วีดีโอ

@@MCLottotv Appreciate that sir. This stuff is very deep and convoluted but you aren’t one to shy away from the challenge. Thank you for the information. I did that piece on Harald Gormsson and that opened my eyes to a specific type of melanated element in the early Scandinavian history. I do have another Scandinavian presentation ready to drop soon. Again 🙏🏾.

@@shafsteryellow Thx for tuning in. I’m gathering more info on North Africa and looking at what’s the best course to take in presenting factual information.

@ north east* I mean from modern day Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea and eastern Sudan. Thanks

@@shafsteryellow That's a good idea. I'll have to put something together.

I'm aware of that. I'm actually collecting some photos of the original melanated Asians but I did show some images of the originals in this presentation. Appreciate the comment man.

@@quintessence5417 I appreciate it sir. Part two’s of everything will have far more depth to it. Thanks again.

Hey, I appreciate the comments. My style is more of a “slow burn” and things will come full circle once I thoroughly present the evidence from different time periods. I like the older writings too because they admit or paint the picture that Europe was peopled by way different groups that were totally different than present day Europe.

No problem, the trolls are out in full force but they just don't know. Stay tuned and thanks again. This info is for the people.

Explain. This is a part 1 with the focus on the skeletal remains and a little bit of documentation of the times. Migrations do exist. Again, explain how this is “bs.”

@@TacticalIntellectual12 For one thing you continue to completely misinterpret Dixon. You've claimed 6 out of 8 of Dixon's types as being exclusively negroid or "melanated." Ignoring the fact that Dixon himself wouldn't agree with that reading. So which of his types do you think Whites and Asians fall under? And then you apply types like Dixon's Proto-Australoid to other author's works when they were using the terms in completely different ways. It seems like you haven't actually read these books but have only found some cherrypicked passages you feel you can use.

Don't mind him. The truth is not for everyone ​@@TacticalIntellectual12

Sorry about the late reply. Appreciate it man. This is certainly a battle, the guy above swears I don’t know anything on this topic.

I cross reference and make sure that Taylor, Dixon, Ripley, etc are saying the same thing before I present things. Listen man, if I read Griffith Taylor state something and he uses a certain author’s work to reinforce his point and document sources….why would I not use it? I have so much more to support my claim, that I will just let you knock yourself out with your claims. When you go see a movie, I wonder if you demand to see the ending 5 minutes into it? Again, be patient.

I appreciate it, man. More work ahead.

I appreciate it. Evidence on top of evidence is the key.

I used 3 sources in this presentation, check the 1:29 mark for the sources. Also, go back to 9:49 regarding the Mediterranean race that anthropologists of the times knew about. You telling me that Oromo and Somali people aren’t Negro?

​@@TacticalIntellectual12 None of the 3 sources are saying what you think they are. I got into your misinterpretation of Dixon already. You didn't answer the question: Which of Dixon's 8 types do whites and Asians fall under? You need to clarify this before we can go further here. As for Griffith Taylor on the Mediterranean race, yes. He, like many anthropologists of the time classified East Africans as separate from Negroids due to many of them having Caucasoid features like leptorhine noses, non-wooly hair, and orthognathism. That's the "Hamitic hypothesis." See pg. 120 of the book you quoted: _The chief ethnic boundary in Africa is the line which separates the Negroid peoples from the Hamitic and Semitic folk of Mediterranean race._ (Griffith Taylor, _Environment, Race and Migration,_ 1927) Now read below your quote a bit and look at all the white European areas that Griffith Taylor say the Mediterranean race is still found as a majority in. Are you going to claim he was calling the South Italians, Greeks, Spanish, Portuguese, and Welsh, Negroes? By the way, Griffith Taylor's idea of the Somali and Oromo people representing the primitive state of the Mediterranean race most typically was his own idea/speculation and you can't just apply that to every single mention of the Mediterranean race by any author. Taylor's contemporary, Carleton Coon, for example included a discussion of East Africans in his chapter on the Mediterranean world, but said they were actually a mixed race with both Caucasoid Mediterranean and Negroid blood. Coon described three basic varieties of the Mediterranean race (excluding Nordics, which he considered to be depigmented Mediterraneans), all describing white people except for the partially Negroid, partially Mediterranean, East Africans. _Mediterraneans: Within this general class, which still retains much of its original racial unity, the following sub-classes may at present be distinguished:_ _(a) Mediterranean Proper: Short-statured, dolicho- and mesocephalic form found in Spain, Portugal, the western Mediterranean islands, and to some extent in North Africa, southern Italy, and other Mediterranean borderlands. Its purest present-day racial nucleus is without doubt Arabia. Most of the Cappadocian, isolated in the skeletal material, seems to have been absorbed into the western Mediterranean variety after its early Metal Age migration, while that which remained in Asia Minor became assimilated into the Dinaric and Armenoid. It still appears, however, among individuals in its original form, and is particularly common among Oriental Jews._ _(b) Atlanto-Mediterranean: The tall, straight-nosed Mediterranean, not mesocephalic, as Deniker erroneously stated, but strongly dolichocephalic. Today this race forms the principal element in the population of North Africa, and is strong in Iraq, Palestine, parts of Arabia, and the eastern Balkans; _*_in solution with varying degrees of negroid_*_ it is also the principal race in the whole of East Africa. In Europe it is a minority element in the Iberian Peninsula, Italy, and the British Isles._ _c)Irano-Afghan: The long-faced, high-headed, hook-nosed type, usually of tall stature, which forms the principal element in the population of Iran, Afghanistan, and the Turkoman country, and which is also present in Palestine, parts of Arabia, and North Africa. It is probably related to the old Corded type of the Neolithic and Bronze Age._ (Carleton Coon, _Races of Europe,_ 1939)

@@user-jh1xs7sb6w I see that you used Carlton Coon's work instead of William Z Ripley's original. In those days, many anthropologists stood on two sides. I disagree with you and you disagree with me. That's fine. I have other video presentations on this platform that addresses your questions. David MacRitchie is one.

@@TacticalIntellectual12 The reason I used Coon was actually to demonstrate a description of the Mediterranean race contemporary to Griffith Taylor, and Coon differed from Taylor to some degree, so yes you're right that many anthropologists of the time differed with each other, which is why you can't take a description from one and then act like every anthropologist was using the same definition. Fair enough to disagree, but none of your other videos that I can see answers my question about Dixon specifically.

@@user-jh1xs7sb6w One thing, I'm not "taking a description from one and acting as if all said the same thing." There are many other anthropologists, archeologists, etc that I side with. There are many other very logical factors that reinforce the stance that I take. We have to have "good faith" in these discussions man, you can't attribute to me, things that I didn't say or imply. I definitely get that Caucasians will defend certain versions of what we call history. I'm just taking on a very anachronistic account of history and I realize that it will offend and hurt feelings. I'm sure that I'll be hearing from you again in my comment's section.

😂 I figured that. We both have probably seen several descriptions where a bald guy back in the 1600s was described as swarthy, brunet, or tawny but folks like him would still claim that hair is being spoken of. I appreciate the comment and view man….we need more facts in the face of propaganda out here.

@@TacticalIntellectual12most definitely. I told him on another video that Louis XIV daughter, the black nun of moret, was described as swarthy and very brown and her portrait is that of a brown skinned woman. The white lies gotta stop. Pun intended. Keep dropping these videos. Much needed.

@@Lynch88 Good job man, I get tired of the army of trolls on the channels of Kurimeo, Straight Up, KMZ History, etc. The trolls really don’t know the historical formulas (forename/surname, place names, complexion terminology, heraldic crests, skeletal remains all over Europe, primary sources, etc). These folks aren’t ready. Appreciate it, I’ll definitely continue.

Yeah, let him know that he's using the term incorrectly or intentionally trying to be disparaging. It's a bad look to have a young campaign against a term as old as "stay woke." Thanks for tuning in man. Channel building ain't easy.

What’s wrong and how so?

​@@TacticalIntellectual12...For a start here is a passage from a journal from 1745, it can also be validated on JSTOR. 'If we proceed from the swarthiest white Person to the palest Egyptian, from thence to the fairest Mustee, Molatto, Moor, &c. to the darkest Indian.' J. Mitchell in Philosophical Transactions 1744-5 (Royal Society) vol. 43 122 The term swarthy was historically used to describe white people with darker features.

@@idratherbeaphilthanajustin9533 I have a vids entitled Proper Etymology Part 1, Swarthy Surnames Uno, and Swarthy Surnames Extra. Check those out. It's interesting that you discounted the source that I used in that video presentation. I accept yours because, all things considered, a semantic broadening had already taken place in the 1600s. It's no surprise that a gaujo or white person was described as being swarthy too. Serious question, why do you even think a white person would have "darker features" to begin with? Dig more into books dealing with European anthropology, archeology, etc....the migration patterns also clears things up too.

@@TacticalIntellectual12 So why is it when you read a book and see the descriptor 'swarthy', you automatically assume that the person was black? Having dark features is normal in white people - I'm not sure what point you are trying to make?

@@idratherbeaphilthanajustin9533 I don’t automatically assume. I have to know what point in time. So is this a one way interaction where you grill me and ignore all inquiries I send back to you? This channel is about providing heavy evidence to whatever subject I am dealing with. European history is being touched on right now. Here’s a suggestion, before trying to debate me, know what topics I’ve already spoken of. Be aware of my content, that’s your burden of proof. I’m going to throw you a bone because I haven’t published anything in-depth regarding migration and settlement patterns. Numerous anthropologists all agree that those “dark features” that modern day white people have came about m from many centuries of intermixture. Roland B Dixon, William Z Ripley, Griffith Taylor, John Beddoe, Giuseppe Sergi, Verneau, etc are all white guys from Europe and admit that they are descendants of the late coming Europeans….not the original or indigenous Euros. You’d know this if you did your due diligence, I’ve quoted from a ton of these guys in my video presentations.

Appreciate the view. I’ll look into it and make corrections on a part three of necessary.

Yes, this info is well known in the academic world but they go away from it to uphold and promote false narrative.

It is, it's funny how mainstream media in the West glosses over it.

Thanks for the comment. Why do you think that I don't understand these terms? You're looking at things from a modern day perspective instead of starting at square one. My channel is explaining things in chronological order. If you’re looking at 7th century accounts from the lens of the 1800s, then there's a disconnect. Regarding that footballer's name, that's a color name used to describe, the explanation is a couple of videos away though.

@@TacticalIntellectual12 I think you don't understand them because you're applying 19th century racializations to terms like black and swarthy that were not used that way by earlier societies.

@@user-jh1xs7sb6w That's interesting, did you view the entire video? I ask because I'm using older source materials. Also, look at the Swarthy Surnames Uno, Swarthy Surnames Extra, and Swarthy Placenames or Word Witnesses videos because I do consider additional facts....I actually do consider the earlier societies.

@@TacticalIntellectual12 The problem is that you're assuming that terms like "black" are used in the same way they are today, when in reality "black" was not a racial term in for example the middle ages or early modern Europe the same way it's used today in a place like America. When people who don't understand historical European color terminology see a quote from the 17th century describing some Englishman as being "as black as a Spaniard or Jew" for example they may assume that actually means they were talking about people that looked like modern day Africans, and so all the artwork showing that not to be the case must be fake and there must have been a massive population replacement over a period of around 200 years. When in reality, writers just used "black" in the same way someone or some ethnic group might be described as "dark" today. Like how Richard Nixon was often described as dark, or as a "black Irishman." If Nixon lived 300 years ago, you'd probably have people claiming he was literally black as Americans use the term today.

@@user-jh1xs7sb6w To be honest with you, there’s no assuming taking place on this platform. Many of these sources state “complexion” or “visage.” I’ve heard your interpretation and rebuttal a lot, however place names, forename-surnames, primary source descriptions , archaeological evidences, etc disagrees with you. You’re fixated on the word “black” but this video is deeper than that. You think these things only dealt with countenance, motives, morality, etc but knowing what I know (no assumptions), that isn’t the case…especially in the medieval periods. Also, care to explain tawny, sanguine, sallow, brunet/brunette? Did complexion mean something else during the Medieval period across Europe and the rest of the world?

Appreciate the comment. Europe wasn't a "White" continent early on. Part 2 of this series comes out next week but that Ancient Alpine Brown Race were people from Africa and the Near East. Check out the Early Ireland Part 2 presentation (what happened there happened to mainland Europe much earlier).