Today, the 17th of December we celebrate Jane Austen’s two hundred thirty-fifth birthday. A great writer who is celebrated for having done for the novel what Shakespeare did for playwriting. Her wit and her innovative, ‘realistic’ dealings with lifelike situations and a psychological insight in the workings and failings of the human mind; with believable characterisation, has stood the test of time and we can still readily understand her personages and their true and political motives. But what has been truly missing in all the many analyses by eurocentric scholars, the TV series and movies of her books as well as her biographical films and documentaries, is any reverence to her deep brown complexion and the ‘light brown, brown, very brown and black complexions’ of her central characters. This innovative research has already bloomed into about sixty pages, coming from the initial article, and is still growing, as there are still new insights to be found. The brochure, awaiting publishing, offers a foreword, introduction, definitions, methodology, conclusion, notes, many illustrations and a bibliography. My own reading of Jane Austen, based on who I am and what I know from years of research after native Black Europeans, compared to the general and scholarly portrayal of Jane Austen, her personages, political views and motives; has thrown up some serious problems that need solving. Amazingly, the many great scholars who analysed the lady’s life and her works to the hilt; choose as one body to disregard all the insistent and ample descriptions of complexion in her novels. Even when they are discussing her own looks, they often do not quote the ten or so detailed pen portraits by her family and friends, which speak of a pretty, rich brown complexioned woman. They sometimes print these quotes and her pen portraits but let the brownness remain unanswered. Why is Henry Austen quoting poet John Donne (1572-1634) when he speaks of his own sisters ‘pure and eloquent’ blood. Which pureness is he speaking of; to what distinctive nation did Jane Austen belong to? When they discuss her so called portrait by Cassandra Austen, which shows a nasty looking white woman, there is never any comparison made with how her own good, separate features and pleasant looks were described in real life. Or that Henry insisted to a publisher that ‘the family was not aware’ of any portrait, when this unlikely portrait later surfaced. That Austen herself did not issue a portrait when she debuted in 1811, and her insistence on secrecy about her authorship; adds to this mystery. So the big question is: why is there no authenticated portrait of Jane Austen? And why do white scholars disregard the abundance of colour. But first we need a rationale and workable definition of Black, which in my understanding of blackness; is a quality best discussed and analysed in terms of a person’s identity and history then actual skin colour or facial features. Or scull measurements or DNA. A Black person should next be considered as a functional part of a social and political group. A group who has experienced a common history, made certain geographical movements around the globe, has certain common cultural elements as in the general way of doing things, that creates a bond between the Blacks across oceans and across time. A Black identified writer, like Jane Austen will mainly talk about issues regarding Blacks, like how we expect a Jewish identified writer to write mostly about Jewish things, from a Jewish viewpoint. The shape of his nose does not inform us of his identity. And Blacks come in many shapes and nuances of colour, as Austen herself painstakingly points out with her novelistic pen portraits and letters. The idea of human races, as a predictable biological and a psychological phenomenon has long ago been discredited, yet is today still in full swing. Especially when it comes to identifying Blacks, in order to exclude Blacks from history. Like how pharaohs, Africans, are improbably turned into blue eyed, white potentates ruling over Blacks and overseeing the building of the pyramids! This makes one wonder why they did not built pyramids in Amsterdam, London or Paris; but in Africa? All studies and exhibitions about WWII routinely omit any discussion of Hitler’s Black victims. Like the so-called ‘Rhineland Bastards,’ the off-spring of French-Senegalese soldiers, part of the occupational army after WWI, and white German women. And other Blacks who were native German. Or the Black American soldiers who helped to fight fascism, ethnic cleansing and mass murder during WWII. All are curiously missing from the numerous and most recent studies about the Holocaust. These are some of the facts and questions that inform my approach. Can we disregard the colour of Hitler’s 50.000 Black victims, even when we know he had a special hatred for the Black, mixed-race Germans. He accused the Allies that they had deliberately brought in Africans to defile the German race with inferior blood. And do we agree when Black blood is spoken of as inferior? The Nazi’s sterilized, did medical experiments or simply murdered these Blacks and used some as camp overseers before all were gassed themselves. Now can we still disregard colour when Jane Austen herself dwells on and amplifies this quality in all her writings? When her godfather, mr. Nibbs was a plantation owner on Antigua, and she discusses slavery in Mansfield Park. And even her circle of family and friends cared to point out that she was not pink but brown. Her deliberate descriptions of her personages as Black or brown are necessary to make any sense of her Black oriented themes, and they must be taken into account to understand her identity and her intentions for writing her layered stories: when she did, and in the way that she did. The novel Emma (1816), in a Dutch translation falsely presents the key-line: ‘Mr. Elton, black, spruce, and smiling.’ as ‘Ds. Elton, keurig in het zwart, kwam glimlachend te voorschijn.’ (Reverend Elton, neat in black clothes, appeared smiling). Mr. Henry Crawford in Mansfield Park is definitely not a minister but is ‘absolutely plain, black and plain; but still the gentleman.’ His sophisticated, lovely sister Mary is brown, with a lively black eye. By not accepting the fact that Mr. Crawford and Mr. Elton are Blacks, we totally miss the true depth of Emma’s folly when she tries to marry Elton off to her friend Harriet Smith who is a blue-eyed blond. Or when Emma, as a Black woman, so deprecatingly and foolishly compares the white gentleman farmer who loves Miss Smith to the Black, Mr. Elton. Then we truly understand why the immensely wise Mr. Knightly is so upset with Emma, and why broad faced Mr. Elton was so offended by Emma’s wish. And why he, and the vigorous and malicious wife he eventually married, went out of their way to insult poor, white Miss Smith. Who eventually marries the more suitable white gentleman farmer. Yet all these persons symbolise historical events, emerging social groups and institutions under siege. And suddenly Emma as a novel does not resist analyses, as is usually claimed. Jane Austen is actually talking about the emerging, Regency Era race relations and about race-mixing, which she was against, derived from her letters. Broad faced Mrs Blount with ‘her pink husband & fat neck,’ from her letter to Cassandra, should be understood in this context. As should Mrs. Price in Mansfield Park who deeply offended her family, by probably marrying a white Mr. Price who had ‘no education, no means and no prospects.’ Making Fanny Price, like Miss Lamb from Sanditon, a mulatto. A sensitive fact pounced on by her cruel aunt, Mrs. Norris. In Sense and Sensibility ‘Golden Mohrs’ are mentioned, pointing to the role of blackness in the founding of the European civilisation. But the novel Emma is all about 10.000 years of Black Civilisation, the history about Blacks who brought civilisation to Europe and became a noble and royal elite at the end of the Medieval period. So Austen’s deeper reasons only emerge after a colour-conceptual reading of Emma; that by elevating whites to their high level of civilisation, and to actually dilute their pure blood with whites; European Blacks have lost their power and were even losing more power if they did not change their ways. If they do, they could still prevent to be at the total mercy of whites. This would be the total annihilation of Blacks. People who are able to understand this have, according to Henry Austen: ‘true abilities.’ Austen satirises the then current Hanoverian, German-British royal family with the sickly George III’s fear of his daughters marrying and his hysterical hatred of new ideas and social change, represented as catching dangerous ‘colds.’ In this way Austen’s cautions Blacks not to be afraid of change. The novel ends on a shaky new constellation with Emma dethroned by Mrs. Elton. Emma herself is probably named after the then popular adviser and paramour of Horatio Nelson: Emma Hamilton, a nut-brown beauty. And presents an amalgam of the ‘lovely and elegant’ Queen Mary of Scots as well as her niece, the Virgin Queen Elizabeth I. Emma’s preference for Miss Smith’s blond looks reminds us of King James I Stuart too, who had an equal weakness for young, blond men. So I also agree with a ‘queer reading’ of Jane Austen, based on her many, mischievous but empowering reverences to gayness. James was Queen Mary’s son and the grandfather of Charles II Stuart who was called The Black Boy. These were all native Black, British and Scottish royals and Jane Austen was very aware of these rapidly disappearing historical facts due to revisionism. The beheading of her niece’s husband, the Comte the Feuillides during the French Revolution (1789-1795) gave the horrified Austen’s their personal experience with the revolutionary hatred against the Black nobility. That is why she took to writing these allegorical novels. Jane Austen was an activist to the cause of European Blacks based on her knowledge of Black History and her own experiences as a native Black Britton. By following this reconstruction of the past we can now easily understand that her famous line about a preference for ‘four or five families in a country town to work with’ only refers to the four or five gentle Black families, who socialise, help each other to advance economically and intermarry. We can also see that she includes all types of Blacks in her group, the fair ones she describes as sallow and the black ones. But the fair ones seem to flock towards the truly black skinned ones, if we notice in Northanger Abbey the preference of the sallow Catherine Morland to Mr. Tilney who was brown, and of the fair Bertram siblings of Mansfield Park towards the very dark Crawfords. Austen proposes blackness as an expression of health and beauty. Churchill teased Jane Fairfax for her pale skin, but afterwards he concludes that she had ‘just enough colour for beauty’ and had a ‘distinguished’ complexion. Her Classical African features made her looks ‘peculiar’ in Austen’s parlance. And unlike what we were told; part of the elite enjoyed ‘heightening the native brown of my Complexion’ with a tan, as her niece, Eliza Comtesse de Feuillide proudly describes her own looks. Yet another part bleached and painted their faces white, which practices Austen deplored in Persuasion and her letters. Eliza Bennet’s unspoken but inferred advantage over her rival, Miss Caroline Bingley; is her brown and tanned complexion, which is much admired by the rich Mr. Darcy. Yet to some in The Watsons, Emma Watson’s very brown complexion was ‘the annihilation of every grace.’ Racism? With the Black History approach and giving due attention to the abundance of blackness in Austen’s life and her novels; we can now evaluate the rich subtext and understand Jane Austen’s dedication to the plight of her Black nation. And why the early dead of ‘the purple flowerette of the vale’ was so sincerely bemoaned by her clan. As they were fiercely protective of her image. Her books are in fact comical, self-help books, allegories that present an idealised black gentry, in order to empower and urge improvement of Blacks. To better themselves at a personal level. But also reminding them as a group of their history and to warn about the changing times. And that they should start paying attention, stop the foolish race mixing and assisting whites to advance and encroach upon their own positions; for they will face total annihilation as a culture and a people. They will be completely rewritten and whitewashed out of history. Her visionary fears for her Blacks are proven real today if we view the eurocentric reading of Jane Austen, after 235 years, by the total exclusion of Blacks we have already descended to. Egmond Codfried Paramaribo-Suriname, 17 December 2010

Views: 5703


You need to be a member of Mingle City to add comments!

Join Mingle City

Comment by Egmond Codfried on September 4, 2013 at 10:39am






The Hague, 1 September 2013.


White supremacy is based on fake over paints of Old Master portraits;



(And every dear person who feels the need to end racism today)


Kindly I inform you that all the portraits at The White House of the earliest presidents of the US, like all Old Master portraits in all museums over the world; are over paints. They made the brown and black faces and hands white. It seems that 1880 was a deadline for tolerating blackness. By 1848, Europe saw its Final Revolutions that accomplished what the French Revolution (1789-1794) could not achieve. The Final Revolutions resulted in the factual of freedom and human rights for all Europeans. In 1848 the French third estate, which were 97% of the French, gained general male suffrage. In The Netherlands, they changed the constitution, and we are told that King William II of Orange Nassau (1792-1849) changed overnight from conservative to liberal. We are also told that the nobility lost some of its privileges. What we are not told is that the third estate were the former serfs and villains who did not have any rights AND THEY WERE THE WHITES OF EUROPE. They were hardly seen as humans, and the historical Declaration of Human Rights (1789) was to give them human status. Most likely 1848 saw the end of a European trade in human leather. A digitalized book, and many articles on the web about the European trade in human leather, says that the French King Louis XVI (1754-1793) was, significantly, presented with a pair of slippers made of human skin, on the eve of the French Revolution. The revolutionary government of France, according to Alison McQueen, ‘The Rise of The Cult of Rembrandt in 19th century France,’ (2003), inherited great state collections of Old Master portraits and genre pieces. And they choose against all proof to the contrary, Rembrandt (1606-1669) as a revolutionary figurehead claiming that he was a painter of the third estate. But that the paint on his, and others, works had darkened and needed to be ‘restored’ to the state he supposedly intended. He was declared to be a painter of the common people, which he was not. This tells us at least that the figures looked dark, and they remedied this condition by over painting all old master paintings with beige and pink. This restoration is still visible to the naked eye and one can see the brown and black layers underneath. You go and check the portraits in the White House , and next take yourself to a museum, demanding to see the restorer-in-chief. Tell them that lying to the president and his wife is high treason, or something. The face contours remained the same, so 10% of the portraits of the Ancien Regime that are reported to the RKD in The Hague, show classical African facial traits. They are the type we call Black today. In Jane Austen’s (1775-1817) time these ‘peculiar’ traits stood for ‘distinguished, proof of pure blood, and proof of noble blood in the family bloodline.’ Jane Austen, who was described as ‘a brunette of complexion,’ also had this look, so we do not get to see her authenticated portrait. But they show us a fake, supplied by her family, to escape hatred and rejection of Jane Austen by the new, revolutionary political elite. Many persons of the Ancient Regime, the elite who were the first estate (the church) and the second estate (the nobility and the bourgeoisie); are described as brown or black of complexion in biographies, but are presented to us as whites. They are described as ‘brown (Charlotte-Sophie of Mecklenburg-Strelitz), black (Leopold I Habsburg), not the white hands (Isabelle de Charrière), The black boy and a tall black man and the swarthy Stuart (Charles II Stuart), the black Prince (Edward of Woodstock), black as chimney (Anna Margaretha van Aerssen), chimney sweeper (Baron Aarnout Joost van der Duyn van Maasdam), swarthy (zwart, Schwartz)(The van der Duyn family), bad complexion (Madame de Staël), very dark with black eyes and dark hair (James Boswell, Queen Anna Boleyn), more brown then white (William I of Orange), brown of complexion and beard (William I of Orange), saturnine (George Sand, Oliver Cromwell), black as ink (Louis XIV’s mummy) and ugly (poet Jan Vos). Next, there are engravings taken from freshly painted portraits, to be able to make and sell cheap copies quickly, and to be used in books. These engravings show the dark skin, and it would then seem that the paintings darkened overnight, which is impossible. Yet, every person in arts will tell you that the paint portraits had darkened and were in need of restoration. It’s often remarked that there are no Black scientists, discoverers, writers etc. Now I can state that they were over painted beige in 1848. According to Martin Bernal (1937-2013), Black Athena I, II, The Fabrication of Ancient Greece, (1987), it was only in the 1840-ies, that the ‘Ancient Model,’ which claimed that Greece owed its culture to Egypt, was replaced by the ‘Aryan Model,’ which said that Greece was invaded by whites from North Europe, finding the white, Greek civilization. This wholly concurs with mine Blue Blood Is Black Blood Theory (1100-1848)(2004) that European whites were emancipated in 1848 and set out to whiten all of history. They painted the black and brown faces of their former masters white. They also whitened the Greek and Roman Civilizations. Apelles depicted Alexander the Great, from the Macedonian Royal Family, as ‘swarthy’. What is missing from all the clever books by clever people, some of them have access to you and advise you, is the simple fact that the first Europeans came to Europe from Africa, around 45.000 years ago. It has not been possible to find a genetic link between the present Europeans and the early ancestors, so the present ones, the whites, came from elsewhere. They came from Central Asia around 6000 years ago, but mostly around 400 AD with the Great Peoples Movements, and around 1000 AD when Europe suffered great barbarian invasions. Europe was in need of protectors, and so the nobility elevated itself into a nobility, exploiting and oppressing the people they claimed to protect. (Numa Fustal de Coulanges, Sheick Anta Diop) In Central Asia there are Ice-mummies that look like blond, white Europeans, and are not Asian in looks. The brown and black Europeans did not just become white, which is not possible, but rather whites invaded Europe. The Greeks claimed to be from the soil, and declared themselves a nobility over these white barbarians, or plebeians. As immigrants, they could not become citizens of Greece. The Modern Age nobility elevated itself in 1100-1200, and saw itself as the inheritors of the Greek Civilization, recently rediscovered, giving rise to the Renaissance. They were descendants of the Blue Men, the African Europeans, and called themselves Blue Bloods. Like the Egyptians, and Greeks they were not all Blacks, but brown and black complexioned, some with classical African facial traits and those were considered pure of blood. The Egyptian, the Greek and Modern Era nobility and bourgeoisie, based their superiority on their looks. The rare, pure Black type was the standard, those were pure of blood. The other brown and black Europeans who did not attend the founding meetings of the nobility became the bourgeoisie and together with the nobility they numbered 3% of all Europeans. The history of Europe could be understood as a battle between these two brown tribes. In the end, the bourgeoisie called itself Caucasians to side with the white Caucasians, to topple their common enemy: the nobility. Human Race as a social construct, for a purpose: a mean to an end. Yet, the bourgeoisie stole the French Revolution, and because of noble restorations like that by Napoleon, the whites had to fight on till 1848. To forestall backsliding they then had all portraits changed to white, and made ancient Greece white, to hide the fact that whites were the barbarians, the serfs and villains, the Greys, canaille, out casts and the common people and did not contribute to the European civilization. This fraud was started in 1848 and whites are still trying to make Blacks the immigrants, and have made themselves the aristocracy by the sleight of hand, changing of the portraits and genre pieces. This is the weakest point in their armour of lies, as we can still study the over painting. But because of these fake over paints, also present in your White House, their white supremacy is since 1848 is based on fake over paints of the brown and black European and American elites. Racism against Blacks was invented around 1760 by the bourgeois philosophers who were brown and black, and was intended as a liberation ideology, a new religion, against the nobility that self-identified as Black with heraldic Moors. With the many, little figures of Blacks, we find in Western art. They also identified as Black and good Christians, and superior, with King Balthasar and many Black Madonna’s in the greatest churches. These were mostly destroyed around the French Revolution and we are shown their black replicas, often with the facial traits changed. The US Founding Fathers, the Framers of the US Constitution, and all slave masters in the Americas were exponents of the European brown and black faced bourgeoisie, and they engaged in trade, which was forbidden to nobles. (Nobles married heiresses from trade, as Othello and Desdemona did. Othello was a heraldic Moor, a symbol of nobility, and the highest-ranking person in Venice. As a skilled military leader, he chose a military solution for his marital problems by killing Desdemona. So, Iago tricked Othello the Moor of Venice, into killing his beloved Syria….oops his beloved wife, Desdemona. He knew Othello would react with violence, because of his violent profession. There is no racism against Blacks in Othello, just some mild joking at the expense of the nobility, by Shakespeare who was a member of the brown and black complexioned bourgeoisie, the gentry.) The early American political elite were brown and black complexioned Europeans. Swedish John Hanson had classical African facial traits, next to dark skin. White cannot be equated with European. Blacks just not become white like that. And the concept of Human Races has been rejected outside the US. George Washington had black skin, and his French ancestor looks Black. Today, there cannot be an equal debate about the state of affairs between Blacks and whites if we do not address the on-going deception with the over painting of portraits in 1848. And that this 165 years old fraud is still maintained by the friendly, smiling white museum and art elite. As I’m blocked everyway to peacefully present my case, and my solution for a peaceful end of racism against Blacks, I appeal to you both. We just need to point to the fake portraits, and we even need not raise our voices. Just you both say the word and it will make you a hero forever. As I believe there are many whites that do not hate Blacks, who are married to Blacks, were raised by Blacks, worship alongside Blacks, or have Black children. So, they will also welcome an end of Racism against Blacks. The Black bogeyman nobles are dead and gone, and they are not coming back to flay whites alive to bind books or make shoes with their skins. Black history is not Black slavery alone, and insisting on stigmatising Blacks as slaves and victims is the mental enslavement and intimidation of Blacks. Often perpetrated by their own Black intellectual elite, and some have access to you too. Kindly help me to end Racism against Blacks today in a peaceful way.




Egmond Codfried

Curator Suriname Blue Blood Is Black Blood Museum

Eemstraat 36

2515 VS Den Haag




Comment by Egmond Codfried on August 27, 2013 at 7:07am

A dark skinned Anna Karenina. The father of Marya Puskina, Alexander S. Pushkin was to all acounts 'swarthy' (zwart, schwarz). So his daughter, who was his 'spitting image' is most likely to have been black as well. The whole elite was brown and black of complexion, and this was accepted till 1848, when the whites had all portraits whitened.

Comment by Egmond Codfried on August 21, 2013 at 8:16am

Benjamin Constant: 'Very bad complexion.'

Comment by Egmond Codfried on July 24, 2013 at 12:46pm

Maria Cristina of Spain, mother of Alphonso XIII

Comment by Egmond Codfried on July 24, 2013 at 10:51am

This unabashedly Black complexioned portrait of Robert browning used to be on the web, where I found it.

This is a scan of a print. We need more of these types of images, so the history of these people can be found easier. If we want to change the world.

Comment by Egmond Codfried on July 24, 2013 at 10:49am

nadezha Mountbatten de Torby, great-granddaughter of Alexander S. Pushkin, who married into the British Royal family.

Comment by Egmond Codfried on July 24, 2013 at 10:48am

Comment by Egmond Codfried on July 24, 2013 at 10:47am

Comment by Egmond Codfried on July 24, 2013 at 10:46am

Comment by Egmond Codfried on July 20, 2013 at 8:28am

Maria Alexandrovna Bykova at an older age.

She was granddaughter of Alexander Pushkin.

Strangely no photo's of his wife Natalya Goncharova.

What are they hiding about her?


© 2015   Created by MingleCity.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service