When you aren't answering we go into what is called a circularity.You’re right at this point this is circular…
What is there to explain is jurisprudence. We have to go by different cases, in oder to understand the root cause of this Act. How it came about etc…Moors not being subject to laws governing blacks and slaves is pretty clear. What’s there to explain? Earlier it was you who posted the Negro law and this act is in direct response to that law and states that the Moors specifically are exempt from the laws blacks were under. The only way this is necessary is if both were black (in appearance). You’ll just deflect from this by misdirecting
No public school system teaches any of that what you addressed here. But that doesn't mean it not available. They teach white historic representation, and white representation only. The same way they have not thought Peruvian history.“It’s not hidden”
The American public educational system teaches nothing about the Moors, let alone them once being exempt from laws black people were under. They never show any of the pictures of black people in Europe before slavery and never mention any of these “African” communities sprinkled all over Europe etc.. Everything is swept under the rug when it comes to what they actively teach the masses…
Funny how someone that has been on their own intellectual high horse all thread still doesn’t understand that Charles is the English version of Carlos and V/the Fifth is the English version of Quinto? You’re literally asking me why he’s referred to by his name in English in some places and in other places his real name in the language he spoke? Do you not understand that the Carlos Quinto in that picture is this guy:
OR
So now the images made by these cac's are no longer valid when we start to go deeper into the history of the meaning of these images? Simply because you are not deep ponderer, but a surface level thinker. What is it you know about the history of Peru and Pervians?Now am I more inclined to believe cacs whitewashed a historical black person or Peruvians blackwashing or holding a black washed painting of a white person in their museum?
“You now have to explain these”When you aren't answering we go into what is called a circularity.
I asked you to explain the history of the VOC and CIW. And what is called the Gouden Eeeuw.
What you do is take snippets out of history, explain nothing and want everyone to believe the narrative you created around those snippets you take from history.
The problem is that you leave out 99% of all the other recorded world history.
You now have to explain these:
Everything is explained in the act itself:What is there to explain is jurisprudence. We have to go by different cases, in oder to understand the root cause of this Act. How it came about etc…
Basically you should be able to write an entire essays or book about this one particular subject.
Semantics. Actively avoiding teaching certain parts of history (especially ones that paint black people in a positive light)is the definition of a coverup..No public school system teaches any of that what you addressed here. But that doesn't mean it not available. They teach white historic representation, and white representation only. The same way they have not thought Peruvian history.
More misdirectionsSo, what can you tell about the Inca's and the implication why Carlos Quinto is portrayed as a person with dark skin who possible is an Inca, who you claim is Carlos V. But what is the symbology behind this transition of power of the region?
Who is Atahualpa and who are the other Inca emperors?
Atahualpa
Atahualpa (Atawallpa) was the last ruler of the Inca Empire. He reigned from 1532 until his capture and execution by the invading Spanish forces led by Francisco Pizarro in 1533. The troubled Incas...www.worldhistory.org
"Carlos V appears as the successor to Atahualpa, and Carlos IV – the last king represented – figures as the 25th Inca emperor of Peru."
How can one ethnicity go from one to the next, without any of further explanation? What type of pseudo intellectual circular babble is this?
You have not explained any of this, nor have you explained Inca history, of the genealogy of the “Inca family tree”. The clue is obviously in the “Inca family tree” and the colonization of the Inca region (which is called Peru now).
"The name Peru is derived from a Quechua word implying land of abundance, a reference to the economic wealth produced by the rich and highly organized Inca civilization that ruled the region for centuries."
Peru | History, Flag, People, Language, Population, Map, & Facts | Britannica
Peru, country in western South America. Except for the Lake Titicaca basin in the southeast, its borders lie in sparsely populated zones. Peru has a great diversity of climates, ways of life, and economic activities. The capital is Lima. Learn more about the country, including its history...www.britannica.com
If these are fake histories told by cac's you at least need to be able to tell what and when, by who to substantiate your arguments.
Peru Royal Chronology Nsuccession Of The Rulers Of Peru Beginning With The Inca Emperors From Manco Cpac To Atahualpa And Ending With The Spanish Kings Carlos V To Ferdinand Vi Spanish Painting 18Th C
So now the images made by these cac's are no longer valid when we start to go deeper into the history of the meaning of these images? Simply because you are not deep ponderer, but a surface level thinker. What is it you know about the history of Peru and Pervians?
As excepted you can't answer why those old Dutch documents exist, so you had to spew more gibber jabber. lol“You now have to explain these”
Sad you have to retort to Wikipedia as a source as your "evidence", instead of a peer reviewed and or actual academic source, with actually historical jurisprudence.Everything is explained in the act itself:
On January 20, 1790, a petition was presented to the South Carolina House of Representatives from a group of four individuals who were subjects of the Moroccan emperor and residents of the state. They desired that if they happened to commit any fault amenable to be brought to justice, that as subjects to a prince allied with the United States through the Moroccan–American Treaty of Friendship, they would be tried as citizens instead of under the Negro Act of 1740.
An African king? What African king? Does this African king have a name? Where from Africa did this took place, if so? Why do these people have English names? We need more on these people is what I am saying...The Free Moors, Francis, Daniel, Hammond and Samuel petitioned on behalf of themselves and their wives Fatima, Flora, Sarah and Clarinda.[1] They explained how some years ago while fighting in defense of their country, they and their wives were captured and made prisoners of war by an African king.
Certain parts of history are attached to other parts of history. You can't take whatever part and make it into whatever you like. You've basically taken 1% of history and avoid to address the 99% of history, that is untold by you. And you’re voiding explanations.To avoid explaining why a people who were not black would have been in fear of being under the same laws blacks were you keep misdirecting.. slavery was about skin color and here comes some moors saying they shouldn’t be tried under the same laws blacks were. Why? Because they were black…
Semantics. Actively avoiding teaching certain parts of history (especially ones that paint black people in a positive light)is the definition of a coverup..
I am not suggesting anything, it's you who has to backup these claims with solid data. If Carlos V appears as the successor to Atahualpa, you have to explain why he's depicted the same as the people in the new world. What is the symbology behind this?More misdirections
And you’re still pretending that Charles V isnt the English translation of Carlos Quinto and insisting that it might be two different people
The Incas were indeed conquered by the Spanish, and the aristocrats in Peru still are the dominant class.The Incans were conquered by the Spanish and that is what represents the changeover from the Incan kings to Carlos Quinto. And the list from Carlos Quinto forward represents the succession of the Kings of Spain. The next guy after Carlos is his son, Philip II. After Philip II, comes his son, Philip III. After Philip III comes his son, Philip IV. After Philip IV comes his son, Carlos II. Carlos was not able to have children so after much wrangling around it fell on Philip V. It’s literally following the succession of The Kings of Spain
The Peru painting is not depicting the Habsburg, it's depicting the Genealogy of the Inca rulers and their Spanish successors.So what we have is a painting in Peru depicting the Hapsburgs as a people of color. You believe cacs and I don’t. You do you tho
More tangentsAs excepted you can't answer why those old Dutch documents exist, so you had to spew more gibber jabber. lol
That site has hundreds classical documents digitized and archived from the last 400 years. But oh well, let's ignore it. lol
So you are now claiming the VOC and WIC didn't exist? Although there is evidence of this in Africa, the Americas and Asia. You are basically trying to tell us Peter Stuyvesant didn't exist? Or what about Piet Heijn? You now have to be able to explain what Orange Nassua is and how this came into existence?
More tangents you’re trying to run off on?Sad you have to retort to Wikipedia as a source as your "evidence", instead of a peer reviewed and or actual academic source, with actually historical jurisprudence.
Anyway, now we have to go by the four individuals who were subjects of the Moroccan emperor and residents of the state.
Who were these people and what was their lineage…
An African king? What African king? Does this African king have a name? Where from Africa did this took place, if so? Why do these people have English names? We need more on these people is what I am saying...
Certain parts of history are attached to other parts of history. You can't take whatever part and make it into whatever you like. You've basically taken 1% of history and avoid to address the 99% of history, that is untold by you. And you’re voiding explanations.
That's problematic. lol smh
Why do I have to explain this when I’m the one claiming he’s black?I am not suggesting anything, it's you who has to backup these claims with solid data. If Carlos V appears as the successor to Atahualpa, you have to explain why he's depicted the same as the people in the new world. What is the symbology behind this?
This is what happens when dishonest people are backed into a corner. They put up hoop after hoop after hoop as a way to misdirectThe Incas were indeed conquered by the Spanish, and the aristocrats in Peru still are the dominant class.
You fail to explain why these people who are now the ruling class still look the same as the Iberians from of hundreds years ago, as well as mixed mestizos.
It's up to you to show the evidence that Carlos Quinto is Carlos V, and why his name was changed. And why in the new world they depicted him different, if truly so.
It's not Peru painting is not depicting the Habsburg, it's depicting the Genealogy of the Inca rulers and their Spanish successors. In other words the colonization and the reason why there is now an aristocratic group (cac's) similar to those that colonized the region. You most likely have never read a book on Inca, the history of Peru and Latin America as a whole. lol smh
Whitewash black civilizations so as to take their achievements and accomplishments for themselves. And ultimately and most importantly, ownership over the landsIf all this is fake, what is the purpose?
So Willem Usselincx never existed? lolMore tangents
More tangents you’re trying to run off on?
You didn’t bring up the Moors. You gave some names, without context and history. And it’s from a Wikipedia page. That is what you did. You spoke of an alleged captain named William who allegedly sold some people? Again, without context as usual. So I’m now left to do guesswork and fill in the blanks.I bring up the moors running with George Washington and you bring up an English name for the moor (William Lee). Yet now you’re asking me why moors have an English name lol
The image shows a person with dark skin, that’s all.Why do I have to explain this when I’m the one claiming he’s black?
I have explained the history of Spain. You are making a claim that the lineage all of a sudden turned into Black, because you see a person with dark skin.Why aren’t you explaining why a European king is being depicted as black instead of pretending they were talking about someone else yet still following the same succession of Spanish kings that came after Carlos Quinto name by name?
It’s dishonest when you base your pseudo theories on a single picture, that has no further explanation.This is what happens when dishonest people are backed into a corner. They put up hoop after hoop after hoop as a way to misdirect.
If these is a 5ft, it means there’s also a 4rd, 3rd, 2nd and 1st. That was and is the point I’m making.Carlos is the Spanish name for Charles and Quinto means 5 yet you’re asking me to prove that they’re the same people? His successors name is Felipe Segundo. Felipe is the Spanish name for Philip and Segundo is spanish for second. Again, the list goes from following the Incan kings succession to the European Spanish successional line of kings after the Spanish colonized the Incans.
The person depicted has dark skin. In your delusional narrow minded mind this makes him a Black man. You avoid the actual argument, which is why was he depicted like that in the new world after the Spanish colonizers brought an end to the Inca empire. In my humble opinion this is a symbolic image.Carlos Quinto was a Hapsburg and the list depicts him as black. Period. No amount of goalpost moving will change that. That doesn’t mean someone has to look at that and automatically believe it but to deny it altogether? That’s cac shyt.
Where is Black civilization whitewashed?Whitewash black civilizations so as to take their achievements and accomplishments for themselves. And ultimately and most importantly, ownership over the lands
He's white in the painting because he looks just like the next white king with red hair but from a different angle. It's a 300 year old painting with bad lighting, not a black kingThe image shows a person with dark skin, that’s all.
This is not enough and sufficient evidence.
Do you not understand that this isn’t solid proof of anything?
So Willem Usselincx never existed? lol
Do you not understand that you are off? You can’t take a snippet from history and crate your own narrative around it, while leaving out 99% of the history attached to it.
.
I was the first one in this thread that posted about the moorsYou didn’t bring up the Moors. You gave some names, without context and history. And it’s from a Wikipedia page. That is what you did. You spoke of an alleged captain named William who allegedly sold some people? Again, without context as usual. So I’m now left to do guess work and fill in the blanks.
I’m asking for the jurisprudence. I’m most asking for a Wikipedia page. I’m asking for primary sources.
I wonder, do you yourself understand what you are posting?
If anything l posted about the Moors. I did, not you.
Yes so maybe this time you’ll explain why a supposed white Spanish king and his descendants are being depicted as dark skinned in a Peruvian museum.The image shows a person with dark skin, that’s all.
You’re literally typing just to typeIf these is a 5ft, it means there’s also a 4rd, 3rd, 2nd and 1st. That was and is the point I’m making.
And I’m not talking about Felipe (Philip).
And I know second is segundo on Spanish. But that’s not the point.
“It’s symbolic”The person depicted has dark skin. In your delusional narrow minded mind this makes him a Black man. You avoid the actual argument, which is why was he depicted like that in the new world after the Spanish colonizers brought an end to the Inca empire. In my humble opinion this is a symbolic image.
Lets see who King Ferdinand and Isabel actually expelled:Where is Black civilization whitewashed?
The closest this argument comes in to ancient Egypt. But the evidence is too overwhelming that it was a Black civilization. Moors were expelled from Spain. But somehow some Black king ruled over Spain?
Dum Diversas - June 18, 1452
“Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas which authorised Alfonso V of Portugal to reduce any “Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers” to perpetual slavery. This facilitated the Portuguese slave trade from West Africa.”
The Alhambra Decree (also known as the Edict of Expulsion; Spanish: Decreto de la Alhambra, Edicto de Granada) was an edict issued on 31 March 1492, by the joint Catholic Monarchs of Spain (Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon) ordering the expulsion of practising Jews from the Crowns of Castile and Aragon and its territories and possessions by 31 July of that year.
That's indeed a good argument. Not that this argument has no validation, because it does. But all the other individuals have darker skin as well, while some are indeed white.He's white in the painting because he looks just like the next white king with red hair but from a different angle. It's a 300 year old painting with bad lighting, not a black king