posted
I personally find him to be untruthful and even a fake in most cases.I wanted to get opionion of him.
Runoko Rashidi is a historian, research specialist, writer, world traveler, and public lecturer focusing on the African presence globally and the African foundations of world civilizations. He is particularly drawn to the African presence in Asia, Australia, and the Pacific Islands, and has coordinated historic educational group tours to India, Aboriginal Australia, the Fiji Islands and Southeast Asia as well as Egypt and Brazil.
posted
Rashidi is a cultural historian devoted to the struggle of black peoples worldwide. As such, his writings are intentionally colored to that perspective.
I find him to be truthful and fair. For instance, he will heed criticism and reinvestigate his facts.
Differences of opinion exists among all historians because, paraphrasing Napoleon, "History is nothing but a pack of nationally agreed upon lies."
Eg. Was George Washington a revolutionary hero or a crown traitor, neither, or both?
quote:I personally find him to be untruthful and even a fake in most cases.
Why?
His work is not truthful.He calls Asian related people apart of the 'global African community'.
Dravidians,Aborigines,Melanesians are all genetically more related to Asians than they ever will be to Africans.
Posts: 18 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
I think that Rashidi and Winters simply began with and outdated and poor understanding of anthropology.
In the case of Winters, he committed himself to and ideology-thesis which he then refused to modify even in the face of ever mounting evidence to the contrary.
Eventually though, they will have to modify their thesis or be dismissed by their own core audience.
Science is a progressive, on-going search for truth. You can't keep people believing out of ignorance, and based on oudated information....forever.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think that Rashidi and Winters simply began with and outdated and poor understanding of anthropology.
In the case of Winters, he committed himself to and ideology-thesis which he then refused to modify even in the face of ever mounting evidence to the contrary.
Eventually though, they will have to modify their thesis or be dismissed by their own core audience.
Science is a progressive, on-going search for truth. You can't keep people believing out of ignorance, and based on oudated information....forever.
Its becoming quite obvious. If you look at some tribal South Indians; Aborigines and some Austronesians you'll see that some of their teeth are the largest amongst humans,they have deep set eyes,extensive browridges,blonde hair.
Most of these features can not be found in African populations.Even when Africans reproduce with South Indians these features aren't there.He is not bring people closer,hes taking away other peoples cultures.
African/ South indian mix, browridge not extensive.
Ethiopian.
Simple examples their features are different; Aborigine
Actually all of those features can be found among Africans, even brow ridges, some are more common, some are rare, but you should be careful about making a blanket statement that they are *not* found among Africans.
Even the epicathnic folds of East Asians can be found among Africans.
The above features simply have nothing to do with whether or not one is African.
Africans are the indigenous people of Africa.
Given the African origin of the species - homo sapiens, this is by definition justaposed to the indigenous populations of Eurasia, Australia, the Pacific and the Americas..... these are the non Africans.
Whether you define biology, language or culture...the only coherent meaning of African/not African is based upon the original split of populations.
Any other definition is hypocritical and ultimately incoherent.
Like it or not, Fijians are more closely related to Chinese than they are to any African people, and that is and objective reality of biology...not and subjective opinion or 'interpretive' analysis.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Actually all of those features can be found among Africans, even brow ridges, some are more common, some are rare, but you should be careful about making a blanket statement that they are *not* found among Africans.
Genetika. 2005 Sep;41(9):1272-82
Phenetic analysis in paleoanthropology: phenogeography of peoples of the world
Phenetic diversity of peoples of the world in a system of nonmetric, discrete variable traits has been studied. Sixty-two populations from North, Central, and Southeast Asia, Eastern and Western Europe, America, East Africa, Australia and Melanesia have been examined. The estimates of phenetic diversity within regions (F(st)) and the distances of the regions from the global means (d) proved to be comparable to the corresponding estimates inferred from genetic data. This means that differentiation of populations in discrete variable traits is related to the history of formation of their gene pools. A classification tree of the world peoples constructed using bootstrap implemented in the PHYLIP program package (Felsenstein, 1993) showed that the Australo--Melanesian populations were close to the East African ones but separated from those of the Eurasian region. The results of phylogenetic analysis of the reconstructed phene pools of the regional ancestral populations support the assumptions on the early colonization of Australia and Melanesia and on the later time of divergence of the ancestors of modern Caucasoids and North Asian Mongoloids.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ I don't agree with the above.
Actually all of those features can be found among Africans, even brow ridges, some are more common, some are rare, but you should be careful about making a blanket statement that they are *not* found among Africans.
Even the epicathnic folds of East Asians can be found among Africans.
The above features simply have nothing to do with whether or not one is African.
Africans are the indigenous people of Africa.
Given the African origin of the species - homo sapiens, this is by definition justaposed to the indigenous populations of Eurasia, Australia, the Pacific and the Americas..... these are the non Africans.
Whether you define biology, language or culture...the only coherent meaning of African/not African is based upon the original split of populations.
Any other definition is hypocritical and ultimately incoherent.
Like it or not, Fijians are more closely related to Chinese than they are to any African people, and that is and objective reality of biology...not and subjective opinion or 'interpretive' analysis.
Blonde hair? Brown hair probably but blonde haired Africans are very rare.Extensive Browridges can be found in Africans but it is not a popular feature were as it is typical in Aborigines and other South Asian Australiods. Blonde hair in Australoids is not an un-common feature either.
Posts: 18 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Somewhere in the old ES files there is graph from that study showing the phenetic and genetic relationships, respectively. [maybe Charlie Bass posted it?]
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems to me some of you are hating on both of these men. Both have influenced a whole generation of scholars. Also, tell me about anyone who claims to translate the ancient Kushite script. Only one person comes to mind (Winters). Why don't you do something to influence others?
Posts: 9 | From: elizabeth city | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Actually all of those features can be found among Africans, even brow ridges, some are more common, some are rare, but you should be careful about making a blanket statement that they are *not* found among Africans.
Genetika. 2005 Sep;41(9):1272-82
Phenetic analysis in paleoanthropology: phenogeography of peoples of the world
Phenetic diversity of peoples of the world in a system of nonmetric, discrete variable traits has been studied. Sixty-two populations from North, Central, and Southeast Asia, Eastern and Western Europe, America, East Africa, Australia and Melanesia have been examined. The estimates of phenetic diversity within regions (F(st)) and the distances of the regions from the global means (d) proved to be comparable to the corresponding estimates inferred from genetic data. This means that differentiation of populations in discrete variable traits is related to the history of formation of their gene pools. A classification tree of the world peoples constructed using bootstrap implemented in the PHYLIP program package (Felsenstein, 1993) showed that the Australo--Melanesian populations were close to the East African ones but separated from those of the Eurasian region. The results of phylogenetic analysis of the reconstructed phene pools of the regional ancestral populations support the assumptions on the early colonization of Australia and Melanesia and on the later time of divergence of the ancestors of modern Caucasoids and North Asian Mongoloids.
Y-DNA haplogroup A represents the oldest branching of the human Y chromosome tree. Like Y-DNA haplogroup B, the A lineage is seen only in Africa and is scattered widely, but thinly across the continent. These haplogroups have higher frequencies among hunter-gather groups in Ethiopia and Sudan, and are also seen among click language-speaking populations. Their patchy, widespread distribution may mean that these haplogroups are remnants of ancient lineages that once had a much wider range but have been largely displaced by more recent population events.
The most commonly seen sub-groups of haplogroup A are A2 (A-M6), A3b1 (A-M51), and A3b2 (A-M13). Sub-groups A2 and A3b1 are seen in South Africa, with A3b1 seen exclusively among the Khoisan. The range of A3b2 is restricted to Eastern Africa and at lower frequencies among Cameroonians.
C is found on the Indian subcontinent, Sri Lanka and in parts of SE Asia. The rare C1 lineage appears to be restricted to Japan. C2 is found predominantly in New Guinea, Melanesia, and Polynesia. The successful C3 lineage is believed to have originated in southeast or central Asia, spreading from there into northern Asia and the Americas. C3 is also found in low concentrations in eastern and central Europe, where it may represent evidence of the westward expansion of the Huns in the early middle ages. C4 is found exclusively among aboriginal Australians and is dominant in that population. C5 has a significant presence in India with a single instance known from Pakistan.
Posts: 18 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jahi issa: Seems to me some of you are hating on both of these men. Both have influenced a whole generation of scholars. Also, tell me about anyone who claims to translate the ancient Kushite script. Only one person comes to mind (Winters). Why don't you do something to influence others?
I don't hate anyone. I find Rashidi to be untruthful because his work is not accurate.I'm not influence by him, but that doesn't mean I have something against him.
Posts: 18 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "Uncertainty Principle" in human genetics is just this: A human population may have split apart at some time T-100 years[scaled here] but because the migrating group has migrated into ecologically and climatically similar environments the groups continue to resemble each other phenotypically but show divergent haplogroup activity--becauce of the separation time length.
On the other hand another population may have split apart at some time T-50 years[scaled again] but because the movement was into a climatically and ecologically divergent environment new phenotypes develop through adaptive pressures--but the haplogroups of the 2 groups show much concordance.
Example: I once met someone from New Guinea in an environment where all other individuals were of European physiognomy. We spoke and I admit I was surprised that the individual was from New Guinea. I thoughjt he was from somwehere in Africa or from where African populations have recently established new populations.
And no doubt if such an individual enters a Chinese restaurant I doubt that kinship "vibes" would exchanged at all--even though that individual's haplogroup may be concordant with those of South East Asia.
We bear in mind though that haplogroups are structured by time-determinded reshuffling of the DNA bases A, G, T, and C. That's all. Base reshuffling does not mean phenotype change.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:jahi issa: tell me about anyone who claims to translate the ancient Kushite script. Only one person comes to mind (Winters). Why don't you do something to influence others?
Anyone can claim to have deciphered any given text, but the question is how accurate this translation is? And i don't think Dr winters has recieved credit(outside his fan base)especially by linguists to have deciphered the meoretic writings.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We bear in mind though that haplogroups are structured by time-determinded reshuffling of the DNA bases A, G, T, and C. That's all.
The ability to dicipher the language of genetics, which is the very basis of life and evolution allows you to trace ancestry - which in turn is the basis of geneology. So yeah, that's all.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: And no doubt if such an individual enters a Chinese restaurant I doubt that kinship "vibes" would exchanged at all--even though that individual's haplogroup may be concordant with those of South East Asia.
All that's necessary is to distinguish social phenomena and not attempt to rationalise them in terms of -pseudo- science.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
the fact is that there are East Indians who are DARKER than Africans. Look at South Africa, for instance. Many of the Africans there are not jet-Black skinned. And when the Brits(I heard this information for another person) tried to work the people, they were dying. That is why they brought the Indians to South Africa, cause they could deal with the sun.
You can't tell me that there are East Indians who are not darker or Blacker then many so-called "Black people". If an East Indian is darker than me, then why am I considered Black-skinned and he isn't? That is garabe. The fact is that in the days of Greek civilization, the term India and Ethiopia were pretty much interchangable. East Indians were perceived to be the "Eastern Ethiopians". Check out Herodotus if you don't believe me. We can even name Islamic scholars who called Indians "Black". Therefore, there are Indians who are Black. That being said, it is another thing to say that Indians are Africans..........I'm not DISAGREEING with that, but it can be more controversial to say that an East Indian is Africa. Regardless, V.J. Singh is as Black as most Black Americans(he is acutually darker than many African-Americans). Therefore, he is Black. Heck, the god for Hindus, Krishna, was Black. His name means "Dark one or Black one". Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
And when the Brits(I heard this information for another person) tried to work the people, they were dying. That is why they brought the Indians to South Africa, cause they could deal with the sun.
...and it had nothing to do with the fact that Indians were already [and extensively] experienced workers in railway construction [and other areas, like working on farms/plantations](?), particularly under the British occupation. What source did this individual (another person) proclaim to draw his claim from?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
the fact is that there are East Indians who are DARKER than Africans. Look at South Africa, for instance. Many of the Africans there are not jet-Black skinned. And when the Brits(I heard this information for another person) tried to work the people, they were dying. That is why they brought the Indians to South Africa, cause they could deal with the sun.
You can't tell me that there are East Indians who are not darker or Blacker then many so-called "Black people". If an East Indian is darker than me, then why am I considered Black-skinned and he isn't? That is garabe. The fact is that in the days of Greek civilization, the term India and Ethiopia were pretty much interchangable. East Indians were perceived to be the "Eastern Ethiopians". Check out Herodotus if you don't believe me. We can even name Islamic scholars who called Indians "Black". Therefore, there are Indians who are Black. That being said, it is another thing to say that Indians are Africans..........I'm not DISAGREEING with that, but it can be more controversial to say that an East Indian is Africa. Regardless, V.J. Singh is as Black as most Black Americans(he is acutually darker than many African-Americans). Therefore, he is Black. Heck, the god for Hindus, Krishna, was Black. His name means "Dark one or Black one". Salaam
But thats just skin color, not race. And thats where I think many people including some historians get confused.The two can't be mixed up because if that is the only thing you go by, then many koreans and other mongoloids can be seen as 'white' and/or olive skinned. Ethiopians are not related to Indians even if some share features.Some classification are old and base upon some similar phenotypes between two groups.
quote:Originally posted by Israel: DM, You can't tell me that there are East Indians who are not darker or Blacker then many so-called "Black people". If an East Indian is darker than me, then why am I considered Black-skinned and he isn't? That is garabe. The fact is that in the days of Greek civilization, the term India and Ethiopia were pretty much interchangable. East Indians were perceived to be the "Eastern Ethiopians". Check out Herodotus if you don't believe me. We can even name Islamic scholars who called Indians "Black". Therefore, there are Indians who are Black. That being said, it is another thing to say that Indians are Africans! Regardless, V.J. Singh is as Black as most Black Americans(he is acutually darker than many African-Americans).
True dat! In the UK South Asians are considered 'black' while in USA, they are considered 'white' so go figure! Tatyana father is a Trini of S. Asian Muslim background and mother is Panamian but the fact is when people judge, they do so on phenotype and not on DNA! Vijay for all practical purpose is black when you take away his name association so all thee things go together to create confusion, ignorance or unity, depending on how you view it. Nothing to sweat!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The two can't be mixed up because if that is the only thing you go by, then many koreans and other mongoloids can be seen as 'white' and/or olive skinned. Ethiopians are not related to Indians even if some share features.Some classification are old and base upon some similar phenotypes between two groups.
This is what anthropologist Charles Loring Brace says about the racial classifications of negroid, caucasoid and mongoloid:
Terms such as "Negroid," "Caucasoid," and "Mongoloid" create more problems than they solve. Those very terms reflect a mix of narrow regional, specific ethnic, and descriptive physical components with an assumption that such separate dimensions have some kind of common tie. Biologically, such terms are worse than useless.
The adoption of the biologically indefensible American concept of "race" by an admiring world has to be the ultimate manifestation of political correctness. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One should note too that it is only Africans and their overseas kin that are normally referred to in terms of colour. It would be considered pejorative and even insulting to refer to someone of Chinese ancestry as just "yellow". How does it sound to say "I saw a yellow man crossing the street". The same for using the term "mongoloid". South Asians are are also not generally referred to in terms of colour. Even though the colonials often referred to Indians and Australian indigenes as "blacks".
One might say that Europeans don't mind being called "white" so what's wrong with calling Africans "blacks".
But the reason why these colour terms are maintained is that for those who think racially it is necessary to set off in contrasting terms the 2 "races" that are seen as furthest removed from e ach other as the colours "black" and "white" are seen as opposite of each other.
And this opposition between "black" and "white" has a long history. Recall Aristotle's statement(in his Physiognomica): "too black a hue marks a coward as witness Egyptians and Nubians. Too white a hue as with women also shows cowardice. The best colour is the intermediate colour between black and white as in the case of lions. Their colour signifies courage".
If Asians--regardless of area of birth, language and culture--are referred to as Asians then why not refer to "blacks" as just African? It makes sense to me.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think that Rashidi and Winters simply began with and outdated and poor understanding of anthropology.
In the case of Winters, he committed himself to and ideology-thesis which he then refused to modify even in the face of ever mounting evidence to the contrary.
Eventually though, they will have to modify their thesis or be dismissed by their own core audience.
Science is a progressive, on-going search for truth. You can't keep people believing out of ignorance, and based on oudated information....forever.
It's kinda petty to take a potshot at Clyde when the topic is Rashidi.
Posts: 167 | From: usa | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:yazid904: True dat! In the UK South Asians are considered 'black' while in USA, they are considered 'white' so go figure!
Bullshit! South asians are not considered 'black' in the UK, they are considered indians or they are called "pakis" regardless if they are Indians, Pakistanis or Bangladeshi, never 'black'.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
One might say that Europeans don't mind being called "white" so what's wrong with calling Africans "blacks".
lol, lol, lol.
^ Typical example of the passive mindset of too many modern Blacks. [what do Europeans do? what will they permit me to do? what should i do?]
Africans need to get over the kemo-phobic, ie anti-black psychology pounded into our skulls by "western" civilisation.
The origin of "Blacks" as and ethnonym is KM.t.
It is a native Nile Valley term.
It is a native African term.
Europeans have no bearing on this, and no place in this identity concept/discussion.
Km.t is an honorable term, and an intelligent term. It's a term that harkens back to a highpoint of African culture and confidence.
This is precisely *why* the term has survived, [think about this before respounding] why it is used in the present tense and wisely by Nelson Mandela, by the late Kwame Nkrumah, Diop, and others.
And the term will continue to thrive, in spite of the fears, intimidation and confusion of the ->
'nameless dark skin peoples of africa who don't know how they might be collectively referred to, because they are 'steady-waiting' for answers rather than finding them, which means they will likely die as confused as they were when they were born'
....These are the people who the Ancient Egyptians and modern African wise-men such as Nelson Mandela and Diop refer to as....the BLACKS.
It's the difference between people who know who they are, and those who are lost and will never know.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Israel: DM, You can't tell me that there are East Indians who are not darker or Blacker then many so-called "Black people". If an East Indian is darker than me, then why am I considered Black-skinned and he isn't? That is garabe. The fact is that in the days of Greek civilization, the term India and Ethiopia were pretty much interchangable. East Indians were perceived to be the "Eastern Ethiopians". Check out Herodotus if you don't believe me. We can even name Islamic scholars who called Indians "Black". Therefore, there are Indians who are Black. That being said, it is another thing to say that Indians are Africans! Regardless, V.J. Singh is as Black as most Black Americans(he is acutually darker than many African-Americans).
True dat! In the UK South Asians are considered 'black' while in USA, they are considered 'white' so go figure! Tatyana father is a Trini of S. Asian Muslim background and mother is Panamian but the fact is when people judge, they do so on phenotype and not on DNA! Vijay for all practical purpose is black when you take away his name association so all thee things go together to create confusion, ignorance or unity, depending on how you view it. Nothing to sweat!
South Asians are considered Asians in the UK Pakistanis ;Indians and others. Taytyana Ali is black Panamanian and South Asian.
Vijay Singh is considered Indo-fijian. In Fiji Vijay Singh would not be seen as 'black' just because of his skin color.Just like a Japanese would not be considered white because of his. There are melanesian Fijians who are a different race than vijay Singh.
In Trinidad Indo-trinidadians are not considered black even though some have skin just as dark as Afro-Trinidadians.
There is a difference between Africans and Indians and its not base only on skin color.
All groups have distinct look.
----------------
In the UK ;U.S.Hes not white base on his skin color.
David Beckham white base on his race Posts: 18 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bottom line DM: Many East Indians are blacker than Africans, African-Americans, etc. VJ Singh is my color, more or less. So how the hell he ain't Black? Did you know, DM, that there are African-Americans who look East Indian, but are simply Black American? Yeah........ask me how I know...........I'll tell ya. I have a homeboy who had an Indian look, and he was Black. I have some East Indian friends at school. Two of them, gals, told me about some Indian guy, talking about my homeboy. I told them that he was Black. They told me that they swore he was Indian.............Again, if a Black Man looks East Indian, and he is still considered Black(he was light-brown in complexion), then how the hell an East Indian with burnt-skin at considered Black????????????????????? Bottom line: THEY ARE BLACK!
Do you need to read the Islamic poet, Rumi, who said in his Mathnawi(book of poetry), "Whosoever is Black like a Hindu....", to realize that you are wrong on this? Salaam
P.S.-well, maybe you ain't wrong, but you ain't right, that is for sure. You ought to read the Rg Vedas, where the Aryan invaders called the original inhabitants of India(which means Black) dasus. The Dasus were described as being bull-lipped, snub-nosed, black-skinned, etc. If you want proof of this, I will be MORE than willing to show you. Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Black", if it has to have any slightest meaning in a biological sense, refers to skin color [notably visible melanin levels]. So, it is important that it is contextualized, due to its potential subjectivity. The "darkest" people on this planet are in Africa, like the Dinka, but these folks are only a subset of Africans, and therefore their specificities [e.g. color range] are a subset of the diverse African range.
DM's major weakness lies in his concept of "races" to which he presumes that 'black' South Asians ought to be placed in their own, aside from that of the "Africans". It is undoubtedly flawed, because there is no such thing as biologically discrete human sub-species (races).
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Africans need to get over the kemo-phobic, ie anti-black psychology pounded into our skulls by "western" civilisation.
Interesting that you should mention that, because I've sensed contempt towards "jet-black" in some of the posts made on this board.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Africans need to get over the kemo-phobic, ie anti-black psychology pounded into our skulls by "western" civilisation.
Interesting that you should mention that, because I've sensed contempt towards "jet-black" in some of the posts made on this board.
Studying the work of Keita is the best way for African scholars to begin learning a bioanthropology that transcends the limitations of the ws.t race discourse, which is and intrinsically white supremacist discourse, and therefore cannot be retrofitted to Africanist use.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Israel: Bottom line DM: Many East Indians are blacker than Africans, African-Americans, etc. VJ Singh is my color, more or less. So how the hell he ain't Black? Did you know, DM, that there are African-Americans who look East Indian, but are simply Black American? Yeah........ask me how I know...........I'll tell ya. I have a homeboy who had an Indian look, and he was Black. I have some East Indian friends at school. Two of them, gals, told me about some Indian guy, talking about my homeboy. I told them that he was Black. They told me that they swore he was Indian.............Again, if a Black Man looks East Indian, and he is still considered Black(he was light-brown in complexion), then how the hell an East Indian with burnt-skin at considered Black????????????????????? Bottom line: THEY ARE BLACK!
Do you need to read the Islamic poet, Rumi, who said in his Mathnawi(book of poetry), "Whosoever is Black like a Hindu....", to realize that you are wrong on this? Salaam
P.S.-well, maybe you ain't wrong, but you ain't right, that is for sure. You ought to read the Rg Vedas, where the Aryan invaders called the original inhabitants of India(which means Black) dasus. The Dasus were described as being bull-lipped, snub-nosed, black-skinned, etc. If you want proof of this, I will be MORE than willing to show you. Salaam
Whats wrong with being called black? Must you have the whole of dark skinned India call themselves black to make you comfortable with the word?
I think thats a sign of low self-esteem.
More importantly East Indians are a different race than Africans and I think Afrocentrics need to understand that. There are Many people in Trinidad,Suriname Guyana who are half Indian and half black and the Indians and Blacks call them dougla meaning mixed regardless of how Indian they look.
Nubian means black and the average Nubian looks far more Indian than blacks in America.But Nubian people are proud to be call it.
Nubians
Who are more East Indian looking than Somalis,Ethiopians Eritreans?
But they don't want to be seen as associated with East Indians or overly care how East Indian are seen. Nubians also don't want to be seen as connected to India because they are proud to be Nubians.
Afrocentrics don't see what kind of image their giving out to the world. One of low self-esteem and very little self worth.Only people who don't value themselves and their culture are so passive, and want to associate themselves with people who are not related or who want relations.
Posts: 18 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^They are also mixed too. Stop showing pictures of mixed Africans passing them off as authentic Africans, we(Africans) hate when you African Americans pull that shiit because you have been conditioned to follow white raped mulattos in your culture and slave history. You always look for the pointiest nose and straightest(good hair) hair and lightest skin of a man to follow. That gets old real quick; keep that self-hate in the ghettos of America where it belongs!! We Africans do not hate our features or ourselves as you African Americans do.
----Bottom line DM: Many East Indians are blacker than Africans, African-Americans, etc. VJ Singh is my color, more or less. So how the hell he ain't Black? Did you know, DM, that there are African-Americans who look East Indian, but are simply Black American? Yeah........ask me how I know...........I'll tell ya. I have a homeboy who had an Indian look, and he was Black. I have some East Indian friends at school. Two of them, gals, told me about some Indian guy, talking about my homeboy. I told them that he was Black. They told me that they swore he was Indian.............Again, if a Black Man looks East Indian, and he is still considered Black(he was light-brown in complexion), then how the hell an East Indian with burnt-skin at considered Black????????????????????? Bottom line: THEY ARE BLACK!
Do you need to read the Islamic poet, Rumi, who said in his Mathnawi(book of poetry), "Whosoever is Black like a Hindu....", to realize that you are wrong on this? Salaam
P.S.-well, maybe you ain't wrong, but you ain't right, that is for sure. You ought to read the Rg Vedas, where the Aryan invaders called the original inhabitants of India(which means Black) dasus. The Dasus were described as being bull-lipped, snub-nosed, black-skinned, etc. If you want proof of this, I will be MORE than willing to show you. Salaam-----
Man this is such crap!! Black/Africoid/Capiod/Negrito/Elongated Africoid is not just denoted by skin color, but also phenotype. So NOOO, no damn Cooley Hindu is "black". Give me a damn break you weird loser. God damn African Americans suck!!!!!! I try to be nice, but man the kkk, Hitler, and neo-nazi's couldn't hate your kind as much as you hate yourselves.
Posts: 271 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vidadavida: ^^^They are also mixed too. Stop showing pictures of mixed Africans passing them off as authentic Africans...
Do you need to read the Islamic poet, Rumi, who said in his Mathnawi(book of poetry), "Whosoever is Black like a Hindu....", to realize that you are wrong on this? Salaam
vida mia,
African are Africans! To me, as long as they were born in Africa, that is good. As a Trini, there are East Indians who do see themselves as 'black' in the epidermal sense of the word usage but again the roots of colonialism has skewed those who have a 'better hue' aping the European, that they are on equal terms with him! Let me go and get my rum and coke and relax a bit!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^You'll want to cut out that rum sometime, it's poison.
Better off with herb instead (no tobacco though)... and use white paper Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think there is more variety in blacks than whites? Or are some blacks a darker shade of white?
Posts: 104 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only way to really look at it is this way: some people are colored, some people are not. There is only one human race.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Israel: Bottom line DM: Many East Indians are blacker than Africans, African-Americans, etc. VJ Singh is my color, more or less. So how the hell he ain't Black? Did you know, DM, that there are African-Americans who look East Indian, but are simply Black American? Yeah........ask me how I know...........I'll tell ya. I have a homeboy who had an Indian look, and he was Black. I have some East Indian friends at school. Two of them, gals, told me about some Indian guy, talking about my homeboy. I told them that he was Black. They told me that they swore he was Indian.............Again, if a Black Man looks East Indian, and he is still considered Black(he was light-brown in complexion), then how the hell an East Indian with burnt-skin at considered Black????????????????????? Bottom line: THEY ARE BLACK!
Do you need to read the Islamic poet, Rumi, who said in his Mathnawi(book of poetry), "Whosoever is Black like a Hindu....", to realize that you are wrong on this? Salaam
P.S.-well, maybe you ain't wrong, but you ain't right, that is for sure. You ought to read the Rg Vedas, where the Aryan invaders called the original inhabitants of India(which means Black) dasus. The Dasus were described as being bull-lipped, snub-nosed, black-skinned, etc. If you want proof of this, I will be MORE than willing to show you. Salaam
Whats wrong with being called black? Must you have the whole of dark skinned India call themselves black to make you comfortable with the word?
I think thats a sign of low self-esteem.
More importantly East Indians are a different race than Africans and I think Afrocentrics need to understand that. There are Many people in Trinidad,Suriname Guyana who are half Indian and half black and the Indians and Blacks call them dougla meaning mixed regardless of how Indian they look.
Nubian means black and the average Nubian looks far more Indian than blacks in America.But Nubian people are proud to be call it.
Nubians
Who are more East Indian looking than Somalis,Ethiopians Eritreans?
But they don't want to be seen as associated with East Indians or overly care how East Indian are seen. Nubians also don't want to be seen as connected to India because they are proud to be Nubians.
Afrocentrics don't see what kind of image their giving out to the world. One of low self-esteem and very little self worth.Only people who don't value themselves and their culture are so passive, and want to associate themselves with people who are not related or who want relations.
There is nothing wrong at all with being called Black. I am Black, and am damn proud of it. And I want my East Indian brethren to be proud of who they are........
Just remember that if your Hindu, the avatar that you worship, Krishna, is black-skinned, just like Africans..... . Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vidadavida: ^^^They are also mixed too. Stop showing pictures of mixed Africans passing them off as authentic Africans, we(Africans) hate when you African Americans pull that shiit because you have been conditioned to follow white raped mulattos in your culture and slave history. You always look for the pointiest nose and straightest(good hair) hair and lightest skin of a man to follow. That gets old real quick; keep that self-hate in the ghettos of America where it belongs!! We Africans do not hate our features or ourselves as you African Americans do.
----Bottom line DM: Many East Indians are blacker than Africans, African-Americans, etc. VJ Singh is my color, more or less. So how the hell he ain't Black? Did you know, DM, that there are African-Americans who look East Indian, but are simply Black American? Yeah........ask me how I know...........I'll tell ya. I have a homeboy who had an Indian look, and he was Black. I have some East Indian friends at school. Two of them, gals, told me about some Indian guy, talking about my homeboy. I told them that he was Black. They told me that they swore he was Indian.............Again, if a Black Man looks East Indian, and he is still considered Black(he was light-brown in complexion), then how the hell an East Indian with burnt-skin at considered Black????????????????????? Bottom line: THEY ARE BLACK!
Do you need to read the Islamic poet, Rumi, who said in his Mathnawi(book of poetry), "Whosoever is Black like a Hindu....", to realize that you are wrong on this? Salaam
P.S.-well, maybe you ain't wrong, but you ain't right, that is for sure. You ought to read the Rg Vedas, where the Aryan invaders called the original inhabitants of India(which means Black) dasus. The Dasus were described as being bull-lipped, snub-nosed, black-skinned, etc. If you want proof of this, I will be MORE than willing to show you. Salaam-----
Man this is such crap!! Black/Africoid/Capiod/Negrito/Elongated Africoid is not just denoted by skin color, but also phenotype. So NOOO, no damn Cooley Hindu is "black". Give me a damn break you weird loser. God damn African Americans suck!!!!!! I try to be nice, but man the kkk, Hitler, and neo-nazi's couldn't hate your kind as much as you hate yourselves.
Vidadavida what are you talking about? Nubians are a black African people.The WORD NUBIAN its self means BLACK. Ethiopians and Somalis are black Africans also. I'm beginning to think you are a fake African, only here to stir things up. Ethiopians and Somalis are some of the oldest Africans so stop showing how ignorant you are. If you're really African then you need to learn African history more and understand it.
Also I used Tatyana Ali as an example of how black east indian mixes look different to South Indians and other Australoids.
I'll bet you'd say Nelson Mandela is mixed too .
Posts: 18 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vidadavida: ^^^They are also mixed too. Stop showing pictures of mixed Africans passing them off as authentic Africans...
Do you need to read the Islamic poet, Rumi, who said in his Mathnawi(book of poetry), "Whosoever is Black like a Hindu....", to realize that you are wrong on this? Salaam
vida mia,
African are Africans! To me, as long as they were born in Africa, that is good. As a Trini, there are East Indians who do see themselves as 'black' in the epidermal sense of the word usage but again the roots of colonialism has skewed those who have a 'better hue' aping the European, that they are on equal terms with him! Let me go and get my rum and coke and relax a bit!
Very little East Indians see themselves as black, and that has nothing to do with them not knowing about their skin color.
Posts: 18 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. Salaam
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
.
Printer-friendly view of this topic