National African American Read-In on February, 2018: In - How does the story you read about A.E

February, 2018 is National African American Read-In 2018. Join us for the 2011 African-American Read African American Read-In.

How does the story you read about A.E

You're kidding, right?

Edward Mitchell Bannister changes the myth that black artists could not produce works of merit?

Edward Mitchell Bannister changes the myth that black artists could not produce works of merit?

Edward Mitchell Bannister's determination to become a successful artist was largely fuelled by an inflammatory article he read in the New York Herald in 1867, that stated "the Negro seems to have an appreciation for art while being manifestly unable to produce it ". Ironically, less than a decade later, in 1876, Bannister was the first African - American artist to receive a national award. One of Bannister's paintings was accepted in the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition of 1876. The painting, "Under The Oaks", was selected for the first-prize bonze medal.

Why dark skinned Africans are called sub-Saharans if they were present in ancient Europe and North

Why dark skinned Africans are called sub-Saharans if they were present in ancient Europe and North Africa?

In the 2nd - 3rd century the Vikings sailed down the coast of Africa and captured some of the black people and brought them back the Scandinavia. The viking captured slaves of every race, color, sex and nationality wherever they went to raid & pillage. The Romans and Ancient Greeks had black african servants obtained from traders. I read in national geographic that the romans especially were fascinated and intrigued with the black "sub-saharans" in their household staff. In the middle ages & the renaissance very rich europeans had art commissioned by master painters and only the very rich could afford an exotic servant such as a blackamoor. They must have wanted to show off their wealth by insisting the blackamoor be in the painting or as the centerpiece. The article below I labeled as "interesting" gives some insight to the whole enchilada.

It looks like the term sub-saharan is a way to label black africans and defines their place of origin. I think the term is used as a way to not offend black people or get racists started with their nasty vocabulary and repulsive play-on-words. But black africans also lived in the sahara area as evidence by the ancient nubian kingdom or kingdom of kush south of egypt in sudan. These incredibly advanced people built fantastic cities of stone and pyramids and could trade up and down the nile and on into the mediterranean sea and the countries that border it.

Nubian (or Kush) ruins are smack dab in the sahara desert today, but the desert used to be much smaller. Archeologists say it is clear the nubian empire (or kingdom of kush) in sudan used to have rain and pastures of grass and trees and crops would grow. Then a climate change came and everything dried up and the sahara took over and the people left the great stone cities they had built.

We always have to remember the earth is always in a state of slow change. There was the ice age where everything was frozen almost to the equator. That was from 30,000 - 10,000 years ago and was when the people called native americans actually WALKED across the bearing sea from siberia to alaska. The climate way back then explains why Native americans did not have the wheel until the spanish came because wheels don't work on ice. The same principal can be applied to the sahara region because back then people could wander around a green and lake filled area which posed no barrier to migration. That was back then. The sahara area sure does today though. The climate change thing continues always.

People always wanted to trade back then and still do today. Caravans of many types probably moved around the african continent since the dawn of the human race. Large outrigger canoes were good to move up and down the coast of africa on the atlantic side or the indian ocean side or the mediterranean side or the red sea side or any of the great african rivers. If it wasn't about trade it was about conquest.

In the 700's the "moors" crossed the strait of gibraltar, invaded spain all the way to the pyrenees mountain range and portugal and kept southern spain & portugal for 500 plus years. There were white moors and black moors. White moors were the arabs (arabs are caucasian so it fits) and black moors were black people. They all mixed in with the population and darkened the aspect of the people from southern spain/port. permanently. ALL the moors were very keen on reading books and education, took baths regularly(caucasian christians did not believe bathing was a healthy practice at all) and built beautiful palaces like the alhambra, which is my mostest favorite beautiful building in the world (when most europeans were living in hovels and would throw buckets of raw excrement in the street. I think it was the 1200's when the moors were driven back across the gibraltar strait to morocco and other countries of origin. Their influence and bloodlines remain though.

BTW... I am so sorry for being rude to you the other day. You were simply asking a question and you were not to blame. I should have had more manners. We are an honor bound people so I can admit when I have done something wrong. Again... I apologize. I am the older native american woman who ranted and raved about what someone had taught you Ref: pre-columbian muslims.

Also on this date Thursday, February 1, 2018...