Post: #1

I thought I'd start a thread where we can post historical information that people may not have head of...

There was a black African samurai in 16th Century Japan

Quote:Though his time as a warrior was brief, the man named Yasuke has a special place in Japanese history as the first and only black samurai.
…
Taken from his home somewhere in central or western Africa, Yasuke was sold to a Jesuit priest by the name of Alessandro Valignano. In 1579, Father Valignano went on a missionary trip to Japan, taking Yasuke along for help, and when the slave arrived in the Land of the Rising Sun, he caused quite a stir. After all, it’s said Yasuke stood over 2 meters (6 ft) tall, and he stood out a little bit among the homogeneous Japanese population.

Several years later, word of the newcomer reached Oda Nobunaga, a powerful figure who was responsible for the eventual unification of Japan. Curious to meet this celebrity, Nobunaga invited Valignano and Yasuke to visit him in 1581. When the warlord finally met the 26- or 27-year-old slave, he was quite impressed by his looks and stature. Later, he even claimed Yasuke was stronger than 10 men. The two were even able to converse, as Yasuke had learned quite a bit of Japanese during the past few years. However, Nobunaga wasn’t quite convinced that Yasuke’s skin color was genuine and had him stripped and washed just to make sure. When his servants failed to scrub away Yasuke’s blackness, Oda declared Yasuke would be his vassal and dubbed him with the Japanese name we all know him by today.

As Nobunaga’s retainer, Yasuke found more freedom than he’d had in years. Technically, he was still a servant, but now he was eating at a table with his peers and earning money for his work. Sometimes he even ate with Nobunaga himself, something that never would’ve happened with a European master. However, his service to Nobunaga didn’t last very long. Eventually, the warlord was betrayed by one his best generals, a man by the name of Akechi Mitsuhide. After Nobunaga’s death, Yasuke joined his son, Oda Nobutada and helped defend a castle against Mitsuhide’s forces. Unfortunately, the fortress was eventually overrun, and Yasuke had to surrender his katana to the enemy. However, Mitsuhide didn’t consider this “beast” to be a real samurai. Instead of giving him a warrior’s death, he sent him to a Jesuit church in Kyoto . . . where Yasuke mysteriously disappears. No one knows what happened next to the African samurai, but perhaps he spent the rest of his days wandering Japan as a black ronin, fighting villains and righting wrongs.

Post: #2

There were Roman emperors who were from Africa and Arabia:

'Philippus Arabs'

Quote:Marcus Julius Verus Philippus (AD ca. 204 - AD 249)

Philippus was born in about AD 204 in a small town in the region of Trachonitis in south-western Syria as the son of an Arab chieftain called Marinus, who held Roman equestrian rank.

He was to become known as 'Philip the Arab', the first man of that race to hold the imperial throne.

Lucius Septimius Severus

Quote:Lucius Septimius Severus (AD 145 - AD 211)

Lucius Septimius Severus was born on 1 April AD 145 at Lepcis Magna in Tripolitania.

His family was of African descent. His paternal great-grandfather, who had moved from Lepcis Magna to Italy and become an equestrian, was most likely of Punic origin and his mother, Fulvia Pia, was from a family which had moved from Africa to Italy.

Post: #3

(07-09-2015 12:39 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  I thought I'd start a thread where we can post historical information that people may not have head of...

There was a black African samurai in 16th Century Japan

Quote:Though his time as a warrior was brief, the man named Yasuke has a special place in Japanese history as the first and only black samurai.
…
Taken from his home somewhere in central or western Africa, Yasuke was sold to a Jesuit priest by the name of Alessandro Valignano. In 1579, Father Valignano went on a missionary trip to Japan, taking Yasuke along for help, and when the slave arrived in the Land of the Rising Sun, he caused quite a stir. After all, it’s said Yasuke stood over 2 meters (6 ft) tall, and he stood out a little bit among the homogeneous Japanese population.

Several years later, word of the newcomer reached Oda Nobunaga, a powerful figure who was responsible for the eventual unification of Japan. Curious to meet this celebrity, Nobunaga invited Valignano and Yasuke to visit him in 1581. When the warlord finally met the 26- or 27-year-old slave, he was quite impressed by his looks and stature. Later, he even claimed Yasuke was stronger than 10 men. The two were even able to converse, as Yasuke had learned quite a bit of Japanese during the past few years. However, Nobunaga wasn’t quite convinced that Yasuke’s skin color was genuine and had him stripped and washed just to make sure. When his servants failed to scrub away Yasuke’s blackness, Oda declared Yasuke would be his vassal and dubbed him with the Japanese name we all know him by today.

As Nobunaga’s retainer, Yasuke found more freedom than he’d had in years. Technically, he was still a servant, but now he was eating at a table with his peers and earning money for his work. Sometimes he even ate with Nobunaga himself, something that never would’ve happened with a European master. However, his service to Nobunaga didn’t last very long. Eventually, the warlord was betrayed by one his best generals, a man by the name of Akechi Mitsuhide. After Nobunaga’s death, Yasuke joined his son, Oda Nobutada and helped defend a castle against Mitsuhide’s forces. Unfortunately, the fortress was eventually overrun, and Yasuke had to surrender his katana to the enemy. However, Mitsuhide didn’t consider this “beast” to be a real samurai. Instead of giving him a warrior’s death, he sent him to a Jesuit church in Kyoto . . . where Yasuke mysteriously disappears. No one knows what happened next to the African samurai, but perhaps he spent the rest of his days wandering Japan as a black ronin, fighting villains and righting wrongs.

Good material for a movie

Post: #4

WalterBlack, I like these contributions so far.

At the risk of calling a dupe thread, you might like this one: /thread-26172.html

Post: #5

(07-09-2015 01:43 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  There were Roman emperors who were from Africa and Arabia:

'Philippus Arabs'

Quote:Marcus Julius Verus Philippus (AD ca. 204 - AD 249)

Philippus was born in about AD 204 in a small town in the region of Trachonitis in south-western Syria as the son of an Arab chieftain called Marinus, who held Roman equestrian rank.

He was to become known as 'Philip the Arab', the first man of that race to hold the imperial throne.

Lucius Septimius Severus

Quote:Lucius Septimius Severus (AD 145 - AD 211)

Lucius Septimius Severus was born on 1 April AD 145 at Lepcis Magna in Tripolitania.

His family was of African descent. His paternal great-grandfather, who had moved from Lepcis Magna to Italy and become an equestrian, was most likely of Punic origin and his mother, Fulvia Pia, was from a family which had moved from Africa to Italy.

Being from Africa and Arabia do not mean what they mean today though. Both of those guys were Caucasian. Northern Africa remained mostly Caucasian until the Arabs brought in millions of African sex slaves from the sub-Sahara desert.

Post: #6

(07-10-2015 09:16 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Being from Africa and Arabia do not mean what they mean today though. Both of those guys were Caucasian. Northern Africa remained mostly Caucasian until the Arabs brought in millions of African sex slaves from the sub-Sahara desert.

Septimus Severus:

Quote:Born on 11 April 145 at Leptis Magna (in present-day Libya) as the son of Publius Septimius Geta and Fulvia Pia,[2] Septimius Severus came from a wealthy and distinguished family of equestrian rank. He had Italian Roman ancestry on his mother's side and descended from Punic - and perhaps also Libyan - forebears on his father's side.

I've been to north Africa (Morocco) and the natives who are still around from pre-Arab time (the Berbers) are not white. It seems like he was a mix of Italian and north African.



As for Philip the Arab: I have also worked with Christian people with from the Levant – e.g. Libya, Syria. They have minimal Arab blood and call themselves Phoenicians. They’re not white.



Both these guys were probably tanned in complexion.

Post: #7

This is probably more legend than historical fact, but many Koreans claim descent from an Indian princess:

Korean memorial to Indian princess (Ceremony from 2001)

Quote:In the northern Indian city of Ayodhya, a visiting Korean delegation has inaugurated a memorial to their royal ancestor, Queen Huh.

More than a-hundred historians and government representatives, including the North Korean ambassador to India, unveiled the memorial on the west bank of the River Saryu.

Korean historians believe that Queen Huh was a princess of an ancient kingdom in Ayodhya.

She went to Korea some two-thousand years ago and started the Karak dynasty by marrying a local king, Suro.

Today, the historians say, Queen Huh's descendants number more than six-million, including the South Korean president - Kim Dae Jung. But a senior official in Ayodhya told the BBC that no information was available about Queen Huh in Indian history.

Heo Hwang-ok.

Quote:The legend of Heo is found in Garakgukgi (or Gaehwangryeok, the Record of Garak Kingdom) within Samguk Yusa. According to the legend, Heo was a princess of the Ayuta (or Ajutuo) kingdom, otherwise known as Ch'un-ch'uk. The extant records do not identify Ayuta except as a distant country. Some writers identify it with Ayodhya in India, but there are no records of this legend in the Indian history.

India Is First Lady Kims Ancestral Home

Quote:An analysis of DNA samples taken from the site of two royal Gaya tombs in 2004 in Gimhae, South Gyeongsang Province, confirms that there is a genetic link between the Korean ethnic group and certain ethnic groups in India.

Post: #8

Europeans were regularly enslaved by North African Muslims, who also took part in slave raiding on European coastal towns. One infamous incident was the Sack of Baltimore, Ireland in 1631:

Quote:The Sack of Baltimore took place on June 20, 1631, when the village of Baltimore, West Cork, Ireland, was attacked by Barbary Pirates from the Barbary Coast of North Africa – what is now Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya. The historian Des Ekin described their motivation as jihad. The attack was the single largest attack by Barbary pirates on either Ireland or Great Britain.

The attack was led by a Dutch captain turned pirate, Jan Janszoon van Haarlem, also known as Murad Reis the Younger. Murad's force was led to the village by a man called Hackett, the captain of a fishing boat he had captured earlier, in exchange for his freedom. Hackett was subsequently hanged from the clifftop outside the village for his conspiracy.

Murad's crew, made up of Dutchmen, Algerians and Ottoman Turks, launched their covert attack on the remote village on June 20, 1631. They captured 108 English settlers, who worked a pilchard industry in the village, and some local Irish people. The attack was focused on the area of the village known to this day as the Cove. The villagers were put in irons and taken to a life of slavery in North Africa.

Some prisoners were destined to live out their days as galley slaves, rowing for decades without ever setting foot on shore, while others would spend long years in the seclusion of the Sultan's harem or within the walls of the Sultan's palace as laborers. At most three of them ever saw Ireland again. One was ransomed almost at once and two others in 1646. Since several others are known to have been still alive in 1646 - why they were not ransomed is unclear.

Some further information about the slave trade:

British Slaves on the Barbary Coast

Quote:Barbary pirates

The fishermen and coastal dwellers of 17th-century Britain lived in terror of being kidnapped by pirates and sold into slavery in North Africa. Hundreds of thousands across Europe met wretched deaths on the Barbary Coast in this way. Professor Robert Davis investigates.

Europe under attack

'When we had arrived [in Cork], I made a request to Lord Inchaquoin to give me a passport for England. I took boat to Youghal and then embarked on the vessel John Filmer, which set sail with 120 passengers. `But before we had lost sight of land, we were captured by Algerine pirates, who put all the men in irons.'

So wrote the Reverend Devereux Spratt - carried off in April 1641 for several years' bondage in Algiers, while attempting a simple voyage across the Irish Sea from County Cork to England. Spratt's experience has been largely forgotten now, though it was far from unique in his day.

In the first half of the 1600s, Barbary corsairs - pirates from the Barbary Coast of North Africa, authorised by their governments to attack the shipping of Christian countries - ranged all around Britain's shores. In their lanteen-rigged xebecs (a type of ship) and oared galleys, they grabbed ships and sailors, and sold the sailors into slavery. Admiralty records show that during this time the corsairs plundered British shipping pretty much at will, taking no fewer than 466 vessels between 1609 and 1616, and 27 more vessels from near Plymouth in 1625. As 18th-century historian Joseph Morgan put it, 'this I take to be the Time when those Corsairs were in their Zenith'.

Unfortunately, it was hardly the end of them, even then. Morgan also noted that he had a '...List, printed in London in 1682' of 160 British ships captured by Algerians between 1677 and 1680. Considering what the number of sailors who were taken with each ship was likely to have been, these examples translate into a probable 7,000 to 9,000 able-bodied British men and women taken into slavery in those years.

Not content with attacking ships and sailors, the corsairs also sometimes raided coastal settlements, generally running their craft onto unguarded beaches, and creeping up on villages in the dark to snatch their victims and retreat before the alarm could be sounded. Almost all the inhabitants of the village of Baltimore, in Ireland, were taken in this way in 1631, and other attacks were launched against coastal villages in Devon and Cornwall. Samuel Pepys gives a vivid account of an encounter with two men who'd been taken into slavery, in his diary of 8 February 1661.
'...to the Fleece tavern to drink and there we spent till 4 a-clock telling stories of Algier and the manner of the life of Slaves there; and truly, Captain Mootham and Mr Dawes (who have been both slaves there) did make me full acquainted with their condition there. As, how they eat nothing but bread and water.... How they are beat upon the soles of the feet and bellies at the Liberty of their Padron. How they are all night called into their master's Bagnard, and there they lie.'

The very casualness of the account makes it clear just how commonplace unfortunates like Moontham and Dawes were in 17th-century Britain. Britons in later years have boasted that they 'never will be slaves,' but during these years they were enslaved all too often.

Estimating slave numbers

According to observers of the late 1500s and early 1600s, there were around 35,000 European Christian slaves held throughout this time on the Barbary Coast - many in Tripoli, Tunis, and various Moroccan towns, but most of all in Algiers. The greatest number were sailors, taken with their ships, but a good many were fishermen and coastal villagers. Out of all these, the British captives were mostly sailors, and although they were numerous there were relatively fewer of them than of people from lands close to Africa, especially Spain and Italy. The unfortunate southerners were sometimes taken by the thousands, by slavers who raided the coasts of Valencia, Andalusia, Calabria and Sicily so often that eventually it was said that 'there was no one left to capture any longer'.

There are no records of how many men, women and children were enslaved, but it is possible to calculate roughly the number of fresh captives that would have been needed to keep populations steady and replace those slaves who died, escaped, were ransomed, or converted to Islam. On this basis it is thought that around 8,500 new slaves were needed annually to replenish numbers - about 850,000 captives over the century from 1580 to 1680.

By extension, for the 250 years between 1530 and 1780, the figure could easily have been as high as 1,250,000 - this is only just over a tenth of the Africans taken as slaves to the Americas from 1500 to 1800, but a considerable figure nevertheless. White slaves in Barbary were generally from impoverished families, and had almost as little hope of buying back their freedom as the Africans taken to the Americas: most would end their days as slaves in North Africa, dying of starvation, disease, or maltreatment.

Post: #9

(07-10-2015 12:21 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 09:16 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Being from Africa and Arabia do not mean what they mean today though. Both of those guys were Caucasian. Northern Africa remained mostly Caucasian until the Arabs brought in millions of African sex slaves from the sub-Sahara desert.

Quote:Born on 11 April 145 at Leptis Magna (in present-day Libya) as the son of Publius Septimius Geta and Fulvia Pia,[2] Septimius Severus came from a wealthy and distinguished family of equestrian rank. He had Italian Roman ancestry on his mother's side and descended from Punic - and perhaps also Libyan - forebears on his father's side.

I've been to north Africa (Morocco) and the natives who are still around from pre-Arab time (the Berbers) are not white. It seems like he was a mix of Italian and north African.

As for Philip the Arab: I have also worked with Christian people with from the Levant – e.g. Libya, Syria. They have minimal Arab blood and call themselves Phoenicians. They’re not white.

Both these guys were probably tanned in complexion.

I didn't say White, I said Caucasian. Whites are a subset of Caucasians.

Post: #10

Here's two examples of revisionist history:

Queen Elizabeth ordered nearly twice as many religious executions as "bloody" Mary. "Bloody Elizabeth" would have been a more accurate title.


Union General David Hunter, during the civil war, issued several military orders declaring the emancipation of slaves. Lincoln countermanded those orders.

Post: #11

England swapped the tiny Nutmeg rich island of Run in Indonesia for what was then known as New Amsterdam with the Netnerlands. At the time it was seen as a terrible deal for England since Run was the only place where highly prized nutmeg grew and New Amsterdam was a small poor town in the new world.

Of course Nutmeg was then planted on other islands and Run became worthless to the Dutch whilst New Amsterdam eventually became known as New York and the rest was history.

The excellent book 'Nathaniel's Nutmeg' tells the incredible story of this period. Highly highly recommended.

Post: #12

+ First slaves in the US being Irish and Scottish poor - 500.000 in total - were interbred with blacks as black slaves were at one time worth 10 times more than whites. Back then they were weaker and smaller, also more prone to flee than white slaves. http://solargeneral.org/wp-content/uploa...man-ii.pdf

Quote:“They were of two sorts, first such as were brought over by masters of ships to be sold as servants.
Such as we call them my dear,’ says she, ‘but they are more properly called slaves.” —Daniel Defoe,
Moll Flanders
This is a history of White people that has never been told in any coherent form, largely because
most modern historians have, for reasons of politics or psychology, refused to recognize White slaves
in early America as just that.
Today, not a tear is shed for the sufferings of millions of our own enslaved forefathers. 200 years of
White slavery in America have been almost completely obliterated from the collective memory of the
American people.

+ WWI was started by a false flag: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-sinking...et/5381121

+ WWII - the US intelligence as well as the president knew about Pearl Harbor, but let it happen http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...ttack.html (and they still have it on Wikipedia as a conspiracy)

There are many more historical myths that were termed conspiracies until all the documents get opened some 50-100 years later - or maybe they will be forgotten in time. Does not matter frankly in the big scheme of things.

Post: #13

Quote:Barbary pirates

The fishermen and coastal dwellers of 17th-century Britain lived in terror of being kidnapped by pirates and sold into slavery in North Africa. Hundreds of thousands across Europe met wretched deaths on the Barbary Coast in this way. Professor Robert Davis investigates.

Europe under attack

'When we had arrived [in Cork], I made a request to Lord Inchaquoin to give me a passport for England. I took boat to Youghal and then embarked on the vessel John Filmer, which set sail with 120 passengers. `But before we had lost sight of land, we were captured by Algerine pirates, who put all the men in irons.'

So wrote the Reverend Devereux Spratt - carried off in April 1641 for several years' bondage in Algiers, while attempting a simple voyage across the Irish Sea from County Cork to England. Spratt's experience has been largely forgotten now, though it was far from unique in his day.

In the first half of the 1600s, Barbary corsairs - pirates from the Barbary Coast of North Africa, authorised by their governments to attack the shipping of Christian countries - ranged all around Britain's shores. In their lanteen-rigged xebecs (a type of ship) and oared galleys, they grabbed ships and sailors, and sold the sailors into slavery. Admiralty records show that during this time the corsairs plundered British shipping pretty much at will, taking no fewer than 466 vessels between 1609 and 1616, and 27 more vessels from near Plymouth in 1625. As 18th-century historian Joseph Morgan put it, 'this I take to be the Time when those Corsairs were in their Zenith'.

Unfortunately, it was hardly the end of them, even then. Morgan also noted that he had a '...List, printed in London in 1682' of 160 British ships captured by Algerians between 1677 and 1680. Considering what the number of sailors who were taken with each ship was likely to have been, these examples translate into a probable 7,000 to 9,000 able-bodied British men and women taken into slavery in those years.

Not content with attacking ships and sailors, the corsairs also sometimes raided coastal settlements, generally running their craft onto unguarded beaches, and creeping up on villages in the dark to snatch their victims and retreat before the alarm could be sounded. Almost all the inhabitants of the village of Baltimore, in Ireland, were taken in this way in 1631, and other attacks were launched against coastal villages in Devon and Cornwall. Samuel Pepys gives a vivid account of an encounter with two men who'd been taken into slavery, in his diary of 8 February 1661.
'...to the Fleece tavern to drink and there we spent till 4 a-clock telling stories of Algier and the manner of the life of Slaves there; and truly, Captain Mootham and Mr Dawes (who have been both slaves there) did make me full acquainted with their condition there. As, how they eat nothing but bread and water.... How they are beat upon the soles of the feet and bellies at the Liberty of their Padron. How they are all night called into their master's Bagnard, and there they lie.'

The very casualness of the account makes it clear just how commonplace unfortunates like Moontham and Dawes were in 17th-century Britain. Britons in later years have boasted that they 'never will be slaves,' but during these years they were enslaved all too often.

The Barbary Pirates were a plague on the Mediterranean. The United States fought two wars against them - successfully, thus ending the practice of blackmail, er, tribute, that was paid to the corsairs to stop them attacking US shipping.

These conflicts are referred to in the first line of the US Marine Corps hymn:

From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.

Post: #14

Hugo boss designed all the Nazi uniforms. That's why they looked so "dressed to kill" compared to the allied troops.

Post: #15

The border between Egypt and Israel was drawn on the map in 1906.
The border is an almost straight line with 2 bumps.
Legend says that those are the result of the fingers holding the ruler.

Post: #16

To this day people in southern Asia still name their kids after Alexander The Great (Sikander or Iskander), and many Muslims use Ghenghis Khan’s title

Quote:The surname Khan originates with the Mongolian honorific khan. Originally used in the Mongol Empire, and later more widely by Islamic chieftains in South Asia.

Quote:Khan is a widespread Islamic surname in most countries of Central and South Asia. Khan is the surname of over 80,000 Islamic Britons, mostly British Asian, making it the 80th most common surname in the United Kingdom, and one of only a handful in the 100 most common surnames which are of neither British nor Irish origin

The first purpose built mosque in UK, the Shah Jahan Mosque was built by a Jew - Gottlieb Wilhelm Leitner.

Quote:The Shah Jahan Mosque was built in 1889 as one of the first mosques in Western Europe by Gottlieb Wilhelm Leitner. It is built in Bath and Bargate stone in Indo-Saracenic Revival style commissioned by Shah Jahan, Begum of Bhopal (1868–1901), and maintained since then as a Waqf.

Here's a sketch of Leitner:



Nowadays turbans are associated with Sikhs and Muslims, but some Jews used to wear them too. Here's a 19th century photo of India based Iraqi born Jewish businessman David Sassoon (seated) with his sons:

Post: #17

(07-13-2015 09:42 AM)TheMaleBrain Wrote:  The border between Egypt and Israel was drawn on the map in 1906.
The border is an almost straight line with 2 bumps.
Legend says that those are the result of the fingers holding the ruler.

It helps to have citation(s).

Post: #18

(07-11-2015 09:24 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  Here's two examples of revisionist history:

Queen Elizabeth ordered nearly twice as many religious executions as "bloody" Mary. "Bloody Elizabeth" would have been a more accurate title.


Union General David Hunter, during the civil war, issued several military orders declaring the emancipation of slaves. Lincoln countermanded those orders.

Queen Elizabeth I wasn't a fan of Africans and tried to deport them from England:

Quote:From Tolerance to Intolerance

From the 16th century, the employment of Africans became increasingly common in England. Wealthy - and not so wealthy - people in the kingdom might have one or two Black servants, footmen or musicians. Whether these retainers were enslaved or free is often unclear in the documents. However, there were certainly also free Black people in a variety of occupations.

Queen Elizabeth I, like James IV, employed Black musicians. The queen also had a Black maidservant.

Black Scapegoats

But while Elizabeth may have enjoyed being entertained by Black people, in the 1590s she also issued proclamations against them. In 1596 she wrote to the lord mayors of major cities noting that there were 'of late divers blackmoores brought into this realm, of which kind of people there are already here to manie...'. She ordered that 'those kinde of people should be sente forth of the land'.

Elizabeth made an arrangement for a merchant, Casper van Senden, to deport Black people from England in 1596. The aim seems to have been to exchange them for (or perhaps to sell them to obtain funds to buy) English prisoners held by England’s Catholic enemies Spain and Portugal.


No doubt van Senden intended to sell these people. But this was not to be, because masters of Black workers - who had not been offered compensation - refused to let them go. In 1601, Elizabeth issued a further proclamation expressing her 'discontentment by the numbers of blackamores which are crept into this realm...' and again licensing van Senden to deport Black people. It is doubtful whether this second proclamation was any more successful than the first.

Why this sudden, urgent desire to expel members of England's Black population? It was more than a commercial transaction pursued by the queen. In the 16th century, the ruling classes became increasingly concerned about poverty and vagrancy, as the feudal system - which, in theory, had kept everyone in their place - finally broke down. They feared disorder and social breakdown and, blaming the poor, brought in poor laws to try to deal with the problem.

In the 1590s the harvests repeatedly failed, bringing hunger, disease and a rapid increase in poverty and vagrancy. Elizabeth's orders against Black people were an attempt to blame them for wider social problems. Her proclamation of 1601 claimed that Black people were 'fostered and relieved here to the great annoyance of [the queen's] own liege people, that want the relief, which those people consume'. The proclamation also stated that 'most of them are infidels, having no understanding of Christ or his Gospel'.

It may be the case that many (although by no means all) Black people were Muslims (of North African origin). If so, it seems that the queen was playing on their difference from Protestant England to assert that they were not welcome. Whether they were actually more likely to be in poverty than Whites is much more doubtful. What is clear is that they were being used as a convenient scapegoat at a time of crisis.

Nor is it probable that Elizabeth's efforts to deport them had much success. The historian James Walvin concludes that 'Blacks had become too securely lodged at various social levels of English society to be displaced and repatriated.'

Post: #19

(07-12-2015 04:39 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  + WWI was started by a false flag: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-sinking...et/5381121

+ WWII - the US intelligence as well as the president knew about Pearl Harbor, but let it happen http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...ttack.html (and they still have it on Wikipedia as a conspiracy)

WWI was not started by a false flag. WWI started on July 28, 1914. The Lusitania sank on May 7, 1915, nearly 10 months after the war had started. The sinking of the Lusitania was one of the many factors drawing the United States into the war in April 1917.

With regard to Pearl Harbor, it's long been established that US intelligence knew an attack was coming. That's not disputed at all. In fact, MAGIC (the American code-breaking unit) had been reading Japanese diplomatic communiques for months by Pearl Harbor. However, the US had no idea where an attack was coming. Some suspected Pearl Harbor, others the Philippines. Turns out that both were right, and Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, Wake Island, and Guam were all attacked on the same day.

Post: #20

The United States nearly went to war with the British over a pig:
http://www.nps.gov/sajh/learn/historycul...ig-war.htm

Based on some estimates, only 25% of American troops in WWII ever fired their weapons in combat. The methodology has been disputed.

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mi...ambers.pdf

Post: #21

(07-27-2015 05:11 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 04:39 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  + WWI was started by a false flag: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-sinking...et/5381121

+ WWII - the US intelligence as well as the president knew about Pearl Harbor, but let it happen http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...ttack.html (and they still have it on Wikipedia as a conspiracy)

WWI was not started by a false flag. WWI started on July 28, 1914. The Lusitania sank on May 7, 1915, nearly 10 months after the war had started. The sinking of the Lusitania was one of the many factors drawing the United States into the war in April 1917.

With regard to Pearl Harbor, it's long been established that US intelligence knew an attack was coming. That's not disputed at all. In fact, MAGIC (the American code-breaking unit) had been reading Japanese diplomatic communiques for months by Pearl Harbor. However, the US had no idea where an attack was coming. Some suspected Pearl Harbor, others the Philippines. Turns out that both were right, and Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, Wake Island, and Guam were all attacked on the same day.

WWI wasn't started by the sinking of the Lusitania. The war had been going on long before that. I understand that it was one of the motivations for the Americans to get involved, but I feel the need to nitpick here.

Post: #22

(07-09-2015 12:39 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  I thought I'd start a thread where we can post historical information that people may not have head of...

There was a black African samurai in 16th Century Japan

Quote:Though his time as a warrior was brief, the man named Yasuke has a special place in Japanese history as the first and only black samurai.
…
Taken from his home somewhere in central or western Africa, Yasuke was sold to a Jesuit priest by the name of Alessandro Valignano. In 1579, Father Valignano went on a missionary trip to Japan, taking Yasuke along for help, and when the slave arrived in the Land of the Rising Sun, he caused quite a stir. After all, it’s said Yasuke stood over 2 meters (6 ft) tall, and he stood out a little bit among the homogeneous Japanese population.

Several years later, word of the newcomer reached Oda Nobunaga, a powerful figure who was responsible for the eventual unification of Japan. Curious to meet this celebrity, Nobunaga invited Valignano and Yasuke to visit him in 1581. When the warlord finally met the 26- or 27-year-old slave, he was quite impressed by his looks and stature. Later, he even claimed Yasuke was stronger than 10 men. The two were even able to converse, as Yasuke had learned quite a bit of Japanese during the past few years. However, Nobunaga wasn’t quite convinced that Yasuke’s skin color was genuine and had him stripped and washed just to make sure. When his servants failed to scrub away Yasuke’s blackness, Oda declared Yasuke would be his vassal and dubbed him with the Japanese name we all know him by today.

As Nobunaga’s retainer, Yasuke found more freedom than he’d had in years. Technically, he was still a servant, but now he was eating at a table with his peers and earning money for his work. Sometimes he even ate with Nobunaga himself, something that never would’ve happened with a European master. However, his service to Nobunaga didn’t last very long. Eventually, the warlord was betrayed by one his best generals, a man by the name of Akechi Mitsuhide. After Nobunaga’s death, Yasuke joined his son, Oda Nobutada and helped defend a castle against Mitsuhide’s forces. Unfortunately, the fortress was eventually overrun, and Yasuke had to surrender his katana to the enemy. However, Mitsuhide didn’t consider this “beast” to be a real samurai. Instead of giving him a warrior’s death, he sent him to a Jesuit church in Kyoto . . . where Yasuke mysteriously disappears. No one knows what happened next to the African samurai, but perhaps he spent the rest of his days wandering Japan as a black ronin, fighting villains and righting wrongs.

I've read this story before. But for some reason this time I couldn't help but think about afro samurai.

Post: #23

But to actually contribute to this thread.

One of my favorite historical facts is about a bear that served in the polish army.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojtek_%28bear%29

Wojtek, he was raised as a cub and eventually developed a taste for beer and cigarettes.

The bear liked to wrestle and could even salute. He traveled through the middle east with his unit as well. He would carry munitions and apparently never dropped a single crate.

Post: #24

When Good Will Hunting was written, it had an oral sex scene in it between Will and the Professor. When Weinstein questioned it, the reply was this,

‘That’s the scene we wrote to see if guys like you read the script because every studio executive we went to hadn’t read it. You’re the only guy who brought it up so you get the movie’.”

Post: #25

(07-27-2015 11:10 PM)cascadecombo Wrote:  But to actually contribute to this thread.

One of my favorite historical facts is about a bear that served in the polish army.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojtek_%28bear%29

Wojtek, he was raised as a cub and eventually developed a taste for beer and cigarettes.

The bear liked to wrestle and could even salute. He traveled through the middle east with his unit as well. He would carry munitions and apparently never dropped a single crate.

And to think that the poles think it is the russians who have bears in their army.

Soviet propoganda did a number on the history. Most have never heard of the Polish Tsar in the 17th century.