on the Nile and turned back.
A 2022 ancient DNA analysis focused on 66 medieval Nubians (c. 800 AD) found in two Christian cemeteries in modern northern Sudan just south of the Second Cataract (and thus always outside the Roman Empire) found them to average 43% Nilotic black and 57% Middle Eastern Caucasian.
Presumably, some people from Meroe wandered north into the Roman Empire.
So, there probably were people in Roman Egypt who looked like, say, Colin Kaepernick, as seen in a few of the famous Fayum mummy portraits.
And perhaps a tiny number of their descendants wound up in Britain due to contingencies of fate.
Another possible way sub-Saharans reached the Roman Empire was due to sea-borne trade in the Indian Ocean.
There was a fair amount of sea trade with modern Eritrea and northern Somalia and a little bit of sea-borne trade down the East Coast of Africa. About 6% of a 1st Century AD merchant’s manual in Greek on Indian Ocean trade emanating out of the Red Sea is about points south of the Horn of Africa, with the undiscovered port of Rapta sounding like it was as far south as modern Tanzania.
But the luxury goods of India were a more tempting target for Mediterranean traders than the bulk raw materials of Africa, in part because a round trip to India by sail could be made in about a year, whereas the winds were less favorable for African coasting and thus required about two years for a round trip.
Presumably, the heavy trading with India (one year 120 ships set sail from the Red Sea to catch the monsoon wind that steadily blew them the west coast of India) led some South Asians to wind up in the Roman Empire and a few even in Roman London.
And today there are a whole lot of South Asians in London. So you might expect the Museum of London to concoct a Roman Indian to feature.
But, nah, in the diversity-crazed 2020s, only a fictional black is diverse enough for the job.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
The old Lee Majors movie the Norse Men had a black viking, who was taken during a raid after cutting off the tongue off one of the other vikings, who ultimately befriended him along w the others.
IMDB informs me that most of the vikings in the film were off season Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
spoiler – the movie isnt very good but has its moments.
There were probably more blacks/Africans in ancient India, China, Persia, … and no one there gives a hoot. Nor in contemporary Italy or Spain.
Obama met a black slave in Pakistan in 1981 on one of his Occidental buddy’s plantations.
Don't stay up too late, Steve. We need you.Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Ralph L, @Dmon
The Forgotten African Sindhi's of Pakistan
Why is the concluding sentence the truth? Because WASP culture is perverse, from its inception and to its core: perverse in the broad sense. It is the most important culture of anti-Christendom. That men’s that its predilection is to wallow in all things that taint, better yet destroy, anything that derives from, anything redolent of, Christendom.
Naturally, WASP elites immediately began using Negroes as weapons and tools with which to bash the hordes of ‘white trash’ they ruled. One major way to ‘prove’ your superiority as a class is to force this you wish to destroy to suffer from conditions in which you impose another people on them. And that means that those elites will gravitate toward excusing and defending and then promoting even the very worst of the people they use as tools as weapons against those that remind them of the Christendom against which they have rebelled.
That means that miles of the WASP world, which now includes all of Western Europe, deep down feel compelled to promote things black African while despising the lower orders (which includes the middle class) of their own people. They are acting from the deepest core of their anti-Christendom rebellion. They also love promoting Mohammedans for the same basic reason, as well as all things Queer – and the more black, the more dark Mohammendan and the more QUEER the better.
Pedophile Foucault understood all that, it seems to me, though I am not aware that he ever stated it that directly.
That explains why even when it makes 0 sense historically and geographically, these monster products of anti-Christendom rebellion focus on Bantu blacks rather than Nilotic blacks. Nilotic blacks are far less savage, are considerably less prone to violent criminality, and are far more likely to ease into a European civilization than are Bantus.
The elites of the WASP world gain little by rubbing your face in Nilotics, but a great deal of perverse satisfaction from making you bow to Bantus, rage most vicious savage people of earth.
Wake me up when they’ve claimed Nero and Caligula.
So far as I’m concerned we won’t have achieved Peak Equity until then.
On the general subject of where Europeans come from (but a bit earlier):
I highly recommend this Youtube lecture by the archaeologist Kristian Kristiansen that I just stumbled across:
The tl;dr version:
Recent paleo-genetic and archaeological data together show that the original European farmers came from Anatolia starting around 6500 BC and had only modest interbredding with existing hunter-gatherer populations.
In the late-fourth/early-third millennium, the European farmers were devastated by an early version of the Plague.
In the wake of this devastation, pastoral people (the Yamnaya folk who became the Corded-Ware folk) from the steppes moved into the devastated lands of Europe, bringing the Proto-Indo-European language that is ancestral to the languages that most Europeans now speak.
We are descended mainly from those Indo-European speakers and some of the hunter-gatherer populations with whom they interbred. The farmers of Anatolian origin left little genetic heritage (except, curiously, on Sardinia).
And, through the male line, we are overwhelmingly descended simply from the Indo-Europeans: they likely killed off the indigenous males and took their women. Prehistory is not pretty.
As Kristiansen put it, we are all Russians, at least through the male line.
I have grossly over-simplified and left out a huge amount of detail. The most interesting aspect is the strength of the evidence for this narrative, largely acquired over the last decade or so.
We now know where we came from.
1.) Yamnaya did not "become Corded Ware". There is zero patrilineal continuity from Yamnaya to Corded Ware.
2.) Europeans are "mostly descended from Indo Europeans with little farmer input'. Almost all Eueopean ethnic groups are mostly descended from the Anatolian farmers, and those who aren't (such as Western Scandinavians, Scots) are still almost 50% Anatolian farmer.
3.) Russians are mainly descended from eastward migrations of Corded Ware men in to Russia, and westward migrations of Finno Ugrian and Uralian speakers carrying haplogroup N. Only about 50% of Russian paternal lineages belong to the original Indo-European haplogroups such as R1a. Most belong to an assortment of non-IE haplogroups such as I2, N, J, E, etc.Replies: @PhysicistDave, @PhysicistDave
False.
“The farmers of Anatolian origin left little genetic heritage (except, curiously, on Sardinia).”
False.
This is really basic stuff. EEF are the largest or second largest ancestor population over most of Europe.
Read this for an overview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_European_Farmers
-EEF ancestry in modern Europe ranged from 30% in the Baltic States to 90% near the Mediterranean Sea.-Replies: @Coemgen, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @PhysicistDave
That was a good life. Short, but intense and memorable. In this one I degenerate into a Brendan Gleeson look-a-like and change the diapers on a reanimated civil rights icon with a mean whistle.
Prehistory is not pretty
Neither is deep history. Mars got all fooked up.Replies: @Anon
Arguably we've known this story for a century or more. Several European traders/missionaries noted the similarity of Indian languages to our own--hundreds of years ago. And once the Brits were there, seriously studying Sanskrit, the Occam explanation was an ancient common "proto Indo European" precursor on the steppe. Understanding that the initial agricultural revolution was in the middle east--"fertile crescent" was understood, as well. The rest is just timeline.
ThisAnd thisAre directly contradictory.
Fortunately, it is the later. I'd be embarrassed by any ancestor of mine who conquering some joint killed off the young women, rather than enjoying them. That would truly be an "unnatural act".Replies: @Twinkie
If there were, White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans would have found one.
They’d by now begun a religion to worship it, and have at least one sacramental ornament to establish the fact.
Has anyone found one?
QED.
Imagine the day when Steve Sailer’s kids find evidence for a negro in the UK, Guy Fawkes will have nothing on that explosion.
As the ancient English saying goes: May you one day find a coon in your bloodline. Damn the Irish.
I’ve read quite a bit of classic literature in translation but I am no authority. I know of only one direct reference that may be to a Black. In Josephus’s Jewish War he singles out a Roman soldier for gallantry
In contrast I see a lot of references to blond Greeks. Some say it’s a problem with the translations but it now seems to have some support based on the pigmentation on ancient statues and reliefs.
You get Scottish nicknames like "the Black Douglas", or talk of "the Black Irish". No one thinks they were sub-Saharan, just dark-complexioned compared with the average.
Why does every attempt to justify diversity in modern Britain always come back down to invasions that were violently resisted and which involved much death and dispossession of the natives?
Do you think they ever get the joke?
The early Roman Empire traded extensively with India as well as with East Africa, Arabia, and Yemen. Via Egypt all manners of luxury goods and other desirable goods from India as well as farther east (China and Southeast Asia) were imported. From East Africa, Arabia, and Egypt came frankincense and myrrh, both of which were more expensive than gold by weight, and for which Romans were absolutely mad. From India and China came jewels, exotic woods, high quality steel, and, of course, silk, which was often taken apart and rewoven as sheer, delicate, and revealing fabric that was the choice of wear for all rich Romans (silk garments were extraordinarily costly).
The Roman state levied a quarter tax on these imports (frequently in-kind), and this revenue accounted for up to 40% (!) of the imperial budget, enough to maintain 8-10 legions. Egypt was only garrisoned by one legion, and it produced a huge surplus of grain as well, so one can imagine just how fabulously rich and important Egypt was to the Roman economy (in contrast, the tariff for trade within-empire was only 2-2.5%, and generated little revenue).
The problem with this trade was that it was one-sided. Setting aside a bit of glass and purple dye, the only thing the Roman trading partners desired was silver. And, of course, frankincense and silk were renewable resources whereas the supply of silver was finite. So as long as this trade lasted until the fall of the empire, Rome bled an absolutely massive amount of silver to the east every year.
Personally, I'd rather have sewers and frost free frig--but that's just me.Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Twinkie, @YetAnotherAnon
The Chinese have over 2000 years of experience to know that any "decoupling" from Western economies would be disastrous for them. Because it has been.
Hard mode: “Africans” at that time were white.
The Romans stationed some Sarmatian cavalrymen in Britain and may have done so with Numidian auxiliaries as well, but there is absolutely zero evidence that there was a sub-Saharan population of any size, save possibly a few curiosities. The whole sub-Saharan Africans in Britain thing is utterly asinine – it’s just pandering to post-modern Anglophone negrophilic sentiments.
Wasn’t there a Native American who went to England but got sick because the climate was so different? And there’s the Lascars, who were something like Indian naval slaves, who would get stranded in England but at the absolute periphery of society, often homeless, and get sick because the climate was so different. Would we ever get a good account, short of finding a direct observation in some letter, of an individual foreigner who was in historical England but only briefly? It’s moot anyway because clearly these people aren’t talking about one guy, they are propagandistically trying to invent a mirror for present day populations, and we can say with certainty that there was nothing like modern Londonistan.
The African St. Augustine who opposed Pelagius never lived in Britain. I think Steve is getting him mixed up with St. Augustine of Canterbury, who was sent to convert the Anglo-Saxons. This was well after Roman rule had ended in Britain. The Brits often refer to St. Augustine of Canterbury as St. Austin.
As Archibaldus Buncerus might say, “Sic corrumpitur vicinia!”
There go-to source on Roman trade with East Africa is chapter 9 of:
His main sources are Pliny, Strabo, and the periplus that Steve mentioned:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periplus_of_the_Erythraean_Sea
Buddies’. Or on his buddy’s.
Don’t stay up too late, Steve. We need you.
"Obama met a black slave in Pakistan in 1981 on one of his Occidental buddies."
“Rome had lots of white slaves” Rome itself depended on Egypt and North Africa for the wheat that kept Italy and Empire fed. So there was no need to bring Africans to Europe in huge numbers.
In 1492 the new world was discovered, including potatoes and the cassava. Both made huge population growth possible in Northern Europe and Africa. So there were probably not that many black Africans to enslave.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassava
Whatever Africans were in Northern Europe were probably what today would be called foreign experts, so few in number and in high places.
A curiosity of the current fascination with writing blacks back into history is little mention of the Empire of Benin and its role in slavery. Except the part where Europeans steal the Benin Bronzes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin_Bronzes. But how did those poor Africans afford those Bronzes? It doesn’t appear to be they had much bronze in Benin.
“Benin metal workmanship occurred during the reigns of Esigie (fl. 1550) and of Eresoyen (1735–1750), when their workmanship achieved its highest quality.[5]”
“The first European travelers to reach Benin were Portuguese explorers under João Afonso de Aveiro in about 1485. A strong mercantile relationship developed, with the Edo trading slaves and tropical products such as ivory, pepper and palm oil for European goods such as manillas and guns. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Benin
I recall how difficult it was for English and Scottish Football Clubs to keep hold of players from warmer climates. These exotic athletes complained about the weather and food and the place in general failed to thrive and left. Since the introduction of cheap flights and lavish central heating in luxury cars and elegant mansions that has changed.
I find it hard to believe anyone in the roman empire with an option to live in Lusitania, Carthage, Greece, Alexandria, Massilla or half a hundred other beautiful places would chose to reside in Londonium let alone Eboricum (York) if they had a choice. They might have liked Corinium but how would they have heard about it at all unless stationed there in a Legion? occupiers then to be Decolonized.
The past was alterable. The past had never been altered. London was mostly wogs. London had always been mostly wogs.
I highly recommend this Youtube lecture by the archaeologist Kristian Kristiansen that I just stumbled across:
https://youtu.be/bxTVSwt-jsU
The tl;dr version:
Recent paleo-genetic and archaeological data together show that the original European farmers came from Anatolia starting around 6500 BC and had only modest interbredding with existing hunter-gatherer populations.
In the late-fourth/early-third millennium, the European farmers were devastated by an early version of the Plague.
In the wake of this devastation, pastoral people (the Yamnaya folk who became the Corded-Ware folk) from the steppes moved into the devastated lands of Europe, bringing the Proto-Indo-European language that is ancestral to the languages that most Europeans now speak.
We are descended mainly from those Indo-European speakers and some of the hunter-gatherer populations with whom they interbred. The farmers of Anatolian origin left little genetic heritage (except, curiously, on Sardinia).
And, through the male line, we are overwhelmingly descended simply from the Indo-Europeans: they likely killed off the indigenous males and took their women. Prehistory is not pretty.
As Kristiansen put it, we are all Russians, at least through the male line.
I have grossly over-simplified and left out a huge amount of detail. The most interesting aspect is the strength of the evidence for this narrative, largely acquired over the last decade or so.
We now know where we came from.Replies: @Anon, @Pixo, @Yahya, @obwandiyag, @Corpse Tooth, @AnotherDad
Well, bow you’ve just about proven that ou have an intellectual disability despite your constant bragging to the contrary.
1.) Yamnaya did not “become Corded Ware”. There is zero patrilineal continuity from Yamnaya to Corded Ware.
2.) Europeans are “mostly descended from Indo Europeans with little farmer input’. Almost all Eueopean ethnic groups are mostly descended from the Anatolian farmers, and those who aren’t (such as Western Scandinavians, Scots) are still almost 50% Anatolian farmer.
3.) Russians are mainly descended from eastward migrations of Corded Ware men in to Russia, and westward migrations of Finno Ugrian and Uralian speakers carrying haplogroup N. Only about 50% of Russian paternal lineages belong to the original Indo-European haplogroups such as R1a. Most belong to an assortment of non-IE haplogroups such as I2, N, J, E, etc.
And what bragging? I do happen to have a Ph.D. from Stanford. I take it you don't.
Anyway, if you disagree with Kristiansen, take it up with him.
In fact, since you know so much more than he does, why don't you publish your results?
In a peer-reviewed journal.
Maybe Nature.
You are a jerk.
An anonymous jerk, which says it all.
We're all descended from people who once lived in the territory now called Russia, not of course from current Russians.
Some people who are intellectually disabled lack the ability to grasp a joke.Replies: @Twinkie
Correction:
Should read Europeans are not “mostly descended from Indo Europeans with little farmer input”.
Damn comment ran out of time before I could even check it. Oh well, I don’t have time for this shit anymore anyway.
No doubt we’ll soon be told that black people built the Roman empire.
IMDB informs me that most of the vikings in the film were off season Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
spoiler - the movie isnt very good but has its moments.Replies: @John Rohan, @Anon
They should have used the Minnesota Vikings
Simon Webb has put out a lot of good videos on how insane the British have gotten around blacks, this is barely scratching the surface. Every historical TV show in Britain now is required to have main characters that are black and in some cases they take well known historical figures and make them black.
In short, structural racism kept blacks out.
Don't stay up too late, Steve. We need you.Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Ralph L, @Dmon
We learned from Osama Bin Ladin the Arabic word for black African translates “slave “…….one of his public statements after 9/11.
Glad to see the Museum of London is getting on board with hereditarianism!
I highly recommend this Youtube lecture by the archaeologist Kristian Kristiansen that I just stumbled across:
https://youtu.be/bxTVSwt-jsU
The tl;dr version:
Recent paleo-genetic and archaeological data together show that the original European farmers came from Anatolia starting around 6500 BC and had only modest interbredding with existing hunter-gatherer populations.
In the late-fourth/early-third millennium, the European farmers were devastated by an early version of the Plague.
In the wake of this devastation, pastoral people (the Yamnaya folk who became the Corded-Ware folk) from the steppes moved into the devastated lands of Europe, bringing the Proto-Indo-European language that is ancestral to the languages that most Europeans now speak.
We are descended mainly from those Indo-European speakers and some of the hunter-gatherer populations with whom they interbred. The farmers of Anatolian origin left little genetic heritage (except, curiously, on Sardinia).
And, through the male line, we are overwhelmingly descended simply from the Indo-Europeans: they likely killed off the indigenous males and took their women. Prehistory is not pretty.
As Kristiansen put it, we are all Russians, at least through the male line.
I have grossly over-simplified and left out a huge amount of detail. The most interesting aspect is the strength of the evidence for this narrative, largely acquired over the last decade or so.
We now know where we came from.Replies: @Anon, @Pixo, @Yahya, @obwandiyag, @Corpse Tooth, @AnotherDad
“We are descended mainly from those Indo-European speakers and some of the hunter-gatherer populations with whom they interbred.”
False.
“The farmers of Anatolian origin left little genetic heritage (except, curiously, on Sardinia).”
False.
This is really basic stuff. EEF are the largest or second largest ancestor population over most of Europe.
Read this for an overview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_European_Farmers
-EEF ancestry in modern Europe ranged from 30% in the Baltic States to 90% near the Mediterranean Sea.-
Let me guess. Your job as a convenience store clerk on the graveyard shift gives you lots of time to think about how you can participate in the 'enlightenment' of the rest of us.
What would we do without you?
Do you have anything better than Wikipedia?
This is an honest question.
Incidentally, the Wikipedia article that you yourself cite states:That is exactly the point I cited from Kristainsen.
Score so far:
Kristiansen 1
Pixo <0.
But I am willing to consider other evidence.
If you have any.
Of course, you never, ever do, now do you?
You did not even bother to read the article you cited, did you?
You really are an asshole, aren't you?
OT — Then again, some fires burn themselves out.
OT — Then again, some fires burn themselves out.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/nj-councilman-russell-heller-killed-murder-suicide-pseg-facility
Blue governments legalize violent crime
Criminals murder New Jersey city councilpeople
THE CIRRRRRRRRRCLE OF LIFE
In a court of law, actual hard evidence is of primary importance. Speculations and suppositions are for the most part inadmissible.
If there is actual hard evidence that yes, Shawtanvious and Shanequa were bouncing around in 1st and 2nd century London and York, then produce the evidence.
It sounds with all the verbal contortions, Steve, that there simply isn’t any evidence to present.
Also of note: you make it clear that while the Romans did reach the borders of Sub-Saharan Africa, they didn’t in fact penetrate the region during Antiquity. So the logical conclusion is: No, the Romans didn’t colonize the region known as Sub-Saharan Africa, nor did they have any outposts in the region. Therefore, logic dictates that they didn’t arrive in Sub-Saharan Africa. And as was pointed out, they already had an abundance of slaves (whites) to do their labor, there simply wasn’t any compelling reason to travel to Africa south of the Sahara.
Lightbulb going on moment: instead of relying on speculation and distortions, why not simply accept the established consensus of centuries of historian who have commented on this fact, and that’s namely, that there were no Sub-Saharan Africans in Antiquity Rome (or in the Roman Empire)? Simple as that, really.
I mean, there weren’t any Caucasian people in Sub-Saharan Africa during Antiquity either. Why would there be? And yet that factual statement isn’t controversial.
Aside from Wokeness, and CRT, perhaps a more benign way of thinking that has led to people wanting to believe that blacks existed in London (and in the Roman Empire at large) is due in no small part to convenience. Because global travel has become more or less fairly easy over the past century, (and not forgetting that people tend to think history began on their first birthday) people tend to think that travel has always been easy. Things like thousands of miles of desert, thick jungle, sailing entire oceans (especially before the era of nonstop flights across the oceans) was a walk in the park. Easy peasy. Everyone did that all the time, back in the day.
Regarding the idea of blacks in Roman London, another way to settle such nonsense is twofold: Words from other cultures tend to seep into a dominant one. If for example, a few words from Sub-Saharan tribes were found to have co-mingled with Old English, then that would be strong evidence that some blacks existed in Roman Britian. Not all the fictitious “Roman” Sub-Saharans would be perfectly fluent in Latin so they’d be still speaking their native languages, which would have been commented/written down in the official historical accounts. (it is understood that Old English didn’t come about til ca. 450 AD, but for sake of argument, place it around the time frame. Or if not Old English, substitute Celtic and Gaelic instead.)
And ancient Celtic and Gaelic didn’t contain any Sub-Saharan words.
The other way to settle such nonsense is via DNA. If in ancient British cemetaries one were to do scans of selected tombs, one could in fact determine whether ancient blacks existed in London during Antiquity.
Funny how it always works: They always want to come here, despite of all the White Supremacy.
And not so coincidentally, this article is highlighted during Black History Month.
*perhaps the reason no major articles are written about Indians residing in the Roman Empire during Antiquity is because there simply weren’t any communities living in the Empire during that time. After all, the chronicles would have certainly noted it, as well as the various vocabulary words being spoken. A foreign language is a sure giveaway of evidence that a foreign people, or race, dwelt among the dominant host during the specific time frame. [e.g. After 1066, Old English started to absorb quite a lot of French vocabulary words–evidence that a foreign culture was dwelling among them during the specified time frame]
The 2020-2022 Italian action-drama Romulus is very good. And they filmed it in Old Latin. No random blacks or orientals in the cast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_(TV_series)
It starts in prehistoric Latium dominated by the Sabines and before Rome’s founding.
O our glory, O blue queen!
They end up in a stormy storm
You reigned serenely; a thousand members
Intrepid prostrated in bitter battle;
Because of you, I don't have friends, I don't cry because of you,
I live in peace through you. Reign, O Blessed One!
Reigns in prosperous lot, in august pomp,
In perpetual splendor, on the golden side!
You serene, you calm, you piano,
Thou kind one, save me, love me, preserve me!From Italian:
Greetings, dear Goddess, generous Goddess,
O our glory, O Venetian queen!
In stormy whirlwind finest
You reigned serene; a thousand limbs
Intrepid prostrate yourself in bitter battle;
For you miser non friends, for you I don't moan,
I live in peace for you. Reign, or Blessed!
Reign in prosperity, in august pomp,
In perpetual splendour, in golden side!
You serene, you placid, you slowly,
You benign, save me, love, preserve!I think piano is meant to mean "softly", not "slowly", and certainly not "pianoforte".
Steve, you are mistaking Augustine of Hippo, the more famous St. Augustine, who was of North African origin, lived there all his life, centered ~400 AD and never was in Britain, with Augustine of Canterbury, a monk of Rome who was chosen by Pope Gregory the Great to lead a mission to the pagan Angles-Saxons-Jutes of Kent, arriving in 597. It’s a common error, indeed medieval writers perpetuated it.
To completely deny that some Africans traveled through the Roman Empire is illogical when considering how expansive their reach was for the times.
The farce begins when modern historians attempt to reframe the age to include other cultures that did not have the influence or presence they want to claim. Finding one African in a Scandinavian grave does not point to evidence that there was an outpost the Mali Empire next to Viking longhouses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_(TV_series)
It starts in prehistoric Latium dominated by the Sabines and before Rome’s founding.Replies: @Wokechoke, @Reg Cæsar
It’s called First King in the US streaming market. The Latin was fantastic.
It’s quite possible–perhaps likely–that there were zero sub-saharan looking blacks in Britain during the entire period. People were not hopping on Ryan Air and zipping around. Travel was by foot or cart, expensive and dangerous. Maybe some centurion had an actually black slave girl and brought her along on his posting. Maybe.
It’s possible there were never any blacks in Britain until the British slave trade ramped up and dumped a few random ones there in 18th century. Basically “blacks” were essentially trivial noise in Britain until the Windrush stupidity.
~~
The interesting question is this mind virus?
No such stupidity would have been in a British museum in 1960, or even 1980.
Some of this is no doubt driven directly by affirmative action hires doing their obnoxious posturing. But mostly I suspect it is driven by British women. And maybe some homosexuals, or “men” who ought to be homosexuals. But mostly women.
There are people who like and value math, logic, reason and–the better ones–empirical reality. And those whose orientation is essentially narrative.
But these obvious lies? And this slavish stupidity? Just mind boggling.
It seems to have started small at first; an acknowledgement of some minor historical character here, a notation of one traveling merchant have peddled their wares 1000+ miles from sub-Saharan Africa in 900 AD. Yet from these small things came sweeping notions of importance for bit players on the stage of western civilization.
My best guess is that it is a frantic attempt at relevance and participation in the modern story, but the more they try to shoehorn in falsehoods the more pathetic it looks.Replies: @Bill Jones
Follow the money.
There were vanishingly few Bantu Africans in Roman Britain.
But there are, right now, sufficient numbers of Jews in Britain to do the expected and desirable and entirely predictable damage. Termites gonna termite.
It's possible there were never any blacks in Britain until the British slave trade ramped up and dumped a few random ones there in 18th century. Basically "blacks" were essentially trivial noise in Britain until the Windrush stupidity.
~~
The interesting question is this mind virus?
No such stupidity would have been in a British museum in 1960, or even 1980.
Some of this is no doubt driven directly by affirmative action hires doing their obnoxious posturing. But mostly I suspect it is driven by British women. And maybe some homosexuals, or "men" who ought to be homosexuals. But mostly women.
There are people who like and value math, logic, reason and--the better ones--empirical reality. And those whose orientation is essentially narrative.
But these obvious lies? And this slavish stupidity? Just mind boggling.Replies: @ArthurinCali, @BB753, @Wokechoke, @Jack D
It felt like a Sci-Fi horror movie from the 1950s where people were afflicted by an alien virus that takes away deductive logic, rational thinking, and the ability to distinguish objective reality.
It seems to have started small at first; an acknowledgement of some minor historical character here, a notation of one traveling merchant have peddled their wares 1000+ miles from sub-Saharan Africa in 900 AD. Yet from these small things came sweeping notions of importance for bit players on the stage of western civilization.
My best guess is that it is a frantic attempt at relevance and participation in the modern story, but the more they try to shoehorn in falsehoods the more pathetic it looks.
It's possible there were never any blacks in Britain until the British slave trade ramped up and dumped a few random ones there in 18th century. Basically "blacks" were essentially trivial noise in Britain until the Windrush stupidity.
~~
The interesting question is this mind virus?
No such stupidity would have been in a British museum in 1960, or even 1980.
Some of this is no doubt driven directly by affirmative action hires doing their obnoxious posturing. But mostly I suspect it is driven by British women. And maybe some homosexuals, or "men" who ought to be homosexuals. But mostly women.
There are people who like and value math, logic, reason and--the better ones--empirical reality. And those whose orientation is essentially narrative.
But these obvious lies? And this slavish stupidity? Just mind boggling.Replies: @ArthurinCali, @BB753, @Wokechoke, @Jack D
“But these obvious lies? And this slavish stupidity? Just mind boggling.”
Follow the money.
It's possible there were never any blacks in Britain until the British slave trade ramped up and dumped a few random ones there in 18th century. Basically "blacks" were essentially trivial noise in Britain until the Windrush stupidity.
~~
The interesting question is this mind virus?
No such stupidity would have been in a British museum in 1960, or even 1980.
Some of this is no doubt driven directly by affirmative action hires doing their obnoxious posturing. But mostly I suspect it is driven by British women. And maybe some homosexuals, or "men" who ought to be homosexuals. But mostly women.
There are people who like and value math, logic, reason and--the better ones--empirical reality. And those whose orientation is essentially narrative.
But these obvious lies? And this slavish stupidity? Just mind boggling.Replies: @ArthurinCali, @BB753, @Wokechoke, @Jack D
This 1000X.
The Roman state levied a quarter tax on these imports (frequently in-kind), and this revenue accounted for up to 40% (!) of the imperial budget, enough to maintain 8-10 legions. Egypt was only garrisoned by one legion, and it produced a huge surplus of grain as well, so one can imagine just how fabulously rich and important Egypt was to the Roman economy (in contrast, the tariff for trade within-empire was only 2-2.5%, and generated little revenue).
The problem with this trade was that it was one-sided. Setting aside a bit of glass and purple dye, the only thing the Roman trading partners desired was silver. And, of course, frankincense and silk were renewable resources whereas the supply of silver was finite. So as long as this trade lasted until the fall of the empire, Rome bled an absolutely massive amount of silver to the east every year.Replies: @Jack D, @AnotherDad, @Anonymous
The British Empire had the same problem. They loved Chinese silk, porcelain and tea but the Chinese had zero interest in anything that the Brits had to sell. They only wanted payment in silver. Then the Brits hit upon the solution of addicting the Chinese population to opium. Problem solved!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_London_(1840)
This the best of what the British sent to wipe out the Chinese navy...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Wellesley_(1815)
A Third Rate.
here's the first rate of the Chinese navy.
https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/opium-war-1839-1842
Yeah the British had nothing the Chinese wanted.Replies: @Jack D, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms
Luckily, the Chinese learned a valuable lesson from their subjugation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_opium_in_China
Over the centuries, it may have gradually replaced an earlier, literally poisonous narcotic drug used by the Chinese since antiquity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold-Food_Powder
The principal British innovation in the Chinese market was probably the superior quality of the product, which wasn't just legal across the empire - it was legal pretty much around the world. Opium products were certainly ubiquitous in Victorian England, and in far more concentrated forms than available in China.
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Opium-in-Victorian-Britain/
Ultimately, opium only became illegal without prescription around the onset of WWI, almost a century after the first war with China over the opium trade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_of_drugs#Prohibition
And within decades after that conflict, China was producing the majority of its own opium.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3181326
Later on, both sides in the Chinese Civil War - Nationalists and Communists alike - obtained substantial portions of their financing from the domestic opium trade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_opium_in_China#Republican_China
The Baghdadi Jewish Sassoon family was dominant in opium trade,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassoon_family
The British were rebuffed, partly because they refused to kowtow to the Qing emperor. The Dutch didn't and were received with high esteem.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Everardus_van_Braam_Houckgeest#Embassy_to_Chinahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_TitsinghReplies: @Jack D
The Roman state levied a quarter tax on these imports (frequently in-kind), and this revenue accounted for up to 40% (!) of the imperial budget, enough to maintain 8-10 legions. Egypt was only garrisoned by one legion, and it produced a huge surplus of grain as well, so one can imagine just how fabulously rich and important Egypt was to the Roman economy (in contrast, the tariff for trade within-empire was only 2-2.5%, and generated little revenue).
The problem with this trade was that it was one-sided. Setting aside a bit of glass and purple dye, the only thing the Roman trading partners desired was silver. And, of course, frankincense and silk were renewable resources whereas the supply of silver was finite. So as long as this trade lasted until the fall of the empire, Rome bled an absolutely massive amount of silver to the east every year.Replies: @Jack D, @AnotherDad, @Anonymous
India has been the world’s gold sink for thousands of years. The place must be chock full of gold by now.
Personally, I’d rather have sewers and frost free frig–but that’s just me.
The thing was, until the industrial revolution and production of cheaper, high quantity manufactured goods, Europeans didn't have much to offer to the richer East that the latter desired. As Jack D mentioned, the British Empire had the same issue later vis-a-vis the Chinese. The British public went mad for the Chinese silk, porcelain, and tea - all renewable resources - while the only thing the Chinese wanted from the British was silver, the supply of which was, again, finite. That's what led to the British cultivation of tea in India (a failure, except in implanting among Indians a habit for inferior tea) and, more historically crucially, opium.
What the European had - better than anyone else in the world after the 15th century? Military technology and doctrine! God is on the side of those who shoot better.Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Jack D
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/burglars-make-off-with-80kg-safe-filled-with-family-s-gold-jewellery-riding-on-a-moped-8808845.html
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/southall-mother-breaks-legs-in-leap-to-flee-asian-gold-burglary-gang-after-seeing-son-get-stabbed-in-face-a4279981.html
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/londoners-warned-to-be-wary-of-gold-thieves-targeting-diwali-celebrations-a3661456.html
https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/16073300.gold-family-heirlooms-13k-cash-stolen-burglary-caught-cctv/
This (IIRC Irish traveller) family specialised in gold-hunting.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/in-your-area/lanarkshire/english-jewllery-crooks-jailed-after-29105901
Wasn’t Jayus Gatsbyus (known to us as “Gatsby the Great”) black?
Never heard of him.
TBF to the British, the Mandarin class had a bunch of poetry about the joys of the “tears of the poppy”. They just didn’t have Lou Reed to turn it into music. It was usage by people supporting their decadence that they found a problem.
It's possible there were never any blacks in Britain until the British slave trade ramped up and dumped a few random ones there in 18th century. Basically "blacks" were essentially trivial noise in Britain until the Windrush stupidity.
~~
The interesting question is this mind virus?
No such stupidity would have been in a British museum in 1960, or even 1980.
Some of this is no doubt driven directly by affirmative action hires doing their obnoxious posturing. But mostly I suspect it is driven by British women. And maybe some homosexuals, or "men" who ought to be homosexuals. But mostly women.
There are people who like and value math, logic, reason and--the better ones--empirical reality. And those whose orientation is essentially narrative.
But these obvious lies? And this slavish stupidity? Just mind boggling.Replies: @ArthurinCali, @BB753, @Wokechoke, @Jack D
You assign 100% of the blame to women and gays without any evidence.
Please read the linked Lotuseaters piece. Here are some of the points he makes:
1. “This whole business of attempting to modify the past to meet the demands of the present is bound to fail. It was tried for many years in Soviet Russia and is still seen today in countries like Iran and China.”
Orwell’s 1984 is all about retconning history to meet the needs of the powerful. These were/are all male dominated societies.
2. “One is reminded of the so-called ‘pious frauds’ of the Middle Ages, when it was considered permissible to make use of fake relics of saints if it drew people closer to their faith in God.”
Another male dominated society.
3. “Steve Moffat, the producer of the BBC television series Dr Who for some time, explained why he cast so many black people in the programme, by saying, “We’ve kind of got to tell a lie: we’ll go back into history and there will be black people where, historically, there wouldn’t have been, and we won’t dwell on that. We’ll say, ‘To hell with it, this is the imaginary, better version of the world. By believing in it, we’ll summon it forth’.”
Maybe Moffat is on the down low but he is known to have a wife and 2 kids so I am putting him down as heterosexual white male. Wikipedia lists him as “atheist” but they are lying – he just belongs to the New Religion.
The thread that ties all of these frauds together is not femineity or homosexuality, it is religion. Yes, we are lying to you and we know it, but we are doing it for a sacred cause (and the unsaved proles cannot be converted to our holy cause unless we lie to them for their own good) so it’s ok.
But yes, I think the on-the-ground part of this sort of nonsense--like putting together this exhibit with "African" single mom--skews highly female. (Actually, I don't think homos really have much to do with it. I'm just imagining who the males--if any--involved in this stuff would be like. The kind of "men" most normal guys would feel like slapping.)Correct.
And essentially my assertion is that this new religion--basically wokeism is minoritarianism turned into religion--skews heavily female. A post-Christian channeling of female compliance, virtue signaling and religiosity.Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
OT — East Palestine, Ohio Environmental Catastrophe caused by Biden’s careless strikebreaking — a local anon has tested his tap water: pH 5, significantly more acidic than normal.
Personally, I'd rather have sewers and frost free frig--but that's just me.Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Twinkie, @YetAnotherAnon
Heard a report on Bloomberg about that. They were talking about a group of Indian economists who were trying to get people to sell their wedding gifts of gold and use the money to invest in business or at least put it in the bank. It was an amazing percentage of the national GDP sitting in people’s homes, just the stuff inherited from dead relatives.
Yorkshire poppies make the best opium so that was a “no brainer” wasn’t it?
Russian genetic ancestry researcher Klesov has discovered a lot of interesting stuff about history of the modern europeans. Highly recommend his works .
I highly recommend this Youtube lecture by the archaeologist Kristian Kristiansen that I just stumbled across:
https://youtu.be/bxTVSwt-jsU
The tl;dr version:
Recent paleo-genetic and archaeological data together show that the original European farmers came from Anatolia starting around 6500 BC and had only modest interbredding with existing hunter-gatherer populations.
In the late-fourth/early-third millennium, the European farmers were devastated by an early version of the Plague.
In the wake of this devastation, pastoral people (the Yamnaya folk who became the Corded-Ware folk) from the steppes moved into the devastated lands of Europe, bringing the Proto-Indo-European language that is ancestral to the languages that most Europeans now speak.
We are descended mainly from those Indo-European speakers and some of the hunter-gatherer populations with whom they interbred. The farmers of Anatolian origin left little genetic heritage (except, curiously, on Sardinia).
And, through the male line, we are overwhelmingly descended simply from the Indo-Europeans: they likely killed off the indigenous males and took their women. Prehistory is not pretty.
As Kristiansen put it, we are all Russians, at least through the male line.
I have grossly over-simplified and left out a huge amount of detail. The most interesting aspect is the strength of the evidence for this narrative, largely acquired over the last decade or so.
We now know where we came from.Replies: @Anon, @Pixo, @Yahya, @obwandiyag, @Corpse Tooth, @AnotherDad
lol. Yeah about that. here’s a British Second Rate ship of the line in 1840…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_London_(1840)
This the best of what the British sent to wipe out the Chinese navy…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Wellesley_(1815)
A Third Rate.
here’s the first rate of the Chinese navy.
https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/opium-war-1839-1842
Yeah the British had nothing the Chinese wanted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Dutch_conflicts
Qing did end up purchasing first-class European battleships, but from Germany, not Britain. Dingyuan and Zhenyuan, the former destroyed by the Japanese Combined Fleet at the Battle of Weihaiwei (1895), the latter captured and served in Russo-Japanese War.
The Imperial Japanese Navy was modelled after the Royal Navy but also ended its reign of dominance, on December 10th, 1941, with sinking the HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse by land-based bombers at the Naval Battle of Malaya (マレー沖海戦, Marē-oki kaisen), and effectively ending the battleship era.
Combined Fleet's later record was less impressive, at Midway was still using code book that was deciphered for years; at Battle off Samar got taught a lesson by the Americans on what it really means to be bushidō.Replies: @Wokechoke
There is a British Archeologist, Dr. Caitlin Green — https://www.caitlingreen.org/ — whose specialty is foreign presence on English soil. She often posts about the results of DNA and tooth-enamel-formation exams showing the foreign origins of quite old human remains found in archeological diggings. If memory does not fail me (as it often does) she has posted about Sub-Saharian human remains found in Britain a few times. Of course, it would be absurd to think they would be somehow typical.
It is not too far-fetched to imagine there would be a few Ethiopian (rather than Sudanese, as Ethiopia had strong commercial links with Arabia, which in turn had commercial ties with the Mediterranian) soldiers in the Roman Army. Restless young men tend to travel and find themselves in this kind of situation, and joining the Roman Army was a way to eventually become a Roman citizen. On the other hand, it is quite hard to suspend disbelief in the story of an Ethiopian soldier who would not only join the Roman Army but also rise in the ranks enough to become a centurion, find himself an Ethiopian wife (instead of, as soldiers tend to do, marrying a local woman from wherever he was posted, probably somewhere around the Mediterranian; how would she have gotten in the right place and time to marry him??!!), and, eventually, end up in Britain with his Ethiopian wife and kids. Too many “what ifs” in a single character, I’d say.
The African Roman Emperor Lucious Septimius Severus lived in Britain and oversaw the building of Roman fortifications and died in York, England. According to British television, he looked like Idris Elba.
https://www.italianartsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/115912825717_0.jpg
Here's a painting:
https://www.historyhit.com/app/uploads/2020/07/the-severan-tondo-panel-painting-of-septimius-severus-and-his-wife-and-sons-1.jpg?x79693
Like Robert Redford after a day at the beach.
https://youtu.be/qVMAd_X6Zk8?t=167Replies: @Rob, @Jack D
I watched the Great British Baking Show for a while. I kept expecting those two to start discussing whether the scones were over-baked. Alas, they kept on their silly theme.
The correct way to pronounce scone as expert settles debate 'once and for all'
For some reason, the "posh" way is more common in the North, counter to most tendencies:
How to correctly pronounce scone like The Queen, according to an etiquette expert
Dee-dar Yorkshireman Michael Palin says it the posh, "U" way, but it sounds like the Mountie chorus is divided:
https://youtu.be/FshU58nI0Ts&t=0m34s
How do Canadians say it? Whether Toronto snobs or normies in Glace Bay and Skookumchuck.Replies: @traducteur, @hootman
False.
“The farmers of Anatolian origin left little genetic heritage (except, curiously, on Sardinia).”
False.
This is really basic stuff. EEF are the largest or second largest ancestor population over most of Europe.
Read this for an overview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_European_Farmers
-EEF ancestry in modern Europe ranged from 30% in the Baltic States to 90% near the Mediterranean Sea.-Replies: @Coemgen, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @PhysicistDave
I think by “we” PhysicistDave means native English speakers.
I was indeed referring to Europeans in general, with the exception, as I noted of the Sardinians.
See the video at around 44:00:
https://youtu.be/bxTVSwt-jsU?t=2637
The furthest left on this graph is the hunter-gatherer, pre-agricultural population: obviously, the brown color shows their genetic contribution. Next to left is labeled "Neolithic farmers": they are partly brown from the hunter-gatherer genetic interbreeding, but with a new mustard color from their new genetic contribution.
The far-right on this graph is labeled "Contemporary Europeans": the mustard color has almost disappeared, except for the Sardinians, as I noted above, and the Armenians, who are in or near Anatolia, not Europe.
The graph is very striking, and I certainly found it very surprising.
And if you listen to the talk, that is what Kristiansen does say in words.
Again, I was simply summarizing Kristainsens's talk.
I am not a paleo-geneticist. Anyone who thinks they know all this better than Kristiansen should publish their own research rather than attacking me.
In any case, as I noted above, the Wikipedia article Pixo cited actually agrees with what Kristainsen said.
Pixo, as usual, is a dishonest moron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_(TV_series)
It starts in prehistoric Latium dominated by the Sabines and before Rome’s founding.Replies: @Wokechoke, @Reg Cæsar
Mario Pei told of an Italian boy given a failing grade for a Latin class assignment. He was to write a poem in that language. The teacher failed him because the poem was in Italian.
The teacher was forced to change the grade when the boy pointed out that the poem, exactly as written, was entirely in Latin as well.
Google Translate from Latin and Italian, respectively:
From Latin:
Hail, soulful Goddess, generous Goddess,
O our glory, O blue queen!
They end up in a stormy storm
You reigned serenely; a thousand members
Intrepid prostrated in bitter battle;
Because of you, I don’t have friends, I don’t cry because of you,
I live in peace through you. Reign, O Blessed One!
Reigns in prosperous lot, in august pomp,
In perpetual splendor, on the golden side!
You serene, you calm, you piano,
Thou kind one, save me, love me, preserve me!
From Italian:
Greetings, dear Goddess, generous Goddess,
O our glory, O Venetian queen!
In stormy whirlwind finest
You reigned serene; a thousand limbs
Intrepid prostrate yourself in bitter battle;
For you miser non friends, for you I don’t moan,
I live in peace for you. Reign, or Blessed!
Reign in prosperity, in august pomp,
In perpetual splendour, in golden side!
You serene, you placid, you slowly,
You benign, save me, love, preserve!
I think piano is meant to mean “softly”, not “slowly”, and certainly not “pianoforte”.
Right, “Brits” came up with the idea. More like (((Brits))). It was a Jewish affair from the beginning. Granted, the actual Brits were more than happy to provide the muscle need to enforce the trade.
Luckily, the Chinese learned a valuable lesson from their subjugation.
Did scone rhyme with “bone”, or with “bun”?
The correct way to pronounce scone as expert settles debate ‘once and for all’
For some reason, the “posh” way is more common in the North, counter to most tendencies:
How to correctly pronounce scone like The Queen, according to an etiquette expert
Dee-dar Yorkshireman Michael Palin says it the posh, “U” way, but it sounds like the Mountie chorus is divided:
How do Canadians say it? Whether Toronto snobs or normies in Glace Bay and Skookumchuck.
All 4 of my mother's grandparents were born on Cape Breton in the 1840s. Hundreds of relatives there still.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
But the author of the article ruins his article by claiming,
Yes the Soviet Union did such nonsense, but the US is the place this trend began next, often by the children and grandchildren of the same folks in charge in the Soviet Union, from where it then spread to Britain. Similarly dishonest, but I guess we can’t all be Kevin MacDonald.
I highly recommend this Youtube lecture by the archaeologist Kristian Kristiansen that I just stumbled across:
https://youtu.be/bxTVSwt-jsU
The tl;dr version:
Recent paleo-genetic and archaeological data together show that the original European farmers came from Anatolia starting around 6500 BC and had only modest interbredding with existing hunter-gatherer populations.
In the late-fourth/early-third millennium, the European farmers were devastated by an early version of the Plague.
In the wake of this devastation, pastoral people (the Yamnaya folk who became the Corded-Ware folk) from the steppes moved into the devastated lands of Europe, bringing the Proto-Indo-European language that is ancestral to the languages that most Europeans now speak.
We are descended mainly from those Indo-European speakers and some of the hunter-gatherer populations with whom they interbred. The farmers of Anatolian origin left little genetic heritage (except, curiously, on Sardinia).
And, through the male line, we are overwhelmingly descended simply from the Indo-Europeans: they likely killed off the indigenous males and took their women. Prehistory is not pretty.
As Kristiansen put it, we are all Russians, at least through the male line.
I have grossly over-simplified and left out a huge amount of detail. The most interesting aspect is the strength of the evidence for this narrative, largely acquired over the last decade or so.
We now know where we came from.Replies: @Anon, @Pixo, @Yahya, @obwandiyag, @Corpse Tooth, @AnotherDad
You can just count on this not being very true, Nobody knows about pre-history, and you can count on them someday discovering something else to contradict the current dispensation.
One objective finding that can be used to support or discredit assumed history is DNA analysis of the Y chromosome. Y DNA provides an objective history and is not fungible as autosomal DNA can be.
Mediterranean people (i.e. all around the Mediterranean, from Southern Europe to Northern Africa) were white. Greeks, Egyptians, etc.
Only later with the spread of Islam they mixed more with Subsaharans, and maybe other groups. Well maybe ancient Egypt had some black slaves already.
In the Netflix version, there will be. Hell, they even managed to find a Black Viking boinking a ginger vikingess.
Were there any blacks in Roman Britain? Of course there were!
How else can the presence in England of this marvel of Roman engineering be explained?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11731397/Ancient-path-believed-built-Romans-unearthed-2-000-years.html?ito=native_share_article-top
https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-rome/hadrians-wall
No. Not blame. The actual “blame” is a different question.
But yes, I think the on-the-ground part of this sort of nonsense–like putting together this exhibit with “African” single mom–skews highly female. (Actually, I don’t think homos really have much to do with it. I’m just imagining who the males–if any–involved in this stuff would be like. The kind of “men” most normal guys would feel like slapping.)
Correct.
And essentially my assertion is that this new religion–basically wokeism is minoritarianism turned into religion–skews heavily female. A post-Christian channeling of female compliance, virtue signaling and religiosity.
Interesting that the black woman in the poster has such nonblack features. European, North African, and Asian faces, like the “African” woman in the poster, are relatively flat in profile except for the nose. Black profiles are more triangular, with prominent lower jaws and comparatively high foreheads. And, of course, many, but not all, blacks have comparatively large lips. The poster is just a stereotypical Roman woman (see the nose) with dark skin.
Of course, a stylized profile with actual black features would be immediately labeled as racist.
In most cases, propaganda is not false. It is, however, selective in its presentation of the facts.
Yes, there were blacks in Roman Britain, particularly Nubian archers in the legions. York was home to thousands of Roman soldiers, and studies of skeletal remains from York indicate that 11 to 12% were of Black African origin.
Leach, S., Lewis, M. E., Chenery, C., Müldner, G. H. and Eckardt, H. (2009). Migration and diversity in Roman Britain: a multidisciplinary approach to immigrants in Roman York, England. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 140 (3): 546-561. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.21104
Denying that there were black legionnaires in Roman Britain is like denying that there were Senegalese soldiers in Europe during the two world wars. Empires like to recruit foreign soldiers for various reasons: they’re inexpensive, they don’t feel any kinship with the people they’re supposed to fight, and they haven’t been spoiled by civilization. By the third century, most Roman soldiers were in fact barbarians.
2nd, this craniometry crap is very tenuous. Remember when liberals used to decry craniometry as worthless pseudoscience? Stephen J. Gould anyone? When NAZIS do it to back THEIR ideology, it's pseudoscience, but when WE do it to back OUR ideology, its science. Follow the science, people! Ancient Britain was just FULL of Negroes, according to science.
The Romans had plenty of Germanics to recruit right next door and didn't need to go to Sub-saharan Africa which was barely accessible.Replies: @Wokechoke, @Peter Frost
Case in point: Ukrainian mercenaries trained by American and British contractors to conduct black operations in the UK and USA.
This whole use of "African"--in actuality North Africans, but implying "blacks"--is the lie, the scam. Take a moor and paint her black.
The French had a colony in Senegal, and steamships. The Romans did not. I'm not saying they didn't get some "close enough" blacks from what's now South Sudan, bumping on down the Nile, volunteering and ending up fighting the Scots in Britain. (Heck if I know.) The Romans had a long campaign in Britain so it's possible.
But despite "race does not exist", forensic anthropologist have no difficulty in determining that some skeleton (or skull) is black. So the very fact that this paper does not trumpet the presence of real live blacks! in Roman Britain--which of course would be a big win for the "Britain has always been diverse!" lie--suggests that none of the remains found in York is in fact black.
OT:
How else can the presence in England of this marvel of Roman engineering be explained?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11731397/Ancient-path-believed-built-Romans-unearthed-2-000-years.html?ito=native_share_article-topReplies: @Dmon
And the blacks were already being discriminated against, as this blatant example of redlining illustrates.
https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-rome/hadrians-wall
“North Africa” and “Black Africa” are not the same thing.
This language is a little garbled.
Nubians defended by their Archers were, if I recall, never conquered by Roman forces attempting to march up the Nile. The Arabs never quite got the better of the Nubian archery guys either. These archers at the north end of the empire would have been auxiliary/mercenary troops brought over to annoy the locals. And you are talking about 1 in ten skeletons from a legionary cemetery correct? Not 1 in 10 skeletons from the region of Britannia Secunda. I saw what you did there.
Some things never change.
I highly recommend this Youtube lecture by the archaeologist Kristian Kristiansen that I just stumbled across:
https://youtu.be/bxTVSwt-jsU
The tl;dr version:
Recent paleo-genetic and archaeological data together show that the original European farmers came from Anatolia starting around 6500 BC and had only modest interbredding with existing hunter-gatherer populations.
In the late-fourth/early-third millennium, the European farmers were devastated by an early version of the Plague.
In the wake of this devastation, pastoral people (the Yamnaya folk who became the Corded-Ware folk) from the steppes moved into the devastated lands of Europe, bringing the Proto-Indo-European language that is ancestral to the languages that most Europeans now speak.
We are descended mainly from those Indo-European speakers and some of the hunter-gatherer populations with whom they interbred. The farmers of Anatolian origin left little genetic heritage (except, curiously, on Sardinia).
And, through the male line, we are overwhelmingly descended simply from the Indo-Europeans: they likely killed off the indigenous males and took their women. Prehistory is not pretty.
As Kristiansen put it, we are all Russians, at least through the male line.
I have grossly over-simplified and left out a huge amount of detail. The most interesting aspect is the strength of the evidence for this narrative, largely acquired over the last decade or so.
We now know where we came from.Replies: @Anon, @Pixo, @Yahya, @obwandiyag, @Corpse Tooth, @AnotherDad
we are overwhelmingly descended simply from the Indo-Europeans: they likely killed off the indigenous males and took their women
That was a good life. Short, but intense and memorable. In this one I degenerate into a Brendan Gleeson look-a-like and change the diapers on a reanimated civil rights icon with a mean whistle.
Prehistory is not pretty
Neither is deep history. Mars got all fooked up.
First of all, “African” doesn’t mean “black”. Right in the same paragraph it says “with some individuals suggested as having originated from the Middle East or North Africa“. Got that – NORTH Africa. North Africans are not the same thing as sub-Saharans.
2nd, this craniometry crap is very tenuous. Remember when liberals used to decry craniometry as worthless pseudoscience? Stephen J. Gould anyone? When NAZIS do it to back THEIR ideology, it’s pseudoscience, but when WE do it to back OUR ideology, its science. Follow the science, people! Ancient Britain was just FULL of Negroes, according to science.
The Romans had plenty of Germanics to recruit right next door and didn’t need to go to Sub-saharan Africa which was barely accessible.
Empires like to recruit foreign soldiers for various reasons … they don’t feel any kinship with the people they’re supposed to fight
Case in point: Ukrainian mercenaries trained by American and British contractors to conduct black operations in the UK and USA.
2nd, this craniometry crap is very tenuous. Remember when liberals used to decry craniometry as worthless pseudoscience? Stephen J. Gould anyone? When NAZIS do it to back THEIR ideology, it's pseudoscience, but when WE do it to back OUR ideology, its science. Follow the science, people! Ancient Britain was just FULL of Negroes, according to science.
The Romans had plenty of Germanics to recruit right next door and didn't need to go to Sub-saharan Africa which was barely accessible.Replies: @Wokechoke, @Peter Frost
The Romans didn’t conquer Sudan/Nubia/Meroe anyway. They’d have only had a trickle of captured soldiers or slaves to incorporate into the Legions.
Burt Bacharach gone. I’m sorry (though not surprised) to know he had Trump paranoia in his later years, but what a body of work. We had a big people carrier with CD player for our SF/Death Valley/Grand Canyon trip, straight into Tower Records for Dionne Warwick and the Bacharach and David Songbook which was our holiday music for 2 weeks, hardly a duff track on it and the kids learned some classics.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/feb/09/burt-bacharach-
PS – this is 2015, but still worth a read.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/united-states-china-war-thucydides-trap/406756/
lol.
There were NO BLACKS in Roman Britain. Period. As late as 1951, three years AFTER the Treasonous Labor party opened the doors, Britain was still 99.81% white.
They have Anne Boleyn being played by a negro. Unreal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_London_(1840)
This the best of what the British sent to wipe out the Chinese navy...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Wellesley_(1815)
A Third Rate.
here's the first rate of the Chinese navy.
https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/opium-war-1839-1842
Yeah the British had nothing the Chinese wanted.Replies: @Jack D, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms
Yeah, until the British came, they didn’t need warships to fight the British.
"they wanted for nothing"
apart from an up to date modern technological society.
https://youtu.be/qVMAd_X6Zk8?t=167Replies: @Rob, @Jack D
Here is a portrait bust of Septimius Severus. He doesn’t look much like Idris Elba. More like Robert Redford.
Here’s a painting:
Like Robert Redford after a day at the beach.
Also, we can’t trust history if there are not objective findings to support it.
One objective finding that can be used to support or discredit assumed history is DNA analysis of the Y chromosome. Y DNA provides an objective history and is not fungible as autosomal DNA can be.
Don't stay up too late, Steve. We need you.Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Ralph L, @Dmon
A single buddy may have multiple plantations. Unlike Steve, I’ve never read Dreams and would take all of it with mountains of salt if I did.
O/T. I just viewed (Amazon Prime) the truly superb “Decision to Leave,” a 2022 Korean movie. Acclaimed by critics, and I agree. Subtitled, but don’t worry, it does not contain long passages of wording. It has a sensibility the differs from American films and also from European foreign films. Enjoyable equally for men and women. This film almost fell through the cracks for me, and I wanted to tell my friends here that it exists, or I would have felt guilty, because people here have told me about so many great things that I had not known about.
Naturally, WASP elites immediately began using Negroes as weapons and tools with which to bash the hordes of 'white trash' they ruled. One major way to 'prove' your superiority as a class is to force this you wish to destroy to suffer from conditions in which you impose another people on them. And that means that those elites will gravitate toward excusing and defending and then promoting even the very worst of the people they use as tools as weapons against those that remind them of the Christendom against which they have rebelled.
That means that miles of the WASP world, which now includes all of Western Europe, deep down feel compelled to promote things black African while despising the lower orders (which includes the middle class) of their own people. They are acting from the deepest core of their anti-Christendom rebellion. They also love promoting Mohammedans for the same basic reason, as well as all things Queer - and the more black, the more dark Mohammendan and the more QUEER the better.
Pedophile Foucault understood all that, it seems to me, though I am not aware that he ever stated it that directly.
That explains why even when it makes 0 sense historically and geographically, these monster products of anti-Christendom rebellion focus on Bantu blacks rather than Nilotic blacks. Nilotic blacks are far less savage, are considerably less prone to violent criminality, and are far more likely to ease into a European civilization than are Bantus.
The elites of the WASP world gain little by rubbing your face in Nilotics, but a great deal of perverse satisfaction from making you bow to Bantus, rage most vicious savage people of earth.Replies: @Chris Mallory
Maybe in your next life you will come back as a WASP instead of whatever swarthy WOG you are now.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1526738074/
His main sources are Pliny, Strabo, and the periplus that Steve mentioned:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periplus_of_the_Erythraean_SeaReplies: @Twinkie
McLaughlin also has another book that covers the Roman trade with China.
Opium had been known to the Chinese population for probably 1000 years prior to the opium trade with Britain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_opium_in_China
Over the centuries, it may have gradually replaced an earlier, literally poisonous narcotic drug used by the Chinese since antiquity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold-Food_Powder
The principal British innovation in the Chinese market was probably the superior quality of the product, which wasn’t just legal across the empire – it was legal pretty much around the world. Opium products were certainly ubiquitous in Victorian England, and in far more concentrated forms than available in China.
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Opium-in-Victorian-Britain/
Ultimately, opium only became illegal without prescription around the onset of WWI, almost a century after the first war with China over the opium trade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_of_drugs#Prohibition
And within decades after that conflict, China was producing the majority of its own opium.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3181326
Later on, both sides in the Chinese Civil War – Nationalists and Communists alike – obtained substantial portions of their financing from the domestic opium trade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_opium_in_China#Republican_China
Perhaps that was the occasion when he became so enamored of slavery that he had Hillary Clinton reintroduce it in Libya.
Personally, I'd rather have sewers and frost free frig--but that's just me.Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Twinkie, @YetAnotherAnon
In the Roman world, gold was not as highly valued in relative terms to silver as is the case today. It was still valued higher than silver, but not as much as now. And it wasn’t just India – Rome bled a huge amount of silver to Arabia, Yemen, and East Africa, as well as India and farther east. The Palmyrenes became fabulously wealthy by mediating the frankincense trade with Rome.
The thing was, until the industrial revolution and production of cheaper, high quantity manufactured goods, Europeans didn’t have much to offer to the richer East that the latter desired. As Jack D mentioned, the British Empire had the same issue later vis-a-vis the Chinese. The British public went mad for the Chinese silk, porcelain, and tea – all renewable resources – while the only thing the Chinese wanted from the British was silver, the supply of which was, again, finite. That’s what led to the British cultivation of tea in India (a failure, except in implanting among Indians a habit for inferior tea) and, more historically crucially, opium.
What the European had – better than anyone else in the world after the 15th century? Military technology and doctrine! God is on the side of those who shoot better.
How very dare you. IIRC Brits stole tea plants from China to cultivate in India, though it was the production technology that seemed to adapt better to India. I prefer Indian (Assam) tea to China tea, although that may be long habituation. I could live without alcohol, but I'd find a life without tea a sad one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fortune
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-great-british-tea-heist-9866709/Replies: @Jamsportle
My apologies for mentioning this website (ORBIS) again. It’s on-topic to Steve’s post, and I wanted to make it known to newcomers to Steve’s Blog.
ORBIS: The Stanford Geospatial Network Model of the Roman World
https://orbis.stanford.edu/
Want has a double meaning in English…
“they wanted for nothing”
apart from an up to date modern technological society.
The linked video even shows a graph at 45:30, which shows the very substantial genetic content from EEF in various modern Europeans. Perhaps what Dave is confusing is the discussion of male lineage (y chromosome) which shows the male line is almost entirely from the steppe.
You are right that there is a north/south gradient, and I noted that Sardinia has a very different pattern. But in what Kristiansen calls "temperate Europe," (i.e., non-Mediterranean Europe) the EEF genes almost disappear.
Yes, most prominently through the male line, but also in general.
I do find puzzling the comparison between the chart at 45:30 vs. the graph at 44:00: same general direction, but they seem to differ in detail.
Anyway, anyone interested in this should just watch the video, rather than depend on my brief summary.
As you seem indeed to have done.Replies: @Pixo
It’s amusing to see The Cathedral constantly elide between “black” and “African” in this discussion.
There were almost certainly a ton of Africans in Roman Britain, mostly from what we would now call Libya, Tunisia, etc. There are numerous skeletons of people of North African descent in Britain. Hell, Septimus Severus, who was born in modern Libya, ruled briefly as Emperor from Britain.
But I know of zero examples of physical evidence of remains of people from sub-saharan Africa. The so-called “Beachy Head Lady” was claimed to be so, but it has now been demonstrated that she was of Southern European origin.
The Roman Empire was huge and people were moved around all the time, especially in the army, so I assume there was at least one black person in Roman Britain at some point, but there’s no evidence that there was any material presence of blacks there.
The trans movement can have Heliogabalus.
That was a good life. Short, but intense and memorable. In this one I degenerate into a Brendan Gleeson look-a-like and change the diapers on a reanimated civil rights icon with a mean whistle.
Prehistory is not pretty
Neither is deep history. Mars got all fooked up.Replies: @Anon
Indo-Europeans were indigenous Europeans. Last I checked Ukraine and southern Russia are in Eastern Europe.
Wot about the Black Irish?
It seems to have started small at first; an acknowledgement of some minor historical character here, a notation of one traveling merchant have peddled their wares 1000+ miles from sub-Saharan Africa in 900 AD. Yet from these small things came sweeping notions of importance for bit players on the stage of western civilization.
My best guess is that it is a frantic attempt at relevance and participation in the modern story, but the more they try to shoehorn in falsehoods the more pathetic it looks.Replies: @Bill Jones
Isn’t that Jack Nicholson’s definition of women in As Good As It Gets?
Es tu, Peter?
This whole use of “African”–in actuality North Africans, but implying “blacks”–is the lie, the scam. Take a moor and paint her black.
The French had a colony in Senegal, and steamships. The Romans did not. I’m not saying they didn’t get some “close enough” blacks from what’s now South Sudan, bumping on down the Nile, volunteering and ending up fighting the Scots in Britain. (Heck if I know.) The Romans had a long campaign in Britain so it’s possible.
But despite “race does not exist”, forensic anthropologist have no difficulty in determining that some skeleton (or skull) is black. So the very fact that this paper does not trumpet the presence of real live blacks! in Roman Britain–which of course would be a big win for the “Britain has always been diverse!” lie–suggests that none of the remains found in York is in fact black.
Before modern heating and modern welfare state I just don’t think you’d have seen many blacks or browns stay in the British Isles. They’d leave ASAP for sunnier areas.
If I recall correctly, the Romans knew about sub-Saharan Africa (they had giraffes brought back to Rome), but in addition to the difficulty of crossing the Sahara, anyone entering sub-Saharan Africa from the outside encountered the fantastically high disease load. 19th Century Europeans had a life expectancy of 18 months in equitorical Africa and it’s hard to believe Romans would have fared any better.
2nd, this craniometry crap is very tenuous. Remember when liberals used to decry craniometry as worthless pseudoscience? Stephen J. Gould anyone? When NAZIS do it to back THEIR ideology, it's pseudoscience, but when WE do it to back OUR ideology, its science. Follow the science, people! Ancient Britain was just FULL of Negroes, according to science.
The Romans had plenty of Germanics to recruit right next door and didn't need to go to Sub-saharan Africa which was barely accessible.Replies: @Wokechoke, @Peter Frost
Perhaps you should read the whole paper. It specifically talks about “black” Africans.
Go to Table 2 (pages 8 and 9). Fifteen of the individuals are assessed as “black” or “mostly black.”
On Table 6 (page 13), eight individuals are assessed as being “black.” On the same page, the author states: “For the African groups, the crania demonstrated the greatest resemblance to the American Black reference samples of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries”.
I don’t get your reference to Stephen J. Gould. His paper on cranial differences has been discredited for some time now. So what’s your argument? “If Stephen J. Gould is wrong, then you too can be wrong!” Well, perhaps. But since when is he the gold standard for truth?
I highly recommend this Youtube lecture by the archaeologist Kristian Kristiansen that I just stumbled across:
https://youtu.be/bxTVSwt-jsU
The tl;dr version:
Recent paleo-genetic and archaeological data together show that the original European farmers came from Anatolia starting around 6500 BC and had only modest interbredding with existing hunter-gatherer populations.
In the late-fourth/early-third millennium, the European farmers were devastated by an early version of the Plague.
In the wake of this devastation, pastoral people (the Yamnaya folk who became the Corded-Ware folk) from the steppes moved into the devastated lands of Europe, bringing the Proto-Indo-European language that is ancestral to the languages that most Europeans now speak.
We are descended mainly from those Indo-European speakers and some of the hunter-gatherer populations with whom they interbred. The farmers of Anatolian origin left little genetic heritage (except, curiously, on Sardinia).
And, through the male line, we are overwhelmingly descended simply from the Indo-Europeans: they likely killed off the indigenous males and took their women. Prehistory is not pretty.
As Kristiansen put it, we are all Russians, at least through the male line.
I have grossly over-simplified and left out a huge amount of detail. The most interesting aspect is the strength of the evidence for this narrative, largely acquired over the last decade or so.
We now know where we came from.Replies: @Anon, @Pixo, @Yahya, @obwandiyag, @Corpse Tooth, @AnotherDad
Other than claiming little EEF–which is wrong–this sounds like the story that’s been out there since the dawn of DNA sequencing. Razib had a one of those colorful global principal component analysis plots back when he was doing the his Discover blog, that I’ve passed on to several folks over the years. Euros–except Sardinians–show as a three bean salad–west hunter gathers, early european farmers (from the middle east) and steppe invaders.
Arguably we’ve known this story for a century or more. Several European traders/missionaries noted the similarity of Indian languages to our own–hundreds of years ago. And once the Brits were there, seriously studying Sanskrit, the Occam explanation was an ancient common “proto Indo European” precursor on the steppe. Understanding that the initial agricultural revolution was in the middle east–“fertile crescent” was understood, as well. The rest is just timeline.
This
And this
Are directly contradictory.
Fortunately, it is the later. I’d be embarrassed by any ancestor of mine who conquering some joint killed off the young women, rather than enjoying them. That would truly be an “unnatural act”.
Modern Europeans are basically a hybrid population of four major genetic contributions: the West Eurasian hunter-gatherers, the Anatolian farmers, the pastoral population from the Eurasian steppes, and the Siberians, all with varying mixtures by region (e.g. Sardinians are strongly Anatolian farmers while Finns and some of the Baltics are much more West Eurasian hunter-gatherers and Siberians compared to other Europeans, etc.).
The Roman state levied a quarter tax on these imports (frequently in-kind), and this revenue accounted for up to 40% (!) of the imperial budget, enough to maintain 8-10 legions. Egypt was only garrisoned by one legion, and it produced a huge surplus of grain as well, so one can imagine just how fabulously rich and important Egypt was to the Roman economy (in contrast, the tariff for trade within-empire was only 2-2.5%, and generated little revenue).
The problem with this trade was that it was one-sided. Setting aside a bit of glass and purple dye, the only thing the Roman trading partners desired was silver. And, of course, frankincense and silk were renewable resources whereas the supply of silver was finite. So as long as this trade lasted until the fall of the empire, Rome bled an absolutely massive amount of silver to the east every year.Replies: @Jack D, @AnotherDad, @Anonymous
Interestingly, this also explains the rise and dips of the Han Chinese economy over the past two millennia. Roman silver essentially monetized the Chinese economy until (per the Pirenne Thesis) that trade ceased in the 7th century thanks to Islam. Then the Chinese economy went into the doldrums for centuries, and the weakened state opened itself to Mongol and Manchu invasions. It was the Spaniards trading Mexican silver starting in the 16th century (in the Acapulco-Manila galleons) that fully remonetized China, with only opium able to crack that economy three centuries later.
The Chinese have over 2000 years of experience to know that any “decoupling” from Western economies would be disastrous for them. Because it has been.
The Chinese got addicted to opium through no one’s fault but their own.
The Baghdadi Jewish Sassoon family was dominant in opium trade,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassoon_family
The British were rebuffed, partly because they refused to kowtow to the Qing emperor. The Dutch didn’t and were received with high esteem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Everardus_van_Braam_Houckgeest#Embassy_to_China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Titsingh
People here keep saying that the Chinese somehow WANTED the British opium but the whole reason the Opium Wars were fought was that the Chinese government had prohibited that trade. The British then started a war to force the Chinese to take the drugs. This is morally indefensible on any level and it's ridiculous that people are taking the British side in this. Then again there are people here (the same people?) defending the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
You could say that the Americans got addicted to fentanyl through no one’s fault but their own but I still don't want the Chinese bringing that shit to my country and our government has every right as a sovereign ruler to prohibit it regardless of consumer demand.Replies: @Wokechoke, @Wokechoke, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Malla
Couldn’t the archaeologists settle the question by counting chicken bones?
With respect Peter, you’re completely wrong here.
The methodology is crap. The paper is woke garbage.
Look at table 3. It shows the female crania found in frickin’ Roman York to have a *majority* “black” or “mixed”!
Even if at some point a black from SSA stepped foot in Roman Britain (possible for brief periods at ports, but not especially likely for any settled population), you really believe this BS that Roman York had areas like the Bronx or Dominican Republic with majority black or mulatto populations? That’s the silliness of your cited source:
“At The Railway, females exhibiting mixed or black characteristics (n 5 13) slightly outnumbered those exhibiting mostly white traits (n 5 9)”
Or that the other site was only 2/3 white???
“At Trentholme Drive, 66% (n 5 29) of the crania fell within the parameters for European skulls”
Needless to say there won’t be any blacks in the museum to actually see the exhibits. Unless bused in from schools of course.
And every TV show set in the present and every TV show set in the future.
Don't stay up too late, Steve. We need you.Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Ralph L, @Dmon
Almost certainly a male slave, and this sentence is probably a better fit:
“Obama met a black slave in Pakistan in 1981 on one of his Occidental buddies.”
There was an historical black population in Liverpool dating to the 1730’s, but very much the exception that proves the rule to the UK as a whole.
The Romans had a deliberate policy of stationing soldiers in regions that were culturally different from their place of origin. North African and Nubian soldiers were often stationed on the northern frontier, just as Germanic soldiers were often stationed far from Germania.
That sounds weird, but it does make sense. You want to make sure that a soldier’s first loyalty is to the Empire, and not to his own people.
So, yes, Roman York was ethnically mixed. It was essentially a city of legionnaires. That doesn’t mean that the same was true for the rest of Roman Britain. Think of a U.S. army base in North Dakota.
On a final note, I am aware that this debate is taking place within a larger “woke” context. But you don’t fight the woke by systematically disagreeing with everything they say. In many cases, they are right, but only in a banal and often hypocritical way.
In other cases, they are right but they don’t follow their reasoning to its logical conclusion. The Roman Empire was an early expression of globalism, and it collapsed largely because it could not surmount the contradictions of globalism.
Germanics were renowned soldiers and prized as mercenaries in the Roman era. What’s a Roman source of some big group of “Nubians” serving in northern Europe? Remind me of what the black equivalent of the Varangian Guard was? Who the famous Nubian/black Roman generals were that rose up the ranks like so many Germanics?
You can’t name them or cite clear sources because they don’t exist.
Blacks of course have long made poor soldiers, which is why you don’t even see them recruited as Wagner Group canon fodder. Also why the Soviets kept having to bring in triracial Cubans in various African proxy wars rather than arm local blacks.
Also, have you been around blacks IRL much? They get cold really easily. Sending them to northern England in large numbers would be expensive and especially stupid.Replies: @Twinkie, @BB753, @Diversity Heretic, @Peter Frost
“ North African and Nubian soldiers were often stationed on the northern frontier, just as Germanic soldiers were often stationed far from Germania.”
Germanics were renowned soldiers and prized as mercenaries in the Roman era. What’s a Roman source of some big group of “Nubians” serving in northern Europe? Remind me of what the black equivalent of the Varangian Guard was? Who the famous Nubian/black Roman generals were that rose up the ranks like so many Germanics?
You can’t name them or cite clear sources because they don’t exist.
Blacks of course have long made poor soldiers, which is why you don’t even see them recruited as Wagner Group canon fodder. Also why the Soviets kept having to bring in triracial Cubans in various African proxy wars rather than arm local blacks.
Also, have you been around blacks IRL much? They get cold really easily. Sending them to northern England in large numbers would be expensive and especially stupid.
And the Romans never raised Nubian soldiery. They did, however, recruit Numidians extensively as the latter were reputed to be the best light cavalrymen in the entire Mediterranean world.
Yet they seem to be doing fine in cold places like Michigan and Minnesota.Replies: @Wokechoke
Looked at several of these YT videos on DNA for human evolution. Both for the Neolithic/Bronze era as well as earlier Neanderthal stuff.
One thing I was wondering is what percent of racial differences come from the Neanderthal and Denisovan admixture. I realize the amounts are small (2% N in Europeans, maybe 6%D in Melanesians). But If I compare a Melanesian to a European, how much of the difference that I find comes from this breeding and how much from differing evolution of the Cro Magnon root stock (in different places, over time). I tried Googling and could not find an answer.
False.
“The farmers of Anatolian origin left little genetic heritage (except, curiously, on Sardinia).”
False.
This is really basic stuff. EEF are the largest or second largest ancestor population over most of Europe.
Read this for an overview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_European_Farmers
-EEF ancestry in modern Europe ranged from 30% in the Baltic States to 90% near the Mediterranean Sea.-Replies: @Coemgen, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @PhysicistDave
Wow! Thanks for coming down from your Ivory Tower to grace us with an invocation of the learned musings of NPC incels posting Wikipedia tripe from the basements of their parents.
Let me guess. Your job as a convenience store clerk on the graveyard shift gives you lots of time to think about how you can participate in the ‘enlightenment’ of the rest of us.
What would we do without you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_London_(1840)
This the best of what the British sent to wipe out the Chinese navy...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Wellesley_(1815)
A Third Rate.
here's the first rate of the Chinese navy.
https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/opium-war-1839-1842
Yeah the British had nothing the Chinese wanted.Replies: @Jack D, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms
Britain was only the dominant world naval power after Trafalgar. In the 17th CE it was the Dutch, which was even-matched with Ming China,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Dutch_conflicts
Qing did end up purchasing first-class European battleships, but from Germany, not Britain. Dingyuan and Zhenyuan, the former destroyed by the Japanese Combined Fleet at the Battle of Weihaiwei (1895), the latter captured and served in Russo-Japanese War.
The Imperial Japanese Navy was modelled after the Royal Navy but also ended its reign of dominance, on December 10th, 1941, with sinking the HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse by land-based bombers at the Naval Battle of Malaya (マレー沖海戦, Marē-oki kaisen), and effectively ending the battleship era.
Combined Fleet’s later record was less impressive, at Midway was still using code book that was deciphered for years; at Battle off Samar got taught a lesson by the Americans on what it really means to be bushidō.
1.) Yamnaya did not "become Corded Ware". There is zero patrilineal continuity from Yamnaya to Corded Ware.
2.) Europeans are "mostly descended from Indo Europeans with little farmer input'. Almost all Eueopean ethnic groups are mostly descended from the Anatolian farmers, and those who aren't (such as Western Scandinavians, Scots) are still almost 50% Anatolian farmer.
3.) Russians are mainly descended from eastward migrations of Corded Ware men in to Russia, and westward migrations of Finno Ugrian and Uralian speakers carrying haplogroup N. Only about 50% of Russian paternal lineages belong to the original Indo-European haplogroups such as R1a. Most belong to an assortment of non-IE haplogroups such as I2, N, J, E, etc.Replies: @PhysicistDave, @PhysicistDave
Anon[269] wrote to me:
I was simply summarizing Kristiansens’s talk.
And what bragging? I do happen to have a Ph.D. from Stanford. I take it you don’t.
Anyway, if you disagree with Kristiansen, take it up with him.
In fact, since you know so much more than he does, why don’t you publish your results?
In a peer-reviewed journal.
Maybe Nature.
You are a jerk.
An anonymous jerk, which says it all.
False.
“The farmers of Anatolian origin left little genetic heritage (except, curiously, on Sardinia).”
False.
This is really basic stuff. EEF are the largest or second largest ancestor population over most of Europe.
Read this for an overview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_European_Farmers
-EEF ancestry in modern Europe ranged from 30% in the Baltic States to 90% near the Mediterranean Sea.-Replies: @Coemgen, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @PhysicistDave
Pixo wrote to me:
Kristiansen cites primary published data. In Nature.
Do you have anything better than Wikipedia?
This is an honest question.
Incidentally, the Wikipedia article that you yourself cite states:
That is exactly the point I cited from Kristainsen.
Score so far:
Kristiansen 1
Pixo <0.
But I am willing to consider other evidence.
If you have any.
Of course, you never, ever do, now do you?
You did not even bother to read the article you cited, did you?
You really are an asshole, aren't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Dutch_conflicts
Qing did end up purchasing first-class European battleships, but from Germany, not Britain. Dingyuan and Zhenyuan, the former destroyed by the Japanese Combined Fleet at the Battle of Weihaiwei (1895), the latter captured and served in Russo-Japanese War.
The Imperial Japanese Navy was modelled after the Royal Navy but also ended its reign of dominance, on December 10th, 1941, with sinking the HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse by land-based bombers at the Naval Battle of Malaya (マレー沖海戦, Marē-oki kaisen), and effectively ending the battleship era.
Combined Fleet's later record was less impressive, at Midway was still using code book that was deciphered for years; at Battle off Samar got taught a lesson by the Americans on what it really means to be bushidō.Replies: @Wokechoke
Few people know that Taiwan was a Dutch colony back then. Good to see someone knowing that.
There were West Africans that made it to Dorset at least once in the three centuries following Rome’s abandonment of Britain. One’s granddaughter was DNA sequenced recently (sample I11570) in the supplement). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05247-2
Also possible that men bearing the surname “Revis” are directly descended in the male line from Roman era Africans in Britain, though I’d guess their lineage probably came in the early modern period instead. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2590664/
I call it an incongruous negro event. Oh, Achilles was a Bantu? How did he get there? Did anybody notice? Negro Romans in Britain? Calm, happy, prosperous negro fathers at home with white wives and children in at least one ad per day? I used to find it mildly annoying that in most sci-fi series there was the one genius, not overtly Jewish but with stock Jewish markers. More annoyed now that it is the incongruous negro. His father went to MIT, his mother was a concert pianist, like JS Mill he knew Greek at 3, studied Euclid at 5, cured cancer at 21, etc.
The event occurs and distracts me from the content of the show. Not that I’m angry, rather I have to devote a lot of mental energy on ignoring it. Sometimes I can’t and just shut it off.
It’s jarring when the production is purported to be historical, otherwise real, or from an obvious tradition like Tolkien. In more abstracted fictions it can be appropriate, but not when it’s an obvious quota. I’m noticing a lot of bad acting in minor black roles. Demand exceeds supply.
I also dislike the odious hypocrisy of mulatto main characters and ebony minor characters. That’s the ugly compromise made between the marketing and the human resources departments.
Incongrous negro.
Inconegrous.
Coemgen wrote to Pixo:
Well, no.
I was indeed referring to Europeans in general, with the exception, as I noted of the Sardinians.
See the video at around 44:00:
The furthest left on this graph is the hunter-gatherer, pre-agricultural population: obviously, the brown color shows their genetic contribution. Next to left is labeled “Neolithic farmers”: they are partly brown from the hunter-gatherer genetic interbreeding, but with a new mustard color from their new genetic contribution.
The far-right on this graph is labeled “Contemporary Europeans”: the mustard color has almost disappeared, except for the Sardinians, as I noted above, and the Armenians, who are in or near Anatolia, not Europe.
The graph is very striking, and I certainly found it very surprising.
And if you listen to the talk, that is what Kristiansen does say in words.
Again, I was simply summarizing Kristainsens’s talk.
I am not a paleo-geneticist. Anyone who thinks they know all this better than Kristiansen should publish their own research rather than attacking me.
In any case, as I noted above, the Wikipedia article Pixo cited actually agrees with what Kristainsen said.
Pixo, as usual, is a dishonest moron.
shale boi wrote to Yahya:
I was rfeferring to the graph at 44:00 which shows very little EEF in contemporary Europeans from Hungary to Norway and Lithuania: Kristiansen’s words at that point in the talk are “Neolithic genes are nearly wiped out…”
You are right that there is a north/south gradient, and I noted that Sardinia has a very different pattern. But in what Kristiansen calls “temperate Europe,” (i.e., non-Mediterranean Europe) the EEF genes almost disappear.
Yes, most prominently through the male line, but also in general.
I do find puzzling the comparison between the chart at 45:30 vs. the graph at 44:00: same general direction, but they seem to differ in detail.
Anyway, anyone interested in this should just watch the video, rather than depend on my brief summary.
As you seem indeed to have done.
Wrong again, foul-mouthed hothead.
1.) Yamnaya did not "become Corded Ware". There is zero patrilineal continuity from Yamnaya to Corded Ware.
2.) Europeans are "mostly descended from Indo Europeans with little farmer input'. Almost all Eueopean ethnic groups are mostly descended from the Anatolian farmers, and those who aren't (such as Western Scandinavians, Scots) are still almost 50% Anatolian farmer.
3.) Russians are mainly descended from eastward migrations of Corded Ware men in to Russia, and westward migrations of Finno Ugrian and Uralian speakers carrying haplogroup N. Only about 50% of Russian paternal lineages belong to the original Indo-European haplogroups such as R1a. Most belong to an assortment of non-IE haplogroups such as I2, N, J, E, etc.Replies: @PhysicistDave, @PhysicistDave
The intellectually disabled Anon[269] wrote to me:
In saying that we are all Russians, Kristiansen (and I) were making a joke.
We’re all descended from people who once lived in the territory now called Russia, not of course from current Russians.
Some people who are intellectually disabled lack the ability to grasp a joke.
Germanics were renowned soldiers and prized as mercenaries in the Roman era. What’s a Roman source of some big group of “Nubians” serving in northern Europe? Remind me of what the black equivalent of the Varangian Guard was? Who the famous Nubian/black Roman generals were that rose up the ranks like so many Germanics?
You can’t name them or cite clear sources because they don’t exist.
Blacks of course have long made poor soldiers, which is why you don’t even see them recruited as Wagner Group canon fodder. Also why the Soviets kept having to bring in triracial Cubans in various African proxy wars rather than arm local blacks.
Also, have you been around blacks IRL much? They get cold really easily. Sending them to northern England in large numbers would be expensive and especially stupid.Replies: @Twinkie, @BB753, @Diversity Heretic, @Peter Frost
Although the Egyptians (and later the Arab rulers of Egypt) raised some Nubian soldiers (either household guards/slave-soldiers or archers), as soon as they were able to import Turkic slave-soldiers, this practice ceased entirely.
And the Romans never raised Nubian soldiery. They did, however, recruit Numidians extensively as the latter were reputed to be the best light cavalrymen in the entire Mediterranean world.
Arguably we've known this story for a century or more. Several European traders/missionaries noted the similarity of Indian languages to our own--hundreds of years ago. And once the Brits were there, seriously studying Sanskrit, the Occam explanation was an ancient common "proto Indo European" precursor on the steppe. Understanding that the initial agricultural revolution was in the middle east--"fertile crescent" was understood, as well. The rest is just timeline.
ThisAnd thisAre directly contradictory.
Fortunately, it is the later. I'd be embarrassed by any ancestor of mine who conquering some joint killed off the young women, rather than enjoying them. That would truly be an "unnatural act".Replies: @Twinkie
That’d be a “four bean salad” in the Baltics and Northeastern Europe. There was a male-heavy intrusion from Siberia that brought Asian genetic contribution into these populations.
Modern Europeans are basically a hybrid population of four major genetic contributions: the West Eurasian hunter-gatherers, the Anatolian farmers, the pastoral population from the Eurasian steppes, and the Siberians, all with varying mixtures by region (e.g. Sardinians are strongly Anatolian farmers while Finns and some of the Baltics are much more West Eurasian hunter-gatherers and Siberians compared to other Europeans, etc.).
We're all descended from people who once lived in the territory now called Russia, not of course from current Russians.
Some people who are intellectually disabled lack the ability to grasp a joke.Replies: @Twinkie
Anon [269] is right though that the relationship between the Yamnaya and the Corded Ware are still in dispute, and there is at least one study that shows no patrilineal input from the Yamnaya to the Corded Ware.
Kristiansen claims the evidence for the Corded Ware people being the Yamnaya is solid.
And what I was doing was summarizing what Kristiansen said, not my own opinions.
I'm not a paleo-geneticist and so I really do not have opinions on these matters -- if I did, they would be of no interest.
There are several subjects on which I am an expert. This is not one of them.
I was merely providing a brief and certainly not complete summary of Kristiansen's talk for anyone who might want to explore it further.
That my doing so set off some assholes here is, I suppose, to be expected.
Assholes will be assholes.Replies: @Twinkie
https://www.foxnews.com/us/nj-councilman-russell-heller-killed-murder-suicide-pseg-facility
Blue governments legalize violent crime
Criminals murder New Jersey city councilpeople
THE CIRRRRRRRRRCLE OF LIFEReplies: @duncsbaby
Both were GOP. Nothing to see here.
But yes, I think the on-the-ground part of this sort of nonsense--like putting together this exhibit with "African" single mom--skews highly female. (Actually, I don't think homos really have much to do with it. I'm just imagining who the males--if any--involved in this stuff would be like. The kind of "men" most normal guys would feel like slapping.)Correct.
And essentially my assertion is that this new religion--basically wokeism is minoritarianism turned into religion--skews heavily female. A post-Christian channeling of female compliance, virtue signaling and religiosity.Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
You’re getting there, AD. The added element — the fuel that gives this ‘faith’ such infernal and seemingly inexplicable power — is its adherents’ pride. Some of them (not all; some, as you say, are just signaling to stay in the group) believe they have the power to redeem the Holy Other, and at the same time to command their recalcitrant fellows to suffer in atonement for the past and present ‘sins’ recounted in their great litany of ‘-isms’.
They want some reason to control their fellow human beings. They are not content to simply leave us alone.
Indeed, as you say, some may just want to be part of the group, or at least not offend the group.
But an awful lot of them have a lust for power.
It is hard for decent people to grasp this. Most of us do not want to control anyone, except maybe our own children -- and we're relieved when the kids are old enough that we can give up that burden.
But some people have this sickness in their soul.
It is mainly, but not exclusively, on the Left today. It hasn't always been.
And, it is still not that hard to find some non-Leftists who have "plans" for all the rest of us -- who are simply not willing to let us muddle through our own lives in whatever way we choose.
Take Greg Johnson: I once posted a comment on Greg's site suggesting:Greg didn't like it: I will always deeply cherish Greg's reply:That's me, all right: a profoundly subversive (and clever) race-mixer.
Greg has plans for all of us.
And people like me will most assuredly see to it that Greg's plans fail.
There can be no truce with kings, no parley with tyrants.
So perhaps the usual comparison to the Cultural Revolution is apt. It's just a power struggle at the top (which explains why Wokeism seems to eat its own like so many other revolutions), with a bunch of hangers-on following like a mob and taking advantage of the milieu to engage in some mayhem and score-settling or just some theater that appears meaningful to themselves.
https://youtu.be/VGk4OElXhkE
People who engage in this kind of activism just generally seem immature and not all that deep or bright.Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist, @PhysicistDave
‘Nero’ = ‘black’, as it happens. Just being helpful to Donna Zuckerberg.
Twinkie wrote to me:
The asshole was apparently objecting to my quoting Kristiansen as saying that we are all descended from Russians: as I pointed out (and I assumed would be obvious to any normal people), Kristiansen was making a joke.
Kristiansen claims the evidence for the Corded Ware people being the Yamnaya is solid.
And what I was doing was summarizing what Kristiansen said, not my own opinions.
I’m not a paleo-geneticist and so I really do not have opinions on these matters — if I did, they would be of no interest.
There are several subjects on which I am an expert. This is not one of them.
I was merely providing a brief and certainly not complete summary of Kristiansen’s talk for anyone who might want to explore it further.
That my doing so set off some assholes here is, I suppose, to be expected.
Assholes will be assholes.
Kristiansen claims the evidence for the Corded Ware people being the Yamnaya is solid.
And what I was doing was summarizing what Kristiansen said, not my own opinions.
I'm not a paleo-geneticist and so I really do not have opinions on these matters -- if I did, they would be of no interest.
There are several subjects on which I am an expert. This is not one of them.
I was merely providing a brief and certainly not complete summary of Kristiansen's talk for anyone who might want to explore it further.
That my doing so set off some assholes here is, I suppose, to be expected.
Assholes will be assholes.Replies: @Twinkie
To be fair, several of the commenters pointed out your mistakes, the most salient and notable being this:
Assholes or no, when you write things that are incorrect, you have to expect the commentariat here to pounce on you. I like it – it keeps me on my toes and makes me careful intellectually (though some people just keep on going repeating the same stuff, contradictions or no).
The Last Real Calvinist wrote to AnotherDad
The key word in your comment is “command.”
They want some reason to control their fellow human beings. They are not content to simply leave us alone.
Indeed, as you say, some may just want to be part of the group, or at least not offend the group.
But an awful lot of them have a lust for power.
It is hard for decent people to grasp this. Most of us do not want to control anyone, except maybe our own children — and we’re relieved when the kids are old enough that we can give up that burden.
But some people have this sickness in their soul.
It is mainly, but not exclusively, on the Left today. It hasn’t always been.
And, it is still not that hard to find some non-Leftists who have “plans” for all the rest of us — who are simply not willing to let us muddle through our own lives in whatever way we choose.
Take Greg Johnson: I once posted a comment on Greg’s site suggesting:
Greg didn’t like it: I will always deeply cherish Greg’s reply:
That’s me, all right: a profoundly subversive (and clever) race-mixer.
Greg has plans for all of us.
And people like me will most assuredly see to it that Greg’s plans fail.
There can be no truce with kings, no parley with tyrants.
I think people who are like this are exceedingly few in number, even among the leadership of the Woketariat. Most Woke people seem interested in virtue signaling, on the one hand, and smiting their enemies using Wokeism, on the other.
So perhaps the usual comparison to the Cultural Revolution is apt. It’s just a power struggle at the top (which explains why Wokeism seems to eat its own like so many other revolutions), with a bunch of hangers-on following like a mob and taking advantage of the milieu to engage in some mayhem and score-settling or just some theater that appears meaningful to themselves.
People who engage in this kind of activism just generally seem immature and not all that deep or bright.
My take is that almost all of the publicly outspoken ones want power over other people. And some of the quieter ones do, too: I could name some among individuals I have known.
But I think the vast majority of the people who quietly comply are just cowards who are afraid to speak up for the truth.
Twinkie also wrote:Well, a lot of them have pretty high IQs.
Which brings up an important point: IQ largely measures the ability to manipulate symbols. There are an increasing number of people who are quite good at manipulating symbols but very bad at connecting those symbols to the actual material world.
Do such people count as bright or not?
Twinkie wrote to me:
Pixo actually cited a source, which supported what I had said!
The guy is such an asshole that he does not read what he cites. And that is quite typical of him.
I’ve had enough of that asshole.
Anyway, as I keep saying, I made clear that I was just summarizing what Kristiansen said, not speaking on my own authority. And Kristiansen does seem to claim that Europeans outside the Mediterranean area (I explicitly mentioned the Sardinians) have little genetic heritage from the Anatolian farmers.
He may be right or wrong on that, but I made clear that I was summarizing what he said. And that is what he said.
When commenters here have explained why they disagreed with Kristiansen or thought my summary was incomplete (see my reply to shale boi above), I try to be polite.
But when I am dealing with mentally retarded assholes like Pixo… well, I think it is immoral to “turn the other cheek.”
I will reply in kind to such assholes.
And enjoy it.
Note: I have always tried to be polite to you and Sailer and many others here, even when we disagree.
But not the assholes. There can be no truce with assholes.
Ir is time for decent people to treat the assholes as assholes.
OTOH when everyone is relatively pale, any swarthiness of skin or hair is likely to attract the “black” label. After all, no “white” people are actually literally white.
You get Scottish nicknames like “the Black Douglas”, or talk of “the Black Irish”. No one thinks they were sub-Saharan, just dark-complexioned compared with the average.
So perhaps the usual comparison to the Cultural Revolution is apt. It's just a power struggle at the top (which explains why Wokeism seems to eat its own like so many other revolutions), with a bunch of hangers-on following like a mob and taking advantage of the milieu to engage in some mayhem and score-settling or just some theater that appears meaningful to themselves.
https://youtu.be/VGk4OElXhkE
People who engage in this kind of activism just generally seem immature and not all that deep or bright.Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist, @PhysicistDave
Thanks for your comment, Twinkie — you and PhysicistDave replied at about the same time.
It’s interesting: Dave said there are ‘an awful lot’ of people who crave the totemic powers of the Wokist priestly caste; you suggest they are ‘exceedingly few in number’.
I’m never quite sure. I think it’s an interesting and important question, though.
What I do know is that, a la Yeats, ‘the worst are full of passionate intensity’.
You might find this interesting: https://compactmag.com/article/a-black-professor-trapped-in-anti-racist-hell
The thing was, until the industrial revolution and production of cheaper, high quantity manufactured goods, Europeans didn't have much to offer to the richer East that the latter desired. As Jack D mentioned, the British Empire had the same issue later vis-a-vis the Chinese. The British public went mad for the Chinese silk, porcelain, and tea - all renewable resources - while the only thing the Chinese wanted from the British was silver, the supply of which was, again, finite. That's what led to the British cultivation of tea in India (a failure, except in implanting among Indians a habit for inferior tea) and, more historically crucially, opium.
What the European had - better than anyone else in the world after the 15th century? Military technology and doctrine! God is on the side of those who shoot better.Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Jack D
“the British cultivation of tea in India (a failure, except in implanting among Indians a habit for inferior tea)”
How very dare you. IIRC Brits stole tea plants from China to cultivate in India, though it was the production technology that seemed to adapt better to India. I prefer Indian (Assam) tea to China tea, although that may be long habituation. I could live without alcohol, but I’d find a life without tea a sad one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fortune
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-great-british-tea-heist-9866709/
-Discard
So perhaps the usual comparison to the Cultural Revolution is apt. It's just a power struggle at the top (which explains why Wokeism seems to eat its own like so many other revolutions), with a bunch of hangers-on following like a mob and taking advantage of the milieu to engage in some mayhem and score-settling or just some theater that appears meaningful to themselves.
https://youtu.be/VGk4OElXhkE
People who engage in this kind of activism just generally seem immature and not all that deep or bright.Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist, @PhysicistDave
Twinkie wrote to The Last Real Calvinist:
You have any guess as to how many are in it for power vs. going along to get along?
My take is that almost all of the publicly outspoken ones want power over other people. And some of the quieter ones do, too: I could name some among individuals I have known.
But I think the vast majority of the people who quietly comply are just cowards who are afraid to speak up for the truth.
Twinkie also wrote:
Well, a lot of them have pretty high IQs.
Which brings up an important point: IQ largely measures the ability to manipulate symbols. There are an increasing number of people who are quite good at manipulating symbols but very bad at connecting those symbols to the actual material world.
Do such people count as bright or not?
Germanics were renowned soldiers and prized as mercenaries in the Roman era. What’s a Roman source of some big group of “Nubians” serving in northern Europe? Remind me of what the black equivalent of the Varangian Guard was? Who the famous Nubian/black Roman generals were that rose up the ranks like so many Germanics?
You can’t name them or cite clear sources because they don’t exist.
Blacks of course have long made poor soldiers, which is why you don’t even see them recruited as Wagner Group canon fodder. Also why the Soviets kept having to bring in triracial Cubans in various African proxy wars rather than arm local blacks.
Also, have you been around blacks IRL much? They get cold really easily. Sending them to northern England in large numbers would be expensive and especially stupid.Replies: @Twinkie, @BB753, @Diversity Heretic, @Peter Frost
“Also, have you been around blacks IRL much? They get cold really easily. Sending them to northern England in large numbers would be expensive and especially stupid.”
Yet they seem to be doing fine in cold places like Michigan and Minnesota.
Their presence isn’t natural in the tundra.Replies: @BB753
Germanics were renowned soldiers and prized as mercenaries in the Roman era. What’s a Roman source of some big group of “Nubians” serving in northern Europe? Remind me of what the black equivalent of the Varangian Guard was? Who the famous Nubian/black Roman generals were that rose up the ranks like so many Germanics?
You can’t name them or cite clear sources because they don’t exist.
Blacks of course have long made poor soldiers, which is why you don’t even see them recruited as Wagner Group canon fodder. Also why the Soviets kept having to bring in triracial Cubans in various African proxy wars rather than arm local blacks.
Also, have you been around blacks IRL much? They get cold really easily. Sending them to northern England in large numbers would be expensive and especially stupid.Replies: @Twinkie, @BB753, @Diversity Heretic, @Peter Frost
IIRC, sub-Saharan Africans have poor resistance to respiratory viruses, although they do better with tropical diseases. Respiratory viruses are a bigger health risk the further north one goes. Africans in the British Isles in antiquity may have fared no better from the standpoint of health than Europeans in equitorial Africa. The chance for sufficient numers of them to survive even a couple of winters to create a colony seems remote.
There was a short-lived Netflix series a few years back where King Arthur was mulatto and lots of diversity was featured. I was surprised how adamantly some normie people on a forum I frequented argued that Rome was a “diverse” empire so of course it was possible that Arthur was the descendant of a black Roman.
I couldn’t convince people that such a scenario would have been ridiculously improbable. The indoctrination is complete.
The “cultural appropriation” argument — that the story of Arthur is “our” story and should be played by White British actors also failed to find a sympathetic ear.
A shocking number of people seem to have no idea how to weight relative probability. That's probably why they play lotteries, or expect politicans to deliver on their promises. And maybe too many fictional novels and TV shows based on ridiculous improbable twists has impaired people's judgment even further.
I experienced this recently when performing jury duty. The prosecution made an exceptionally good case demonstrating why the black male defendant had to have been the individual who robbed the convenience store in question. A few white female jurors, who appeared to be IQ >110, were tangling themselves in knots not to convict, taking the concept of "reasonable doubt" to absurd, and unreasonable, lengths. "well, what if, maybe, some person the police didn't identify who had the same shoe size, build, hair style and clothing..." "how can we really be sure?", etc. I consider it a crowning acheivement that I was able to convince these women to convict.
The Last Real Calvinist wrote to Twinkie:
Well, as I said to Twinkie, I actually do not think that those who are power-hungry comprise the majority of those who pay lip service to Wokism.
I think almost all of those who are publicly outspoken Wokists are power-hungry. And a significant fraction, though a minority, of those who quietly go along. Numerically, that minority is a depressingly large number, but still a minority.
But I think that most of those who quietly go along, who weakly say the right things, are just afraid, just protecting themselves rather than trying to control others. And not really committed believers.
Of course, that is pretty much the story of human history in general, in politics, religion, pop culture, you name it — the Emperor’s New Clothes, and all that.
Some of the psych folks have actually done research on people’s religious beliefs: it turns out that most people do not fully believe what their churches teach. For example, there is a tendency to think that God is not really omnipresent and omniscient but rather that he has a limited capacity for attention.
The same, by the way, is true of most people’s knowledge of science, even students at good universities majoring in STEM. It is surprising how even pretty successful STEM students actually have trouble really grasping the law of inertia, Newton’s Third Law, etc.
You are right that there is a north/south gradient, and I noted that Sardinia has a very different pattern. But in what Kristiansen calls "temperate Europe," (i.e., non-Mediterranean Europe) the EEF genes almost disappear.
Yes, most prominently through the male line, but also in general.
I do find puzzling the comparison between the chart at 45:30 vs. the graph at 44:00: same general direction, but they seem to differ in detail.
Anyway, anyone interested in this should just watch the video, rather than depend on my brief summary.
As you seem indeed to have done.Replies: @Pixo
“ You are right that there is a north/south gradient, and I noted that Sardinia has a very different pattern. But in what Kristiansen calls “temperate Europe,” (i.e., non-Mediterranean Europe) the EEF genes almost disappear.”
Wrong again, foul-mouthed hothead.
“And a significant fraction, though a minority, of those who quietly go along.”
I concur entirely with your comments but would add an additional category, those who cannot distinguish social proof, the collective judgment of the crowd, from evidence based proof.
The thing was, until the industrial revolution and production of cheaper, high quantity manufactured goods, Europeans didn't have much to offer to the richer East that the latter desired. As Jack D mentioned, the British Empire had the same issue later vis-a-vis the Chinese. The British public went mad for the Chinese silk, porcelain, and tea - all renewable resources - while the only thing the Chinese wanted from the British was silver, the supply of which was, again, finite. That's what led to the British cultivation of tea in India (a failure, except in implanting among Indians a habit for inferior tea) and, more historically crucially, opium.
What the European had - better than anyone else in the world after the 15th century? Military technology and doctrine! God is on the side of those who shoot better.Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Jack D
Commercially it was certainly a success. While the Chinese would regard the British (and Indian) style of tea preparation (with milk and in the case of the Indians with spices) as an aesthetic abomination, it nevertheless succeeded in stealing most of their tea export market. China remains #1 in tea exports but more than half the market share is held by former British colonies – Ceylon, Kenya, India (India is the #2 tea producer but they drink a lot of it themselves).
Yet they seem to be doing fine in cold places like Michigan and Minnesota.Replies: @Wokechoke
That’s with central heating, hot running water and a social safety net in large conurbations.
Their presence isn’t natural in the tundra.
Germanics were renowned soldiers and prized as mercenaries in the Roman era. What’s a Roman source of some big group of “Nubians” serving in northern Europe? Remind me of what the black equivalent of the Varangian Guard was? Who the famous Nubian/black Roman generals were that rose up the ranks like so many Germanics?
You can’t name them or cite clear sources because they don’t exist.
Blacks of course have long made poor soldiers, which is why you don’t even see them recruited as Wagner Group canon fodder. Also why the Soviets kept having to bring in triracial Cubans in various African proxy wars rather than arm local blacks.
Also, have you been around blacks IRL much? They get cold really easily. Sending them to northern England in large numbers would be expensive and especially stupid.Replies: @Twinkie, @BB753, @Diversity Heretic, @Peter Frost
The Nubians were renowned as archers:
https://oi.uchicago.edu/museum-exhibits/nubia/nubian-archers
They were later recruited as soldiers by the Ptolemaic Greeks, the Romans, and the Byzantines:
https://journals.co.za/doi/epdf/10.10520/EJC-755a757ac
The Roman army was not limited to Roman citizens. Barbarians from beyond the frontiers could enlist, and many did. There are even records of foederati being recruited from Norway.
The correct way to pronounce scone as expert settles debate 'once and for all'
For some reason, the "posh" way is more common in the North, counter to most tendencies:
How to correctly pronounce scone like The Queen, according to an etiquette expert
Dee-dar Yorkshireman Michael Palin says it the posh, "U" way, but it sounds like the Mountie chorus is divided:
https://youtu.be/FshU58nI0Ts&t=0m34s
How do Canadians say it? Whether Toronto snobs or normies in Glace Bay and Skookumchuck.Replies: @traducteur, @hootman
We say skawn, rhyming with dawn.
Evidence that Byzantine armies had Nubians during the period Egypt was part of the Byzantine Empire, and that they were famously good archers long before Rome’s founding, and about 600 years before the Roman conquest of Britain, is not what I asked for.
You mentioned the 8th century BC and “after the 5th century” AD ie not the period of Roman Britain.
Your We Wuz Kangz-ing Roman Britain is just getting so bizarre and attempts to support so weak I am starting to doubt your good faith here.
There’s a giant demand for “scientific evidence” supporting the anti-anglo-white Kulturkampf in Britain. Those that supply such “evidence” like the insane skull study saying Roman York had the demographics of Baltimore will be showered with promotions, research grants, speaking fees, and fawning credulous coverage from the BBC and the Guardian.
The end goal is the demoralization and dispossession of the English from their home. You’re implicating yourself now in this project.
The 1730’s is about 1,300 years AFTER the end of Roman Britain. Also it was only about three or four thousand in number. Peanuts, really.
I’m not a “grammar Nazi”, I’m a style Tory.
How very dare you. IIRC Brits stole tea plants from China to cultivate in India, though it was the production technology that seemed to adapt better to India. I prefer Indian (Assam) tea to China tea, although that may be long habituation. I could live without alcohol, but I'd find a life without tea a sad one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fortune
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-great-british-tea-heist-9866709/Replies: @Jamsportle
Book suggestion: “For All the Tea in China”, by Sarah Rose. It’s about the guy who stole tea plants and took them to India and how he did it. He also, IIRC, took a Chinaman along to instruct the new growers.
-Discard
This is what socialists actually believe.
Their presence isn’t natural in the tundra.Replies: @BB753
Romans too had central heating and running water in the cities. No social security though. But “Panem et circenses” were free. But not as long as you were in the military.
Not many blacks in Roman Britain, but my understanding is that those who were there were known for chariot-jacking.
lll
The correct way to pronounce scone as expert settles debate 'once and for all'
For some reason, the "posh" way is more common in the North, counter to most tendencies:
How to correctly pronounce scone like The Queen, according to an etiquette expert
Dee-dar Yorkshireman Michael Palin says it the posh, "U" way, but it sounds like the Mountie chorus is divided:
https://youtu.be/FshU58nI0Ts&t=0m34s
How do Canadians say it? Whether Toronto snobs or normies in Glace Bay and Skookumchuck.Replies: @traducteur, @hootman
We always pronounced it to rhyme with “gone”.
All 4 of my mother’s grandparents were born on Cape Breton in the 1840s. Hundreds of relatives there still.
https://youtu.be/WDQt9x2sgaA
The “project” works to the extent that it gets support from people who are supposed to be impartial and credible (academics, religious leaders, and other voices of authority). Successful opposition requires people who can present verifiable evidence and argue cogently without stooping to ridicule.
Your use of ridicule (“Your We Wuz Kangz”) might impress the readers of The Unz Review. I don’t know. I do know that the majority of people out there wouldn’t be impressed, including fence-sitters with an open mind.
I’m persuaded that the findings of Leach et al. (2009) are true, if only because they are consistent with the findings of previous studies of the same burial sites. One of those studies was done in the 1960s, when wokeism was much less prevalent. There are also references in ancient literature to “Ethiopian” soldiers stationed in Roman Britain.
Yes, there were black legionnaires in Roman Britain. I’m not saying that was a good thing or a bad thing. But it was a thing. Empires need warm bodies for defense, and towards the end the Roman Empire was relying almost entirely on barbarians of one sort or another, including Nubians. Those people certainly weren’t the largest group of barbarian foederati. But they did exist as foederati.
The Baghdadi Jewish Sassoon family was dominant in opium trade,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassoon_family
The British were rebuffed, partly because they refused to kowtow to the Qing emperor. The Dutch didn't and were received with high esteem.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Everardus_van_Braam_Houckgeest#Embassy_to_Chinahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_TitsinghReplies: @Jack D
The Sassoons didn’t really get going with their opium trade in China until AFTER the Chinese lost the First Opium War. At that point it was legal.
People here keep saying that the Chinese somehow WANTED the British opium but the whole reason the Opium Wars were fought was that the Chinese government had prohibited that trade. The British then started a war to force the Chinese to take the drugs. This is morally indefensible on any level and it’s ridiculous that people are taking the British side in this. Then again there are people here (the same people?) defending the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
You could say that the Americans got addicted to fentanyl through no one’s fault but their own but I still don’t want the Chinese bringing that shit to my country and our government has every right as a sovereign ruler to prohibit it regardless of consumer demand.
What do you think built Harvard and Yale? Cotton? No! Drugs man, Drugs.Replies: @Jack D
The British were selling Bengal opium which was far superior to the opium in China at that point. The opium cultivation industry and industry was developed by the earlier Mughal government of India, which the East India Company inherited after the conquest of Bengal and other parts of India. China was growing 10 times the opium than the Bengal or Malva opium entering its market.
Along with the British trade, the Indian kingdom of Malwa was exporting opium to China via the Central Asian route. The Americans were even buying opium from the Ottomans, from Izmir for sale to China. The Ottomans were big in this industry too.
The Qing Emperors had banned the opium trade because Silver was flowing out of China. However thanks to corrupt officials at the ports, the trade went on. Until another strict order came from the Emperor, when the port officials seized opium and mixed it with lime and had it thrown at sea. The value of that stock was huge.
The Opium war was actually an Indian affair. It was planned in India, including Indian merchants, it was financed by Indian merchant capital.Replies: @Dream
“ There are also references in ancient literature to ‘Ethiopian’ soldiers stationed in Roman Britain.”
Are you sure about “references” plural? I know of only one, the highly unreliable biography of Alexander Severus in Historia Augusta, which was written about 200 years after the events and contains ample “pure fiction” including fake people, fictional sources, and includes fake documents.
Am I missing another “ancient” reference to blacks in Roman Britain?
Refuting in detail “skullz show burial sites in York were 1/3 black african” is beneath my dignity, sorry. I don’t engage with obvious frauds.
If you want to defend the study, show (1) other evidence of large absolute numbers and percentages of black africans in transalpine Roman sites (2) show evidence the same skull-analysis techniques on other ancient Roman sites reliably results in ~100% white.
The most likely explanation here is deliberate fraud by the authors, but to the extent they are innocent, their skull-analysis techniques have high error rates.
Dave: If 45:30 is correct, your “almost disappeared” is wrong. If 44:00 is correct, then it’s correct. I tried Googling around to find a later review paper to clarify, but was unable to do so. Most of the references seem to show the 45:30 (which comes from 2014-2015 papers), but I don’t know what is the latest view, with largest sample size, etc.
I” know” the Romans looked and sounded just like the English upper class ……the golden age of cinema taught me this you see………oh what a world ,what a world …no more sword and sandal epics ,mourn ,mourn all ye plebeians.
People here keep saying that the Chinese somehow WANTED the British opium but the whole reason the Opium Wars were fought was that the Chinese government had prohibited that trade. The British then started a war to force the Chinese to take the drugs. This is morally indefensible on any level and it's ridiculous that people are taking the British side in this. Then again there are people here (the same people?) defending the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
You could say that the Americans got addicted to fentanyl through no one’s fault but their own but I still don't want the Chinese bringing that shit to my country and our government has every right as a sovereign ruler to prohibit it regardless of consumer demand.Replies: @Wokechoke, @Wokechoke, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Malla
Americans were running Turkish heroin into Shanghai and into Wuhan.
Roosevelt’s ancestor was doing this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Delano_Jr.
“Warren Delano Jr. (July 13, 1809 – January 17, 1898) was an American merchant and drug smuggler who made a large fortune smuggling illegal opium into China. He was the maternal grandfather of U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.”
The British position I ask you! hahahaha.
What do you think built Harvard and Yale? Cotton? No! Drugs man, Drugs.
I agree with you on this. Americans were also in on the drug trade. But the Brits were the big players.
I don't know what % of the money to build Harvard and Yale was drug money but I'll bet it wasn't a high %. It wasn't mostly slave profit either. The number was greater than zero but not a high %.
This is what Buckley popularized as “Immanentizing the Eschaton” , as something to be avoided.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanentize_the_eschaton
The new Woke spin on this, now that socialist economics has been shown to be a sheer and utter failure, is that the Eschaton will consist of a world where racial rather than economic barriers will be erased, not only in the future but also in the past. This is similar to the Mormon practice of converting your ancestors to LDS through proxy baptism.
IMDB informs me that most of the vikings in the film were off season Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
spoiler - the movie isnt very good but has its moments.Replies: @John Rohan, @Anon
The film’s story was set in Vineland in the north.
It was filmed in Florida with palmetto, etc. Convenient for the Buccaneers.
Did you watch it on Amazon?
Some very very wealthy Romans built villas with heated floors in Britannia. They found one in the Royal Villa at Southampton. But shit, they didn’t do it in many places. Even in Italy heated floors were for palaces.
the Free bread was to be found in Rome itself. Which would have been the population sink rather than damp drafty Londonium.
Claudius did bring exotic troops to invade Britannia. But the occupation forces were mostly Gauls or Germans. Batavians from modern Holland and Frisia were the best adapted. They basically transformed over time into Saxons.
People here keep saying that the Chinese somehow WANTED the British opium but the whole reason the Opium Wars were fought was that the Chinese government had prohibited that trade. The British then started a war to force the Chinese to take the drugs. This is morally indefensible on any level and it's ridiculous that people are taking the British side in this. Then again there are people here (the same people?) defending the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
You could say that the Americans got addicted to fentanyl through no one’s fault but their own but I still don't want the Chinese bringing that shit to my country and our government has every right as a sovereign ruler to prohibit it regardless of consumer demand.Replies: @Wokechoke, @Wokechoke, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Malla
Opium is a useful palliative medicine. It’s also an excellent pain killer after surgery. The Ching Chongs just wanted to be the guys growing and selling it.
Worth a listen, for general perspective on Roman Britain.
All 4 of my mother's grandparents were born on Cape Breton in the 1840s. Hundreds of relatives there still.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
How is their Gaelic?
People here keep saying that the Chinese somehow WANTED the British opium but the whole reason the Opium Wars were fought was that the Chinese government had prohibited that trade. The British then started a war to force the Chinese to take the drugs. This is morally indefensible on any level and it's ridiculous that people are taking the British side in this. Then again there are people here (the same people?) defending the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
You could say that the Americans got addicted to fentanyl through no one’s fault but their own but I still don't want the Chinese bringing that shit to my country and our government has every right as a sovereign ruler to prohibit it regardless of consumer demand.Replies: @Wokechoke, @Wokechoke, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Malla
“Brits addicted Chinese to opium” is too strong of a statement. Be it blacks with crack, Russians with alcohol, rural Americans with fentanyl, the responsibility always shared in varying degrees to the abuser, and the peddler of the substance.
Late Imperial China changed from a booze culture to a pot culture — opium was around in China for centuries before, but was not an addiction issue– until 18th CE, when Chinese began to smoke pure opium. This was concurrent with a lot of weird cults spreading by deeply disaffected people, Taiping was the biggest one, but White Lotus Rebellion was another one that killed untold.
There was a Crisis of Civilization that many parallels can be found present-day US. Industrial Revolution era Britain and US was a tough time for the working class, but they drank, not smoked.
Casus belli of Opium War of the destruction of (in present day value) close to a billion dollars of opium by Han Chinese official Lin Zexue, hailed as patriotic hero
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_opium_at_Humen
A rough analogy would be:
– If PRC had shipped fentanyl precursors directly to Florida
– Ron DeSantis and the MAGA patriots seized and destroyed a billion dollars worth of it, without making restitutions
Another reason is that since Qing dealt in silver, a trade surplus-turned-deficit meant deflation. Deflation was much more feared than inflation because the Fall of Ming had to do with deflation due to loss of silver,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_dynasty#Economic_breakdown_and_natural_disasters
This actually would have been less of an issue if Qing had a fiat currency. Song, Yuan and Ming experimented with fiat but Qing went back to silver.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chinese_currency
PRC’s “Century of Humiliation” narrative glosses over these issues unrelated to British malevolence.
The references are provided in Leach et al. (2009). The best one is:
Thompson, L. A. (1972). Africans in northern Britain. Museum Africum: West African Journal of Classical and Related Studies, 1, 28-38.
All I can do is present the evidence. If you don’t want to believe the evidence, I can’t say anything more. Forensic scientists routinely use the same methodology to identify the ethnic background of skeletal remains, including those of crime victims.
As I said earlier, the Romans had a policy of stationing troops who were ethnically different from the local population and the people they were supposed to fight. The Roman authorities did station Germanic foederati in Britain, but they were afraid of becoming too reliant on them. So they tried to balance out their presence by using foederati from the Empire’s southern frontier.
Indeed.
You might find this interesting: https://compactmag.com/article/a-black-professor-trapped-in-anti-racist-hell
Why “precursors” and not fentanyl itself? And yes, when the gov. seizes and destroys your illegal drugs it doesn’t usually pay you restitution.
I agree that the PRC “century of humiliation” narrative is one sided but the basic premise is correct. What the Western powers did to China was unconscionable. If the Chinese bore 10% or 20% responsibility that doesn’t change the fundamental narrative.
Your claim:
“ There are also references in ancient literature to ‘Ethiopian’ soldiers stationed in Roman Britain.”
Your “best” citation is a 1972 Nigerian periodical.
“Thompson, L. A. (1972). Africans in northern Britain. Museum Africum: West African Journal of Classical and Related Studies, 1, 28-38.”
In other words, you are full of crap. You claim “references”, plural, in “ancient literature” “Ethiopians” in “Roman Britain.”
A 1972 Nigerian article is not what you claimed existed.
Furthermore, your citation to Leach 2009 does not support your claim. I just looked. There paragraph citing the 1972 Nigerian article never mentions “Ethiopians” and repeatedly mentions North Africans and Egyptians.
Leach also cites a biography of a North African Emperor right after the Nigerian article.
In summary, you made an incredible claim, and when questioned on it, rather than support or withdraw it, engaged in dishonesty:
“ There are also references in ancient literature to ‘Ethiopian’ soldiers stationed in Roman Britain.”
First of all, actual legionaries were trained, equipped, and paid for by the Roman state and were recruited among the citizenry. Now, citizenship was extended to all the residents of the empire at some point, but was not to those allies (foederati) who were resident outside it. The Romans never controlled any part of sub-Saharan Africa. They never had access to a recruitment pool of sub-Saharan Africans (other than, a few curiosities, as I mentioned before) even as allies.
Second, both legionaries, auxiliaries, and allies were recruited in the main conflict zones. Egypt was only garrisoned by one legion, because it was more-or-less a peaceful area until the rise of the Parthians (and later the Arab Muslims). North Africa was also garrisoned by one legion eventually, but the Numidians were famed as the best light cavalrymen in the Mediterranean (and the Romans had a history of recruiting good cavalry wherever they found it due to their own lack of it). Moreover, the Romans fought several wars to pacify the Numidians after the Punic Wars. In any case, the historical records are pretty definitive and consistent about the Numidian recruitment.
Meanwhile the Rhine and the Danubian frontiers as well that with Parthia were heavily garrisoned. The Rhine and Danubian regions, in particular, were the prime recruitment grounds for the Roman army, so much so that many men from the Danubian region became Roman strongmen after rising through the imperial military service.
Third, since bulk of the Roman conflict was in the above riverine regions, even if the Romans had access to a pool of "Nubian" recruits, they were unlikely to have done so, given that the Nubians would have been poorly adapted to the climatic and disease conditions of that part of Europe. It is likely the Romans were aware of this factor, and this may have been one of the reasons why the Romans generally moved manpower latitudinally (Sarmatians in Britain, yes) rather than longitudinally (British or Germans in southern Egypt or vice versa, no).
Fourth, the quality and equipment of manpower from "Nubia" were not particularly suitable for the conditions of warfare in the main conflict zones for Rome. Although the Nubians were known for being good archers since the ancient times, they were very lightly armed (mostly with self-bows), poorly armored, and were foot-bound. They were no match for the Parthian (and later Turkic) mounted-archers who combined excellent firepower (firing arrows made of "Seric" steel from composite bows of high power that could penetrate shields and armor) and mobility as horse-borne troops. And, of course, the Nubians couldn't stand up to melee infantry or cavalry.
So, while it is entirely possible that a few curiosities of sub-Saharans were brought to the empire, it is highly unlikely any sizable number was recruited for the imperial military.Replies: @Steve Sailer
Which source is that?
So is fentanyl. Why isn’t it a legal recreational drug in the US then? The Chinese weren’t using this stuff medicinally. They were trying to stop an illegal recreational drug trade. Don’t be obtuse. This is just going to make the Chinese feel less bad when they send us fentanyl.
What do you think built Harvard and Yale? Cotton? No! Drugs man, Drugs.Replies: @Jack D
Well not heroin because heroin hadn’t been invented yet, but opium.
I agree with you on this. Americans were also in on the drug trade. But the Brits were the big players.
I don’t know what % of the money to build Harvard and Yale was drug money but I’ll bet it wasn’t a high %. It wasn’t mostly slave profit either. The number was greater than zero but not a high %.
Interesting stuff about the legionary expeditions. There’s got to be a movie in there somewhere. 😀
https://medium.com/mapping-civilisation/exploring-west-africa-in-antiquity-the-expedition-of-hanno-the-navigator-fbd6468a7cc2
Hanno the Navigator supposedly captured some sub-Saharan Africans, but they were killed, because they were so wildly resistant. Some of these people were called Gorillai, which later became the origin for the name of the ape species in the 19th century:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanno_the_Navigator
“ There are also references in ancient literature to ‘Ethiopian’ soldiers stationed in Roman Britain.”
Your “best” citation is a 1972 Nigerian periodical.
“Thompson, L. A. (1972). Africans in northern Britain. Museum Africum: West African Journal of Classical and Related Studies, 1, 28-38.”
In other words, you are full of crap. You claim “references”, plural, in “ancient literature” “Ethiopians” in “Roman Britain.”
A 1972 Nigerian article is not what you claimed existed.
Furthermore, your citation to Leach 2009 does not support your claim. I just looked. There paragraph citing the 1972 Nigerian article never mentions “Ethiopians” and repeatedly mentions North Africans and Egyptians.
Leach also cites a biography of a North African Emperor right after the Nigerian article.
In summary, you made an incredible claim, and when questioned on it, rather than support or withdraw it, engaged in dishonesty:
“ There are also references in ancient literature to ‘Ethiopian’ soldiers stationed in Roman Britain.”Replies: @Twinkie
I’m quite skeptical of claims that there were sub-Saharan African legionaries in the Roman Army, let alone that they were stationed in Britain.
First of all, actual legionaries were trained, equipped, and paid for by the Roman state and were recruited among the citizenry. Now, citizenship was extended to all the residents of the empire at some point, but was not to those allies (foederati) who were resident outside it. The Romans never controlled any part of sub-Saharan Africa. They never had access to a recruitment pool of sub-Saharan Africans (other than, a few curiosities, as I mentioned before) even as allies.
Second, both legionaries, auxiliaries, and allies were recruited in the main conflict zones. Egypt was only garrisoned by one legion, because it was more-or-less a peaceful area until the rise of the Parthians (and later the Arab Muslims). North Africa was also garrisoned by one legion eventually, but the Numidians were famed as the best light cavalrymen in the Mediterranean (and the Romans had a history of recruiting good cavalry wherever they found it due to their own lack of it). Moreover, the Romans fought several wars to pacify the Numidians after the Punic Wars. In any case, the historical records are pretty definitive and consistent about the Numidian recruitment.
Meanwhile the Rhine and the Danubian frontiers as well that with Parthia were heavily garrisoned. The Rhine and Danubian regions, in particular, were the prime recruitment grounds for the Roman army, so much so that many men from the Danubian region became Roman strongmen after rising through the imperial military service.
Third, since bulk of the Roman conflict was in the above riverine regions, even if the Romans had access to a pool of “Nubian” recruits, they were unlikely to have done so, given that the Nubians would have been poorly adapted to the climatic and disease conditions of that part of Europe. It is likely the Romans were aware of this factor, and this may have been one of the reasons why the Romans generally moved manpower latitudinally (Sarmatians in Britain, yes) rather than longitudinally (British or Germans in southern Egypt or vice versa, no).
Fourth, the quality and equipment of manpower from “Nubia” were not particularly suitable for the conditions of warfare in the main conflict zones for Rome. Although the Nubians were known for being good archers since the ancient times, they were very lightly armed (mostly with self-bows), poorly armored, and were foot-bound. They were no match for the Parthian (and later Turkic) mounted-archers who combined excellent firepower (firing arrows made of “Seric” steel from composite bows of high power that could penetrate shields and armor) and mobility as horse-borne troops. And, of course, the Nubians couldn’t stand up to melee infantry or cavalry.
So, while it is entirely possible that a few curiosities of sub-Saharans were brought to the empire, it is highly unlikely any sizable number was recruited for the imperial military.
The Carthaginians reputedly navigated to sub-Saharan West Africa via the Canary Islands:
https://medium.com/mapping-civilisation/exploring-west-africa-in-antiquity-the-expedition-of-hanno-the-navigator-fbd6468a7cc2
Hanno the Navigator supposedly captured some sub-Saharan Africans, but they were killed, because they were so wildly resistant. Some of these people were called Gorillai, which later became the origin for the name of the ape species in the 19th century:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanno_the_Navigator
First of all, actual legionaries were trained, equipped, and paid for by the Roman state and were recruited among the citizenry. Now, citizenship was extended to all the residents of the empire at some point, but was not to those allies (foederati) who were resident outside it. The Romans never controlled any part of sub-Saharan Africa. They never had access to a recruitment pool of sub-Saharan Africans (other than, a few curiosities, as I mentioned before) even as allies.
Second, both legionaries, auxiliaries, and allies were recruited in the main conflict zones. Egypt was only garrisoned by one legion, because it was more-or-less a peaceful area until the rise of the Parthians (and later the Arab Muslims). North Africa was also garrisoned by one legion eventually, but the Numidians were famed as the best light cavalrymen in the Mediterranean (and the Romans had a history of recruiting good cavalry wherever they found it due to their own lack of it). Moreover, the Romans fought several wars to pacify the Numidians after the Punic Wars. In any case, the historical records are pretty definitive and consistent about the Numidian recruitment.
Meanwhile the Rhine and the Danubian frontiers as well that with Parthia were heavily garrisoned. The Rhine and Danubian regions, in particular, were the prime recruitment grounds for the Roman army, so much so that many men from the Danubian region became Roman strongmen after rising through the imperial military service.
Third, since bulk of the Roman conflict was in the above riverine regions, even if the Romans had access to a pool of "Nubian" recruits, they were unlikely to have done so, given that the Nubians would have been poorly adapted to the climatic and disease conditions of that part of Europe. It is likely the Romans were aware of this factor, and this may have been one of the reasons why the Romans generally moved manpower latitudinally (Sarmatians in Britain, yes) rather than longitudinally (British or Germans in southern Egypt or vice versa, no).
Fourth, the quality and equipment of manpower from "Nubia" were not particularly suitable for the conditions of warfare in the main conflict zones for Rome. Although the Nubians were known for being good archers since the ancient times, they were very lightly armed (mostly with self-bows), poorly armored, and were foot-bound. They were no match for the Parthian (and later Turkic) mounted-archers who combined excellent firepower (firing arrows made of "Seric" steel from composite bows of high power that could penetrate shields and armor) and mobility as horse-borne troops. And, of course, the Nubians couldn't stand up to melee infantry or cavalry.
So, while it is entirely possible that a few curiosities of sub-Saharans were brought to the empire, it is highly unlikely any sizable number was recruited for the imperial military.Replies: @Steve Sailer
Thanks.
https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-history-of-black-britain-roman-africans
—To get as near as possible to the complete picture of a historical period in time, all the sources must be taken together as a collective group, not singularly highlighted as individuals. Applying that logic, the archaeological evidence and forensic results reinforce the written historical records that we have, indicating that Africans from both above and below the Sahara have called Britain home since the Roman times.—
https://treventour1995.medium.com/afro-romans-there-were-africans-in-britain-before-the-english-came-here-f336c5449759
—We also know of a unit that included North African soldiers at Hadrian’s Wall, named Numerus Maurorum Aurelianorum after Marcus Aurelius — near to what is today Burgh-by-Sands in Cumbria. Additionally “one of the black soldiers in this unit presented a garland of cypress boughs to Emperor Severus” (Adi, 2019: 5) with archaeological finds dating back to 101AD — 300AD like pottery. North African-Roman head pots have also been found in Chester and Scotland. Furthermore, tombstones, and inscriptions. Finally, Adi tells us (from: Swan) of writings described as “neo-Punic script” and of “A Moorish freedman” at South Shields, “probably within the period c160–180/90.”—Replies: @Leaves No Shadow, @Pixo, @Twinkie
They also managed to turn the Berserkers into Christians genociding pagans.
There were very very few blacks/Africans in Han era China. However, it is quite possible the steppe barbarians constantly raiding the borders were a lot more European looking than popular imagination has it today. The situation in Chinese border towns may have looked like that classic Star Trek episode “The Omega Glory”.
I share in Twinkie’s skepticism. However…
https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-history-of-black-britain-roman-africans
—To get as near as possible to the complete picture of a historical period in time, all the sources must be taken together as a collective group, not singularly highlighted as individuals. Applying that logic, the archaeological evidence and forensic results reinforce the written historical records that we have, indicating that Africans from both above and below the Sahara have called Britain home since the Roman times.—
https://treventour1995.medium.com/afro-romans-there-were-africans-in-britain-before-the-english-came-here-f336c5449759
—We also know of a unit that included North African soldiers at Hadrian’s Wall, named Numerus Maurorum Aurelianorum after Marcus Aurelius — near to what is today Burgh-by-Sands in Cumbria. Additionally “one of the black soldiers in this unit presented a garland of cypress boughs to Emperor Severus” (Adi, 2019: 5) with archaeological finds dating back to 101AD — 300AD like pottery. North African-Roman head pots have also been found in Chester and Scotland. Furthermore, tombstones, and inscriptions. Finally, Adi tells us (from: Swan) of writings described as “neo-Punic script” and of “A Moorish freedman” at South Shields, “probably within the period c160–180/90.”—
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numidian_cavalry
I couldn't convince people that such a scenario would have been ridiculously improbable. The indoctrination is complete.
The "cultural appropriation" argument -- that the story of Arthur is "our" story and should be played by White British actors also failed to find a sympathetic ear.Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
I couldn’t convince people that such a scenario would have been ridiculously improbable.
A shocking number of people seem to have no idea how to weight relative probability. That’s probably why they play lotteries, or expect politicans to deliver on their promises. And maybe too many fictional novels and TV shows based on ridiculous improbable twists has impaired people’s judgment even further.
I experienced this recently when performing jury duty. The prosecution made an exceptionally good case demonstrating why the black male defendant had to have been the individual who robbed the convenience store in question. A few white female jurors, who appeared to be IQ >110, were tangling themselves in knots not to convict, taking the concept of “reasonable doubt” to absurd, and unreasonable, lengths. “well, what if, maybe, some person the police didn’t identify who had the same shoe size, build, hair style and clothing…” “how can we really be sure?”, etc. I consider it a crowning acheivement that I was able to convince these women to convict.
The major consequence of Roman contact with SSA wasn’t elite soldiers or vast wealth but malaria.
As you would expect of a disease that primarily impacts coastal peoples, malaria had a devastating impact on the Roman empire, and arguably helped bring it down. (Inland peoples like Germans, Slavs, Arabs, Turks, etc. didn’t have to worry about this.)
https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-history-of-black-britain-roman-africans
—To get as near as possible to the complete picture of a historical period in time, all the sources must be taken together as a collective group, not singularly highlighted as individuals. Applying that logic, the archaeological evidence and forensic results reinforce the written historical records that we have, indicating that Africans from both above and below the Sahara have called Britain home since the Roman times.—
https://treventour1995.medium.com/afro-romans-there-were-africans-in-britain-before-the-english-came-here-f336c5449759
—We also know of a unit that included North African soldiers at Hadrian’s Wall, named Numerus Maurorum Aurelianorum after Marcus Aurelius — near to what is today Burgh-by-Sands in Cumbria. Additionally “one of the black soldiers in this unit presented a garland of cypress boughs to Emperor Severus” (Adi, 2019: 5) with archaeological finds dating back to 101AD — 300AD like pottery. North African-Roman head pots have also been found in Chester and Scotland. Furthermore, tombstones, and inscriptions. Finally, Adi tells us (from: Swan) of writings described as “neo-Punic script” and of “A Moorish freedman” at South Shields, “probably within the period c160–180/90.”—Replies: @Leaves No Shadow, @Pixo, @Twinkie
Your comment conflates a very small group of North Africans with black people. Were you really being sincere?
Sindh region of Pakistan had African black slaves. Their descendants can be found near Karachi. More African black descendants live inland and are called Makranis. All part of the wider Indian ocean Arab Slave trade. All was going hunky dory until the evul British Empire conquered Sindh and banned Slavery. All those black slaves were now free, thanks to the evul British.
The Forgotten African Sindhi’s of Pakistan
That is actually a common myth, it were the Chinese who were losing silver to the British/ Europeans.
Personally, I'd rather have sewers and frost free frig--but that's just me.Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Twinkie, @YetAnotherAnon
In the parts of the UK colonised by Indians, like Leicester and some parts of London, there are occasional robberies, sometimes home-invasion variety, by people looking for gold. They quite often find it.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/burglars-make-off-with-80kg-safe-filled-with-family-s-gold-jewellery-riding-on-a-moped-8808845.html
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/southall-mother-breaks-legs-in-leap-to-flee-asian-gold-burglary-gang-after-seeing-son-get-stabbed-in-face-a4279981.html
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/londoners-warned-to-be-wary-of-gold-thieves-targeting-diwali-celebrations-a3661456.html
https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/16073300.gold-family-heirlooms-13k-cash-stolen-burglary-caught-cctv/
This (IIRC Irish traveller) family specialised in gold-hunting.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/in-your-area/lanarkshire/english-jewllery-crooks-jailed-after-29105901
People here keep saying that the Chinese somehow WANTED the British opium but the whole reason the Opium Wars were fought was that the Chinese government had prohibited that trade. The British then started a war to force the Chinese to take the drugs. This is morally indefensible on any level and it's ridiculous that people are taking the British side in this. Then again there are people here (the same people?) defending the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
You could say that the Americans got addicted to fentanyl through no one’s fault but their own but I still don't want the Chinese bringing that shit to my country and our government has every right as a sovereign ruler to prohibit it regardless of consumer demand.Replies: @Wokechoke, @Wokechoke, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Malla
This is pure bullshit. The Arabs had been selling opium to China from the 8th century. Earlier it was used only for medicinal purposes but slowly the rich started using it for its relaxing properties and then the poor.
The British were selling Bengal opium which was far superior to the opium in China at that point. The opium cultivation industry and industry was developed by the earlier Mughal government of India, which the East India Company inherited after the conquest of Bengal and other parts of India. China was growing 10 times the opium than the Bengal or Malva opium entering its market.
Along with the British trade, the Indian kingdom of Malwa was exporting opium to China via the Central Asian route. The Americans were even buying opium from the Ottomans, from Izmir for sale to China. The Ottomans were big in this industry too.
The Qing Emperors had banned the opium trade because Silver was flowing out of China. However thanks to corrupt officials at the ports, the trade went on. Until another strict order came from the Emperor, when the port officials seized opium and mixed it with lime and had it thrown at sea. The value of that stock was huge.
The Opium war was actually an Indian affair. It was planned in India, including Indian merchants, it was financed by Indian merchant capital.
1)How much of the wealth of India in the 18th, 19th and early 20th century was in the hands of the British?
2) How much of the war expenses of the East India company was financed by Indian merchants?
3)In term of wealth, the richest Indians were Baghdadi Jews > Parsis > Banias, in that order, right?Replies: @Malla
https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-history-of-black-britain-roman-africans
—To get as near as possible to the complete picture of a historical period in time, all the sources must be taken together as a collective group, not singularly highlighted as individuals. Applying that logic, the archaeological evidence and forensic results reinforce the written historical records that we have, indicating that Africans from both above and below the Sahara have called Britain home since the Roman times.—
https://treventour1995.medium.com/afro-romans-there-were-africans-in-britain-before-the-english-came-here-f336c5449759
—We also know of a unit that included North African soldiers at Hadrian’s Wall, named Numerus Maurorum Aurelianorum after Marcus Aurelius — near to what is today Burgh-by-Sands in Cumbria. Additionally “one of the black soldiers in this unit presented a garland of cypress boughs to Emperor Severus” (Adi, 2019: 5) with archaeological finds dating back to 101AD — 300AD like pottery. North African-Roman head pots have also been found in Chester and Scotland. Furthermore, tombstones, and inscriptions. Finally, Adi tells us (from: Swan) of writings described as “neo-Punic script” and of “A Moorish freedman” at South Shields, “probably within the period c160–180/90.”—Replies: @Leaves No Shadow, @Pixo, @Twinkie
“ Additionally “one of the black soldiers in this unit presented a garland of cypress boughs to Emperor Severus” (Adi, 2019: 5) with archaeological finds dating back to 101AD — 300AD like pottery. ”
Let’s chase this down, and we’ll see once again no reliable source.
“Adi 2019” is a non-academic book published by a left-wing publisher. It is edited by a black power african and is a collection of dubious We Wuz Kangz essays.
The chapter in question was written by a Anglo-Nigerian novelist Onyeka (he’s too cool to use a surname) who does not appear to have ever written a peer reviewed article on any historical topic, much less Roman Britain.
https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-history-of-black-britain-roman-africans
—To get as near as possible to the complete picture of a historical period in time, all the sources must be taken together as a collective group, not singularly highlighted as individuals. Applying that logic, the archaeological evidence and forensic results reinforce the written historical records that we have, indicating that Africans from both above and below the Sahara have called Britain home since the Roman times.—
https://treventour1995.medium.com/afro-romans-there-were-africans-in-britain-before-the-english-came-here-f336c5449759
—We also know of a unit that included North African soldiers at Hadrian’s Wall, named Numerus Maurorum Aurelianorum after Marcus Aurelius — near to what is today Burgh-by-Sands in Cumbria. Additionally “one of the black soldiers in this unit presented a garland of cypress boughs to Emperor Severus” (Adi, 2019: 5) with archaeological finds dating back to 101AD — 300AD like pottery. North African-Roman head pots have also been found in Chester and Scotland. Furthermore, tombstones, and inscriptions. Finally, Adi tells us (from: Swan) of writings described as “neo-Punic script” and of “A Moorish freedman” at South Shields, “probably within the period c160–180/90.”—Replies: @Leaves No Shadow, @Pixo, @Twinkie
Those would be “Moorish” cavalrymen from Mauretania, aka Numidians, not sub-Saharan Africans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numidian_cavalry
The British were selling Bengal opium which was far superior to the opium in China at that point. The opium cultivation industry and industry was developed by the earlier Mughal government of India, which the East India Company inherited after the conquest of Bengal and other parts of India. China was growing 10 times the opium than the Bengal or Malva opium entering its market.
Along with the British trade, the Indian kingdom of Malwa was exporting opium to China via the Central Asian route. The Americans were even buying opium from the Ottomans, from Izmir for sale to China. The Ottomans were big in this industry too.
The Qing Emperors had banned the opium trade because Silver was flowing out of China. However thanks to corrupt officials at the ports, the trade went on. Until another strict order came from the Emperor, when the port officials seized opium and mixed it with lime and had it thrown at sea. The value of that stock was huge.
The Opium war was actually an Indian affair. It was planned in India, including Indian merchants, it was financed by Indian merchant capital.Replies: @Dream
I have some questions, maybe you will have the answers.
1)How much of the wealth of India in the 18th, 19th and early 20th century was in the hands of the British?
2) How much of the war expenses of the East India company was financed by Indian merchants?
3)In term of wealth, the richest Indians were Baghdadi Jews > Parsis > Banias, in that order, right?
However, that British Indian Army prevented any foreign raids into India which led to far greater loss of Indian wealth. Like the naked loot of India by Nader Shah of Iran or Ahmed Shah Abdali/Durrani of Afghanistan.
During the conquest of some kingdom, the treasury belonged to the East India Company.
But
1] This is how it worked throughout the World, Indian kings too got hold of the treasury of the losing Kingdom.
2] The British EIC were often disappointed with the amount of wealth in the treasury of Indian kingdoms. They expected it to be far more thanks to all the legends of the wealth of India.
3] A good chunk of that treasury was distributed among the Indian sepoys in the Company Presidential armies and thus remained in India.I cannot give an estimate but there were crucial periods where it was funded by Indian merchants. The Battle of Plassey being one. But I would say, Indian merchants did invest quite a lot in the British East India Company war efforts.Looks like it. But as the sheer number of bania merchants was so much bigger, they would have more collective wealth.
A good chunk of Indian wealth was trapped in the form of Gold in the treasuries of Indian merchants (banias). And also Temples.
1)How much of the wealth of India in the 18th, 19th and early 20th century was in the hands of the British?
2) How much of the war expenses of the East India company was financed by Indian merchants?
3)In term of wealth, the richest Indians were Baghdadi Jews > Parsis > Banias, in that order, right?Replies: @Malla
Less than what was in the hands of Indians. The British Indian Government got taxes via land, salt, opium, stamps etc…. the taxation rate was extremely low and most of thet money was spent on the upkeep of India. British officials were highly paid and a good chunk of that money went to Britain after they retired and went back. But some British officers stayed with their families in India and died in India. There were entire prominent British families who lived in India for generations, going to Britain only for short durations. British soldiers in the British Indian army was also paid out of India. Most of that too went to the UK.
However, that British Indian Army prevented any foreign raids into India which led to far greater loss of Indian wealth. Like the naked loot of India by Nader Shah of Iran or Ahmed Shah Abdali/Durrani of Afghanistan.
During the conquest of some kingdom, the treasury belonged to the East India Company.
But
1] This is how it worked throughout the World, Indian kings too got hold of the treasury of the losing Kingdom.
2] The British EIC were often disappointed with the amount of wealth in the treasury of Indian kingdoms. They expected it to be far more thanks to all the legends of the wealth of India.
3] A good chunk of that treasury was distributed among the Indian sepoys in the Company Presidential armies and thus remained in India.
I cannot give an estimate but there were crucial periods where it was funded by Indian merchants. The Battle of Plassey being one. But I would say, Indian merchants did invest quite a lot in the British East India Company war efforts.
Looks like it. But as the sheer number of bania merchants was so much bigger, they would have more collective wealth.
A good chunk of Indian wealth was trapped in the form of Gold in the treasuries of Indian merchants (banias). And also Temples.