posted
Lets make Afrocentric/Africana history by actually creating the "black" paradigm. Everyone should contribute to this.
Lets have 10 phenotypic attributes to judge for or against for the said human in question.
Here is my list, first being the most important to 10 being the least.
1. Tropical Body Plan
2. Population Genetics(Male NRY Lineage Clades that are atleast 30,000 years in age. If not 30,000 years in age must be present in indigenous populations in Africa, Melanesia, Oceania, Austronesia if neither apply then must be present in tropical/equatorial populations OUT SIDE OF AFRICA only) and must have atleast have *80%* of said lineages and corresponding MTDNA lineages in their population Genome or individual DNA make up*
3. Nappy/Kingly/Kinky/Frizzy/Wavy/Curly hair
4. Thick Lips
5. Maxillary Prognathism
6. Relatively large Nasal seals(large soft tissue nose)
7. Alveolar Prognathism
8. Petruding forehead
9. Linear to High cheek bones(which will be good for excluding a lot of Tigre/Tigrignya/Amhara Ethiopian imposters, Caucasoid Skulls usually "slope downward"
10. Petruding Jaw(Gorilla-like[under bite] etc. due to forrestation adaptation)**
11. Skin color ranging from caramel to black.***
Sorry it was 11 lol.
*Only problem with this discipline I would find is the Male lineage "L" in Southern Indian sub continent..this is why bio-genetics is a hard discipline to use for this.
**This would probably excuse Yonis2 and his beautiful glowing Somali brethren's Caucasian features from the glorious Arabs
***If lighter skinned than Caramel, must have the 80% requirement of said Male lineages. If as dark as brown to black must have the proper Male lineage requirements(I'm trying to exclude East Indians and Sri Lankins etc. but its hard lol.
Does anyone have a problem with this list? If so lets brainstorm and modify it Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are trying to make the case that the Black race is too old and too diversified to be categorized, you have succeeded.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your list basically describes the West/central african type. I'm glad you said "black prototype" rather than "African prototype" coz then i would have had to dismiss it as pure garbage.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: Your list basically describes the West/central african type. I'm glad you said "black prototype" rather than "African prototype" coz then i would have had to dismiss it as pure garbage.
There are Africans who are not Black??
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^They must be mixed then or have some degree of external ancestry. Though such features as decribed above have nothing to do with "Blackness" per se, what he's describing is the old "negro" caricature.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
An African always identifies as Black. To posit that such self-identification arose from the Maafa is uninformed and patronising. This accounts for the inane and sterile debates about who or what is a Black person!
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Well, what I meant was that any natural native of the African continent, by almost universal criteria are indeed Black. An African can be defined as any person born on the African continent, hence my statement that any African who isn't Black most likely has some degree of external, non-African ancestry.
-------------------- mr.writer.asa@gmail.com Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your list basically describes the West/central african type.
Which was only a small part of African phenotypes...bear in mind that Asian and European features are African derived...even to this day there is more physical diversity within Africa compare to to the whole world based on modern anthropology: the tallest, smallest, thinest, biggest nose, tines noses, variety in skin tone is the highest...but Wolofi doesn't understand and Wolofi you failed again... I'm personally from Africa and I don't know about you, but I never as much physical diversity among Europeans or Asians than among Africans, which is normal since they lived longer 200k to diversify versus 60k for Europeans and Asians...
Read, open Hierniaux books and you will learn a lot:
In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage.....
Hair form has rarely been quantified by physical anthropologists, who usually content themselves with broad divisions like 'straight', 'wavy', 'curly' and 'spiralled'. Only the last two categories are frequent in the populations of sub-Saharan Africa, and spiralled hair, which may be more or less tightly spiralled, occurs in many more populations than curly hair. An extreme is the 'peppercorn' hair of the Khoisan people, in which spiralling is so tight that the hair forms tufts which appear to leave bare patches on the surface of the scalp.
One of the features that physical anthropologists measure on the skulls is prognathism, or facial protrusion. A straight face is said to be orthognathous. Prognathism may be total or subnasal, that is restricted to the region below the nose. This character is hard to evaluate on the living, except in radiographs. In sub-Saharan Africa, individuals vary from orthognathism to extreme prognathism and large population differences may be observed between populations.
All this is evidence of the great biological diversity of the peoples living in sub-Saharan Africa.
posted
^ You claim to be African, yet quote the opinion of a non African to 'verify' your posit.
No offence intended but if you eschew being identified as Black on the African continent and accept the identifier 'African'; either you are not native to the land or are the offspring of foreigners and Africans.
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Actually, Habari is correct. I'm not sure what part of his post you dispute.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
------------------- Seriously don't respond to posts like this -------------------
They're not going to listen to you. This thread is bringing out the whose who of the intellectually challenged.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jo, who are you talking to, I was just stating that Black Africans are very diverse this thread is about Black Africans...Europeans and Asians features were found among Black Africans thousands years before anyone outside Africa, this is what is said by modern anthropologists like Hierniaux or Keita(a Black African scholar as well)...It's not the Somali who look like Arab, it's the other way around it's the Arabs who look like Somali, Black Africans had those features long before, I'm just refuting what Wolofi is posting...go to some places in central Africa and you will find people like the Hima/Tutsis in South West Uganda, Rwanda, West Tanzania, Burundi with elongated features(tall, dark skin and long head and noses) and they are 100% Black... that African prototype doesn't exist, Black Africans are too diverse...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ If you dont understand the politics, which underpins the 'theory of evolution', anthropology, and the interpretation of 'human genetic data' as regards the origin of humanity; then, everything else you think you understand on the matter will only confuse you!
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that's the nub of the matter. I do not take issue with the facts and details in the posts addressed; but offer analysis and commentary from a humanist perspective, which the average visitor or 'lurker' on this forum can understand.
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Habari: Jo, who are you talking to, I was just stating that Black Africans are very diverse this thread is about Black Africans...Europeans and Asians features were found among Black Africans thousands years before anyone outside Africa, this is what is said by modern anthropologists like Hierniaux or Keita(a Black African scholar as well)...It's not the Somali who look like Arab, it's the other way around it's the Arabs who look like Somali, Black Africans had those features long before, I'm just refuting what Wolofi is posting...go to some places in central Africa and you will find people like the Hima/Tutsis in South West Uganda, Rwanda, West Tanzania, Burundi with elongated features(tall, dark skin and long head and noses) and they are 100% Black... that African prototype doesn't exist, Black Africans are too diverse...
HOW are you refuting what I am saying? I am asking for everyone to join in on making a model if you are saying a model can't be made then there is no "black" at all. Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
No there is none only the color can count because Black African features are the most diverse on earth and you know that unless you are not African or you never traveled outside your country of origin...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: Your list basically describes the West/central african type. I'm glad you said "black prototype" rather than "African prototype" coz then i would have had to dismiss it as pure garbage.
So if cental/west Africa is what I described how are those not black or African? You make no sense. You admit to there being black people yet you say you aren't one yet you say you are African? Make up your mind.
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Yonis is a self-hating Somali. Don't mind him. Africa I posted a picture of him on here a while back and the guy is "blacker" (darker) than I am, with even broader features. Though I will say that some of your ideas are just as divisive.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: ^Yonis is a self-hating Somali. Don't mind him. Africa I posted a picture of him on here a while back and the guy is "blacker" (darker) than I am, with even broader features. Though I will say that some of your ideas are just as divisive.
I doubt i have broader features than you(an AA) unless you're one of those diluted Adam clayton powell type of "blacks"(post your pic). In any case i don't care much for skin colour you could be a dinka for all i care and if you don't identify as "black" then for me your not "black". The term "black" is attached to a lifestyle, history and culture i dont feel connected to whatsoever.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although I'm not sure about Yonis motivations, regardless whether he's not really representative of Somalis physically: I mean Somalis are diverse and he knows that, personally I don't have any problem with the label Black, but culturally and socially it has no meaning in most places in Africa. We are Shona, Zulu, Somali, Wolofi, Tubu, Luo, Kikuyu, Oromo, Amhara, Afars...same thing Europeans are not white, they are French, English, Italian...Black and White divisions have been mainly artificially created by colonization and I mean colonization that includes slavery in the Americas. The problem in this thread is that people from different cultural backgrounds are trying to define Colorism which varies whether you are in America, Africa, Europe or Asia...
United States
See also: White American and Definitions of whiteness in the United States
The current U.S. Census definition includes white "people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa.[47] The U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation describes white people as "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa through racial categories used in the UCR Program adopted from the Statistical Policy Handbook (1978) and published by the Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce.[48]
The cultural boundaries separating white Americans from other racial or ethnic categories are contested and always changing. Among those not considered white at some points in American history have been: the Irish, Germans, Ashkenazi Jews, Italians, Spaniards, Slavs, Greeks and other Mediterranean peoples.[49] Studies have found that while current parameters officially encompassed Middle Eastern Americans as part of the White American racial category, a lot of Middle Eastern Americans from places other than Bilad al-Sham feel they are not white and are not perceived as white by American society."[50]
Professor David R. Roediger of the University of Illinois, suggests that the construction of the white race in the United States was an effort to mentally distance slave owners from slaves.[51] By the 18th century, white had become well established as a racial term. The process of officially being defined as white by law often came about in court disputes over pursuit of citizenship. The Immigration Act of 1790 offered naturalization only to "any alien, being a free white person". In at least 52 cases, people denied the status of white by immigration officials sued in court for status as white people. By 1923, courts had vindicated a "common-knowledge" standard, concluding that "scientific evidence" was incoherent. Legal scholar John Tehranian argues that in reality this was a "performance-based" standard, relating to religious practices, education, intermarriage and a community's role in the United States.[52]
In 1923, the Supreme Court decided in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind that people of India were not "free white men" entitled to citizenship, despite anthropological evidence that they were Caucasian.[53] The 1970 US Census classified South Asians as white.
[edit] Relations with African-Americans
The so-called one drop rule — that a person with any trace of non-white ancestry (however small or invisible) cannot be considered white — is unique to the United States.[54] The one drop rule created a bifurcated system of either black or white regardless of a person's physical appearance. This contrasts with the more flexible social structures present in Latin America, where there are no clear-cut divisions between various ethnicities.[55]
As a result of 400 years of living alongside white people, the majority of African Americans have white admixture, and many white people also have African ancestry. Some have suggested that the majority of the descendants of African slaves are white.[56] According to recent studies, white Americans rank non-Americans as socially closer to them than fellow Americans who are black.[57] Writer and editor Debra Dickerson questions the legitimacy of the one drop rule, stating that "easily one-third of blacks have white DNA".[58] She argues that in ignoring their white ancestry, African Americans are denying their fully articulated multi-racial identities. The peculiarity of the one drop rule may be illustrated by the case of Mariah Carey.[59] She was publicly called "another white girl trying to sing black", but in an interview with Larry King, Carey said despite her physical appearance and the fact that she was raised primarily by her white mother, she does not feel that she is white, because of the effects of the one drop rule.[60] [61][62]Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: I doubt i have broader features than you(an AA) unless you're one of those diluted Adam clayton powell type of "blacks"(post your pic). In any case i don't care much for skin colour you could be a dinka for all i care and if you don't identify as "black" then for me your not "black". The term "black" is attached to a lifestyle, history and culture i dont feel connected to whatsoever.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
People check out the link below.
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAA
somalilife.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=15777
Poor, Poor Somali. All he has going for him is some imaginary look which doesn't exist. This is why he hangs out at the race loon forums, repeating what dateless social misfits say like a trained puppy. : )
Hey Yonis why do many Somalis go by the nickname TT?
The TT stands for TALL TEEF. hahahahaahahahahhaa
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: ^Yonis is a self-hating Somali. Don't mind him. Africa I posted a picture of him on here a while back and the guy is "blacker" (darker) than I am, with even broader features. Though I will say that some of your ideas are just as divisive.
I doubt i have broader features than you(an AA) unless you're one of those diluted Adam clayton powell type of "blacks"(post your pic). In any case i don't care much for skin colour you could be a dinka for all i care and if you don't identify as "black" then for me your not "black". The term "black" is attached to a lifestyle, history and culture i dont feel connected to whatsoever.
HUH!?!? Lifestyle and Culture?!?! What the **** are you talking about?
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way you define a thing is not by what it has in common with other things but by its differentia.
Thus of all the 11 traits cited 1, 4, 5,6,7,9,10,11 are all found in Asia-especially South East Asia. And conversely, there are large numbers of Africans who don't have such traits.
This is based on my own casual observations: what make me pick out an African/black anywhere as in watching a football(European) match on TV is the hair(first) then the complexion. The complexion must range from very dark to yellow/brown.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can also easily tell when someone is of East Asian extraction. First the hair(usually very straight and black) then the eye structure which can range from narrow--with the noted epicantric fold--to roundish large but with an East Asian cast. All the other traits that are cited--prognathism, etc. are practically universal in S.E. Asia.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But correct analytical thinking should tell us that traits that would seem to be on the boundaries of some other could come about as result of boundary DNA exchanges or could just be an intra-group genetic drift feature. Just think of height ranges in Africa to get the picture. Individuals who are intermediate in range between a Dinka and a Twa are not necessarily hybrids of these 2 groups.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: ^Yonis is a self-hating Somali. Don't mind him. Africa I posted a picture of him on here a while back and the guy is "blacker" (darker) than I am, with even broader features. Though I will say that some of your ideas are just as divisive.
I doubt i have broader features than you(an AA) unless you're one of those diluted Adam clayton powell type of "blacks"(post your pic). In any case i don't care much for skin colour you could be a dinka for all i care and if you don't identify as "black" then for me your not "black". The term "black" is attached to a lifestyle, history and culture i dont feel connected to whatsoever.
Why are you so obsessed with "features" are you trying to look Swedish because they took you in as a refugee up there or something? What the hell is your problem?
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: The way you define a thing is not by what it has in common with other things but by its differentia.
Thus of all the 11 traits cited 1, 4, 5,6,7,9,10,11 are all found in Asia-especially South East Asia. And conversely, there are large numbers of Africans who don't have such traits.
This is based on my own casual observations: what make me pick out an African/black anywhere as in watching a football(European) match on TV is the hair(first) then the complexion. The complexion must range from very dark to yellow/brown.
Well then help me make a better model then. We can't stay in the realm of ambiguity and I am not going to let this thread get shut down. Makes no damn sense for everyone that an afrocentric wants to be is "black" then when the test of what is "black" comes up everyone is whistling that pisses me off!!!! It makes Afrocentricity/blackcentricity whatever you want to call it look totally RIDICULOUS!!!
So help me out lamin. If you are saying there is no definition of "black" then how the hell can you call someone black?
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just reread what I wrote above. As I said when I see a group of people of different phenotypes I can easily tell who is black/African.
For me, the kepy marker is the hair--as you have defined Africanoid hair. The second marker is the pigmentation--a range for very dark to Touareg yellow/brown.
It's really quite easy: whenever I look at European football I can easily identify the African players--including those from North Africa for the most part.
The same for the black players from other parts such as Brazil, etc.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I can tell on looks as well, but that is not the point.
I want an anthropological approach because *looks* are subjective lamin.
Dumb Dougie looks at many Asians and even Native Americans(for christ sake) and says they are blacks lol. I am trying to eradicate the penchant for Afro-Nazis to do that by coming up with a scientific objective basis for whom is black or not.
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: Well I can tell on looks as well, but that is not the point.
I want an anthropological approach because *looks* are subjective lamin.
Dumb Dougie looks at many Asians and even Native Americans(for christ sake) and says they are blacks lol. I am trying to eradicate the penchant for Afro-Nazis to do that by coming up with a scientific objective basis for whom is black or not.
Wolofi stop confusing me with YOURSELF.
YOU were the one comparing Africans With Asians and asking SOMEONE ELSE to figure out the difference FOR YOU in reference to the term black. And was it not you that compared the Japanese PM to Cambodian blacks? Not to mention how you were all over Chimu's STUPID comparison of African Khoisan and Central Asian whites as some sort of populations with SIMILAR complexions.
LOL!
Now you humiliate YOURSELF by reminding everyone of YOUR idiocy.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
An american Black Man who looks like Colin Powell or Obama can be called a munzugu( a White Man) or mwarabu(Arab) because they are mixed like many Northern Somalis or Northern Ethiopians(like Yonis who is not representative of Somali as we know them in Africa) are called in many parts of Africa unlike Southern Somali who are darker than most Africans like these Southern Somalis and are viewed like other indigenous Africans and look like the elongated Africans: very dark, tall with fine features like the Afars, Borans, Tutsis and Himas, they are called Somali and won't be confounded with non Africans:
Africans from Southern Africa
and are not viewed as aliens, although they have the same features as Northern Somalis(although some Northern Somali have that Yemeni-Arab big nose like Yonis as was noticed by myself and Sundiata) or that Issaq-Arab-kikyuyu looking Northen Somali from Somalilan(the President): I could swear he was a Yemeni ...that's why colorism is dangerous...no one is really black or white in this world...and on top of that just analyze carefully features of Southern Somali and San people and your realize that Europeans and Asians derived their features from Africans...no magic unless you don't know Africans...we are all the same... Europeans, Arabs, Asians look like Africans not the other way around... Actually they look like mixed AfricansPosts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
[quote]I want an anthropological approach because *looks* are subjective lamin.[quote]
Yes but physical anthropology, which is based on taxonomic classification and measurement, is just as subjective.
Humans from different geographical locations look the way they do because of environmental adaptation, genetic drift[another form of environmental adaptation], assorted mating[active and passive], bottlenecks and founder effects[environmental adaptation: does this explain variations in height among groups such as the Twa and the Dinka?]
In a general way humans who have lived for millenia[160,000 ya]in the African environment and Africa-like environments in places like the Melanesian areas[including New Guinea]have acquired certain surface traits that reflect this fact.
For example, there is something specific in the African environment that produced what one could call Africanoid hair--which seems unique. The primate cousins of humans despite the fact that they have lived for millions of years in Africa just have not acquired Africanoid hair. Etc, Etc.
So "black" in the anthropological sense would simply be those humans who have acquired certain adaptive phenotypical traits from being long-time residents of the environments of Africa.
What confuses matters is that those African elements who have maintained those adaptive Africanoid traits in areas outside of Africa that are ecologically similar have developed new genetic mutations over the years. Thus such people have different Y and MtDNA profiles while phenotypcially similar to Africa's populations.
On the other hand there are phenotypically distinct populations that show lineage connections--as in the case of E3b and R1 in Africa and Europe.
In the final analysis what counts for classification purposes is general phenotypical similarities and differences derived from environmental adaptations.
But there is much climatic and environmental similarities in the world's geographical regions especially according to latitude. We have the tropical regions, the temperate regions and the artic regions. And humans are adaptively affected thereby. So a "black" aka "Africa adapted human" would be anyone with those phenotypical traits produced by Africa's environment, but specific to those environments.
So as I wrote: Africanoid hair plus an epidermal pigmentation range[very dark to yellow/brown]is what determines a "black" or "African"
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, the intellectual tussle will always involve the issue of classification: do we go on just phenotype or just genotype, combinations of both.
There are populations in Europe that are E3b and A. There are populations in Africa that are R1.
Or if it so happens that the long deceased Congo Prime Minister, Moise Tshombe had an East Asian Y DNA[his grandfather was Chinese] he was indistinguishable from other Congolese. Should be classified differently?
And we know that DNA-famed scientist James Watson had a DNA profile that showed some recent connection with Africa--does that mean that he is no longer "white European"? It doesn't. All those Greeks with E3b lineage would not for a single moment feel any kinship with E3b carriers from East Africa. They would still claim to be "white Europeans".
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: [quote]I want an anthropological approach because *looks* are subjective lamin.[quote]
Yes but physical anthropology, which is based on taxonomic classification and measurement, is just as subjective.
Humans from different geographical locations look the way they do because of environmental adaptation, genetic drift[another form of environmental adaptation], assorted mating[active and passive], bottlenecks and founder effects[environmental adaptation: does this explain variations in height among groups such as the Twa and the Dinka?]
In a general way humans who have lived for millenia[160,000 ya]in the African environment and Africa-like environments in places like the Melanesian areas[including New Guinea]have acquired certain surface traits that reflect this fact.
For example, there is something specific in the African environment that produced what one could call Africanoid hair--which seems unique. The primate cousins of humans despite the fact that they have lived for millions of years in Africa just have not acquired Africanoid hair. Etc, Etc.
So "black" in the anthropological sense would simply be those humans who have acquired certain adaptive phenotypical traits from being long-time residents of the environments of Africa.
What confuses matters is that those African elements who have maintained those adaptive Africanoid traits in areas outside of Africa that are ecologically similar have developed new genetic mutations over the years. Thus such people have different Y and MtDNA profiles while phenotypcially similar to Africa's populations.
On the other hand there are phenotypically distinct populations that show lineage connections--as in the case of E3b and R1 in Africa and Europe.
In the final analysis what counts for classification purposes is general phenotypical similarities and differences derived from environmental adaptations.
But there is much climatic and environmental similarities in the world's geographical regions especially according to latitude. We have the tropical regions, the temperate regions and the artic regions. And humans are adaptively affected thereby. So a "black" aka "Africa adapted human" would be anyone with those phenotypical traits produced by Africa's environment, but specific to those environments.
So as I wrote: Africanoid hair plus an epidermal pigmentation range[very dark to yellow/brown]is what determines a "black" or "African"
Ok, thats a pretty good assessment and thank you for participating. This is why I had the hair so high on the list. But the first I would say has to be tropical body plans. Can you give me any examples of people that do not fit the skin color and hair criterion that have a tropical body plan.
Also, would you say that we can denounce Dravidians, East Indians, Sri Lankans and the straight haired Austronesians or no in your opion?
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: I compared two people for looking the same with the same skin color...I don't know what "complexion" means.
You still have yet to answer how you can tell one is black or not lol!!!!!!
Scared?
So like I said, YOU are an idiot, because YOU are attempting to compare range of skin colors of African BLACKS to Central Asian whites as being THE SAME. And you really are silly if you are going to say you didn't know that complexion means skin color.
Like I said, nobody BUT YOU are trying to equate the range of colors of African BLACKS to Central Asian WHITES as being the same.
Which is stupid to begin with.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Since the trait is "tropical" body plan and not "African" body plan I would like to think that South Asians of Dravidian extraction(South India, Sri Lanka, etc.) might also have tropical body plans.
On the hair issue I note that you extend your definition of "Africanoid hair" to include hair that is wavy/curly. There are many Africans with that hair structure so those very dark peoples of South Asia who might have such a trait would be classified close to the boundary of the set that includes all blacks/Africans.
CORRECTION: I said above that the late Tshombe would have a Chinese Y DNA. I must correct that because it could be that Tshombe's mother was the daughter of his Chinese grandfather. She would then have had the MtDNA of her African mother who in turn would have married an African male whose son was Tshombe. So Tshombe would be an African Y; the same for his sisters too who would have African LI, LII or LIII.
But the great paradox with your definition of black/Africa is that it could include most individuals of African and European parentage.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Since the trait is "tropical" body plan and not "African" body plan I would like to think that South Asians of Dravidian extraction(South India, Sri Lanka, etc.) might also have tropical body plans.
On the hair issue I note that you extend your definition of "Africanoid hair" to include hair that is wavy/curly. There are many Africans with that hair structure so those very dark peoples of South Asia who might have such a trait would be classified close to the boundary of the set that includes all blacks/Africans.
CORRECTION: I said above that the late Tshombe would have a Chinese Y DNA. I must correct that because it could be that Tshombe's mother was the daughter of his Chinese grandfather. She would then have had the MtDNA of her African mother who in turn would have married an African male whose son was Tshombe. So Tshombe would be an African Y; the same for his sisters too who would have African LI, LII or LIII.
But the great paradox with your definition of black/Africa is that it could include most individuals of African and European parentage.
True, but the concept of an adjective given to a human is still based on appearance.
The actor Don cheadle is an African American that just found out he has 20% European Ancestry.
I wouldn't have said he is mixed based on his appearance
So indeed it is all social and I would never contest that fact.
One thing though...Dravidians at one time were called Eurafricans/Cro magnoids because they had intermediate body plans - half cold adapted - tropical adapted.
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wolofi, The genetic mix of individuals must be taken for granted. After all--based on time calculations--all Europeans are 60% African/black in their genetic makeup. Note that humans are least 160,000 years and were in Africa adapting genetically to the African environment for 110,000 years of that time. They migrated out to Europe and other places losing only their surface characteristics as they adapted to a different environment.
So their structure--as distinct from accidental mutations showing up in their DNA--must only have gone through minor changes--as the Frennch automotive engineers did some years ago when they slightly modified the Peugeot for African roads and climate.
As I said all we have to go on is phenotypical appearance. To distinguish a Dinka or Tutsi from a Twa or a San, we just look at them. No need to take blood samples to do DNA tests.
So it is with humans: we just look at them and determine which geographical region their phenotype corresponds to. Hair and pigmentation is what tells us that someone is black/African. East Asians of all latitudes we can easily tell.
Think of human populations as a large set of closely intersecting sets and you get the picture.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: ^Yonis is a self-hating Somali. Don't mind him. Africa I posted a picture of him on here a while back and the guy is "blacker" (darker) than I am, with even broader features. Though I will say that some of your ideas are just as divisive.
I doubt i have broader features than you(an AA) unless you're one of those diluted Adam clayton powell type of "blacks"(post your pic). In any case i don't care much for skin colour you could be a dinka for all i care and if you don't identify as "black" then for me your not "black". The term "black" is attached to a lifestyle, history and culture i dont feel connected to whatsoever.
Why are you so obsessed with "features" are you trying to look Swedish because they took you in as a refugee up there or something? What the hell is your problem?
This whole thread you created was about "features" to begin with you stupid buffoon. Secondly i'm no *refugee* since i'm born where i live (wouldn't really matter if i was one, my identity would still be the same). Also i don't try to be a *swede* or anything similar to this (funny comming from you, people who are known by a particular habit) ignoring everything female that doesn't seem to come from the country of your own origin. That must be opposite of your fufu type (always hungry after anything other than what is your own females) as soon as you enter western borders. Cant stand the force of getting that white "highclass" experience ,eh? LOL
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lamin is right the only thing that really differentiate a Black African from other human groups is the shape of the hair and the skin tone...other than that Asians and Europeans look like Africans in terms of features although in the mixed form: European and West Asians have bigger noses, bodies and heads compare to elongated Africans(Afars, Boranas, Southern Oromos, Southern Somalis, Tutsis, Himas) and East Asians have less slanted eyes compared to San people...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: ^Yonis is a self-hating Somali. Don't mind him. Africa I posted a picture of him on here a while back and the guy is "blacker" (darker) than I am, with even broader features. Though I will say that some of your ideas are just as divisive.
I doubt i have broader features than you(an AA) unless you're one of those diluted Adam clayton powell type of "blacks"(post your pic). In any case i don't care much for skin colour you could be a dinka for all i care and if you don't identify as "black" then for me your not "black". The term "black" is attached to a lifestyle, history and culture i dont feel connected to whatsoever.
Why are you so obsessed with "features" are you trying to look Swedish because they took you in as a refugee up there or something? What the hell is your problem?
This whole thread you created was about "features" to begin with you stupid buffoon. Secondly i'm no *refugee* since i'm born where i live (wouldn't really matter if i was one, my identity would still be the same). Also i don't try to be a *swede* or anything similar to this (funny comming from you, people who are known by a particular habit) ignoring everything female that doesn't seem to come from the country of your own origin. That must be opposite of your fufu type (always hungry after anything other than what is your own females) as soon as you enter western borders. Cant stand the force of getting that white "highclass" experience ,eh? LOL
Whoa, I think you are projecting LMAO...so Yonis you like white women too?!?! LOL!!
Also what is interesting in how you *leak* your projection is; how come a white person is "high class" automatically LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!
You dirty refugee low class freak LOL!!!
Wow I have learned a lot from you in this short post.
You hate black people and Africans + 95% of your own Somali people and deem white Europeans with a standard of class without scrutiny hmmmmmm.
By the way, how is your relationship with Allah doing? Must be pretty good he is a high class white Arab *wink*.
posted
Wolofi, this guy is a confused Northern Somali who think their ancestors are Arabs: the majority of Northern Somali mixed heavily with Yemeni: their clans are Darod(Yonis clan) and Issaq...no other Somali clan claim Arab ancestry...you are right he only represent a tiny part of the Somali population...they are alien from an African perspective...but unfortunately they are a big portion of the Somali refugee population in Europe and America but are not really representative culturally or physically of the original Somali population...I mean they are too mixed...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see that thanks for the heads up. This man is sick and has serious issues. I bet he has hatred for blacks more so because Arabs don't accept him as a pure arab(whatever that is) so he takes it out on us. Three words
1. PA 2. THE 3. TIC!!!!
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Habari: Wolofi, this guy is a confused Northern Somali who think their ancestors are Arabs: the majority of Northern Somali mixed heavily with Yemeni: their clans are Darod(Yonis clan) and Issaq...no other Somali clan claim Arab ancestry...you are right he only represent a tiny part of the Somali population...they are alien from an African perspective...but unfortunately they are a big portion of the Somali refugee population in Europe and America but are not really representative culturally or physically of the original Somali population...I mean they are too mixed...
As usual you talk straight out of your kikuyu ass (why you always bring up the word *somali* on topics that have nothing to do with it? you have serious issues)
Everyone knows that it's people from moqdishu that are mixed with Persian,Bantu,Swahili,Omani,Oromo,Tuni and whatnot. People from this region didn't even speak the somali language untill 500 years ago. They all became somalilized. The real somalis have always been located at the coastal regions of the northern half of what is today somalia. Next time get your facts straight.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Africa I posted a picture of him on here a while back and the guy is "blacker" (darker) than I am, with even broader features. Though I will say that some of your ideas are just as divisive.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
It makes Afrocentricity/blackcentricity whatever you want to call it look totally RIDICULOUS!!! 
Printer-friendly view of this topic