posted
People like to quirm around a lot as to their definition of what is Black.
So here is your chance to stand up fro your beleifs. State exactly what Black means to you and then stick to that definition.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:people like to quirm around a lot with their definition of black
Black -> A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary.
Stupid thread, in which the poster asks a question he has asked before and which has already been answered, and then squirms around a lot, while trying to argue with the answer because he *hates* the definition.
^ The very act of repeating this already answered question indicates mental illness.
Go see a psychiatrist and ask them why you need to start stupid troll threads on the internet to deny the existence of Black people.
Come back when you get and answer.
Until then, stop hating and please cease the stupidity.
Troll threads like this is why you were banned from ES to begin with, yet you continually return - like a bad smell, whic is also indicative of mental illness.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Agreed stupid thread. Wasting bandwidth. Since there are so many thread that answers the question. That's why newbies should not be allowed to start a new thread. They don't read and start a new thread that answers questions that were addressed so many times before.
BTW Is it Africa I?
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:people like to quirm around a lot with their definition of black
Black -> A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary.
Stupid thread, Troll threads like this is why you were banned from ES to begin with, yet you continually return - like a bad smell, whic is also indicative of mental illness.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Black -> A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary.
Agreed stupid thread. Wasting bandwidth. What are his other alias.
Jamie, Salassin...he is a mulatto centrist who hates his own Black ancestry and is searching for and ideology that will help him rationalise it, thru denial of the existence of Blacks throughout history [including his own bloodline].
His psychosis runs deep and will not be resolved here.
Instead of taking his bait, ask him questions and refuse to address him until he answers them.
* Under how many other alias have you trolled this forum?
* How many times have you been banned?
* Why do you return instead of seeking the professional help you need?
^ His question has been answered. Doug and others should not further indulge him until and unless he answers the above, otherwise this thread will become another idiotic picture-spam fest....which is exactly what this troll wants.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL. Rasol is a resident troll who hates admitting admixture and accepting that one droppism isn't the standard around the world. He has no life except on this board. and is going through anxiety pains now that Ausar isn't covering his ass. Obviously he can't answer this simple question so he will build strawmen to argue.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: LOL. Rasol is a resident troll who hates admitting admixture and accepting that one droppism isn't the standard around the world.
The Bass says why don't *YOU* accept that fact that people around the world aren't adopting your maniacal "we are all mixed" retardology?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: People like to quirm around a lot as to their definition of what is Black.
So here is your chance to stand up fro your beleifs. State exactly what Black means to you and then stick to that definition.
warning, stay out of the Bass' home forum, this is the place of intelligent, well informed posters[still here eventhough hijacked by trolls], this is not HBD where you have racist toubabs and equally mixed up in the head people. Stay out of the Bass' home tirf with your "what is black mania" and take it ODR or some other place.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: LOL. Rasol is a resident troll who hates admitting admixture and accepting that one droppism isn't the standard around the world.
The Bass says why don't *YOU* accept that fact that people around the world aren't adopting your maniacal "we are all mixed" retardology?
Majority of people around the world don't identify according to "white", "black", "red", "yellow" or "mixed¨race", "octoroon", "quadroon" etc. They simply identify along the lines of their land, culture, language, religion etc.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: LOL. Rasol is a resident troll who hates admitting admixture and accepting that one droppism isn't the standard around the world.
The Bass says why don't *YOU* accept that fact that people around the world aren't adopting your maniacal "we are all mixed" retardology?
Majority of people around the world don't identify according to "white", "black", "red", "yellow" or "mixed¨race", "octoroon", "quadroon" etc. They simply identify along the lines of their land, culture, language, religion etc.
The Bass knows of many people who identify as black, especially Africans and Afro-Carribbeans and the majority of those of African descent who have been victims of European colonization so the bass says your post is half right and marginally true. You can't identify by religion as an ethnic identity, the Bass is a Christian and so are most white Americans yet we don't share the same identity ethnically, so that eliminates one of your broad claims. The Bass is an American and George W. Bush and david Dukes are Americans, yet we all don't identify the same ethnically. Conversely, the Bass and Mugabe are not the same nationality but we both identify as black men. Point blank without going any further, religion is simply one's personal relationship with God and or gods, not a marker of ethnic identity. language is a form of communication, sharing the same land means sharing the same nationality, but not necessarily the same ethnic identity, you acan even share the same culture and not even be ethnically the same, look at the Hutu and Tutsis for example in this regard.
Like it or not Yonis, there are black people and you are black yourself, get over it.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are using the new world as an example, which is not a good one. Most people don't live in a multicultural environment as in the american continents. majority of people live in monolithic societies in terms of physical appearence, that's why land, language, religion and culture plays a more important role in terms of their identity.
quote:You can't identify by religion as an ethnic
Trust me, many muslims identify as muslims before anything else, northern indian muslims and pakistanis are a case in point same with north western chinese, chechens and Eritrean jaberti.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: People like to quirm around a lot as to their definition of what is Black.
So here is your chance to stand up fro your beleifs. State exactly what Black means to you and then stick to that definition.
There is only ONE definition of black. It is in the dictionary. Either YOU agree with it or YOU don't. Period. All this running around in circles worrying about what OTHER people think and how OTHER people view the word is SNIVELING.
In fact, YOU cannot CHALLENGE the accuracy of the dictionary definition of black. Therefore, RATHER than deal with YOUR inadequacies and UNABILITY to accept FACTS for what they are, you MAKE UP B.S. arguments about WHAT is black and WHAT isn't black and WHAT is tan and what isn't tan. But in reality, you AREN'T debating what is meant by black, because YOU KNOW what is meant.
In reality what YOU like to debate is WHO is MULATTO, because EVERY TIME you discuss and pretend to CHALLENGE someone YOU present pictures of the LIGHTEST SKINNED PEOPLE you can find in Africa or America and then pretend to debate. Debate WHAT? What ARE you debating? WHY are you fixated on people at the FRINGE of what is called black as if that is the CORE of the argument behind what people mean by black? Because YOU HAVE no debate about what black means. What YOU call debating is WHINING by obsessing over THAT SMALL percentage of people with BLACK ancestry who are VERY LIGHT and then try and portray THAT as a primary example of some sort of CONTRADICTION to what is being argued. NOBODY is posting pictures of people like Alicia Keys and Colin Powell as "representative" examples of the complexion BLACKS. YOU are the one posting SUCH NONSENSE and then PRETENDING that this is something to DEBATE.
You are A FOOL because you are DEBATING YOURSELF.
And as for your TROLLING about Khoisan in South Africa, notice this, most Khoisan are NOT that light. So again, as opposed to CLARIFYING anything, you are exposed as a LOON who has nothing to do but OBSESS over LIGHT SKINNED PEOPLE those who may be of MIXED ANCESTRY because YOU have an unhealthy obsession with the word black.
So save your lame images of people with mixed ancestry or very light skin as so called "representative" of a debate about black. There is NO DEBATE. The Khoi ARE BLACK. FOOL.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Egyptians definitely considered themselves black.
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: Majority of people around the world don't identify according to "white", "black", "red", "yellow" or "mixed¨race", "octoroon", "quadroon" etc. They simply identify along the lines of their land, culture, language, religion etc.
For queer hobblings like this I have questions.
1.) Who cares, I mean of what relevance is what the majority of the world [allegedly] do [according to Yonis]?
2.) Substantiation?
3.) Even if some people don't do this, I even met a Chinese fellow who could comprehend this: "I'm not black I'm white," he says when he mistakenly thought someone mis-labeled him as such.
I've met another asian that told me "many of us are black to the south" etc.
A puerto-rican that considers herself "not really white" but doesn't take offence to being called it since she is light skinned and has "my whole family has all the colors of the rainbow ... my cousin ... is black... are black... we got white cousins" - clearly comprehends black white etc.
quote:
so what is this guy?
or this guy?
Well, the first one? Yes, I consider him black.
The last one? No, but I don't consider him white either.
posted
Doug M. Thiose people are not dark skinned. Yet you claim them Black. Bottom line, it is you who don't know what you are talking about.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chimu, Khoisan are not Central Asians, even though SOME Khoisan have similar features. Therefore, you cannot state that because SOME Khoisan are as light as Asians from the Central Asians steppes, that the Khoisan are NOT black Africans. YOU aren't making any sense and the ANALOGY is FLAWED. You SHOULD be comparing the Khoisan to OTHER Africans who they are related to and OTHER KHOISAN and stop trying to make FAKE associations that DO NOT EXIST, based on SELECTED images of the LIGHTEST Khoisan you can find.
So your half truths and HALF baked facts are exposed AGAIN for WHAT they are: PHONY attempts to ALTER the ACTUAL diversity and complexity of African people and blacks through NONSENSE associations with NON BLACKS.
Again, you are RELYING on trying to showcase the LIGHTEST people who are part of the black diaspora and associate them with people who have NO BLACK ancestry and trying to make an argument. But you are a FOOL. Khoisan ARE NOT central Asians and their features and complexions are NOT the same as central Asians, thereby making your SPAMMING of selected Khoisan as REPRESENTATIVE of ALL Khoisan another example of your NONSENSE and FEAR of the word black.
NOBODY said that those Central Asians were black. YOU said that. Therefore YOUR ANALOGY is again STUPID because you are comparing apples to oranges. YOU make up stupid analogies that MAKE NO SENSE and then pretend you have a CONTRADICTION of the facts, but in reality YOU are contradicting YOURSELF because you are an IDIOT LOON who has nothing better to do but DELUDE HIMSELF with SILLY facts that have NOTHING to do with reality. The Khoisan are BLACK AFRICANS, period and their features have NOTHING to do with Asia. Some light skin people among a population called BLACK does not mean that the word is INVALID. Alecia Keys, Colin Powell and Iranians DO NOT make BLACK an invalid term for Africans in the U.S or people anywhere else. It makes YOU a fool for trying to PICK THEM as some sort of contradiction of the word black, when they aren't.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Black -> A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary.
So by that definition, what is this guy?:
Or this guy?
Come on guys, it is time to man up and stop calling this dude a troll.
He is asking a valid questions despite what he has done in the past.
The two men DO look almost a-like so asking how is one black and the other not is being objectively succinct because I would like to know as well.
And no Doug, we cannot talk about what their "blood tests" say nor where they come from. We have to judge based on the opinion of their appearance without any axiom of genetic lineages or Continental location.
So answer the question. Why is the top one Black and the bottom one NOT black?
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Black -> A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary.
So by that definition, what is this guy?:
Or this guy?
Come on guys, it is time to man up and stop calling this dude a troll.
He is asking a valid questions despite what he has done in the past.
The two men DO look almost a-like so asking how is one black and the other not is being objectively succinct because I would like to know as well.
And no Doug, we cannot talk about what their "blood tests" say nor where they come from. We have to judge based on the opinion of their appearance without any axiom of genetic lineages or Continental location.
So answer the question. Why is the top one Black and the bottom one NOT black?
He is a troll because NOBODY said that the man from central Asia WAS BLACK. Therefore, showing a PICTURE of that man is NONSENSE because NOBODY said he was black. How on earth does posting a picture of a WHITE central Asian that NOBODY was claiming was black constitute a VALID QUESTION? How?
On top of that, Khoisan are NOT white Central Asians, so again what does THAT have to do with the diversity in complexions of BLACK AFRICANS? NOT A THING because the range of complexions are NOT the same between Central Asians and BLACK AFRICANS. Some Khoisan and other BLACK Africans are very light, for various reasons, but they are NOT all that light, only a minority are, so PICKING and CHOOSING ONLY the LIGHTEST skinned black Africans to constitute some sort of "evidence" is not a QUESTION it is NON SENSE. Because NOBODY is using those examples as "TYPICAL" of what is meant by black. YOU are. Therefore YOU are the one making B.S. claims that NOBODY else is making.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Black -> A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary.
So by that definition, what is this guy?:
Or this guy?
Come on guys, it is time to man up and stop calling this dude a troll.
He is asking a valid questions despite what he has done in the past.
The two men DO look almost a-like so asking how is one black and the other not is being objectively succinct because I would like to know as well.
And no Doug, we cannot talk about what their "blood tests" say nor where they come from. We have to judge based on the opinion of their appearance without any axiom of genetic lineages or Continental location.
So answer the question. Why is the top one Black and the bottom one NOT black?
LOL. Look at him failing to address your post. Dougie is a head case.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Black -> A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary.
So by that definition, what is this guy?:
Or this guy?
Come on guys, it is time to man up and stop calling this dude a troll.
He is asking a valid questions despite what he has done in the past.
The two men DO look almost a-like so asking how is one black and the other not is being objectively succinct because I would like to know as well.
And no Doug, we cannot talk about what their "blood tests" say nor where they come from. We have to judge based on the opinion of their appearance without any axiom of genetic lineages or Continental location.
So answer the question. Why is the top one Black and the bottom one NOT black?
LOL. Look at him failing to address your post. Dougie is a head case.
What point? Khoisan are NOT Asians and do not have the same range of features and complexions as the central Asians YOU POSTED. NOBODY said that Central Asians are black. Therefore WHAT is the point? NOBODY compared Central Asian WHITES with African blacks EXCEPT YOU and said that BOTH were BLACK. So THERE IS NO QUESTION to be asked except WHY are you stupid? BLACK African Khoisan are NOT Central Asians. So there is nothing VALID you can ask about such a comparison. But you are a FOOL because YOU think that because A FEW Khoisan have similar complexions to LIGHT skinned central Asians that this somehow PROOF that Khoisan are not black.
The simple fact is that you are simple and dumb and unable to accept that your posts have no value other than as a source of laughter. Only an IDIOT would compare a WHITE central Asian to an African black and THINK they are contradicting ANYONE OTHER than THEMSELVES.
So WHY did you post these two pictures and WHY do you think that this represents ANYTHING OTHER than YOUR OWN MIXED UP BRAIN? NOBODY else posted those images so YOU are the one PROVING how STUPID you are by trying to EQUATE black African Khoisan with Central Asian whites as being "similar" in complexion as a group WHEN THEY ARE NOT. But you are TOO DUMB to see this. Only a FOOL like you would pick some WHITE Central Asians as some sort of ARGUMENT about the word black.
But that is all you can do, which is post STUPID IRRELEVANT comparisons and expect to have some sort of debate. Anyone with sense would see that it is a STUPID comparison and call you out for being STUPID as opposed to engaging in such TRIFLING NONSENSE.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Capitalizing words will not change the fact that you are dodging. You claim it is about complexion and then you claim it is not. LOL
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: Capitalizing words will not change the fact that you are dodging. You claim it is about complexion and then you claim it is not. LOL
The FACT is that YOU are the one who compared WHITE ASIANS to African BLACKS as some how THE SAME in terms of skin color. OBVIOUSLY the only one who is SQUIRMING is YOU because you LACK common sense, which is why you CONTINUE ON with DRIBBLE that reflects absolute INSANITY on your part.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Black -> A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary.
So by that definition, what is this guy?:
Or this guy?
Come on guys, it is time to man up and stop calling this dude a troll.
He is asking a valid questions despite what he has done in the past.
The two men DO look almost a-like so asking how is one black and the other not is being objectively succinct because I would like to know as well.
And no Doug, we cannot talk about what their "blood tests" say nor where they come from. We have to judge based on the opinion of their appearance without any axiom of genetic lineages or Continental location.
So answer the question. Why is the top one Black and the bottom one NOT black?
LOL. Look at him failing to address your post. Dougie is a head case.
Exactly, once again dumb Dougie just blabbers his mouth. I told you in my post *DO NOT TALK ABOUT THEIR ANCESTRY!!!* and just judge by *APPEARANCE ALONE* and no one said the man on the bottom was *ANYTHING*. The point is; if the two said people look almost identical how is one classified differently than the other.
You once again Doug fail to comprehend simple requests. Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Chimu: LOL. Rasol is a resident troll who hates admitting admixture and accepting that one droppism isn't the standard around the world. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bass says why don't *YOU* accept that fact that people around the world aren't adopting your maniacal "we are all mixed" retardology?
One droppism is definitely not the norm around the world. But why the defensiveness? No one is trying to force you to adopt another socially constructed definition of who/what is 'black"...Simple question, what is your definition of black?
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ To be fair, Wolofi and Chimu have a point. If "black" is indeed based solely upon skin as rasols definition suggests, then the khoisan man is not "black" in those terms.
Doug, there is a difference between "black" and "african". Khoisan are African. Probably more african than their darker skinned neighbors. But many cannot be classified as "black". Doing so is a contradiction and double standard.
-------------------- Dont be evil - Google Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Bass says why don't *YOU* accept that fact that people around the world aren't adopting your maniacal "we are all mixed" retardology? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority of people around the world don't identify according to "white", "black", "red", "yellow" or "mixed¨race", "octoroon", "quadroon" etc. They simply identify along the lines of their land, culture, language, religion etc.
Yonis2, I agree. I would also add that phenotype/genotype and ethnicity/nationality are not necessarily always one in the same, especially when you take into consideration the socially defined aspects of these (i.e.who is describing who).
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ To be fair, Wolofi and Chimu have a point. If "black" is indeed based solely upon skin as rasols definition suggests, then the khoisan man is not "black" in those terms.
Doug, there is a difference between "black" and "african". Khoisan are African. Probably more african than their darker skinned neighbors. But many cannot be classified as "black". Doing so is a contradiction and double standard.
Mmmkay, Agreed.
I think Chimu's question addresses the socially defined/constructed concept of what is black, which has varied over time and used differently by various peoples. Indeed, there are Africans who consider Khoisan under a seperate identity. I have personally spoken to South Africans (white & black)who do not consider them black.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What point? Khoisan are NOT Asians and do not have the same range of features and complexions as the central Asians YOU POSTED. NOBODY said that Central Asians are black. Therefore WHAT is the point? NOBODY compared Central Asian WHITES with African blacks EXCEPT YOU and said that BOTH were BLACK. So THERE IS NO QUESTION to be asked except WHY are you stupid? BLACK African Khoisan are NOT Central Asians. So there is nothing VALID you can ask about such a comparison. But you are a FOOL because YOU think that because A FEW Khoisan have similar complexions to LIGHT skinned central Asians that this somehow PROOF that Khoisan are not black.
The simple fact is that you are simple and dumb and unable to accept that your posts have no value other than as a source of laughter. Only an IDIOT would compare a WHITE central Asian to an African black and THINK they are contradicting ANYONE OTHER than THEMSELVES.
So WHY did you post these two pictures and WHY do you think that this represents ANYTHING OTHER than YOUR OWN MIXED UP BRAIN? NOBODY else posted those images so YOU are the one PROVING how STUPID you are by trying to EQUATE black African Khoisan with Central Asian whites as being "similar" in complexion as a group WHEN THEY ARE NOT. But you are TOO DUMB to see this. Only a FOOL like you would pick some WHITE Central Asians as some sort of ARGUMENT about the word black.
But that is all you can do, which is post STUPID IRRELEVANT comparisons and expect to have some sort of debate. Anyone with sense would see that it is a STUPID comparison and call you out for being STUPID as opposed to engaging in such TRIFLING NONSENSE. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug M,
-You do know that many native Africans (white or black) do not group the Khoisan under the "black" label? And that many Khoisan do not self-identify together with their black African neighbors?
-I am also confused by your use of the term "white"? central Asian.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Chimu, Khoisan are not Central Asians, even though SOME Khoisan have similar features. Therefore, you cannot state that because SOME Khoisan are as light as Asians from the Central Asians steppes, that the Khoisan are NOT black Africans. YOU aren't making any sense and the ANALOGY is FLAWED. You SHOULD be comparing the Khoisan to OTHER Africans who they are related to and OTHER KHOISAN and stop trying to make FAKE associations that DO NOT EXIST, based on SELECTED images of the LIGHTEST Khoisan you can find.
So your half truths and HALF baked facts are exposed AGAIN for WHAT they are: PHONY attempts to ALTER the ACTUAL diversity and complexity of African people and blacks through NONSENSE associations with NON BLACKS.
Again, you are RELYING on trying to showcase the LIGHTEST people who are part of the black diaspora and associate them with people who have NO BLACK ancestry and trying to make an argument. But you are a FOOL. Khoisan ARE NOT central Asians and their features and complexions are NOT the same as central Asians, thereby making your SPAMMING of selected Khoisan as REPRESENTATIVE of ALL Khoisan another example of your NONSENSE and FEAR of the word black.
NOBODY said that those Central Asians were black. YOU said that. Therefore YOUR ANALOGY is again STUPID because you are comparing apples to oranges. YOU make up stupid analogies that MAKE NO SENSE and then pretend you have a CONTRADICTION of the facts, but in reality YOU are contradicting YOURSELF because you are an IDIOT LOON who has nothing better to do but DELUDE HIMSELF with SILLY facts that have NOTHING to do with reality. The Khoisan are BLACK AFRICANS, period and their features have NOTHING to do with Asia. Some light skin people among a population called BLACK does not mean that the word is INVALID. [QUOTE]
It makes YOU a fool for trying to PICK THEM as some sort of contradiction of the word black, when they aren't.
-In the USA, Alicia Keys falls under the African American ethnic label, which is to say they self-identify as "black" and are seen as such by the public. This despite the fact that Alicia Keys is 1/2 white, and it is very evident by her phenotype. You do realize that many black Africans would not call her black? Or for that matter, neither would they be called black in LatinAmerica.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Black -> A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary.
So by that definition, what is this guy?:
Or this guy?
Come on guys, it is time to man up and stop calling this dude a troll.
He is asking a valid questions despite what he has done in the past.
The two men DO look almost a-like so asking how is one black and the other not is being objectively succinct because I would like to know as well.
And no Doug, we cannot talk about what their "blood tests" say nor where they come from. We have to judge based on the opinion of their appearance without any axiom of genetic lineages or Continental location.
So answer the question. Why is the top one Black and the bottom one NOT black?
LOL. Look at him failing to address your post. Dougie is a head case.
Exactly, once again dumb Dougie just blabbers his mouth. I told you in my post *DO NOT TALK ABOUT THEIR ANCESTRY!!!* and just judge by *APPEARANCE ALONE* and no one said the man on the bottom was *ANYTHING*. The point is; if the two said people look almost identical how is one classified differently than the other.
You once again Doug fail to comprehend simple requests.
Once again YOU ARE IGNORING REALITY. There IS NO EQUIVALENCE between THE TWO IMAGES.
So the ANSWER IS YOU ARE A RETARD. YOU are the one saying that KHOISAN BLACKS are of the SAME diversity in complexion and features AS CENTRAL ASIAN WHITES. NOBODY ELSE said that CENTRAL ASIAN WHITES were black. YOU keep POSTING those images and all those FOOLISH enough to FALL for it feel it REPRESENTS SOME SORT OF CHALLENGE. Challenge of WHAT? WHO HERE said that Central Asian Whites and Khoisan Blacks are of the SAME features and complexion and that BOTH GROUPS were black? WHO said that?
Only the IDIOT FOOL TROLLS with NO BRAINS would post images of African Blacks and Asian Whites as if they represent THE SAME KINDS of complexions. THEY DO NOT. Therefore YOU are the RETARD for making SILLY COMPARISONS that NOBODY ELSE was TALKING ABOUT to begin with. NOBODY said that ALL BLACKS look like Alicia Keys YOU FOOLS did. NOBODY said that Colin Powell was a TYPICAL BLACK. YOU DID. YET you IDIOTS try and PRETEND that Colin Powell or Alicia Keys are "representative" of what people mean by black WHO SAID THAT THEY WERE? NOBODY DID. NOBODY said that a VERY LIGHT skinned KHOISAN was "representative" of what people mean by black. YOU DID. Of COURSE Khoisan are BLACK AFRICANS. They CONSIDER THEMSELVES as black AFRICANS and SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE. The ONLY ONES who sees them as WHITE ASIANS are the RETARDS on this FORUM.
If YOU don't understand WHY they are called BLACK AFRICANS, it is because YOU IDIOTS have NOTHING BETTER to do than embarass yourself with FOOLISH ARGUMENTS NOBODY ELSE IS MAKING. NOBODY said that VERY LIGHT SKINNED KHOISAN make the KHOISAN BLACK AFRICANS. NOBODY SAID THAT YOU DID. NOBODY SAID that Khoisan are MOSTLY LIGHT SKINNED. YOU DID. The ONLY THING you are doing is making FOOLS of yourselves by ARGUING SOMETHING that is invalid. ALL KHOISAN are NOT VERY LIGHT SKINNED. SOME ARE, but MOST ARE NOT. But THAT is what you get when TROLLS try and pretend to HAVE BRAINS.
Therefore the ONLY answer is that YOU are a RETARD. NOBODY posted that the CENTRAL ASIAN WHITES in the photo WERE BLACK. THEREFORE, what YOU FAIL to realize is that the COMPARISON is INVALID to BEGIN WITH and REFLECTS the fact that YOU are WRONG for pretending that Khoisan BLACKS are of the SAME complexion as a group as CENTRAL ASIAN WHITES. THEY ARE NOT.
YOU are the one who is making the comparison as being people of EQUIVALENT complexion, ancestry and features, NOBODY ELSE. YOU are the one calling them BOTH black. NOBODY ELSE is calling BOTH IMAGES BLACK.
Therefore, as usual, unable to COMPREHEND the fact that KHOISAN are BLACK AFRICANS, you find some VERY LIGHT Khoisan and PRETEND that ALL KHOISAN are that complexion. Again YOU are a retard because YOU are trying to equate the features of KHOISAN BLACK AFRICANS with WHITE CENTRAL ASIANS. NOBODY ELSE.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^ To be fair, Wolofi and Chimu have a point. If "black" is indeed based solely upon skin as rasols definition suggests, then the khoisan man is not "black" in those terms.
Doug, there is a difference between "black" and "african". Khoisan are African. Probably more african than their darker skinned neighbors. But many cannot be classified as "black". Doing so is a contradiction and double standard.
Actually YOU have NO IDEA what you are talking about. YOU are FOLLOWING the ANTICS of a TROLL and PRETENDING that the TROLL is making sense. ALL KHOISAN are NOT as LIGHT as that man in the picture. THAT is why YOUR ATTEMPT to make ALL KHOISAN that complexion because SOME IDIOT TROLL said so, an example of PEOPLE WHO DO NOT ACCEPT THE FACTS.
The FACTS are that KHOISAN are NOT ALL LIGHT SKINNED. PERIOD. Some are, but MOST AREN'T. Therefore, YOUR attempts to make UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS AS FACT are BUSTED as FOOLISH NONSENSE posted by TROLLS.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Population Registration Act No 30 of 1950 "A White person is one who is in appearance obviously white – and not generally accepted as Coloured – or who is generally accepted as White – and is not obviously Non-White, provided that a person shall not be classified as a White person if one of his natural parents has been classified as a Coloured person or a Bantu..."
"A Bantu is a person who is, or is generally accepted as, a member of any aboriginal race or tribe of Africa..."
"A Coloured is a person who is not a White person or a Bantu..."
Under apartheid, every citizen was classified each year into four categories: White, Black (Native), Indian, and Colored (mixed race). In one test, officials would put a comb through the person’s hair—if it got stuck, that meant the person would be identified as Black.
The above clearly indicate that San people were viewed as Black under apartheid....they have the tightest hair among Black African...A Bantu would be whiter than a khoisan based on the comb test...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL. Try to dodge it all you want. The average KhoiSan is medium to medium light. They are not dark skinned people. they are within the range of most Native American populations.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
IDENTITY AND RECOGNITION The South African government recognizes the importance of the country’s ethnic diversity, but it has not yet replaced the apartheid-era ethnic classifications, which denies the Khoisan peoples their right to their identity. The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has noted that the classification of ethnicities within a nation should be based on self-identification of the people in question.2 The Khoisan peoples identify as indigenous (or rather by their own names for themselves), not as "Colored people," a classification they find shaming.3 South Africa should give distinct statutory recognition to all ethnic groups, particularly its indigenous Khoisan peoples. Recognition of the Khoisan as distinct peoples is necessary http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1971103.stm
Monday, 6 May, 2002, 15:46 GMT 16:46 UK Return of 'Hottentot Venus' unites Bushmen
Renewed identity
Chief Little believes the event is a signal for all those of Khoisan descent to reclaim their identity.
"She's brought to the fore that we need to be proud of our identity instead of hiding behind the classification of 'coloured' which was given to us by the racist apartheid regime," he added.
Today Many of the Khoisan people who lived in the Cape were decimated by diseases like small pox, brought to the country by Europeans, for which they had little resistance. In the 1950s they were classified as coloured by the Apartheid authorities.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I stand by my previous statement that based on my own personal conversations with S. Africans (black and white) and sources read,the Khoisan were not labelled "black" by either themselves, whites or blacks.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Many of the Khoisan people who lived in the Cape
The term is applied for mixed Khoisan and White who live mainly in the south(Cape)...check the definition of colored it means mixed...under true apartheid classifications non mixed northern hunter gatherers are classified as Bantu as indicated in the apartheid laws...just check the meaning of colored...they fail the comb test anyway unlike many colored people...now it seems many colored prefer to revendicate their khoisan heritage for political reasons...but many are still clearly mixed..
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I stand by my previous statement that based on my own personal conversations with S. Africans (black and white) and sources read,the Khoisan were not labelled "black" by either themselves, whites or blacks.
Possible but genetics indicate that they are related to Bantus and other Black Africans like the click speakers of Tanzania. Social opinion among South Africans is just that: an opinion without scientific validity...I can't care less if they call them Black or White anyway both groups despise them historically, many Bantu don't want to associate with them, it's the same story for Pygmies in many parts of Africa:marginalization by farming groups...but the fact is that they are closely related to other Black Africans..Blackness is vague anyway...many San people would be considered Black in the USA without any problem...bear in mind that Chimu have some mixed ancestry and is confused about that.
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Khoisan can be whatever they wish to be and outside observers are free to express their outwardly opinions, but I'd think it oxymoronic that a "non-black" African people's closest living relatives are Black Africans. Seems silly to debate over as they are not related to central/east Asians.
Black person - a person with dark skin who comes from Africa (or whose ancestors came from Africa)
Khoisan definitely fit this english criteria, so if you speak english, then Khoisan are Black. End of story. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Khoisan are black Africans. The ONLY ones who have a PROBLEM with it are STUPID TROLLS who come here and think that by posting images of Alecia Keys they are saying that AFRICAN AMERICANS aren't black. This is a similar STUPID TACTIC. They ASK about what black means and then PROCEED to use RETARDED analogies and STUPID comparisons to try an MAKE a case for something. But it is a CHARADE and an INSULT to THEIR OWN intelligence. NOBODY said that Alicia Keys and her complexion was TYPICAL for someone called BLACK. THAT is a SILLY STATEMENT to begin with. THEY know it and that is why THEY DISTRACT from the argument using THE LIGHTEST SKINNED AFRICANS they can find, knowing FULL WELL that this is NOT TYPICAL. MOST KHOISAN are NOT VERY LIGHT SKINNED. THEY know this, but in order to TROLL and catch those WHO DON'T KNOW BETTER, they POST the LIGHTEST SKINNED KHOISAN they can FIND to try and FOOL people into believing that this complexion is TYPICAL for a KHOISAN when it ISN'T. THAT is why this thread is USELESS because WHY ON EARTH would a thread about the WORD BLACK FEATURE EXTREMELY LIGHT SKINNED INDIVIDUALS to begin with? NOBODY calls extremely light skinned individuals "dictionary" examples of BLACKS. And CERTAINLY nobody calls CENTRAL ASIAN WHITES BLACKS EITHER. So this is a DUMB THREAD for nothing other than SHOWING OFF the ABILITY of TROLLS to WASTE TIME and AVOID DEBATE on the REAL ISSUE which is NOT how many Khoisan are VERY LIGHT or how many blacks are AS LIGHT as Alecia Keys. Those have NOTHING TO DO with WHY MOST Africans are called BLACK. That has NOTHING to do with the AVERAGE COMPLEXION of the people MOST OFTEN CALLED BLACK. AND THEY KNOW IT.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by USA: I stand by my previous statement that based on my own personal conversations with S. Africans (black and white) and sources read,the Khoisan were not labelled "black" by either themselves, whites or blacks.
That is a LIE. They were called HOTTENTOTS or BUSHMEN and even used as SIDESHOWS in the CIRCUS because of the women who had EXTREMELY LARGE BUTTOCKS. In the mind of whites they were a typical example of the "primitive" form of humanity typified by black Africans. Europeans mounted exhibitions of STUFFED remains of these people and kept body parts from some of these people PRESERVED in their museums. They considered them as BLACKS.
quote: Who is Saartjie (Sarah) Baartman, and why have we named our women's centre after her?
In 1810, when Saartjie Baartman was 21, she was persuaded by an English ship's doctor, William Dunlop, to travel to England and make her fortune by exhibiting her body to Europeans. She was a Khoikhoi woman and was considered an anthropological freak in England, where for four years she was displayed as a sexual curiosity. Dubbed The Hottentot Venus, her image swept through British popular culture. Abolitionists unsuccessfully fought a court battle to free her from her exhibitors.
Deathcast of Sarah BaartmanSaartjie Baartman was taken to Paris in 1814 and continued to be exhibited as a freak. She became the object of scientific and medical research that formed the bedrock of European ideas about black female sexuality. When she died in 1816, the Musee de l'Homme in Paris took a deathcast of her body, removed her skeleton and pickled her brain and genitals in jars. These were displayed in the museum until as late as 1985.
After five years of negotiating with the French authorities for the return of Saartjie Baartman's remains, the South African government, together with the Griqua National Council which represents the country's 200 000 Griqua people, part of the Koi-San group, brought Saartjie Baartman back to South Africa. On Friday 3 May 2002, in a moving ceremony attended by many representatives of the Khoikhoi people, Saartjie Baartman was welcomed back to Cape Town. Her final resting place is in the Eastern Cape, where she was born.
At the ceremony, one of the dignitaries said that he hoped that what happened to Saartjie Baartman would never happen again to anyone or any group of people. However, every day at our centre, we see women who continue to be exploited and abused.
By naming our centre after Saartjie Baartman, we are remembering and honouring a woman who has become an icon, not only to her own Khoikhoi people, but to all women who know oppression and discrimination in their lives.
For most of their history with whites, THIS is how whites perceived the Khoi and San people of South Africa. So that NONSENSE about them not being considered BLACK is B.S. presented by TROLLS who DON'T know what they are talking about.
They were most often referred to as HOTTENTOTS or BUSHMEN by the whites.
quote: In December 1815, Baartman died from an illness Georges Cuvier diagnosed as une maladie inflammatoire et eruptive. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire applied to the authorities on behalf of the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle to retain the corpse on the grounds that it was a singular (singulière) specimen of humanity and therefore of special scientific interest. The application was approved and the body removed to the Muséum where Cuvier conducted the autopsy and triumphantly published a detailed account of Baartman’s anatomy.
The report reveals a tension between acknowledging Baartman’s humanity (she is not even named), and the expectation of bestial habits borne from the belief that she represents an inferior human form. Cuvier begins by relating observations he made while she was still alive, before discussing her cadaver’s anatomical form. He notes that her personality was sprightly, memory good, and that she could speak tolerably good Dutch, a little English and had even learnt some French during her stay in Paris. His account of her dancing in the fashion of her country, and ability to play the ‘guimbarde’, a stringed instrument, ascribes a sense of vivacity to Baartman that is unusual. He adds that her shoulders and back are graceful, her arms slender, her hands charming and her feet pretty. However, his physiognomical description barely hides his disgust. Features such as the jutting of the jaws, fatness of lips and short chin recall the Negro, while the large cheeks, narrow eyes, and flattened base of the nose echo Mongolian characteristics. Physiognomy was commonly used in the nineteenth century to establish an individual’s character and to demonstrate racial and class superiority; thus Cuvier’s extended discussion of Baartman’s face serves to confirm her already lowly status. Cuvier also cannot help categorizing her with numerous species of monkey since her ears are small and weakly formed, as with the orangutan, and she frequently juts her lip outwards in a like manner; likewise, her skull resembles a monkey’s more than any other he has examined. Even her vivacity is translated into rapid and unexpected movements like those of a monkey.
This tension rests partly in Cuvier’s theory of anatomy. Cuvier emphatically classifies Baartman as a femme de race Boschimanne, as opposed to a different species or a Hottentot. His anatomical investigation established that her steatopygia was simply the excessive accumulation of fatty tissue, and that her so-called tablier was an extension of the inner labia, and thus also an over-development of a feature common to all women rather than a mark of a different species. The San were commonly believed to be the most degraded of humans and were often likened to orangutans. Vituperation characterizes contemporary accounts: one story of Dutch settlers on a hunting excursion relates how they shot a San man and ate his flesh, believing they were eating large game rather than a human. Cuvier’s anatomical observations testified to Baartman’s humanity but his decision to categorize her as a Boschimanne, rather than Hottentote, suggests that for Cuvier Baartman was as close as possible to an ape. This is crucial since Cuvier opposed Lamarck’s transmutationary theory, preferring a relatively stable view of species. He categorized humans as a single species but believed there were three physically distinguishable races, Caucasians, Ethiopians and Mongolian. Thus, Cuvier attempted to reconcile perceived animality with humanity by classifying Baartman as a Boschimanne, the lowest rung in his human hierarchy, and through preserving her as a racial type, rather than as an anomaly or separate species, erased her individuality whilst implicitly legitimating his politics of anatomy.
Cuvier’s report also addresses contemporary accounts of Khoikhoi genitalia. The interest began with accounts in travel narratives that Khoikhoi men had a single testicle, and that the women possessed protruding buttocks and a tablier. The tablier became subject to numerous contradictions, with no one able to decide if it was natural or the result of artifice. Curiosity abounded as to the cause and function of the enlarged buttocks, some proposing that it was an adaptation allowing the women to carry their children on their backs. Both sexes were the subjects of speculation, but the attention devoted to the women is extraordinary. Many writers bemoaned the difficulty of persuading the Khoikhoi to appear naked. François Le Vaillant, known for his images of Khoikhoi women, relates the lengths to which he pleaded with a Khoikhoi woman to reveal herself. Finally achieving success, he writes: Confused, abashed and trembling, she covered her face with both her hands, suffered her apron [tablier] to be untied, and permitted me to contemplate at leisure what my readers will see themselves in the exact representation which I drew of it. These images frequently present Khoikhoi women reclining, naked except for long robes that unfold along their length to reveal breasts and parted legs exposing the elongated labia. In some the women are more accommodating and hold their labia apart as an invitation to intimate examination. Both the text and images attempt to represent the women as coy but compliant in their invasion; however, for a modern reader, it is difficult not to view them as anything other than deeply disturbing, pornographic and, frankly, distastefully voyeuristic. Such accounts conferred prestige upon Cuvier’s verification of the existence and nature of the tablier. During the examination at the Jardin des Plantes both Henri de Blainville and Cuvier pleaded with Baartman to allow an examination of her tablier, with de Blainville even offering her money; but she refused and took great care to preserve her modesty. Cuvier only succeeded when her cadaver lay before him. His meticulous description of the tablier, including its length, thickness, and appearance folded and unfolded, takes up a long passage that is as graphic and violating as Le Vaillant’s images, and makes it clear that Cuvier’s attempted scientific resolution of the tablier mystery was a personal triumph.
Cuvier’s autopsy report is well known and has long been established as the basis for his vilification as a racist scientist in the literature on Baartman; however, during the nineteenth century a number of articles appeared in Britain, France and Germany concerned with the comparative anatomy of the European and Khoisan. Within this body of research, Cuvier’s and de Blainville’s early articles were the only works to focus primarily on Baartman. In later discussions of Khoisan anatomy Baartman was often used as an example, but this was within a much broader discussion on human physical difference. By the 1830s, for example, interest had shifted away from individual specimens and by the early twentieth century a single organ, the brain, was often the preferred means of comparison. In these later studies, Frederick Tiedemann and Edward Spitzka used Baartman’s brain to draw conclusions regarding the relationship between intelligence and ethnic origin. The belief that she represented peoples on the lowest level of human capability is again evident; for example, one writer describing the brain of a San woman demonstrated the simplicity of her anatomy by arguing that In this point the Bushwoman’s brain is more apelike than even that of the Hottentot Venus. The starkest reiteration of Baartman’s status as an intermediary between ape and human is perhaps the illustration used by Edward Spitzka. Here, a simple line drawing of her brain identified her as a medical specimen, whilst the use of just her brain, hovering between that of a physicist and orang-outang, established her as the definitive decontextualized object used to affirm a racialized human hierarchy. However, Baartman’s brain was one of many obtained from museum collections and was not the primary subject of either paper. Similarly, James C. Prichard incorporated a brief discussion of Baartman’s skeleton into his encyclopaedic natural history of humans. Most of these papers have been cited, if not fully analysed, within the literature on Baartman, but their importance has been overstated. Baartman’s appearance within medical texts has often been used to frame her as not only central but essential for any discussion regarding medical debates on Khoisan anatomy in the nineteenth century. For example, Fausto-Sterling has argued: The encounters between women from Southern Africa and the great men of European science began in the second decade of the nineteenth century when Henri de Blainville and Georges Cuvier met Baartman and described her for scientific circles, both when she was alive and after she was dead. This approach is fairly typical of the literature on Baartman in tracing the ‘scientific’ debates, as opposed to ‘traveller’s tales’, regarding the tablier to Baartman and the French encounter. However, evidence exists that intellectual debate outside the travel literature existed before Baartman ever graced an exhibition venue.
So they have ALWAYS been considered blacks by Europeans and only the FOOL TROLLS would come here and CLAIM OTHERWISE counting on OTHER FOOLS who DON'T KNOW BETTER to believe in their NONSENSE.
quote:Doug M: Some Khoisan and other BLACK Africans are very light , for various reasons, but they are NOT all that light
Stop contradicting yourself! According to you a "black" person is someone with dark complexion. You said "dark brown=Black". That's also the reason you label southeast asians as "black". You need to be consistent otherwise you risk sounding as a hypocrite. If "black" is all about dark skin then it doesn't make sense for you to call these "very light" Africans, "Black african". Your whole premise of "black" people is dark skin. Calling "very light africans", "BLACK Africans", ends up as an oxymoron going by your own definition of "blacks".
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That thread is about the folly of colorism, when does someone stop to be black or white, no ones knows, not even Doug M. When does someone start to be white...no one knows...when does someone start to be black...no one knows...one thing is certain colorism will always be a loser as this thread indicates...people tried and tried again...and always fail...Doug M...Good luck!!!! From an allegedly Black African...but am I Black...I don't know....
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug M: Some Khoisan and other BLACK Africans are very light , for various reasons, but they are NOT all that light
Stop contradicting yourself! According to you a "black" person is someone with dark complexion. You said "dark brown=Black". That's also the reason you label southeast asians as "black". You need to be consistent otherwise you risk sounding as a hypocrite. If "black" is all about dark skin then it doesn't make sense for you to call these "very light" Africans, "Black african". Your whole premise of "black" people is dark skin. Calling "very light africans", "BLACK Africans", ends up as an oxymoron going by your own definition of "blacks".
YOU ARE TROLLING. Because NOBODY posted A VERY LIGHT SKINNED KHOISAN as TYPICAL of BEING BLACK. YOU TROLLS DID and YOU ARE RETARDS for PRETENDING that ANYONE OTHER THAN YOUR SELF SELECTED the LIGHTEST SKINNED KHOI or ALECIA KEYS as TYPICAL of what someone means by BLACK.
NOBODY posted those images of KHOI other than SOME TROLL and then tries to claim that THESE VERY LIGHT SKINNED KHOI are TYPICAL OF what SOMEONE ELSE calls black. THAT IS YOU TROLLS.
YOU CANT address FACTS so you come here and CONTINUE TO TROLL with NONSENSE related to SOME OTHER THREAD that YOU CANNOT REFUTE. Therefore YOU and TROLLS LIKE YOU make up NONSENSE about Alecia Keys and Colin Powell and Khoi, but NOBODY BUT YOU TROLLS brought them up to BEGIN WITH. NOBODY BUT YOU said that VERY LIGHT SKIN KHOI are the BEST EXAMPLE of the word black. You HAVE a thread on the word black and WHAT DO YOU DO? Post IMAGES OF ALECIA KEYS, CENTRAL ASIANS and VERY VERY LIGHT SKINNED KHOI and start TROLLING because NOBODY ELSE started this thread and NOBODY ELSE posted CENTRAL ASIAN WHITES as a PRIMARY EXAMPLE OF BLACKS, NOBODY ELSE POSTED VERY LIGHT KHOISAN or ALECIA KEYS as PRIMARY EXAMPLES of what is meant by BLACK SKIN. NOBODY said that Alecia Keys was TYPICAL of what is meant by BLACK. NOBODY ELSE said Alecia Keys has BLACK SKIN. NOBODY except YOU FOOLS. NOBODY said that the image of the VERY VERY LIGHT skinned KHOI MAN was TYPICAL of what ALL KHOI look like. NOBODY EXCEPT YOU RETARDS. NOBODY posted images of CENTRAL ASIAN WHITES and called them THE SAME as African BLACKS. YOU FOOLS DID. SO YOU FOOLS are the retards posting NONSENSE to begin with.
Therefore the OXYMORON comes from YOU because YOU are the MORON for claiming that SOMEONE ELSE said that VERY VERY LIGHT SKINNED KHOI are TYPICAL of the complexion of Khoi or WHY they are called BLACK. ONLY A FOOL would post a couple of IMAGES of VERY VERY LIGHT SKINNED Khoi as REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL KHOI and say that SOMEONE ELSE is using that as an example of WHY the Khoi are called black. ONLY MORONS would post Alecia Keys as SOMEONE ELSES example of TRUE BLACK, WHEN NOBODY ELSE POSTED IT EXCEPT YOU. NOBODY ELSE. So the MORON IS YOU. PERIOD.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Little does this "Chimu" joker understand some things don't change such as writing style. Chimu, aka "Salassin" aka "Mustafino" aka .....
This character is a psychotic troll who's been punked by several members time and time again.
Posts: 148 | From: Sirius | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic