posted
I was talking to someone that said black people are only 70,000 years old and are apart of the l2 and l3 mtdna haplogroups.
I retorted with l1 is 150,000 years old and they said that those are bushman/khoisan/hottentot types and aren't modern blacks.
Is this true?
They also said that homo sapien Idaltu(160,000 years ago) aren't black either because the morphology is very different from modern humans from the L2 mtdna.
So when are the first "modern black Africans"?
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ They probably have no idea what they are talking about. What are "modern blacks"? What does that mean? Khoisan are'nt the only carriers of L1/L2 by my recollection. Also some ethiopian, sudanese groups as well as pygmies carry it in significant percentages.
This is the danger of relying on secondhand accounts.
-------------------- Dont be evil - Google Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: I was talking to someone that said black people are only 70,000 years old and are apart of the l2 and l3 mtdna haplogroups.
I retorted with l1 is 150,000 years old and they said that those are bushman/khoisan/hottentot types and aren't modern blacks.
Three fossil skulls from Ethiopia, recovered at the village of Herto, have been revealed as the oldest human remains yet discovered. The 160,000-year-old finds plug an important gap in the fossil record around the time our species first appeared, providing confirmation that Homo sapiens originated only in Africa. They have been given their own subspecies - Homo sapiens idaltu.
"The problem with the African record is that it has been really sketchy," states Tim White, University of California, Berkeley, who led the team that made the discoveries. “There are good human fossils from 100,000 years ago but from then back to 300,000 years ago the remains are either highly fragmented, poorly dated or both.”
In contrast, the newly revealed skulls have precise dates thanks to the fragments of volcanic rocks found with the fossils. When rocks cool, they begin to accumulate argon gas from the decay of a potassium isotope. Analysing the gas gives the rock's age, in this case 154,000 to 160,000 years old.
The recovery of the fossils began in 1997, when White stumbled across a fossilised hippopotamus skull. His team eventually recovered skull fragments from 10 humans, along with many stone tools and animal fossils. The child's skull was in over 200 pieces strewn over hundreds of metres and it took two years of painstaking work to reconstruct it. The child's skull is also marked and broken edges have been polished. This suggests to White that the skull was carried around after death and buffed up in the process - possibly as part of an ancestor worshipping ritual. This is the earliest evidence that bones were kept by descendants and points to an advanced level of cultural development.
James Randerson 11 June 2003 NewScientist.com
Posts: 1549 | From: California, USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Can you not do research yourself? Are you helpless?
So basically, any moron can tell you anything about Africans no matter how dumb, looney, and racist. And your stupid ass is going to come here and ask for people to disprove it.
Dude you really are J2P.
Just too pitiful.
What did your parents do? Buy your brain at Kmart?
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The child's skull was in over 200 pieces strewn over hundreds of metres and it took two years of painstaking work to reconstruct it.
Two hundred metres, three, four....How many football fields is he talking about? Were the bones more or less in a straight line or scattered about haphazardly? This may be correct but it sure sounds... different.
Two years of work to make certain all the bones fit? Hmmm.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The age of Black Africans depends on when they were born. I would say all are under 200 years of age and some have reached their 100th birthday.
Posts: 104 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Genetically Nilo-Saharans have the highest frequency of ancient haplogroups: A and B on the Y chromosomes. They have on average higher frequencies than bushmen...ancient humans lived in an area located in North and Central East Africa where the UV index is at its highest level, they were probably very dark possibly (among the darkest of Africans) as dark as Southern Sudanese...Bushmen moved in Southern Africa at least 70k years where the UV index is quite low thus their skin complexion...by the way many Southern Africans tend to be much lighter than other Africans mainly because of the low UV index level since admixture with non Africans is not as prevalent as other parts of Africa...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoever it is that you were talking to you should ignore them.
All those ethnic groups you listed are modern day African people and are not representative of our ancient ancestors anymore than a Swede or Japanese.
Black skin is the original phenotype of HomoSapien. Homosapiens evolved in equatorial Africa and as a result would need to be dark skin in order to reside at that latitude.
Posts: 24 | From: New York | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Black skin is the original phenotype of HomoSapien. Homosapiens evolved in equatorial Africa and as a result would need to be dark skin in order to reside at that latitude.
There is no way ancient Homo Sapiens could be as light as some non Africans, there were black and here is the reason why: UV Index level in Africa: Bottom line we are all Black(Europeans, Asians and Africans).
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Black skin is the original phenotype of HomoSapien. Homosapiens evolved in equatorial Africa and as a result would need to be dark skin in order to reside at that latitude.
There is no way ancient Homo Sapiens could be as light as some non Africans, there were black and here is the reason why: UV Index level in Africa: Bottom line we are all Black(Europeans, Asians and Africans).
I'm assuming you're agreeing with me? No? Posts: 24 | From: New York | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, there can't be races since we were all originally Black like Black Africans....no race...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I don't know about all people being "originally Black like Black Africans"; and I am African, though I've always thought it was understood by non Africans that Black people are always African or of African descent.
Having said this, whilst, there is variety amongst peoples, in terms of appearance and form; all people remain quintessentially human, and therefore of one Race or Kind.
That's why we can interbreed with one another and produce offspring who in turn can reproduce.
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I meant is that we all have Black African ancestors:whether Asian, Europeans or Africans...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
ANALYSIS OF MTDNA VARIATION IN AFRICAN POPULATIONS REVEALS THE MOST ANCIENT OF ALL HUMAN CONTINENT-SPECIFIC HAPLOGROUPS.
mtDNA sequence variation was examined in 140 Africans, including Pygmies from Zaire and Central African Republic (C.A.R.) and Mandenkalu, Wolof, and Pular from Senegal. More than 76% of the African mtDNAs (100% of the Pygmies and 67.3% of the Senegalese) formed one major mtDNA cluster (haplogroup L) defined by an African-specific HpaI site gain at nucleotide pair (np) 3592. Additional mutations subdivided haplogroup L into two subhaplogroups, each encompassing both Pygmy and Senegalese mtDNAs. A novel 12-bp homoplasmic insertion in the intergenic region between tRNA(Tyr) and cytochrome oxidase I (COI) genes was also observed in 17.6% of the Pygmies from C.A.R. This insertion is one of the largest observed in human mtDNAs. Another 25% of the Pygmy mtDNAs harbored a 9-bp deletion between the cytochrome oxidase II (COII) and tRNA(Lys) genes, a length polymorphism previously reported in non-African populations. In addition to haplogroup L, other haplogroups were observed in the Senegalese. These haplogroups were more similar to those observed in Europeans and Asians than to haplogroup L mtDNAs, suggesting that the African mtDNAs without the HpaI np 3592 site could be the ancestral types from which European and Asian mtDNAs were derived. Comparison of the intrapopulation sequence divergence in African and non-African populations confirms that African populations exhibit the largest extent of mtDNA variation, a result that further supports the hypothesis that Africans represent the most ancient human group and that all modern humans have a common and recent African origin. The age of the total African variation was estimated to be 101,000-133,000 years before present (YBP), while the age of haplogroup L was estimated at 98,000-130,000 YBP. These values substantially exceed the ages of all Asian- and European-specific mtDNA haplogroups.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keeping it scholarly. Can tell I raided a Genetics database. . Hopes this answers your question.
mtDNA variation in the South African Kung and Khwe-and their genetic relationships to other African populations.
The mtDNA variation of 74 Khoisan-speaking individuals (Kung and Khwe) from Schmidtsdrift, in the Northern Cape Province of South Africa, was examined by high-resolution RFLP analysis and control region (CR) sequencing. The resulting data were combined with published RFLP haplotype and CR sequence data from sub-Saharan African populations and then were subjected to phylogenetic analysis to deduce the evolutionary relationships among them. More than 77% of the Kung and Khwe mtDNA samples were found to belong to the major mtDNA lineage, macrohaplogroup L* (defined by a HpaI site at nucleotide position 3592), which is prevalent in sub-Saharan African populations. Additional sets of RFLPs subdivided macrohaplogroup L* into two extended haplogroups-L1 and L2-both of which appeared in the Kung and Khwe. Besides revealing the significant substructure of macrohaplogroup L* in African populations, these data showed that the Biaka Pygmies have one of the most ancient RFLP sublineages observed in African mtDNA and, thus, that they could represent one of the oldest human populations. In addition, the Kung exhibited a set of related haplotypes that were positioned closest to the root of the human mtDNA phylogeny, suggesting that they, too, represent one of the most ancient African populations. Comparison of Kung and Khwe CR sequences with those from other African populations confirmed the genetic association of the Kung with other Khoisan-speaking peoples, whereas the Khwe were more closely linked to non-Khoisan-speaking (Bantu) populations. Finally, the overall sequence divergence of 214 African RFLP haplotypes defined in both this and an earlier study was 0.364%, giving an estimated age, for all African mtDNAs, of 125,500-165,500 years before the present, a date that is concordant with all previous estimates derived from mtDNA and other genetic data, for the time of origin of modern humans in Africa
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is an inherent flaw/weakness of academic speak(scholarliness) in terms of communication - the jargon. I'll try again. What's the difference between an African and a Black African?
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jo Nongowa: There is an inherent flaw/weakness of academic speak(scholarliness) in terms of communication - the jargon. I'll try again. What's the difference between an African and a Black African?
Good question and hopefully it will be answered. To emphasize the blackness of something usually indicates that the said "blackness" isn't the standard for where it is applied.
"You look like a black Chinaman"..
^^A lot of people tell me this due to my chinky eyes. Thus, the implication being that most Chinamen aren't black. Same emphasis will be placed on a European, or Native American Indian (B lack Indians, Black Europeans).. However, to say something to the effect that "Black Africans" are ancestors of "Africans", is kind of oxymoronic, or more literally in this context, it is immaterial. If Black Africans are the ultimate ancestor, then surely they were the "first Africans". With that said, they are the standard for what we should deem to be "African", not those who show up later, or whose ancestors developed outside of the continent which meets the conditions for the most part, to evolve people with dark, a.k.a black skin.
It's a false dichotomy. Those with recent common ancestry (Africans) are related, not distinct. Btw, Khoisan are black Africans.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
hold your reigns ya wolofi jaam. This guy never mentioned anthing about rep'in islam. This is between him and u. stop hating and crusade somewhere else.
-------------------- لا اله الا الله و محمد الرسول الله Posts: 495 | From: anchorage, alaska | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:What's the difference between an African and a 'Black African'?
Many native Africans who live in the Maghreb are not socially Black. I hope you understand why I make a difference between Africans and Black Africans.
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Anyone native to a land is indigenous to that land. In other words, that person is an original inhabitant of the land or a descendant of the primordial inhabitants.
An African native to nothern Africa cannot refer to his land as of the Mahgreb (i.e. the west, in Arabic).It does't make sense. However, understandably and from an Arab point of view, in terms of their primordial homelands in the Arabian peninsular, northern Africa is located west.
Moreover, I am aware of the population changes in nothern Africa beginning c. 1400 years ago with the surrender of 'Egypt' by the Roman proconsul to Arab/Turkish armies. Of course, this event facilitated the the eventual occupation of nothern African lands by Arabs, Turks and others, which resulted in the diplacement of native Africans into the Sahel.
Now the question is, and with due regard for the length of time the offspring of the invaders, conquerors and colonizers have being on the land, are they African or an admixture of Greeks/Romans/Arabs/Turks and Europeans ???
If they are not Black, thst is the original inhabitants of the land, then they are not African; and, of course, have the right to define their identity, otherwise.
However, being Black is not a "social construct".
From time immemorial, there has always being a people that have identified themselves ethnically as Black, with inalienable land rights to all of the continent known today, as Africa. Therefore, to be Black is to be an African or the descendant of Africans.
What is the point of describing someone as African but not Black when an African is a Black person???
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many Berbers are leucoderms and genetics indicate that they are indigenous Africans on the Y chromosome side who originated in East Africa, some have as much as 60% of E3b haplogroup, it seems that their mtdna is Europeans(Iberia) thus their appearance more than the Arab influence. These people moved in Northern Africa 2000BC in the area from East Africa...they should be considered as native Africans...but they are leucoderm now...yes they are native Africans who are not socially "Black"...Blackness have different meaning depending on the continent you are on...as an example Blackness in America is sometime not easily applicable in some parts of Africa...thus it's a social construct for me...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
But the so called 'Berbers' do not identify as African. Yes, they will protest vociferously if identified as Arab, and have an aversion to being viewed as African but will accept the label 'North African'??? Hmm.
Peace and out.
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Habari: [qb] Many Berbers are leucoderms and genetics indicate that they are indigenous Africans on the Y chromosome side who originated in East Africa,
East Africa is in the tropics, so certainly you aren't implying that a leucodermic, non-albino population adapted there?
quote:some have as much as 60% of E3b haplogroup, it seems that their mtdna is Europeans(Iberia) thus their appearance more than the Arab influence.
In which they are more influenced than the native Africans you speak of, so the real distinction is with these native, but influenced Africans whom you won't deem as socially "black", yet your distinction is in the context of the majority, which doesn't make sense. Why are the blacks of Africa not simply "Africans", while the externally influenced ones be considered distinct, yet unemphasized and simply Africans, as if they don't need to be categorized and labeled? The impression is that they are more "African" than the said "Black Africans", who were the first Africans, thus, "real Africans"?? That's like denying the American heritage of Native Indians while referring to European colonizers as "true Americans" (which is actually the case).
quote:These people moved in Northern Africa 2000BC in the area from East Africa...they should be considered as native Africans...but they are leucoderm now..yes they are native Africans who are not socially "Black"...
Yes, they are Africans in the sense that they are native to the continent, but to ignore the external ancestry in the context of biohistory is significant. Biologically, they are not "as African" as someone with less influence, namely the blacks in question whom you see as distinct.
quote:Blackness have different meaning depending on the continent you are on...as an example Blackness in America is sometime not easily applicable in some parts of Africa...thus it's a social construct for me...
Of course "Black is a social construct", but it's developed from physical appearance. Race its self is not applicable but the common ancestry shared, reflected in their common appearance and common history is what's binding. Therefore, the term has practical meaning for anyone who fits the criteria, some of which is universal, but I agree, not in all places. Though under well established usage of the term, I'd think it hard to pretend that the word "Black" is meaningless and meaningless to everybody. If an arabized Sudanese with southern roots asserted to me that he wasn't black, I'd respect his view, but wouldn't adhere to it in any way since such an assertion would strike me as silly.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the so called 'Berbers' do not identify as African.
I lived with them while in Europe, although they mingle easily with Black Africans, they view themselves as Arabs or Berbers and it has both a cultural and racial connotation. Even if it's imperfect since even the so called Arabs have indigenous North African E3b derived haplogroups in substantial amount.
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:If an arabized Sudanese with southern roots asserted to me that he wasn't black, I'd respect his view, but wouldn't adhere to it in anyway since such an assertion would strike me as silly.
Many Northerners are Black, and view themselves as Arabs, when I was back home I watched their TV: very few have actually brown skin, the majority are as dark as other Africans...and I think they view themselves as Arab who happens to be Black...That's the error many of us including me were making...they view themselves as Black Arabs...you will find the same mentality in Chad, Northern Cameroon even in Northern Central Africa...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Point n case being that dark skinned Africans need not be specified at the expense of foreign influenced Africans. You concede that the vast majority of people on the continent are blacks with the above statement "as dark as other Africans".. Yet, this statement implies the opposite, no?
quote:What I meant is that we all have Black African ancestors:whether Asian, Europeans or Africans...
1. We know that Black Africans were the the original kind of African, thus, the black distinction is unnecessary since that skin color is natural for Africans, no?
2. You concede that Berbers come from East Africa, derived from a region now populated by blacks, yet are now influenced heavily by European and Middle Easterners, who are not African.
^^Given that, is there a particular reason why you refer to blacks in Africa as "Black Africans", yet refer to mixed northerners as just simply Africans? So why isn't it the case that say, Nigerians are just "Africans", while Moroccans are "white Africans" (even though they are not, but you should see the point)..
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why adjectives related to skin color are always subjective and Race is a social construct: thus being Black is a social construct as well...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Habari: That's why adjectives related to skin color are always subjective and Race is a social construct: thus being Black is a social construct as well...
Of course, but I still don't believe that you catch my drift, so this might be sub-conscience on your part. You've effectively reduced blacks as non-primary subordinates and a sub-group, when the sub-group are non black Africans. Keeping that social criteria in mind, the lighter skinned, more influenced Africans are less authentic per se (in a biological sense), so if you are to insist on using adjectives, then it should apply to the said sub-group. More examples:
Albino Alligator (most alligators aren't albino), Black cat (most cats aren't black), African American (most Americans aren't recently African derived), Hot comb (most combs aren't hot).
^^Do you see why referring to the majority of Africans as "Black Africans", while referring to Berbers as "Africans" (as opposed to the other way around, excluding the color descriptor), is problematic??
Not trying to lecture (you're a bright person), I just like to be sure that my initial point was taken since you seem to be addressing something else.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
We are all aware I hope that the present discussion on the term "black African" is carried on in an European language--in this instance, English.
We are also aware that the term "black African" is a term first introduced by Europeans[French, Germans, etc. follow suit]when they began their colonial enterprise whcih involved trekking huge distances across the entire African continent.
People in Africa hardly ever refer to themselves as "black Africans" except in academic circles or in circles that use European languages. In this instance it is mere copying what the Europeans have said.
[Incidentally, "black African" and "black Africa" have been replaced by the euphemism "sub-Saharan Africa". But the meaning is the same.]
But for the history of the term "black African". Originally the term "negro Africa" was the term used to differentiate the populations of Africa into "Hamites", "Berbers", "Moors", "Arabs", "Bushmen" and "Negroes".
So for the European anthropologist a "Negro African" was distinct from any of the other groups. And a "Negro African" was anyone superficially described--by Europeans--as anyone with phenotypical traits ranging from "true negro" to "negroid but not negro".
Over time "negro African" gave way to "black African"[the term "negro" was seen as pejorative because of pressures from the African American black movement in the 1960s and subsequent]but the old paradigm is still in place.
What is interesting is that groups that were routinely described as "non-black African" have now been included following the research done by scholars like C.A. Diop et al. Examples are the San[pejoratively known as "Bushmen"], the Foulah of West Africa, Amhara Ethiopians and their neighbours, the Somali, the Tutsis of Rwanda/Burundi, some Berbers, the Touareg, etc.
For example, it was a puzzle to European linguists[Meinhoff et al.] that the Foulah spoke--as they put it--"a Negro language" but "they were not negroes". I even read once where the author described the "northern Yoruba" as "Hamitic".
It is obvious then that when the Europeans coined the term "negro African" they were referring specifically to certain population groups in Africa that were identified as having "negro" phenotypes. The usual stuff about prognathism, lips, noses, hair, especially.
So it doen't necessarily mean people who are indigenous to Africa or not. It's all about "blackness" as an euphemism for "negroness".
Note that this issue does not arise for the inhabitants of Europe or Asia. Meaning that there are no theoretical terms such as "white European" or "yellow Asian" or "brown or black Asian".
And this is where the heated debates about whether the Ancient Egyptians were "negro Africans" or not derives--bearing in kind that for the European anthropologist the "negro African" was along with the Australian Aborigine the most "culturally and biologically inferior beings on earth". So at all costs, the AEs or Kushites just could not be "negroes"[blacks].
So ponder the shock that C.A. Diop's title to his controversial--to Europeans, that is--text engendered. The title was "Nations negres et culture". And it was mainly about Ancient Egypt.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:^^Do you see why referring to the majority of Africans as "Black Africans", while referring to Berbers as "Africans" (as opposed to the other way around, excluding the color descriptor), is problematic??
I answered the question: "What's the difference between an African and a Black African". I answered. Actually you should ask the person who asked the difference first: Nongowa. African and Black Africans are not interchangeable, it's even racist to suggest that since there are leucoderms native Africans... Let me precise my point:many Berbers and Arabized North Africans are leucoderms, they are not socially Black in my point of view( which is not objective: colorism is a social construct) thus: Many North Africans are Africans but not Black...Black Africans are Africans but socially Black...There are two subgroups in Africa in my opinion: leucoderm Africans and Black Africans...the former have substantial non Black African admixture...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Skin color is not a social construct. The idea of RACE as defined by skin color, as a key genetic difference between human people IS a social construct. Likewise, being black is not so much objective as skin color is a fact and isn't based on subjective opinion.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Colorism is a social construct...who is Black and where are you Black and at what point do you stop being Black...everything is about perspective...thus colorism is a social construct...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I answered the question: "What's the difference between an African and a Black African". I answered.
Irrelevant. I asked you why is it that you use a color descriptor to describe dark-skinned natives, but not in reference to those mixed breeds whom you deem to be non-black?
quote:Actually you should ask the person who asked the difference first: Nongowa.
Not really since he isn't the one who created the dichotomy between native Africans.
quote:African and Black Africans are not interchangeable, it's even racist to suggest that since there are leucoderms native Africans...
This guy is a bit obtuse and I see that I'll need some intellectual patience. Someone needs to learn how to read through analogies and reference my previous statements here:
quote:"if you are to insist on using adjectives, then it should apply to the said sub-group. More examples:
Albino Alligator (most alligators aren't albino), Black cat (most cats aren't black), African American (most Americans aren't recently African derived), Hot comb (most combs aren't hot)."
^^Do you see why referring to the majority of Africans as "Black Africans", while referring to Berbers as "Africans" (as opposed to the other way around, excluding the color descriptor), is problematic??
^^Learn to comprehend please. Point being that Blacks whom comprise and are in predominant part, biologically native to the vast majority of the continent, unlike those whom you fail to distinguish (some North Africans), in ONLY referring to them as "Africans" while referring to the true, biological natives as "Black Africans" when obviously they are the most authentic and deserving of simply being called "Africans". If you need to make note of skin color, then make note of the hue that isn't as predominant since that's what sticks out and is thus, notable (dark skin in Africa isn't notable). The elephant in the room per se.
quote:Let me precise my point:many Berbers and Arabized North Africans are leucoderms, they are not socially Black in my point of view( which is not objective: colorism is a social construct) thus: Many North Africans are Africans but not Black...
Given this, why not refer to them as "Arabized Africans", or "Mixed Africans".. Secify like you do with Blacks, otherwise you seem biased towards pushing a view that Berbers are truly African while say, Nigerians for example are and will always be "Black Africans" (not just Africans), even though their history on the continent is longer and more rooted. You make no sense and your argument is illogical and driven by a straw man.
quote:Black Africans are Africans but socially Black...
This is immaterial since they are Africans and among the most abundant variety (though not monolithic).
quote:There are two subgroups in Africa in my opinion:
Your opinion is bogus and I reject it. I challenge you to bring fourth anthropological evidence supporting ANY biological sub-group in Africa. I also challenge you to provide cultural evidence indicating a presence of only two sub-groups, in an ethnic context.
quote:leucoderm Africans and Black Africans...
Some of the most ignorant bile I've read on here. I'm laughing out loud. For the less informed, Africa possesses almost every color gradient there is in the human complexion. Don't be a fool.
quote:the former have substantial non Black African admixture...
Correction for purposes of preciseness. The former has substantial non African admixture, period, which is why they aren't black and why your entire argument is foolish.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Irrelevant. I asked you why is it that you use a color descriptor to describe dark-skinned natives, but not in reference to those mixed breeds whom you deem to be non-black?
I did in my previous post: I call them leucoderm Africans, if you want me to call them White African, it's OK with me, but that might offend some people...but someone else might call them brown because of their mixed heritage...actually we call them Arabu( in many parts of Africa) for their skin color...even if it's not technically true that they are Arabs...By calling them Africans I'm trying to go beyond the perception among non leucoderms Africans who view them as alien to Africa...and I disagree with that because of genetic(they carry substantial African genes) and cultural information(many speak an African language, especially Berbers)...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Nigerians, Ethiopians, Ancient Egyptians = Africans.
Berbers = Africans.
Your problem is that initially, your selection of words indicated that the former are "Black" Africans (specification) while the latter and the like are Africans (with no specification). No specification implies something nonunique, while specification implies uniqueness. Blacks in Africa aren't unique, leucoderms are, so specification should be applied in that context, if at all. Obviously the point hasn't penetrated, probably due to your selective quoting/reading. I responded to one of your quotes and one only, which was this one:
quote:What I meant is that we all have Black African ancestors:whether Asian, Europeans or Africans...
Redundant, biased and nonsensical since it implies that "Black Africans" aren't Africans (via your unartful distinction) yet non blacks who have many recent ancestors that weren't even from Africa, are. That's (excuse my candidness), just stupid.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Redundant, biased and nonsensical since it implies that "Black Africans" aren't Africans
I guess you missed the African qualification in "Black Africans". We are not debating cultural, scientific or historical subjects, we are debating semantic...I hope you realize that...don't you?...seriously that's the only thing I can retain in that debate...just semantic....English semantic...European semantic...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Habari: Colorism is a social construct...who is Black and where are you Black and at what point do you stop being Black...everything is about perspective...thus colorism is a social construct...
Colorism and racism are social constructs based on the FACT of skin color. Social constructs based AROUND skin color does not mean that SKIN COLOR does not exist and is not a biological fact SEPARATE from social constructs. The word black describes a color and can be used to describe skin complexion. It is a WORD not a social construct.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Redundant, biased and nonsensical since it implies that "Black Africans" aren't Africans
I guess you missed the African qualification in "Black Africans". We are not debating cultural, scientific or historical subjects, we are debating semantic...I hope you realize that...don't you?...seriously that's the only thing I can retain in that debate...just semantic....English semantic...European semantic...
^^Of course it's a matter of semantics, but logic and contextual correctness as well. Also misunderstanding due to selective quoting on your part and not knowing what you're even responding to. I've emphasized your use of the adjective "Black" to describe the vast majority of natives who inhabit the continent, only due to you neglecting adjectival use in reference to non Blacks who have less native ancestry. This goes against conventional wisdom no matter what language you use and to avoid this implication either reflects an unconscious parroting of the same Europeans you seek to distance your self from in thought, or just willful ignorance, it's that simple. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:only due to you neglecting adjectival use in reference to non Blacks who have less native ancestry
Sorry about that, let me use an adjective for them: White-Brown Africans...is it OK? Africans are the ancestors of Europeans, Asians, "White-Brown" Africans and "Black" Africans... Is it OK now? By the way I apologize for my sins...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:only due to you neglecting adjectival use in reference to non Blacks who have less native ancestry
Sorry about that, let me use an adjective for them: White-Brown Africans...is it OK? Africans are the ancestors of Europeans, Asians, "White-Brown" Africans and "Black" Africans... Is it OK now? By the way I apologize for my sins...
Just stop parroting fallacious European jargon out of context and you should be fine.. All is forgiven. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic