posted
I think most people are familiar with the infamous "stormfront" website. It caters to the far right, white nationalists crowd mainly. Every now and again, I peek in there to see what they are talking about. They are very resourceful.
Anyhow, a point that I have made for the longest seems to be shared by them, a point I raised here once before. I can't for the life of me figure out why a certain group of blacks I dub "blaccentrists" insists on claiming all people with any degree of melanin content racially black. It is as if to be black, racially, all you need is dark skin. These people ignore hair texture and phenotype, not to mention, genetics.
Take a look at a comment made by a Stormfront discussant (Link) about the photo below. Do you agree?
Are you crazy this guy looks substantially African and looks to the eye to be 65-80% African. The turban doesn't change that Yemenis mtDNA shows close affinity to Egypt and North and East Africa.
posted
I believe when the stormfront whites say "African" they're referring to subsaharan "Black" African, like you and me. Dude in the picture and the ones in the photo you supplied look nothing like Subsaharan black.
posted
If 'Subsaharan Africa' is a racist term then so is Africa. Anyhow the UN recognizes the term, so perhaps it is racist to you. But to world body, it is not racist. I will continue to use it until the world rejects the term. Lastly, the Hausa women may be fair complected but you can still observe their pronounced Africoid features; their phenotype and hair texture clearly are racially black features. Your example fails in my opinion.
quote:Originally posted by lamin:
Phenotypes in Africa vary widely. The Yemeni phenotype even though relatively rare in parts of Africa does exist.
And besides "sub-saharan Africa" is a racist colonial term. More objective to say West Africa,East Africa, North Africa, and South Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Only one photo you posted (see below) shows black African people. The others do not.
True, the others do not show black Africans. But they are black people. And this is how white supremacy operates. They oppress and label people as black and then when it comes time to explain themselves they act as though the only negroes in the world to ever experience blackness are Sub Saharan Africans.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, that makes no sense. Japanese and Whites are white skin. So do we include Japanese when we say "white people?"
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Only one photo you posted (see below) shows black African people. The others do not.
True, the others do not show black Africans. But they are black people. And this is how white supremacy operates. They oppress and label people as black and then when it comes time to explain themselves they act as though the only negroes in the world to ever experience blackness are Sub Saharan Africans.
posted
Indians, Aithiopians, Egyptians, Arabs, Moors, Australian Aborigines, etc.; all called black people in history. Does it have any scientific basis?? No more than white people being called white.
When has white supremacy ever made sense?
And just because something is "recognized" by whoever runs or doesn't run what, doesn't make it ok, or true. "Sub-Saharan African" is an inherently racist term, meant to demean people of a very specific phenotype that is more caricature than reality, and separate North Africa from the rest of the continent, in an attempt to claim all the achievements that side for the "" Caucasoids"". It is a false and misleading term. To say otherwise is to deny history and basic, obvious facts.
Posts: 24 | From: Jamaica | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AshaT: Indians, Aithiopians, Egyptians, Arabs, Moors, Australian Aborigines, etc.; all called black people in history. Does it have any scientific basis?? No more than white people being called white.
When has white supremacy ever made sense?
THANK YOU AshaT. Why do people think its up to US to make sense out of a stupid ideology that's goal is to oppress us? Guess people really think we're supposed to mule for everyone else's agendas, particularly when its to our detriment.
quote: And just because something is "recognized" by whoever runs or doesn't run what, doesn't make it ok, or true. "Sub-Saharan African" is an inherently racist term, meant to demean people of a very specific phenotype that is more caricature than reality, and separate North Africa from the rest of the continent, in an attempt to claim all the achievements that side for the "" Caucasoids."
Who go back to being negroes outside of anthropolgy boards. While non blacks are abundant in northern Africa, many blacks still do live there, and this is not made clear by attempting to say blackness is only in Sub Saharan Africa.
Another problem is the term "sub Saharan" is Saharan centric. Sub Saharan Africa only describes different areas of Africa from their relationship to the Sahara. The Sahara is the only area in this type of discussion that is described by its environment. And since the "official" word only considers the non blacks living there, this is a example of centering ideas of non blacks or "whiteness" in Africa. Not that most whites view MENA as white.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Excuse me for cheering.
Wise words from AshaT and Oshun.
___ Colonization politically ended ~55 years ago. Jim Crow legally ended ~50 years ago (voting rights still waiver by machination). Apartheid was dismantled ~30 years ago. In Latin America 'good looks' is still an employment qualification.
Not 2 full generations of 'freedom' either side the Atlantic.
Yet many act like the playing field is level. Like a lifelong malnourished couch potato can be an Olympian after a few weeks at the gym and an organic balanced diet.
Then many have something like Stockholm Syndrome and full-fledge believe and think (even identify) as accepted European descent white academics and bloggers.
BTW anyone familiar with oriental literature has read white self-identification. Even outside of literature Chinese Indonesians are White Chinese.
SIMON SEZ ... Who is Simon? What makes what he says the way the whole world must think and agree to?
I am not one waiting for Simon Says to move forward. Anybody who does and is in the way is gonna get shoved aside.
posted
The Japanese and other Light Skinned Asians consider themselves "white" in their culture and self out look and Im sure they considered themselves as such before they came into contact with Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Dude, that makes no sense. Japanese and Whites are white skin. So do we include Japanese when we say "white people?"
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Also lets not forget the black natives of Asia(Both S.E and Far East) were described as black, not by Europeans, not by Afrocentrics but by the now dominant Leukoderm Asians.
image source added -lioness
[ 27. November 2018, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aren't these people Negritos? They are not considered Asian.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: If These women had been living in the South during Jim Crow they'd been sitting in the back of the Bus..
Also lets not forget the black natives of Asia(Both S.E and Far East) were described as black, not by Europeans, not by Afrocentrics but by the now dominant Leukoderm Asians.
image source added lioness
[ 27. November 2018, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
posted
^^^Who doesnt consider Nigritos as an indigenous people of Asia?
Genetically, Historically, Culturally and by all standards the Negritos are the indigenous people of Asia. I like to know who doesnt consider them as such.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
My only problem with their argument is that some of those people despite their skin tone, dont consider themselves to be black nor have some cumbyeya relationship with blacks from Africa, esp. the Yemenis(and other Arabs)...Their Anti-African Pro-white/bidane Arab racism predates any European influence. The Negritos might be a different story though, Id find it hard to believe they dont see themselves as black TBH. They rival some Nilotic folks with their amount of Melanin.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Excuse me for cheering.
Wise words from AshaT and Oshun.
___ Colonization politically ended ~55 years ago. Jim Crow legally ended ~50 years ago (voting rights still waiver by machination). Apartheid was dismantled ~30 years ago. In Latin America 'good looks' is still an employment qualification.
Not 2 full generations of 'freedom' either side the Atlantic.
Yet many act like the playing field is level. Like a lifelong malnourished couch potato can be an Olympian after a few weeks at the gym and an organic balanced diet.
Then many have something like Stockholm Syndrome and full-fledge believe and think (even identify) as accepted European descent white academics and bloggers.
BTW anyone familiar with oriental literature has read white self-identification. Even outside of literature Chinese Indonesians are White Chinese.
SIMON SEZ ... Who is Simon? What makes what he says the way the whole world must think and agree to?
I am not one waiting for Simon Says to move forward. Anybody who does and is in the way is gonna get shoved aside.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which means not all skin folk are kinfolk. Having an anti black attitude doesn't mean they're not black. Otherwise the many self hating blacks in the U.S to the darkest Dominicans attempting to act like nationality is the same as race to cope with racial identity aren't black. People like that want to identify with white supremacists by assimilating racially but don't have the power to make this idea exist beyond their own minds. So they just stay in their spaces telling themselves they're not black like it's going to get them anywhere.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slow your roll, dude. I never said they were not indigenous to the land. I said they are not considered "Asian." I am sure the name Asia was not coined by Negritos.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^Who doesnt consider Nigritos as an indigenous people of Asia?
Genetically, Historically, Culturally and by all standards the Negritos are the indigenous people of Asia. I like to know who doesnt consider them as such.
posted
^^^How are they not Asian if they are indignous to the land, what Pray tell are they then?
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wasn't coined by Asians that aren't Negritos either. Negritos were among the first to leave Africa. So if they aren't indigenous to Asia no one is.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Slow your role, dude. I never said they were not indigenous to the land. I said they are not considered "Asian." I am sure the name Asia was not coined by Negritos.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^Who doesnt consider Nigritos as an indigenous people of Asia?
Genetically, Historically, Culturally and by all standards the Negritos are the indigenous people of Asia. I like to know who doesnt consider them as such.
posted
Im thinking he means they decend from the first Homosapiens to leave Africa
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The population history of the indigenous populations in island Southeast Asia is generally accepted to have been shaped by two major migrations: the ancient "Out of Africa" migration ∼50,000 years before present (YBP) and the relatively recent "Out of Taiwan" expansion of Austronesian agriculturalists approximately 5,000 YBP. The Negritos are believed to have originated from the ancient migration, whereas the majority of island Southeast Asians are associated with the Austronesian expansion. We determined 86 mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) complete genome sequences in four indigenous Malaysian populations, together with a reanalysis of published autosomal single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data of Southeast Asians to test the plausibility and impact of those migration models. The three Austronesian groups (Bidayuh, Selatar, and Temuan) showed high frequencies of mtDNA haplogroups, which originated from the Asian mainland ∼30,000-10,000 YBP, but low frequencies of "Out of Taiwan" markers. Principal component analysis and phylogenetic analysis using autosomal SNP data indicate a dichotomy between continental and island Austronesian groups. We argue that both the mtDNA and autosomal data suggest an "Early Train" migration originating from Indochina or South China around the late-Pleistocene to early-Holocene period, which predates, but may not necessarily exclude, the Austronesian expansion.
quote:The population history of the indigenous populations in island Southeast Asia is generally accepted to have been shaped by two major migrations: the ancient "Out of Africa" migration ∼50,000 years before present (YBP) and the relatively recent "Out of Taiwan" expansion of Austronesian agriculturalists approximately 5,000 YBP. The Negritos are believed to have originated from the ancient migration, whereas the majority of island Southeast Asians are associated with the Austronesian expansion. We determined 86 mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) complete genome sequences in four indigenous Malaysian populations, together with a reanalysis of published autosomal single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data of Southeast Asians to test the plausibility and impact of those migration models. The three Austronesian groups (Bidayuh, Selatar, and Temuan) showed high frequencies of mtDNA haplogroups, which originated from the Asian mainland ∼30,000-10,000 YBP, but low frequencies of "Out of Taiwan" markers. Principal component analysis and phylogenetic analysis using autosomal SNP data indicate a dichotomy between continental and island Austronesian groups. We argue that both the mtDNA and autosomal data suggest an "Early Train" migration originating from Indochina or South China around the late-Pleistocene to early-Holocene period, which predates, but may not necessarily exclude, the Austronesian expansion.
you have quoted "believed to have originated from the ancient migration" that is not evidence
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
And what is your take on their origins, if I may ask?
quote:The population history of the indigenous populations in island Southeast Asia is generally accepted to have been shaped by two major migrations: the ancient "Out of Africa" migration ∼50,000 years before present (YBP) and the relatively recent "Out of Taiwan" expansion of Austronesian agriculturalists approximately 5,000 YBP. The Negritos are believed to have originated from the ancient migration, whereas the majority of island Southeast Asians are associated with the Austronesian expansion. We determined 86 mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) complete genome sequences in four indigenous Malaysian populations, together with a reanalysis of published autosomal single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data of Southeast Asians to test the plausibility and impact of those migration models. The three Austronesian groups (Bidayuh, Selatar, and Temuan) showed high frequencies of mtDNA haplogroups, which originated from the Asian mainland ∼30,000-10,000 YBP, but low frequencies of "Out of Taiwan" markers. Principal component analysis and phylogenetic analysis using autosomal SNP data indicate a dichotomy between continental and island Austronesian groups. We argue that both the mtDNA and autosomal data suggest an "Early Train" migration originating from Indochina or South China around the late-Pleistocene to early-Holocene period, which predates, but may not necessarily exclude, the Austronesian expansion.
Basically, they're saying their research at the very least would agree that a lot of their ancestry got there earlier than the later (and much lighter) people.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Genome Biol Evol. 2017 Aug; 9(8): 2013–2022. Published online 2017 Jul 11. doi: [10.1093/gbe/evx118] PMCID: PMC5597900 PMID: 28854687 Discerning the Origins of the Negritos, First Sundaland People: Deep Divergence and Archaic Admixture
We did not observe any direct links between the different Negrito groups and the African Pygmies (Biaka) (fig. 3B and supplementary fig. S12, Supplementary Material online). This is in agreement with previous results (Omoto et al. 1978, 1981; Basu et al. 2015) and suggests that observed morphological similarities among the Negritos and African pygmies are more likely due to convergent evolution.
Human presence in Southeast Asia dates back to at least 40,000 years ago, when the current islands formed a continental shelf called Sundaland. In the Philippine Islands, Peninsular Malaysia, and Andaman Islands, there exist indigenous groups collectively called Negritos whose ancestry can be traced to the “First Sundaland People.” To understand the relationship between these Negrito groups and their demographic histories, we generated genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism data in the Philippine Negritos and compared them with existing data from other populations.Phylogenetic tree analyses show that Negritos are basal to other East and Southeast Asians, and that they diverged from West Eurasians at least 38,000 years ago. We also found relatively high traces of Denisovan admixture in the Philippine Negritos, but not in the Malaysian and Andamanese groups, suggesting independent introgression and/or parallel losses involving Denisovan introgressed regions. Shared genetic loci between all three Negrito groups could be related to skin pigmentation, height, facial morphology and malarial resistance. These results show the unique status of Negrito groups as descended from the First Sundaland People.
In summary, we demonstrated that the Negritos of Andaman Islands, Malay Peninsula, and Philippine Islands represent one of the earliest branches of anatomically modern humans to have reached SEA, befitting the term the “First Sundaland People” instead of “Negritos.” The interactions they had with the environment, the pre-existing archaic humans in the region, and much later with agriculturalist migrants from the Asian mainland have all shaped their current genetic and cultural diversity. _________________________________
wikipedia
Recent African origin of modern humans
The most significant "recent" wave took place about 70,000 years ago, via the so-called "Southern Route", spreading rapidly along the coast of Asia and reaching Australia by around 65,000–50,000 years ago,[11][12][note 2] while Europe was populated by an early offshoot which settled the Near East and Europe less than 55,000 years ago.[
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^How are they not Asian if they are indignous to the land, what Pray tell are they then?
Let me explain it this way. I am not saying they are not indigenous to that land. What I am saying is they are not Asian; the term Asia/Asian is reserved for a very specific population; the Greek Herodotus was the first to use the term and at the time the land was populated by socalled "Mongoloids."
I hope that clears it up for you. I am sure their ancestors had a different name for them.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: It wasn't coined by Asians that aren't Negritos either.
The term was historically applied to Asians, not Negritos. Today we have Afrikaners in Africa who are white. They are not indigenous to the land. Would it be proper to apply that term to Black Africans 500 years from now, Black Africans who descend from the indigenous population of that continent? That is the best analogy I submit to you.
posted
What are you even trying to say? An Asian is an Asian is an Asian. It's a term traditionally applied to those who live in/come from Turkey and the lands east of it. That's it. Though it has been narrowed to most often meaning East Asians, at the end of the day it's just a geographical term. One that covers vast areas of land, and a huge variety of people. Do you think the first users of "Asia" really knew about the many different ethnicities and their various phenotypes? Do you think they even cared? It's a small label for a huge area. By definition, Negritos are Asian. So are Andaman Islanders, Filipinos, Iranians, Indians, Koreans, etc. Plenty of peoples went by different names than those given to them by outsiders. Irrelevant. And I really can't take you seriously when you continue to use all these "-oids". The archaic is jumping out.
What are you even arguing at this point? Black is a non-scientific phenotypical descriptor that has been used by various peoples at various times. Black =/= black. That does not make black an invalid term to describe an individual or a people. Neither does colourism/racism, internal or external. It is merely a superficial descriptor blown out of proportion by early anthropologists. AKA White Imperialistic Supremacists. It's really not that deep.
Posts: 24 | From: Jamaica | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stop it. Andaman Islanders are part of the greater Indian continent. Do you seriously think they consider them Indians? lmao
quote:Originally posted by AshaT: What are you even trying to say? An Asian is an Asian is an Asian. It's a term traditionally applied to those who live in/come from Turkey and the lands east of it. That's it. Though it has been narrowed to most often meaning East Asians, at the end of the day it's just a geographical term. One that covers vast areas of land, and a huge variety of people. Do you think the first users of "Asia" really knew about the many different ethnicities and their various phenotypes? Do you think they even cared? It's a small label for a huge area. By definition, Negritos are Asian. So are Andaman Islanders, Filipinos, Iranians, Indians, Koreans, etc. Plenty of peoples went by different names than those given to them by outsiders. Irrelevant. And I really can't take you seriously when you continue to use all these "-oids". The archaic is jumping out.
What are you even arguing at this point? Black is a non-scientific phenotypical descriptor that has been used by various peoples at various times. Black =/= black. That does not make black an invalid term to describe an individual or a people. Neither does colourism/racism, internal or external. It is merely a superficial descriptor blown out of proportion by early anthropologists. AKA White Imperialistic Supremacists. It's really not that deep.
posted
The word black is used in different contexts to yield different meanings. Black is a racial term (noun) and black is a color (adjective.) If I am going to describe an East Indian I would say they are black in color or black skinned. However I would not say they are a "Black people." That is not their race.
I do see there are a good number of Afrocentrists who attempt to get around this distinction by blurring the difference between racial black and skin color black. They use this tactic to fraudulently lay claim to histories and legacies normally not belonging to Black Africans.
quote:Originally posted by AshaT: What are you even arguing at this point? Black is a non-scientific phenotypical descriptor that has been used by various peoples at various times. Black =/= black. That does not make black an invalid term to describe an individual or a people. Neither does colourism/racism, internal or external. It is merely a superficial descriptor blown out of proportion by early anthropologists. AKA White Imperialistic Supremacists. It's really not that deep.
posted
Ethnically no, and they'd be correct. But Asia is a continent not a nation or culture. Negritos are native to Asia whether the lighter Asians want to call them Asian or something else.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Stop it. Andaman Islanders are part of the greater Indian continent. Do you seriously think they consider them Indians? lmao
quote:Originally posted by AshaT: What are you even trying to say? An Asian is an Asian is an Asian. It's a term traditionally applied to those who live in/come from Turkey and the lands east of it. That's it. Though it has been narrowed to most often meaning East Asians, at the end of the day it's just a geographical term. One that covers vast areas of land, and a huge variety of people. Do you think the first users of "Asia" really knew about the many different ethnicities and their various phenotypes? Do you think they even cared? It's a small label for a huge area. By definition, Negritos are Asian. So are Andaman Islanders, Filipinos, Iranians, Indians, Koreans, etc. Plenty of peoples went by different names than those given to them by outsiders. Irrelevant. And I really can't take you seriously when you continue to use all these "-oids". The archaic is jumping out.
What are you even arguing at this point? Black is a non-scientific phenotypical descriptor that has been used by various peoples at various times. Black =/= black. That does not make black an invalid term to describe an individual or a people. Neither does colourism/racism, internal or external. It is merely a superficial descriptor blown out of proportion by early anthropologists. AKA White Imperialistic Supremacists. It's really not that deep.
EDIT: Oh and...
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: The word black is used in different contexts to yield different meanings. Black is a racial term (noun) and black is a color (adjective.) If I am going to describe an East Indian I would say they are black in color or black skinned. However I would not say they are a "Black people." That is not their race.
I do see there are a good number of Afrocentrists who attempt to get around this distinction by blurring the difference between racial black and skin color black. They use this tactic to fraudulently lay claim to histories and legacies normally not belonging to Black Africans.
Few Afrocentrics believe Olmecs and the like were black Africans. And many blacks don't rely strictly on skin color to feel pursuaded of blackness in Egyptians. Black people are not fraudelently claiming a history in most cases. What's happening is that blacks are realizing race isn't biologically sound and are expanding past initial ideas of Afrocentrism. White supremacists are mad. It's not fraudulent for a communist in the U.S to say that "their" history is also in Russia and in a variety of Asian countries. Why? Because the ideology is not strictly in the U.S and membership to the movement doesn't require close genetic relationship. Blackness is not a biological construct. Human beings with some of the greatest genetic distances have been rendered as black.
Why should people attempting to discuss "black history" need to focus strictly on blacks with a close genetic relationship? You white supremacists are the ones trying to argue race to be a genetic construct and are butthurt because fewer blacks with each generation are interested in lowering themselves to argue at your level. YOU are the ones attempting to force us to argue at your pace. We won't. Everyone else has begun to acknowledge it isn't genetic. We don't owe you a conversation restricted to our immediate relatives if we don't want to have that talk with you. You should've thought about that before you labeled a whole bunch of unrelated peoples black and gave them hell for it. We always come back to this mule mentality we're supposed to have. It's our job to treat race as biological to help white supremacists make their points. We're supposed to make sense of race and "racial features" and be cool whenever they shift goal posts. Southern Egyptians (Ancient) resembled more closely Ethiopians and Nubians but this isn't "black enough." Oh, except when it was when they thought that civilization came from northerners. When tropes of subjugation and slavery could be applied to southern Egypt, they were more than happy to insist they were black.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^Who doesnt consider Nigritos as an indigenous people of Asia?
Genetically, Historically, Culturally and by all standards the Negritos are the indigenous people of Asia. I like to know who doesnt consider them as such.
Thats why I dont play the race shell game. If they dark skin I call them melinated if they not I call them albine.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only reason the word "black" is supposedly so problematic in anthropology and human history is because of racism and colonization. When Europeans started colonizing the world they found so many blacks that they knew the world started with black people. And by inference that means culture, civilization, arts and science started with black people all over the planet. So they had to make up the pseudo science of race to distort the facts of history and make up all sorts of "other races" as if these "different shades of brown" aren't just variations of evolution among aboriginal black people. And of course in all of this they have always put light skin at the top of the pyramid of human evolution. This was then used as part of the indoctrination process in colonies world wide and promote white skin supremacy. Also the continuing European global control of major institutions of biology and anthropology based on the theft of artifacts from people around the world in the during colonial era, allows them to continue spreading propaganda and misinformation in the name of "science".
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Why not measure race by hair texture or cranial morphology? Why must race be determined by skin color, solely, as you indicate?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The only reason the word "black" is supposedly so problematic in anthropology and human history is because of racism and colonization. When Europeans started colonizing the world they found so many blacks that they knew the world started with black people. And by inference that means culture, civilization, arts and science started with black people all over the planet. So they had to make up the pseudo science of race to distort the facts of history and make up all sorts of "other races" as if these "different shades of brown" aren't just variations of evolution among aboriginal black people. And of course in all of this they have always put light skin at the top of the pyramid of human evolution. This was then used as part of the indoctrination process in colonies world wide and promote white skin supremacy. Also the continuing European global control of major institutions of biology and anthropology based on the theft of artifacts from people around the world in the during colonial era, allows them to continue spreading propaganda and misinformation in the name of "science".
posted
It won't take the conversation much further. Race is more intuitive. It's not something that is well grounded through analysis of facial features or hair. This is often deflected because white supremacists often expect that no one will know of Negritos and Aboriginals from the world as well as their initial disdain for Upper Egypt. That or they think when we do know of them, they can deflect by discussing differences in cranial descriptions(ex: Australoid) to distract from the fact they were racially labeled as a black people. Once their opponent understands that white supremacist history proves cranial descriptions aren't the same as race, things turn sour for the supremacists from there. We don't owe it to these people to build and offer support to their ideology where it weak.
White supremacists have deemed people black with many different types of hair textures and hair colors. Aboriginals and Negritos can have hair textures and colors in many varieties but were treated like blacks. Cranial morpohologies can also vary. People with "Caucasoid" cranial morphologies have also been deemed black, especially in East Africa. Even Upper Egyptians of the ancient past used to be deemed black savages tamed by a northern dynastic race until they found out the dynastic culture came from the south. Fact of the matter is, race is a loosely defined idea not based any biological reality. It shows in all the many people that have been labeled black by white supremacists, many of whom have no close relationship to each other.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Show me a TRIBE of aboriginals with bone straight hair, blue eyes and thin face features. The individual examples of variations within those nonwhite tribes won't fly. You need to show an entire population with features traditionally associated with another group for your argument to fly. Typically Afrocentrists will make absurd claims that Blacks produced white folks, thus their features belong to them. And then proceed to hold up photos like the following Solomon tribe as evidence:
Uh, no. You need to show a tribe with blonde hair, blue eyes, and aquiline features! One out of three traits ain't cutting the mustard!
quote:Originally posted by Ase: It won't take the conversation much further. Race is more intuitive. It's not something that is well grounded through analysis of facial features or hair. This is often deflected because white supremacists often expect that no one will know of Negritos and Aboriginals from the world as well as their initial disdain for Upper Egypt. That or they think when we do know of them, they can deflect by discussing differences in cranial descriptions(ex: Australoid) to distract from the fact they were racially labeled as a black people. Once their opponent understands that white supremacist history proves cranial descriptions aren't the same as race, things turn sour for the supremacists from there. We don't owe it to these people to build and offer support to their ideology where it weak.
White supremacists have deemed people black with many different types of hair textures and hair colors. Aboriginals and Negritos can have hair textures and colors in many varieties but were treated like blacks. Cranial morpohologies can also vary. People with "Caucasoid" cranial morphologies have also been deemed black, especially in East Africa. Even Upper Egyptians of the ancient past used to be deemed black savages tamed by a northern dynastic race until they found out the dynastic culture came from the south. Fact of the matter is, race is a loosely defined idea not based any biological reality. It shows in all the many people that have been labeled black by white supremacists, many of whom have no close relationship to each other.
posted
You're asking for a level of homogeneity that many Europeans don't even have, many Europeans have curls that are as loose as Aboriginals or Negritos. Reading this telegraph article saying about 60 percent of Europeans have wavy to curly hair. Interested in finding the source for this, but I don't doubt it. In my experience it's about that much and even "European straight" isn't often as bone straight as it can get in Asia.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Uh, no. You need to show a tribe with blonde hair, blue eyes, and aquiline features! One out of three traits ain't cutting the mustard!
[/QB][/QUOTE]
This whole conversation has been about blacks "claiming" people who "aren't really black" because they're fraudulently claiming all people of a certain skin color. You demanded that people consider other features and genetics and now you're deflecting. There is no single crania, hair color, hair texture or genetic profile to make that possible for blacks. White Supremacists say that deviations in crania, hair color and looseness, etc makes distinct races, but branded people of different types in all such categories as black. Whatever Europe looks like or however unique you think they are in appearance does not change that. It does not make the social creation of blackness more rational. Skin color was perhaps the only feature that united these groups in their entirety which is why these so-called "frauds" often claim darker peoples. Ironic you don't see they're trying to find some type of phenotypic unity that would make the foundation of the supremacist mindset somewhat more solid than it actually is. That is somehow "fraudulent" to you. But keep on putting your foot in your mouth. Typical of you to cape for white supremacists while pretending to be black It's not our job to make sense of white supremacist irrationality. Its your job to rationalize this stupidity. It's your view, so you go do it for your brethren.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
outrageous! please review the below topography and how a population of fair hair and eye is spread over a specific section of Europe. Clearly those features are exclusive to them.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: You're asking for a level of homogeneity that many Europeans don't even have, as many Europeans have curls that are as loose as Aboriginals or Negritos. Reading this telegraph article saying about 60 percent of Europeans have wavy to curly hair. Interested in finding the source for this, but I don't doubt it. In my experience it's about that much and even "European straight" isn't often as bone straight as it can get in Asia.
posted
Ase. you dont understand the point I am making which is, why do you get to determine the criteria for race when it was already determined by its authors?!?! Are you attempting to reinvent the wheel?
posted
"I" am reinventing the wheel? Incorrect. They were the ones that treated upper Egyptians and Nubians like black savages. They were the ones that treated Aboriginals as black. They were the ones that coined the term "Negritos" to describe darker Asians. Blackness was applied to them and black Africans by whites. So some blacks are claiming dark skinned people because there were no other unifying characteristics to establish a "criteria."
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bruh. Black = Subsaharan African. It ain't that deep!
quote:Originally posted by Ase: "I" am reinventing the wheel? Incorrect. They were the ones that treated upper Egyptians and Nubians like black savages. They were the ones that treated Aboriginals as black. They were the ones that coined the term "Negritos" to describe darker Asians. Blackness was applied to them and black Africans by whites. So some blacks are claiming dark skinned people because there were no other unifying characteristics to establish a "criteria."
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic