posted
PLEASE PRINT YOUR DEFINITION OF BLACK AND BLACKNESS HERE.
To research Blacks, to explain Blackness we first need to give a definition. What and who is Black. I needed to do so in order to identify the European, blue blooded nobility as Black and Blue blood as a Black identity. In my Jane Austen articles I have dealt with my definition.
quote:But first we need a rationale and workable definition of Black, which in my understanding of blackness; is a quality best discussed and analysed in terms of a person’s identity and history then actual skin colour or facial features. Or scull measurements or DNA. A Black person should next be considered as a functional part of a social and political group. A group who has experienced a common history, made certain geographical movements around the globe, has certain common cultural elements as in the general way of doing things, that creates a bond between the Blacks across oceans and across time. A Black identified writer, like Jane Austen will mainly talk about issues regarding Blacks, like how we expect a Jewish identified writer to write mostly about Jewish things, from a Jewish viewpoint. The shape of his nose does not inform us of his identity. And Blacks come in many shapes and nuances of colour, as Austen herself painstakingly points out with her novelistic pen portraits and letters.
I do not take kindly to eurocentrist wielding biometric pliers!
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
DEFINTION OF BLACK: (1) a member of a racial group having brown to black skin, especially one of African origin.
(2) a person with dark skin who comes from Africa (or whose ancestors came from Africa)
(3) a member of any of the dark-skinned indigenous peoples of Africa and their descendants elsewhere
Posts: 98 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Khufu: DEFINTION OF BLACK: (1) a member of a racial group having brown to black skin, especially one of African origin.
(2) a person with dark skin who comes from Africa (or whose ancestors came from Africa)
(3) a member of any of the dark-skinned indigenous peoples of Africa and their descendants elsewhere
Why this obsession with people looks? What about what's inside their brain? Their abilities and their culture and history. Would that information not be more usefull?
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
As to what they look like, i think everyone knows.
I don't know. Kindly explain.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
1.) Any American descendant of the AST or Middle Passage.
2.) Any one with black ancestry considers himself such, maybe even if it's not obvious (real diluted) if they're cool enough. They just have to be cooler than me. It's not hard.
2.) If i'm somewhere else, like India or something and there are some considerably darker skinned folk than the other foreigners they're standing next to, i might say the black ones -- to a fellow Westerner or maybe other person -- whether or not a know a **** about if they call themselves that.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
A possible definition of a Black person (definition f) from below is
- a brown skinned to nearly black brown skinned person who has primary ancestors that lived in Africa no more than a few thousand years ago. The idea is that hair and facial features do not define what Black people are, only skin color and recent African ancestry.
If this definition is used, people like the Australian aborigines are not black people. Negritos of Southeast Asia are undetermined because it is uncertain how long they were out of Africa.
Other possible definitions (if this racial classification is need) :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: _________________ people who fit the ANCIENT DEFINITION OF BLACK
.
_______________________________________________________________________________ _____Of the above, the person who the fits the MODERN (19th century) DEFINITION OF BLACK ____________________
William J. Anderson:
what does "black" mean? (options)
A) Negroid
B) Any person with a certain level of dark skin
C) Any person with a certain level with a certain level of dark skin that has longer limb proportions
D) Any person with a certain level of dark skin who has a longer limb proportions and has a certain cranial features
E) Any person with a certain level of dark skin who has a longer limb proportions, has a certain cranial features and has a certain limited range of facial features
F) Any person with a certain level of dark skin whose ancestors have lived on the continent of Africa within a certain relatively recent period of time
G) Any person with a certain level of dark skin who has longer limb proportions, has a certain cranial features and whose ancestors have lived on the continent of Africa within a certain relatively recent period of time
H) Any person with a certain level of dark skin who has longer limb proportions, has a certain cranial features, has a certain limited range of facial features and whose ancestors have lived on the continent of Africa within a certain relatively recent period of time
Dark skin, wooly black hair, dark eyes, flat nose.
There is no physical diversity in the black race, all look the same. This is why black woman are so obsessed to look white and spend loads of money on trying to straighten their hair & buy eye contacts to get green or blue eyes.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ''I don't know. Kindly explain.'' ====
Dark skin, wooly black hair, dark eyes, flat nose.
There is no physical diversity in the black race, all look the same. This is why black woman are so obsessed to look white and spend loads of money on trying to straighten their hair & buy eye contacts to get green or blue eyes.
there are plenty of variations in facial features and stature in Africans what are you talking about?
white people go to tanning salons for some reason
Posts: 42924 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Ignoring what can be said in lieu of lioness's points made in picture spam in the way of lighting. I call her post is superfluous; black used here is ethnonym not shade or tone.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Red, White, and Blue + Christian: Anyone of Black African descent.
No matter how they look. Especially if they themselves claim their Blackness.
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox: @ Christian
I like that definition.
Ignoring what can be said in lieu of lioness's points made in picture spam in the way of lighting. I call her post is superfluous; black used here is ethnonym not shade or tone.
what definition? He did not define the word "black"
he did not say "black = anyone of Africa descent"
he said anyone of "Black African descent"
that means the word "black", what it means is taken for granted in that statement, not defined
Posts: 42924 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
which shade of black? the lighter skinned call others darker than them Black. North Europeans can see most modern Egyptians as black Egyptians can see most Ethiopians black Ethiopians can see most central Africans black south Indians are darker than most Africans so there is no visual or geographic definition of who is black. the General skin tone becomes lighter when you go from south to North depending on UV ray.
posted
Don't forget that WITHIN Egypt itself there are a wide variety of skin shades. dark skin is part of native Egypt, it is not "foreign." The racial or ethnic term "black" can encompass a wide variety of skin shades, from light brown to very dark. So the term "black" has wide variation. If white scholars can continue to use the term "Caucasoid" to represent people of every conceivable skin color, likewise black folks are perfectly entitled to use the word "black" to represent the peoples of Africa, above and below the Sahara. Too often, white hypocrisy only want a one-way definition.
========================================
Originally posted by lioness: A possible definition of a Black person is a from brown skinned to nearly black brown skinned person who has primary ancestors that lived in Africa recently -no more than a few thousand years ago. The idea is that hair and facial features do not define what Black people are, only skin color and recent African ancestry.
What lioness conveniently and obtusely misses is a key scientific definition- namely tropical adaptations, such as elongated distal segments. No manner of semantic games can duck this reality.
And you notice she doesn't apply the same definition parameters to white people. How would you define white people? If skin color and recent geographic ancestry are the main parameters, as you claim, are white also people defined by white skin color and recent European ancestry? Why or why not?
And why are blacks only "brown" to "nearly dark brown?" That does not even fit standard dictionary definitions. How come they aren't light brown and jet black as well? Watch her duck and dodge now.. as she tries to wriggle away from her hypocritical double standard...
And she is always talking 'bout "mixed" races although curiously, the hypocrites usually shy away from the data by some conservative white scholars showing Europeans to be a "mixed" hybrid breed, whether in general:
Some note that many white scholars duck away from defining a "white" - as they so cavalierly do with "blacks" - i.e. the true negro stereotype. Now why is that? Why do said hypocrites duck and dodge when the data is applied the other way?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ''there are plenty of variations in facial features and stature in Africans what are you talking about?'' ====
quote:Originally posted by Red, White, and Blue + Christian: Anyone of Black African descent.
No matter how they look. Especially if they themselves claim their Blackness.
I like the fact that you write: they themselves claim their blackness.
Because we sometimes have no good sources about their looks.
So how do their peers viewed them: as Black.
How can we identify someone as Black but by his identity.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ''I don't know. Kindly explain.'' ====
Dark skin, wooly black hair, dark eyes, flat nose.
There is no physical diversity in the black race, all look the same. This is why black woman are so obsessed to look white and spend loads of money on trying to straighten their hair & buy eye contacts to get green or blue eyes.
there are plenty of variations in facial features and stature in Africans what are you talking about?
white people go to tanning salons for some reason
This is the horror I fear!
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
human skin pigmentation (at birth) has either: 1- the ability to to create appropriate amounts of melanin in response to UV rays Exposure 2- no ability to create appropriate amounts of melanin in response to UV rays Exposure most humans belong to the first type (they can tan or get darker on exposure to UV rays) regardless of skin color at birth which may be very light. Northern Europeans belong to the second type and that is why you find that Australia has the highest incidence of skin cancer (inappropriate response) (while in Egypt we have appropriate response). Phenotype is not related to skin color or Genetics especially in Africa e.g.: -Atlas Berbers, Egyptians, Eritreans, Ethiopians they have the same Phenotypes(less curly hair, straight thin noses, thin lips, elongated faces...etc). - but their colors are different: Atlas Berbers are more to the north so they are lighter than lower Egyptians followed by upper Egyptians, Eritreans, then Ethiopians are generally darker than others (but still much lighter than central and west Africans). so Ecology plays a major role in skin color. -Indian subcontinent shows North South skin color darkening but with same hair and facial features.
posted
E1b1b1 (M35) Y haplogroup is more associated with the populations above the Sahara and East and North East Africa, but they have wide color variations (variable UV rays Exposed populations).
R1 Y haplogroup have highest presence in: - Northern Europeans - Cameron (reaching 90% in some groups) both are extremely different in skin color and features (with no connection between both).
so Ecology plays a major role in skin color and physical features.
posted
This demonstrates those markers don't have anything to do with phenotype, xcept indirectly through lineage.
Ethiopia for instance has a lot less E1-M2 than does much of lighter skinned Arabia.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
concise Enrique Cardova three point definition of Black ________________________________________
Black,
a person with
-light brown to dark skin -of predominant and recent African ancestry (no longer than a few thousand years) -with elongated distal segments (limbs).
________________________________________
Never said of recent African ancestry, and there are other things too I have mentioned before that you conveniently skip over. Now that you have defined who black people supposedly are, when are you going to define a true white? What's taking you and the other hypocrites so long?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Black" is not a scientific term. When describing the AEs, I prefer to describe them as dark-skinned, tropically adapted Northeast Africans, therefore avoiding the semantic debate about what defines ethnic "blackness".
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: .
concise Enrique Cardova three point definition of Black ________________________________________
Black,
a person with
-light brown to dark skin -of predominant and recent African ancestry (no longer than a few thousand years) -with elongated distal segments (limbs).
________________________________________
Never said of recent African ancestry, and there are other things too I have mentioned before that you conveniently skip over. Now that you have defined who black people supposedly are, when are you going to define a true white? What's taking you and the other hypocrites so long?
Nobody would call you concise, that's why I have sort it out. Imagine if everybody had eleven page graphics to answer a question, the forum would be a ship wreck. Now,
concise Enrique Cardova two point definition of Black ________________________________________
Black,
a person with
-light brown to dark skin -with elongated distal segments (limbs).
________________________________________
I had to remove the African ancestry part because if you don't say of recent African ancestry, the whole world has African ancestry, therefore it is not unique to blacks in that sense. The title of this thread is
PLEASE PRINT YOUR DEFINITION OF BLACK HERE.
If you would like to start another thread called
PLEASE PRINT YOUR DEFINITION OF ASIAN HERE
or
PLEASE PRINT YOUR DEFINITION OF WHITE HERE
please feel free. I am following Egmond's thread question
Posts: 42924 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Haemoglobin does not appear under dark skin, only light skin types. Hence why the peoples of Europe have been called ruddy or red for centuries.
Only fair white skin can be sunburnt red as well, dark does not turn red.
''Redlegs was a term used to refer to the class of poor whites that lived on colonial Barbados, St. Vincent, Grenada and a few other Caribbean islands...According to folk etymology, the name is derived from the effects of the tropical sun on their fair-skinned legs.
''Originally used in reference to poor, white farmers, Redneck is historically a derogatory slang term to refer to working class Southerners in the United States...probably derived from individuals having a red neck caused by working outdoors in the sun.
quote:Originally posted by NABIL.ALI: human skin pigmentation (at birth) has either: 1- the ability to to create appropriate amounts of melanin in response to UV rays Exposure 2- no ability to create appropriate amounts of melanin in response to UV rays Exposure most humans belong to the first type (they can tan or get darker on exposure to UV rays) regardless of skin color at birth which may be very light. Northern Europeans belong to the second type and that is why you find that Australia has the highest incidence of skin cancer (inappropriate response) (while in Egypt we have appropriate response). Phenotype is not related to skin color or Genetics especially in Africa e.g.: -Atlas Berbers, Egyptians, Eritreans, Ethiopians they have the same Phenotypes(less curly hair, straight thin noses, thin lips, elongated faces...etc). - but their colors are different: Atlas Berbers are more to the north so they are lighter than lower Egyptians followed by upper Egyptians, Eritreans, then Ethiopians are generally darker than others (but still much lighter than central and west Africans). so Ecology plays a major role in skin color. -Indian subcontinent shows North South skin color darkening but with same hair and facial features.
What do you make of dear Cheb Khaled from Algeria? Is he Black? Is his art Black?
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: .
concise Enrique Cardova three point definition of Black ________________________________________
Black,
a person with
-light brown to dark skin -of predominant and recent African ancestry (no longer than a few thousand years) -with elongated distal segments (limbs).
________________________________________
Now that you have defined who black people supposedly are, when are you going to define a true white? What's taking you and the other hypocrites so long?
I believe that the need to define Blacks as having a certain fixed physical type is suspect, because this was done to create a hierarchie between the 'races' with the Black ending at the bottom, and shown to be nearer to the apes, than the white man.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: .
concise Enrique Cardova three point definition of Black ________________________________________
Black,
a person with
-light brown to dark skin -of predominant and recent African ancestry (no longer than a few thousand years) -with elongated distal segments (limbs).
________________________________________
Now that you have defined who black people supposedly are, when are you going to define a true white? What's taking you and the other hypocrites so long?
I believe that the need to define Blacks as having a certain fixed physical type is suspect, because this was done to create a hierarchie between the 'races' with the Black ending at the bottom, and shown to be nearer to the apes, than the white man.
be the specific to the trait zarahan points to - elongated distal segments (of limbs)
This is a physical proportion as limbs in proportion to the trunk of the body being relatively longer , anthropologists say, due to the fact that when humans migrate to colder ares their limbs shorten and thicken to reduce outside surface areas exposure to the cold. This trait not seem to be used in a racist way of the old 19th century racist morphological corruptions.
Dark skin defined at some cut off point could also be seen as a fixed physical trait but it's another superficial type of trait, the top layer of skin's adaptive barrier protection to the sun.
The terms "black" and "white" are funny because other people of the world do not identify themselves by skin color.
Only blacks and whites have that habit in common
Posts: 42924 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are still ducking the question. You have plenty to say about who is black. But what is your definition of a white person? Why are you dodging the question with diversionary pleas to start another thread? What's taking you so long hypocrite?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: You are still ducking the question. You have plenty to say about who is black. But what is your definition of a white person? Why are you dodging the question with diversionary pleas to start another thread. What's taking you so long?
I will answer that question if you make a thread on that subject. The topic of this thread is PLEASE PRINT YOUR DEFINITION OF BLACK HERE.
why can't we talk about our people without having to bring up the white people all the time?
In case you didn't know there are other people in this world besides white and black people.
and each race should have it's own thread, you always tryin to mix shyt
now if u afraid to make a new thread on that subject, stop bother me,
posted
Your hypocritical ass is dodging the question. You are quick to define black people, but how come you are ducking defining white people? A new thread does not make any difference. Why are you running away hypocrite?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: You are still ducking the question. You have plenty to say about who is black. But what is your definition of a white person? Why are you dodging the question with diversionary pleas to start another thread. What's taking you so long?
I will answer that question if you make a thread on that subject. The topic of this thread is PLEASE PRINT YOUR DEFINITION OF BLACK HERE.
why can't we talk about our people without having to bring up the white people all the time?
In case you didn't know there are other people in this world besides white and black people.
and each race should have it's own thread, you always tryin to mix shyt
now if u afraid to make a new thread on that subject, stop bother me,
signed, lioness
We would like to hear your answer to Zaharan's question...
Don't cop out Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: "Black" is not a scientific term. When describing the AEs, I prefer to describe them as dark-skinned, tropically adapted Northeast Africans, therefore avoiding the semantic debate about what defines ethnic "blackness".
For my research purposes I have to define Black and blackness.
Say the person or persons are already dead, eurocentrism says they are whites; what to do? The purpose of afrocentrism is to find Blacks where ever they are.
I do not think only a persons looks is so overwhelming historically important to deteremine his identity: I rather know what was in his mind, to what group he belonged: how he expressed his blackness.
Again I refer to my Jane Austen research, I'm practically minded; a Black woman and a Black activist, who they have turned white.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Your hypocritical ass is dodging the question. You are quick to define black people, but how come you are ducking defining white people? A new thread does not make any difference. Why are you running away hypocrite?
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: You are still ducking the question. You have plenty to say about who is black. But what is your definition of a white person? Why are you dodging the question with diversionary pleas to start another thread? What's taking you so long hypocrite?
The idea that white is the norm and every other thing is deviant, abnormal, less, ugly etc The need to define Blacks had a purpose.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
The New Black Caucasians – Changing Meaning of the Caucasian – By Lion! The New “Black Caucasians” – Changing Meaning of the Caucasian - New Caucasian Delusions
In 1937, Caucasians were defined as “the white division of human beings so called because the people are from the Caucaus mountains. They were taken from the highest type of the human family, the circassians, Jews, Armenians, Hindus and Persians.” See Webster’s 20th century Dictionary unabridged, 1937.
A more recent revision of the New Websters dictionary, 1981 defined the terms as: “Caucasian- pertaining to the white race as characterized by physical features. A native of the Caucausus, a member of the Caucasian race.”
In 1992, the American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd Ed,1992 moved this re-definition process even further for it boldly declared as follows: “Caucasian- of relating to, or being a major human racial division traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as very light to BROWN skin (??) pigmentation and straight to wavy orcurly hair, and includes people indigenous to Europe, northern AFRICA(??),Western Asia, and India, relating to the Caucasian region of its peoples.”
The definition of Caucasian that exists in Webster’s New World College Dictionary of 1996 is a 180 degrees turn around from the term’s usage in the early parts of the 20th century. In the Webster’s dictionary one finds the following so called explanation: “Caucasoid- from the erroneous notion that the original home of the hypothetical indo-europeans was the Caucasus ..one of the major…varieties of human beings…characterized by…straight or wavy hair..loosely called the white race although it embraces many people of DARK (??) skin color.”
Motivation For A Historic Lie
We all thought that Caucasian meant the so-called white race, (actually a pink-pale coloured tribe from Central Asia) who today dominate Europe, America and the rest of the world. This tribe was the last civilized tribe of humanity, yet it claims to be the first world nation.
Until recently, it was quite understood that the essential difference between the pink northern European (Caucasians) and the brown African (Coloureds)was the colour of their skin. It appears that the Euro-controllers of the world, dominators of the world consciousness, have now redefined the meaning of Caucasian to include Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Khufu: DEFINTION OF BLACK: (1) a member of a racial group having brown to black skin, especially one of African origin.
(2) a person with dark skin who comes from Africa (or whose ancestors came from Africa)
(3) a member of any of the dark-skinned indigenous peoples of Africa and their descendants elsewhere
[Madame de Kerouaille, French Noble, of an old family, mistress of Charles II Stuart, The Black Boy.]
How to determine that a person's ancestors came from Africa?
I believe that the little Moorress who offers pearls, symbol of purity of noble blood; is a symbol of Blue blood. She is not a real person, just a figure whipped up by the painter. De Kerouaille informs us of her own high birth and she probably was not white of skin. We would be hard pressed to dig up an ancestor which came from Africa. But do we need to when she herselfs shows us her African descent with a symbolic Moor?
The word Moor has several meanings and I use it as the name for Classical Blacks in European Art. Not the Spanish Moors (500-1500), those also have no roll in Western European history. One does not find any Muslims there!
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
The definition of Blacks had a purpose. What did Blacks do to make whites so angry? Look at the little blond girls, behaving like they are on some pick-nick.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
''What did Blacks do to make whites so angry?'' ====
The photo shows a hung negro rapist.
And they only targeted white women.
According to FBI stats today, there are more than 40,000 black on white female rapes a year but less than 10 vice versa. Use google for these factual crime statistics.
Another fact: the most populated zones in areas by blacks have the highest crime rates.
This is the same for UK as well. The highest rate of crime are inner London zones which are 80-90% populated by blacks.
Anyone who points these facts out though is then smeared as a 'eurocentric' or a 'racist'...
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh boo hoo.. According to your same FBI stats 16% of the rapes of 194,270 white women were by blacks, which works out to around 32,000 women- somehow inflated by "biodiversity math" to 40,000. At the same time black women suffered about the same number of rapes as white women, around 33,000, and black women are less likely to report rapes than white women, with most surveys indicating distrust of police competence and diligence in pursuing the case as a major factor. (Barett and george 2004). So spare us the tears.
And according to detailed analysis by researchers, Barett and George (2004) whites were three times as likely to rape NON-ADULT females, i.e. children. So yeah, black rape stats are bad enough, but white "role models" are not far behind, and in fact, said white "role models" are AHEAD in the rape of non-adult females, CHILDREN - three times more than blacks- 34% vs 11%.
Anyone who points these facts out though is then smeared as a 'afrocentric'...
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NABIL.ALI: human skin pigmentation (at birth) has either: 1- the ability to to create appropriate amounts of melanin in response to UV rays Exposure 2- no ability to create appropriate amounts of melanin in response to UV rays Exposure most humans belong to the first type (they can tan or get darker on exposure to UV rays) regardless of skin color at birth which may be very light. Northern Europeans belong to the second type and that is why you find that Australia has the highest incidence of skin cancer (inappropriate response) (while in Egypt we have appropriate response). Phenotype is not related to skin color or Genetics especially in Africa e.g.: -Atlas Berbers, Egyptians, Eritreans, Ethiopians they have the same Phenotypes(less curly hair, straight thin noses, thin lips, elongated faces...etc). - but their colors are different: Atlas Berbers are more to the north so they are lighter than lower Egyptians followed by upper Egyptians, Eritreans, then Ethiopians are generally darker than others (but still much lighter than central and west Africans). so Ecology plays a major role in skin color. -Indian subcontinent shows North South skin color darkening but with same hair and facial features.
What do you make of dear Cheb Khaled from Algeria? Is he Black? Is his art Black?
That's a good question. Cheb Khaled plays Rai music that is considered to have both African and Arab roots - Arab being in the sense of "Middle Eastern". One time I was told by an Arab Algerian that Arabs in Algeria recognize the fact they have black blood and hold the concept of "Negritude" as expressed by Franz Fanon while according to him the fairer- skinned Berbers didn't. (Not surprisingly).
So it is truly a slippery subject at best. Obviously Cheb has "black" blood as seen by his kinky hair ( in early photos and in person) and dark bronze skin. Whether his "black blood" is derived from the early Arab incursions or from other things one can probably best describe such people as both black and other things.
Medieval Europeans I will never view as "black" because they were predominantly of European origin, regardless of how many nobility had black African blood. Numerous ancient royal Egyptians had Eurasiatic influence but does that make them not of predominantly black African origin?
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
The definition of Blacks had a purpose. What did Blacks do to make whites so angry? Look at the little blond girls, behaving like they are on some pick-nick.
An interesting fact that I learned recently is that there were many more whites lynched in the U.S. than there were black people apparently according to the Tuskegee Institute, and probably for the same reasons - trying to aid and abet the "colored" folk.
Yet we never here about it at all here in the U.S., nor do we see photos, probably for the sake of white unity. It's enough to make you think twice though.
yes - there are still many barbaric-minded and perhaps descended people in this country trying to maintain a lower servile class here in the U.S. whom due to the rise of black non-leadership consider now themselves more American than blacks - as witnessed by Eurowackies like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and others trying to repeal healthcare aid for the poor and whatnot.
These same diabolic types of people will stop at nothing at instigating hatred while treating many of their own kind the same way they've treated minorities evidence by the 10,000s of lynchings of those they've perceived as their own peoples and as seen by the treatment of millions of white working and non-working poor in Appalachia and elsewhere by mostly white elite of the so called "heartland" of America.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
''An interesting fact that I learned recently is that there were many more whites lynched in the U.S. than there were black people apparently according to the Tuskegee Institute, and probably for the same reasons - trying to aid and abet the "colored" folk.'' ====
They were lynched for committed crimes. And many of the KKK victims were WHITE.
Basically everything the modern history books and media says about the KKK is anti-white propaganda.
The real KKK:
- KKK donating food to a poor negro in need
- KKK helping to rebuild a ''negro church''
- KKK donating a radio to an old negro couple
Most Victims of the KKK were WHITE:
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ''An interesting fact that I learned recently is that there were many more whites lynched in the U.S. than there were black people apparently according to the Tuskegee Institute, and probably for the same reasons - trying to aid and abet the "colored" folk.'' ====
- KKK donating a radio to an old negro couple
Correction I meant in some states. Didn't I just say most victims of white lynchers where white. That doesn't mean all white people were KKK. That also doesn't mean KKK did as much good as they did bad. Obviously, not all white people were running around in sheets harassing, terrorizing, fire bombing, and lynching people while claiming superiority over blacks, Indians and Catholics WAS MY POINT!
Most white people were either poor or a nickel or quarter from it in those days as I think Lincoln implied. Certainly hardly better off than indentured themselves.
Don't get it twisted. Most KKK were privileged "Christian" whites feeling threatened like the the Tea Party corporate funders trying to work up and diabolically manipulate white working peoples' latent racial attitudes.
Too bad for them many whites are not falling for it this time.
BTW - The photo above looks like two old people scared to move. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ''What did Blacks do to make whites so angry?'' ====
The photo shows a hung negro rapist.
And they only targeted white women.
According to FBI stats today, there are more than 40,000 black on white female rapes a year but less than 10 vice versa. Use google for these factual crime statistics.
Another fact: the most populated zones in areas by blacks have the highest crime rates.
This is the same for UK as well. The highest rate of crime are inner London zones which are 80-90% populated by blacks.
Anyone who points these facts out though is then smeared as a 'eurocentric' or a 'racist'...
"Cassiterides" - Are u Greek or something? lol! Why don't you stick to talking about your own kind instead of whites and blacks. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Egmond. This is my description from my site of the physical appearance of the African - in perspective:
THE LOOK OF THE AFRICAN: Let's omit color. Color aside, how are Africans distinguished: especially as art subjects and in ancient rock drawings, stone figurine, and human remains from 5000 years ago and earlier? African-looking people are the focus of this site. Not all will agree, but some Africans will be found with wavy hair. Others have curly hair. Sometimes, Africans have straight hair as the Afro-American U.S. Secretary of State, Donna Rice (these cases the result of miscegenation from the days of slavery and after).
Still, on one hand, Africans are people who typically have or are inclined to have (not "must" have) a "head like pure wool" as the Son of Man was described in Daniel 7:9; and have a full nose, and full mouth. Yet, the figurine of the Pygmy may be shown as steatophygous. The Kung or Bushman is very slender and has delicate facial features, not broad. Prognasthism (a projecting lower jaw) may exist. African human remains show skulls that are long rather than round; although it may come as a surprise the Khoisan (Bushman) often has a round skull and it was they in prehistoric Mesopotamia, Sudan, and Egypt.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
They just have to be cooler than me. It's not hard.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic