posted
So what is the point: Bosnia Serbs and Bosnian Muslims--all of same stock--slaugtered and plundered each other in inexecrable ways during the break-up of Yugoslavia wars.
Iraq Shites and Iraqi Sunnis regularly suicide bomb each other with huge human losses almost daily. The British and Americans firebombed Dresden with huge and horrific casualities at the end of WWII. The Japanese slaughtered and bayonetted hundreds and thousands of women and children during the horrific "Rape of Nankin"--yet assumedly they are all of the same stock.
But back to your claims about "genetic distances" between AEs and others. The concept of "genetic distance" if properly applied should be explained in terms of a "Most Recent Common Ancestor"(MRCA).
As far as the haplogroup data go the haplogroup E3b did not originate in West Asia or Europe--given that it is widespread in East Africa as far south as Tanzania.
For the papers cited to have any validity--according to your thinking--they must state what AE haplogroups are shared in common with the non-African populations cited and they must state how the sharing came about. If it's J and R then that's easily explained by post-pharonic invasions.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why can't you understand that black is colour and Filipino is a nationality thus a Filipino can be black. Why the hell you think the US military men called some of them niggers? Because they were "very dark," that's why.
Anything else is just akin to the true negro concept designed to limit blackness to a small select population of Africans.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Black from West to East Africa, North to South Africa can be called nigger anywhere in the world...Black skin is "nigger" in some places in the States as far as I know...no "true negro" qualification needed...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You miss the point that black and nigger weren't terms limited to Africans. From the colonial era until today the English speaking world relegated "very dark" skinned people anywhere they found them to the "nigger" class.
Not only that, in the deleted Polynesian thread al~Jahiz was quoted listing some Austronesian speakers as among the blacks. Also the far east Asians in their own records have a black and white divide. I know from intimate experience that Chinese who relocated way down south in Indonesia say they are the white Chinese.
Thus when a very dark south east Asian denies being black they are doing so from buy in to the true negro concept where only the ones westerner anthropology dubbed "negrito" can be black. Since Filipines "negritos" were oppressed by Austronesians, non-"negrito" Filipinos may bristle at being classed the same as those whom they've subjected.
Yet at the same time we see our own very dark Filipino sling contumely on other people who eschew the black label for similar reasons. But what's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander except when the chef's goose is cooked.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ But I'm not a 'Negrito' nor even that dark to be warranted being called black. True, whites have called many dark Filippinos "niggers", but then again they do so to many darker skinned people from Indians to Arabs to even southern Europeans!
So again, your presumtpions about me or my skin complexion (as usual) are wrong. I would show you a picture to prove it, but I don't show my pics in public forums.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glider: OPEN YOUR BLACK RACIST EYES A LITTLE WIDER: AND SMILE!
REPEAT AFTER ME: ANCIENT EGYPT WAS NOT A BLACK AFRICAN NATION.
Okay... I fail to see how these images prove the Egyptians were not black. First of all, their features such as long narrow noses and thin lips (as was explained a hundred times) are not unusual for black Africans.
Second, these depictions are either unpainted or they are painted with other colors that do not depict any skin color...
Not like the images I posted! Sorry Glider, but your point was lost a long time ago.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: You miss the point that black and nigger weren't terms limited to Africans. From the colonial era until today the English speaking world relegated "very dark" skinned people anywhere they found them to the "nigger" class.
Not only that, in the deleted Polynesian thread al~Jahiz was quoted listing some Austronesian speakers as among the blacks. Also the far east Asians in their own records have a black and white divide. I know from intimate experience that Chinese who relocated way down south in Indonesia say they are the white Chinese.
Thus when a very dark south east Asian denies being black they are doing so from buy in to the true negro concept where only the ones westerner anthropology dubbed "negrito" can be black. Since Filipines "negritos" were oppressed by Austronesians, non-"negrito" Filipinos may bristle at being classed the same as those whom they've subjected.
Yet at the same time we see our own very dark Filipino sling contumely on other people who eschew the black label for similar reasons. But what's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander except when the chef's goose is cooked.
Absolutely. The reason whites used racist slurs against many Filipinos was because many Filipinos were indeed dark and it was not just the Negritoes. Dark skinned people with so-called "Asian" features are just as aboriginal to South and South East Asia as the so-called Negrito type. The populations of India are a good example of this. No matter how you slice it or try to deny it, ALL features originate among black aboriginal populations in all parts of the globe going back 10,000 years or more. And it is the fact that dark skinned people are considered examples of "primitive" humans, meaning ANCIENT ABORIGINAL humans from the beginning of mankind, that caused so much racism in the first place, especially against those with curly hair and more "African" features. In fact, the reason some Egyptians are linked to Asia is because there are many aboriginal populations along the Nile that have straighter hair and thin features similar to the features found among people in places like India.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ True enough, but I'm not one of them if that's what you and Takruri think. I'm dark yes, but not that dark and am considred 'brown' by everyone who sees me. I don't know how this topic had to end up about aboriginal Filippinos.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Glider writes: Your eyes will open a little wider
Yours eyes will remain shut, because you can't bear the truth...
Major biological affinities of early southern Egyptians lay with tropical Africans.
The early southern Egyptians belonged primarily to an African descent group which gained some Near Eastern affinity through gene flow with the passage of time. - SOY Keita.
Glider is upset because these modern Egyptians resemble Ancient Egyptians....whereas he does not.
quote:Djehuti writes: Of course the only images Glider can post are Arab Egyptians who deny their black African heritage.
^ But they try to claim and Ancient Kemetic [Black] heritage that predates the Arab invasion of Egypt by several thousands of years, yes, what sad losers they are.
The first tribes that inhabited Egypt, that is, the Nile Valley between the Syene cataract and the sea, came from Abyssinia to Sennar. The ancient Egyptians belonged to a race quite similar to the Kennous or Barabras, present inhabitants of Nubia. In the Copts of Egypt, we do not find any of the characteristic features of the ancient Egyptian population. The [delta] Copts are the result of crossbreeding with all the nations that have successively dominated Egypt. It is WRONG to seek in them the principal features of the old race. - Champollion
Champollion is correct, and Glider knows it.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ True enough, but I'm not one of them if that's what you and Takruri think. I'm dark yes, but not that dark and am considred 'brown' by everyone who sees me. I don't know how this topic had to end up about aboriginal Filippinos.
I personally wasn't referring to you.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti says: ''But I'm not a 'Negrito' nor even that dark to be warranted being called black.''
When a word like ''warranted'' is thrown into the mix this means a distancing of some kind... a negative connotation. This negative is what I see everytime Djehuti gets close to black.
You sced aincha Djehuti.
Would you like to have some of my ''white looks'' to bail you out of this hole you're digging for yourself? I don't travel incognito, I say who I am, I know who I am, and that will be black.
Djehuti talking to AlTakruri: ''So again, your presumtpions about me or my skin complexion (as usual) are wrong.''
So where is the presumption about your skin complexion? You admitted you are dark. But your defensive, distancing attitude comes in when Black African dark is mentioned. Gettin' a little too close for comfort ain't it?
''I would show you a picture to prove it, but I don't show my pics in public forums.''
What did the psychiatrist say when you told him that?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL Sorry Grumman but I don't suffer from any neurosis as you apparently do. I'm not in denial about being black because I'm not black. I don't know why you and a few others in here seem to be obsessed in claiming me as such.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Absolutely. The reason whites used racist slurs against many Filipinos was because many Filipinos were indeed dark and it was not just the Negritoes. Dark skinned people with so-called "Asian" features are just as aboriginal to South and South East Asia as the so-called Negrito type...
By the way, I forgot to ask what do you mean by "Asian features", Doug? The populations of Asia are diverse and include 'Negrito' type peoples so what 'Asian features' do you speak of?
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Anyway, getting back to the topic and away from the distraction the troll created to which some people fell for...
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Glider writes: Your eyes will open a little wider
Yours eyes will remain shut, because you can't bear the truth...
Major biological affinities of early southern Egyptians lay with tropical Africans.
The early southern Egyptians belonged primarily to an African descent group which gained some Near Eastern affinity through gene flow with the passage of time. - SOY Keita.
Glider is upset because these modern Egyptians resemble Ancient Egyptians....whereas he does not.
quote:Djehuti writes: Of course the only images Glider can post are Arab Egyptians who deny their black African heritage.
^ But they try to claim and Ancient Kemetic [Black] heritage that predates the Arab invasion of Egypt by several thousands of years, yes, what sad losers they are.
The first tribes that inhabited Egypt, that is, the Nile Valley between the Syene cataract and the sea, came from Abyssinia to Sennar. The ancient Egyptians belonged to a race quite similar to the Kennous or Barabras, present inhabitants of Nubia. In the Copts of Egypt, we do not find any of the characteristic features of the ancient Egyptian population. The [delta] Copts are the result of crossbreeding with all the nations that have successively dominated Egypt. It is WRONG to seek in them the principal features of the old race. - Champollion
Champollion is correct, and Glider knows it.
He knows it but denies it and keeps up his futile fight because that's the type of person he is.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, you've gone from an originally self-proclaimed "very dark" to a now denying it "nor even that dark."
After seeing PR's mug lord knows I don't want to see yours. And thanks for proving exactly what I guessed at. BTW whites ain't never called nobody a nigger that wasn't black. Southern Europeans aren't called black or nigger but southern Arabs the majority of Indians and certain southeast Asians were once quite readily called black and nigger until they were needed as "population allies" by whites or buffers against African black headcount where pluralities exist or appear about to arise.
I don't ever want to read you again defining who is black or that blacks come in wide facial and hair type varieties as long you call others black but deny that many Austronesians who are very dark aren't black because of facial features or hair.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander unless it's the chef's goose that getting cooked.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ But I'm not a 'Negrito' nor even that dark to be warranted being called black. True, whites have called many dark Filippinos "niggers", but then again they do so to many darker skinned people from Indians to Arabs to even southern Europeans!
So again, your presumtpions about me or my skin complexion (as usual) are wrong. I would show you a picture to prove it, but I don't show my pics in public forums.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Abu Uthman Amr ibn Bahr al-Jahiz Kitab Fakhr as-Sudan 'Ala al-Bidan Baghdad: self-published, 815 C.E.
quote:Originally posted by SidiRom er DJ er SidiRom er ???:
I do not consider people Black just because they are dark skinned ...
quote:Originally posted by DJ:
Then what do you consider black then?? 'Black' referred solely to color and complexion and there are a great many populations outside of Africa who share the same complexion as black Africans. Which is why they were called black in the first place.
Thoom thoom thoom ... boom. Fork tongue, him speak with fork tongue. Fork tongue, him speak with fork tongue. Thoom thoom thoom ... boom.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander unless it's the chef's goose what's gittin' cooked.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I fail to see how I see how spoke with a "forked tongue". I did not contradict myself at all. Yes there are people in the world with the same complexions as Africans but I am not one of them and neither are many (though not all) Filippinos. And?
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Hmm, you've gone from an originally self-proclaimed "very dark" to a now denying it "nor even that dark."
Exactly how "dark" is a matter of relation, and something almost impossible to convey in actual terms. I am very dark compared to say your typical fair-skinned Asian but I am not that dark or dark enough to be called 'black'. I have a feeling you know what I mean and I don't have find some detailed way of explaining it to you or anyone with intelligence.
quote:After seeing PR's mug lord knows I don't want to see yours. And thanks for proving exactly what I guessed at. BTW whites ain't never called nobody a nigger that wasn't black. Southern Europeans aren't called black or nigger but southern Arabs the majority of Indians and certain southeast Asians were once quite readily called black and nigger until they were needed as "population allies" by whites or buffers against African black headcount where pluralities exist or appear about to arise.
LOL My, my, Takruri your resorting to make insults about my personal appearance makes me think I must have hurt your feelings at one point. Nah, I don't look bad or anything, definitely nothing like PRMideast, but I'm still not showing any pics, so don't worry your 'pretty' head about it. As for whites use of the n-word, some whites depending on how racist they are will use that word against anyone dark. And I have heard a few here down south use it against a few southern Europeans. By the way, I've never been called that word but I have been called a "spic". LOL
quote:I don't ever want to read you again defining who is black or that blacks come in wide facial and hair type varieties as long as you call others black but deny that many Austronesians who are very dark aren't black because of facial features or hair.
That's ridiculous! I've never denied that many Austronesian speakers are black since there are especially in Melanesia (hence the name of the islands). Austronesian is a language family and I have never denied the diversity of its speakers.
But I and many of my people where my family is from just aren't.
quote:What's good for the goose is good for the gander unless it's the chef's goose that getting cooked.
Okay. LOL But I never double-talked and what I said still stands-- I'm not black.
If this bothers you, then I'm sorry.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The majority of Filipinos are not dark enough to be viewed as "Black" even by Asian standard...I believe Djehuti because I know a lot of Filipinos...the majority don't look black by any standard...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Habari, I think all the educated people here including Takruri know that but want to create a fuss anyone perhaps because of the same syndrome Marc Washington has in claiming alot of people as 'black'.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: Then why are you railing against Glider and his claims?
What do his claims about ancient Egypt have to do with me or Filippinos?
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DJ nobody could give PR a run for his money in the looks department. Some of what I'm roasting you over is tongue and cheek but denying some non-"negrito" Filipinos are black is something that I'm not joking about. You calling yourself "very dark" is just a euphemism for black to me because I put it in on the scale right next to flat black. Perhaps if you qualified by comparison of some natural item like coffe chocolate caramel etc I'd know just what you mean. Yet and still
quote:The Hindus are more yellow in color than the Arabs, yet they are counted among the black peoples."
Abu Uthman Amr ibn Bahr al-Jahiz
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I say Asian looking I mean with features similar to other populations found in Asia who are light skinned. The point being that some people believe that certain features associated with asians developed AFTER the arrival of the Negrito populations, with the later features being associated with light skin. My argument is that Negrito populations are just ONE TYPE of the darker skinned aboriginal populations that have been in Asia for the last 30,000 years and the remains of the aboriginal black non negrito Asian types can be found in some of the more remote pacific Islands not decimated by foreign contact.
But indeed this is off topic and dare I say maybe we should re-create that pacific/asian ancestry thread?
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glider says his pictures re the statues don't depict black people; you say, in effect, Africans come in a variety of colors, thereby making the pictures above black young boys and girls.
Djehuti says, with reference to the above paragraph: ''Glider is upset because these modern Egyptians [in the pictures] resemble Ancient Egyptians....whereas he does not.''
So, are you one of those boys and girls, or are you just Philippino without color?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: DJ nobody could give PR a run for his money in the looks department. Some of what I'm roasting you over is tongue and cheek but denying some non-"negrito" Filipinos are black is something that I'm not joking about. You calling yourself "very dark" is just a euphemism for black to me because I put it in on the scale right next to flat black. Perhaps if you qualified by comparison of some natural item like coffe chocolate caramel etc I'd know just what you mean. Yet and still.
Okay, and again how dark or even very dark is a matter of relation. Just because someone is very dark does not necessarily mean mean black as it depends on relation to what and I just explained what that relation was to.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: When I say Asian looking I mean with features similar to other populations found in Asia who are light skinned. The point being that some people believe that certain features associated with asians developed AFTER the arrival of the Negrito populations, with the later features being associated with light skin. My argument is that Negrito populations are just ONE TYPE of the darker skinned aboriginal populations that have been in Asia for the last 30,000 years and the remains of the aboriginal black non negrito Asian types can be found in some of the more remote pacific Islands not decimated by foreign contact.
That depends on what features you mean. There are many features that were possessed by blacks first and foremost before lighter-skinned types evolved.
However, I hope you aren't making a division between fair-skinned East Asians and darker ones such as myself to differences in overall ancestry as such differences are just as much due to simple variance as differences in complexion between black populations.
quote:But indeed this is off topic and dare I say maybe we should re-create that pacific/asian ancestry thread?
You might as well, because not only do I find it annoying that we are getting off-topic again about the same Pacific ancestry mess involving ME, but even more infuriated that it stemmed from the remarks of a troll.
By the way, strangely I've noticed some of the deleted threads can still be viewed on google. Maybe you can find it there.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
''but even more infuriated that it stemmed from the remarks of a troll.''
Trolling when used by a fisherman is called a good thing. They get positive results. In this case trolling isn't a bad deal. It's just a way to find out answers... which are increasingly elusive.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That may be, but off-topic distractions are just that. In the meantime the troll is probably having a good time watching you guys squable about trying to claim me as black or not while momentarily taking a break from the REALITY of his nonsense.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well nobody else fails to see how. It can't be one way for everybody else "... what do you consider black then?? 'Black' referred solely to color and complexion and there are a great many populations outside of Africa who share the same complexion as black Africans. Which is why they were called black in the first place." and another way for you "very dark but not black." Else you speak with fork tongue.
Do you have enough intelligence to use those skin colour bricks you once posted or name the natural item that's your shade of "very dark but not black" (2nd request not to be distracted from or overlooked).
Your "very dark but not black" sounds just like "black but not negro." In fact there is no difference at all.
As al~Jahiz said (and I'll always adhere to his view) even hi yalla Hindus are counted as black. I guess very dark is lighter than yalla, right? And you say they call you spic not gook?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I fail to see how I see how spoke with a "forked tongue". I did not contradict myself at all. Yes there are people in the world with the same complexions as Africans but I am not one of them and neither are many (though not all) Filippinos. And?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
“I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Okay, and again how dark or even very dark is a matter of relation. Just because someone is very dark does not necessarily mean mean black as it depends on relation to what and I just explained what that relation was to.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you referring to valid points here, on this topic, or elsewhere on the site?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: When I say Asian looking I mean with features similar to other populations found in Asia who are light skinned. The point being that some people believe that certain features associated with asians developed AFTER the arrival of the Negrito populations, with the later features being associated with light skin. My argument is that Negrito populations are just ONE TYPE of the darker skinned aboriginal populations that have been in Asia for the last 30,000 years and the remains of the aboriginal black non negrito Asian types can be found in some of the more remote pacific Islands not decimated by foreign contact.
That depends on what features you mean. There are many features that were possessed by blacks first and foremost before lighter-skinned types evolved.
However, I hope you aren't making a division between fair-skinned East Asians and darker ones such as myself to differences in overall ancestry as such differences are just as much due to simple variance as differences in complexion between black populations.
quote:But indeed this is off topic and dare I say maybe we should re-create that pacific/asian ancestry thread?
You might as well, because not only do I find it annoying that we are getting off-topic again about the same Pacific ancestry mess involving ME, but even more infuriated that it stemmed from the remarks of a troll.
By the way, strangely I've noticed some of the deleted threads can still be viewed on google. Maybe you can find it there.
I pretty much meant what I said. ALL features found in Asian populations started out FIRST among blacks. Slanted eyes, straight hair, high cheeks, thin lips and so forth were found first among black populations even prior to the development of white skin. White skin is 20,000 years old. Humans have been in Asia for 90,000. It stands to reason that those black populations certainly began to develop natural variations in features in various parts of Asia between 90,000 and 20,000 years ago. It isn't like these populations stayed homogenous for 70,000 years and then suddenly started developing a large amount of varied traits within the last 20,000 years. The range of diversity seen in early populations in Asia can best be seen between Australia and New Guinea and the Islands therebouts. The Solomon islands have been said to have the highest amount of diversity genetically and in features of almost any place on earth. They are ALL black. Remember, as you go back towards Africa in the time line of humanity, the MORE diversity you will find.
quote: Human genetic diversity in the Pacific has not been adequately sampled, particularly in Melanesia. As a result, population relationships there have been open to debate. A genome scan of autosomal markers (687 microsatellites and 203 insertions/deletions) on 952 individuals from 41 Pacific populations now provides the basis for understanding the remarkable nature of Melanesian variation, and for a more accurate comparison of these Pacific populations with previously studied groups from other regions. It also shows how textured human population variation can be in particular circumstances. Genetic diversity within individual Pacific populations is shown to be very low, while differentiation among Melanesian groups is high. Melanesian differentiation varies not only between islands, but also by island size and topographical complexity. The greatest distinctions are among the isolated groups in large island interiors, which are also the most internally homogeneous. The pattern loosely tracks language distinctions. Papuan-speaking groups are the most differentiated, and Austronesian or Oceanic-speaking groups, which tend to live along the coastlines, are more intermixed. A small “Austronesian” genetic signature (always <20%) was detected in less than half the Melanesian groups that speak Austronesian languages, and is entirely lacking in Papuan-speaking groups. Although the Polynesians are also distinctive, they tend to cluster with Micronesians, Taiwan Aborigines, and East Asians, and not Melanesians. These findings contribute to a resolution to the debates over Polynesian origins and their past interactions with Melanesians. With regard to genetics, the earlier studies had heavily relied on the evidence from single locus mitochondrial DNA or Y chromosome variation. Neither of these provided an unequivocal signal of phylogenetic relations or population intermixture proportions in the Pacific. Our analysis indicates the ancestors of Polynesians moved through Melanesia relatively rapidly and only intermixed to a very modest degree with the indigenous populations there.
These are the same people claiming that Pacific Islanders are different genetically from Melanesians. However, on the basis of what I have seen, the similarity in culture, custom and features from between Papua New Guinea and the pacific islands, makes the idea that these people are the result of a DIFFERENT migration from Asia that WENT AROUND the aboriginal populations of Melanesia, Australia and New Guinea more and more ridiculous every day. It sounds like they are trying to pull another Egypt versus Nubia trick in the pacific. In fact I know they are with all the white mainland Asian looking women European producers keep promoting as Miss Polynesia and Miss South Pacific and what not in .
posted
Modern Filipinos just like modern people in many places throughout South East Asia and the Pacific, have mixed ancestries. The point being made is that even 100 years ago, there were many black natives on the islands of the Philippines, both Negrito and non Negrito. The best non contradictory way of putting it is that some Philippine people are black and some aren't.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Have humans been in Asia for 90,000 years? The consensus of those who study the OOA thesis claim that the earliest that modern humans left Africa was some 50,000 years ago. Has there been a recent revision?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oppenheimer posits a 85Kya-75Kya range for beachcombers leaving Africa to arrive at SE Asia and S China "destinations."
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Well nobody else fails to see how. It can't be one way for everybody else "... what do you consider black then?? 'Black' referred solely to color and complexion and there are a great many populations outside of Africa who share the same complexion as black Africans. Which is why they were called black in the first place." and another way for you "very dark but not black." Else you speak with fork tongue.
Do you have enough intelligence to use those skin colour bricks you once posted or name the natural item that's your shade of "very dark but not black" (2nd request not to be distracted from or overlooked).
Your "very dark but not black" sounds just like "black but not negro." In fact there is no difference at all.
As al~Jahiz said (and I'll always adhere to his view) even hi yalla Hindus are counted as black. I guess very dark is lighter than yalla, right? And you say they call you spic not gook? [/QB][/QUOTE] Your silly color rhetoric aside, of course there are people in Eurasia with the same complexion as many Africans which is why they are black also. But most Filipinos such as myself are not black or simply considered as such.
'Black' or any description of skin color for that matter is subjective anyway. I was called a 'spic', so why don't you figure out the trivial matter of what skin complexion is if it vexes you so much.
quote: “I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”
But I know for a fact you know what I'm talking about but like another poster just wants to argue either for the sake of if or for some silly paranoia that I am some how anti-black. Fine but don't expect me to argue with you.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I pretty much meant what I said. ALL features found in Asian populations started out FIRST among blacks. Slanted eyes, straight hair, high cheeks, thin lips and so forth were found first among black populations even prior to the development of white skin. White skin is 20,000 years old. Humans have been in Asia for 90,000. It stands to reason that those black populations certainly began to develop natural variations in features in various parts of Asia between 90,000 and 20,000 years ago. It isn't like these populations stayed homogenous for 70,000 years and then suddenly started developing a large amount of varied traits within the last 20,000 years. The range of diversity seen in early populations in Asia can best be seen between Australia and New Guinea and the Islands therebouts. The Solomon islands have been said to have the highest amount of diversity genetically and in features of almost any place on earth. They are ALL black. Remember, as you go back towards Africa in the time line of humanity, the MORE diversity you will find.
Okay. And I never said otherwise! Tell me something I don't know for a change. The question is what does that have to do with how I or what most Filippinos look like?
quote: Human genetic diversity in the Pacific has not been adequately sampled, particularly in Melanesia. As a result, population relationships there have been open to debate. A genome scan of autosomal markers (687 microsatellites and 203 insertions/deletions) on 952 individuals from 41 Pacific populations now provides the basis for understanding the remarkable nature of Melanesian variation, and for a more accurate comparison of these Pacific populations with previously studied groups from other regions. It also shows how textured human population variation can be in particular circumstances. Genetic diversity within individual Pacific populations is shown to be very low, while differentiation among Melanesian groups is high. Melanesian differentiation varies not only between islands, but also by island size and topographical complexity. The greatest distinctions are among the isolated groups in large island interiors, which are also the most internally homogeneous. The pattern loosely tracks language distinctions. Papuan-speaking groups are the most differentiated, and Austronesian or Oceanic-speaking groups, which tend to live along the coastlines, are more intermixed. A small “Austronesian” genetic signature (always <20%) was detected in less than half the Melanesian groups that speak Austronesian languages, and is entirely lacking in Papuan-speaking groups. Although the Polynesians are also distinctive, they tend to cluster with Micronesians, Taiwan Aborigines, and East Asians, and not Melanesians. These findings contribute to a resolution to the debates over Polynesian origins and their past interactions with Melanesians. With regard to genetics, the earlier studies had heavily relied on the evidence from single locus mitochondrial DNA or Y chromosome variation. Neither of these provided an unequivocal signal of phylogenetic relations or population intermixture proportions in the Pacific. Our analysis indicates the ancestors of Polynesians moved through Melanesia relatively rapidly and only intermixed to a very modest degree with the indigenous populations there.
These are the same people claiming that Pacific Islanders are different genetically from Melanesians. However, on the basis of what I have seen, the similarity in culture, custom and features from between Papua New Guinea and the pacific islands, makes the idea that these people are the result of a DIFFERENT migration from Asia that WENT AROUND the aboriginal populations of Melanesia, Australia and New Guinea more and more ridiculous every day. It sounds like they are trying to pull another Egypt versus Nubia trick in the pacific. In fact I know they are with all the white mainland Asian looking women European producers keep promoting as Miss Polynesia and Miss South Pacific and what not in .
Yes, and again many Polynesians are mixed consisting of mainly black aboriginal populutions with lighter-skinned Asian elements entering much later.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): When it comes to Filipinos in general, I can see soemone considering them black, and likewise I can see someone considering them non-black.
Those two quotes are a very contradicting pair of quotes, however.
Let's remember that the aboriginal peoples of the Philippines were and still are black peoples. This was never in doubt, but then you have today's ethnic or 'typical' Filippino who along with related peoples descend from lighter Asians from further north. So it depends on the Filippino and some are no doubt mixed too but that still does not change the fact that socially speaking I am not considered black but 'brown' not just by myself but everyone who sees me, even blacks. My complexion is no different from many Mexicans.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Modern Filipinos just like modern people in many places throughout South East Asia and the Pacific, have mixed ancestries. The point being made is that even 100 years ago, there were many black natives on the islands of the Philippines, both Negrito and non Negrito. The best non contradictory way of putting it is that some Philippine people are black and some aren't.
Okay and isn't that what I've been saying all along?? Perhaps someone else should try telling you know who that I am among those that are non-black.
I believe this thread has been corrupted enough by off-topic nonsense.
The original purpose of this thread was lost when the troll who answered began calling me a "black Filipino" unfortunately some of you gullible foolish fish bit the bait and let the troll free to watch you squabble over what color I am.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now you compound the issue by implying that being assumed an Hispanic (and yes I saw Filipinos listed as such on a Hispanic History week/month poster) is proof of not being black. Unbelieveable!?!
Dance dance dance still no example by comparison of what color very dark but not black (aka black but not negro) is supposed to be. And remember Mr. DJ it was no one but you who expressed the trivial matter of your (still too ashamed to describe because everyone will then see it surely falls within the range attributed to blacks by ancient medieval or modern standards) complexion.
So you know nobody gave a care what your colour is. You decided to write about it and thus make it a fair, ehem, very dark / not even that dark -- choose one --, target for discussion to clarify just what in the world could you possibly mean that very dark isn't black because I just can't figure that one out.
So describe very dark by the skin colour brick number or by comparison to a natural object or just don't bother to reply at all and never again chastise any people for rejecting the black label the same as you do.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And what happened to the pic of that hunched over old Asian man that DJ said wasn't black in colour because said man was Asian (as if continent negates colour)?
I want someone to tell me why that man's colour isn't black.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Now you compound the issue by implying that being assumed an Hispanic (and yes I saw Filipinos listed as such on a Hispanic History week/month poster) is proof of not being black. Unbelieveable!?!
Dance dance dance still no example by comparison of what color very dark but not black (aka black but not negro) is supposed to be. And remember Mr. DJ it was no one but you who expressed the trivial matter of your (still too ashamed to describe because everyone will then see it surely falls within the range attributed to blacks by ancient medieval or modern standards) complexion.
So you know nobody gave a care what your colour is. You decided to write about it and thus make it a fair, ehem, very dark / not even that dark -- choose one --, target for discussion to clarify just what in the world could you possibly mean that very dark isn't black because I just can't figure that one out.
So describe very dark by the skin colour brick number or by comparison to a natural object or just don't bother to reply at all and never again chastise any people for rejecting the black label the same as you do.
LOL Blah, blah, blah. I'm not dancing but you sure are still talking... the same nonsense over and over. I already answered your query a long time ago. If you don't like the answers then too bad.
If you want me to be black, then okay I'm a black person. Do you feel better now Takruri?
quote: And what happened to the pic of that hunched over old Asian man that DJ said wasn't black in colour because said man was Asian (as if continent negates colour)?
I want someone to tell me why that man's colour isn't black.
Of course I never said the man wasn't black because he's Asian. As usual, more false accusations and paranoia from yours truly.
But again, I'm not arguing anymore.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not about how I feel it's about crushing the black but not negro concept that minimalizes the awareness of the cultural heritages and civilizations of various black peoples planetwide.
Stop dancing and choose a brick or proffer a natural item exemplifying very dark / not even that dark -- choose one because they are not synonymous -- because the next time you ridicule a people who say they aren't black I want to know exactly where you're coming from. How many times have we read that AEs were dark but not black and rejected such assessment. I can do no less in any case where black is being denied as a proper colour descriptive.