quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: The point is that the HIrisPlex-S is not always so exact in its color predictions. So when it says dark_black we do not always know exactly what it means in real life.
Also that the picture of the arm falls into todays variation of colors in North Africa.
And Karitianas are a bit varied in skin color, some a bit lighter some a bit darker.
I am not surprised, and indeed it falls into the variation we see today among North Africans, but that maestro wants you to believe that "dark to black" necessarily implies that our ancestors were significantly darker than us and then often feign to be "stating the objective fact" without any nuance, despite the clear understanding that the category itself is excessively broad and ambiguous.
On a side note, I have observed that many African Americans rely solely on skin color to assess kinship. This is why you often see them fixating on it and disregarding other important factors such as Autosomal, Uniparental, or morphological data. It is amusing how many of them approach me with the "IBM were dark-skinned" as if it would somehow make them more closely related or similar to African Americans. Some individuals even go to the extent of claiming Indian or Negrito heritage based solely on dark skin color.
This is why you can't discuss with those people. They're simply trying to insert themselves everywhere for acceptance and appropriating our ancestors/History.
Who are "those people"?
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Who are "those people"? [/QB]
In general, individuals of Afro-American background who embrace Afrocentrism.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Who are "those people"?
In general, individuals of Afro-American background who embrace Afrocentrism.
I see. Wanted to make sure I wasn't...misinterpreting what you said.
As a side note, I'm going to remind you(for the last time), that there are African-Americans with Maghreb and Nile Valley ancestry. [/QB]
I want to try to elucidate the fact that this actually has little to do with Kinship or assessed kinship by whoever. I want to pay attention to how quickly a conversation devolves into "were they black or not." The topics are almost purposefully ambiguous in that regard because people are more comfortable arguing subjectivity. I've come to realize that it might've never really ever been about kinship from either side. It's about perception and resemblance. The uncomfortable fact about all of these civilizations that a minority of Afrocentrics or "Native American blacks" claim (wrongfully so) is that they claim these civilizations because of lookership. The argument was always truly about the lookership to begin with. Not kinship but appearance.
So I will say it doesn't really matter what's in your DNA, it matters more how you look. Modern aDNA studies that'll reduce the ill-defined "SSA" correspondence in talked about samples is used to engage in phenotypic inferences. To be clear, what will happen is some might say, African Sample A had dark skin -- and someone will argue African Sample A is 90% Eurasian so they aren't really African and therefor might not really be dark. It happens in these discussions over and over again. And part of the reason why it works out that way is due to the controversial nature of recent genetic-anthro publications. Because of controversial, missing or wrongly interpreted data, the parties involved will always erupt into debating kinship cuz that's what's highlighted per publication.
But what is actually dangerous is that this is an issue unique to black people, and I don't know why. Let's take the Olmecs for example. The initial claims by people like Ivan Sertama was that these guys were dark skinned and shared the appearance of black contemporaries of his time. The arguments then divulged into kinship related arguments where on one side the lack of genetic relatedness between black Americans and Olmecs lead some people to use modern Native Americans to represent the old phenotype and on the flipside you have black people saying they descend from the Olmecs and the Euros are lying and being racist. Both arguing points are besides the point, did the Olmec look like how they were described or not?
After some observation I have noticed a few tendencies in how some non-black African people react to certain empires or civilizations regardless of where they are. There is almost always a reactionary response once the relevancy in global history of any civilization is established. If there is a chance that any black-African group or African diaspora can blend into said population there is always scrutiny on their cultural relevance, or relatedness to said African group. Innovators or contributors to the world can not look like "black people." Some people will rather their ancestors be akin to Chinese than black Americans for example, just read the previous page. And the former actually have the ability to usurp their history lol
And it's not going to stop at Egypt, North Africa, Axum, Swahili and Mali for example (The blackness of all of these empires have been scrutinized.) Once we get more information on more interior African kingdoms, cheifdoms, empires etc. and their technological prowess or contributions the scrutiny on the blackness will ensue.
To test how far from the truth I am, name one acclaimed civilization that is black in a way where some African Americans for example can blend in which haven't been buried in controversy about how they looked (And or assessed through autosomal kinship). And to add a layer of lunacy think about how easy it is to accept the phenotypic overlap of two or more non black populations. If they look remotely close to each other, no one would question or even mention kinship if an Actress wants to play a role in a different community for example.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
And it's not going to stop at Egypt, North Africa, Axum, Swahili and Mali for example (The blackness of all of these empires have been scrutinized.) Once we get more information on more interior African kingdoms, cheifdoms, empires etc. and their technological prowess or contributions the scrutiny on the blackness will ensue.
I mean they tried with Great Zimbabwe and I am sure they will be back to try again. I think Kongo Kingdom will be next. And when has Mali been scrutinized besides that one white supremacist troll no one takes seriously?
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
After some observation I have noticed a few tendencies in how some non-black African people react to certain empires or civilizations regardless of where they are. There is almost always a reactionary response once the relevancy in global history of any civilization is established. If there is a chance that any black-African group or African diaspora can blend into said population there is always scrutiny on their cultural relevance, or relatedness to said African group. Innovators or contributors to the world can not look like "black people." Some people will rather their ancestors be akin to Chinese than black Americans for example, just read the previous page. And the former actually have the ability to usurp their history lol
This phenomenon is not exclusive to Black Africans but applies to all Africans except Egyptians. I have encountered many South Europeans who cannot accept the notion that they were once ruled by North Africans, leading them to fabricate theories suggesting that ancient North Africans were "whiter" and closer to europeans, while today they are seen as a supposedly undesirable mix of Arabs and Black slaves. You will also often see Arabs or Middle eastern in general claiming that Carthaginians were purely Phoenician or a mix of Phoenicians and Europeans, that "Semites" brought civilization to berbers and that Berbers merely passively received foreign influences and innovations, among other similar ideas. In academic works from the 1960s and 1970s, there was a tendency to attribute almost every pre-Roman artifact to Phoenicians/Punics. However, fortunately, more recent research, such as Emanuele Papi's findings, has challenged and refuted this notion, demonstrating that the Punic influence in Morocco was greatly exaggerated.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: And it's not going to stop at Egypt, North Africa, Axum, Swahili and Mali for example (The blackness of all of these empires have been scrutinized.) Once we get more information on more interior African kingdoms, cheifdoms, empires etc. and their technological prowess or contributions the scrutiny on the blackness will ensue.
Certainly, North Africa would naturally be subject to scrutiny regarding its blackness, considering that most of its inhabitants are not black. The issue with Axum lies in its strong cultural connections to southern Arabia, as well as the Swahili, which was recently confirmed in a paper. I must clarify that I'm not suggesting that all or most Axumites or Swahili were Arabs, as that was evidently not the case. However, I can comprehend why the question of blackness is scrutinized in these contexts. Similarly, the scrutiny of the North African identity of the Carthaginians is based on their initial association with Phoenician settlers.
Regarding the Mali Empire, I haven't encountered many people questioning its blackness. On the other hand, for the Ghana Empire, it is understandable why this aspect might come under scrutiny, as the Ghanaian sources themselves mention the presence of "whites" during its early formation :
quote:The first centuries of Ghana's history are marked by struggles between the White people, who reportedly gave 44 sovereigns to the country, and the Soninke people. Under the leadership of Kaya Maghin Cissé, the first Black sovereign of Ghana, the Soninke succeeded in driving the White people out as far as Tagant. However, by the 9th century, the pressure from the Sanhadja Berbers became strong enough for the vassal state of Awdagost to be formed (see Aoudagost*, A 238, E.B., t. VI, p. 798-803)."
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: To test how far from the truth I am, name one acclaimed civilization that is black in a way where some African Americans for example can blend in which haven't been buried in controversy about how they looked (And or assessed through autosomal kinship). And to add a layer of lunacy think about how easy it is to accept the phenotypic overlap of two or more non black populations. If they look remotely close to each other, no one would question or even mention kinship if an Actress wants to play a role in a different community for example.
There are tons of examples : Ancient Djenné, Nok culture, Kingdom of Kongo, Songhai Empire, Kingdom of Nri, Benin Empire, Ashanti Empire, Zulu kingdom, etc
You are greatly exaggerating for the phenotypic overlap. You and I both know that if a West African actor were to portray an ancient Ethiopian, it would likely not bother most people, except perhaps a small minority of Ethiopian/Somali nationalists. This is quite revealing because the genetic distance between the two is probably much larger than, for example, between an Anglo actor and an ancient Roman figure.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
If I remember correctly, groups like the Fulanis and different Berber(Sanhaja especially) groups were referred to as "White" by early West Africans during that period. "White" wasn't meant literally as far as I know.
Also those African kingdoms while impressive that you listed aren't "acclaimed" by non-Black academia. And Songhay is in the same category as Mali. As for Zulu Kingdom? Its only exotified not necessarily "acclaimed" due to the Zulus only beating the British in ONE battle. It was basically, "how did these savages with just cow-shields and spears beat one of the most powerful European powers at the time!?
@Punos_Rey I disagree with Antalas broad generalization of Black-Americans embracing Afrocentricism, since I constantly argued they are a small minority.
However, to play devils advocate.. Yea sure they maybe a few Black-American individuals who may have Nile Valley or Maghrabi ancestry(either direct or indirect through an African ancestry that got it from those regions), but the bulk of Black-American African ancestry like all Afro-Diasporan is West-Central.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: [QB] @Antalas
If I remember correctly, groups like the Fulanis and different Berber(Sanhaja especially) groups were referred to as "White" by early West Africans during that period. "White" wasn't meant literally as far as I know.
Interesting I wasn't aware that Fulanis were also encompassed within that classification. However, it's worth noting that both groups you mentioned have significant North African ancestry, and they wouldn't have been labeled as "white" if they were indistinguishable from their Soninké neighbors. Additionally, it's possible that those historically labeled as "whites" might have been more similar to mediterranean North Africans, much like many Tuaregs today. All I was saying is that I can understand why the "blackness" of some of those empires might be scrutinized which maestro pretend is only due to racism.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: [QB] @Antalas
If I remember correctly, groups like the Fulanis and different Berber(Sanhaja especially) groups were referred to as "White" by early West Africans during that period. "White" wasn't meant literally as far as I know.
Interesting I wasn't aware that Fulanis were also encompassed within that classification. However, it's worth noting that both groups you mentioned have significant North African ancestry, and they wouldn't have been labeled as "white" if they were indistinguishable from their Soninké neighbors. Additionally, it's possible that those historically labeled as "whites" might have been more similar to mediterranean North Africans, much like many Tuaregs today. All I was saying is that I can understand why the "blackness" of some of those empires might be scrutinized.
Tuareg phenotypes varies a lot in my opinion. And when you mean "North African ancestry" don you mean indignous North African? Anyways, I'll let Elmaestro handle that argument if he feels like it. We have no proof that they were similar to Mediterranean Berbers as those type of Berbers were not saharan Berbers like the Sanhaja/Tuaregs. We have proof that Tukulur(Fulanis) and Sanhaja confederation had close proximity to Ghana.
Finally, I been to Africa many times(including Ethiopia), and I many Horners in Africa have told me that other Africans(Bantus & Nilotics) don't really consider them "Black." And I'm talking about dark skinned ass Oromos and Somalis. Fact is certain Africans have different views on racial categorization. "White" wasn't meant literally. Heck I'm part Haitian, and in Haiti the term "blan"(white) is sometimes even used to describe Black Americans.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
Also those African kingdoms while impressive that you listed aren't "acclaimed" by non-Black academia. And Songhay is in the same category as Mali. As for Zulu Kingdom? Its only exotified not necessarily "acclaimed" due to the Zulus only beating the British in ONE battle. It was basically, "how did these savages with just cow-shields and spears beat one of the most powerful European powers at the time!?
Songhai and Ashanti not acclaimed ? Like I said, in many instances, it is understandable that their interactions with foreigners are emphasized, although, regrettably, racists tend to exaggerate the influence of these foreigners to wrongly suggest that Africans couldn't achieve anything independently. In my opinion, instead of constantly trying to eliminate foreign influences, we should recognize that, in most cases, a civilization is established and flourishes through the dynamic of interactions and exchanges, as rightfully emphasized by renowned anthropologists like Claude Lévi-Strauss.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Antalas, You haven't seen white Mansa Musa yet?
I wasn't clear. The examples you listed are some of the less highlighted African civilizations I was alluding to before as "interior African Kingdoms." What I was trying to say is once any of these populations (except Zulu) become popular the scrutiny behind their popularity, contribution and their blackness will occur. When I said list one black civilization I meant outside of Africa.
I actually disagree with the Ethiopian/West African thing. It's not just about a west African playing an Ethiopian. It depends on who the Ethiopian is. For example I know it would be controversial in the public sphere to have a west African or Afram play Haile Selassie or other like prominent historical figures not of West Africa. For instance, Black people can play Australasian Aborigines no problem but once the roll becomes significant the perception becomes more controversial.
I agree with what you say about it being all Africans. But it's still easier to accept phenotypes of Kabylia than it is of Sous. And if going back in time correlates with darker complexions then it begins to create heart palpitations.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Keep in mind in this sources that what they meant as "white" may not be necessarily northern european or lighter skinned mediterranean people. No different than how "black" may not necessarily mean the wide range of tones/ancestry considered black in places like the USA today, but may mean the literal darkest shade of pigment, or even something else, depending on the source.
Re Askia:
The Central and West African part of the Atlantic Diaspora's heritage has never been in dispute by any credible source. So to play DA to your DA, the fact that there *are* Black Americans who have those ancestries(as well as ancestry from East Africa and the Horn *and North Africa*, as some Atlantic slaves did come from the East African coast or overlapped with the Indian Ocean slave trade routes. Some also were taken from the North though most left through the West African coast) should also be taken into account instead of pigeonholing them as only of West and Central African descent.
*this isn't also discounting those ancestries that predate the TAST, from early population movements and other events
This pigeonholing has been occuring around studies of the TAST in multiple areas
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like I mentioned, Songhay is in the same category as Mali. And no, the Ashanti kingdom while impressive is not "acclaimed" by non-Black academia. It's rarely studied.
Its not about minimizing foreign influence. I don't personally. No complex civilization developed in a vacuum. One of my favorite civilizations which is the Swahili city states had many types of foreign influences. The issue is that Africa is unique in that non-Black academia uses any type of foreign influence to dismiss the Africaness of those civilizations. And its hypocritical.
^^^this can't be emphasized enough. No other region is held to such a standard. Unless a "Black African" society is shown to have sprang out of nothing into a metropolis with no contact whatsoever then it is not consider indigenous or legitimate. But even if it were those same pundits would decry it as being disconnected from the rest of the world and backwards.
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: To all of you:
Keep in mind in this sources that what they meant as "white" may not be necessarily northern european or lighter skinned mediterranean people. No different than how "black" may not necessarily mean the wide range of tones/ancestry considered black in places like the USA today, but may mean the literal darkest shade of pigment, or even something else, depending on the source.
It was most likely in reference to Fulani groups and the Sanhaja. Africans especially back then had a very loose definition of "White." Heck even Haiti does especially in the rural areas.
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Re Askia:
The Central and West African part of the Atlantic Diaspora's heritage has never been in dispute by any credible source. So to play DA to your DA, the fact that there *are* Black Americans who have those ancestries(as well as ancestry from East Africa and the Horn *and North Africa*, as some Atlantic slaves did come from the East African coast or overlapped with the Indian Ocean slave trade routes. Some also were taken from the North though most left through the West African coast) should also be taken into account instead of pigeonholing them as only of West and Central African descent.
*this isn't also discounting those ancestries that predate the TAST, from early population movements and other events
This pigeonholing has been occuring around studies of the TAST in multiple areas [/QB]
Yes, I'm aware of that the Atlantic slave trade was also in East Africa especially Portuguese Mozambique. However, my question is how much(percentage wise) is this Nile-Valley/Maghrebi ancestry in Black Americans?
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Tuareg phenotypes varies a lot in my opinion. And when you mean "North African ancestry" don you mean indignous North African? Anyways, I'll let Elmaestro handle that argument if he feels like it. We have no proof that they were similar to Mediterranean Berbers as those type of Berbers were not saharan Berbers like the Sanhaja/Tuaregs. We have proof that Tukulur(Fulanis) and Sanhaja confederation had close proximity to Ghana.
Finally, I been to Africa many times(including Ethiopia), and I many Horners in Africa have told me that other Africans(Bantus & Nilotics) don't really consider them "Black." And I'm talking about dark skinned ass Oromos and Somalis. Fact is certain Africans have different views on racial categorization. "White" wasn't meant literally. Heck I'm part Haitian, and in Haiti the term "blan"(white) is sometimes even used to describe Black Americans. [/QB]
Both Fulanis and Sahelian berbers have substantial amount of Early european farmer + Iberomaurusian ancestry which in Africa peaks among NW Africans. This is not surprising, as Proto-Berbers expanded into the Sahara and reached the Sahel region quite early in history. However, your statement is a bit exaggerated since these Berbers ultimately originated from the North; they didn't suddenly emerge in the Sahel out of nowhere.
As for you analogy, it doesn't apply in this context because East Africa, unlike the western Sahel, didn't have any light-skinned ethnicity as far as I know. Moreover, the fact that they are not seen as "black" doesn't automatically mean they are seen as "white" either. The individuals you met probably acknowledge (unlike some members here, lol) that people from the Horn of Africa as a whole look too distinct/different. The Haitian term "blan" for Afro-Americans likely refers to their White American cultural background. On the other hand, in West Africa, there were indeed light-skinned North Africans who settled there (and by "light-skinned," I don't necessarily mean pasty white skin, of course).
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Askia: depends on the person, but likely not as much as the West and Central African ancestry(saving those who have a much more recent ancestor from thise regions or even a parent.) Mine is only a few percentage points for instance compared to W/C Africa. Antalas, still cannot tell me I am stealing "his" history or the history of the Nile, as last time I checked I didn't need to be 50% NA or above for my non WA/CA ancestors to count.
My point though is that the tendency to tell Afams to focus on their "Bantu ancestors" and leave the rest of Africa alone(which funny enough is not a restriction applied to others who feel free to comment with abandon on those same "Bantu ancestors") completely ignores the fact that AfAm ancestry can include populations that they supposedly have no business talking about.
I personally had to chuckle a bit reading a page or two ago when Archeoptrix mentioned posters talking about North Africa despite not having been there or having a connection there, but Antalas has repeatedly commented on Afams and the entire African continent south of the Sahara, because him being to a few countries has made him an expert on every single SSA ethnic group and the entire diaspora(and thus his definition of Black is scientific and objective compared to everyone else).
Nonsense.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly, for example "Bidane" in Islamic sources does not mean "White" in the modern sense as white Europeans and Middle Easterners were called "Red"...and in many instances due to Islamic/Arabic tribal custom of emphasis placed on paternal lineage many "Bidanes" could be a shade lighter than their "Sudani" slaves..
here are the Berbers who preserve the Andaluci scripts in Mauriania...probably descendants of the Almoravids
“They compare favorably with [those of] Maghribi societies of an earlier date.” Adds Muhammad Shahab Ahmed, a historian of Arab philosophy and a fellow at Harvard University, “The fact that the only existing copy of a work by Averroës has been preserved in Mauritania is a remarkable illustration of the southern migration of the scholarly corpus of al-Andalus and the Maghrib”—Muslim Spain and North Africa.
Mohameden Ould Ahmad Salem is a young self-taught calligrapher who recently published his university thesis on the history and development of Mauritanian scripts. “Many people think Mauritanian scripts are purely derivative of Maghribi styles,” he says, “but this is not so. At a very early period, [/b]we adopted Andalusi calligraphy, which in Morocco developed into Maghribi, but we went our own way with it.
[b]“Historians said that Andalusi script had long ago disappeared, but the more I looked at Mauritanian scripts, the more they looked like Andalusi. If you compare an Andalusi manuscript from the 12th century and a Mauritanian manuscript from the 19th century, they are so close in style that they could be by the same calligrapher.”
Also of note is they currently live in Chinguetti, the capital of the Sanhadja confederation.
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: To all of you:
Keep in mind in this sources that what they meant as "white" may not be necessarily northern european or lighter skinned mediterranean people. No different than how "black" may not necessarily mean the wide range of tones/ancestry considered black in places like the USA today, but may mean the literal darkest shade of pigment, or even something else, depending on the source.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Both Fulanis and Sahelian berbers have substantial amount of Early european farmer + Iberomaurusian ancestry which in Africa peaks among NW Africans. This is not surprising, as Proto-Berbers expanded into the Sahara and reached the Sahel region quite early in history. However, your statement is a bit exaggerated since these Berbers ultimately originated from the North; they didn't suddenly emerge in the Sahel out of nowhere.
Focusing on phenotype. The Fulanis and some Tuaregs(lets not ignore this as unlike Nile-Valley ancestry, Black Americans DO have some Tuareg ancestry) overlap with certain Black Americans phenotypically. I also read studies that Berbers originated near southwest Egypt and then split into two groups but that's another story. Fact is these two groups that were referred to as "White" were dark skinned(even described as such by non-Africans) but based off of West African loose definition of White, they were described as "White."
Edit: As for Iberomaurusian ancestry, I been hearing some interesting things about that. But that's a story for another time.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: As for you analogy, it doesn't apply in this context because East Africa, unlike the western Sahel, didn't have any light-skinned ethnicity as far as I know.
The Habesha groups can be extremely light skinned. Then we have northern Cushite groups like the Beja. Also didn't you literally make an Ethiopian thread highlighting some of the palest Ethiopians? Many Tuareg groups literally almost have the same pale yellow skin complexion as some Habeshas.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
Moreover, the fact that they are not seen as "black" doesn't automatically mean they are seen as "white" either.
My point is that Africans definition of racial terms are loose.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
The individuals you met probably acknowledge (unlike some members here, lol) that people from the Horn of Africa as a whole look too distinct/different.
But they were not referred to as BLACK which is the point I'm making.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
The Haitian term "blan" for Afro-Americans likely refers to their White American cultural background.
Black American cultural background is "creolized" not White. More importantly Haitians especially rural Haitians terming Black Americans "blan" has nothing to do with culture but phenotype.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
On the other hand, in West Africa, there were indeed light-skinned North Africans who settled there (and by "light-skinned," I don't necessarily mean pasty white skin, of course).
"Light skin" can mean anything. And we already have descriptions of Saharan Berbers like the Sanhaja. They were not light skinned like Atlas Mountain Berbers but phenotypically they were distinct from other West Africans like the Sonnike. And even with Fulanis North African admixture they still overlap with Black Americans and other Afro-Diasporans. However, the difference between them and West Africans like the Sonnike its no different than certain Great Lakes Africans especially those in Eastern Congo considering Congolese Tutsis a different race when both a Bantu groups.
Overall the term "white" used in Ghana was not literal and its a waste of time to argue semantics.
Edit:
Heck Igbos of Nigeria were called "Red" by other West Africans.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Askia: depends on the person, but likely not as much as the West and Central African ancestry(saving those who have a much more recent ancestor from thise regions or even a parent.) Mine is only a few percentage points for instance compared to W/C Africa. Antalas, still cannot tell me I am stealing "his" history or the history of the Nile, as last time I checked I didn't need to be 50% NA or above for my non WA/CA ancestors to count.
My point though is that the tendency to tell Afams to focus on their "Bantu ancestors" and leave the rest of Africa alone(which funny enough is not a restriction applied to others who feel free to comment with abandon on those same "Bantu ancestors") completely ignores the fact that AfAm ancestry can include populations that they supposedly have no business talking about.
I personally had to chuckle a bit reading a page or two ago when Archeoptrix mentioned posters talking about North Africa despite not having been there or having a connectiont here, but Antalas has repeatedly commented on Afams and the entire African continent south of the Sahara, because him being to a few countries has made him an expert on every single SSA ethnic group and the entire diaspora(and thus his definition of Black is scientific and objective compared to everyone else).
Nonsense.
I mean regardless of whether Black Americans or any Afro-Diasporan has Nile Valley ancestry or not, Egypt in its African context should still be defended. Data is data in my opinion. Regardless of Egypt's racial origins the civilization was African because it was in Africa and they had contact with other Africans. Their culture and language was African.
I have nothing to do with Swahili civilization yet I still defend it passionately and give coastal Kenyans and Tanzanians their props. But like I said data is data. So whether someone descends from a certain civilization or not is irrelevant. People should be able to topic whatever they want as long as they are respectful imo.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Antalas, You haven't seen white Mansa Musa yet?
I wasn't clear. The examples you listed are some of the less highlighted African civilizations I was alluding to before as "interior African Kingdoms." What I was trying to say is once any of these populations (except Zulu) become popular the scrutiny behind their popularity, contribution and their blackness will occur. When I said list one black civilization I meant outside of Africa.
I actually disagree with the Ethiopian/West African thing. It's not just about a west African playing an Ethiopian. It depends on who the Ethiopian is. For example I know it would be controversial in the public sphere to have a west African or Afram play Haile Selassie or other like prominent historical figures not of West Africa. For instance, Black people can play Australasian Aborigines no problem but once the roll becomes significant the perception becomes more controversial.
I agree with what you say about it being all Africans. But it's still easier to accept phenotypes of Kabylia than it is of Sous. And if going back in time correlates with darker complexions then it begins to create heart palpitations.
White Mansa Musa according to that clown of Robert Sepehr ? You can't generalize like this just because of one mentally ill troll.
Anyway I'm not denying that indeed when the relevance and popularity of certain African civilizations are recognized, many racists might feel uncomfortable and start questioning their blackness or attributing their achievements to foreign influences, but it would be equally wrong to completely disregard any foreign input, as some members here do in response to extreme eurocentric viewpoints. Furthermore, as you rightly pointed out, in many cases, it all boils down to appearance. That's why I disagree with your Haile Selassie example. If they were to cast a light-skinned, "mixed" looking Afro-American actor to portray him, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be as controversial as you believe it will.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Askia: depends on the person, but likely not as much as the West and Central African ancestry(saving those who have a much more recent ancestor from thise regions or even a parent.) Mine is only a few percentage points for instance compared to W/C Africa. Antalas, still cannot tell me I am stealing "his" history or the history of the Nile, as last time I checked I didn't need to be 50% NA or above for my non WA/CA ancestors to count.
My point though is that the tendency to tell Afams to focus on their "Bantu ancestors" and leave the rest of Africa alone(which funny enough is not a restriction applied to others who feel free to comment with abandon on those same "Bantu ancestors") completely ignores the fact that AfAm ancestry can include populations that they supposedly have no business talking about.
I personally had to chuckle a bit reading a page or two ago when Archeoptrix mentioned posters talking about North Africa despite not having been there or having a connectiont here, but Antalas has repeatedly commented on Afams and the entire African continent south of the Sahara, because him being to a few countries has made him an expert on every single SSA ethnic group and the entire diaspora(and thus his definition of Black is scientific and objective compared to everyone else).
Nonsense.
I mean regardless of whether Black Americans or any Afro-Diasporan has Nile Valley ancestry or not, Egypt in its African context should still be defended. Data is data in my opinion. Regardless of Egypt's racial origins the civilization was African because it was in Africa and they had contact with other Africans. Their culture and language was African.
I have nothing to do with Swahili civilization yet I still defend it passionately and give coastal Kenyans and Tanzanians their props. But like I said data is data. So whether someone descends from a certain civilization or not is irrelevant. People should be able to topic whatever they want as long as they are respectful imo.
No disagreement there.^
Just highlighting certain.. curiousities.... I see play out in these discussions.
Your last point goes directly to what I'm talking about, as non-Black people have no problem telling Black people what and who they should be studying or commenting on.
They'll live though.
EDIT: Really, if we are all honest, the sheer divisiveness and level of toxicity these topics reach is really not about the data, history, or terminology. It stems from peoples assumptions and beliefs about Black people(however they define them) and their worth/capabilities(usually the lack thereof) which they filter all of the information they encounter through.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Askia: depends on the person, but likely not as much as the West and Central African ancestry(saving those who have a much more recent ancestor from thise regions or even a parent.) Mine is only a few percentage points for instance compared to W/C Africa. Antalas, still cannot tell me I am stealing "his" history or the history of the Nile, as last time I checked I didn't need to be 50% NA or above for my non WA/CA ancestors to count.
My point though is that the tendency to tell Afams to focus on their "Bantu ancestors" and leave the rest of Africa alone(which funny enough is not a restriction applied to others who feel free to comment with abandon on those same "Bantu ancestors") completely ignores the fact that AfAm ancestry can include populations that they supposedly have no business talking about.
I personally had to chuckle a bit reading a page or two ago when Archeoptrix mentioned posters talking about North Africa despite not having been there or having a connection there, but Antalas has repeatedly commented on Afams and the entire African continent south of the Sahara, because him being to a few countries has made him an expert on every single SSA ethnic group and the entire diaspora(and thus his definition of Black is scientific and objective compared to everyone else).
Nonsense.
I have around 6-7% west african ancestry and around 11-13% ANA ancestry which is probably shared with many SSA ethnicites from what I understood. Does that imply I have the right to assert ownership over any West African civilization I choose? Can I confidently tell a West African that I am just as entitled as them to speak about their ancestors and their history? Does that mean I can begin fabricating theories about ancient West Africans actually being more closely related to North Africans, while suggesting that modern West Africans have acquired an additional African component from the south due to the Bantu expansion, along with recent French/Portuguese admixture due to colonialism ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
I'm going to make this simple enough to where even you can understand.
I don't care if you claim ownership over a ham sandwich and everything related to them.
You want to claim Ashanti/Mali/Zimbabwe/et al? Go right ahead.
You being from an area does not give you unquestionable authority nor the ability to only accept what sources fit your views as the truth and impose them on others.
I won't hesitate to call out a West African on history or ancestry when they're spewing nonsense. I literally had a Nigerian a few weeks ago saying African rulers never willingly participated in any slave trade and were forced by Europeans.
According to you I should accept what he says as fact and not dare to tell him different. After all, I'm just a slave descendant who has no culture or history, just steal it from others, right?
Nonsense.
And you can put forth any theories you want here. I ask of you and every other poster here to *support* what you are saying with something other than your opinion and be able to respond coherently when questioned with opposing information.
Anything else?
Edit:
quote:Can I confidently tell a West African that I am just as entitled as them to speak about their ancestors and their history?
You have not once hesitated in your entitlement to speak about the ancestors of Afro-Diasporans and their history.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Focusing on phenotype. The Fulanis and some Tuaregs(lets not ignore this as unlike Nile-Valley ancestry, Black Americans DO have some Tuareg ancestry) overlap with certain Black Americans phenotypically. I also read studies that Berbers originated near southwest Egypt and then split into two groups but that's another story. Fact is these two groups that were referred to as "White" were dark skinned(even described as such by non-Africans) but based off of West African loose definition of White, they were described as "White."
The Habesha groups can be extremely light skinned. Then we have northern Cushite groups like the Beja. Also didn't you literally make an Ethiopian thread highlighting some of the palest Ethiopians? Many Tuareg groups literally almost have the same pale yellow skin complexion as some Habeshas.
My point is that Africans definition of racial terms are loose.
But they were not referred to as BLACK which is the point I'm making.
Black American cultural background is "creolized" not White. More importantly Haitians especially rural Haitians terming Black Americans "blan" has nothing to do with culture but phenotype.
"Light skin" can mean anything. And we already have descriptions of Saharan Berbers like the Sanhaja. They were not light skinned like Atlas Mountain Berbers but phenotypically they were distinct from other West Africans like the Sonnike. And even with Fulanis North African admixture they still overlap with Black Americans and other Afro-Diasporans. However, the difference between them and West Africans like the Sonnike its no different than certain Great Lakes Africans especially those in Eastern Congo considering Congolese Tutsis a different race when both a Bantu groups.
Overall the term "white" used in Ghana was not literal and its a waste of time to argue semantics.
Edit:
Heck Igbos of Nigeria were called "Red" by other West Africans.
I have yet to encounter an Afro-American with direct Berber ancestry (not through Fulani ancestry), so even if some individuals may have it, they are certainly not representative of the entire Afro-American community. Berbers, on the other hand, likely have more West African ancestry than Afro-Americans have North African ancestry. The Tuaregs might share some phenotypic overlap with "Black Americans" because, as you've observed, the former are highly diverse due to varying levels of recent Sub-Saharan African input. It is puzzling to see some members here pretend that Berbers living in the Sahara or Sahel remained completely isolated from their black neighbors and never intermixed with them. I'm not denying that the term "white" in Ghanaian sources could refer to these mixed types, but there is also the possibility that it may describe more light-skinned North Africans, akin to many Berbers/Tuaregs in Mauritania, Mali or further north. I don't understand why you are adamant about disregarding this possibility, as these individuals still exist. I've even met last year one mauritanian berber that didn't look much different from us. I also find it rather ironic how the use of "white" in historical contexts is being questioned, yet when I raised similar concerns about the use of "black" in ancient writings, I was accused of being a vile anti-black racist.
The light-skinned Ethiopians I shared are clearly a very small minority and represent outliers. The Africans you encountered likely refer to Ethiopians as a whole, rather than singling out the few light-skinned individuals from Northern Ethiopia or Eritrea. As for Haitians, their European ancestry is significantly lower compared to the more diverse Afro-American population, which might explain perhaps why they are referred to as "blan" as they might appear physically and culturally too different.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Antalas Nowhere have I denied foreign input. If I mention foreign input ever, it is to contextualize it. I don't have to deny North African and EEF ancestry in the Fulani for example. I've been the guy people yelled at for attributing some African Ancestry to EEF or Mesolithic European ancestry in the past. But that's not what we're talking about. The fulani and their direct ancestors were likely identifiable as dark skinned and they were Africans.
@Punos and Askia Isn't it funny how some Polynesians, Moroccans and Egyptians in Western countries can claim that they're black. And they're allowed to do so comfortably so long as they pas a certain looks threshold regardless of their ancestry. But on the flipside it's a crime to suggest a subject is black because of their ancestry. Think of the dissonance. Nipsey Hustle is universally considered an African American. Yet there's debates on whether or not an Ancient African sample of any time period with Ancestral alleles for pigmentation can be considered black because they were not bantu or from West Africa.
What I'm trying to say is that these conversations will always erupt into a pointless back and forth because we overlook the importance of what we truly tend to be debating; lookership. It's a retroactive envisioning of ancient people in ancient contexts and the underexposure of darker people in modern contexts.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Focusing on phenotype. The Fulanis and some Tuaregs(lets not ignore this as unlike Nile-Valley ancestry, Black Americans DO have some Tuareg ancestry) overlap with certain Black Americans phenotypically. I also read studies that Berbers originated near southwest Egypt and then split into two groups but that's another story. Fact is these two groups that were referred to as "White" were dark skinned(even described as such by non-Africans) but based off of West African loose definition of White, they were described as "White."
The Habesha groups can be extremely light skinned. Then we have northern Cushite groups like the Beja. Also didn't you literally make an Ethiopian thread highlighting some of the palest Ethiopians? Many Tuareg groups literally almost have the same pale yellow skin complexion as some Habeshas.
My point is that Africans definition of racial terms are loose.
But they were not referred to as BLACK which is the point I'm making.
Black American cultural background is "creolized" not White. More importantly Haitians especially rural Haitians terming Black Americans "blan" has nothing to do with culture but phenotype.
"Light skin" can mean anything. And we already have descriptions of Saharan Berbers like the Sanhaja. They were not light skinned like Atlas Mountain Berbers but phenotypically they were distinct from other West Africans like the Sonnike. And even with Fulanis North African admixture they still overlap with Black Americans and other Afro-Diasporans. However, the difference between them and West Africans like the Sonnike its no different than certain Great Lakes Africans especially those in Eastern Congo considering Congolese Tutsis a different race when both a Bantu groups.
Overall the term "white" used in Ghana was not literal and its a waste of time to argue semantics.
Edit:
Heck Igbos of Nigeria were called "Red" by other West Africans.
I have yet to encounter an Afro-American with direct Berber ancestry (not through Fulani ancestry), so even if some individuals may have it, they are certainly not representative of the entire Afro-American community. Berbers, on the other hand, likely have more West African ancestry than Afro-Americans have North African ancestry. The Tuaregs might share some phenotypic overlap with "Black Americans" because, as you've observed, the former are highly diverse due to varying levels of recent Sub-Saharan African input. It is puzzling to see some members here pretend that Berbers living in the Sahara or Sahel remained completely isolated from their black neighbors and never intermixed with them. I'm not denying that the term "white" in Ghanaian sources could refer to these mixed types, but there is also the possibility that it may describe more light-skinned North Africans, akin to many Berbers/Tuaregs in Mauritania, Mali or further north. I don't understand why you are adamant about disregarding this possibility, as these individuals still exist. I've even met last year one mauritanian berber that didn't look much different from us. I also find it rather ironic how the use of "white" in historical contexts is being questioned, yet when I raised similar concerns about the use of "black" in ancient writings, I was accused of being a vile anti-black racist.
The light-skinned Ethiopians I shared are clearly a very small minority and represent outliers. The Africans you encountered likely refer to Ethiopians as a whole, rather than singling out the few light-skinned individuals from Northern Ethiopia or Eritrea. As for Haitians, their European ancestry is significantly lower compared to the more diverse Afro-American population, which might explain perhaps why they are referred to as "blan."
What you fail to see is that you as an African can claim West African Identity and no one would care, you might even be embraced... so long as you don't retroactively make them Mediterranean white or Arab.😂
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Focusing on phenotype. The Fulanis and some Tuaregs(lets not ignore this as unlike Nile-Valley ancestry, Black Americans DO have some Tuareg ancestry) overlap with certain Black Americans phenotypically. I also read studies that Berbers originated near southwest Egypt and then split into two groups but that's another story. Fact is these two groups that were referred to as "White" were dark skinned(even described as such by non-Africans) but based off of West African loose definition of White, they were described as "White."
The Habesha groups can be extremely light skinned. Then we have northern Cushite groups like the Beja. Also didn't you literally make an Ethiopian thread highlighting some of the palest Ethiopians? Many Tuareg groups literally almost have the same pale yellow skin complexion as some Habeshas.
My point is that Africans definition of racial terms are loose.
But they were not referred to as BLACK which is the point I'm making.
Black American cultural background is "creolized" not White. More importantly Haitians especially rural Haitians terming Black Americans "blan" has nothing to do with culture but phenotype.
"Light skin" can mean anything. And we already have descriptions of Saharan Berbers like the Sanhaja. They were not light skinned like Atlas Mountain Berbers but phenotypically they were distinct from other West Africans like the Sonnike. And even with Fulanis North African admixture they still overlap with Black Americans and other Afro-Diasporans. However, the difference between them and West Africans like the Sonnike its no different than certain Great Lakes Africans especially those in Eastern Congo considering Congolese Tutsis a different race when both a Bantu groups.
Overall the term "white" used in Ghana was not literal and its a waste of time to argue semantics.
Edit:
Heck Igbos of Nigeria were called "Red" by other West Africans.
I have yet to encounter an Afro-American with direct Berber ancestry (not through Fulani ancestry), so even if some individuals may have it, they are certainly not representative of the entire Afro-American community. Berbers, on the other hand, likely have more West African ancestry than Afro-Americans have North African ancestry. The Tuaregs might share some phenotypic overlap with "Black Americans" because, as you've observed, the former are highly diverse due to varying levels of recent Sub-Saharan African input. It is puzzling to see some members here pretend that Berbers living in the Sahara or Sahel remained completely isolated from their black neighbors and never intermixed with them. I'm not denying that the term "white" in Ghanaian sources could refer to these mixed types, but there is also the possibility that it may describe more light-skinned North Africans, akin to many Berbers/Tuaregs in Mauritania, Mali or further north. I don't understand why you are adamant about disregarding this possibility, as these individuals still exist. I've even met last year one mauritanian berber that didn't look much different from us. I also find it rather ironic how the use of "white" in historical contexts is being questioned, yet when I raised similar concerns about the use of "black" in ancient writings, I was accused of being a vile anti-black racist.
The light-skinned Ethiopians I shared are clearly a very small minority and represent outliers. The Africans you encountered likely refer to Ethiopians as a whole, rather than singling out the few light-skinned individuals from Northern Ethiopia or Eritrea. As for Haitians, their European ancestry is significantly lower compared to the more diverse Afro-American population, which might explain perhaps why they are referred to as "blan" as they might appear physically and culturally too different.
That's a funny memory you have as I literally expressed the same concerns about "Black" months ago(and on other occasions with other posters as anyone here can tell you) when I asked you repeatedly to write out a concrete definition of characteristics that define a Black person to you.
You responded with pictures.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: [QB] Antalas:
I'm going to make this simple enough to where even you can understand.
I don't care if you claim ownership over a ham sandwich and everything related to them.
You want to claim Ashanti/Mali/Zimbabwe/et al? Go right ahead.
You being from an area does not give you unquestionable authority nor the ability to only accept what sources fit your views as the truth and impose them on others.
I won't hesitate to call out a West African on history or ancestry when they're spewing nonsense. I literally had a Nigerian a few weeks ago saying African rulers never willingly participated in any slave trade and were forced by Europeans.
According to you I should accept what he says as fact and not dare to tell him different. After all, I'm just a slave descendant who has no culture or history, just steal it from others, right?
Nonsense.
And you can put forth any theories you want here. I ask of you and every other poster here to *support* what you are saying with something other than your opinion and be able to respond coherently when questioned with opposing information.
Anything else?
Edit:
quote:Can I confidently tell a West African that I am just as entitled as them to speak about their ancestors and their history?
You have not once hesitated in your entitlement to speak about the ancestors of Afro-Diasporans and their history.
Well If you examine my posting history, you'll notice that in most cases, I provide proper academic data to support my arguments. On the contrary, other members often resort to ad hominems and label me as racist, suggesting that all the data I present should be disregarded. In fact, I may be one of the few North Africans in the history/anthropology community who acknowledges the presence of dark-skinned SSA-like populations in the Sahara, the existence of a significant aboriginal African component in both modern and ancient Egyptian societies, and the presence of free "black" traders, soldiers, etc, in various ancient Mediterranean societies. The reason for this is simple: I base my claims on the data I have read and researched thoroughly.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
@Punos and Askia Isn't it funny how some Polynesians, Moroccans and Egyptians in Western countries can claim that they're black. And they're allowed to do so comfortably so long as they pas a certain looks threshold regardless of their ancestry. But on the flipside it's a crime to suggest a subject is black because of their ancestry. Think of the dissonance. Nipsey Hustle is universally considered an African American. Yet there's debates on whether or not an Ancient African sample of any time period with Ancestral alleles for pigmentation can be considered black because they were not bantu or from West Africa.
What I'm trying to say is that these conversations will always erupt into a pointless back and forth because we overlook the importance of what we truly tend to be debating; lookership. It's a retroactive envisioning of ancient people in ancient contexts and the underexposure of darker people in modern contexts.
That's not how I perceive it. Let's do it in the reverse direction : In this scenario, a modern Lebanese individual delves into the history of Kenya and Rwanda and notices that Tutsis have a significant amount of Neolithic Levantine-like ancestry, likely stemming from ancient pastoralist expansions in the region. He also highlights the relatively "Caucasoid" characteristics of Tutsi skulls in comparison to the "invading" Hutu group. Taking this observation as an opportunity, the Lebanese person begins boasting about a "Semite civilization" that now encompasses Rwanda and its people. They assert that ancient Rwandese were actually lighter and more akin to them, and claim that the Bantu expansion darkened the local population and brought new invaders.
However, Antalas steps in and provides solid evidence in the form of genetics, anthropology, and historical data, demonstrating that the Lebanese individual's propositions are delusional. Antalas explains that the Rwandese people are morphologically and genetically distinct, making it inappropriate to simply label them as "Semites." Unfortunately, the Lebanese person is unwilling to accept this evidence and responds by resorting to personal attacks. he labels Antalas as an anti-Semite racist.
So there are no double standards in this case. Referring to them as "black" simply because the diversity within Sub-Saharan Africa extends beyond the category of "Bantus" alone is deeply misleading.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Well If you examine my posting history, you'll notice that in most cases, I provide proper academic data to support my arguments. On the contrary, other members often resort to ad hominems and label me as racist, suggesting that all the data I present should be disregarded. In fact, I may be one of the few North Africans in the history/anthropology community who acknowledges the presence of dark-skinned SSA-like populations in the Sahara, the existence of a significant aboriginal African component in both modern and ancient Egyptian societies, and the presence of free "black" traders, soldiers, etc, in various ancient Mediterranean societies. The reason for this is simple: I base my claims on the data I have read and researched thoroughly.
Hence you are still here able to post despite my obvious and numerous disagreements with some of your posts. Now, if you have any other concerns about my adminship or potential bias, you can take them up with me in a direct message.
Back on topic.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: What you fail to see is that you as an African can claim West African Identity and no one would care, you might even be embraced... so long as you don't retroactively make them Mediterranean white or Arab.😂
The exact same thing can be said for West Africans and berber identity. Unfortunately, I've noticed that they sometimes struggle to accept the idea that some Africans may not resemble them physically. When they explore Berber history and culture, they tend to focus on what appears more familiar to them, like black Tuaregs or any shared cultural elements with Sub-Saharan Africa, while disregarding other aspects. However, I won't fault them for this tendency, as it's instinctive for us to seek in others what reminds us of ourselves. I've seen some Europeans behaving the same with berbers.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
@Punos and Askia Isn't it funny how some Polynesians, Moroccans and Egyptians in Western countries can claim that they're black. And they're allowed to do so comfortably so long as they pas a certain looks threshold regardless of their ancestry. But on the flipside it's a crime to suggest a subject is black because of their ancestry. Think of the dissonance. Nipsey Hustle is universally considered an African American. Yet there's debates on whether or not an Ancient African sample of any time period with Ancestral alleles for pigmentation can be considered black because they were not bantu or from West Africa.
What I'm trying to say is that these conversations will always erupt into a pointless back and forth because we overlook the importance of what we truly tend to be debating; lookership. It's a retroactive envisioning of ancient people in ancient contexts and the underexposure of darker people in modern contexts.
That's not how I perceive it. Let's do it in the reverse direction : In this scenario, a modern Lebanese individual delves into the history of Kenya and Rwanda and notices that Tutsis have a significant amount of Neolithic Levantine-like ancestry, likely stemming from ancient pastoralist expansions in the region. He also highlights the relatively "Caucasoid" characteristics of Tutsi skulls in comparison to the "invading" Hutu group. Taking this observation as an opportunity, the Lebanese person begins boasting about a "Semite civilization" that now encompasses Rwanda and its people. They assert that ancient Rwandese were actually lighter and more akin to them, and claim that the Bantu expansion darkened the local population and brought new invaders.
However, Antalas steps in and provides solid evidence in the form of genetics, anthropology, and historical data, demonstrating that the Lebanese individual's propositions are delusional. Antalas explains that the Rwandese people are morphologically and genetically distinct, making it inappropriate to simply label them as "Semites." Unfortunately, the Lebanese person is unwilling to accept this evidence and responds by resorting to personal attacks. he labels Antalas as an anti-Semite racist.
So there are no double standards in this case. Referring to them as "black" simply because the diversity within Sub-Saharan Africa extends beyond the category of "Bantus" alone is deeply misleading.
Your example is a false equivalency. There's no cultural attribution to labeling a population as black. And though your example seems extreme, it does happen, and reason why it happens is due to the attribution of black to the population in question. See the Axum thread. And please stop claiming people are accusing racism. I don't think I've ever claimed anyone was racist online. You perceive it the way you do because of ego investment. You look Arab, you want your ancestors and other important people to look like you. You cant fit in with so called "blacks." So you're triggered when you even get a whiff of the term being used in some contexts. I just told you two posts ago that you're free to claim west African, why do you refuse to see that the conversation is strictly referring to looks.
My observation is that overall the disconnect between arguing parties is the lookership. Cultural and genetics links are very cut, clear and communicatable from and to me. But I'm afraid no matter how simple the concept is, so long as an element of lookership is implied there will always be pushback from you. (and others to be fair) Which is why all of these thread end up being about the same thing whether or not kinship or inferred.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Your example is a false equivalency. There's no cultural attribution to labeling a population as black.
There wasn't any cultural attribution to the labeling I used even though I admit "Semite" might not be the most appropriate term for this.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: And though your example seems extreme, it does happen, and reason why it happens is due to the attribution of black to the population in question. See the Axum thread. And please stop claiming people are accusing racism. I don't think I've ever claimed anyone was racist online. You perceive it the way you do because of ego investment. You look Arab, you want your ancestors and other important people to look like you. You cant fit in with so called "blacks." So you're triggered when you even get a whiff of the term being used in some contexts. I just told you two posts ago that you're free to claim west African, why do you refuse to see that the conversation is strictly referring to looks.
While I acknowledge that there might be some truth in what you wrote, my primary trigger stems from the appropriation of my ancestors and identity by individuals driven by their political or ideological agendas. Engaging in discussions with such people often becomes challenging as they attempt to insert themselves where they don't belong and it further contributes to the spread of misinformation about my people.
Thus, I believe my reaction is perfectly natural and universal, and yet you seem to suggest that I am mistaken in feeling this way. Any respectful and sane West African individual would not tolerate "whites" questioning the "blackness" of their ancestors, appropriating their culture, asserting that modern West Africans descend primarly from Bantu invaders, or allowing them to further their political agenda fueled by their superiority complex. So it's clearly not simply a question of looks.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: My observation is that overall the disconnect between arguing parties is the lookership. Cultural and genetics links are very cut, clear and communicatable from and to me. But I'm afraid no matter how simple the concept is, so long as an element of lookership is implied there will always be pushback from you. (and others to be fair) Which is why all of these thread end up being about the same thing whether or not kinship or inferred.
Well if it was only a question of lookership in my case why do I acknowledge the shared similarities between dark-skinned North-East Africans and Egyptians? Aren't those same North-East Africans considered "black" in the West?
It's because I base my acknowledgment on genetics data, which clearly shows differences between Egyptians and Afro-Americans, as supported by anthropological papers. Culturally, I don't observe any evident link between ancient Egypt and ancient West Africa. Yet, I notice Afro-Americans boasting about "black" achievements by bringing Egyptians into the discussion. Let's be honest, maestro, this seems to be a way for the AA community to boost their self-esteem, as Ancient Egypt is highly regarded by Whites.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have yet to encounter an Afro-American with direct Berber ancestry (not through Fulani ancestry), so even if some individuals may have it, they are certainly not representative of the entire Afro-American community.
This is a weird statement. For that I would have to ask for every Black American to provide me with their DNA results. But fact of the matter is there are Black American individuals like Morgan Freeman who do have Tuareg ancestry. Its real. its not hotep babble. There are records that show Tuaregs were in fact taken into slavery. Of course not large amounts like other West Africans but its a reality. Heck in fact if you want to go deeper the foundation of ADOS culture is West African Sahelian culture which is why its distinct from other Afro-Diasporan cultures. This is real and a reality.
quote: Berbers, on the other hand, likely have more West African ancestry than Afro-Americans have North African ancestry.
What does this even prove?
quote: The Tuaregs might share some phenotypic overlap with "Black Americans" because, as you've observed, the former are highly diverse due to varying levels of recent Sub-Saharan African input.
Tuaregs in Mali are probably the most "pure" Tuaregs considering their high frequencies of E-M81 compared to Niger Tuaregs. And how "recent" are we talking because the Sanhaja who are argued to be the predecessors of Tuaregs were described as darker skinned by non-Africans. Either way I have read convincing studies that show Tuaregs kinship with Bejas. Which could explain their features.
quote:It is puzzling to see some members here pretend that Berbers living in the Sahara or Sahel remained completely isolated from their black neighbors and never intermixed with them.
You're acting like Berber culture and phenotypes are homogenous. Who said Sahara/Sahelian Berbers were isolated? Fact is they are/were darker on average than the average coastal Berber. And for context I am NOT arguing "purity" when I bring up the more dark skinned Sanhaja.
quote: I'm not denying that the term "white" in Ghanaian sources could refer to these mixed types, but there is also the possibility that it may describe more light-skinned North Africans, akin to many Berbers/Tuaregs in Mauritania, Mali or further north.
Again, what is light skinned? Because the Mauritanians Jari posted to me aren't light skinned the same way coastal Berbers are. I don't like to picture spam but this is how Tuaregs from Mali look from what I constantly see:
They are on average darker than coastal Maghrebis. This is NOT controversial...
quote: I don't understand why you are adamant about disregarding this possibility, as these individuals still exist. I've even met last year one mauritanian berber that didn't look much different from us. I also find it rather ironic how the use of "white" in historical contexts is being questioned, yet when I raised similar concerns about the use of "black" in ancient writings, I was accused of being a vile anti-black racist.
My whole point is we already KNOW who "white" was referred to by the Sonnike of Ghana. I.e the Fula and Sanhaja of Tukulur.
quote: The light-skinned Ethiopians I shared are clearly a very small minority and represent outliers. The Africans you encountered likely refer to Ethiopians as a whole, rather than singling out the few light-skinned individuals from Northern Ethiopia or Eritrea. As for Haitians, their European ancestry is significantly lower compared to the more diverse Afro-American population, which might explain perhaps why they are referred to as "blan" as they might appear physically and culturally too different.
Which is my point with the bolded. And I for one am certainly not accusing anyone of being racist.
@Elmaestro
The Nipsey Hussle example is a good one.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: This is a weird statement. For that I would have to ask for every Black American to provide me with their DNA results. But fact of the matter is there are Black American individuals like Morgan Freeman who do have Tuareg ancestry. Its real. its not hotep babble. There are records that show Tuaregs were in fact taken into slavery. Of course not large amounts like other West Africans but its a reality. Heck in fact if you want to go deeper the foundation of ADOS culture is West African Sahelian culture which is why its distinct from other Afro-Diasporan cultures. This is real and a reality.
How could they have determined that it was specifically "Tuareg"? You simply can't, so in this instance, it might have been based on an old outdated commercial test. Therefore, it's essential not to put too much credit on it. However, I do acknowledge that some AA individuals might have a small percentage of berber DNA, but it's not prevalent, and I'm unsure what's your point with it.
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Tuaregs in Mali are probably the most "pure" Tuaregs considering their high frequencies of E-M81 compared to Niger Tuaregs. And how "recent" are we talking because the Sanhaja who are argued to be the predecessors of Tuaregs were described as darker skinned by non-Africans. Either way I have read convincing studies that show Tuaregs kinship with Bejas. Which could explain their features.
Evaluating their admixture primarily based on the paternal side would be inaccurate since the majority of it is likely to have originated from the maternal side.
This is not surprising as it is historically well attested :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: You're acting like Berber culture and phenotypes are homogenous. Who said Sahara/Sahelian Berbers were isolated? Fact is they are/were darker on average than the average coastal Berber. And for context I am NOT arguing "purity" when I bring up the more dark skinned Sanhaja.
Who claimed they were homogeneous? I'm merely stating that the Tuareg people exhibit a diverse range of skin colors, indicating that not all individuals have the same complexion – this fact is evident. Therefore, we cannot definitively interpret what the term "white" precisely refers to in those sources. It would likely fall within the variation seen among Saharan/Sahelian Berbers, but that's the only conclusion we can draw from the available information.
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Again, what is light skinned? Because the Mauritanians Jari posted to me aren't light skinned the same way coastal Berbers are. I don't like to picture spam but this is how Tuaregs from Mali look from what I constantly see:
They are on average darker than coastal Maghrebis. This is NOT controversial...
Yes you're right but what do we do with these kinds of tuaregs ? :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: My whole point is we already KNOW who "white" was referred to by the Sonnike of Ghana. I.e the Fula and Sanhaja of Tukulur.
Do you have a source for this ? Also the problem being that you wouldn't know how light those sanhaja were.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I want to try to elucidate the fact that this actually has little to do with Kinship or assessed kinship by whoever. I want to pay attention to how quickly a conversation devolves into "were they black or not." The topics are almost purposefully ambiguous in that regard because people are more comfortable arguing subjectivity. I've come to realize that it might've never really ever been about kinship from either side. It's about perception and resemblance. The uncomfortable fact about all of these civilizations that a minority of Afrocentrics or "Native American blacks" claim (wrongfully so) is that they claim these civilizations because of lookership. The argument was always truly about the lookership to begin with. Not kinship but appearance.
Race was always about phenotype more than it was genetics or kinship. That's why you see all these armchair anthropologists use genetic research to prove such and such population belonged to a certain race. They think that, if a given population plots next to certain others on a PCA chart, then that given population must necessarily belong to the same race and therefore look the same as whomever they plot next to. They only care about genetics insofar as they think they can infer race or phenotype from it.
posted
I guess it is time to remind people that Berber languages originated in the Eastern Sahara among black skinned Africans. Berber language and culture did not start on the coasts of North Africa and therefore light skinned Berbers don't own it and didn't originate it. Just like Tifinagh script originated in the Libyan Sahara, not Mali or Niger, because the ancient Berber speakers extended from the Nile to West Africa in the Sahara and Sahel. So this idea that Berber culture originated with light skinned coastal populations is false as much of that culture was associated with the entire Sahara and parts of the Sahel not simply the coasts. And because of that you got many different historic populations of Berber speakers spread across Thousands of Miles in North Africa, not simply just those along the coasts.
quote: The archaeology of the Sahara in both historical and modern times remains, for the most part, inadequately investigated and poorly understood. However, the Fazzan in southwest Libya stands as a remarkable exception. In the last two decades, the University of Leicester1 and the Sapienza University of Rome2 have undertaken various research programmes that focus on the impressive evidence left by the Garamantian kingdom (c. 1000 BC-AD 700). These studies have provided groundbreaking data on the history of the Fazzan (Fig. 1.1), an area which was the centre of a veritable network of trans-Saharan connections that developed in Garamantian times and continued to modern times, later giving birth to the Tuareg societies.3
Farmers, caravaneers and herders in this area all participated and intercepted in a variety of socio-economical exchanges that developed from the first millennium BC to the present day. In spite of its arid climate, the central Sahara has, in the last 3,000 years, seen some extremely successful human adaptations to limited resources. An intangible heritage of indigenous knowledge allowed complex societies to flourish in the largest desert in the world. That heritage has left a legacy of tangible evidence in the form of remains, such as forts, monuments, burials, and settlements, all of which have been the focus of recent archaeological studies. This paper deals with the less investigated element of the archaeological and historical landscape of the region: the Tifinagh inscriptions carved and painted on the boulders, caves and rock shelters of the Tadrart Acacus valleys.
posted
Robert Sephir is indeed a clown, out of curiousity I watched his recent video on Prophet Muhammad, I only lasted a few minutes...he claims Arabs are Caucasian(Ok whatever) but shows pictures of Turkish Sultans and White skinned Andalucians depicted in the book of Games...like he does realize those people he showed were not even Arab and worse they were pale white skinned because of how prized and favored white slave girls were in the Middle Ages.
Like the Abd Al Rahman III was pale and ginger with blue eyes but he died his hair to look more "Arab"..he was maternally descended from white slave women.
Dude is literally celebrating the results of the enslaving of his people...smh.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ive always maintained that the Saharan culture and even the Sahelian culture to a certain extent was the result of the collaboration between Berbers and so called SSAs. Its evident in Their architecture, dress etc. No one seriously minded and unbiased will say the Sahran and Sahelian berbers remained isololated and did not mix with SSAs. If anything Sahelian and esp. Saharan culture should be understood as a product of different African peoples working together to survive harsh climates..
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saharan and Sahelian culture predates the origin of Berber languages and did not start with it. Africans have been moving across the Sahara for hundreds of thousands of years. And 10,000 years ago the Sahara was wet. Not to mention populations crossing the Sahara from the East introduced Berber language and culture to the coasts. And you got cultures like the Fulani and Hausa that still transit across the Sahara from Sudan to Nigeria, in addition to the Tuaregs and other groups.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic