To Kemet the possibility that Charlotte was descended from an 18th century mulatto is not sufficient to claim that she was Possibility does not equate with probability and the claim that she had black ancestry regards a 13th century ancestor as has been repeated throughout this section Telling people to get over it doesn t encourage them to do so and an assumption as you put it is exactly what your hypothesis is i e not a proven fact If Charlotte had a black ancestor then she had a black ancestor and she did as all humans on the planet do and this doesn t change the fact that Charlotte was white despite the alleged African who was probably a Moor i e not black if she really is the ancestor of Charlotte The denial that Charlotte was black is not based on the notion that Europeans are purely white but on the assertion that the claim that she was descended from a 13th century African mistress is dubious and that even if this notion were true and that this woman was black that Charlotte still couldn t be called black because none of her recent ancestors or close relatives were Why is the challenge to nonsensical Afrocentric history a shame The true shame is that some black scholars have to define themselves based on other people s history and what is so angering about your argument and similar ones is that they accuse Europeans always and everywhere of being racists whose sense of self teeters on the delicate and dubious claim that they are pure and superior To Stan no pope or Roman emperor was black as this would be quite significant and not easily missed or forgotten or covered up the last possibility being strongly discredited by the fact that the partial black ancestry of such notables as Alexander Pushkin George Bridgetower and Joseph Boulogne have not been covered up There were African popes and emperors but they were non black Africans from the north North Africans are racially identical to West Asians The history of blacks in Europe is minor and is exaggerated by some scholars