posted 18 February 2005 09:40 PM            

Archive index | Homepage

Vol. 13, No. 1 January 2002

C O N T E N T S

Who is White?
Multicultural Hell Comes to America
A Libertarian for Our Side
Whites As Kulaks
0 Tempora, 0 Mores!
Letters from Readers

C O V E R S T O R Y

Who is White?
The U.S. census and the changing definition of race.

by H.A. Scott Trask

veryone has by now seen the pictures of the September 11 terrorists. They were all swarthy, black-haired Middle Eastern-looking men in their 20s and 30s. Despite this, the FAA refuses to single out such people at airports for special scrutiny. In a letter published in the Wall Street Journal on October 31, 2001, an irate reader asked why airport security guards had hand-searched the purse and carry-on bag of his friend, a 45-year-old white woman. If the FAA would only study the FBI photos of the terrorists, he wrote, they would see “there are no Girl Scouts, no grandmothers, indeed no women. Nor are there any black American men, Hispanic American men, or white American men. They are all obviously Middle Eastern young men.”

Famous white men...
This writer makes the mistake of assuming that what is obvious to the average citizen is obvious to the U.S. government. Evidently, he is unaware that his government officially classifies all Middle Eastern people (Arabic, Turkic, Iranian, or Afghan) as white. In other words, according to our government, the terrorists were the same racial and ethnic stock as European Americans. This is part of a government policy of defining whiteness in a way that inflates the number of whites in America and obscures the extent of demographic change.

Many of the criteria by which the U.S. Bureau of the Census defined race for the 2000 census are confusing and suspect. Question 6 on the census form—directed to the census taker rather than the person being counted—asks: “What is this person’s race? Mark one or more races to indicate what this person considers himself/herself to be.” The census taker does not draw his own conclusions but instead records what he is told.

...according to the
Census bureau.
There is a box for White, one for Black, one for American Indian or Alaska Native, six boxes for various kinds of Asians (Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese), plus a box for “Other Asian,” which requires a written entry. There are three boxes for Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders (Native Hawaiian, Guamanian or Chamorro, Samoan) and one box for “Other Pacific Islander,” which also requires a written entry. The bureau classifies all who checked one of the four Pacific Islander boxes as “Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander,” and all who checked any of the seven Asian boxes as “Asian.” For the latest census, the bureau created a seventh category for people who chose more than one box: “Two or More Races.” The bureau then put every resident into one of the seven categories, as shown in the table on this page.

These categories raise many questions. For example, why do Pacific Islanders—just 0.1 percent of the population—get their own racial category rather than be grouped with other Asians? Why are Indians from India grouped with East Asians when they are obviously a different racial type from Chinese and Japanese? The most obvious question is: Where are the Hispanics?

Part of the answer to the last question is that 14.9 million of them are “Some Other Race” (fully 97 percent of that category). According to the government, “Hispanics may be of any race,” and “race and Hispanic origin [are] two separate and distinct concepts.” Therefore, question 5 on the census form asks, “Is this person Spanish/Hispanic/Latino?” The answer can be either yes or no. Anyone who says yes is asked whether he is Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or “Other Hispanic.” Hispanics can then choose their own race, with the results in the table on this page. The ones who end up in the “Some Other Race” category are those who do not consider themselves white, black, Indian or Asian. They might have written in “Cuban” or “Mexican,” but the census bureau cannot, on that basis, call them white, brown or black, so they are “other.”

United States Population, Year 2000
Race Number Percent
“White” 211.4 million 75.1
Black 34.6 million 12.3
Indian and Alaskan 2.4 million 0.9
Asian 10.2 million 3.6
Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 0.4 million 0.1

Some Other Race 15.3 million 5.5
Two or More Races 6.8 million 2.4
Total Population 281.4 million 100

Note that almost half of all American Hispanics say they are white. While some—those of pure Spanish descent or South Americans of German or Italian stock—are undoubtedly white, are we to believe that half of all Hispanics living here are white? No one who has lived in or visited an area in which there are many Hispanics can believe that.

Why did so many make this choice? Partly, it is because the Census Bureau doesn’t offer realistic choices. A Mexican peasant is not likely to think of himself as black, Asian or American Indian (although many really are more Amerindian than anything else). At the same time, centuries of interracial mixing in Latin America plus the continuing prestige of whiteness (despite much anti-white propaganda) has led to a very broad definition of whiteness in Hispanic culture. These 2000 census results are remarkably similar to those of the 1996 Brazilian census, which reported that 52 percent of Brazilians think they are white.1

Although many Hispanics are Mestizo mixtures, only six percent say they are “two or more races.” Only two percent say they are black. Clearly, just as in Brazil, many Hispanics put themselves in the desirable “white” category, but since the bureau says “Hispanic” is not a racial category, they can do this without compromising their legally privileged standing in American law.

Race of Hispanics

Numbers Percent of Hispanics Percent of U.S.

All Hispanics 35.3 million 100 12.5
White Hispanics 16.9 million 47.9 6
Black Hispanic 0.7 million 2 0.3
American Indian 0.4 million 1.2 0.1
Asian Hispanic 0.1 million 0.3 -
Pacific Island 0.04 million 0.1 -
Some Other Race 14.9 million 42.2 5.3
Two or More Races 2.2 million 6.3 0.8

The census bureau takes the equally implausible view that the brown peoples of North Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia are all white, too. It says the white category is for “people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicated their race or races as ‘White’ or wrote in entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish” (italics mine). The government also considers people of Turkic, Iranian, and Afghan origin to be white. Pakistanis, on the other hand, are Asian. Thus, according to the U.S. government the frontiers of the white world extend up to Pakistan and black Africa.

As it does with Hispanics, the census bureau lets Middle Easterners choose their own race from among the four options of White, Black, “Some Other Race,” or a combination of these three. If they choose the white box, the bureau calls them white, no questions asked. If they choose the black box, the bureau calls them black. On the other hand, if a Middle Easterner chooses “Some Other Race” (which requires a written entry to explain what the race is) either by itself or in combination with White or Black, the bureau calls that person white. In other words, if an Egyptian checks Black and “Some Other Race” (writing in Egyptian), he is white. If an Iranian checks White and “some other race” (writing in Iranian or Persian), he is also white. If any Middle Easterner, North African, or Southwest Asian checks only “Some Other Race” (writing in his nationality) he is called white. A Middle-Easterner, say an Iranian, could call himself “Other Asian” and write in “Iranian;” the census bureau would still say he was white.

Don't worry . . . they're all white.
Thus, despite the census bureau’s claim that race is a matter of “self-identification,” it calls a lot of brown people white, even though they clearly think they are not. And given that the census bureau took the trouble to distinguish between Guamanians and Samoans, and break down the Asian category into various groups, why didn’t it establish a category for Middle Eastern peoples?

Calling brown people white is so absurd that even journalists, not known for questioning government statistics, have wondered about it. The census bureau has so far offered no plausible explanation. In the early 1990s, at least one Arab organization formally proposed that the government establish a separate racial category for Middle Easterners and North Africans, but nothing happened.2 Jorge Del Pinal of the census bureau recently explained that the bureau “couldn’t get a handle on it.” He said the racial, religious, and language diversity of the area is so great the bureau gave up and decided to call everyone white.3

posted 18 February 2005 11:05 PM            

I do agree that people from mixed areas like Northern Africa should have a seperate box. They once even classified Dominicans as whites.

Most of the Puerto Ricans in NYC are definately not white. Most are mullato looking and some are even black.

posted 18 February 2005 11:57 PM            

There are a lot liberal, who claim to be friends of minorities, yet they're just as racist as some of the more conservative ones.

Anyway, the article is good, because it highlights the need to establish a new category for people from the Middle East and North Africa, but the problem might stem from the fact that some people from these areas are actually white or caucasian looking and may object to such a category.

The complexity of the issue is more than just skin deep, because most people of North Africa and South West Asia are quite varied, but nevertheless, do share a lot of things in common, such as religions, languages, and cultures.

You can say that some people are definitely white, others are definitely black, but the majority according to my estimate would fall somewhere in-between the two groups. The only problem, is that very few people from the area would claim to be black, this is the case for Hispanics as well, but for different reasons.

Personally, I have no problem with the system, the way it is now, but I would add an extra category for people from this region, so that we can get an idea of how many people are originally from the area.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
You realize that American Reinassance is a racist publication? The magazine appears to be an innocent conservative magazine but in reality it's sophistcated racism profaganda.

I do agree that people from mixed areas like Northern Africa should have a seperate box. They once even classified Dominicans as whites.

Most of the Puerto Ricans in NYC are definately not white. Most are mullato looking and some are even black.

---

posted 19 February 2005 12:19 AM            

Are you going to label the darker Israelies as one race and the lighter more European ones another race?

This would be quite illogical, but some people would not mind having divisions within their own ethnic group of people.

Personally, I think all the Egyptians are one race, because they have been mating with each other for thousands of years. The only people in Egypt who are quite different from the rest of the native Egyptians, would be the Nubians and Nomadic Arabs of the deserts, because they tend not to marry outside of their own racial group.

Also, the European groups in Egypt today, such as the Greeks and Armenians, do not marry outside of their group as well.

Just my take on the subject for now!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by multisphinx:
I think egyptians, should especially be granted the right to be able to choose thier race as hispanics. Because of its diversity like brazil, cuba, etc... egyptians, can choose what they want to be classified as. They should nt just be lumpt in one group. Because as a classification with north africa would not work since most of those countries are not as diverse as egypt. for exp. algeria and tunisia they have so much from eurpean decent that they moslty are white even though the berber are not they are a minority compared to the algerians tunisia. Morrocco is somwhat simular to Egypt in its diversity but not so much. Libya has such a small population, 6 million in all of libya and 3 million of those are sudani refugee.

---

posted 19 February 2005 12:46 AM            

quote:

---

I think you could say that Egypt is not necessarily an exception, because most Arab countries are in the same situation. Palestine, is a good example of having a variety of people and also Israel for that matter.

---

Palestineans are more of a mixture than most people think. There are also black Palestineans living in Gaza,Jerico,and other areas that get glossed over.

You also have gypsies that live amongst the Palestineans that nobody mentions.

quote:

---

Are you going to label the darker Israelies as one race and the lighter more European ones another race?

---

Israeli Arabs have mixture with Africans. Sephardic Jews are mixed with Berbers and Southern Europeans. Askneazi are Russians. Falasha Jews are blacks. Inconclusion I would label all these groups as different races.

quote:

---

Personally, I think all the Egyptians are one race, because they have been mating with each other for thousands of years. The only people in Egypt who are quite different from the rest of the native Egyptians, would be the Nubians and Nomadic Arabs of the deserts, because they tend not to marry outside of their own racial group.

---

This is simply not true. Maybe in northern parts of Egypt this is true,but Egyptians are quite diverse in phenotype from North to South. Upper Egyptians don't look anything like elite Cairene Egyptians or Alexandrians. That is because Sa3eadi and Fellahin have intermixed within their own group often intermarrying their cousins.

Egyptians living in the cities have intermingled with Syrians,Armenians,Greeks,and Arabs.

Northern and Southern Egyptians have probably always been distinct from each other ethnically and culturally.

quote:

---

Also, the European groups in Egypt today, such as the Greeks and Armenians, do not marry outside of their group as well.

---

The Turkish people in Northern Egypt intermingle with the Muslim Egyptians. Greeks,Armenians,and Italians intermarry with Coptic Egyptians. Matter of fact I have a personal Coptic friend who is half Tuscan Italian.

Conclusion:

Sa3eadi living in Middle and Upper Egypt are purer than Northern Bahary Egyptians.

Bahary have intermingled with other races and lost the phenotype of the ancient Egyptians.

posted 19 February 2005 02:06 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:

Personally, I think all the Egyptians are one race, because they have been mating with each other for thousands of years. The only people in Egypt who are quite different from the rest of the native Egyptians, would be the Nubians and Nomadic Arabs of the deserts, because they tend not to marry outside of their own racial group.

Also, the European groups in Egypt today, such as the Greeks and Armenians, do not marry outside of their group as well.

Just my take on the subject for now!!

[This message has been edited by ABAZA (edited 19 February 2005).]

---

I tottally disagree, first of all this true for most of the balady ppl, would say in major cities in the delta. I would say every city is diverse from the other because every city has its history of mixture of whom came in and settled. For exp alex is more european decent, i have noticed from many alexandrians i met look really medd. Ciaro i say is a huge melting pot right now because many ppl from around egypt are gatherin to the main capital. but also remember even though these ppl move in does not mean they will automatically mix with the elite whom are more foriegn decent and dont really mix with anyone of low status. Marrige now days in egypt is almost similar to the caste sytem in eygpt, marry within your own caste, rich merry the rich poor merry the poor. Even though mixture is happining this does not make a race simalar it actaully bring out more divercity to egypt. Egyptians today are so diverse they can look dominican, european, indian, east african, medd., middle eastern, mexican,etc... i mean here is website of glimse of egyptians from all over egypt mostly rural areas of cities all over egypt.
http://www.highculture.8m.com/modernEgypt.htm

posted 19 February 2005 02:12 AM            

In other words, if you choose to call yourself, other and then describe yourself as Egyptain, you're automatically considered white. If you choose to label yourself as Black and Egyptain as a second category, you're still considered white.

The only way your choice would not be changed, if you choose a single category of either white or black only, without any qualifiers. In this case, they would not ask you for any more details and your choice would be left as is.

I think this is how the system works for Hispanics as well, but I could be off a little on this part.

quote:

---

Originally posted by multisphinx:
I think egyptians, should especially be granted the right to be able to choose thier race as hispanics. Because of its diversity like brazil, cuba, etc... egyptians, can choose what they want to be classified as. They should nt just be lumpt in one group. Because as a classification with north africa would not work since most of those countries are not as diverse as egypt. for exp. algeria and tunisia they have so much from eurpean decent that they moslty are white even though the berber are not they are a minority compared to the algerians tunisia. Morrocco is somwhat simular to Egypt in its diversity but not so much. Libya has such a small population, 6 million in all of libya and 3 million of those are sudani refugee.

---

posted 19 February 2005 02:25 AM            

Even the ancient Greeks, were not entirely White People, but many were tanned.

Egypt has almost the same variety of people as most of the other North African and Middle Eastern countries. I would agree that some countries like Libya and Saudi Arabia, have a higher percentage of Black or very dark people than Egypt.

------------------------------------------------------quote
The thing bout egypt that makes it different from rest of North Africa is that its original ppl were of black race, the middle east original ppl were white and from the slave trade recieved many Africans that changed its phenotypes of many of its ppl to bring divercity within it too.

IP: Logged

posted 19 February 2005 02:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
The original people of North Africa and the Middle East, WERE NOT WHITE AT ALL. You're wrong on this point. The people all over North Africa and the Middle East were and continue to be mostly Brown in color, with lots of variations in between.

Even the ancient Greeks, were not entirely White People, but many were tanned.

Egypt has almost the same variety of people as most of the other North African and Middle Eastern countries. I would agree that some countries like Libya and Saudi Arabia, have a higher percentage of Black or very dark people than Egypt.

---

posted 19 February 2005 02:43 AM            

Anyway, this thread is not about AE, but rather about all the people of North Africa and the Middle East and how the U.S. Census Bureau looks at them racially.

The question is how many Egyptians that you know, would classify themselves as Black?

posted 19 February 2005 02:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:

I think this is how the system works for Hispanics as well, but I could be off a little on this part.

[This message has been edited by ABAZA (edited 19 February 2005).]

---

If you read the whole aritcle it will tell you how hispanics classify themselves, it says that thier is first a box whre it ask if they are hispanics, latino, etc.. then they choose the race they feel best fits them black, asian, white etc...

"According to the government, “Hispanics may be of any race,” and “race and Hispanic origin [are] two separate and distinct concepts.” Therefore, question 5 on the census form asks, “Is this person Spanish/Hispanic/Latino?” The answer can be either yes or no. Anyone who says yes is asked whether he is Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or “Other Hispanic.” Hispanics can then choose their own race, with the results in the table on this page. The ones who end up in the “Some Other Race” category are those who do not consider themselves white, black, Indian or Asian. They might have written in “Cuban” or “Mexican,” but the census bureau cannot, on that basis, call them white, brown or black, so they are “other.”"

look how nicely they get it. that what we need too, hispanics or no differ from egyptians when it comes to diversity. Egyptians here need to fight for this and bother the gov. about it. this is not a small issue as u think of it, it is big, why would a brown, black, mixed, whateva be classified white.

posted 19 February 2005 03:14 AM            

read this:

Race, Nationality and Reality:
INS Administration of Racial Provisions in U.S. Immigration and Nationality Law Since 1898
By Marian L. Smith

"The history of "race" in relation to immigration and nationality law is but one example of the difficulties inherent in writing or administering legislation that employs vague concepts about which the nation is either confused, conflicted, or for which Americans do not have a concrete, constant definition."

"INS changes to the classification of race and administration of racial provisions in immigration and nationality law reflected changes in American thinking or "common understanding." "

"The cases of Majid Ramsay Sharif (Shariph) and Noshad Khan are illustrative.45

Sharif, an Arab, applied for an immigration visa in 1941 but was denied as an alien racially ineligible to citizenship."

"In both cases, because they were not petitions for naturalization, the questions went not to the courts but to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).46 Administrative law could now determine the question of racial eligibility.
"

"In Sharif's case involving the eligibility of an Arab, the board, like the courts, relied on the Thind decision. Unlike the courts, the BIA was persuaded by a brief for the U.S. government in the Thind case that argued that "whiteness," for lack of a better term, is associated with Western civilization, and Western civilization includes "so much of the Near East as contributed to, and was assimiliable with, the development of Western Civilization of Greece and Rome." "

"Having recalled the cultural link between the ancient and modern western worlds, the board concluded "that it was not intended, either in 1790 at the time of the first enactment of the governing statute or certainly in 1940 at the time of its last enactment, that Arabians be excluded from the group of 'white persons'."47 Unless one is prepared to believe immigration officials were naturally more benign that Supreme Court justices, the Sharif case demonstrates a changed "common understanding" in 1941 from that which persuaded the court in 1923. "

"The case of Mostafa Hefny is a good example. In 1997 in Detroit, Michigan, Egyptian immigrant Hefny filed suit against the US government for classifying him as racially white when he was obviously black. This classification resulted from use of the obsolete Office of Management and Budget Directive #15, "Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting," which classified Egyptians as white. Egyptians had long been considered eligible for naturalization by the courts, and the reader will recall how the Board of Immigration Appeals' 1941 reconsideration of the Thind decision in the Sharif case declared natives of the cradles of Western Civilization to be "white persons.""

Emphasis is mine.

Sources: http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/summer_2002_immigration_law_1.html http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/summer_2002_immigration_law_2.html http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/summer_2002_immigration_law_3.html
Back to top
[View user's profile] [Send private message]

+++ The Following shows how absurd the immigration classification system of Egyptians immigrating to America. This is the historical reasons why me and many other Egyptians migrating to America were classified as

''white''.

What box does she check?

What box does he check?

posted 19 February 2005 03:26 AM            

Eventhough, most people know that the actual percentage of white hispanics is probably lower!!

The thing is that in many of these Latin American nations, they define being white, as having any white or european blood whatsoever, no matter how little it is.

BTW, those that check the Other category as usually put into the White category, unless they actually look Black to an examiner (If done in person).

Race of Hispanics

Numbers Percent of Hispanics Percent of U.S.

All Hispanics 35.3 million 100 12.5
White Hispanics 16.9 million 47.9 6
Black Hispanic 0.7 million 2 0.3
American Indian 0.4 million 1.2 0.1
Asian Hispanic 0.1 million 0.3 -
Pacific Island 0.04 million 0.1 -
Some Other Race 14.9 million 42.2 5.3
Two or More Races 2.2 million 6.3 0.8

posted 19 February 2005 03:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
What the Hispanic totals show, is that very few of them call themselves Black or Indian.
The majority call themselves White. about 50%, with the rest as Other or Multi-Racial.

Eventhough, most people know that the actual percentage of white hispanics is probably lower!!

The thing is that in many of these Latin American nations, they define being white, as having any white or european blood whatsoever, no matter how little it is.

BTW, those that check the Other category as usually put into the White category, unless they actually look Black to an examiner (If done in person).

[b]

Race of Hispanics

Numbers Percent of Hispanics Percent of U.S.

All Hispanics 35.3 million 100 12.5
White Hispanics 16.9 million 47.9 6
Black Hispanic 0.7 million 2 0.3
American Indian 0.4 million 1.2 0.1
Asian Hispanic 0.1 million 0.3 -
Pacific Island 0.04 million 0.1 -
Some Other Race 14.9 million 42.2 5.3
Two or More Races 2.2 million 6.3 0.8

[This message has been edited by ABAZA (edited 19 February 2005).][/B]

---

but white hispanics are not counted in the hispanic group,they are just count as plain whites.

posted 19 February 2005 04:03 AM            

Personally, I would doubt it very much if the lady reporter or the Coptic Egyptian man would describe themselves as Black.

Perhaps, they would say "Other" or "Arab", in which case they would still be assigned as "White" by the Census Bureau.

Please see my previous reply...thanks!!

posted 19 February 2005 04:10 AM            

You're asked to check a box telling them, if you're Hispanic, which is not a racial term.

Then you can select a racial category, such as white, black, asian, indian, etc.

BTW, I believe even people from Spain are considered Hispanic as well, ethnically.

It is more like anyone whose ancestors speak or spoke Spanish....that is all!!

Quote:
but white hispanics are not counted in the hispanic group,they are just count as plain whites.

posted 19 February 2005 04:24 AM            

Maybe Egyptians from Cairo and Alexandria would call themselves ''white'' but not Egyptians south of Cairo. I don't know why you ignore over 30 million people south of Cairo that look no where near white or consider themselves white.

Here is another opinion quite different from Roth's:

Nicole B. Hansen Aug 17 1998, 12:00 am show options
Newsgroups: soc.culture.egyptian
From: nbhan...@midway.uchicago.edu (Nicole B. Hansen) - Find messages by this author
Date: 1998/08/17
Subject: Re: Egyptian were NEVER NEGRO!!
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

On 17 Aug 1998 02:52:19 GMT, agent...@aol.com (Agenthaz) wrote:

>The reason We Egyptians don't argue much about your Afrocentric tendencies is
>because we KNOW for a FACT that MY ancient ansestors were *not* Negro. We may
>be white, olive and brown, but never black. Egypt is for the Egyptians, not
>you. but you're welcome to visit. Lumping my civilization with the Zulu's and
>Kenyans makes NO SENCE. Not only to we look distant from them, we are seperated
>from them geographically. The only Negro or "black" civilization in Egypt is
>NUBIA. EGYPT FOR EGYPTIANS and stop these lies and robbery of our heritage
>and culture for your own purposes!

There are Egyptians today, who if you put them in a lineup next to
some people from other parts of Africa, whom you would not necessarily
be able to say they were from Egypt.

I know many Egyptians who agree
that they themselves look "black."

As much as I disagree whith those
people from other parts of Africa who say that their ancestors were
ancient Egyptians, I find Egyptians such as yourself who deny that
there are people who look "black" in Egypt today, and that there were
no such people in ancient Egypt, offensive as well.

First of all, you
are denying the existence of millions of your fellow citizens
(Saidis), and in the process, you are implying that having black skin
is bad. There are Egyptians today, who at least by skin color, and
yes, sometimes even facial features, look just like other "blacks."
However, what you need to realize is that just because there are
people in Egypt today who look like other "blacks" and that there were
people that looked like that in ancient times, doesn't mean the
similarity of the Egyptian "blacks" to other African "blacks" extends
any further. It is basically skin deep for the most part, as modern
Egyptians share many cultural traits with their ancient ancestors that
other Africans don't share with the ancient Egyptians (of course, the
conversation here has been so simple-minded that no one has discussed
anything but appearance). This, I believe is why many Egyptians are
so averse to being called "black" in America. Some of them clearly
are not "black", but others realize the similarity is skin deep and
don't feel they share any cultural or historical background in common
with other "African-Americans" many of whom came to this country as
slaves from W. Africa, and who suffer from discrimination. These
Egyptians don't want to suffer the same discrimination by identifying
themselves with this group, or as seems to be the case with many of
the Egyptians posting here, have bought into the racist belief that
being "black" is a bad thing. The fact is, in spite of your denial,
that Egyptians were depicted in ancient times as being white to
"black" just as there are white to "black" Egyptians today. Any
Egyptian who denies this fact is just making it much more difficult
for himself to defend himself against Afrocentric people. Ya
masriyyin, its a simple matter to show that the Egyptians today are
the descendents of the ancient Egyptians if you just take off the
racist glasses you are wearing and see the colorS of your fellow

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

That kid in the picture has kinky hair.

The women in the picture could pass for black in America if she wanted to.

Stop trying to make mixed people like Egyptians white!

Here is another opinion:

Ihab Aug 22 1998, 12:00 am show options
Newsgroups: soc.culture.egyptian
From: "Ihab" <I...@Prodigy.net> - Find messages by this author
Date: 1998/08/22
Subject: Re: Egyptian were NEVER NEGRO!!
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

Dear Nicole,

I am an Egyptian Copt, who lives in America. Way back when I was applying
for a Social Security Card, I had a problem classifying myself. They had,
White, Black, Hespanic, Asian, and Indian American on the application form.
They did not even have a block for "Others" on the stupid form. So, I did
not know what to mark. I asked the guy in the window, he said I dont have
to mark anything at all because that is an optional question. But, I still
raised a question, what race do I belong to ? As you know, anywhere you go
in the U.S.A. and you have to file an application, they have to pop up that
question !!
Anyway, the guy told me that he will check the manual and get back to me.
He photocopied a page from some kind of a manual or a book of regulations
or whatsoever that says "all north africans are considered white".
I said to myself that is bullshit, because I know better, I aint no friking
white !! I'd rather be a black than being a redneck. As you all your
redneck fellow americans are considering all middle easterns "Sand Nigers"

posted 19 February 2005 04:48 AM            

Afro-Argentina: who knew?
It was only a couple of years ago that I learned that Peru had a black population, when I was exposed to the glorious voice of Susana Baca.

Now thanks to stumbling across Africana.com I learn that Argentina once had a black population as well. They made major contributions to Argentinean culture, including the tango, which is based on West African sources and not simply a Spanish-Italian fusion as I had always mistakenly assumed.

The disappearance of African Argentineans has been considered a demographic mystery, but one writer says there's nothing mysterious about it: it was the result of an overtly genocidal policy in the last half on the 19th century. In other words, Argentina treated its freed slave population much as they (and we norteamericanos) treated indigenous populations at around the same time.

Afro- (U.S. of) Americans, Afro-Cubans, Afro-Brazilians, Afro-Mexicans, Afro-Peruvians, Afro-Argentineans... Surely someone, somewhere has written a readable book that compares and contrasts the African diaspora throughout the Americas.

travel 2002.04.04 link

Comments
Surprise! The Afro-Argentine population is far from dead. There was no genocide -- although many thousands of men were killed in some of the liberation struggles in Chile, Argentina and Uruguay. Today, there are hundreds of thousands of descendants in the province of Buenos Aires, and in the north, admittedly very mixed, but alive and not doing too well.

michael Franklin [afroamerica21 ARROBA yahoo PUNTO com] ? 2002.04.29
Thanks for the good news. I guess "disappearance" is a relative term -- according to the original
article Argentina was once 80% black and is now 97% white. I guess another terminological distinction is between "descendents" of Afro-Argentinians whom the article would number at perhaps a million, and the people who are still considered "black" and Afro-Argentinean themselves, which it puts at a few thousand.

I've never been there myself, and don't claim to know the truth of the matter -- I'm just quoting this one possibly flawed article (and the letter in response which claims there was a genocide).

I'd love to visit Argentina someday, if only to listen to some great ska-rock bands.

Prentiss Riddle [riddle ARROBA io PUNTO com] ? 2002.04.29
Hi,

I have always taken an interest in the culture/history of the Afro Argentines.

I have read three books written about the Afro Argentines which gives you a great insight on the history/culture of the Afro Argentines.

Today there are plenty of Afro Argentines who reside in the other provinces in Argentina.

A lot of folks need to be educated about the Afro Argentines. The Blacks have contributed a lot to the Argentine Culture.

I'm hoping one day in this country and in latin america there will be an exhibition on the Afro Argentine culture.

Listing of three books about the Afro Argentines:
-------------------------------------- http://www.addall.com/New/submitNew.cgi?query=afro+argentines&type=Title&location=10000&state=AK&dispCurr=USD

Articles about Afro Argentines (Most are in Spanish)
-------------------------------------- http://old.clarin.com/diario/2002/08/24/s-03001.htm http://old.clarin.com/diario/2002/08/04/s-03801.htm http://www.pagina12.com.ar/2001/suple/no/01-07/01-07-05/NOTA1.HTM http://www.pagina12.com.ar/2000/00-10/00-10-31/pag18.htm http://www.clubdetango.com.ar/articulos/tang_sangn.htm http://members.tripod.com.ar/nostalgias/history.htm http://www.lafi.org/magazine/articles/tango.html http://www.laguiasemanal.com.ar/2001-01-17/revisionismohistorico.htm http://margotloyola.ucv.cl/evt04/index.html http://rcc0102.rcc.com.ar/todoeshistoria/0004/sumario.htm http://old.clarin.com/diario/2002/07/28/c-01001.htm http://www.culturalenlightenment.com/tango.html http://www.geocities.com/maf140369/historia/coria16.htm

Ed [Latinsoul65 ARROBA hotmail PUNTO com] ? 2002.09.14
I lived in Uruguay for 3 years and there are many blacks there also. There is something that i must say as an observation though. In Latin America (and other parts of the world)you have to realize that racial mixing is very common,and sometimes it is not obvious.
Out of all of the many people that i met in Uruguay at least 20% had black ancestry but it didnt show in their faces they had no black features in their faces sometimes i found out by accident when i was invited to their home and saw that their mother was black or looking at old photos i would clearly see a black grand father or mother etc.

Anonymous [whipo72 cxe hotmail punkto com] ? 2003.07.02
This is a fascinating topic. I'm working on the history, culture, and musical expression of Afro-Puerto Rican Bomba in Puerto Rico and the United States. However, I wish to do further research on Afro-Peruvian, Afro-Bolivian,and Afro-Argentine music. If any of you have information on Afro-Argentine folk and the contributions of the African Diaspora in Argentina to Tango, please let me know. I'm working on a paper for one of my seminars on Afro-Argentine history and music.
E-mail: nashi7@yahoo.com
Nashma Carrera Massari
Michigan State University

Nashma Carrera [nashi7 cxe yahoo punkto com] ? 2004.02.04
Iam chilean and i find it very difficult to understand why so many chileans and argentinians deny an Afro existence in their country.
Oronegro represents afroChileans and is headed by Sonia Salgado, an Afro Chilean herself. Most afro chileans live in the hot north of Chile but you only have to travel throughout the country to notice afro features in the population. of course most chileans will deny this. afro-chile is alive and kicking and any chileans who tell you blacks don't exist in Chile are denying a very colourful and vibrant culture.

marco [guataca3 cxe hotmail punkto com] ? 2004.04.28
You can find some info on afroargetnos in spanish but you coul always translat it.

Ivone Lutango [afroargentinos cxe yahoo punkto com] ? 2004.05.01
Visite www.geocities.com/afroargentinos/ar.html

? 2004.05.01
Visite www.geocities.com/afroargentinos/ar.html

? 2004.05.01
Afro-Argentineans are alive and kicking. Current census indicates about 2 million in size. A key comment I heard from one Argentinean who was white was, in Argentina there aren't any Blacks. When I mentioned the presence of Afro-Argentineans, he stated that of course he knew of them, but they are mixed, not Black. And then it hit me. Many Afro-Argentineans seek recognition as Blacks, and many Argentineans actually do recognize them as a a population, but just don't go by a one drop rule and consider them Black. Just Afro-Argentinean.

Salsassin [Salsassin cxe hotmail punkto com] ? 2004.05.27
I find this website fascinating.
I teach Psychology here at Daytona Beach Community College and I am planning a two year project to study
African diaspora in the Americas.Originally my plan wascto go to Venezuela,Peru and Bolivia but your
comments to visit the other countries.
I would like to enter in personal correspondences before I take off in
2-years.Btw,do you know that the Patron Saint of Peru is St.Martin de Porres-one of the first blacks canonized by Rome?

Michael Sylvester,PhD [michael_sylvester cxe falconmail punkto dbcc punkto edu] ? 2004.06.01
We always want to go back to Africa to find our roots ... I want to go to SouthAmerica....I went to Belize and felt at home ... My Greatx3 mother was not a slave but from a costal Island who came to the USA and was inslaved ... Where do I go first ? I thought about Peru .... Help ...

ken [kennethhollis cxe sbcglobal punkto net] ? 2004.06.15
For all the information on travelling to Argentina is available at this excellent website.

Alex Krol [info cxe allaboutar punkto com] ? 2004.06.25
The world of Tango at your fingertips

Alex Krol [info cxe allaboutar punkto com] ? 2004.06.25
nice work setting up this site. wanted to mention that San Martin is not the patron saint of Peru, but instead, Santa Rosa de Lima is the patron of the country. also, there is thriving Afro-Peruvian community; I've yet to find exact numbers, but the population is probably around 200,000 or so. and those are just the people who self-identify. there are probably millions of Peruvians with a decent amount of African blood in them-as they say in Peru, "El Que No Tiene de Inga, Tiene de Mandinga"

nathan [mirrilees88 cxe aol punkto com] ? 2004.08.12
Thanks for the comment, Nathan. Yes, like many latinophile gringos I thought that the African presence in Latin America was limited to the Caribbean and Brazil. But then in 2000 David Byrne's label Luaka Bop brought out Afro-Peruvian Classics: Soul of Black Peru with music by Susana Baca and others. Slowly it's dawning on us that Africa is part of the cultural mix throughout the Americas.

Prentiss Riddle [riddle cxe io punkto com] ? 2004.08.23
Is there someone how could help me to find some informations about the black population in Bolivia and Paraguay ?

Conny [mobbelconny cxe aol punkto com] ? 2004.09.30
Could you possibly give me some info about Africans in Chile?

William [bigtuff81 cxe hotmail punkto com] ? 2004.11.16
Responding to william's request:
As far as i am aware there have always been blacks in chile,mainly the North in Arica (Azapa, Lluta, Camarones). Visit the OroNegro webpage,it is very educatioanal and reports on today's Afro-chileans. like we mentioned earlier,most chileans deny any presence of blacks in todays Chile and its history but organisations like OroNegro and Lumbanga are changing chileans mentality. Visit Estrella de Arica newspaper and go to Vida Social and u will find photos of todays Chilean blacks.

marco valencia [guataca3 cxe aol punkto co] ? 2005.01.18
I'm researching Afro-Argentines and would like to meet some. If anyone can give me some advice as to how go about doing this, that would be great.

posted 19 February 2005 04:55 AM            

Being Black in America is more of a Cultural thing, than being just a Racial title. You could actually look very light skined and almost White, but because your family is originally Black, you would still be considered Black by society and by the government.

As far as the people from Egypt and the other parts of North Africa and the Middle East, being dark or even Black does not automatically make you an American Black, because you're not part of this Black American Culture. Now, if you wanted to, you could pretend or try to pass yourself as a Black American, but often this does not work, because the U.S. government will object if they discern the truth.

I think as far as Egyptians are concerned, CULTURE IS STRONGER THAN SKIN COLOR OR FACIAL FEATURES.

The closest people to the Egyptians, in terms of Culture would be the other people of the Middle East and the Arab World.

Nowadays, Egyptains have very little in common with Ethiopia or Somal, but seems to have everything in common with Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia.

This is just my observation.
---------------------------------------------
If you had a choice, who would you hang around with, someone from Palestine or someone from Ethiopia??

---------------------------------------------

quote:

posted 19 February 2005 05:08 AM            

quote:

---

I think as far as Egyptians are concerned, CULTURE IS STRONGER THAN SKIN COLOR OR FACIAL FEATURES.

The closest people to the Egyptians, in terms of Culture would be the other people of the Middle East and the Arab World.

Nowadays, Egyptains have very little in common with Ethiopia or Somal, but seems to have everything in common with Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia.

This is just my observation.
---------------------------------------------
If you had a choice, who would you hang around with, someone from Palestine or someone from Ethiopia??

---

This is not exactly true and misleading. You really need to visit Southern Egypt past the urban areas of Cairo. Believe me its like night and day. The rural Egyptians pratice a culture that is very African in general compared to the urban dwellers.

Egyptians have their own distinctive culture that is not Arabic!

1. Zar ritual praticed by rural Egyptians[found in Africa and not in Lebanon,Syria or Saudi Arabia]

2. El Sebou[naming ceremony] found in other parts of Africa including amongst the Nubians.

3. Mulids[annual sufi festivals comemorating saints][exclusively Egyptian not found in Africa,Lebanon,Syria,or Saudi Arabia]

BTW, the modern founder of Egypt did not even speak Arabic. His named was Mohammed Ali. The elite in Egypt up to Nasser never spoke Arabic.

My culture is of the rural Egyptians. My ancestors are Egyptian Fellahin from Aswan. I am not an Arab!!!!

posted 19 February 2005 05:18 AM            

The key point that is quite strong amongst most Egyptains is our Arabic Language and our Islamic or Coptic religion and culture.

I can tell you that most Egyptains know very little about Ethiopia or West Africa, because they see those people as quite distinct and different, but they perceive the other Arabs as more like them, than otherwise.

Nowadays, an Arab is defined as anyone whose Mother Tongue is Arabic....it is not a Racial term.

posted 19 February 2005 05:25 AM            

Most learned Egyptains, would never accept such practices, even if they're from ancient times.

The Islamic faith teaches us, that there are no Saints in Islam. Even the Prophet Mohammed, is not to be worshipped. We worship only God (Allah) and no one else!!

posted 19 February 2005 05:31 AM            

The popular culture in Egypt is very distinct from Arabs.

Plus I don't necessarily but this whole you speak Arabic then you are an Arab. You understand that other people such as Francophone Africans speak French but that does not make them French people.

I am proud of my Baladi/fellahin roots and I will wear them over being an Arab !!!!!!

posted 19 February 2005 05:37 AM            

quote:

---

BTW, both the ZAR ritual and the Mulids are frowned upon by Islam.
Most learned Egyptains, would never accept such practices, even if they're from ancient times.

The Islamic faith teaches us, that there are no Saints in Islam. Even the Prophet Mohammed, is not to be worshipped. We worship only God (Allah) and no one else!!

---

This is a non-sequitir. How about el Sebou and the funerary customs in modern Egypt? Quite distinct from all the above countries you mentioned. Even the belief in jinns is different. How about Shem el-nessim?

posted 19 February 2005 05:43 AM            

To me, it is almost identical to Middle Eastern food, especially from the the Sham (Levant), with a few Turkish and Greeks dishes thrown in.

The only authentic Egyptian food is probably ful-medames, but even the ful is very common in many Arab countries.

posted 19 February 2005 05:50 AM            

The other rituals, are more secular and therefore, they have no affect on Islam.

Also, both Muslims and Copts celebrate these holidays!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
This is a non-sequitir. How about el Sebou and the funerary customs in modern Egypt? Quite distinct from all the above countries you mentioned. Even the belief in jinns is different. How about Shem el-nessim?

---

posted 19 February 2005 06:08 AM            

quote:

---

How would you describe Egyptian food?
To me, it is almost identical to Middle Eastern food, especially from the the Sham (Levant), with a few Turkish and Greeks dishes thrown in.

---

I would say most food in Egypt is probably Turkish or Greek origin. Falafel probably originated in modern Egypt.

quote:

---

he only authentic Egyptian food is probably ful-medames, but even the ful is very common in many Arab countries.

---

True, but the Lebanese and Palestineans have their own variation of this food. I have not really studied the gastonomy of ancient Egypt to determine if it has an ancient Egyptian origin. I believe the word Ful Medames is a Coptic word for buried. Fava beans came rather late to Egypt.

What you might not know there is a specific Egyptian food that is like caviare still eaten by some Egyptians.

quote:

---

First, the Jinns are mentioned in the Quran and they're part of Islam.
The other rituals, are more secular and therefore, they have no affect on Islam.

---

You really should read carefully what I said. I said the rural Egyptian's belief in jinns is different from around the Islamic world. Rural Egyptians associate jinns with dead ancestors or ghosts. Also called an Afarit.

Also the rural Egyptians believe that every person is born with a ankht/akh sister or brother and a qarin/qarina. The Qarin/qaraina is like an replica of the person and this is born with each individual.

The Qarin/Qarineh mirrors everything of the earthly person.

Not to mention the calender used by rural Egyptians is like that of the ancient Egyptians.

quote:

---

Also, both Muslims and Copts celebrate these holidays!!

---

Which means that Egyptians are not culturally Arab!!

I hope you are not saying because Egyptians follow sunni islam that they are Arabs. Most Muslims on this planet are non-Arabs like the Malaysians in Indonesia.

Arab nationalism is futile and has failed Egypt.

posted 19 February 2005 09:15 AM            

=============================================
Submitted by Aeromed2004 on October 5, 2004 - 21:58.
Themes > Science > Life Sciences > Human Races > The Races of Man

Dr. D.R.Johnson
The fact that cultures evolve in different places and at different rates tends to segregate man into distinct groups. The presence of distinct groups tends to lead to genetic divergence.

These two facts are both plausible, but the second does not necessarily follow from the first. A group of animals that cannot, or normally does not breed with another group to produce fertile offspring is a species. Often we have to infer this with fossils, until better evidence comes along. Yet we have seen gradual transitions between say habilis and erectus, and who is to say that Neanderthals didn't breed with sapiens to produce those troublesome intermediate types? As far as we know all groups of modern man have always been able to interbreed, and have interbred where this is Geographically feasible. Overlap has produced hybridisation - there are no pure races of man.

But there are still major groupings of interrelated people possessing distinctive physical traits which are the result of inheritance. If I say to you Negro, or Chinaman, or Aborigine, or Amerindian a picture appears of distinct facial and body type. General anatomical relationships indicate common ancestry. In 1961 this table was published in Teach Yourself Anthropology

At present our view of these racial groupings is a snapshot: a snapshot taken a hundred years ago and one taken in a hundred years time would be very different. Races are changing, and always have. They are probably changing now faster than ever before.

We have seen that what would probably nowadays be called racial differences were present between different forms of habilis, of erectus and the early sapiens types: so it is not surprising that they are present today. But these differences within populations make it difficult to trace exactly where modern man came from and when.

Molecular data, such as blood grouping, DNA analysis and linguistic studies all point to an African origin for man, as indeed does the fossil record. However the timing and pattern of the subsequent spread are as controversial as ever. Also molecular and morphological traits are not necessarily coupled: a tool which gives a 99% likeness between man and chimp is obviously not a good discriminator, and the molecular data may well be recording the earlier spread of H erectus early sapiens out of Africa rather than the radiation of modern man. DNA data relies on the rate of mutation of its bases: if DNA evolution is constant then the differentiation of modern populations must have been >0.25 - 0.75 mya - i.e. in the erectus phase. If DNA evolution is not constant we can't use it as a tool.

There are also problems with the data. The original 'out of Africa' hypothesis was based upon phylogenetic trees which in turn reflected the DNA structure of population from all over the world. A shortest possible tree was constructed to relate all these samples to each other. Subsequent re-analysis has shown at least 10,000 other possible trees with 5 less steps than the original - some not based on Africa. So there are two more problems: the shortest tree isn't and there are another 10,000 choices, all as good as each other. Also the preferred trees do not reflect similarities in morphological traits.

So, we don't have a detailed pedigree of where we came from, and we know that races are changing. But how do we account for the sets of characteristics which define a Chinese or a Red Indian? As Biologists we can sort out some likely causes:

Mutation. Changes occur in the structure of the genetic material
Natural selection. Such changes may have survival value
Genetic drift: if a breakaway group has some genetic characters unlike those of a main population, then after a time divergence may occur
Population mixture will bring in different genes.
What do we choose as racial characteristics? Taking Teach Yourself Anthropology as a guide we can say usually things that are biologically trivial, and usually things that are very visible.
Skin Colour
Probably the most visible characteristic is skin colour. Historically long standing division into white, yellow and black. This is probably due originally to mutation: the classic story says that a darker pigment will give more protection against the sun. Probably more likely, if we believe an out of Africa scenario is that mutation giving a less pigmented skin allowed greater synthesis of vitamin D from the rather reduced sunshine of northern areas. Anyway, there was presumably a selective advantage. Skin colour is therefore a good racial classifier, highly visible, not terribly accurate (some Caucasoid races are darker than some Negroids and there is a huge range of variation).

Eye colour
All non-Caucasoid populations have a dark brown or a black iris: Caucasoids have a range from light blue to brown. Many Asiatics have an epicanthic fold over the inner cornea of the eye which gives there appearance of a slant

Hair colour and texture
Hair is dark and woolly in Negroids, straighter and lighter coloured in most Caucasoids, black and flat in cross section in Chinese.

Other indices
Cephalic index has also been used i.e. relative broadness of the head. This is not really useful because of inter-group variability. Stature, nose shape, lips, ears and body hair have also been used. Blood groups are useful - Caucasians and Asiatics have a very similar distribution, American Indians are largely O

Overlaps
Of course these are generalisations and there is much variation: Swedes are tall, fair haired and blue eyed aren't they? Well 11% of them are according to the Swedish army recruiting figures.

But even allowing for overlaps and generalisations and mixtures we can classify three broad racial types in the modern world.

Caucasoids. 1,000 million people with variable skin colour; white-dark brown. Hair variable, never woolly, body hair often thick. Lips tend to be thin. Three subdivisions exist, the Nordic, the Mediterranean and the Alpine.

The Nordic group are often tall, blonde and narrow headed - Scandinavia, Baltic, Germany, France, Britain The Mediterranean group (Southern France, Spain, Italy and oddly, Wales Egyptians, Semites, Persians, Afghans and some Indians. Lighter in body build, dark and narrow headed. The Alpine group extends from the Mediterranean to Asia. Broad headed, square jaws, olive skin, brown hair.

Mongoloids Most numerous of the present day populations, split into three groups

The Eastern Siberians, Eskimos and the Northern American Indians
The Japanese, Koreans, Chinese
The Indonesians and Malays
Negroids 100 million from Africa south of the Sahara and Melanesians of the S Pacific.
Others. We also have to fit in somewhere the Central African pigmies, the Bushmen and the Australoids.

Racialism
Noting that there are differences between men from different areas is a very different thing from implying any judgement. Today there is a politically correct view that all men are equal. This is undoubtedly biologically correct too.

But lets go back to our Phoenician merchant travelling a world which varies culturally from his own comfortable and advanced society to the stone age. Let us get into the shoes of a Catholic missionary in South America in the fifteenth century, or a Methodist in nineteenth century Africa. These good people saw a stone age culture around them, believed implicitly in good faith that their version was better and drew the inevitable conclusion that the 'natives' who lived in 'savagery' were indeed savages and must be inferior because they had done nothing about it.

We thus see the beginnings of a feeling that members of other races, handily identified by visible characteristics, were inferior or even subhuman. Once implanted such a belief is difficult to eradicate.

Lets take up this belief at an arbitrary point, before Darwinism (so that we can see what impact the theory of evolution and the descent of man, and the introduction of quantitative science made) and in an arbitrary place, America (because there were two 'inferior' racial groups there, the Indians and the Blacks).

In America at this time the general view was Indians below whites and blacks below everyone else. This was part of a general view of white supremacy Perhaps the truth was unintentionally amended to make the point (the chimp skull has too large a braincase, the Negro a much extended jaw) but the picture was clear). Hard liners said that Blacks were inferior and their biological status justified enslavement: soft liners (such as Jefferson ) said that Blacks were inferior but that was not sufficient reason to enslave them. Soft liners differed in their views - some said that proper education would improve the Blacks, others that the ineptitude was inbuilt. The most liberal thinkers had an attitude which would today embarrass all of us.

And while we are clearing America of woods and so making this side of our globe reflect a brighter light why should we.. darken its people? Why increase the sons of Africa by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawneys, of increasing the lovely whites and red?' That was Benjamin Franklin: at least he was pro-Indian.

Thomas Jefferson, another American hero:
'I advance it, therefore, as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race or made distinct by time and circumstance, are inferior to the whites in the endowment of both body and of mind'.

Abraham Lincoln:
'There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favour of having the superior position assigned to the white race'

All leading scientists followed these views. Linnaeus described Homo sapiens afer as 'ruled by caprice' Homo sapiens europaeus as 'ruled by customs'. Of African women he wrote Femnis sine pudoris: mammae lactanes prolixae - women without shame, breasts lactate profusely. The men, he added, are indolent and anoint themselves with grease. Cuvier, the founder of Geology Palaeontology and comparative Anatomy considered blacks:-
'the most degraded of human races, whose form approaches that of the beast and whose intelligence is nowhere great enough to arrive at regular government'

Charles Darwin, as liberal and abolitionist as any man alive at the time wrote about a future time when the gap between man and apes would be increased by the extinction of intermediates such as the chimpanzee and Hottentot. Man would be isolated by the gap between Caucasian and baboon, not by that between ' Negro or Australian and the gorilla'.

So how do we, as pre Darwinians, explain the inferiority of some races, or the superiority of others? Again there were two views. The first, very Christian suggested a single Adam and Eve who were, before the Fall, perfect. Modern races have degenerated since Eden, but to greater or lesser extents. Climate was seen as the most likely agent. Some argued that change was irreversible, some that remedial action was possible: Stanhope Smith, President of Princeton hoped that American Blacks, in a climate more suited to Caucasian temperaments, would soon turn white.

The harder argument held that human races were separate biological species, descendants of different Adams. Degeneration was the most popular view, not least because scripture was not to be discarded lightly. Moreover inter fertility of races made them more like a single species.

Some people managed to sit quite firmly on fences. Serres, a French medical anatomist wrote:
'Their conclusion is that the Negro is no more a white man than a donkey is a horse or a zebra - a theory put into practice in the United States of America, to the shame of Civilisation'

Yet he managed to hold the view that recapitulation was the answer, and that Blacks were like white children and Mongolians like white adolescents. He had some trouble getting his data to agree with this hypothesis but settled on the distance between navel and penis 'that inefficable sign of embryonic life in man'. This distance is small relative to body height in man, and the navel migrates upward in fetal life, but to a lesser extent in Blacks and more in whites than Asiatics.

David Hume (the Scottish philosopher) took the alternative view, that man was disparate:
'I am apt to suspect the Negroes and in general all the other species of man (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilised nation of any other complexion than white'.

Others were less rational in their criteria. Charles White, an English surgeon , wrote that only in the white man would one find:

'that nobly arched head, containing such a quantity of brain... where that variety of features and fullness of expression, those long, flowing graceful ringlets, that majestic beard those rosy cheeks and coral lips? Where, except on the bosom of the European woman, two such plump and snowy white hemispheres, tipt with vermilion '

Now the first important fact about the polygenic theory is that is was American: it was referred to as the American school of anthropology. It came from a nation practising slavery and at the same time expelling its aboriginal natives from their homelands. The second important fact is that is was, at first, a non-scientific theory. Scientific respectability was added by two great American anthropologists Agassiz and Morton

Agassiz was in fact a Swiss, converted to polygeny after his first encounters with American Blacks. He was also a creationist - but everyone was before 1859. He maintained his beliefs however and remained a leading anti-evolutionist.
In studying animals and plants Agassiz formed a view that there were centres of creation and that organisms didn't generally wander far away. He classified geographical races as separate species, each created at a different centre of origin and exploiting environmental differences. Man was a startling exception.
'Here is revealed anew the superiority of the human genre and its greater independence in nature. Whereas the animals are distinct species in the different zoological provinces to which they appertain, man, despite the diversity of his races, constitutes one and the same species all over the surface of the globe'

But Agassiz had probably never met a Black in Switzerland., or indeed in Europe. When he moved to Philadelphia he was seized by a visceral revulsion and changed his tune. He never produced any data but felt:

'it is impossible for me to repress the feeling that they are not of the same blood as us. ....their black faces with thick lips and grimacing teeth, the wool on their heads, their bent knees, their elongated hands, their large curved nails and especially the livid colour of the palms of their hands'

Strong stuff. Agassiz rationalised the separateness of the Blacks like this. The Christian doctrine of Adam refers, of course, only to Caucasians. The bible does not speak of things not known to the ancients. Negroes and Caucasians are as distinct in Egyptian mummified remains (3,000BC) as they are today. The chronology of the Bible puts creation at 4004BC. Surely if they diverged so much in the first 1,000 years they would have diverged much further since. So, the racial groups, occupying distinct geographical areas (albeit with some migration) are distinct species, created at separate centres of origin.

Allied to separateness, of course, was a pecking order and, of course, the Negroes were at the bottom. Because of this interbreeding must be discouraged., as unnatural and repugnant. The fact that interbreeding occurred was, of course, due to the sexual receptiveness of housemaids and the naiveté of young, white, Southern gentlemen. The servants says Agassiz are halfbeeds already (although how the parents overcame their natural repugnance is not stated) and the young men respond aesthetically to the white half while a degree of blackness loosens the natural inhibitions of the higher race.

All this, remember, and no data. Data was supplied by Moreton, who had a large collection of skulls, over 1,000 by the time he died. Why? because he had a hypothesis that the ranking of the races could be proved by the structure of the brain, as reflected in the skull. He measured the cranial capacity with mustard seed, and later, because that was not totally satisfactory, with lead shot. He produced clean, objective data reinforcing prejudice and putting the white man on top.

The odd thing is that these summary tables are derived from raw data, which he also published, and which said no such thing. There is no reason to suspect Morton as a faker - if so why publish the raw data, but unconsciously data was massaged to fit prejudice. With statistics in its infancy he did not understand the weighting of sub samples to make an average. He was choosy about who was in and who was out: Peruvians (who lowered the Indian mean) were in, Hindus (who lowered the Caucasian) were out. Changing from seed (where results are rather unpredictable) to shot (where results are repeatable) made a difference, but not a consistent one. Using shot instead of seed shifted the black average by 5.4cu in but the Caucasian by only 1.8: the Blacks fared the worst when results could be (unconsciously) biased by packing in more seed. Means were never computed by sex or stature: the Negroids from Egypt contained more (smaller) females, not more stupid blacks.

But craniology was not dead - it was the coming thing.

Information provided by: http://www.leeds.ac.uk

posted 19 February 2005 12:56 PM            

I know is was watching this talk show on BET and they had this woman on there. Now, just looking at her I thought she was white...I knew she was. She had light brown hair(I think...it was a while ago), fair skin and everything. But she said her mother was black. She even said when she told her boyfriend she had a black mother the guy said, "You mean your mother's a nigger?"

EDIT: OH!!! And my Biology 2 teacher...I thought he was white too. By just looking at him he looks white...no black features at all. But he said (explained it in some scientific term)his mother was black. I had a hard time believing him too. He has a picture of his wife (white woman) and their new-born child on his desk. His child look like every other white baby. It's amazing really!

posted 19 February 2005 03:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Abaza, that is because mostly western standards uses Bantus from Central and Western Africa as the stadards for blackness.

Dear Nicole,

I am an Egyptian Copt, who lives in America. Way back when I was applying
for a Social Security Card, I had a problem classifying myself. They had,
White, Black, Hespanic, Asian, and Indian American on the application form.
They did not even have a block for "Others" on the stupid form. So, I did
not know what to mark. I asked the guy in the window, he said I dont have
to mark anything at all because that is an optional question. But, I still
raised a question, what race do I belong to ? As you know, anywhere you go
in the U.S.A. and you have to file an application, they have to pop up that
question !!
Anyway, the guy told me that he will check the manual and get back to me.
He photocopied a page from some kind of a manual or a book of regulations
or whatsoever that says "all north africans are considered white".
I said to myself that is bullshit, because I know better, I aint no friking
white !! I'd rather be a black than being a redneck. As you all your
redneck fellow americans are considering all middle easterns "Sand Nigers"

[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 19 February 2005).]

---

This is sadly the truth. I have arab friends whom are constantly called sand niggers by the same white group that they supposedly categorically belong to.

It is my opinion that the only reason why the white numbers are disguised and exaggerated is to ease the whites fears of the disappearence of their special previdleages. It is also there to maintian the caste systems with the true whites on the top and others on the bottom. This is an ingenious plot as its strives to secure the status quo and ensure that people strive to breed selectively for white european phenotype. At the same time this small minority of true white people will strive for continued domination the world through a disquised unity of the honorary whites while mistreating and oppressing the same people whom they view as wannabes.

posted 20 February 2005 05:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
Actually, White Hispanics are part of the Hispanic total.

You're asked to check a box telling them, if you're Hispanic, which is not a racial term.

Then you can select a racial category, such as white, black, asian, indian, etc.

BTW, I believe even people from Spain are considered Hispanic as well, ethnically.

It is more like anyone whose ancestors speak or spoke Spanish....that is all!!

[b]

Quote:
but white hispanics are not counted in the hispanic group,they are just count as plain whites.

[/B]

---

on american census forms in says check non white hispancic.you have to see the american census more you say what it says.

posted 20 February 2005 05:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
Ausar, I don't think Americans use Bantu or even West African as a basis for labeling African-Americans as Black. Most Blacks in the U.S., are actually about 20% White, or mixed with some other racial group, such as Indians or Hispanics.

Being Black in America is more of a Cultural thing, than being just a Racial title. You could actually look very light skined and almost White, but because your family is originally Black, you would still be considered Black by society and by the government.

As far as the people from Egypt and the other parts of North Africa and the Middle East, being dark or even Black does not automatically make you an American Black, because you're not part of this Black American Culture. Now, if you wanted to, you could pretend or try to pass yourself as a Black American, but often this does not work, because the U.S. government will object if they discern the truth.

I think as far as Egyptians are concerned, CULTURE IS STRONGER THAN SKIN COLOR OR FACIAL FEATURES.

The closest people to the Egyptians, in terms of Culture would be the other people of the Middle East and the Arab World.

Nowadays, Egyptains have very little in common with Ethiopia or Somal, but seems to have everything in common with Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia.

This is just my observation.

---

about 65 to maybe 70% of african americans have some form of white blood,so it could be less than 1% to 50% but out of the 65-to maybe up to 70% the average white gene would be from 5 to maybe 20%
if you include all black americans not just african americans 57 to 58% of blacks in america with some form of white gene.

Most african americans would have around 80 to 85% native american blood,and if you include all blacks it will go down to 72 to 73%
TO WRAP it up,80 to 85% of african americans have some form of mixture and 15% are unmixed,and if you include all black americans that number would go down to 72 to 73% and the rest would be 27 to 28%unmixed blacks.

SO african americans or black americans as awhole are just black,not a mixed population .
many not all as you just read have some form mixture bu that does not make them mixed.mixed in my mind is basically half of something,not some one that have some mixture,black americans on average are not mixed like latinos.most african americans or black americans are still clearly black and clearly black looking on average.

posted 20 February 2005 05:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
Most blacks in America don't consider themselves mixed and you would have a hard time(near impossible) trying to convince them that they are. Though, they do understand the possibilities of some white gene from way-back-when. But that was so long ago it's not even relevant...and the gene itself is pretty much masked. Just like there are some white people in America with black ancestry and would never know about it.

I know is was watching this talk show on BET and they had this woman on there. Now, just looking at her I thought she was white...I knew she was. She had light brown hair(I think...it was a while ago), fair skin and everything. But she said her mother was black. She even said when she told her boyfriend she had a black mother the guy said, "You mean your mother's a nigger?"

EDIT: OH!!! And my Biology 2 teacher...I thought he was white too. By just looking at him he looks white...no black features at all. But he said (explained it in some scientific term)his mother was black. I had a hard time believing him too. He has a picture of his wife (white woman) and their new-born child on his desk. His child look like every other white baby. It's amazing really!

[This message has been edited by King_Scorpion (edited 19 February 2005).]

---

I BASICALLY AGREE.

posted 20 February 2005 11:40 AM            

A POSSIBLE CORRECTIVE:

According to genome specialist Rick Kittles, 30% or so of African American males have signature European Y chromosomes and the female MtDNA of European origin affects 5% of African Americans. The Native American contribution to the African American gene pool would be obviously less given that until 1865 the vast majority of blacks lived as captives on plantations. The numbers usually given are that by 1865 approximately 15% of blacks were free persons--either escapees, people who bought their freedom, born free, or were just people who were descended from seamen working on ships that travelled between Africa and the Americas who were always free.

Couple the above with the extensive research by genome specialist Mark Shriver who put the total European contribution to African Americans at 17-18%.

Combining the above research findings with the sociology of the U.S. until 1865 then 1965 leads to the conclusion that approximately 30% of African Amercians have any non-African ancestry. In other words 70% of African
Americans have only ancestors from Africa--West Africa(including Congo and Angola) predominantly.

A google search on Kittles and Shriver could be used to further the dicussion.

We recognise too of course that the gene flow would also go in the opposite directions. According to Shriver at least 10% of whites have at least one African ancestor and the numbers would be higher if one includes Native American ancestry. In many cases of course the whites in q uestion would not know. In fact, this is exactly what happened to Shriver when he tested himself. He was very surprised to discover that he had African and Native American ancestors--even though he looked completely white. Research has also shown that some 20% of recognised Native Americans have European ancestry.

When one moves to Europe and Asia one notes Eastern Europeans have experienced gene flow from the Mongols--following the Mongol invasions--and Southern Europeans have evident recent gene flow from Africa--following the Moorish presence and the fact that there was a substantial West African labour presence in Portugal and Spain just prior to Columbus's fateful(and fatal for many) voyages.

The fact that Europe is a relatively narrow peninsula that is a meeting point for the 2 huge land masses Africa and Asia would explain why Cavalli Sforza claimed that Europeans are the most genetically hybridised of all major population groups.

AFRICAN PRESENCE IN SOUTHERN EUROPE CIRCA 1450 PE

In fact, it was this black labour presence in Portugal and Spain that
prompted Spanish priest Bartoleme de las Casas to recommend Africans as a replacement for the Native Americans who were already enslaved for 100 years by the Spaniards in the territories captured by the Spaniards.

ASIA AND GENE FLOW

posted 20 February 2005 12:16 PM            

It is no great surprise, that the Ancient Egyptians and the Modern Egyptians owe there great heritage to all these people, who came to live and settle in this wonderful place!!

ASIA AND GENE FLOW

The people who live on the borderlands between Asia and Russia, Northern India and Nepal, and West Asia(Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc., the Arabian peninsula) would seem to have traits that are combinations of elements from the 3 continents Africa, Europe, and West Asia in some instances and East Asia and South Asia in other instances(Nepal, for example) The extent of genetic drift or gene exchange would no doubt be determined by genome analysis.

posted 20 February 2005 03:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
For Kenndo

A POSSIBLE CORRECTIVE:

According to genome specialist Rick Kittles, 30% or so of African American males have signature European Y chromosomes and the female MtDNA of European origin affects 5% of African Americans. The Native American contribution to the African American gene pool would be obviously less given that until 1865 the vast majority of blacks lived as captives on plantations. The numbers usually given are that by 1865 approximately 15% of blacks were free persons--either escapees, people who bought their freedom, born free, or were just people who were descended from seamen working on ships that travelled between Africa and the Americas who were always free.

Couple the above with the extensive research by genome specialist Mark Shriver who put the total European contribution to African Americans at 17-18%.

Combining the above research findings with the sociology of the U.S. until 1865 then 1965 leads to the conclusion that approximately 30% of African Amercians have any non-African ancestry. In other words 70% of African
Americans have only ancestors from Africa--West Africa(including Congo and Angola) predominantly.

A google search on Kittles and Shriver could be used to further the dicussion.

We recognise too of course that the gene flow would also go in the opposite directions. According to Shriver at least 10% of whites have at least one African ancestor and the numbers would be higher if one includes Native American ancestry. In many cases of course the whites in q uestion would not know. In fact, this is exactly what happened to Shriver when he tested himself. He was very surprised to discover that he had African and Native American ancestors--even though he looked completely white. Research has also shown that some 20% of recognised Native Americans have European ancestry.

When one moves to Europe and Asia one notes Eastern Europeans have experienced gene flow from the Mongols--following the Mongol invasions--and Southern Europeans have evident recent gene flow from Africa--following the Moorish presence and the fact that there was a substantial West African labour presence in Portugal and Spain just prior to Columbus's fateful(and fatal for many) voyages.

The fact that Europe is a relatively narrow peninsula that is a meeting point for the 2 huge land masses Africa and Asia would explain why Cavalli Sforza claimed that Europeans are the most genetically hybridised of all major population groups.

AFRICAN PRESENCE IN SOUTHERN EUROPE CIRCA 1450 PE

In fact, it was this black labour presence in Portugal and Spain that
prompted Spanish priest Bartoleme de las Casas to recommend Africans as a replacement for the Native Americans who were already enslaved for 100 years by the Spaniards in the territories captured by the Spaniards.

ASIA AND GENE FLOW

The people who live on the borderlands between Asia and Russia, Northern India and Nepal, and West Asia(Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc., the Arabian peninsula) would seem to have traits that are combinations of elements from the 3 continents Africa, Europe, and West Asia in some instances and East Asia and South Asia in other instances(Nepal, for example) The extent of genetic drift or gene exchange would no doubt be determined by genome analysis.

---

so are you saying that up to 30% of african americans have some form of white blood?and not 65%.most folks that i hear say that more african americans (not all)have some indian blood than white,is this seems to be the main stream mindset in america.i aways question that myself as well.
i would like to know than how come in almost in every other form,books or talk show folks
say that most african americans have some form of mixture.are folks making this up?i remember in a another form call brazzil.com folks were talking about all african americans are mixed or have some form of mixture.do you think folks are justing making it up,and is it self hate?
i would not be surprise it was made up.

posted 20 February 2005 05:34 PM            

These are just a few points to consider

1)It's only about 10 years that genome testing has gotten underway so the beliefs that people have/had may not be accurate.

2)Most blacks in the Western Hemisphere and those parts of Africa where the colonialists introduced the idea of racial hierarchies were/are conditioned to distance themselves as much as possible from Africa and African ancestry. In the past Jews did the same to avoid being detected as such in gentile society by 1)name changes to fit the host society and 2)elimination of certain facial traits that were/are associated with Jews.

With blacks the solution was twofold: 1) the genetic solution often done unconsciously: seek to marry or have offspring with non-blacks for aesthetic or prestige reasons. Many blacks who have the opportunity often do so. The statistical data supports this.

2)make the claim that one has some non-African ancestry so as to avoid the stigma of being "all black". European or Native American ancestry of some amount--whether real or imagined--was always the saving grace.

3)Note that one could have relatives who are genetically different from oneself and often that difference rubs off on the individual who may then want to flaunt that connection. Suppose an African travels to Sweden and marries a local Swede and has children there, those children will be cousins of the offspring of siblings who marry in Africa even though there would be evident phenotypical differences. Some of those black cousins may want to stress that connection with Sweden as a way of diluting their black family conections.

That probably explains the assumptions made in the Western hemisphere that virtually all blacks are mixed.

But genome analysis proves otherwise. According to the data approximately 70% or so of all blacks in North America have only African ancestry(there is some overlap with the MtDNA numbers--meaning that within a black family both the Y and MtDNA signatures could be European even though the individuals themselves are indistinguisable from other blacks who have only African signatures).

In the Caribbean, based on studies done by migrants to Britain, the percentage is put at 13% or less. In other words 87% of all migrant blacks to Britain from the Caribbean have only African ancestry. But on the islands themselves the precentages are even much lower.

I mentioned the case of white geneticist Mark Shriver. He is 20% African according to the tests. His mother is still amazed and refuses to believe it. Do a google on Shriver.

[i]The reason why the "mixtures" are much less than people have assumed is that because of segregation and racial taboos blacks in North America and the Caribbean were constrained to marry or have children mainly with each other starting from the arrival in Western hemisphere date[/].

So according to the genomic studies done by Shriver and Rick Kittles only 17%-18% of the genes African Amercians carry--when all are taken together-- are from non-African sources. When broken down it would appear that the 18% clusters in 30% of that population.

But note again that there has been some seepage even in West Africa.Kittles mentions the case of a black Gambian with a European Y signature.

In Africa that "distancing onself from Africa" is at work in places like the Sudan where the Arabic speaking blacks of the North often fabricate fake genealogies that would make them connected genealogically with Arabia or even Mohammed. The name for that practice is "Sherifism". And on account of colonial racist myths the Tutsis, Amhara of Ethiopia and other East Africans have been conditioned to believe that there's prestige in not being all of African ancestry.

But all this is moot because 80% of the genes of Europeans derive from African blacks both prehistorically and in recent history. Only 20% or so is due to mutations or direct genetic transfer as was the case in Southern Europe or anywhere blacks lived in Europe over the last 500 years.

That's the beauty of science--it beats folk beliefs and outright fabrications anytime--when done honestly and correctly.

posted 20 February 2005 06:19 PM            

==============================

In Africa that "distancing onself from Africa" is at work in places like the Sudan where the Arabic speaking blacks of the North often fabricate fake genealogies that would make them connected genealogically with Arabia or even Mohammed. The name for that practice is "Sherifism". And on account of colonial racist myths the Tutsis, Amhara of Ethiopia and other East Africans have been conditioned to believe that there's prestige in not being all of African ancestry.

posted 20 February 2005 06:23 PM            

Also, a lot of Gypsies in Egypt tend to hide to ethnic origin and sometimes claim to be a different ethnic group.

I number of Gypsies in Egypt is estimated to be around one to two million strong.

posted 20 February 2005 06:45 PM            

However, there are actually some people in Egypt like the Ashraf and bedouin tribes in the Delta and Middle Egypt that do have Arab origins. Usually, these people have Arabic sur names that are different from the indigenous fellahin. In the past,however, fellahin from Southern Egypt have often claimed ''Arab'' ancestry just to be boosted up in the ethnic caste system in Upper Egypt.

Bin Laden's right hand man is actually an Arab bedouin that originates in Middle Egypt. His family actually come from one of the gulf arab states. His family were elites also from Maadi.

The modern ethnic composition is way more technical than census forms. The population is also far from homogenous. The Coptics in the northern areas like Alexandria and even Cairo have mixed with Syrians,Armenians and Greeks. The Muslims in northern Egypt have some form of Turkish ancestry. Most will admit this.

Plus even in parts of Middle Egypt you have the ashraf and bedouin tribes. Nasser's family was a Arab bedouin family that came from Hejaz. Most Egyptians don't know Nasser was not a fellahin,but was an straight up Arab.

In northern Sudan you have also people who claim false pedigrees but some are infact Arabic or at least mixed with Arabs. Some Arab groups in Sudan like the Ja'liyin and Baggara are Arabized. Ja'aliyin are Arabized Nubians and Baggara are Arabized Nilotic people.

The same goes with areas like Morocco and Algeria. The arab population in Libya is actually very high because of the Beni Hilal and beni Sulaiym invasion. This occured around the 1100's and drove the Berbers either to the mountains or further south. The tuareg people claim they originate in this region and so do most Berbers in Mauritania.

There are also gypsies in Sudan called Hilabi and they are considered pretty lowly despite their lighter complexion.

Most of the garbage people in Cairo are actually Gypsy Coptics. They are called Zableen.

posted 20 February 2005 07:42 PM            

You might want to link to the following to confirm or dispute what I mentioned re racial admixtures in the Americas and phenotype.

http://www.racesci.org/in_media/african_ancestry.htm

http://www.takeawaymedia.com/motherlandancestrysurvey.htm

posted 20 February 2005 08:07 PM            

what link really say that only 30% of african americans have some admixture?and if this is true 70% of african americans are full blooded or unmixed blacks,and of course it is always told that more african americans(not all) have native american blood than white,but if that is a lie where do you start to correct one of the biggest lies in history.
i am opened minded to this,but so far i do not know.they or you may have a point in saying that little is really known about this but the way most blacks in america act and some other folks they will say that is a lie and most africans americans have up to 85% of some form of mixture and the 85% would be native american(some would say 90%)
and some would say all african americans have some mixture,of course these folks whoever they are would be lieing even the ones who say the are proud blacks.
others would say up to 65 to 70% have some form of white blood,so that would mean only 15% of african americans are unmixed blacks,and up to 27 to 28% of all blacks in america would be unmixed blacks.
i guess you may not change a lot of minds if this is true because there seems to be a interest in keeping up the lies if your post is true and i guess no amount of proof will change this except for folks like me that always question those high numbers here or in certain other states.by the way i always found those high numbers fishy but i had no proof or anyway to contact someone who would say otherwise,but i am still going to be careful to on this one until i read more,but your post does,and may be more on the correct side.i may have to contact some of those guys in your post to explain themselves and make themselves clear before i could really make up my mind,but in the meantime please post here if you can.these guys may have a point and maybe correct.
i will make up my mind after i read more and after i contact them.
this is serious stuff,you know what i mean?