quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: King tried to bring up the bible earlier. He doesn't even know the original language the Old or New Testament was written in.
Lioness don't think you can answer for me.
Hebrew, Aramaic ,and Greek
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
In this video Dr Umar Johnson challenges the African American Pretendians, people who pretend (or maybe even believe) that they are the true Native Americans. The difference is that an Asian Indian can possibly benefit from pretending he is an African American (like in the OP), while the Pretendians probably can not benefit much from pretending being Native. The risk is big that they just worsen their situation.
quote: ... when your kids go to the black history program tell them to stand up and tell all their white classmates and white teachers "I'm not from Africa I was already here I am a Native American" and then the white folks are going to say "which reservation are you associated with" and you're going to say North Philly, South Central, Baltimore, DC, Atlanta [laughter] Lord have mercy, hello and happy I can't take it brother
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: That Indian guy ought to answer your questions why he did it. Maybe he just use a system who premiered African Americans before his people when it came to studies.
At least most Indians do not try to force their racial perceptions on other people, like some Americans like to do.
OK, but did African Americans create the system of racial segregation and discrimination in America? Because according to this idiot, it is all African Americans fault that he couldn't get into University, when the fact is if African Americans hadn't fought for civil rights, people like him wouldn't be able to come here in the first place. The point is they are attacking black people as the problem while denying and downplaying the racist history of this country. It is anti black propaganda no more and no less. Because there was no "fight to get into college with lower test scores" during the Civil Rights movement. It was a fight for basic human rights in all aspects of society, politics, economics and education. So to sit here and claim that black people just wanted something for nothing is attacking black people and treating them as the problem.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The cup is brown, depending on context, brown may not be used to describe literal complexion.
These are excerpt from Al-Jahiz and the various threads it spawned.
The Zanj say: The Prophet (p.b.u.h.) said: I was send to the red and the black. And everybody knows that the Zanj, Abyssinians and Nubians or surely not white or red but definitely black. We know that Allah, the Most Powerful and Exalted, sent His Prophet (to the people), all of them: Arabs and non-Arabs (ajam) alike. And if he (Muhammad) said: I was sent to the ruddy (Al-ahmar) and the dark-skinned (al-aswad), then in his view we are neither ruddy nor light-skinned (bid); so he was sent to us. Indeed, his use of the dark-skinned refers to us, as the people (of our community) are in one of these categories (i.e. either ruddy or dark-skinned).Therefore, if the Arabs are ruddy, then they belong to the Byzantines (Rum), Slaves (Saqaliba), Persians and Khurasanis. But if they belong to the dark-skinned peoples, then they are a sub-category of our stock. So they are called medium-complexioned and brownish-black (sumr sud) when they are classified with us, as the Arabs use the masculine gender to refer to a group consisting of females and males and if the Prophet – may Allah be pleased with him – knew that the Zanj, Ethiopians and Nubians were not ruddy or light-skinned, rather dark-skinned, and that Allah Most High sent him to the dark-skinned and the ruddy, then surely he made us and the Arabs equals. Hence, we are the only dark-skinned people. If the appellation dark-skinned applies to us, then we are the pure Sudan, and the Arabs only resemble us. Therefore we are the first people to whom he was missioned. Thus the appellation of the Arabs is predicated on ours, since we alone are designated dark-skinned, and they are not so designated unless they are part of us.
The Zanj say: Black delights the eye. When the eyes hurt a common prescription is sitting in the dark with a rag over the eyes. Good eyesight is the most precious thing for a person.
b]They say:The blacks are more numerous than the whites. The whites at most consist of the people of Persia, Jibal, and Khurasan, the Greeks, Slavs, Franks, and Avars, and some few others, not very numerous; the blacks include the Zanj, Ethiopians, the people of Fazzan, the Berbers, the Copts, and Nubians, the people of Zaghawa, Marw, Sind and India, Qamar and Dabila, China, and Masin, the islands in the seas between China and Africa are full of blacks, such as Ceylon, Kalah, Amal, Zabij, and their islands, as far as India, China, Kabul, and those shores.
b]They say; Al-Ishtiyan the blind man used to say; There are more blacks than whites, more rocks than mud, more sand than soil, more saltwater than sweet water.
They say; The Arabs belong with us and not with the whites, because their color is nearer to ours.
The Indians are more bronzed than the Arabs, and they belong to the blacks. For the Prophet, God bless and save him, said; I was sent to the red and the black, and everyone knows that the Arabs are not red, as we already have stated above. He said; This advantage belongs to us and to the Arabs, as against the whites, if the Arabs want it. If they do not want it, then the advantage is ours alone against all the rest.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Humans come in a lot of shapes and colors. To try to reduce the human phenotypic diversity to just Black and White is just simple minded.
Oddly enough this images contradicts your point about Indians and Africans being different looking as if you look closely, the girl second from the right is of Indian descent and in between two girls of African descent. Showing that black skin and features in India are similar to those in Africa, making it quite easy for some Indians to pass as being of African descent. But somehow you just cant understand that.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have seen both Africans and Indians and I can see the differences, mostly their features are not similar. Skin tone can be similar though. I have also seen and met Africans from Gambia, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Egypt, Cap Verde, South Africa, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Morocco and other countries too, and they did not look the same either. Have you ever seen Africans or Indians in real life? Have you ever been outside USA, or do you just look at internet?
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Humans come in a lot of shapes and colors. To try to reduce the human phenotypic diversity to just Black and White is just simple minded.
Oddly enough this images contradicts your point about Indians and Africans being different looking as if you look closely, the girl second from the right is of Indian descent and in between two girls of African descent. Showing that black skin and features in India are similar to those in Africa, making it quite easy for some Indians to pass as being of African descent. But somehow you just cant understand that.
The indian girl and the girl to th right has not really the same features.
Btw which color has the fourth girl from the right? Or the fifth one? Are they black, or something else?
Where do you draw the line?
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: The indian girl and the girl to th right has not really the same features.
Btw which color has the fourth girl from the right? Or the fifth one? Are they black, or something else?
Where do you draw the line?
The point is the skin tone of the girl of Indian descent is placed among people of African descent. There is nothing complex about this. You are trying hard to make it seem like you don't understand the point that some people from India could easily pass as African Americans with no issue. I am not saying all of them or even most of them, but India is very diverse just like Africa is diverse and among different groups of Indians and Africans there is an overlap in features in addition to skin tone. Obviously if this Indian gentlement who "passed as black" had such different features, he wouldn't have been able to get away with it, because it is a case of fraud. So either his features are close enough to allow him to pass as African American or those University administrators who didn't catch him were in on it. OR even more importantly to go against your point, the whites who allowed him to get away with this fraud only cared about skin color and nothing else, which literally what "black" indicates in general. Somehow all of this gets ignored by you along with all of the people on campus that knew him and either knew he was a fraud or didn't know and didn't see him as not being African American. None of this has anything to do with black people BTW, because this isn't an issue of African Americans trying to pass as Indian to get something they couldn't get otherwise. But again, the point here is you keep trying hard to make it seem like this is a black issue when it isn't.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The point is the skin tone of the girl of Indian descent is placed among people of African descent.
Well then I am among Japanese and Chinese people since I have the skin tone of some of them. Still most people do not lump us together.
quote:There is nothing complex about this. You are trying hard to make it seem like you don't understand the point that some people from India could easily pass as African Americans with no issue.
That is besides the point, there are Asian people who could be taken for Europeans too. A common skin tone does not say people are related, culturally and genetically. Seems like you promoting some kind of skin tone mysticism.
quote:I am not saying all of them or even most of them, but India is very diverse just like Africa is diverse and among different groups of Indians and Africans there is an overlap in features in addition to skin tone. Obviously if this Indian gentlement who "passed as black" had such different features, he wouldn't have been able to get away with it, because it is a case of fraud. So either his features are close enough to allow him to pass as African American or those University administrators who didn't catch him were in on it. OR even more importantly to go against your point, the whites who allowed him to get away with this fraud only cared about skin color and nothing else, which literally what "black" indicates in general. Somehow all of this gets ignored by you along with all of the people on campus that knew him and either knew he was a fraud or didn't know and didn't see him as not being African American. None of this has anything to do with black people BTW, because this isn't an issue of African Americans trying to pass as Indian to get something they couldn't get otherwise. But again, the point here is you keep trying hard to make it seem like this is a black issue when it isn't.
Well, in USA both "white" AND "black" people often think in simplified terms of skin tone, race and similar. Seems they get it with their mothers milk. It seems so ingrained that many seem to have difficulties thinking outside that box. Why otherwise is the net full of Americans, many of them African Americans, but also others, who try to explain to all kinds of peoples that those peoples ancestors were "black" (or sometimes "white"), or that they are just invaders who displaced some mystical black (or white) race who are supposed to have lived there before. Such thoughts seems mostly arise among people who are brainwashed into a simplistic, racial black and white thinking from their childhood.
Black can have different meanings for different people. For some it means all people who are darker than some certain skin tone. For others it means people from Africa (or descended from Africa) with dark skin and nappy hair. Since there is no good definition, the black and white labels are useless in a scientific context. Easy to get lost if you only see two colors.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think when the word black is used to describe people it awakes different associations among different people. For some black means an African or African American. For others it means everyone who is darker than a certain skin tone (which can vary a lot). It is a very loose concept which really does not say much.
Like these two. For some people both are black, but for others only Will Smith is considered black because he descends from Africa (and has curly hair).
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:The point is the skin tone of the girl of Indian descent is placed among people of African descent.
Well then I am among Japanese and Chinese people since I have the skin tone of some of them. Still most people do not lump us together.
This isn't about you and how you look among Japanese people. It is about an Indian man who knew that due to his skin color, he could pass as black. Because "black" is a description of skin color and that was always the purpose of it as a label and black skin is not limited to Africa. The cause of black skin in Africa is the same as it is in India and everywhere else, adaptation to tropical environments. There is no confusion about this in science and there is no confusion about what black skin means. And there is no confusion about Indians having similar skin tones and sometimes features to Africans. Again, this whole article proves that, yet here you are trying to deny reality in order to promote confusion of your own making. There is no confusion about this in reality. The image of skin colors you posted shows there is no confusion. You just don't like facts. Skin color is diverse and black skin is not unique to Africa and that is based on science and this isn't some confusing issue that people cant understand, except you.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: That is besides the point, there are Asian people who could be taken for Europeans too. A common skin tone does not say people are related, culturally and genetically. Seems like you promoting some kind of skin tone mysticism.
How is it beside the point when the entire thread is about one Indian man who looked at himself and decided that his skin color would make it easy to pass himself off as black? He knew that his skin color would allow him to do this and it actually worked, which shows again, that this is an issue of skin color. You are the only one who is confused about this.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Well, in USA both "white" AND "black" people often think in simplified terms of skin tone, race and similar. Seems they get it with their mothers milk. It seems so ingrained that many seem to have difficulties thinking outside that box. Why otherwise is the net full of Americans, many of them African Americans, but also others, who try to explain to all kinds of peoples that those peoples ancestors were "black" (or sometimes "white"), or that they are just invaders who displaced some mystical black (or white) race who are supposed to have lived there before. Such thoughts seems mostly arise among people who are brainwashed into a simplistic, racial black and white thinking from their childhood.
Skin color was always used as a means of segregating Europeans from other groups that they subjugated and it just so happened that Africa was the nearest place with a population of people with black skin. It doesn't change the fact that skin color is an easy way to segregate society along "racial" lines. And it also doesn't mean that black skin is unique to Africa. Everybody understands that this is how Europeans have operated all over the planet, including in India, but you are sitting here acting like you don't know this history. It is about skin color with Europeans putting white skin from Europe above all others. And it is they who tried to turn their ideas about human skin color into a scientific model of human evolution. Nobody is confused about this history. And this is why an Indian person could pass themselves off as an African American.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Black can have different meanings for different people. For some it means all people who are darker than some certain skin tone. For others it means people from Africa (or descended from Africa) with dark skin and nappy hair. Since there is no good definition, the black and white labels are useless in a scientific context. Easy to get lost if you only see two colors.
People use these terms every day and arent confused about it at all. Again, if what you are trying to say was true, an Indian in America would not have been able to pass themselves off as black. It is about skin color and certain tones of skin color are called black and NOBODY is confused about it. Just like Europeans weren't confused about it when they used skin color as the basis for their concepts of race and racism.
And beyond that, India is very diverse and all Indians don't look like black skinned Europeans. Some look very much like Africans. Not to mention that colorism is rampant in todays India, primarily as a result of European and other Eurasian invasions. So again, nobody is confused about this except you. Case in point, the first Miss America of Indian descent has been trying to raise an awareness of colorism in India and she isn't that dark.
quote: The moment Davuluri was crowned Miss America in 2014, Twitter and various headlines began fixating on her skin tone. So many of us were incredulous that a woman of Indian descent with actual brown skin had been deemed a beauty queen — not because Davuluri wasn’t stunning, but because the only South Asian women the world celebrates in this way are remarkably pasty. I’m not mincing words when I say that Indian movie stars do not reflect the vast and sumptuous spectrum of brown skin tones found in India.
quote:This isn't about you and how you look among Japanese people. It is about an Indian man who knew that due to his skin color, he could pass as black.
Yes so what? Many Americans can hardly find their own country on a map, let alone see the difference between different peoples.
quote:That is Because "black" is a description of skin color and that was always the purpose of it as a label and black skin is not limited to Africa.
Black and white are social constructions which simplifies a great diversity of skin colors and phenotypes . It should be avoided in serious anthropological discussions since it is misleading and inexact,
quote: The cause of black skin in Africa is the same as it is in India and everywhere else, adaptation to tropical environments. There is no confusion about this in science and there is no confusion about what black skin means.
And there is no confusion about Indians having similar skin tones and sometimes features to Africans. Again, this whole article proves that, yet here you are trying to deny reality in order to promote confusion of your own making. There is no confusion about this in reality. The image of skin colors you posted shows there is no confusion. You just don't like facts. Skin color is diverse and black skin is not unique to Africa and that is based on science and this isn't some confusing issue that people cant understand, except you.
In the infantilized American society some people can obviously not handle more variety than two colors, white and black. But the truth is there is a variety of skin tones, and to reduce them to black and white is to reduce the true diversity of human phenotypes.
quote:How is it beside the point when the entire thread is about one Indian man who looked at himself and decided that his skin color would make it easy to pass himself off as black? He knew that his skin color would allow him to do this and it actually worked, which shows again, that this is an issue of skin color. You are the only one who is confused about this.
Yes in a society where people only see two colors and obviously have a hard time to see the difference between different peoples it obviously worked.
But the point was not only that he pretended to belong to another group in society, the point is that he was treated differently when people thought he was an African American instead of an Indian. So skin color was not the only cause that he was treated differently, instead it shows that also people with similar skin color can be treated differently depending of what ethnicity a person belong to. So skin color alone was not the issue.
quote:Skin color was always used as a means of segregating Europeans from other groups that they subjugated and it just so happened that Africa was the nearest place with a population of people with black skin. It doesn't change the fact that skin color is an easy way to segregate society along "racial" lines. And it also doesn't mean that black skin is unique to Africa. Everybody understands that this is how Europeans have operated all over the planet, including in India, but you are sitting here acting like you don't know this history. It is about skin color with Europeans putting white skin from Europe above all others. And it is they who tried to turn their ideas about human skin color into a scientific model of human evolution. Nobody is confused about this history. And this is why an Indian person could pass themselves off as an African American.
Well at least where I live we try to get away from segregating people by skin color. People here are not classified due to race or skin color in censuses, birth certificates or official papers. The only thing which is noted is if you are a citizen or not. Nationality (if you are a foreigner) is also noted for statistical purposes. Ofcourse we also have racist people here who discriminate because of skin color but also because of religion, clothes, ethnicity and other things. But still we are not so much into the black and white thing as Americans.
I do not say that skin color does not exist, or matters for some people. but to continue using outdated labels instead of maybe try to abadon them is just stubborness.
Especially when people try to impose their simplified world view on others.
quote: People use these terms every day and arent confused about it at all. Again, if what you are trying to say was true, an Indian in America would not have been able to pass themselves off as black. It is about skin color and certain tones of skin color are called black and NOBODY is confused about it. Just like Europeans weren't confused about it when they used skin color as the basis for their concepts of race and racism.
In old times people used the term "negro", and there was no confusion about that either. Actually it was many times more precise than the all encompassing label "black" since it mostly meant Africans or people of African descent. Still it is not used much today.
To just talk about black people does not really mean anything more than a dark skin. It does not say how dark, and it says even less about etnicity, race or anything else. Actually it is even more fuzzy than the word "white" which for most people mean Europeans, and sometimes middle Easterners. Most people do not call Japanese and Chinese white even if they too have light skin. Once they were called "yellow", but that is rather rare now, and hardly accepted by themselves.
As for using the word black, I see that you yourself have not even defined what you mean by it. You just lump together all sorts of people who happen to have a somewhat darker shade of brown. That just add to the confusion.
But what is said here on ES does of course not really matter in the real world. The important is that in scientific literature labels start to change and simplified terms emanating from a colonial world view are gradually abandoned.
quote: And beyond that, India is very diverse and all Indians don't look like black skinned Europeans. Some look very much like Africans. Not to mention that colorism is rampant in todays India, primarily as a result of European and other Eurasian invasions. So again, nobody is confused about this except you. Case in point, the first Miss America of Indian descent has been trying to raise an awareness of colorism in India and she isn't that dark.
Colorism and racism indeed exists, but nothing gets better by continuing using outdated terms, and simplified concepts. Words like "negro" and simillar are already gradually disappearing, so the concepts of black and white will perhaps also go the same way. At least in intellectual discussions.
Which colors of these do you include in "black". Which are white? And what do you call the ones that does not fit into any of these categories?
Why is will Smith called black but not the Bedouin? Both have brown skin. Or do you call both black?
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
This isn't about you and how you look among Japanese people. It is about an Indian man who knew that due to his skin color, he could pass as black. Because "black" is a description of skin color and that was always the purpose of it as a label and black skin is not limited to Africa....
How is it beside the point when the entire thread is about one Indian man who looked at himself and decided that his skin color would make it easy to pass himself off as black?...
People use these terms every day and arent confused about it at all. Again, if what you are trying to say was true, an Indian in America would not have been able to pass themselves off as black. It is about skin color and certain tones of skin color are called black and NOBODY is confused about it....
Doug says here "nobody here is confused about it" but he is clearly very confused or does not know how to present his own point of view in a way that is not completely contradictory and confusing to whoever is reading it
According to Doug this is a black man who faked being of African descent
This is what Doug should be saying to represent his own point of view but people don't know how to be consistent in their own analysis and not contradict themselves, if not trying to intentionally be evasive or gaslight.
But instead Doug repeatedly speaks of him as "passing" for black > "(he) knew that due to his skin color, he could pass as black."
So please get unconfused and mixing up your own definitions. According to your own definition he is a black man who faked being an African American he did not try to pass for black because he is black
This is despite the man himself saying he faked being black.
According to you he is black despite claiming not to be and the only thing he faked is being African American
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: the entire thread is about one Indian man who looked at himself and decided that his skin color would make it easy to pass himself off as black?...
No Doug, stop contradicting yourself you have been saying for a million years "black" is just a skin color. Thus he is black and nothing he says can change that and what he tried to pass himself off as, was a person of African descent
This is why discussions like this go on forever people are inconsistent and keep switching definitions, moving the goal posts constantly, Doug get it together please
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Yes so what? Many Americans can hardly find their own country on a map, let alone see the difference between different peoples.
The point is Europeans created racism to promote themselves over other groups based on skin color. It was never scientific. That is the whole point. Yet somehow you come here to his forum and play dumb like you didn't know that in order to "blame" black people for this so-called confusion. That is my point. An Indian person deliberately commits fraud to access university and somehow it is black peoples fault. All you seem to know how to do is blame black people for everything even when they had nothing to do with it.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Black and white are social constructions which simplifies a great diversity of skin colors and phenotypes . It should be avoided in serious anthropological discussions since it is misleading and inexact
Skin color is a fact of human biology and not "race" and you sitting here saying that skin color is not part of science is nonsense. Just because you cant accept the skin color of certain ancient populations as being "black" doesn't make that analysis and scientific study of ancient phenotype any less valid because you don't like it. The scientific fact is that humans adapted to tropical environments have black skin. It is a fact of science and you can see it today all over the planet. This isn't a "race" issue. The problem is Europeans and their racial ideologies trying somehow to categorize populations based on their phenotypes, which was never something that came from Africans. But somehow you are determined to pretend that it is.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: In the infantilized American society some people can obviously not handle more variety than two colors, white and black. But the truth is there is a variety of skin tones, and to reduce them to black and white is to reduce the true diversity of human phenotypes.
The issue of race in America was not about the reality of humans coming in multiple shades, it is the reality of Europeans being racist and wanting to segregate and subjugate black Africans of any complexion in order to maintain European racial "purity". Again, you keep trying to play dumb when you know this and then try and blame it on black skin when people have been using such terms for Africans and other populations even in India since before European colonization. There is no confusion about this. And ultimately the whole point of this thread shows that the racism of American society is what enabled this Indian person to pass as black. And that is purely from Europeans and their obsession over skin color and not something that came from anybody else, contrary to you trying to argue it is something that came from black people.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Yes in a society where people only see two colors and obviously have a hard time to see the difference between different peoples it obviously worked.
But the point was not only that he pretended to belong to another group in society, the point is that he was treated differently when people thought he was an African American instead of an Indian. So skin color was not the only cause that he was treated differently, instead it shows that also people with similar skin color can be treated differently depending of what ethnicity a person belong to. So skin color alone was not the issue.
Skin color was the issue. You seem to be desperate to pretend that the whole history of racism in America was not based on skin color. The fact that Indians with black skin get treated differently than people of African descent is part of racism and the history of divide and conquer. It doesn't mean racism isn't based on skin color, it means that the ideas of race as defined by Europeans are contradictory, hypocritical and scientifically invalid. That pseudo science of race was something Europeans created where they lumped all different populations around the word into different categories based on Europeans racial ideologies. But you keep playing dumb about this and acting like this hasn't been something we have been discussing on this forum for years. Because according to you, this is an issue that starts with black people, when there is no history of Africans going around the world imposing skin color ideologies on anybody.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Well at least where I live we try to get away from segregating people by skin color. People here are not classified due to race or skin color in censuses, birth certificates or official papers. The only thing which is noted is if you are a citizen or not. Nationality (if you are a foreigner) is also noted for statistical purposes. Ofcourse we also have racist people here who discriminate because of skin color but also because of religion, clothes, ethnicity and other things. But still we are not so much into the black and white thing as Americans.
I do not say that skin color does not exist, or matters for some people. but to continue using outdated labels instead of maybe try to abadon them is just stubborness.
Especially when people try to impose their simplified world view on others.
The fact is injustice exists on earth and part of that injustice is the practice of racism and that is how Europeans have expanded their control over most of the planet. This isn't "new" history and a big part of that is keeping Africans on the very bottom both because of their skin color and because of being Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: In old times people used the term "negro", and there was no confusion about that either. Actually it was many times more precise than the all encompassing label "black" since it mostly meant Africans or people of African descent. Still it is not used much today.
To just talk about black people does not really mean anything more than a dark skin. It does not say how dark, and it says even less about etnicity, race or anything else. Actually it is even more fuzzy than the word "white" which for most people mean Europeans, and sometimes middle Easterners. Most people do not call Japanese and Chinese white even if they too have light skin. Once they were called "yellow", but that is rather rare now, and hardly accepted by themselves.
Again, nobody is confused about this. You are the one who has a problem with these words because you are in denial of the fact that historically black skin is a dominant skin color, especially the farther back you go in time. And as for the term "Negro" it literally means "black" in Spanish. And the Spanish have a system called "casta" where they have many "racial" terms for all kinds of variations in skin color and mixture. That doesn't make them and their system any less racist. You seem to be trying so hard to deny racism from Europeans and then blame black people for using the term black as the cause of all these problems but not the white people who actually created this system of racial injustice, primarily by pretending to be stupid.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: As for using the word black, I see that you yourself have not even defined what you mean by it. You just lump together all sorts of people who happen to have a somewhat darker shade of brown. That just add to the confusion.
Not to mention in the history of European racial ideologies there have been many terms used to segregate populations based on physical characteristics, such as red race, brown race, yellow race and so forth. None of that changes the underlying racism and promotion of white supremacy which you seem to be intent on pretending doesn't exist.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Archeopteryx: [QB] But what is said here on ES does of course not really matter in the real world. The important is that in scientific literature labels start to change and simplified terms emanating from a colonial world view are gradually abandoned.
Yes, and in the real world racism exists and white people treat black people differently because of the history of anti-black/anti-African racism. That is the whole point and somehow you just are intent to deny this and play dumb about it. And this Indian person committing fraud is just trying to promote anti-black propaganda in order to get brownie points for himself in this racist society so he can be elevated as some kind of special "non black" black miniroty. Even when in his own country of India, black Indians get the worst treatment. That is the real world, contrary to your nonsense.
Again we are talking about a system of racism based on skin color and here you are talking some foolishness about the meaning of words, which has absolutely nothing to do with it. You just sat here and admitted it is about how people look and the mentality of race in America that caused this Indian person to be treated differently when he passed himself as black. Yet you then proceed to sit here and argue it is because the word "black" and somehow black people forcing people to use the word black. Again, trying to change the whole history of America from Europeans imposing racial ideologies and segregation on populations into blaming black people for using the word black, as if that is the problem. Anything and everything other than admitting that America is racist and this Indian person is a fraud.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Colorism and racism indeed exists, but nothing gets better by continuing using outdated terms, and simplified concepts. Words like "negro" and simillar are already gradually disappearing, so the concepts of black and white will perhaps also go the same way. At least in intellectual discussions.
Which colors of these do you include in "black". Which are white? And what do you call the ones that does not fit into any of these categories?
Why is will Smith called black but not the Bedouin? Both have brown skin. Or do you call both black?
Again, you keep trying to change the point. This Indian man committed fraud by passing as a black person and the people at the university allowed it. That has everything to do with the obvious fact that his skin color is the same as many African Americans. Those are the facts and all your objections and denials are irrelevant.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The point is Europeans created racism to promote themselves over other groups based on skin color. It was never scientific. That is the whole point. Yet somehow you come here to his forum and play dumb like you didn't know that in order to "blame" black people for this so-called confusion. That is my point. An Indian person deliberately commits fraud to access university and somehow it is black peoples fault. All you seem to know how to do is blame black people for everything even when they had nothing to do with it.
Yes Europeans created racism but it seems that some African Americans uphold it by using the same old labels as the Europeans used.
Most East Asians abandoned the label yellow, since it was considered racist and outdated. But when concerning brown people the old "black" stereotypes obviously still lives on, especially in USA
quote:skin color is a fact of human biology and not "race" and you sitting here saying that skin color is not part of science is nonsense. Just because you cant accept the skin color of certain ancient populations as being "black" doesn't make that analysis and scientific study of ancient phenotype any less valid because you don't like it. The scientific fact is that humans adapted to tropical environments have black skin. It is a fact of science and you can see it today all over the planet. This isn't a "race" issue. The problem is Europeans and their racial ideologies trying somehow to categorize populations based on their phenotypes, which was never something that came from Africans. But somehow you are determined to pretend that it is.
Indeed skin color is a fact, but it is also a fact that there exist more skin colors than only two. It is a meaningless simplification to try to reduce human diversity to a simple color binary system. It does not fit real intellectual discussions and it is also gets gradually abandoned in anthropological literature and discurse.
From the beginning all humans lived in the tropics but it is not so anymore, some people moved out of the tropical zone and adapted to new environments which created a diversity of phenotypical traits.
quote:The issue of race in America was not about the reality of humans coming in multiple shades, it is the reality of Europeans being racist and wanting to segregate and subjugate black Africans of any complexion in order to maintain European racial "purity". Again, you keep trying to play dumb when you know this and then try and blame it on black skin when people have been using such terms for Africans and other populations even in India since before European colonization. There is no confusion about this. And ultimately the whole point of this thread shows that the racism of American society is what enabled this Indian person to pass as black. And that is purely from Europeans and their obsession over skin color and not something that came from anybody else, contrary to you trying to argue it is something that came from black people.
It is funny then that a terminology which was created to separate people and opress certain people still are used by some of those opressed, upholding the divide, and even try to propagate that such terminology shall be used for other peoples. Maybe some people want to abandon such segreting use of language instead of conserving it. Some people want to develop new views, not cling on to old concepts.
quote:Skin color was the issue. You seem to be desperate to pretend that the whole history of racism in America was not based on skin color. The fact that Indians with black skin get treated differently than people of African descent is part of racism and the history of divide and conquer. It doesn't mean racism isn't based on skin color, it means that the ideas of race as defined by Europeans are contradictory, hypocritical and scientifically invalid. That pseudo science of race was something Europeans created where they lumped all different populations around the word into different categories based on Europeans racial ideologies. But you keep playing dumb about this and acting like this hasn't been something we have been discussing on this forum for years. Because according to you, this is an issue that starts with black people, when there is no history of Africans going around the world imposing skin color ideologies on anybody.
Fact is that people divide each other not only by skin color but by religion, culture, ethnicity and other factors. Skin color is just one part, which seem to dominate in USA. In the actual case also other factors were taken in consideration, not only skin color. Indians and African Americans are considered two different peoples, two separate ethnicities with different cultures. Even if two peoples have same skin color they can be treated differently because other factors, like historical and cultural. People are not only judged by skin color.
Where I live for example a person can be seen as different just by wearing certain clothes (like a hijab) even if that person has same or similar skin color. We see the world in more nuances than many brainwashed Americans.
quote:The fact is injustice exists on earth and part of that injustice is the practice of racism and that is how Europeans have expanded their control over most of the planet. This isn't "new" history and a big part of that is keeping Africans on the very bottom both because of their skin color and because of being Africans.
Yes blame it all on Europeans as if the world was not full of injustice and oppression also before Europeans became a factor of power. You sound brainwashed and full of victim mentality.
quote:Again, nobody is confused about this. You are the one who has a problem with these words because you are in denial of the fact that historically black skin is a dominant skin color, especially the farther back you go in time. And as for the term "Negro" it literally means "black" in Spanish. And the Spanish have a system called "casta" where they have many "racial" terms for all kinds of variations in skin color and mixture. That doesn't make them and their system any less racist. You seem to be trying so hard to deny racism from Europeans and then blame black people for using the term black as the cause of all these problems but not the white people who actually created this system of racial injustice, primarily by pretending to be stupid.
I just say that at least in USA so called black people in some sense contribute to their own alienation by defining themselves with a term that was created to opress them. It does not seems so constructive. Maybe it is time to take some steps forward. And worst are those fools who hang on the net claiming everyone was black, from Egyptians to Greeks and Olmecs. Such behaviour just gives African Americans a bad reputation and alienates them further from other peoples.
Like this obsessive fool who claims that Berbers and modern Egyptians all are fakes and hardly belong in Africa at all.
I love these people who called whoever they want black, says it's purely a skin color, yet refuse to refer to a cut off point on a chart
They purposely want it to be subjective and unquantified and then throw in words like "science" and "biological fact" as gaslighting
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Out of curiosity…
quote:Originally posted by KING: God made all humans Black, White, red, yellow.
Since you are appealing to the Christian God here, may I ask where the Bible states this? Some people interpret the sons of Noah as the ancestors of people with different skin colors (i.e. Ham as the ancestor of dark-skinned peoples, Japheth as the ancestor of light-skinned peoples, and Shem as the ancestor of those with medium tones), but I don't think the Book of Genesis actually describes the three sons' appearances. And who in your view are the red and yellow people of the world?
Your right that the Holy Bible only states 2 colors and they are Black and White.
quote:Numbers 12:10
When the cloud lifted from above the tent, Miriam’s skin was leprous —it became as white as snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had a defiling skin disease,
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Yes Europeans created racism but it seems that some African Americans uphold it by using the same old labels as the Europeans used.
Most East Asians abandoned the label yellow, since it was considered racist and outdated. But when concerning brown people the old "black" stereotypes obviously still lives on, especially in USA
The key point is Asians in Asia who still have their ethic identities intact along with languages and culture. While African Americans were stripped of their identity as Africans when they were brought here and not allowed to maintain or practice their culture or traditions. They were only allowed to identify based on their skin color as being subservient to whites by law. Africans did not come off the slave ships calling themselves blacks as a common form of self identity. You know this and still keep trying to twist facts to promote an anti black narrative.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Indeed skin color is a fact, but it is also a fact that there exist more skin colors than only two. It is a meaningless simplification to try to reduce human diversity to a simple color binary system. It does not fit real intellectual discussions and it is also gets gradually abandoned in anthropological literature and discurse.
So are you saying that white people who created and used the term Negro and Black to refer to the skin color of Africans somehow didn't notice they didn't all have the same color? Again, you keep trying to pretend that black is not a reference to people with varying shades of black skin from Africa. In fact, in America, light skin people with one drop of black blood were considered black. Ultimately the problem is that the word black was an exclusive reference to Africans because their skin color easily separated them from Europeans. That is why they forced Africans to identify in this country by their skin color because that is now how they existed in Africa. But you keep trying to play this game that Africans came to America forcing their blackness on Europeans when that is not what happened. And the fact that African Americans have been stripped of their identity as Africans from specific ethnic groups is why they use the term black. All of that is the responsibility of white people. Asians are still in Asia and still have their original ethnic groups and languages to identify with. But at the same token, there is colorism in Asia and even they know what black means when it comes to skin color. Again, nobody is confused about this except you.
Changing the terms used does not change the fact of racism. You still are stuck on this idea that racism is based on "two colors" when it is not. Because again, historically the Spanish have had multiple "castes" based on skin color and this is ultimately the point. North Americans didn't care whether a black person was light skinned or literally coal black. Europeans want to promote white skin over everybody else and that is the root of racism, not the idea of literally human skin color only coming in two shades. Everybody knows that and you sitting here pretending to be dumb about it is the problem. New "words" for skin color is not going to change the fundamental facts of racism. And racism was always pseudo science to begin with is the ultimate point and that did not come from black people.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: From the beginning all humans lived in the tropics but it is not so anymore, some people moved out of the tropical zone and adapted to new environments which created a diversity of phenotypical traits.
Doesn't change the fact that humans existed exclusively in Africa for over 200,000 years with tremendous diversity among people with black skin before leaving Africa, with the later migrants maintaining that black skin long after they left. This is the problem you seem to have with the usage of the word black because the further you go back in history the more human phenotype converges on the African phenotype because all humans originated in Africa with tropical skin adaptation. And tropically adapted black people are very diverse around the planet.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: It is funny then that a terminology which was created to separate people and opress certain people still are used by some of those opressed, upholding the divide, and even try to propagate that such terminology shall be used for other peoples. Maybe some people want to abandon such segreting use of language instead of conserving it. Some people want to develop new views, not cling on to old concepts.
Again, the word black has been used for years to refer to populations all over the planet in various languages before racism. The idea that the word black is a problem because of racism is false. You keep trying to pretend that somehow people are confused about it when they are not. Again, this black Indian was treated like black African because he pretended to be one and because of his skin color he was able to get away with it. Notice that this particular Indian person knew full well that because if his skin color, he couldn't pass as white. So the issue is skin color and everybody knows it and black people have nothing to do with creating this. You keep trying to blame black people for this when this issue solely originates with European white people. The people who allowed this Indian person to pass as black didn't do it because of any words he wrote, but because of how he looked. This is the part you keep playing dumb about as if Indians don't have similar skin tones to Africans.
Rejecting race means rejecting the idea that skin tone and features are unique to one part of the planet or single populations. You have similar features among different populations all over the planet. These are not races and are just the normal variation of phenotype due to environmental conditions. So it is absolutely a fact that black skin exists outside Africa and other groups can have similar features to Africans. That is on top of the fact that Africans being the oldest humans on earth, are very diverse and posses great variations in phenotype.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Fact is that people divide each other not only by skin color but by religion, culture, ethnicity and other factors. Skin color is just one part, which seem to dominate in USA. In the actual case also other factors were taken in consideration, not only skin color. Indians and African Americans are considered two different peoples, two separate ethnicities with different cultures. Even if two peoples have same skin color they can be treated differently because other factors, like historical and cultural. People are not only judged by skin color.
Again, this thread is about an Indian person in America passing themselves off as black and committing fraud. And the only fact that you keep avoiding is that racism in America is based on skin color because if this Indian had very pale skin he would never have gotten away with this. Nor if he didn't shave his head. You keep denying the fundamental fact that skin color is the underlying basis of race in America. Not to mention skin color is also a factor in India itself, which you also keep glossing over. And generally when it comes to racism and colorism there is only one form of it, light skinned people putting themselves over those with darker "black" skin. And because of this light skin is treated as exclusive while black skin is more inclusive with a range of complexions. But again, you know this and keep playing dumb about it like somehow this came from black people.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Where I live for example a person can be seen as different just by wearing certain clothes (like a hijab) even if that person has same or similar skin color. We see the world in more nuances than many brainwashed Americans.
But this thread isn't about your country. It is about an Indian in the United States passing themselves off as black and how this has everything to do with skin color. Somehow you just keep trying to run from that and/or blame this obsession with skin color on black people like they created racism. That is my point.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Yes blame it all on Europeans as if the world was not full of injustice and oppression also before Europeans became a factor of power. You sound brainwashed and full of victim mentality.
White people literally are the ones who created the system of racism in America. How is that anybody elses fault? And of course I will keep saying that because it is a fact. Unlike you who keeps complaining about black people calling themselves black as if that is "racist'. Not to mention ignoring outright fraud on the part of this Indian person (likely with some white help) as if the problem of race in America originated with black people. Come on dude. Give it a rest.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I just say that at least in USA so called black people in some sense contribute to their own alienation by defining themselves with a term that was created to opress them. It does not seems so constructive. Maybe it is time to take some steps forward. And worst are those fools who hang on the net claiming everyone was black, from Egyptians to Greeks and Olmecs. Such behaviour just gives African Americans a bad reputation and alienates them further from other peoples.
No they don't and that is the point. You keep trying to blame black people for racism and not putting the blame on Europeans and their whiteness. White people historically saw that white skin was the least dominant skin color on the planet and committed atrocities all over the globe to prop themselves up over populations with darker skin tones. To sit here and claim that this ongoing system is due to black people and not the determination of whites to maintain their dominance over the globe is simply dishonest. White people aren't stupid as they know most "black" people are not literally black, but that was never the point. It was always about reserving an exclusive status for people with white skin and this is the part you keep trying to play dumb about.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Like this obsessive fool who claims that Berbers and modern Egyptians all are fakes and hardly belong in Africa at all.
Has nothing to do with the fact that Indians have similar skin tones to Africans and how or why it is possible for some of them to pass as black in America if they wanted to. All you keep trying to do is pretend otherwise that somehow there is no overlap in phenotype between populations in India and Africa. And the fact you want to change the subject to random trolls on the internet instead of defending yourself and your nonsense shows how you are not serious and instead trolling with anti black propaganda. Because all these problems seem to originate with black people being proud of being black and nothing else.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: So what are you doing to change racism, more than sitting here on ES and whine over it? That will not change anything.
I just challenged you on this thread you created trying to spew some propaganda about black people being somehow responsible for this Indian person committing fraud.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The people who allowed this Indian person to pass as black didn't do it because of any words he wrote, but because of how he looked.
this thread is about an Indian person in America passing themselves off as black and committing fraud.
It is about an Indian in the United States passing themselves off as black and how this has everything to do with skin color. Somehow you just keep trying to run from that and/or blame this obsession with skin color on black people like they created racism. That is my point
Archeopteryx, I think you should stop arguing with Doug he agrees with you, this Indian man is not black, he's just trying to pass as black.
He wants you address the wrongness of trying to pass as black when you are not black
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic