quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What I mean is I can't square the difference in opinion among Africans regarding 'blackness' with what is said in many of the conversations here. For instance, no census I know in the real world (e.g. Caribbean) has people from India as 'black' people. This reflects how people on the ground, in the real world, delimit 'blackness'. Members of this site are free to think these people are 'black' in the pigmentation sense, as I used to do back in the day. But at no point was I ever under the illusion that I was using the one true definition that can/should trump other notions of 'blackness'.
If you're looking toward Africa or the Caribbean to figure where any sort of consistency lies from ES, you may be looking in the wrong direction. Most members of this site appear to be focusing on Eurocentric definitions of the idea of race.
____________________________
name of person quoted added-lioness
[ 13. June 2018, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Africans (and the diaspora) are not a monolith; a Dinka is not going to have even an approximate definition of black to an African-American. I can't imagine the Nilotics accepting Gabrielle Reece, Troian Bellisario, Mariah Carey, Kris Humphries, Darnell Martin, Rashida Jones, Meghan Markle, Maya Rudolph, Jennifer Beals, Soledad O'Brian and Ashley Frangipane.
I don't know if most diasporans would accept these people either. My sister looks like Jennifer Beals but darker.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Africans (and the diaspora) are not a monolith; a Dinka is not going to have even an approximate definition of black to an African-American. I can't imagine the Nilotics accepting Gabrielle Reece, Troian Bellisario, Mariah Carey, Kris Humphries, Darnell Martin, Rashida Jones, Meghan Markle, Maya Rudolph, Jennifer Beals, Soledad O'Brian and Ashley Frangipane.
I don't know if most diasporans would accept these people either. My sister looks like Jennifer Beals but darker.
And weren't you talking about Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders identifying as black? So black doesn't even have to mean African?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
No,black and African aren't synonymous.you don't see how whites create bogus terms like "black African" because a chunk of North Africans are white with most not being native the irony being African albinos are seen as anomalous because they retain a stereotypical looks while the idea of a North African is something white like.the crazy thing is the phenotype for whites exist but they are generally dark so the exact look isn't apparent unless they have albinism like this Ethiopian albino. https://youtu.be/5JnOghnRRVwPosts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: If you're looking toward Africa or the Caribbean to figure where any sort of consistency lies from ES, you may be looking in the wrong direction. Most members of this site appear to be focusing on Eurocentric definitions of the idea of race.
There is never going to be consistency in notions about 'blackness'. My point is that some are pretending that if you only ignore True Negro and Hamiticism, then everyone will on the same page and only the one true definition of 'blackness' will remain. So I'm not looking for consistency. The only consistency I expect is that if you claim one day that 'blackness' is pigmentation only, you can't say someone has "light skin, but 'black' features" the next day. And yes, I've seen that monumental flip flop happen on this forum. SMH. Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
That can only make sense if light skin black folks really saw darker skin black folks different outside of complexion, African albinos face hardship despite having the same phenotype.
Because the absolute number of melanocytes in human skin is approximately the same for both sexes and all races, the amount of melanin in keratocytes and the distribution of it determines the degree of pigmentation of skin. Differences in color among the races result from differences in the number, size, degree of melanization, distribution, and rate of degradation of melanosomes within keratocytes. In dark-skinned peoples, melanosomes within keratocytes are numerous, large, melanized markedly, distributed as solitary units, and degraded slowly. In addition, the epidermis of dark-skinned peoples contains melanocytes whose dendrites are larger and more elongated. In contrast, melanosomes within epidermal keratocytes of light-skinned peoples are fewer, smaller, less abundantly melanized, and distributed as aggregates within phagosomes where they are degraded more rapidly; dendrites are shorter. When pale skin is exposed to ultraviolet light, however, melanocytes increase in number and size, and become more strikingly dendritic. Radiation by ultraviolet light accelerates synthesis, melanization, and transfer of melanosomes to keratocytes. As melanosomes become larger and melanized more copiously, melanin is synthesized actively. This series of events results in tanning. Melanocytes situated in the bulb of anagen follicles impart to hair various colors, those who bear them being known, colloquially, as blonds, brunettes, and redheads.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: That can only make sense if light skin black folks really saw darker skin black folks different outside of complexion, African albinos face hardship despite having the same phenotype.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Africans (and the diaspora) are not a monolith; a Dinka is not going to have even an approximate definition of black to an African-American. I can't imagine the Nilotics accepting Gabrielle Reece, Troian Bellisario, Mariah Carey, Kris Humphries, Darnell Martin, Rashida Jones, Meghan Markle, Maya Rudolph, Jennifer Beals, Soledad O'Brian and Ashley Frangipane.
I don't know if most diasporans would accept these people either. My sister looks like Jennifer Beals but darker.
And weren't you talking about Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders identifying as black? So black doesn't even have to mean African?
Some Aboriginals and most Torres Strait Islanders are far darker (visibly black) than the people I listed. Would you readily know that Ashley Frangipane was part black just from looking at her.
It's fascinating just looking at them. I thought they would be at least in the middle, but these biracial celebrities could pass for white.
We have the same issue here in Australia with very Anglo-Saxon people claiming and showing pride in their Aboriginal heritage; the more visibly Aboriginal people mock some of these people, as does mainstream Australian society.
Aboriginals have recessive genes so I can understand a white looking person could still be Aboriginal; I have two European looking Aboriginal friends; one is proud of his heritage and the other only evokes it to get what Americans would call affirmative action.
In terms of black, I was also speaking from the point of view of what the blackest-skin people (Nilotics) would regard as black. I can't see how *I'm* personally being inconsistent.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Question: Why are albinos killed in Bantu countries? We have albinos in Sudan and no one cares at all; even the people of the South have no superstitious beliefs about them that would endanger their lives.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Question: Why are albinos killed in Bantu countries? We have albinos in Sudan and no one cares at all; even the people of the South have no superstitious beliefs about them that would endanger their lives.
what do you mean by "South" ? Albinos are murdered in South Africa sometimes
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Question: Why are albinos killed in Bantu countries? We have albinos in Sudan and no one cares at all; even the people of the South have no superstitious beliefs about them that would endanger their lives.
what do you mean by "South" ? Albinos are murdered in South Africa
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Africans (and the diaspora) are not a monolith; a Dinka is not going to have even an approximate definition of black to an African-American. I can't imagine the Nilotics accepting Gabrielle Reece, Troian Bellisario, Mariah Carey, Kris Humphries, Darnell Martin, Rashida Jones, Meghan Markle, Maya Rudolph, Jennifer Beals, Soledad O'Brian and Ashley Frangipane.
I don't know if most diasporans would accept these people either. My sister looks like Jennifer Beals but darker.
And weren't you talking about Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders identifying as black? So black doesn't even have to mean African?
Some Aboriginals and most Torres Strait Islanders are far darker (visibly black) than the people I listed. Would you readily know that Ashley Frangipane was part black just from looking at her.
It's fascinating just looking at them. I thought they would be at least in the middle, but these biracial celebrities could pass for white.
We have the same issue here in Australia with very Anglo-Saxon people claiming and showing pride in their Aboriginal heritage; the more visibly Aboriginal people mock some of these people, as does mainstream Australian society.
Aboriginals have recessive genes so I can understand a white looking person could still be Aboriginal; I have two European looking Aboriginal friends; one is proud of his heritage and the other only evokes it to get what Americans would call affirmative action.
In terms of black, I was also speaking from the point of view of what the blackest-skin people (Nilotics) would regard as black. I can't see how *I'm* personally being inconsistent.
Do the darker Aboriginals see themselves as black?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Recognising that Australia is steeped in a rich Aboriginal and Torres Strait history, Blak History Month was proclaimed on the shoulders of giants and a cultural continuum from time immemorial.
OUR ROOTS BLAK HISTORY MONTH has humble beginnings. From the solitary act of one to a movement that has spread right across Australia, taking it's place in the world. It's roots lie in the desire for our communities to tell our own stories, to define our own celebrations and to lead on our own ambitions.
OUR PEOPLE BLAK HISTORY MONTH is indebted to those who have come before us and those who walk with us who have in their lifetime fostered positive social change or achievement for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We are still in an era of 'firsts' and as a collective people, are frequently breaking new ground and creating a bright future for the mob.
posted
So " Black History Month" actually means history of all people in the world with dark skins month
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Two things to note for this discussion. Blacks in the Western Hemisphere have been conditioned to view themselves according to racial categories imposed on them by European racial culture.
In Africa, such has not been the case except in places where European and Arab cultures have been imposed. Examples are places like South Africa, Angola, Mozambique, and Cape Verde, where "race" was a major determinant of social class--all deriving from an imposed "white supremacy". "Coloureds" from South Africa, and "Mestizos" from Angola,Mozamibique, and Cape Verde were seen as socially superior in those countries.
In African countries not so affected, the marker of identity was/is ethnicity and religion, one reason being that phenotypes vary substantially in the African environment.
In North Africa dark and brown Africans are often subjected to insults--even when Muslim. But in other parts of Africa, ethnicity and religion are the main classifiers.
Examples: In Mali and other Sahel regions the Tuareg are always referred to by their ethnicity--not in terms of color.
In Rwanda, the Germans imposed race categories on the people there leading to the designated "caucasoid" Tutsis being awarded with positions of authority during colonial times. But before the German colonial intervention, Tutsis were just pastoralists living in and speaking the same language as the Hutus.
In sum, the practice of people classification in Africa is more based on ethnicity and nationality--if from another African country than on race.
Interesting Note Africans returned to Africa after being put on ships to the Americas have chosen specific names for themselves. Examples: Brazilian Yorubas(Nigeria), Krio(Sierra Leone), Congos/Americo Liberians(Liberia), Aku(the Gambia), etc.
The issue is relatively complex as evidenced by this story. A black American researcher traveled to Kenya for a conference held at a hotel. When the conference was over he took a taxi back to his hotel. The driver of the taxi then asked --"where are you from?" The researcher replied with "Chicago". The taxi driver pondered for a moment then said "I never heard of that tribe".
The question is: absent Eurocentrically imposed racial categories for Africans transplanted to the Western Hemisphere, what should be their proper self identification? African American?
[ 16. June 2018, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for your input. Do you also have descriptive examples of Africans giving their thoughts on where they see themselves (and/or others) in the black-red-yellow-swarthy-white spectrum? That is the type of information this thread mostly centers around.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ptolemaic era Egyptians had a standardized way of classifying themselves based on skin pigmentation. They seem to have recognized mainly three categories: heavily pigmented (jetblack and dark-medium brown[?]), honey-coloured and pale. Additional adjectives were also used to describe reddish tints. Evidence of these skin colour classifications mainly come from ancient legal documents and were written in Greek:
quote:Ptolemaic period documents in Greek tend to go into more detail and employ multiple body descriptors more than Roman texts. These adjectives occur in a regular order of height, complexion, hair, shape of face, followed by any other distinguishing features, usually scars or peculiarities of the eyes, so that one moves in on the subject gradually, from far away to close up. For instance, Panas son of Pates appears in a document of 100 BCE (P. Adler GI 3.2. s) as 'aged 45, medium height, honey-coloured, straight-haired, broad-faced, straight-nosed, with a scar under the right eye, and sparsely bearded.' A description of this complexity would be unusual later on, when people are generally reduced to a more or less standard combination of complexion with head shape. In contrast, documents in Demotic very rarely delineate the parties at all, perhaps through traditional usage rather than because the participants were less 'body aware.' The physical designations were probably applied by the scribe writing the text as the parties sat in front of him, rather than by the individuals concerned themselves. Therefore how somebody is imaged would have depended on how a scribe interpreted the stock descriptive epithets in terms of the person before him, rather, than giving any idea of how that person conceptualised his or her own body. However, these standard epithets do provide an idea of the hierarchy of body parts and features, with eyes, hair and cranial shape each conveying differing amounts of information about the person.
Apart from those referring to beards, the same set of adjectives is used for women and men. Unless it is grey, hair colour is rarely alluded to; presumably most people had various shades of dark hair which was not distinctive enough to be a useful determinant in itself. Instead, the extent of hair or its texture is remarked upon: people are 'straight-haired' 'curly-haired' (klastos or 'with balding forehead' (anaphalontos or anaphalakros)87 and •wispy- bearded' (spanop6g6n or kakop6g6n).88 Even more important are the eyes, and the rich vocabulary used to describe them indicates their symbolic importance in 'a world in which the scrutiny of onek fellow man was not an idle pastime but an essential survival skill.'89 As with hair, their colour does not seem to have been very important, although some people are referred to as being 'light—eyed' (glaukos Or charopos). Instead, adjectives referring to the shape Of the eyes or their defects are much more common, the latter an uncomfortable rermnder Of how prevalent eye diseases were (and still are) in a climate like that of Egypt. There are individuals who are 'rather short-sighted' 'one—eyed' with squints 92 and cataracts, 93 and many who are blind (typhlos).94 Other than the hair and eyes, the main general foci are the head and face, concentrating on the shade of the complexion and the shape of face. Two sets of adjectives are frequently juxtaposed to describe people. One can be melichr6s and makropros6pos, 'honey- coloured' and 'long—faced', or dark-skinned Or swarthy (melanchr6s) with a round face (strongyloprosépon): one is reminded of the 'brown and blue' collocation of the modern lonely hearts column. The extent to which 'the Egyptians carefully distinguished themselves from their darker Nubian and Ethiopian neighbours'" S is not easy to assess. The documents use a restricted range of complexion vocabulary, but then one might not expect there to be many southerners among the document- writing classes in the provincial cities. By the same token, pale individuals are not Often encountered, and are usually foreigners or slaves. Other people have various degrees of ruddiness, denoted by the adjectives pyrrhakés, hypopyrrhos and epipyrrhos. There are occasional face—shape variants such as koilogeneios, 'with a receding chin'. Noses are usually straight (euthyrin) or snub (simos).
In Haiti, Curry's family would be referred to as "gens de couleur". In South Africa as "Coloureds". In the U.S. as "light skinned blacks".
But the paradox is that in Africa, if they wore African clothing, spoke an ethnic language and carried ethnic names, they would be judged purely on that basis especially in Africa above the equator.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Question: Why are albinos killed in Bantu countries? We have albinos in Sudan and no one cares at all; even the people of the South have no superstitious beliefs about them that would endanger their lives.
They´re not. That´s the short answer.
Posts: 117 | From: Earth | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don’t see how this “Kola” individual is relevant.
There are many African channels that dispute her nonsense claims.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a number of forum members have read Kola Boof's blogs, they will be aware that her definition of Black is defined strictly by hair texture - ie so called "nappy hair". These are the people she describes as black, and with respect to the African diaspora, that is primarily those of the Atlantic slave trade.
So "black" in her context means the people the people of Africa labelled as Bantus and Nilotics who were the primary victims of the Atlantic slave trade and the Arab/East African slave trade. This is why other dark-skinned Africans, such as Somalis, Nubians, Fulanis, "North/Arab" Sudanese and other African populations who exhibit looser hair textures are excluded from that definition, although it may not be that accurate with respect to both slave trades, as for instance Fulani people were also victims of the Atlantic slave trade, even though they were slavers as well. It must be also noted that none of the above groups can claim to be totally free from the slave trade, as though slavers were that particular.
There is also continued miscegenation in Africa between people from tha various groups so the definitions get muddled further. For instance there are Somali Bantu, who are descended from abductees from the East African slave trade who got deposited in Somalia who are not regarded as "ethnic Somali", who mix with "ethnic Somalis", yet there are ethnic Somalis whose hair textures may put then in the Black group although they are different from those typically seen as "proper" Somalis. In the same way in Sudan, ie (north) Sudan there is miscegenation between people who are now classified as South Sudanese, and other non Black Sudanese and Arab Sudanese, not to mention that the border between (north) Sudan and South Sudan does not stricly demarcate these phenotypes. Then there is the matter of Darfuris and Chadians which is also a whole new set of complications.
Note that I use the term "exhibit looser hair texture" although some members of these groups exhibit "nappy hair" just as some members of the Black group also exhibit "looser hair texture", although though those are most definitely in the minority.
So strictly speaking the a number of the women below do not fall into Kola Boof's Bantu/Nilotic rooted definition of Black, although in the context of the Western world's African diaspora, and immigration into the West from these other parts of Africa it is arguably ridiculous and even unkind and unjust to exclude them.
In fact women like that are subject to put downs (colourism) on account of their complexions within the communities irregardless of their hair texture.
Not Black by virtue of being Sudanese with naturally straight hair
What is interesting about this young woman is that her cleft chin, aka "butt chin", is viewed as a marker of European or Asian ancestry, although her deep brown complexion (ie, not the result of tanning) would suggest otherwise. It must also be said that South Asians such as Tamils are just as dark and even darker.
Here is an interesting one.
Love halssa Not Black by virtue of being Somali with straight hair
So you see a woman who will be called black under any other circumstances is not black according to her definition, but her words have to be taken in the proper context.
Nya Johnson - Dinka - Afro Hair - Black
Nya Johnson - Dinka - Afro Hair - Black
Kola Boof - Dinka/Arab ancestry, dark skinned, Afro Hair Black by virtue of hair texture from Dinka ancestry which she exhibits.
Kola Boof's views should be viewed in their proper context of most of her blogs about Black people and Black men, which is the lack of respect, appreciation and commitment men of Bantu origin, ie the racial background of the people abducted into Atlantic slave trade, display towards their women, both privately and in mainstream media.
This attitude is very manifest in the contemporary Black entertainment industry, where in the case of women in particular every star appears to be biracial, with different combinations of ethnicity. A good contemporary example is one Cardi B, who is as about as talentless as they come, one of her hits being Bodak Yellow.
It seems the title of the song Bodak Yellow is a parody based on one Kodak Black, a rapper who gained notoriety (the quickest way to fame in the rap industry, doing some jail time and being arrested on drugs and firearms possession also helps) by disparaging Black women in (currently known and described dark skinned black women) in favour of biracials and other racially "ambiguous" women.
-------------------- The Habsburg Agenda - Defending Western Christian civilization Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
The hair examples shown as not "straight hair" but "curly hair". East Asians and most Europeans also have straight hair. Native Americans also tend to have the same type of straight hair that East Asians have.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^ Lamin do not nitpick so much. As far as us Bantus are concerned that kind of her is straight and our hair is curly. No way Ghanaians and Nigeria would use the word curly to describe the hair of the Somali and the "straight-haired" Sudanese girl above. That is what the pictures are there for.
-------------------- The Habsburg Agenda - Defending Western Christian civilization Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
To drive home my point about the relation between hair texture and being Black, especially in the African American diaspora, here is a video of the Siddis of India.
The Siddi, an African Community in India - YouTube
Take a close look at their hair textures. This is the root of Kola Boof's definition of Black.
There are some Somalis who are virtually indistinguishable from South Indians like Tamils and Sinhalese. If many of them were sold into slavery, which is a virtual certainty, how would they be physically distinguishable from South Indians?
If this Somali woman wore a sari and tied her hair back what cause would there be for classifying her anything but an Indian, unlike the Siddis in the video?
-------------------- The Habsburg Agenda - Defending Western Christian civilization Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
The Dīkshitars form a limited community of only several hundred families. The men, like Nāyars and Nambūtiri Brāhmans of the west coast, wear the hair tuft on the front of the head. They do not give their girls in marriage to other sections of Brāhmans, and they do not allow their women to leave Chidambaram. Hence arises the proverb “A Thillai girl never crosses the boundary line.” The Dīkshitars are priests of the temple of Natarāja at Chidambaram, whereat they serve by turns. Males marry very early in life, and it is very difficult to secure a girl for marriage above the age of five. The tendency to marry when very young is due to the fact that only married persons have a voice in the management of [339]the affairs of the temple, and an individual must be married before he can get a share of the temple income.
___________________________________
A Shōlaga (Soliga) Dravidian man
Soliga, also spelled Sholaga and Shōlaga, is an ethnic group of India. Its members inhabit the Biligiriranga Hills and associated ranges in southern Karnataka, mostly in the Chamarajanagar and Erode districts of Tamil Nadu.
Lioness can you remove your own post as it is not relevant to the thread. It is not about Indian people per se. I only compared the Somali women to the Siddis to drive point the home about Kola Boof's definition of what Black means to her - the relevance of hair texture..
-------------------- The Habsburg Agenda - Defending Western Christian civilization Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would be ridiculous since the topic starter Swenet mentions India on the first page and it is quoted by Oshun at the top of this page. In addition you have your own separate popular Kola Boof thread
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that Habsburg Agenda is right. Posting about Indians for the sake of posting about Indians is hard to relate to the topic. It would be on topic if you related it to Africans having a conversation about whether Indians are 'black'. You can still edit your post so with a bit of creativity you can make it (more) on topic.
With all the lioness employees, I'm sure you guys can figure something out.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: Hapsburg's post
This post by Hapsburg is exactly what I'm looking for.
--the example/anecdote/case study/analysis on someone's use of 'black' is descriptive and detailed. --it gives insight in where some Africans (in this case, Boof) draw the line as far as who is or isn't 'black'. --It's not a personal opinion held by a single person, but it's shared by many. So it has anthropological value. --It adds details I might have overlooked in regards to Boof's exact criteria for establishing 'blackness'.
I've shortened Hapsburg's quote to keep this thread readable. Sometimes quoting someone forces people to do lots of unnecessary scrolling to get where they need to go.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looking at her statements in the OP, it sounds like Boof is using a restrictive definition of "Blackness" to protest colorism in the Afro-Diasporan community. And you have to admit the existence of that phenomenon can complicate attempts to classify certain individuals into the "black" category.
Make the definition too broad, and you might end up with lighter-skinned "black" people being singled out as the most ideal representatives of the "black community". For example, a beauty magazine could easily say they're "hiring black women" even as they target only those women whose non-African admixture is more visible. On the other hand, make the definition too restrictive, and lots of famous Afro-Diasporan role models (e.g. Barack Obama, Halle Berry, and Frederick Douglass) might get thrown out of the "black" category because of their mixed heritage.
I guess you could consider this another reason why "black" can be a problematic term?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I would say that Habsburg Agenda is right. Posting about Indians for the sake of posting about Indians is hard to relate to the topic.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: For instance, no census I know in the real world (e.g. Caribbean) has people from India as 'black' people.
Are you now going to pretend I post people from India at random in a thread?
In addition according to CLyde and Doug the Indians I posted are black
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, most people aren't aware of the difference between race, ethnicity and nationality so when speaking about African people the issue is a historic ignorance as we didn't a have exact concept of "Blackness" until white racism and what makes a African person is genetics regardless of phenotype after the out of Africa event. Race doesn't exist but ethnicity and nationality do which fluctuates as time progresses.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Yes, diasporan Africans ~1200 years ago did not tell al~Jahiz who the blacks of their then known world were because the Almighty White European Gods had not yet invented blackness for them. You know, blacks are inactive passive agents not cognizant of anything until Simon Says.
And nevermind what African blacks in the anthro-professions say black is, Betty Boop is a better anthropologist. I see her quoted by scientists all the time!
AEs never meant they and upriver Sudanis were black while coastal North Africans and Levantines were red. They were talking about silt and sand not people. AEs weren't black anyway. All the Greco Latins were hallucinating when they saw AEs and agreed with AE self-assessed blackness.
Forget about the rule, define by the exception.
And the Haabe who call Fulani the white man of Africa in fact remove Fulani from a black status. Or let's go by Wolof standards, dark chocolate isn't black to them. So 95% of Inner Africans aren't black.
Non degreed non academic personal/group culture notions that agree with one's personal opinion Trumps all other considerations.
No, the average African doesn't mean culture when they rule even the most extreme negro phenotype Black American as white, no not at all.
But if one isn't in day to day contact with an international set of Africans of varying levels of education, how would one know THE monolithic African standard for blackness.
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: If a number of forum members have read Kola Boof's blogs, they will be aware that her definition of Black is defined strictly by hair texture - ie so called "nappy hair".
No it's not. She flip flops so much on how she defines race which is why I can't take her seriously as an ethnographic reflection of "Africa". She doesn't have a coherent standard for what she believes is black. It'd be one thing if her differences in belief were simply a matter of understanding so many different interpretations of blackness, but they're clearly influenced by factors few SSA deal with.
For example: How many SSA have a white Arab father? She claims being black is by "blood" while Zendaya isn't because she's got a white European parent. This doesn't seem like a contradiction in thought most Africans would have. She originally concedes that by all this blood talk, she's not authentically black either because of her ancestry then yoyos around and eyerolls blacks who say she's not black because she claims her features make her black. So then it's not "blood" it's "features." She says Zendaya lacks "strong features" but then disparages the blackness of Malcolm X because he's light skinned. I know some want to make her exemplary of Africa, but she relies on discussing blackness through modern U.S race models that accept her as black for her features, while admonishing the acceptance of lighter skinned people using the exact system if they also have any "black features" too. When she comments on other shades IN Africa she says red and yellow types are "natural" to African tribes, but wants them ejected from American black communities because they "can't love Africa" enough. THEN she compares Clarence Thomas to Malcolm X.
I don't get the impression she's really interested in conveying an objective standard from Africa. She's not consistent. She wants to be black and speak on black issues, but has a difficult time advocating for her blackness while pushing away lighter people (some of whom, probably do have more African ancestry than she does). She keeps talking about light acceptance of any kind as "brainwashing" from the one drop rule. She knows NO ONE in the U.S is claiming Craig Cobb to be black, but draws on the emotional appeal of that extremism specifically when people accept blacks in America with light skin. So in a sense I find her to be inaccurate in how she describes African and American race models. She she is speaking with a vision for her own model for race that helps her cope with her own life story. It's fine but it neither fully captures Africa OR America.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Physical anthropology of the living vs the dead.
Sliding social and cultural norms vs osteo measurements.
Non-black by one, black by the other.
No genetic color races. Genes affecting complexion only allow for dark or light assignments. No Yellow Red Brown Black or White pronouncements possible.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Physical anthropology of the living vs the dead.
Sliding social, cultural, but most of all POLITICAL norms vs replicable osteo measurements.
Non-black by one, black by the other. Which one should science rely on?
No genetic color races. Genes affecting complexion only allow for dark or light assignments. No Yellow Red Brown Black or White pronouncements possible.
Then there's local vs global definition. Which one overrules the other and why?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I would say that Habsburg Agenda is right. Posting about Indians for the sake of posting about Indians is hard to relate to the topic.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: For instance, no census I know in the real world (e.g. Caribbean) has people from India as 'black' people.
Are you now going to pretend I post people from India at random in a thread?
In addition according to CLyde and Doug the Indians I posted are black
You just posted pictures of Indians and African Americans with no commentary of your own. How do you justify such a post, to begin with? If you claim that post relates to Africans having varying views on 'blackness' you'll have to explain how.
I'm not saying you can't mention Indians. But let's make sure posts about them fit in the guidelines of this thread.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
If blackness is a descriptor of color how are albinos for example black?
If blackness is about our measuring African ancestry how is Beyonce not black, but you guys are saying an Aboriginal is black?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see some people really have difficulties with the thread being primarily about descriptive and ethnographic examples of views on 'blackness' among continental and diasporal Africans, and secondarily about what you think about these notions that are currently in circulation among Africans.
*The thread is not about what YOU want 'blackness' to mean *The thread is not about what one African once called someone else *The thread is not about getting clarity on where other members stand in terms of 'blackness' *The thread is not about what science has to say about 'blackness' *The thread is not about what ancient Greeks had to say about 'blackness' *The thread is not about what al Jahiz had to say about 'blackness' *The thread is not about what Europeans have to say about 'blackness'
If you are uncomfortable with Africans having their own ideas about 'blackness' to the point where you can't resist telling people what they should think, this thread is not for you.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
What about browness or redness or etc.
Who are the Browns? What makes them brown? Are they relegated to a single section of a single continent?
Why don't the strictures some want to apply to blacks apply to whites browns reds and yellows?
I see Africans Europeans 'Levantines' and the Indian sub-continentals applying black and white status to themselves and their neighbors.
Who are the reds yellows and browns self defined as such and where are their thoughts on redness browness and yellowness?
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Ptolemaic era Egyptians had a standardized way of classifying themselves based on skin pigmentation.
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: ... African people ... we didn't a have exact concept of "Blackness" until white racism and what makes a African person is genetics regardless of phenotype after the out of Africa event.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: exactly what I'm looking for.
--It's not a personal opinion held by a single person, but it's shared by many. So it has anthropological value.
I can be addressed directly and no conflict will result. I feel my opinion is as good as anyone else's in the market place of ideas where any can reject it as they please.
Threads always expand. I thought I was expanding not detracting, following up on the above quoted ideas. But I strongly believe a thread is what it's author says it should be. So please quote where I violated your thread and I will explain or expunge per your will.
But let's not forget what I posted last page where six contemporary African ethnocities' color concepts are given.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I was present when a man from Gabon called the man below "The white man of Africa," to which he not only did not object but also restrained a Black American from objecting.
quote:Originally posted by Gedegbe: A more similar conception would be that of my ethnic people (Aja-Fon) from West Africa who call themselves (me-wi) "black-people" (cf Egyptians calling them black (people)), when referring to them along with their neighbors like the Yoruba, Bariba, Akan regardless as they are pitch-black skinned, brown skinned, light skinned, etc as opposed to Europeans.
Among these people, we consider different nuances of skin tone. If we talk about a specific me-wi as being "nya-wi" (male-black) or as "na-wi" (female-black), it will be a reference to their "very dark or pitch black complexion". a "nya-wi"
If we talk about somebody as a "nya-vo(2)"(male-red), or "na-vo(3)" (female-red), it will be a reference to their lighter than average skin complexion. (3)
(2)
a na-wi and a nya-wi
Only the intermediary brown/darkbrown usual complexion(4;5), won't require the use of a distinctive color adjective. Two "regular" me-wi
Senegalese egyptologist Aboubacry Moussa LAM reported the case of two middle (?) kingdom brothers, one being called Pepi the Red, and the other, Pepi the Black. It could describe two brothers one with light, and the other with very dark skinned complexion.
quote:Originally posted by Young H.O.R.U.S: In Nigeria, among the Yoruba people, there have always been 3 human colour classifications. • We generally refer to ourselves as Dudu/Black, • light-skinned Africans are referred to as Pupa/Red-Yellow (think 'palm oil') and • Funfun/White (albinos).
People need to stop generalising about Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: ... the USA idea of black is not Africa's idea. In Africa people are recognized by their actual tone or the tone of the majority of their ethny.
Ethiopia has a three colour terminology tequr:black teyem:brown qey:red Sudan azraq:blue akhdar:green asmar:brown ahmar:red asfar:yellow Fon me-wi:black people nya/na-wi:male/female black (very dark or pitch black complexion nya/na-vo:male/female red (lighter than average skin complexion Yoruba dudu:black light-skinned Africans are referred to as pupa:red-yellow (think 'palm oil') and funfun:White (albinos). Ibo ojii:black ocha:white
Then there are the Kel taGelmust with their various designations for themselves, coastal Berbers, and Gnawas, yellow, white, grey; or internal assignments by class noble, vassal, and enslaved, red green black.
Unlike for some Diasporans, black is only a descriptor. But for some Diasporans Black is the only identity they have.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I see some people really have difficulties with the thread being primarily about descriptive and ethnographic examples of views on 'blackness' among continental and diasporal Africans, and secondarily about what you think about these notions that are currently in circulation among Africans.
*The thread is not about what YOU want 'blackness' to mean *The thread is not about what one African once called someone else *The thread is not about getting clarity on where other members stand in terms of 'blackness' *The thread is not about what science has to say about 'blackness' *The thread is not about what ancient Greeks had to say about 'blackness' *The thread is not about what al Jahiz had to say about 'blackness' *The thread is not about what Europeans have to say about 'blackness'
If you are uncomfortable with Africans having their own ideas about 'blackness' to the point where you can't resist telling people what they should think, this thread is not for you.
Did you read any of this?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Nairaland Forum Nairaland is ranked 7th most visited site in Nigeria
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I can be addressed directly and no conflict will result. I feel my opinion is as good as anyone else's in the market place of ideas where any can reject it as they please.
I'm not singling you out. I'm also including others, like lioness (who made an effort on the first page before another lioness employee took over) and thereal. I hope Oshun also gets the idea now. Habsburg and Snakepit type posts is what I'm looking for with descriptive and 'ethnographic' type information on Africans giving their take on 'blackness'. When in doubt see their posts.
Your ethnographic list is helpful, too. It would be even better if it were descriptive and expounded and preferably with these ethnic groups explaining it in their own words.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Looking at her statements in the OP, it sounds like Boof is using a restrictive definition of "Blackness" to protest colorism in the Afro-Diasporan community. And you have to admit the existence of that phenomenon can complicate attempts to classify certain individuals into the "black" category.
Make the definition too broad, and you might end up with lighter-skinned "black" people being singled out as the most ideal representatives of the "black community". For example, a beauty magazine could easily say they're "hiring black women" even as they target only those women whose non-African admixture is more visible. On the other hand, make the definition too restrictive, and lots of famous Afro-Diasporan role models (e.g. Barack Obama, Halle Berry, and Frederick Douglass) might get thrown out of the "black" category because of their mixed heritage.
I guess you could consider this another reason why "black" can be a problematic term?
What is funny is that it seems to be mostly westernized diasporal Africans and African immigrants who are dismissive to other notions of 'blackness'. As I said on the previous thread page, in the Caribbean diasporal Africans live side-by-side with dark skinned Asians and Amazonians.
People like Doug and thereal probably never left the states and don't even know/care that just outside of the states their claims have no currency. They would get laughed out the room trying to claim dark skinned Amazonians. And what makes it worse is they don't want to acknowledge that they are on their own as far as current notions, and make excuses. SMH. Even flat earthers will admit their ideas aren't mainstream. On Egyptsearch they pretend their ideas are mainstream once you account for Eurocentrism or whatever it is they want to blame it on.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Please note CotonouByNight (sorry, I can't restore his three missing images) and YoungHorus in their own words tell about their back home usages and my anecdote of a Gabonese, amongst a group of W Afrs and two African Americans, calling Fulani whites obviously because of culture totally disregarding complexion and consciousness though nobody in the room professed a traditional African religion and all but the Americans carried gris-gris.
I know you didn't mean me alone but since I did expand on two things you brought up (pre-contemporary notions; anthropological applicability) so I am confused where I went wrong continuing in that vein. ?!? Are you now saying these are off limits?
If you give me my quoted specifics I won't be confused about what to stay away from. Thx. I won't feel embarrassed and maybe my approach is against the grain of Deshret type conversation.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What is funny is that it seems to be mostly westernized diasporal Africans and African immigrants who are dismissive to other notions of 'blackness'. As I said on the previous thread page, in the Caribbean diasporal Africans live side-by-side with dark skinned Asians and Amazonians.
People like Doug and thereal probably never left the states and don't even know/care that just outside of the states their claims have no currency. They would get laughed out the room trying to claim dark skinned Amazonians. And what makes it worse is they don't want to acknowledge that they are on their own as far as current notions, and make excuses. SMH. Even flat earthers will admit their ideas aren't mainstream. On Egyptsearch they pretend their ideas are mainstream once you account for Eurocentrism or whatever it is they want to blame it on.
The difference has to do with demographic context and political power
AAs are a minority in America estimated to be under 15% There is power in numbers therefore AAs who see white people as their oppressor often might see a broad definition of "black" inclusive of all brown skinned people to be an advantage in the context of America, Europe and their spheres of influence. First AAs and brown Hispanics and other brown people band together to counteract white power, if they have any issues between themselves after that it is dealt with after that. But an African living in Africa is not going to relate much to that because they are the vast majority in Africa, they don't need numbers
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Looking at her statements in the OP, it sounds like Boof is using a restrictive definition of "Blackness" to protest colorism in the Afro-Diasporan community. And you have to admit the existence of that phenomenon can complicate attempts to classify certain individuals into the "black" category.
Make the definition too broad, and you might end up with lighter-skinned "black" people being singled out as the most ideal representatives of the "black community". For example, a beauty magazine could easily say they're "hiring black women" even as they target only those women whose non-African admixture is more visible. On the other hand, make the definition too restrictive, and lots of famous Afro-Diasporan role models (e.g. Barack Obama, Halle Berry, and Frederick Douglass) might get thrown out of the "black" category because of their mixed heritage.
I guess you could consider this another reason why "black" can be a problematic term?
What is funny is that it seems to be mostly westernized diasporal Africans and African immigrants who are dismissive to other notions of 'blackness'. As I said on the previous thread page, in the Caribbean diasporal Africans live side-by-side with dark skinned Asians and Amazonians.
People like Doug and thereal probably never left the states and don't even know/care that just outside of the states their claims have no currency. They would get laughed out the room trying to claim dark skinned Amazonians. And what makes it worse is they don't want to acknowledge that they are on their own as far as current notions, and make excuses. SMH. Even flat earthers will admit their ideas aren't mainstream. On Egyptsearch they pretend their ideas are mainstream once you account for Eurocentrism or whatever it is they want to blame it on.
I don't know where those notions of race come from. They are neither a common description of race in Africa OR in the West. That dark skinned Asian woman would NOT be accepted as black in the most of Africa Africa or the west. She might be if Filipinos in South Africa?
quote: First AAs and brown Hispanics and other brown people band together to counteract white power, if they have any issues between themselves after that it is dealt with after that. But an African living in Africa is not going to relate much to that because they are the vast majority in Africa, they don't need numbers
"Colored solidarity" is actually very poor in the U.S between blacks and non blacks. And which lioness is this? We already went over this. AA have no TRIBAL identity like Africans, so race has been adopted to fill in some of the hole that left. When you tell an AA they're not black that means your saying black history and culture isn't "theirs" despite mixed AA contributing to both. It's not simply a political benefit. Africans don't need tribal identity. They already have it. Which do you think would have a harder time with someone saying they're not black a person that's half Somali and half German or an African American with European mixture from 100-200 years ago?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Snakepit1: [QUOTE]This whole idea about what "white people think", or what a "non black cop would do" when pulling someone over is ridiculous. Non-black people aren't the ones who decide who and what is a black person
Race itself is a "non black" invention. No matter how much black people want to "decide," we know most of us would probably get rid of race if we could and go back to (or stick with) tribal systems. Race is a reflection of problems with defining our lives the way we want. Because we didn't invent race, our independent definitions aren't often very influential across the world. If you live in a European country the fact you don't get to choose your race is hammered into you very early--sometimes with violence. This is why it matters to AA.
Because of "how white people think" AA were forced to share the same spaces, exchange ideas and make a common cultures regardless of previous tribes, shades or mixture. So in the U.S "black" is a culture or ethnic group which is in part AA are so inclusive. When telling someone they're not "black" it's taking history and culture from someone in America. However in many African countries the abuses AA experienced did not happen and so you wouldn't say your culture is "black." You'd say your culture is for example Ashanti, Igbo or Somali. You don't have to tread as lightly to say "so and so isn't black" because you're not taking a person's history and culture.
quote: I think American-Africans should be VERY careful when talking about this topic, as they are HEAVILY indoctrinated by the "one-drop"/hypodescent rule. Where I'm from, Zendaya and people like her would be referred to as white/colored/mulatto/half-caste , regardless of what that makes one feel.
It is not "indoctrination" because AA don't follow the one drop rule. The "one drop rule" would mean white supremacists like Craig Cobb could receive black scholarships or could express his opinion of the black community as though he were a member of it. Stephen Curry could apply for a black scholarship with no social outrage for reasons unique to the U.S history. Which is why, when black people say "The AE are black" in the U.S (and in other parts of Europe with a similar history), it makes sense because they're talking about whose black where they live. If in another black country AE wouldn't be considered black but they're being claimed that would be strange. In the U.S you can be black with mixture, you can be black and have several features that appear more frequently in other races. In the U.S entire communities and cultures of people were shaped around a common history. Many of black heroes like Fredrick Douglass and Malcolm X were heavily mixed and/or light skinned. Did a shared history between light and dark skinned blacks (or would-be blacks) happen everywhere? No. So do blacks everywhere have the same definitions? No. But I don't see the contradiction of Africans who hold that view claiming AE. That part confuses me.
I think you have completely lost the plot. The oppression that African Americans faced in USA weren´t unique. The same shit happened all over the Americas, and in the African colonies before their "independence". Yet, we know who´s who, but you people, do not. It doesn´t make any sense whatsoever. It´s gotten so bad that you don´t really know how to identify one another based on ones looks. Guys like Rachel Dolezal & Rock Newman have been able to "pass" as black without anyone noticing (the whole idea of "passing" is ludicrous in and of itself) . It´s laughable.
Posts: 117 | From: Earth | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic