From: Aquatic DubMonkey (rewindme@lunarmagazine.com)

 

Greetings everybody... This is a re-post of a message I posted to
these same groups on August 22 of this year. Surprisingly it got NO
responses. For those of you who have the patience/interest to read
this, please feel free to post your thoughts on any and all subject
written about here.

                                                          Graham
                                                          Atlanta, GA
                                                          United
States

MYTH # 1: Northern Europeans Are Racially Pure 

White supremacists, white separatists, and white pride groups in
general are quick to acknowledge racial impurity in Southern Europe,
Eastern Europe, and, in some cases, even Central Europe, but they
continue to operate, not innocently, on the assumption that Northern
Europe—namely the British Isles, from where the majority of white
Americans are descended—is racially pure, or at most impure to an
imperceptible degree. They refer to it (recent Third World immigrants
notwithstanding) as being 100% white, "Aryan" (non-Semitic European)
or Nordic, reflecting their misunderstanding of that word.


Richard McCulloch, the self-titled, and commendably non-hateful, race
preservationist and author of The Racial Compact goes as far as
separating Northern Europeans from the rest of Europe, claiming that
they belong to the "Nordish" race, a term he coined himself, which,
according to his own conception, is a geographic rather than a racial
designation, as it comprises many different physical types linked only
by their common geographical origins. Although he does acknowledge an
"Atlanto-Mediterranean" influence in Britain—sometimes called
simply
"Paleo-Atlantid" to conceal Mediterranean ancestry—he's very
vague
about its origins and considers it entirely "Nordish". He and his
followers are under the bizarre (not to mention unscientific)
misapprehension that an individual with Alpine characteristics in
England is somehow racially different from a similar individual in
Austria, and that someone with Mediterranean characteristics in
Ireland is different from a Mediterranean in Spain, simply by virtue
of geography and in blatant disregard of known historical migrations
and phenotypic reality.

White supremacist Arthur Kemp explains these "dark" Northerners away
by positing an old "White Mediterranean" race with dark hair, dark
eyes, light skin and generally Nordic features, which flourished in
the Near East, North Africa and Europe prior to the arrival of Semites
and Hamites, whom he considers "non-white". Remnants of this "Aryan
Mediterranean" race, so the argument goes, can be found among current
populations of the British Isles. But of course, there's no documented
historical or anthropological evidence of such a race. All
Mediterraneans, old and new, are descended from the same racial stock
that originated in the Fertile Crescent and from there spread to
Arabia, North Africa, Northern India, Central Asia and Europe. Though
Mediterraneans have mixed with other races and subraces in border
areas like the Sahara Desert, India and Europe, and in the close to
10,000 years they've been in existence have somewhat adapted to the
various climates into which they've settled, it is inaccurate to
divide them arbitrarily into ancient "whites" and modern "non-whites".
And anyway, the groups that Kemp claims belonged to this mythical
"dark Aryan" race (e.g. Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, etc.) were
already speaking Hamitic and Semitic languages, which supposedly came
from later "non-white" invaders.

The fact is, Northern Europeans and their descendants are not pure
Nordic or "Aryan" or "Nordish". While it's generally accepted that a
Middle Eastern/North African influence exists in Southern and Eastern
Europe, often used by white supremacists to establish the inferiority
of Southern and Eastern Europeans, rarely mentioned is the settlement
in the British Isles centuries ago of Phoenicians, a Hamito-Semitic
people of the Middle East and North Africa (see map of Phoenician
voyages), and possibly even other similar groups from Africa and West
Asia who arrived centuries earlier by way of Iberia. The evidence of
the imprint these Mediterranean peoples have left on the current
populations of the U.K. and Ireland is overwhelming and unanimous :




The genetic link between certain populations of Ireland, Scotland and
Wales and North African Berbers has been well established. Theodosius
Dobzhansky says that "The Celtic-speaking inhabitants of the northern
part of Wales, and those of parts of Scotland and Ireland, resemble in
blood group frequencies certain populations of North Africa (Berbers)"
(Mankind Evolving, p. 234).

Michael Lerner argues that "for a long time there has been unexplained
evidence of a link between western Britain and the Mediterranean that
dates back to the Neolithic Age. The similarity in frequencies of A
and O between the two...definitely suggests that populations of
Mediterranean origin did inhabit Ireland and Scotland at one time,
leaving their imprint on the present gene pool" (Hereditary Evolution
and Society, p. 228).

Renowned scholar Julius Pokorny states that it is "from every point of
view impossible" that the Celts were the earliest inhabitants of
Ireland, arguing emphatically that the Berbers predated them. He goes
on to show that the Megalithic inhabitants of Ireland were long-headed
Mediterraneans, similar to those who "still form the principal element
in the population of North Africa" (The Pre-Celtic Inhabitants of
Ireland, p. 229).

Giuseppe Sergi has affirmed "the kinship of the early inhabitants of
Britain to the North African white race" (The Mediterranean Race, p.
246) [Note: North Africans are white to scientists and rational
laymen, but not to white supremacists].

And, anthropologist Carleton Stevens Coon has this to say: 

Cornwall, which is the darkest county in England and an ancient Keltic
linguistic stronghold, contains, like Wales, strong vestiges of a
pre-Keltic population.... A large-bodied, muscular type, with a head
which is frequently brachycephalic, is common here, and must be
attributed to the Bronze Age invasions.... Besides having medium or
tall stature, and a tendency to brachycephaly, they are said to be
heavy-bodied, lateral in build, thick-necked, with features of a
somewhat Armenoid cast, dark, curly hair, thick eyebrows, and eyes
which are frequently brown. This type...may...be associated with the
strong local belief that the Cornish are descended from Phoenicians"
(The Races of Europe, Chapter X, Section 3, Great Britian, General
Survey).


The imprint has also been established linguistically. The Columbia
Encyclopedia (Sixth Edition), in its section on Celtic Languages,
states the following :

An interesting feature of Celtic languages is that in several
characteristics they resemble some non-Indo-European languages. These
characteristics include the absence of a present participle and the
use instead of a verbal noun (found also in Egyptian and Berber), the
frequent expression of agency by means of an impersonal passive
construction instead of by a verbal subject in the nominative case (as
in Egyptian, Berber, Basque, and some Caucasian and Eskimo languages),
and the positioning of the verb at the beginning of a sentence
(typical of Egyptian and Berber).
Countless linguists have corroborated this. A.M. Gessman notes that
numerous Western European languages, including Celtic languages and
English, reflect an influence that is "almost certainly Hamitic" (The
Tongue of the Romans, p. 7). H.Wagner says that "Irish...has as many
features in common with non-Indo-European languages, especially with
Hamito-Semitic languages, as with other Indo-European languages". And
J. Morris Jones states that "The pre-Aryan idioms which still live in
Welsh and Irish were derived from a language allied to Egyptian
tongues". To give a few examples, the Gaelic word "aue", meaning
"grandson", is derived from the Berber word "aouwi", meaning "son",
both of which eventually gave way to the "O" in Irish names like
"O'Reilly" and "O'Brien". Moreover, the Welsh phrase "Ochoren
ballodddi hoc-dena" in Hebrew is "Acharei belothi hedenah", and "Yni
all sy dda" translates to "Ani El Saddai".




Finally, and most difficult to argue against, the Hamito-Semitic
imprint can be observed in the phenotypes of many individuals in and
descended from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, such as the
following celebrities who clearly exhibit non-Nordic or non-"Aryan"
physical traits which attest to obvious non-European ancestry :

PICTURES AT http://www.geocities.com/racial_myths/aryanmyth.html



In addition to all of this, it's estimated that, as a result of white
settlers in America raping their slaves and prisoners, and of the
offspring of such unions often passing for white, many Americans who
think of themselves as descended entirely from Northern Europe in fact
have some black or Indian ancestry. Ohio State anthropologist and
sociologist Robert Stuckert, in a study called "African Ancestry of
the White American Population", estimated that by 1950 21% of whites
(about 28 million people then) had black ancestry within the last four
generations. This finding was corroborated by Esteban J. Parra et al.,
who determined that "The presence of the FY null allele in the three
[white sample] populations clearly indicates an introgression of
African genes into the European American gene pool...." (Am. J. Hum.
Genet., 1998).

However, this genotype rarely manifests itself phenotypically as the
Hamito-Semitic contribution does because, unlike the latter which
predates modern conceptions of race and racism and is the product of
random breeding, the former has been deliberately, expeditiously and
deeply buried by non-whites making a conscious effort to whiten
themselves. To get some sense of the extent of this burial, take a
look at such apparently Nordic people as the following, all of whom
are purported to have relatively recent non-white ancestry :

 




Should these people, and others like them, be considered Mestizo and
Mulatto? Of course not. Scientifically, race isn't measured in drops
of blood. They should, however, be considered impure, and those who
promote racism and racial purity, or seek to characterize other
populations as racially mixed, should know that they, like the above
people, may themselves be "tainted" with the blood of those they
consider their racial inferiors.





And finally, although the main focus of this page is the British
Isles, it bears mentioning that other parts of Northern Europe are
home to varying degrees of Turko-Mongol ancestry, as the
Asian-specific TAT polymorphism (HG 16) has been detected in
Scandinavian, German and Slavic populations at frequencies ranging
from 2% to 61% (Rosser et al., 2000). This reflects migrations of
various Uralic and Altaic peoples from Central Asia, including Lapps,
Finns, Karelians and Estonians, and, in historical times, Huns,
Tartars and Avars. The phenotypic marks left by these migrations can
be seen in the following individuals : PICTURES AT LINK ABOVE.

MYTH # 2: Jews Are Non-white 

We all know that Nazis believe this myth wholeheartedly, and will
continue to believe it, but what's disconcerting is that more and more
Jews are beginning to accept it as well, inadvertently supporting the
unscientific racial theories of the Nazis, rather than refuting them
as I'm sure every Jew and other liberal would want to do. The reason
for this newfound need of Jews to be considered non-white is in part
rooted in the social benefits that come with minority (i.e. colored)
status in our rampant victim culture, but perhaps more in the identity
politics of the day.

The Jews are in fact white by every anthropological definition of the
word. The ancient Hebrews were a Mediterranean people, probably
originally from the Arabian Peninsula, and therefore belonged to the
Caucasian racial group. I know, I know, what white supremacists really
mean when they say that Jews are "non-white" is that they're
non-"Aryan" or non-European, that is, not Nordic and Alpine in
physical appearance, but that's wrong too. The very fact that Hitler
had to identify them with gold Stars of David so he could tell them
apart from his "Aryan Supermen" attests to this. While it's true that
Sephardic (Middle-Eastern and North African) Jews are typically very
Mediterranean, Ashkenazi (European, especially Eastern) Jews are for
the most part Alpine and Alpine-Mediterranean, often exhibiting
various Nordic traits. This is due to the absorption of much
Indo-European ancestry into the Hebrew populations that settled there,
or even possibly to the conversion of native European populations to
Judaism.

In his article "Who Are the Jews?" (Natural History, November 1993),
Jared Diamond is quick to downplay the European admixture among
Ashkenazi Jews and discredit the theory that the Ashkenazim are
descended largely from non-Semitic Central Asian Khazars who converted
to Judaism in the 8th centurey (which has neither been proven nor
disproven genetically), all in an effort to portray Jews as somehow
"purely Israelite". He focuses on mtDNA and Y chromosome research that
has shown all modern ethnically Jewish populations (save for the
non-ethnically Jewish Ethiopian Jews) to be very closely related and
to have ties with the ancient Hebrews of the Middle East. This is
certainly true (and expected), but it can't be used—as it has
been by
both Jews and neo-Nazis—to prove that Jews aren't European.
European
gentiles also cluster genetically with Near Easterners, precisely
because both groups are Caucasoid (and many, such as Southern
Europeans, Eastern Europeans and certain populations of Britain,
possess specific genetic patterns found among Near Eastern peoples,
reflecting historical migrations of Phoenicians, Moors, Turks, etc.).
This only indicates the presence of Mediterranean ancestry, as the
Mediterranean type originated in the Near East. Neolithic farmers from
the Fertile Crescent brought agriculture to Europe and are said to
reflect up to 20% of European genetic heritage.

While previous studies of Y chromosome polymorphisms showed a small
European contribution to the Jewish gene pool, Nebel et al. discovered
that Eu 19 chromosomes common to Eastern European populations
(54%-60%) were found at a rate of 12.7% among Eastern European Jews,
conlcuding that "Kurdish and Sephardic Jews were indistinguishable
from one another, whereas both differed slightly, yet significantly,
from Ashkenazi Jews" (Am J Hum Genet, 2001). This isn't yet definitive
or quantitative genetic evidence of the European influence among Jews,
but coupled with historical, anthropological and phenotypic data, it
certainly suggests a relatively high degree of admixture. Hopefully,
though, such studies will lead to more inquiry on the matter that will
help wade through the political propaganda involved.

Another argument, again made by Jews and neo-Nazis alike, is that
Jews' genetic closeness and distinctness from surrounding non-Jews
proves that they constitute a unique and separate race. But this can
easily be accounted for by genetic drift in a small, isolated
population. And Jews are by no means the only group to which this
phenomenon has occurred. Icelanders, though a mix of Celtic and
Scandinavian peoples, are genetically isolated from the rest of
Europe, but no one would consider them non-white or even any different
from Swedes, Danes and Irishmen. Sardinians, Cretans and Basques are
other examples of populations composed of various Caucasoid subracial
elements who are phenotypically identical to their surrounding
populations, though genetically isolated from them.

It's unfortunate that the tales spun about Jews by Nazis for political
reasons are now being mirrored by similar politically-motivated tales
coming from the Jews themselves. However, it's difficult to convince
any rational individual, especially in light of the folly of Nazism,
that a group of people that resembles the majority, dominates in
fields such as law, medicine, business and media, and is on the whole
quite wealthy qualifies as an oppressed racial minority.




The following celebrities are Jewish. They can hardly be considered
non-white or even non-European. In fact, judging by the looks of them,
they're probably less Semitic than the Mediterranean Northern
Europeans depicted in Myth # 1 :

PICTURES AT http://www.geocities.com/racial_myths/jews.html

MYTH # 3: The Portuguese Are Mulattos 

This myth, which white supremacists like Arthur Kemp find convenient
as "evidence" of the cultural and economic decline caused by race
mixing, is based on the statistic that in 1550 black slaves made up
10% of the population of Lisbon, and 3% of the total population of
Portugal, while today they're almost nonexistent in that country.
However, a statistic is worthless if it's improperly interpreted. It
has traditionally been assumed that all of these blacks were absorbed
into Portuguese society, but this fails to recognize a phenomenon that
has been observed in many Latin American countries into which slaves
were brought but in which no black people exist today, and no trace of
any African genes can be found (black slaves were imported throughout
Latin America but their descendants exist today only in the Caribbean
and Brazil). It's speculated that the slaves brought into these
countries, being almost exclusively male, failed to perpetuate
themselves because they couldn't find any mates among the white and
Indian populations (Dobzhansky, p. 284).

Given that the people of Portugal today are predominantly
Mediterranean and Alpine—having experienced historical migrations
relatively similar to those of the Spanish, Italians, French, Greeks,
etc.—with no visible Negroid traits in the native (i.e.
non-immigrant,
non-black) populations, it's likely that the above phenomenon occurred
in Portugal as well, and that no more black slaves were absorbed into
its population than into the populations of any other European country
that was once a slave-trading and slave-owning colonial power.

João Ferreira, in The History of Portugal, corroborates this
hypothesis, proposing a few additional contributing factors. He states
the following :

Many Portuguese males were leaving the country for the colonies, for
Brasil especially, and the population of the nation dwindled to 1.5
million. A labour force was needed to work the farms, and since black
Africans had begun to be imported in 1441 as domestic servants, this
influx continued in numbers such that by 1550, the towns of Evora and
Lisbon had a 10-percent black population. This lot of African slaves
was not a happy one, and the black females were not afforded the same
protection as the white slaves obtained through earlier conquests
were. Consequently, young mestiço girls of mixed descent became prized
as mistresses, though not necessarily as wives.
The mortality rate amongst the slaves was high, as they were not
afforded proper medical attention. A large number, since they were
already familiar with Portuguese culture and the language, were
subsequently deported to Brasil, where their presence was needed far
more than in Portugal itself. Manumission was possible, and many chose
to flee the country upon being freed. However, a portion did remain in
Portugal, and miscegenation meant that within a dozen or so
generations, a considerable number of the 35,000 black Africans who
had once lived in Portugal were blended into the mainstream of the
Portuguese population. This sort of thing was not peculiar to Portugal
alone; in fact, it occurred in nearly all of the slave-owning European
nations, including Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Britain.
The percentage of blacks was highest for Portugal, but the actual
numerical figure was higher for Britain. However, in no nation in
Europe (including Portugal) was the absorption of blacks significant
enough to change the ethnography of the country.

Carlos Machado, in his book My Portugal, confirms Ferreira's claims : 


The influence of the Negroes, however, has been grossly exaggerated,
with figures such as "100,000 in the sixteenth century" or "10 percent
of the nation's population in the year 1600" being severely inflated.
What can be truthfully said is that during the slave trade, a few tens
of thousands of Negroes were brought to the metropolis of Lisboa. From
there many were shipped to Brasil or to other European countries.
Those who remained in Portugal were either sold to wealthy
city-dwelling Portuguese, or distributed to the owners of large
plantations in the south to provide farm labour, where almost all who
survived eventually were absorbed by the population, leaving no trace
whatever.
He adds that "Lisboa has been a magnet for Negroes from the colonies
as well, and Negroid features seen in a few seemingly Caucasoid
individuals are certainly the result of miscegenation between colonial
Negroes and the Portuguese; these traits are not present in the native
Portuguese population."


These, of course, are historical perspectives, but they're
corroborated by scientific data. A study reporting on the presence of
African L sequences in Portuguese mtDNA estimated the total Negroid
contribution to Portugal's gene pool at 3.6% (Pereira et al., 2000).
If this seems like a lot, consider that similar studies on other
populations have revealed a 4% Mongoloid contribution to the Swedish
gene pool (Rosser et al., 2000), and an up to 10% Amerindian
contribution to the gene pool of whites in Colorado (Merriwether et
al., 1997). Additionally, in the Portugal study, there was debate
about the origin of one of the markers (L3), which, if it turns out to
be Caucasoid- rather than Negroid-specific, would reduce the total
amount of black admixture in the Portuguese to 1.65%. Either way, it
isn't enough to have altered the racial make-up of the country.

That's exactly what anthropologist Carleton S. Coon determined years
earlier from his extensive anthropometric research on the living
populations of Portugal. Alluding to the oft-exaggerated slave
influence there, he concluded that "the absorption of Negroes by the
Portuguese has had no appreciable effect on the racial composition of
the country. Portugal remains, as it has been since the days of the
Muge shell-fish eaters, classic Mediterranean territory" (The Races of
Europe, Chapter XI, Section 15, The Iberian Peninsula).

Beyond all that, Portugal has been experiencing a cultural and
economic boom since the collapse of its repressive Salazar regime in
1974, which is gradually elevating it to the level of other European
Community countries. Its GDP rose an average of 4.4% between 1985 and
1989, surpassing the growth rate of the U.S. and Canada, and nearly
matching that of Japan. And in 1998, the illiteracy rate for 15-24
year-olds was 0%. Moreover, Ireland was a similarly backward and
impoverished Western European country until a recent economic boom
following its accession to the European Community, yet no race-mixing
has gone on there—at least none acknowledged by white
supremacists.
The simple fact is that there's no circumscribed causal relationship
between race-mixing and backwardness, and even if their was, the above
comparison would prove that the Portuguese are no more racially mixed
than the Irish.

PICTURES AT http://www.geocities.com/racial_myths/portuguese.html

MYTH # 4: North Africans Are Black 

The idea that North Africans are black arose as a desperate attempt by
black academics to culturally validate sub-Saharan Africans by
arbitrarily equating "Africa" with "black" in order that black people
could take credit for the great civilizations of North Africa.
Amazingly, with little or no evidence provided to support such a
claim, it has been almost universally accepted in academia. This
equation concerns four major historical groups—Egyptians,
Nubians,
Phoenicians and Moors (discussed below)—and a fifth group to
which the
four are genetically linked: the indigenous North African Hamites,
sometimes collectively called Berbers. Here's what Encyclopedia
Britannica has to say about North Africa and these Berbers :


"North Africa is vastly more uniform ethnically than anywhere in
Africa south of the Sahara. It is principally inhabited by Arabs and
Berbers, who are scarcely distinguishable physically. The Berbers are
the indigenous people, but their origin is obscure. An ancient people
speaking an Afro-Asiatic language, they were in North Africa when the
Phoenicians came as traders."
Thus, like Middle-Eastern Semites, North African Hamites belong to the
Mediterranean physical type of the Caucasian race and are not black.





EGYPTIANS 

The Egyptians were—and still are for the most part—North
African
Hamites, meaning Mediterranean white. Linguistic, genetic,
anthropological, artistic and testimonial evidence supports this
thesis (see link below photos for details). Yet Afrocentrists dismiss
the overwhleming evidence against them as borne out of racism because
it was determined by white people at a time when black inferiority was
presupposed. Nevermind that it's corroborated by modern scientists and
academics, most of whom share the leftist leanings of our times.

Another Afrocentrist claim is that Cleopatra was a "beautiful black
woman", which is doubly foolish because Cleopatra wasn't even
ethnically Egyptian. She belonged to the Greek Ptolomy dynasty that
ruled Egypt from Alexandria following the conquests of Alexander the
Great.

Finally, in order to account for the light, Caucasian appearance of
modern Egyptians, black academics claim that those people are
descendants of later Arab invaders, and that the few Negroid Egyptians
are remnants of the native inhabitants. However, genetic studies show
that "Arabs who invaded North Africa...in the 7th century A.D. did not
substantially contribute to the gene pool" (Gomez-Casado et al.,
2000), making it much more likely that those few black people in Egypt
are descendants of later migrants from farther south, and that the
remaining majority are descended from native Hamitic stock with minor
Semitic admixture. This view is also supported by the light
pigmentation and Caucasoid features of the Egyptians in these ancient,
pre-Arabic, artifacts :

PICTURES AT http://www.geocities.com/racial_myths/blackmyth.html

For more photos of, and information on, Ancient Egyptians, visit
http://www.geocities.com/enbp/index.html tHE aNCIENT eGYPTIAN rACE
iSSUE

Another more recent argument for the black origins of Egyptian culture
is rooted in the fact established in 1909 that predynastic Upper
Egyptians (from the south) had some black admixture. More moderate
Afrocentrists have claimed, based on this, that the culture that
became Egyptian proper had its roots among these mixed peoples and
then spread to "whiter" Lower Egyptians (from the north). However, the
premise of this theory was long ago discredited by A. Batrawi and G.
M. Morant in Biometrika, Vol. 34, No. 1/2. (Jan., 1947), pp. 18-27 :


"The observation that there were two races in Egypt in the early
dynastic period was first made in the year 1909, when the results of
measurements obtained from a series of male and female skulls of the
4th and 5th dynasties from the great necropolis surrounding the
pyramids of Giza came to be examined and compared with crania from
early predynastic graves. Until then the theory of an unbroken
evolution of the Egyptian race from prehistoric times through the
dynastic period had been taught. It now became obvious that the
culture which we know as peculiarly Egyptian was associated with a
race which could not have been derived from the predynastic people.
The introduction of stone-working resulting in the erection of great
tombs and statuary, as well as beautifully executed reliefs, paintings
and above all writing, all pointed to a race far in advance of the
predynastic people, who although skilled in the making of bowls and
vases in stone as well as in pottery, and who had already attained to
the discovery of the uses of copper, were, nevertheless, little
removed from the Neolithic period."



NUBIANS (a.k.a. Cushites) 

Nubia, or Cush, is an ancient region of Northeast Africa, sandwiched
between Egypt to the North, the Semitic kingdoms of Ethiopia to the
South, Libya to the West, and the Arabian peninsula to the East.
Though there's evidence that it has always been racially
heterogeneous, the advent of Nubian culture coincides with invasions
of Neolithic Mediterraneans from the Middle East who introduced
agriculture to the region.

An anthropological analysis entitled Population of Nubia up to the
16th century BC, presenting morphological features, paleo-demography
and paleo-pathology based on collections of bones from archeological
digs carried out in Nubia, reports the following about the Caucasoid
racial and cultural influence in the region :


"Starting from the Late Neolithic...similarities between the Nubians
and the populations of Northeast Africa...and Asia...became even more
distinct, which may prove the existence of strong ties derived
probably from influx of the Caucasoids from the regions of Levant,
Mesopotamia, and India. They were coming to Nubia through the Sinai
Peninsula, but probably also through the south Saudi Arabia. The Kerma
series from Upper Nubia shows particular similarities to the
present-day Indian series.
"From the Neolithic on, or possibly even earlier, the strategic
location of Nubia, promoting contacts between various populations,
started to bring about effects in the form of the civilizational
development of this region. Finally, these two factors led to the
Hamitisation process, whereby superimposition of the Caucasoids on the
Negroids took place." (Aleksandra Pudlo, Anthropological Review, 1999)

Certainly, Nubians were in contact with black Africans who, like in
Ethiopia, became incorporated into various kingdoms, as much of the
art suggests. But the claim that Nubia was an entirely black region
linked to sub-Saharan Africa rather than to North Africa and the Near
East is ludicrous. The progenitors of Nubian culture, like those of
all of the cultures discussed in this section, were undoubtedly
Caucasoid.





PHOENICIANS (a.k.a. Carthaginians) 

From Phoenicia.org : 


"Their origin is probably Semitic though some references trace them
back to as far away as India about 10,000 BC. Further, the Phoenician
colonies which spread all over the coastline of the Mediterranean and
even the Atlantic coasts were inhabited by Phoenician Semitic
immigrants. No one can claim that the Phoenicians of North Africa were
black or the Phoenicians of Spain, Gibraltar, Sardinia, Sicily,
Malta...etc. were European."
Phoenicians who founded and settled the city of Carthage in North
Africa (modern-day Tunis, Tunisia), absorbing native Berbers, became
Carthaginians, against whom Rome fought in the Punic Wars. The great
General Hannibal and his army were Carthaginian and not black as so
many black academics today claim, as evidenced by this poster created
recently for distribution in schools, compared to a much more reliable
ancient Roman bust of Hannibal :

PICTURES AT SAME LINK AS ABOVE

MOORS (a.k.a. Arabs, Saracens, Muslims, etc.) 

From Encyclopedia Britannica : 


"...member of the Muslim population of Spain [and other parts of
Southwestern Europe], of mixed Arab, Spanish, and Berber origins, who
created the Arab Andalusian civilization and subsequently settled as
refugees in North Africa between the 11th and 17th centuries."
Here's where the confusion may lie : 

"By extension (corresponding to the Spanish moro), the term
occasionally denotes any Muslim in general, as in the case of the
Moors of Sri Lanka (Ceylon) or of the Philippines.... The word derives
from the Latin Mauri, first used by the Romans to denote the
inhabitants of the Roman province of Mauretania, comprising the
western portion of modern Algeria and the northeastern portion of
modern Morocco. Modern Mauritanians are also sometimes referred to as
Moors (as with the French maure); the Islamic Republic of Mauritania,
however, lies in the large Saharan area between Morocco and the
republics of Senegal and Mali."
Another point of confusion is the fact that Shakespeare referred to
his Moor of Venice, Othello, as black. However, it must be noted that
Shakespeare probably never saw a Moor in his life, and that in those
days, anyone who wasn't as pale as a typical Englishman was considered
"black". This use of the word black lives on in the term Black Irish,
which denotes Irish people of Mediterranean stock and has nothing to
do with what's understood by black today, especially in American
usage. (See Myth #1)

Here are some illustrations from the Tale of Bayad and Riyad, dating
from the 13th century, in which the Moors are clearly depicted as
Caucasians :

SAME LINK

MYTH # 5: Italians Have Black Ancestry 

For some time now, the notion has prevailed, first among whites and
then among blacks, that Italians somehow have black ancestry. In
recent years this notion has been reinforced in such films as Spike
Lee's Do the Right Thing and Jungle Fever, and Quentin Tarantino's
True Romance. Lee makes the claim in both of the above-mentioned
films, but never bothers to qualify his assertion with historical
evidence. Tarantino does qualify his assertion but with false
evidence. He claims that the Moors are responsible for the injection
of sub-Saharan African blood into Italy, particularly Sicily. Others
believe Hannibal and his Punic War armies to be the culprits. However,
the Moors and Phoenicians were not black. They were Hamito-Semitic
peoples, meaning that they began as Semites from the Near East and
then absorbed physically similar Hamites, or Berbers, during their
conquest of North Africa, prior to entering Europe. When confronted
with this fact, typically black proponents will claim that those two
groups, by virtue of their link to Africa, probably acquired
significant amounts of black ancestry from their contacts with North
Africans. However, DNA analyses show a sharp demarcation between
northern and sub-Saharan Africa, and suggest that what little Negroid
admixture exists in the north is relatively recent.

Still other people, namely white supremacists like Arthur Kemp,
believe that black ancestry in Italy comes from black slaves imported
by the Romans. While there is some evidence that Rome imported blacks
as slaves—probably acquired along the shores of the Nile in the
Sudan—there's no evidence that they were any more than negligible
in
number, nor that they lived long enough to reproduce and get absorbed
into the population. Most slaves in the Roman Empire were spoils of
territorial wars from Central and Southern Europe, the Balkans, the
Near East, North Africa and Northern Europe—in other words,
Caucasoid.
Moreover, though slaves were often brought to Rome to be sold, once
purchased, they were likely dispersed throughout the Empire by their
owners.

Then there are the blacks brought into Europe by imperialists some
1500 years later at the start of the African slave trade. There's
evidence that a good number of them were absorbed into their host
populations, often by way of royal houses, but once again not
disproportionately in Italy (Britain, Spain, Portugal, France, Holland
and Germany were the dominant colonial powers and slave traders), and
not in large enough numbers to have rendered any of their descendants
biracial.

Genetic studies support this assessment of Roman and Atlantic slavery,
finding that "a tiny minority of sequences (approx. =1%)
from...sub-Saharan African (L1, L2, L3a and L3b)...clusters appear to
have contributed to the European mitochondrial pool within the last
few thousand years." (M. B. Richards et al., Ann. Hum. Genet., 1998).
This particular study included population samples from both Southern
and Northern European countries, among them England, Spain, Germany
and Denmark in addition to Italy. Thus, anyone who thinks the South of
Europe is part black has to think the same about the North. Moreover,
he's also subscribing to the one-drop rule, which is ironic—that
the
two groups who seem, consciously or not, to be subscribing to this
rule are blacks, who have suffered a great deal of racism because of
it, and Northern European racists, many of whom likely possess one
drop of black blood themselves (probably a couple of drops if they're
from the United States).

It should also be noted here that an outdated genetic study can be
found on the web indicating a 4.4% Negroid contribution to the
Sicilian mitochondrial DNA pool. This study, which is from 1989, was
recently discredited as inaccurate, as it was carried out with
unreliable restriction enzymes. More advanced techniques have since
been developed, namely mtDNA sequencing, which has found "no Black
African influence in the Sicilian population" (G. Vona et al., Am. J.
Hum. Biol., 2001).

Thus, genetic studies demonstrate conclusively that Italians, north
and south, have no more black ancestry than any other Western European
population. Of course, this assessment was made years before genetic
testing was possible by anthropologists analyzing skeletal remains,
tracing population movements and examining living subjects.


Like the rest of Europe, Italy was originally populated by Paleolithic
Cro-Magnons, and in the Neolithic period experienced migrations of
Alpines from the north, and Mediterraneans from the
East—including the
famous Etruscans—who were likely of a lighter type than those
currently adapted to the deserts of North Africa and West Asia.
Subsequent waves of invasions in historical times by Indo-European,
Alpine and a few Nordic groups (e.g. Celts, Greeks, Latins, Umbrians,
Oscans, Sabines, Lombards, Visigoths, Vandals, Normans, etc.) tempered
by smaller invasions of probably darker Mediterraneans (Phoenicians
and Moors), has resulted in a modern-day nation that's "more typically
Alpine racial territory", as Carleton Stevens Coon notes, making no
mention of any Negroid traits. He asserts that "the binding element
which is common to all sections [of Italy] is the Alpine, which has
reemerged from obscure beginnings through a superstructure composed of
Dinaric [Alpine-Mediterranean blend], Nordic, and various kinds of
Mediterranean accretions" (The Races of Europe, Chapter XII, Section
7, Italy).


Here, to illustrate the above, are some photos of Italian and
Italian-American personalities divided into two categories :




"DARK" TYPES 

When people theorize about "black Italians", it's this type to which
they're referring. However, there isn't anything remotely black about
it. Reflecting unassimilated remnants of old Paleolithic and Neolithic
populations as well as, to a lesser extent, the Phoenician and Moorish
invasions, its darkest representatives—by far the least typical
of the
country's make-up—look like Arabs, not blacks. Furthermore, this
type
can be likened to the Northern European Mediterranean type depicted in
Myth # 1, though given Italy's longer history, southern positioning
and closer proximity to North Africa and the Middle East, the type is
considerably more prevalent there. Individuals exemplifying it include
the following :

PICTURES AT http://www.geocities.com/racial_myths/italians.html

LIGHT" TYPES 

The vast majority of Italians belong in this category, which reflects
the Italic, Celtic (in the north), Hellenic (in the south) and
Germanic roots that predominate in Italy and have largely assimilated
older, "darker" elements. As such, the people belonging to this type
are indistinguishable from all other Europeans and are exemplified by
the following personalities :

SAME LINK

For more photos of people that further illustrate this myth, visit
http://www.itagirls.com/home.htm,
http://freeweb.supereva.it/italianwomen/,
http://www.camera.it/deputati/composizione/leg14/01.camera/01.Deputati.asp

For those dimwitted white and black nationalists who still believe,
after reading this Myth, that only Northern Italians are "white", the
Southerners being largely mixed with Arabs and blacks, and
overwhelmingly non-European in appearance as result, here are photos
of all of the senators from Sicily that clearly show otherwise :

SAME LINK

[For photos of senators from all over Italy, visit
http://www.senato.it/bd/comp/anagraf.htm



  I will finish with four more myths in a later post, or you can find
them all at the main site listed above. Some of the remaining subjects
include Greek Ethnicity, and Sickle Cell as a indicator of Black
ancestory.