|
Post by habsburg on Jan 7, 2015 18:05:15 GMT -5
Anne of Denmark (1574-1619) with Hunting Dogs, by Paul van Somer. Portrait of Anne of Denmark with Hunting DogsThis a variation of a painting at the Royal Collection Anne of Denmark (1574-1619) - by Paul van Somer which isn't so keen to show the Negro. I don't know which one is the original. Back to the main question - How many Negroes does one see in the painting? I have to admit that us Eurocentric Afrocentrics have a habit of making out black people in all kinds of scenery, just as some religious people see images of Christ, the Madonna, and Islamic inscriptions in all kinds of mundane situations. Not aiming to make fun of Afrocentrics, just saying.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jan 7, 2015 22:21:03 GMT -5
Pray tell, what is a negro?
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jan 8, 2015 16:50:08 GMT -5
I see 0 negros.
|
|
|
Post by habsburg on Jan 9, 2015 0:27:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Jan 9, 2015 1:00:11 GMT -5
Other than the obvious Black guy in the pic what's so Afrocentric about it,how is or was he important to the development of Africa or maintaining an African derived culture in Europe,your use of the label "Negro" is what many here object to,don't get me wrong non is saying looking into the lives of Afro European or the African presence in Europe is not worthy of study but hunting down Euro royals with an African ancestor is interesting but besides the point,such persons would be culturally European and only slightly less so on a genetic level the further down the generation that separate him from his African fore-parents.
|
|
|
Post by habsburg on Jan 9, 2015 5:08:31 GMT -5
Other than the obvious Black guy in the pic what's so Afrocentric about it,how is or was he important to the development of Africa or maintaining an African derived culture in Europe,your use of the label "Negro" is what many here object to,don't get me wrong non is saying looking into the lives of Afro European or the African presence in Europe is not worthy of study but hunting down Euro royals with an African ancestor is interesting but besides the point,such persons would be culturally European and only slightly less so on a genetic level the further down the generation that separate him from his African fore-parents. I am not quite sure what is wrong with the use of the word Negro. Has it acquired a connotation I don't know about? In the case of the painting it is the outline of the blacks in the dress I am drawing attention to, and I am interested in any ideas of the painters intent.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jan 9, 2015 21:48:51 GMT -5
Other than the obvious Black guy in the pic what's so Afrocentric about it,how is or was he important to the development of Africa or maintaining an African derived culture in Europe,your use of the label "Negro" is what many here object to,don't get me wrong non is saying looking into the lives of Afro European or the African presence in Europe is not worthy of study but hunting down Euro royals with an African ancestor is interesting but besides the point,such persons would be culturally European and only slightly less so on a genetic level the further down the generation that separate him from his African fore-parents. I am not quite sure what is wrong with the use of the word Negro. Has it acquired a connotation I don't know about? In the case of the painting it is the outline of the blacks in the dress I am drawing attention to, and I am interested in any ideas of the painters intent. What's wrong with negro? Besides the fact that it's a Eurocentric concept used arbitrarily to support the concepts of white supremacy. It has nothing to do with science but everything to do with race politics. It is unrealistic. It is a label used when it suits their purposes. For example, a multiracial person who looks phenotypically European is called a negro in the Western World, yes a black skinned, kinky haired person in North or East Africa is classified not as a negro, but as a caucasian. Why? To further the ideology of white supremacy. Whereever there is a sign of African civilization, they try to dig up some "dark caucasians" to explain it's inception. Either that or they try to inject some caucasian ancestors in the people's history. The implication being, their intelligence is due to their white genes. Yet in America no matter how many European genes a person had, it was never enough to lift them above the pitiful state of a dumb negro. For this and other reasons, no anthropolgist who wishes to be taken seriously uses these terms, negro, caucasian etc anymore. Does that answer your question? As far as the dress, I don't see what you see. Guess it's just one of those things?
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jan 10, 2015 17:38:23 GMT -5
I am not quite sure what is wrong with the use of the word Negro. Has it acquired a connotation I don't know about? In the case of the painting it is the outline of the blacks in the dress I am drawing attention to, and I am interested in any ideas of the painters intent. What's wrong with negro? Besides the fact that it's a Eurocentric concept used arbitrarily to support the concepts of white supremacy. It has nothing to do with science but everything to do with race politics. It is unrealistic. It is a label used when it suits their purposes. For example, a multiracial person who looks phenotypically European is called a negro in the Western World, yes a black skinned, kinky haired person in North or East Africa is classified not as a negro, but as a caucasian. Why? To further the ideology of white supremacy. Whereever there is a sign of African civilization, they try to dig up some "dark caucasians" to explain it's inception. Either that or they try to inject some caucasian ancestors in the people's history. The implication being, their intelligence is due to their white genes. Yet in America no matter how many European genes a person had, it was never enough to lift them above the pitiful state of a dumb negro. For this and other reasons, no anthropolgist who wishes to be taken seriously uses these terms, negro, caucasian etc anymore. Does that answer your question? As far as the dress, I don't see what you see. Guess it's just one of those things? White it is true white academicians and educators no longer use negro they hold on to Caucasian even though they now posit their kind originated in Africa (not the Caucasus) before the negroes BaNtus etc. A search of PLOS' peer reviewed scientific anthro-genetic articles site:plos.org caucasian yields over 5000 instances of the white/Euro scientific community's embrace of Caucasian as racial label for Euro-Levant-Arab-Arabian -IndoPak and other non Far East Asian Eurasians.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jan 10, 2015 18:05:04 GMT -5
Other than the obvious Black guy in the pic what's so Afrocentric about it,how is or was he important to the development of Africa or maintaining an African derived culture in Europe,your use of the label "Negro" is what many here object to,don't get me wrong non is saying looking into the lives of Afro European or the African presence in Europe is not worthy of study but hunting down Euro royals with an African ancestor is interesting but besides the point,such persons would be culturally European and only slightly less so on a genetic level the further down the generation that separate him from his African fore-parents. I am not quite sure what is wrong with the use of the word Negro. Has it acquired a connotation I don't know about? In the case of the painting it is the outline of the blacks in the dress I am drawing attention to, and I am interested in any ideas of the painters intent. I have to question if you are indeed an African descendant in the Diaspora. I haven't heard such a one use that despicable term since the 1970's except to deride an 'opponent'. But it was centuries ago that the Portuguese outlawed use of the word to describe a person rather than a thing to be bought or sold raped worked to death etc. I suggest a diligent perusal of Richard B Moore's The Name Negro: it's origin and evil use1961. GOOGLEBOOKS used to have excerpts from it but now it no longer has any pages of the book available for surfers. You will have to use interlibrary loan or buy it from a Black Cultural Book shop (keep it in the family - support black businesses). As for the man in the painting isn't it obvious he's the horse groom? So Miss Anne of Denmark like many an other Euro of the time had a black in her employ. Big deal. Is this really news? May I suggest another book for you, The image of the Black in western art. Volume III, From the "Age of discovery" to the age of abolition. Part 1, Artists of the Renaissance and Baroque.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jan 11, 2015 2:20:52 GMT -5
What's wrong with negro? Besides the fact that it's a Eurocentric concept used arbitrarily to support the concepts of white supremacy. It has nothing to do with science but everything to do with race politics. It is unrealistic. It is a label used when it suits their purposes. For example, a multiracial person who looks phenotypically European is called a negro in the Western World, yes a black skinned, kinky haired person in North or East Africa is classified not as a negro, but as a caucasian. Why? To further the ideology of white supremacy. Whereever there is a sign of African civilization, they try to dig up some "dark caucasians" to explain it's inception. Either that or they try to inject some caucasian ancestors in the people's history. The implication being, their intelligence is due to their white genes. Yet in America no matter how many European genes a person had, it was never enough to lift them above the pitiful state of a dumb negro. For this and other reasons, no anthropolgist who wishes to be taken seriously uses these terms, negro, caucasian etc anymore. Does that answer your question? As far as the dress, I don't see what you see. Guess it's just one of those things? White it is true white academicians and educators no longer use negro they hold on to Caucasian even though they now posit their kind originated in Africa (not the Caucasus) before the negroes BaNtus etc. A search of PLOS' peer reviewed scientific anthro-genetic articles site:plos.org caucasian yields over 5000 instances of the white/Euro scientific community's embrace of Caucasian as racial label for Euro-Levant-Arab-Arabian -IndoPak and other non Far East Asian Eurasians. Well isn't that interesting. Guess there aren't that many peole in the European community willing to call them out on their BS. Sigh. Wish I could say I was surprised, but I'm not.
|
|
|
Post by habsburg on Jan 11, 2015 13:20:00 GMT -5
I have to question if you are indeed an African descendant in the Diaspora. This kind of accusation gets tossed around every now and then in the forums. Despicable is a rather strong term. For how long has it been seen in that light? When did the term Black become the preferred word for Negro in the states? Us Africans are not quite attuned to the associations of such terms. We use words like mulatto and half-caste without the slightest inhibition. I will stick to the word Black. Anne of Denmark with Hunting Dogs - Highlighted Isn't there a suggestion of intimacy in the painting given the groom's proximity to the queen? He squarely behind the queen, feet firmly planted on the ground, nothing servile in his pose other than holding the reigns of the horse. The queen's hand on her hip seems to be suggestive of a close relationship, as though their arms were crooked around each other, or inviting him to wrap his arm around hers. Perhaps she is trying to assert some authority in his presence, insouciance comes to mind, which seems rather odd given the assumed nature of their relationship. Or it could be a position suited for secret hand signals. Queen Anne was very tall woman by the standards of her time, and the groom is even taller. She couldn't be unaware of his presence behind her in that manner. When the hand is on the hip the usual state is for the hand to be hanging downwards, but it is the opposite in this case, facing upwards. Doesn't it look like it takes some effort to maintain the hand in that position, creating the suggestion of holding or tugging at the groom's clothing? It also places a firm, noticeable pressure against the flesh and strains the wrist, although the latter could be because I am stiffer jointed than most. There is a piece of fabric hanging off her shoulder, which seems to have been lifted to allow the red clothing of the groom to show through her crooked arm, when you would expect it to drop right off her shoulder and obscure more of the groom's clothing. And there still remains the semblance of the two Blacks in her clothing, which can hardly be considered an unintended trick of light and shadow given that the painting is hand drawn. Any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jan 11, 2015 14:11:39 GMT -5
Us Africans are not quite attuned to the associations of such terms. We use words like mulatto and half-caste without the slightest inhibition. I will stick to the word Black. Isn't there a suggestion of intimacy in the painting given the groom's proximity to the queen? He is standing quite firmly, squarely behind the queen, nothing servile in his pose other than holding the reigns on the horse. The queen's hand on her hip seems to be suggestive of a close relationship, as though their arms were crooked around each other, or inviting him to wrap his arm around hers. Perhaps she is trying to assert some authority in his presence, insouciance comes to mind, which seems rather odd given the assumed nature of their relationship. Or it could be a position suited for secret hand signals. Queen Anne was considered a very tall woman by the standards of that era, and the groom is even taller. She couldn't be unaware of his presence behind her in that manner. When the hand is on the hip the usual state is for the hand to be hanging downwards, but it is the opposite in this case, facing upwards. Doesn't it look like it takes some effort to maintain the hand in that position, creating the suggestion of holding or tugging at the groom's clothing? It also places a firm, noticeable pressure against the flesh and strains the wrist, although the latter could be because I am stiffer jointed than most. There is a piece of fabric hanging off her shoulder, which seems to have been lifted to allow the red clothing of the groom to show through her crooked arm, when you would expect it to drop right off her shoulder and obscure more of the groom's clothing. And there still remains the semblance of the two Blacks in her clothing, which can hardly be considered an unintended trick of light and shadow given that the painting is hand drawn. Any ideas? "Us Africans" ? Who is 'us Africans'? Africa has over 50 countries. In the TransAtlantic Slave Trade era when Euros would use the word negro "Africans" would remark, we can get you some, meaning that to the "Africans" a negro was not an ethnic identity but a commodity label. Suggested intimacy? The horse is closer to Anne than is the groom and we can see all of the horses face. Using your logic what does that suggest about Anne and the horse? Subliminal faces in clothing? Could be. But to what end? Maybe a comparison to other lady w/horse groom and hunt dogs could shed more light and advance your case?
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jan 11, 2015 14:27:28 GMT -5
White it is true white academicians and educators no longer use negro they hold on to Caucasian even though they now posit their kind originated in Africa (not the Caucasus) before the negroes BaNtus etc. A search of PLOS' peer reviewed scientific anthro-genetic articles site:plos.org caucasian yields over 5000 instances of the white/Euro scientific community's embrace of Caucasian as racial label for Euro-Levant-Arab-Arabian -IndoPak and other non Far East Asian Eurasians. Well isn't that interesting. Guess there aren't that many peole in the European community willing to call them out on their BS. Sigh. Wish I could say I was surprised, but I'm not. Yeah. Thing is many, myself included, fell for the anthro assoc's horsemanure about no such thing as race and went on to advocate it more than they did. It was just a ploy to dupe the foolish as they keep right on using Caucasian and caucasoid the most used terms to indicate the "white race" and those of reputed white racial ancestry or displaying features believed to be those of the "white race." So whether in terms of forensic race anthropological race or population genetics the same old 18th century song is still sung though with the voices and instruments of today.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jan 12, 2015 12:56:15 GMT -5
Well isn't that interesting. Guess there aren't that many peole in the European community willing to call them out on their BS. Sigh. Wish I could say I was surprised, but I'm not. Yeah. Thing is many, myself included, fell for the anthro assoc's horsemanure about no such thing as race and went on to advocate it more than they did. It was just a ploy to dupe the foolish as they keep right on using Caucasian and caucasoid the most used terms to indicate the "white race" and those of reputed white racial ancestry or displaying features believed to be those of the "white race." So whether in terms of forensic race anthropological race or population genetics the same old 18th century song is still sung though with the voices and instruments of today. Hey. It is what it is. Now that you know the game though you can determine how you play it or if you play it at all. I insist on using terms such as Afro descent, Euro descent, mixed Euro Afro descent, multi racial of xyz ancestry etc.May be verbose at times, but my own terms my own rules, everyone gets the point and I keep it moving. We're all in the fight. We all have to choose the methods of resistance that work best for us based on the circumstances we face at the moment. Whether I refer to myself as black, or something else is determined by who I'm speaking with and in what context.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jan 12, 2015 13:10:41 GMT -5
I have to question if you are indeed an African descendant in the Diaspora. This kind of accusation gets tossed around every now and then in the forums. Despicable is a rather strong term. For how long has it been seen in that light? When did the term Black become the preferred word for Negro in the states? Us Africans are not quite attuned to the associations of such terms. We use words like mulatto and half-caste without the slightest inhibition. I will stick to the word Black. Anne of Denmark with Hunting Dogs - Highlighted Isn't there a suggestion of intimacy in the painting given the groom's proximity to the queen? He squarely behind the queen, feet firmly planted on the ground, nothing servile in his pose other than holding the reigns of the horse. The queen's hand on her hip seems to be suggestive of a close relationship, as though their arms were crooked around each other, or inviting him to wrap his arm around hers. Perhaps she is trying to assert some authority in his presence, insouciance comes to mind, which seems rather odd given the assumed nature of their relationship. Or it could be a position suited for secret hand signals. Queen Anne was very tall woman by the standards of her time, and the groom is even taller. She couldn't be unaware of his presence behind her in that manner. When the hand is on the hip the usual state is for the hand to be hanging downwards, but it is the opposite in this case, facing upwards. Doesn't it look like it takes some effort to maintain the hand in that position, creating the suggestion of holding or tugging at the groom's clothing? It also places a firm, noticeable pressure against the flesh and strains the wrist, although the latter could be because I am stiffer jointed than most. There is a piece of fabric hanging off her shoulder, which seems to have been lifted to allow the red clothing of the groom to show through her crooked arm, when you would expect it to drop right off her shoulder and obscure more of the groom's clothing. And there still remains the semblance of the two Blacks in her clothing, which can hardly be considered an unintended trick of light and shadow given that the painting is hand drawn. Any ideas? Not sure who you are, where you are from or what environment you are living in at the moment, but I can see how you may look at things from that perspective. In the US and certain other places in the English and I guess French speaking world, we don't use these terms. In the US for example Negro has been out of use since the mid to late 60's. Now we slide between black and Afro American, American of African descent, or in my case, mixed person of African descent. How detailed a self description I give depends on the circumstance. As far as the painting. Understand that even amongst Europeans, there was no such thing as equality. Everyone knew THEIR PLACE depening on their rank in society. A lady or lord may have servants who tended to their every physcial need and the relationship may have been quite intimate in that they may confide in them etc because of their personal space being so close. They may even feel great affection, but there was no equality. She may or may not have been very fond of the young man. We may never know. Just because he is physically in close proximity to her doesn't mean she acknowledges him in any significant way. Quite often, people would do things that we consider extreemly private in the prescence of servants. Didn't mean they were close. More often than not, their presence was totally ignored. They pretended they weren't there. So yes, they could be having the most intimate sex with a servant standing right there. That servant was given no more significance than a cat or a dog, or some sort of machine. After I blow my load, you will be there with a wet towel to clean me up, and I'll keep moving as if you never existed. YOU will understand that at no time are you to even dare say a word or comment to me in any way. You are a tooland nothing more. And even IF we are on speaking terms, even IF I share all my secrates with you that no one else knows, you know your place and would NEVER assume that such a thing as marriage were ever a possibility. You have to study the culture of a society to know who they are or were and not interprit things based on the persective of your own experience.
|
|