posted
We don't know if Egyptians were all black or not mixed all we have is current Egyptian lineages and most of them aren't African lineages currently
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HORUS^*^: The only reason Alicia Keys would not be called black "in some parts" of Africa is probably because of the misconception that people like the Fulani are Arabs, so they generally don't class people who are not literally black skinned as Black. This is just a knowledge/ignorance thing.
For example, in some parts of Nigeria, The Fulanis who are 100% native Africans but are "fair skinned" are misconstrued as non-Blacks.
Africans have a strange eye for what's lightskin. I never in my life saw a light skin Fulani. Every fulani I've met in person and photographs I have looked at, all seem medium to dark brown. I really would like to see these light skin Fulanis. I'm confident that the light skin ones is an anomaly.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm African. Was raised alongside Fulas who come in all shades of 'black' as most other Africans do.
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 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.
If if bothers you that Alicia Keys considers herself black then you need to take it out with Alicia Keys. All bi-racials chooses a side. Would you be upset if she would choose her white side and say she is White? The problem you have is Alicia Keys identifying as Black, but if she identifies as White there wouldn't be no argument. If you don't like it, I suggest you box it out with Alicia Keys. It is her choice.
You are wrong, it doesn't bother me at all and I truly don't care what she self-identifies as, you missed the entire point. Follow the thread progression. She was used as an example of how black is very much a socially defined racial label. Previous posters stated similar conclusions. It is you who have assumed false conclusion based on your own imagination and not on what was written.
What I have wrote wasn't based on false conclusion but what have been WRITTEN. Like I said, it is Alicia Keys who chooses to identify as black. The girl did grow up in Harlem in black culture. There are plenty of black Americans who share Alicia Keys phenotype and are not biracial. I can take you to the projects in New York City and you will see a lot of Alicia Key's phenotypes walking around and these people are not biracial. You have a problem with people identifying as black, but you do not possess the same jealousy when people identify as white. I've seen this case over and over again when it concerns myself.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jo Nongowa: Well, I'm African. Was raised alongside Fulas who come in all shades of 'black' as most other Africans do.
I agree. I just think Africans have a weak eye of what's light skin. To me it seems they call people who is obviously dark, in this case, medium or dark brown, light skin. And they call dark people or very dark people brown.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: We don't know if Egyptians were all black or not mixed all we have is current Egyptian lineages and most of them aren't African lineages currently
Clearly in early dynastic Egypt we see depictions of people that are socially Black in America with wives that are non-African. Black is not used in a scientific way so if you say they weren't Black then I would just simply say that is your opinion and it really doesn't matter. However, they were scientifically African though they did seem to have harems with African and Asiatic women. Sumerians had harems with Asiatic and African women but their civilization is clearly known to be Asiatic. Arabs also have significant maternal African lineages but they are still considered non-African. Egyptians happen to have significant non-African maternal lineage but again they are African. Obviously both Arabic and North East African phenotype has somewhat converged over time due to gene flow between the two groups but this happened at a significant rate far after the establishment of Egypt.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: We don't know if Egyptians were all black or not mixed all we have is current Egyptian lineages and most of them aren't African lineages currently
You know you are just trolling with an already DEBUNKED agenda.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ You outsiders vex me, dictating to blacks as to who and what we are. Well, we didnt ask you and aren't taking lessons from you about ourselves. The days of your kind dominating us are over and through and may that fact ever remain true.
You as a non-black have not one whit to do with any black peoples' identity whether "social" or "scientific." Go back to your own non-black people and work on theirs and your colour and ethnic classification why don't you please.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: ^^ You outsiders vex me, dictating to blacks as to who and what we are. Well, we didnt ask you and aren't taking lessons from you about ourselves. The days of your kind dominating us are over and through and may that fact ever remain true.
You as a non-black have not one whit to do with any black peoples' identity whether "social" or "scientific." Go back to your own non-black people and work on theirs and your colour and ethnic classification why don't you please.
Scientific analysis does not require group affiliation to be proven as valid. Black is only valid as a description of pigmentation and there are very few Black or White people.
I still haven't found Negroland on my map yet.
Afircan; Africanoid; Afro-Asian, Afro-Arab. Afro-American. Far more valid than the dyfunct term called Black.
With that said - Black is still a valid social designation and I have already stated my opinion of affiliations of the focus group of this forum.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Habari: There is another problem in this thread, what's the definition of White people...who is white? Northern Europeans have some difficulty to view Southern Europeans as their kins...in North America, Germans, Southern Europeans and Irish people were not even considered as White for some time...who is white? But also who is Black...many Africans from the diaspora wouldn't be viewed as native African because of the complexion of their skins...who is Black...some North Eastern Africans won't be viewed as native Africans in some parts of Africa because their history of admixture with West Asians...who is Black...who is White...we don't know..Colorism is a false science....
That was the point of this thread. To show the hypocrisy of people like Rasol. He continually contradicts himself. He'll say that race doesn't exist but that Egyptians were black. When you ask him what does "black" mean, he'll say it simply refers to people with dark skin. If you show people with dark skin who are not African he will say they're not black.
Going by his loose definition of black, Ancient Egypt could have been built by people non-indigenious to Africa who had brown complexion - Arabs, Indians, you name it. As the photos of Indians and other peoples in this thread shows, relying on pictures to believe that Egyptians were Africans is not reliable. Many other peoples share similar physical characteristics with African populations even when they're not African at all.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black is valid whatever way blacks say so it is.
Listen and listen well, we tell you about black so don't get it twisted anymore around here.
Your kind no longer rules over our affairs. We reject you and whatever your views on us.
Go back to Kykleland, quick! While there, figure out if you're white, offwhite, Euro or Levantine.
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: ^^ You outsiders vex me, dictating to blacks as to who and what we are. Well, we didnt ask you and aren't taking lessons from you about ourselves. The days of your kind dominating us are over and through and may that fact ever remain true.
You as a non-black have not one whit to do with any black peoples' identity whether "social" or "scientific." Go back to your own non-black people and work on theirs and your colour and ethnic classification why don't you please.
Scientific analysis does not require group affiliation to be proven as valid. Black is only valid as a description of pigmentation and there are very few Black or White people.
I still haven't found Negroland on my map yet.
Afircan; Africanoid; Afro-Asian, Afro-Arab. Afro-American. Far more valid than the dyfunct term called Black.
With that said - Black is still a valid social designation and I have already stated my opinion of affiliations of the focus group of this forum.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And you can go back to Crackerland and while there figure if it's to your advantage to allow Osirion into your folk's inner circle this century.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Habari: There is another problem in this thread, what's the definition of White people...who is white? Northern Europeans have some difficulty to view Southern Europeans as their kins...in North America, Germans, Southern Europeans and Irish people were not even considered as White for some time...who is white? But also who is Black...many Africans from the diaspora wouldn't be viewed as native African because of the complexion of their skins...who is Black...some North Eastern Africans won't be viewed as native Africans in some parts of Africa because their history of admixture with West Asians...who is Black...who is White...we don't know..Colorism is a false science....
That was the point of this thread. To show the hypocrisy of people like Rasol. He continually contradicts himself. He'll say that race doesn't exist but that Egyptians were black. When you ask him what does "black" mean, he'll say it simply refers to people with dark skin. If you show people with dark skin who are not African he will say they're not black.
Going by his loose definition of black, Ancient Egypt could have been built by people non-indigenious to Africa who had brown complexion - Arabs, Indians, you name it. As the photos of Indians and other peoples in this thread shows, relying on pictures to believe that Egyptians were Africans is not reliable. Many other peoples share similar physical characteristics with African populations even when they're not African at all.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Bettyboo: What I have wrote wasn't based on false conclusion but what have been WRITTEN. Like I said, it is Alicia Keys who chooses to identify as black. The girl did grow up in Harlem in black culture. There are plenty of black Americans who share Alicia Keys phenotype and are not biracial. I can take you to the projects in New York City and you will see a lot of Alicia Key's phenotypes walking around and these people are not biracial. You have a problem with people identifying as black, but you do not possess the same jealousy when people identify as white. I've seen this case over and over again when it concerns myself.
Then you are confusing posters. Quote where I have written any of the assumptions you state. You're assumptions are even more amusing because you are addressing someone who is very much a non-white minority and is of Afrodescendancy (non-AA) and live 15 minutes from NYC. Your post show alot of defensivness with the typical response of anyone that questions the ODR viewpoint.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Black is valid whatever way blacks say so it is.
Listen and listen well, we tell you about black so don't get it twisted anymore around here.
Your kind no longer rules over our affairs. We reject you and whatever your views on us.
Go back to Kykleland, quick! While there, figure out if you're white, offwhite, Euro or Levantine.
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: ^^ You outsiders vex me, dictating to blacks as to who and what we are. Well, we didnt ask you and aren't taking lessons from you about ourselves. The days of your kind dominating us are over and through and may that fact ever remain true.
You as a non-black have not one whit to do with any black peoples' identity whether "social" or "scientific." Go back to your own non-black people and work on theirs and your colour and ethnic classification why don't you please.
Scientific analysis does not require group affiliation to be proven as valid. Black is only valid as a description of pigmentation and there are very few Black or White people.
I still haven't found Negroland on my map yet.
Afircan; Africanoid; Afro-Asian, Afro-Arab. Afro-American. Far more valid than the dyfunct term called Black.
With that said - Black is still a valid social designation and I have already stated my opinion of affiliations of the focus group of this forum.
Not very useful information. Your opinion is as valid as another in regards to the description you give of yourself when you look in the mirror.
Science is not democratic. You don't get to vote on this.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get to do whatever I see fit to do. I have no care for you and your vote.
Black is what we blacks say so it is. Your kind's day of dictating and even influencing is over and done with. Go tend the fire in your own kitchen.
We reject you and your attempt to override our self-determination.
Again, go figure just what in hell you are and whether others will allow you that status throughout this century or whether they will again rise up to detain and exterminate you.
You never lost a thing in Africa or any other blackpeople's land. Your only role is one of interested observer, to sit at our feet and learn from us of our matters and affairs as we dictate what we choose to you.
Flee oppressor, run far from black man's world.
You outsiders vex me, dictating to blacks as to who and what we are. Well, we didnt ask you and aren't taking lessons from you about ourselves. The days of your kind dominating us are over and through and may that fact ever remain true.
You as a non-black have not one whit to do with any black peoples' identity whether "social" or "scientific." Go back to your own non-black people and work on theirs and your colour and ethnic classification why don't you please.
Black is valid whatever way blacks say so it is.
Listen and listen well, we tell you about black so don't get it twisted anymore around here.
Your kind no longer rules over our affairs. We reject you and whatever your views on us.
Go back to Kykleland, quick! While there, figure out if you're white, offwhite, Euro or Levantine.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by USA: Originally posted by Bettyboo: What I have wrote wasn't based on false conclusion but what have been WRITTEN. Like I said, it is Alicia Keys who chooses to identify as black. The girl did grow up in Harlem in black culture. There are plenty of black Americans who share Alicia Keys phenotype and are not biracial. I can take you to the projects in New York City and you will see a lot of Alicia Key's phenotypes walking around and these people are not biracial. You have a problem with people identifying as black, but you do not possess the same jealousy when people identify as white. I've seen this case over and over again when it concerns myself.
Then you are confusing posters. Quote where I have written any of the assumptions you state. You're assumptions are even more amusing because you are addressing someone who is very much a non-white minority and is of Afrodescendancy (non-AA) and live 15 minutes from NYC. Your post show alot of defensivness with the typical response of anyone that questions the ODR viewpoint.
Confusing posters may be accurate, but "assumption" is totally false. There are no assumptions here. That posters do not live no damn 15 minutes from NYC. How can you be sure if that person is from African descent? The person sounds like a white lation/hispanic from central or south america to me.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I get to do whatever I see fit to do. I have no care for you and your vote.
Black is what we blacks say so it is. Your kind's day of dictating and even influencing is over and done with. Go tend the fire in your own kitchen.
We reject you and your attempt to override our self-determination.
Again, go figure just what in hell you are and whether others will allow you that status throughout this century or whether they will again rise up to detain and exterminate you.
You never lost a thing in Africa or any other blackpeople's land. Your only role is one of interested observer, to sit at our feet and learn from us of our matters and affairs as we dictate what we choose to you.
Flee oppressor, run far from black man's world.
You outsiders vex me, dictating to blacks as to who and what we are. Well, we didnt ask you and aren't taking lessons from you about ourselves. The days of your kind dominating us are over and through and may that fact ever remain true.
You as a non-black have not one whit to do with any black peoples' identity whether "social" or "scientific." Go back to your own non-black people and work on theirs and your colour and ethnic classification why don't you please.
Black is valid whatever way blacks say so it is.
Listen and listen well, we tell you about black so don't get it twisted anymore around here.
Your kind no longer rules over our affairs. We reject you and whatever your views on us.
Go back to Kykleland, quick! While there, figure out if you're white, offwhite, Euro or Levantine.
African Jew is fine but who said I was non-Black. I have always said I was part Black.
Euro-Ethiopian is a better description I suppose.
Hmm, Afro-European. Yes that is the best term.
However, I am not socially Black in Western worlds. Part Black is how I self identify. Ethiopians can be the Blackest people in the World and I am likely to have an ancestor that was that dark so yes I am also scientifically part Black and proud of it. Why should I not be proud of my Grandfather, he was a great man.
I am not sure how you can come up with a racial concept of Black that will satisfy everyone and be scientifically defineable without contradictions.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That was the point of this thread. To show the hypocrisy of people like Rasol.
That was your CRUDE AGENDA, yes...but it was too transparent, so it failed. Perhaps there is someone stupid enough to bite at your trolling, but that only results in a *dialogue of the dumb* that discredits both parties.
Your failure is precisely why you are trying to 'explain/justify' this troll thread, and so your *excuse for the thread* is also transparent, and also fails to interest anyone with a brain.
quote:He continually contradicts himself.
I don't, you simply lack intelligence, and so can't understand... 'ANYTHING' really, due to your own mental limitations.
It's easier for you to call your limitations someone elses 'contradiction', than it is to educate your own mind beyound your crudely limited, and racist mentality.
But you go on whining about my 'hypocrisy' and 'contradictions', if you think it will make you feel better.
Hasn't so far though, I noticed, but then, you never could take a hint.
quote:Altakruri writes: Black is what we blacks say so it is.
^ So it has been.....since before the Km.t [the self proclaimed Blacks of Ancient Egypt] and so it shall remain.
Vexed Kemophobes feel free to vent in vain, but Black The AE shall ever remain.
^ Mentuhotep, The Black King wears the Red Crown.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Going by his loose definition of black, Ancient Egypt could have been built by people non-indigenious to Africa who had brown complexion - Arabs, Indians, you name it.
^ Perfect example of a stupid remark, a non-sequitur and a strawman argument.
I don't engage you because you are just dumb, and not worth my time.
quote:As the photos of Indians and other peoples in this thread shows, relying on pictures to believe that Egyptians were Africans is not reliable.
Another non-sequitur, and strawman argument.
Of passing curiosity is that somewhere in the mindless slop that contitutues your 'thinking' you propose to dissect someone elses hypocrisy, rather than expose your own stupidity.
No wonder you're a failure.
Please go away. [again]
These threads are stupid, but they go on and on because you are stupid.
There are already many forums on the internet for stupid people such as yourself, without your dumbing this forum down.
Many of us were attracted to ES for its intelligent conversation, and you effectively poison it with your stupidity. Granted you can't help it, but you could at least take it elsewhere.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL. Why do people (ala chimu, sshaun) pretend to be *smart* but always ending both exposing their agenda and sounding dumb at the same time?
Trolls have really evolved, some people [unfortunately] are fooled by their antics and take their bait. Some of us know better. I remember when trolls were just simply dumb, and they knew they were and typed as such, just nuisances.
Now it seems they are "evolving" with the times and have made use of "doublespeak" and semantics to aid in their obfuscation and fog up threads.
The irony is that they really end up sounding "doubledumb".
-------------------- Dont be evil - Google Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by USA: Originally posted by Bettyboo: What I have wrote wasn't based on false conclusion but what have been WRITTEN. Like I said, it is Alicia Keys who chooses to identify as black. The girl did grow up in Harlem in black culture. There are plenty of black Americans who share Alicia Keys phenotype and are not biracial. I can take you to the projects in New York City and you will see a lot of Alicia Key's phenotypes walking around and these people are not biracial. You have a problem with people identifying as black, but you do not possess the same jealousy when people identify as white. I've seen this case over and over again when it concerns myself.
Then you are confusing posters. Quote where I have written any of the assumptions you state. You're assumptions are even more amusing because you are addressing someone who is very much a non-white minority and is of Afrodescendancy (non-AA) and live 15 minutes from NYC. Your post show alot of defensivness with the typical response of anyone that questions the ODR viewpoint.
I have a problem with biracial people identifying as only one race, because they do it to get along with the race they choose to identify.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:That was the point of this thread. To show the hypocrisy of people like Rasol.
That was your CRUDE AGENDA, yes...but it was too transparent, so it failed. Perhaps there is someone stupid enough to bite at your trolling, but that only results in a *dialogue of the dumb* that discredits both parties.
Your failure is precisely why you are trying to 'explain/justify' this troll thread, and so your *excuse for the thread* is also transparent, and also fails to interest anyone with a brain.
quote:He continually contradicts himself.
I don't, you simply lack intelligence, and so can't understand... 'ANYTHING' really, due to your own mental limitations.
It's easier for you to call your limitations someone elses 'contradiction', than it is to educate your own mind beyound your crudely limited, and racist mentality.
But you go on whining about my 'hypocrisy' and 'contradictions', if you think it will make you feel better.
Hasn't so far though, I noticed, but then, you never could take a hint.
quote:Altakruri writes: Black is what we blacks say so it is.
^ So it has been.....since before the Km.t [the self proclaimed Blacks of Ancient Egypt] and so it shall remain.
Vexed Kemophobes feel free to vent in vain, but Black The AE shall ever remain.
^ Mentuhotep, The Black King wears the Red Crown.
If I post a picture of a white painted female Egyptian does it contradict you?
Its more than just the color of skin that makes a person African.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Its more than just the color of skin that makes a person African.
Another stupid remark and non-sequitur. When you learn to write and at least semi-intelligent reply that actually addresses what was said, then I will respond to you.
In the meantime, I hold you in contempt for being and idiot, and will ignore your babbblings.
quote:LOL. Why do people (ala chimu, sshaun) pretend to be *smart* but always ending both exposing their agenda and sounding dumb at the same time?
^ ES lost it's moderator, and that allowed the forum to be taken over by stupid people.
It's similar to a building losing it's sanitation department, and then the building becomes infested with roaches.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I have no need to satisfy everyone. My self-determination satisfies me via colour, culture, consciousness.
I get to do whatever I see fit to do. I have no care for you and your vote.
Black is what we blacks say so it is. Your kind's day of dictating and even influencing is over and done with. Go tend the fire in your own kitchen.
We reject you and your attempt to override our self-determination.
Again, go figure just what in hell you are and whether others will allow you that status throughout this century or whether they will again rise up to detain and exterminate you.
You never lost a thing in Africa or any other blackpeople's land. Your only role is one of interested observer, to sit at our feet and learn from us of our matters and affairs as we dictate what we choose to you.
Flee oppressor, run far from black man's world.
You outsiders vex me, dictating to blacks as to who and what we are. Well, we didnt ask you and aren't taking lessons from you about ourselves. The days of your kind dominating us are over and through and may that fact ever remain true.
You as a non-black have not one whit to do with any black peoples' identity whether "social" or "scientific." Go back to your own non-black people and work on theirs and your colour and ethnic classification why don't you please.
Black is valid whatever way blacks say so it is.
Listen and listen well, we tell you about black so don't get it twisted anymore around here.
Your kind no longer rules over our affairs. We reject you and whatever your views on us.
Go back to Kykleland, quick! While there, figure out if you're white, offwhite, Euro or Levantine.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: African Jew is fine but who said I was non-Black. I have always said I was part Black.
Euro-Ethiopian is a better description I suppose.
Hmm, Afro-European. Yes that is the best term.
However, I am not socially Black in Western worlds. Part Black is how I self identify. Ethiopians can be the Blackest people in the World and I am likely to have an ancestor that was that dark so yes I am also scientifically part Black and proud of it. Why should I not be proud of my Grandfather, he was a great man.
I am not sure how you can come up with a racial concept of Black that will satisfy everyone and be scientifically defineable without contradictions.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by USA: Originally posted by Bettyboo: What I have wrote wasn't based on false conclusion but what have been WRITTEN. Like I said, it is Alicia Keys who chooses to identify as black. The girl did grow up in Harlem in black culture. There are plenty of black Americans who share Alicia Keys phenotype and are not biracial. I can take you to the projects in New York City and you will see a lot of Alicia Key's phenotypes walking around and these people are not biracial. You have a problem with people identifying as black, but you do not possess the same jealousy when people identify as white. I've seen this case over and over again when it concerns myself.
Then you are confusing posters. Quote where I have written any of the assumptions you state. You're assumptions are even more amusing because you are addressing someone who is very much a non-white minority and is of Afrodescendancy (non-AA) and live 15 minutes from NYC. Your post show alot of defensivness with the typical response of anyone that questions the ODR viewpoint.
I have a problem with biracial people identifying as only one race, because they do it to get along with the race they choose to identify.
This is not true. It is not your business or concern of how biracial identify. You have a problem with biracials identifying as black but don't possess the same jealousy when biracials identify as white. What about all the Asian & White biracials who identify as White, what about the Black & White biracials who identify as White. No one never make an argument about it. My black family raised me from 8-16 years old. I lived in a black community, with black culture, and with a black family. It is not only about race but about experiences and culture. It is not your say of how biracials should identify. They do not choose one race over another to "get along". Biracials choose the one race over another and still get along with the other. It is about culture, experience, and up-bringing, and in some cases their phenotype is already setting them up for how they will be treated.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
"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."
how would you have her to identify herself? This is the question! You acknowledge that she is half white, yet you are extremely vague on her African heritage. Should she identify herself as a Mule/Mulatto?
So you feel this woman should identify herself as a European correct? Before I post the picture, let me say if you haven't seen her in real life then you wouldn't know what her true color is ... lights camera, photoshop works wonder but I know for a fact that she's a lot darker then what you see on magazines and on TV, thus you feel this woman on the left, Alicia Keyes should be labeled white/European. I know the girl and have been in the studios with her, and let me tell you she would cuss you out for using her as your example.
She actually a little darker then this in person. Look at her compared to he European woman next to her.
Now I know this guy who grand mother look almost identical to this to the woman below but from different tribes. His grandmother is from the Sioux Native Americans ...
His grandfather is an African American and I mean extremely dark ...
Should this man identify himself as a Native America or and African American? I mean how would you see this person Jamie? ... I'll answer it for you; African American!
????
It funny how Europeans want the accomplishments of those who identify themselves as black (including the Egyptians) to be theirs ... yet they accuse others of stealing peoples cultures ...
P.S. What you are accusing AA and other of doing is the very thing that you are doing. You are extremely selective in who you want to call European. Alicia is no more mixed than this guy and because she identifies with her African heritage, the African dna that flows through her blood, she's the target of your foolish antics.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by USA: Originally posted by Bettyboo: What I have wrote wasn't based on false conclusion but what have been WRITTEN. Like I said, it is Alicia Keys who chooses to identify as black. The girl did grow up in Harlem in black culture. There are plenty of black Americans who share Alicia Keys phenotype and are not biracial. I can take you to the projects in New York City and you will see a lot of Alicia Key's phenotypes walking around and these people are not biracial. You have a problem with people identifying as black, but you do not possess the same jealousy when people identify as white. I've seen this case over and over again when it concerns myself.
Then you are confusing posters. Quote where I have written any of the assumptions you state. You're assumptions are even more amusing because you are addressing someone who is very much a non-white minority and is of Afrodescendancy (non-AA) and live 15 minutes from NYC. Your post show alot of defensivness with the typical response of anyone that questions the ODR viewpoint.
Confusing posters may be accurate, but "assumption" is totally false. There are no assumptions here. That posters do not live no damn 15 minutes from NYC. How can you be sure if that person is from African descent? The person sounds like a white lation/hispanic from central or south america to me.
Yes, like I thought you are confusing posters. I am speaking of myself when I stated I live 15 minutes away from NYC. I am Hispanic from the Caribbean and have never been considered 'white' by anyone.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by R U 2 religious: Jamie writes:
"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."
how would you have her to identify herself? This is the question! You acknowledge that she is half white, yet you are extremely vague on her African heritage. Should she identify herself as a Mule/Mulatto?
So you feel this woman should identify herself as a European correct? Before I post the picture, let me say if you haven't seen her in real life then you wouldn't know what her true color is ... lights camera, photoshop works wonder but I know for a fact that she's a lot darker then what you see on magazines and on TV, thus you feel this woman on the left, Alicia Keyes should be labeled white/European. I know the girl and have been in the studios with her, and let me tell you she would cuss you out for using her as your example.
She actually a little darker then this in person. Look at her compared to he European woman next to her.
Now I know this guy who grand mother look almost identical to this to the woman below but from different tribes. His grandmother is from the Sioux Native Americans ...
His grandfather is an African American and I mean extremely dark ...
Should this man identify himself as a Native America or and African American? I mean how would you see this person Jamie? ... I'll answer it for you; African American!
????
It funny how Europeans want the accomplishments of those who identify themselves as black (including the Egyptians) to be theirs ... yet they accuse others of stealing peoples cultures ...
P.S. What you are accusing AA and other of doing is the very thing that you are doing. You are extremely selective in who you want to call European. Alicia is no more mixed than this guy and because she identifies with her African heritage, the African dna that flows through her blood, she's the target of your foolish antics.
-That was my post you quoted. You too have not followed the thread progression. I'll sum up that post for you:
-Someone posted Alicia Keys' image while discussing the definition of black. -I commented that that term can be socially constructed and used her as an example. I do not care what she self-identifies as, she is a product of her culture (USA). She is the mixed offspring of a white (Eurodescent) and black (Afrodescent) parents. The offspring of this type of union is called a mulatto. This racial term was removed from the US census in the early 20th century. The USA also enforced the One Drop & Hypodescent rule to keep the seperation between black and white. But this does not mean the rest of the world or history followed those type of rules. In Apartheid S. Africa she would have been colored. In Cuba she would be called Mulata. In other LatinAmerican countries she would have been called Mestiza (mixed). Many Africans would not call her black. Due to the way race relation evolved in the USA, it is logical she would self-identify as black.
As for the rest of your post, they are all assumptions on your part that have nothing to do with the nature of my post (unless you are confusing posters).
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I may have mixed up poster ... I will check ..
This happens sometimes when your doing your business and posting on forums sometimes.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by USA: Originally posted by Bettyboo: What I have wrote wasn't based on false conclusion but what have been WRITTEN. Like I said, it is Alicia Keys who chooses to identify as black. The girl did grow up in Harlem in black culture. There are plenty of black Americans who share Alicia Keys phenotype and are not biracial. I can take you to the projects in New York City and you will see a lot of Alicia Key's phenotypes walking around and these people are not biracial. You have a problem with people identifying as black, but you do not possess the same jealousy when people identify as white. I've seen this case over and over again when it concerns myself.
Then you are confusing posters. Quote where I have written any of the assumptions you state. You're assumptions are even more amusing because you are addressing someone who is very much a non-white minority and is of Afrodescendancy (non-AA) and live 15 minutes from NYC. Your post show alot of defensivness with the typical response of anyone that questions the ODR viewpoint.
I have a problem with biracial people identifying as only one race, because they do it to get along with the race they choose to identify.
This is not true. It is not your business or concern of how biracial identify. You have a problem with biracials identifying as black but don't possess the same jealousy when biracials identify as white. What about all the Asian & White biracials who identify as White, what about the Black & White biracials who identify as White. No one never make an argument about it. My black family raised me from 8-16 years old. I lived in a black community, with black culture, and with a black family. It is not only about race but about experiences and culture. It is not your say of how biracials should identify. They do not choose one race over another to "get along". Biracials choose the one race over another and still get along with the other. It is about culture, experience, and up-bringing, and in some cases their phenotype is already setting them up for how they will be treated.
It is all about social identity, not racial identity, and yes, I have problems with all biracials who do it, who identify as only one race, no matter what race it is.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
^ You can see your problem staring back at you in the mirror.
In order to identify as bi-racial, you have to accept the idea of race to begin with.
Some of the people you want to consider bi-racial *simply do not care for this concept*.
Why don't you *grow up* and accept this fact.
Instead, you cry like some 'hurt' transracial, bi-racial, queer-racial....race obsessed loser.
No one cares! So go kill yourself if you need to, just stop infestin this forum with your insipid whining.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Some of you still make the mistake of allowing these trolls to dupe you into a defensive 'explanation' of Black identity.
All the while they throw around terms like 'afro-jew' and 'middle-east' and are never forced to defend them.
That's why these trolls gravitate to naive posters they can 'pick' on, and avoid dealing with those who they know DESTROY them with a quickness.
Maybe a dozen times I challenged "Mr. Mulatto" to form a list - of people who are mixed, and those who are not.
Never do they even attempt to answer, because they have no answer, which renders their entire ideology, and this 'argument' moot.
But why should they answer questions?
They simply wait for naives' to respound to their anti-Black baiting posts.
Then you spend 5 pages chasing them around, while they sit back and laugh.
Don't feed the troll. And don't chase the mule either.
True indeed, good post. Jaime and prmiddleastern troll tried for 2 threads in another forum trying to convince the Bass that he's a "Zambo" and or mulatto and get mad because AAs like the Bass don't use the Latin American "racial democracy" terms where Afro-descendant people embrace the blood of their oppressors.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ yes they can get your blood boiling tho ... I will leave them along as I usually do.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:True indeed, good post. Jaime and prmiddleastern troll tried for 2 threads in another forum trying to convince the Bass that he's a "Zambo" and or mulatto and get mad because AAs like the Bass don't use the Latin American "racial democracy" terms where Afro-descendant people embrace the blood of their oppressors.
^ mulatto/mestizo/mongrel/mutt,
etymologically - all of these European words, are pejoratives which translate to terms for ill bred or disfunctional ANIMALS, essentially they are no better than the word 'bitch'.
this is why these terms are rejected, have no history [except that which is associated with rape and degradation], and as self identifying ethnic concepts, no credibility and NO FUTURE.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously these trolls never intended to REALLY discuss what black is.
Why are we talking about Mules and Mongrels?
If the thread is about blacks then focus on that.
But as these idiot fool trolls never really intended to focus on blackness to begin with, it is not surprising that they had to focus on what they originally intended, those that they can claim as mixed and hence, not black. Of course it is silly, but that is their whole purpose in life and that is the only purpose of this thread.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: True indeed, good post. Jaime and prmiddleastern troll tried for 2 threads in another forum trying to convince the Bass that he's a "Zambo" and or mulatto and get mad because AAs like the Bass don't use the Latin American "racial democracy" terms where Afro-descendant people embrace the blood of their oppressors.
I didn't know that native americans oppresed black people Mackandal , but anyways this confirms this is about social identity and subjectivity with emotions involved,things I don't usually give importance to.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:anyways this confirms this is about social identity
^ It does confirm that you don't have one.
Which is why you're here, muttering meally mouthed banalities and trying to cheer yourself up. You're pathetic.
quote:Well, then that is your problem.
No actually it's yours. Since you will find nothing here but the abuse you secretly crave, being a self pitying angst-ridden 'mulatto' with no identity of his own.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: We don't know if Egyptians were all black or not mixed all we have is current Egyptian lineages and most of them aren't African lineages currently
quote:Tishkoff and her colleagues chose to investigate East African peoples for specific reasons. The number of linguistic and cultural differences is unusually high in the region, as is the variation in physical appearance—East Africans are tall or short, darker-skinned or lighter-skinned, round-faced or narrow-faced, and so on. This observation suggested that the genetic composition of the population is highly diverse, and as expected, the team found substantial variation in the mtDNA. In fact, members of five of the lineages showed an exceptionally high number of mutations compared with other populations, indicating that these East African lineages are of great antiquity. Identified by tribal affiliation, these are: the Sandawe, who speak a "click" language related to that of the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert; the Burunge and Gorowaa, who migrated to Tanzania from Ethiopia within the last five thousand years; and the Maasai and the Datog, who probably originated in the Sudan. The efforts of the University of Maryland group reflect a substantially larger database and more certain geographic origins for its subjects than earlier mtDNA studies. Further, the work by Tishkoff's team reveals that these five East African populations have even older origins than the !Kung San of southern Africa, who previously had the oldest known mtDNA.
"These samples showed really deep, old lineages with lots of genetic diversity," Tishkoff says. "They are the oldest lineages identified to date. And that fact makes it highly likely that 'Eve' was an East or Northeast African. My guess is that the region of Ethiopia or the Sudan is where modern humans originated."
Tishkoff and her colleagues chose to investigate East African peoples for specific reasons. The number of linguistic and cultural differences is unusually high in the region, as is the variation in physical appearance— East Africans are tall or short , darker-skinned or lighter-skinned , round-faced or narrow-faced , and so on. This observation suggested that the genetic composition of the population is highly diverse, and as expected, the team found substantial variation in the mtDNA. In fact, members of five of the lineages showed an exceptionally high number of mutations compared with other populations, indicating that these East African lineages are of great antiquity. Identified by tribal affiliation, these are: the Sandawe, who speak a "click" language related to that of the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert; the Burunge and Gorowaa, who migrated to Tanzania from Ethiopia within the last five thousand years; and the Maasai and the Datog, who probably originated in the Sudan. The efforts of the University of Maryland group reflect a substantially larger database and more certain geographic origins for its subjects than earlier mtDNA studies. Further, the work by Tishkoff's team reveals that these five East African populations have even older origins than the !Kung San of southern Africa, who previously had the oldest known mtDNA.
"These samples showed really deep, old lineages with lots of genetic diversity," Tishkoff says. "They are the oldest lineages identified to date. And that fact makes it highly likely that 'Eve' was an East or Northeast African. My guess is that the region of Ethiopia or the Sudan is where modern humans originated."
Today Black Egyptians
Posts: 567 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Race deniers like rasol are reality deniers. Race is analogous to dog breed or subspecies. The only way his argument can work is if he denies the existance of dog breeds, too. So rasol, are dog breeds a social construct without validity? The absurdity never ends.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
^ Racist rhetoric is the empty rhetoric, of embittered and unintelligent losers like you.
quote:Race is analogous to dog breed or subspecies.
The reality is there are no sub-species of humanity, by interpreting race as sub-species you moot your own argument dummy.
quote:are dog breeds a social construct without validity?
This is another non-sequitur. All you idiots ever do is make non-sequitur argument because you lack the intelligence necessary to engage a debate.
- Dog breeds are the product of artificial, not natural selection.
- Dog 'breeds' returned to the wild are naturally bred back to a 'mongrelised' state, and the artifically maintained dog 'breeds' vanish.
- Even if this were not the case, no point is made, since the existence of sub-species in nature is not under dispute, nor need it be, since all species in nature do *not* have sub-species.
What you are trying to dispute is the reality of the lack of any living sub-species of homo-sapiens sapiens.
This reality is confirmed immediately and from any current anthropology text.
Dog breeds can't help you here.
Your argument is stupid.
You need to go someplace else, where stupid people play, and where you can argue in stupidity, all the live-long-day. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:anyways this confirms this is about social identity
^ It does confirm that you don't have one.
Which is why you're here, muttering meally mouthed banalities and trying to cheer yourself up. You're pathetic.
quote:Well, then that is your problem.
No actually it's yours. Since you will find nothing here but the abuse you secretly crave, being a self pitying angst-ridden 'mulatto' with no identity of his own.
Socially I am a puertorican of mixed race.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
^ Racist rhetoric is the empty rhetoric, of embittered and unintelligent losers like you.
quote:Race is analogous to dog breed or subspecies.
The reality is there are no sub-species of humanity, by interpreting race as sub-species you moot your own argument dummy.
quote:are dog breeds a social construct without validity?
This is another non-sequitur. All you idiots ever do is make non-sequitur argument because you lack the intelligence necessary to engage a debate.
- Dog breeds are the product of artificial, not natural selection.
- Dog 'breeds' returned to the wild are naturally bred back to a 'mongrelised' state, and the artifically maintained dog 'breeds' vanish.
- Even if this were not the case, no point is made, since the existence of sub-species in nature is not under dispute, nor need it be, since all species in nature do *not* have sub-species.
What you are trying to dispute is the reality of the lack of any living sub-species of homo-sapiens sapiens.
This reality is confirmed immediately and from any current anthropology text.
Dog breeds can't help you here.
Your argument is stupid.
You need to go someplace else, where stupid people play, and where you can argue in stupidity, all the live-long-day.
Talk about empty rhetoric. Your conclusion is that human races are not analogous to dog breeds because of artificial selection rather than natural selection. Sorry to break it to you, but that doesn't help you. The means by which things become breeds - whether artificial selection or natural selection - is not relevant. The end result is relevant: that human races are in fact, human breeds.
And by the way, you're wrong that all dogs left to their own would become mongrelized (though this doesn't help your case anyway as most humans left to their own eventually breed together too when geography isn't a hinderance). For one thing, not all dogs are the result of artifical selection nor can you say for a fact that they'd all interbreed in the wild. Secondly, dogs can breed with coyotes and wolves, yet they do not in the wild.
The rational mind knows that race denial dogma is the product of ethnic and ideological animus, not scientific empiricism.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The means by which things become breeds - whether artificial selection or natural selection - is not relevant.
Wrong again.
It is relevant because the *means* is specific to your analogy.
Where X is under discussion, means in this case is the cause or the manner by which X would be created.
If in your analogy X [dog breed] is analogous to Y [people breed], and X [dog breed] is caused by Z [artificial selection].
Then in order for analogy to be apt Z [artifical selection] must also exist to explain Y [people breed]. This is especially so in this case because dog breeds [X] *DEPENDS* upon artifical selection. [the Z factor that does not exist for homo sapiens].
Since Z does not exist for people, then your analogy is FLAAAWWWEED.
The flaw is doubly relevant because the whole reason you choose 'dogs' is because they are splendid examples of descrete breeds, which in turn is because they are splendid examples of *artifical selection*, in contrast to homo sapien, and so destroying the analogy.
But you're dumb, and even with this painfully detailed explanation of your error , you still do not understand do you? lol.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Accept that fact that races are breeds and vice versa.
^ According to anthropology, the fact is, there are no decrete 'breeds' of homo-sapiens-sapiens.
This is the logical END of this discussion.
It doesn't matter whether you accept this fact or not.
Feel free to stay stupid. No one cares.
quote:And please leave anthropology out of this.
^ Indeed.
Anthropology *is* the scientific study of the human species, which is what we are discussing.
You are discussing your idiotic ideology of racism and grasping for some straw by which you hope to make sense of it.
Good luck with that, especially if your best rationalisation is a broken analogy with dog breeds, which is sophmoric at best.
And since you admit that your racist ideology, has nothing to do with anthroplogy, here at least we agree.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lastly: As for you blatant attempt to pimp your racist ill-literature;
Also from the amazon.com site in reference to the stinking pile of pooh you are desparately trying to promote....
- perhaps one of the silliest most blatantly agenda driven books ever.
- the bell curve in new clothes, empirical lies and logical fallacies included.
- hype and hubris
and finally...
- Thus, [the authors] are forced to rely on meaningless studies on such scientifically irrelevant phenomena as skull size variation (which interestingly Franz Boas destroyed a century ago as a persuasive argument) to bolster their case and to present alternative subjective classification schemes based on "fuzzy sets" rather than the commonly accepted and objective metric of genetic variation.
Yet, preconceived notions die hard and [they] come from a physical anthropology school uncomfortable with the reams of new evidence from the Human Genome Project, etc. that have overturned cherished theories.
^ No sale chump. Go pimp your racist tripe elsewhere.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
????![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
, but anyways this confirms this is about social identity and subjectivity with emotions involved,things I don't usually give importance to.
Printer-friendly view of this topic