Brothers and sisters some of the info given in this vid is a little wrong but the info is still good. there are somethings that are not told in this vid and there is a lot more going on in the the creation than is told in the KJV bible. I recommend you read Gen ch 1-7 in full and in Hebrew and you will be floored by what your elders don’t know or are not telling you
A Brief History of Surnames This page will attempt to relate a brief history of surnames (or last names as we call them today), focusing on those of Western Europe. It will also discuss the categories of meanings that surnames come in. Originally, people had no use for surnames. They lived in communities that were small enough that it was unlikely people would have the same given name. Also, people rarely traveled great distances so it was unlikely they would meet anyone sharing the same name. As communities grew and people started traveling more there became a need to differentiate between people sharing the same given name. This caused surnames to come into existence.
The earliest surnames were not inherited as they are today. They simply described the person who bore the name. The most common early naming system of this sort is called patronymics (patro=father, nymics=naming). This system of surnames uses the name of a person’s father as that person’s surname. So, if a village had two people named Thomas in it, then one Thomas might be Thomas son of Robert and the other Thomas might be Thomas son of John. The one major disadvantage of this system is that with each generation surnames would change. For example, if you had Charles who was the father of Patrick who was the father of Thomas, then the full names of Charles’ son and grandson would be Patrick Charles and Thomas Patrick. Despite the lack of consistency that is found in a patronymic naming system, it was very popular in many countries of Western Europe for centuries. The following are examples of how several different groups of people used the patronymic system to develop surnames.
Denmark: the ending –sen (for a son) and –datter (for a daughter) was attached to the father’s name. e.g. Hansen, Sorensdatter
Sweden: similar to Denmark except –son and –dottir were used. e.g. Anderson, Svensdottir
Netherlands: The endings –s, -se, and –sen were used for son or daughter. e.g. Jansse or Dirks
Poland: For a son, -wicz was used. For a daughter, -ovna was used.
French/Old English: Fitz- was used for a son or a daughter, however people given surnames containing “Fitz” were often illegitimate. e.g. FitzGerald, FitzAlan.
Scotland: Mac- and Mc- (For a son or daughter). e.g. MacDonald, McLeod
Ireland: O’ and Mc- (for a son or daughter). The “O’” can also be used for a grandson or granddaughter. e.g. O’Brien, McDermott
Spain/Portugal: -ez (Spain) or –es (Portugal) e.g. Gonzales, Hernandez
Wales: In Wales, two patronymic systems existed. In one, the surnames of the children were the unmodified father’s name, so the son of Rees might be James Rees. In the second system the word “ap” (son of) or “verch/ferch” (daughter of) were incorporated into the new surname creating names like David ap Rhys or Maredudd ferch Llewelyn.
In addition to being named after their fathers, people were also named after places where they lived, either past or present. Place names come in several different categories. First, someone can be named after a village or town where they were born or have lived. People are rarely named after the town in which they are currently living, but after they leave that town and move to a new place they can be named after the town where they used to live. So someone named Ben who used to live in York came to be known as Ben of York or more simply Ben York.
Another form of a place surname occurs when people are name after a geographic feature that they lived near or on. People who lived near a hill or a mountain might have been called Hill (English), Maki (Finnish), Jurek (Poland), etc. People who lived near a lake or stream might have been called Loch (Scottish), Rio (Spanish) or Brooks (English). People were named after woods, stones, fields, swamps, fenced places, valleys, etc. People could be named after something simple like a place where grass grew (the -ley at the end of many surnames means this) or they could have been named because they lived on (or near) a field where barley was grown (Berland).
Place Surnames can often be found with prepositions meaning “of” or “from” attached to them. This can be seen in names like De Berry (of Berry) or Van Ness (From Ness).
A third type of surname that is found is a surname that is given to someone because of his or her personal characteristics. These characteristics could be physical addressing a person’s hair color, height, complexion, weight, etc. An example of a surname formed from a physical characteristic is the surname red, given to a red-haired person. Variations of this surname can be found in several countries and include: Reid (English), Russ (English), Rousseau (French), Rossi (Italian) Cerveny (Czech), Roth (German) and Flynn (Irish).
A second type of surname given based on personal characteristics would be a surname given on the basis of personality traits or abilities. Surnames can be found that mean fast, slow, dumb, smart, etc. Surnames that are animal names also fall into this category as they were usually assigned to people who shared characteristics with the animal they were named after. So someone called Fish might have been an excellent swimmer.
The forth and last general category of surnames might also be classified as a subset of personal characteristics. This category of surname is surnames that are given based on the surname bearer’s occupation. In this category, people were identified by their occupation. In English, some obvious examples of Occupational Surnames are: Taylor, Shepherd, Fisher, and Baker. These common occupational surnames can be found translated into most languages that had surnames. The topic of occupational surnames cannot be discussed without mentioning what is arguably the most popular occupational surname found, Smith. This surname was given to the worker of metals (often the blacksmith). Its variations include Schmidt (German, Danish), Kovars (Hungarian), Ferraro (Italian), Kowal (Polish), etc.
As mentioned above, surnames were originally given to a single person. These surnames would change from generation to generation, making it difficult to keep track of family relationship. As time moved on people stopped changing surnames from generation to generation. The first people to do this were often the nobility and royalty of an area. These permanent surnames seem to appear first after the first crusades. They started in France at about 1000 and spread with the Norman Invasion to England and Scotland. Most British surnames appear to have become fixed or permanent between 1250 and 1450. Places with strong ties to England developed a system of fixed surnames faster then others. The following is an overview of when some countries of Europe stopped using patronymics and developed an inherited surname system. Most of Scotland had fixed surnames early on, but it was not until the 18th century that people in the highlands stopped using a patronymic system. In the Netherlands, fixed surnames were officially adopted in 1811-1812, but it took a few decades for people to stop using a patronymic system. Scandinavian countries continued using a patronymic system longer then other countries even though laws were established by Napoleon and others to stop this practice. It wasn’t until about 1860 that people in Scandinavia started adopting fixed surnames.
England, an Island populated nearly 50 million inhabitants, of which the majority, indeed the ruling majority are white, Caucasian and purportedly of purely European stock. The image presented of the English, cradled in its notion of Englishness conjures up the image of blue eyes, blonde hair, typified by the English rose, or the archetypal fair maiden of old, and the blue-eyed boy of more modern chronology. Images akin to modern Northern europe. However behind this Scandinavian / Greek-esk romanticism we have a population overwhelming consisting of a brown eyed, dark haired inhabitants.
My aim in writing this is to challenge this politically charged iconography self-image and its use in culturing how this population ideologies its racial origins.
The study of English history reveals waves of colonizers and immigrants whether this is though the Romans, Vikings, Germanic tribes, the Normans etc. All depicted as white, Caucasian and at least in modern times able to be categorized as being of European stock. However, what seemingly does not find its way into print is an African presence. That is not until the 1500s with the beginning of the slave trade, where Africans are recorded as blackamoor pets, domestic servants, soldiers, and entertainers.
On a closer examination of the history of this Island we find vagueness, inconsistencies and various omissions. History is supposed to be the linear story of facts, the facts of what has gone before. Therefore if we were to walk back and reside with at least some of the indigenous population of this island we find evidence of a people diametrically opposed to those who claim current ownership of this land…,namely African people.
Over a period of at least 2000 years among the evidence are burial mounds, where the skeletal remains lying in a fetal position (in adoration to the womb of Mother Earth), and facing to the East run parallel with the ancient African custom of veneration of the sun (rising in the East) and elevation of the immortal soul. We have the discovery of numerous skulls where the sizes and shapes clearly denote an African phenotype and origin, artifacts identical to those found on the African continent such as pottery and jeweler as well as identical styles of weaving cloth which are found in no other place than specific localities in Africa. Also the legacy of place names denoting the original inhabitants, as well as similarities in the phonetics of languages of non-Aryan origin.
Older text and folklore of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales often mention the arrival of Africans, and a distinct African presence, not solely as visitors, but as the original inhabitants.
We find the earliest races to inhabit the Isle were short, swarthy (black), dark haired, dark eyed, and long skulled, its language belonged to the class called hamaitic and seems to have originally come from some part of either Eastern, Northern, or Central Africa €, a quote typically omitted from the history books.
Indeed the notion abounds that English history begins with the arrival of the Celts. However the Celts whose racial origin cannot, or has not been truthfully qualified (outside of the parameters that support a caucasian supremacist myth) had Gods of a non-Aryan origin. Writings of Tacitus, the Roman historian mention the dark complexion of the Silures or Black Celts, and maintained that a black aboriginal race lived side by side with a white one in the British Isle in Pre-Roman times.
To give volume to the consensus of silence stemming from the modern written word, since the original African presence, there have been countless migrations from the African continent for the purpose of conquest, as explorers and colonists.
Pliny the Roman historian who first saw the Britons in the 2nd Cent AD described their complexion as Ethiopian. Under the African Emperor septimius Severus along with a large contingent of Roman soldiers including African soldiers and officials we have the Roman occupation of England. Those who Severis fought were known as the Maeatae (Marsh dwellers), they were Caledonni, nick-named Picti, known as Moors, or black men. The early Scots too, (whose name it is claimed is derived from Scotia an Egyptian princess) make their first appearance in history in conjunction with the Picts in 360AD when they began a series of incursions into the Roman provinces of Britain. These two nations are invariably linked in all records of the Roman conquest, with the chief Roman historian regarding them as akin in blood. Though associated primarily to the North, and to the land mass later known as Scotland evidence of their presence is among other places to be found in Norfolk and Cornwall
I don’t suggest that solely Africans populated this Island, but contend that as part of the original, indigenous population, and from this point onward then undoubtedly we were here. I write this to strike a balance, to include what has been excluded, to permit what has been omitted.
This too is supported by David Mac Ritchie in Ancient and Modern Britons, when he states that the Moors dominated Scotland as late as the times of the Saxons, and that as late as the 10th Cent, 3 provinces in Scotland were wholly black. The 700 year domination over the Iberian Peninsula and Southern France by the Moors, their bringing and transition of civilization to various parts of Europe undeniably resulted in Moorish influence and in habitation in England, again place names and localities are replete with Moorish names, legacies, and origin
Successive conquest by the Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Danes, Normans etc consistently thread through the story of the English, and should need no further mention here, apart from omissions with regard to the historical facts of their racial compositions. A quote by Author Gwyn Jones is that the Vikings were not of one pure Nordic race. Within this we have black Norsemen mentioned in the sagas like Thorstein the Black, and other Africans like Thorhall the hunter, a Viking who was the mentor and closest companion of Eric the Red, a seafarer who chartered uncharted territory. Described as a large man, strong, black, and like a giant. Based on this and beyond a racist ideology, is it beyond every stretch of the imagination to believe that some of the Viking conquerors of England were African. Among the Danes too is a noted Black presence.
Geoffrey of Monmouth described in detailed the invasion of Britain by the Saxons and the involvement of Africans in the struggle between the British and the Anglo-Saxons. With a Saxon stronghold on the East of the Island, the ruler of Britain Keredic was unable to quash a Saxon revolt, and the Saxons according to Monmouth sent for Gormund the African, the then ruler of Ireland. Faced with Gormund and the 160â€™000 African fleet that Gormund led into Britain, Keredic was forced to seek refuge, and subsequently forced to flee.
Amongst other races, Moorish mercenaries were accrued by the Normans to assist in the Norman conquest, and as previously stated the 700 year Moorish domination on the Iberian peninsula and Southern France should at least permit the possibility of African genealogy within the Normans.
Therefore from the 6th cent to the 12th cent with the arrival of the Germanic Normans and various other tribes over this period, we have the demise of the original Britons, and any other evidence of indigenous peoples who were not of the proposed Aryan race. Subjugated and driven to extinction by these eventual conquerors, or due to this influx we have intermixing of these races until this evidence is eventually almost bred out. What we then have by the 13th cent is the eventual unification of this Island under one banner, the merger of the peoples, and the creation of the English. Over the centuries this creation is idealized and Aryanized into the notion of Englishness, and this notion is reinforced in the history books and into the minds of the people and as an idealized self-image.
An image used as a political tool from the 16th cent onward A time when the African presence is once again prevalent, notably through the Atlantic slave trade in order to justify the social, cultural and economic exploitation of a people to uphold a notion of racial superiority.
The propounded ideology of English history is a falsification of history, one that negates the swaths of people who if not were here first, at least form part of the early presence here, and people who through migration, warfare, and general movement across the land, along with the inevitable infusion of blood and genealogy are part of its make-up. There are countless other facts documenting the African presence on this Island, all throughout its history, however to discover them it appears that one has to look deeper and search further, seriously narrowing the answer as to what threat or challenge to history does inclusion and serious discussion on this information pose.
The siege of Jerusalem
The Siege of Jerusalem in the year 70 CE was the decisive event of the First Jewish-Roman War. The Roman army, led by the future Emperor Titus, with Tiberius Julius Alexander as his second-in-command, besieged and conquered the city of Jerusalem, which had been occupied by its Jewish defenders in 66 CE.
The siege ended with the sacking of the city and the destruction of its famous Second Temple.
Despite early successes in repelling the Roman sieges, the Zealots fought among themselves, and they lacked proper leadership, resulting in poor discipline, training, and preparation for the battles that were to follow.
Titus surrounded the city, with three legions (V Macedonica, XII Fulminata, XV Apollinaris) on the western side and a fourth (X Fretensis) on the Mount of Olives to the east. He put pressure on the food and water supplies of the inhabitants by allowing pilgrims to enter the city to celebrate Passover, and then refusing to allow them back out. After Israelite allies killed a number of Roman soldiers, Titus sent Josephus, the israelite historian, to negotiate with the defenders; this ended with Jews wounding the negotiator with an arrow, and another sally was launched shortly after. Titus was almost captured during this sudden attack, but escaped.
In mid-May Titus set to destroying the newly built Third Wall with a ram, breaching it as well as the Second Wall, and turning his attention to the Fortress of Antonia just north of theTemple Mount. The Romans were then drawn into street fighting with the Zealots, who were then ordered to retreat to the temple to avoid heavy losses. Josephus failed in another attempt at negotiations, and Israelite attacks prevented the construction of siege towers at the Fortress of Antonia. Food, water, and other provisions were dwindling inside the city, but small foraging parties managed to sneak supplies into the city, harrying Roman forces in the process. To put an end to the foragers, orders were issued to build a new wall, and siege tower construction was restarted as well.
After several failed attempts to breach or scale the walls of the Antonia Fortress, the Romans finally launched a secret attack, overwhelming the sleeping Zealots and taking the fortress. Overlooking the Temple compound, the fortress provided a perfect point from which to attack the Temple itself. Battering rams made little progress, but the fighting itself eventually set the walls on fire; a Roman soldier threw a burning stick onto one of the Temple’s walls. Destroying the Temple was not among Titus’ goals, possibly due in large part to the massive expansions done by Herod the Great mere decades earlier. Titus had wanted to seize it and transform it into a temple dedicated to the Roman Emperor and the Roman pantheon. The fire spread quickly and was soon out of control. The Temple was destroyed on Tisha B’Av, in the beginning of August, and the flames spread into the residential sections of the city.
The Roman legions quickly crushed the remaining Israelites resistance. Part of the remaining Jews escaped through hidden underground tunnels, while others made a final stand in the Upper City. This defence halted the Roman advance as they had to construct siege towers to assail the remaining Jews. The city was completely under Roman control by September 7 and the Romans continued to hunt down the Jews that had fled the city.The Roman legions quickly crushed the remaining Israelites resistance. Part of the remaining Jews escaped through hidden underground tunnels, while others made a final stand in the Upper City. This defence halted the Roman advance as they had to construct siege towers to assail the remaining Jews. The city was completely under Roman control by September 7 and the Romans continued to hunt down the Jews that had fled the city Toward Africa in order to hide among the other Dark skin people.
Igbo/Heebo, and Negro
There are several theories concerning the etymology of the word “Igbo” (wrongly spelled “Ibo” by British colonialists). Eighteenth-century texts had the word as “Heebo” or “Eboe,” which was thought to be a corruption of “Hebrew.” “Igbo” is commonly presumed to mean “the people.” The root -bo is judged to be of Sudanic origin; some scholars think that the word is derived from the verb gboo and therefore has connotations of “to protect,” “to shelter,” or “to prevent”—hence the notion of a protected people or a community of peace. According to other theorists, it may also be traced to the Igala, among whom onigbo is the word for “slave,” oni meaning “people.” This is very interesting , as all slave bill of sale will never call the slaves African, but Negro or heebo
I dont agree with some of this guys understanding but, never the less he has a lot if understanding and good knowledge.