posted
Id be careful at saying they're purely the result of "Mixing" because there were Asiatic/Levantine types in Egypt for a long time, even people like Keita points this out.
The Mixing could've occured way back even during Dynastic History and they'd be represented in AE...
But I get what you mean tho...
This is the man from Archeo's DNA video with another Egyptian (a family member I assume)..
J/S If they literally came to my family reunion and pretended to be related to the fam Like Oh Hey we found yall on Ancestry... no one would question them
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: Ideologically motivated arguments by American Afrocentrists, that ancient Egyptians were black and replaced later by invaders from the Arabian.
Did he really say that? Because that didn't disprove the ancient Egyptians weren't Black and population movement did occur in Egypt and others part's of Africa.
He was historically wrong on so much...
Kahn/Con tried to come across as blazey blazey on the subject of ancient Egyptians at the same time revealing how he hustle is as a social media geneticist...
Anyhoo.. his eternal nile begins around 1650 bc. during the known migration of the hyskos...
Hardly eternal
However, many Copts look like mixed black people to me. So if they are the "egyptian" population after thousands of years of mixing, it makes sense.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you guys always make comparison with afro-americans/afro-latinos ? These people have european if not amerindian admixture. No people in west africa would view these copts as "being related to the fam"
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Of course you are too obtuse to understand it's not about "West" Africans ancestry but African ancestry in general. Copts are NOT an ethnic group but a religious sect or denomination of Christianity. Why do you only post picture of fair-skinned (white) Copts from Alexandria who carry European ancestry but no Copts from Upper Egypt like Luxor, Sohag, or Minya??
Can you tell which are the Khawaga (foreigners) and which are the Baladi?
The most famous Coptic Saint, St. Maurius a.k.a. Maurice of Thebes.
Maurius was not his real name but was a title given to him due to an obvious physical trait.
Speaking of which here is an excellent article on the issue of Colorism in the Coptic Community: Historically, in just about every part of the world, those with lighter skin have been seen as more favorable and more attractive, as compared to those with darker skin. This has been especially prevalent in Asian, African and South American countries. This is referred to as colorism. Colorism is defined as “a form of racial discrimination based on the shade of an individual’s skin tone, typically favoring lighter skin. It can occur both within a specific ethnic group and across ethnic groups.”
To feed our curiosity about what our fellow Egyptians have experienced with colorism, Marianne Melleka Boules and I decided to compose a simple survey on Survey Monkey, consisting of 10 questions. In total, we received 33 responses: 24 women and nine men. The ages of respondents ranged from 21-56 years old. 21 respondents were born in the U.S., one was born in England, and 11 people were born in Egypt. Currently, one person resides in England, one in Germany, one in Egypt, and 30 in U.S.
On a scale of 0-100, 0 being the lightest skin tone, 100 being the darkest, the average answer was 44. Interestingly enough, the majority of responders perceived their skin tone as lighter than what they believed others perceived them to be.
Seven people responded that, yes, they had been bullied based on their skin tone. Some were told that they were “too dark.” Others were told they were too “fair skinned” to be Egyptian. One woman reported that while she wasn’t bullied based on her skin tone, but rather on her hair type; She was specifically told that her hair type resembled “pubic hair.”
10 of the 33 people remarked they had heard negative comments about their skin tone from their family or community. The majority of these 10 people reported that they were told that they are “too dark,” compared to lighter skinned cousins, and oftentimes advised to stay out of the sun. Surprisingly, a few noted they heard negative comments about being “too light-skinned” and being “adopted.”
Three people reported wanting to have darker skin when they were asked about wanting to change their skin tone. Two of the three noted wanting to have darker skin to look “more” Egyptian. One respondent said, “I used to wish that I had darker skin, so I could fit in with the Egyptian community at church.”
Another said, “I wish I could be darker, so I could be accepted as an Egyptian.” Two respondents reported to wishing their skin tone was lighter. One person said, “When I was a child I used to often wish I was blue-eyed and blonde… I used to cry in front of the mirror yelling ‘why me, it’s not fair I am so ugly… and I am a male.”
Another said, “I tried to scrub my ‘darkness’ away in the shower, and had civic fantasies about what I would look like if I was just a few shades lighter.”
Those reporting a desire to be lighter skinned was consistent to what we hypothesized we’d find, given the cultural pull towards lighter skin. The desire to be darker skinned, however, was surprising, but contextually sensible, result. Given the universal desire to fit in and belong, it appears as though those on the ends of the color spectrum just had a desire to be towards the middle and be closer to the norm. This mirrors my own experience. Having lighter skin, hair, and eyes, as a child, I longed for darker features in order to look more “Egyptian.”
I do find it refreshing and fascinating that the majority of responders reported feeling more content and accepting of their skin tone. I wonder if this is in response to much of the societal feedback we’ve received in recent years on “accepting ourselves as we are.”
So it looks like Copts face the same problems of colorism Diasporan blacks face everywhere else, except note that dark (black) skin is noted to be the 'normal' Coptic look.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
(I had to track this picture source down, other readers might not know how, they might just take it for granted these are Copts)
This man and his wife (?) visit a Coptic church in a small town in Luxor He says "I was unable to find anyone that spoke English so this is my view of things as seen."
and one of the photos on the blog also says in fine hard to notice print: "Locals in front of Mosque"
so we don't know who the people are in some of these photos, who is a member of the Coptic church, who is a member of the mosque and what the demographics are
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Of course you are too obtuse to understand it's not about "West" Africans ancestry but African ancestry in general. Copts are NOT an ethnic group but a religious sect or denomination of Christianity. Why do you only post picture of fair-skinned (white) Copts from Alexandria who carry European ancestry but no Copts from Upper Egypt like Luxor, Sohag, or Minya??
Can you tell which are the Khawaga (foreigners) and which are the Baladi?
The most famous Coptic Saint, St. Maurius a.k.a. Maurice of Thebes.
Maurius was not his real name but was a title given to him due to an obvious physical trait.
Speaking of which here is an excellent article on the issue of Colorism in the Coptic Community: Historically, in just about every part of the world, those with lighter skin have been seen as more favorable and more attractive, as compared to those with darker skin. This has been especially prevalent in Asian, African and South American countries. This is referred to as colorism. Colorism is defined as “a form of racial discrimination based on the shade of an individual’s skin tone, typically favoring lighter skin. It can occur both within a specific ethnic group and across ethnic groups.”
To feed our curiosity about what our fellow Egyptians have experienced with colorism, Marianne Melleka Boules and I decided to compose a simple survey on Survey Monkey, consisting of 10 questions. In total, we received 33 responses: 24 women and nine men. The ages of respondents ranged from 21-56 years old. 21 respondents were born in the U.S., one was born in England, and 11 people were born in Egypt. Currently, one person resides in England, one in Germany, one in Egypt, and 30 in U.S.
On a scale of 0-100, 0 being the lightest skin tone, 100 being the darkest, the average answer was 44. Interestingly enough, the majority of responders perceived their skin tone as lighter than what they believed others perceived them to be.
Seven people responded that, yes, they had been bullied based on their skin tone. Some were told that they were “too dark.” Others were told they were too “fair skinned” to be Egyptian. One woman reported that while she wasn’t bullied based on her skin tone, but rather on her hair type; She was specifically told that her hair type resembled “pubic hair.”
10 of the 33 people remarked they had heard negative comments about their skin tone from their family or community. The majority of these 10 people reported that they were told that they are “too dark,” compared to lighter skinned cousins, and oftentimes advised to stay out of the sun. Surprisingly, a few noted they heard negative comments about being “too light-skinned” and being “adopted.”
Three people reported wanting to have darker skin when they were asked about wanting to change their skin tone. Two of the three noted wanting to have darker skin to look “more” Egyptian. One respondent said, “I used to wish that I had darker skin, so I could fit in with the Egyptian community at church.”
Another said, “I wish I could be darker, so I could be accepted as an Egyptian.” Two respondents reported to wishing their skin tone was lighter. One person said, “When I was a child I used to often wish I was blue-eyed and blonde… I used to cry in front of the mirror yelling ‘why me, it’s not fair I am so ugly… and I am a male.”
Another said, “I tried to scrub my ‘darkness’ away in the shower, and had civic fantasies about what I would look like if I was just a few shades lighter.”
Those reporting a desire to be lighter skinned was consistent to what we hypothesized we’d find, given the cultural pull towards lighter skin. The desire to be darker skinned, however, was surprising, but contextually sensible, result. Given the universal desire to fit in and belong, it appears as though those on the ends of the color spectrum just had a desire to be towards the middle and be closer to the norm. This mirrors my own experience. Having lighter skin, hair, and eyes, as a child, I longed for darker features in order to look more “Egyptian.”
I do find it refreshing and fascinating that the majority of responders reported feeling more content and accepting of their skin tone. I wonder if this is in response to much of the societal feedback we’ve received in recent years on “accepting ourselves as we are.”
So it looks like Copts face the same problems of colorism Diasporan blacks face everywhere else, except note that dark (black) skin is noted to be the 'normal' Coptic look.
I actually already posted many examples of copts from upper egypt and Sudan here
Thanks for confirming they don't look black let alone like AAs and just stop being pathetic with your colorism pls nobody cares about skin color we debate over facial features and ancestry.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ All of your pictures only confirm my original point-- that Copts are not a single homogeneous group of singular ethnic ancestry but a heterogeneous mixture who form a religious community.
As for them not looking "black".
ROTFLOL
Because according to you 'black' means looking Congolese.
Meanwhile the colorism article makes it clear that dark-skin is identified with being "authentic Egyptian"; there's a reason Saint Maurius is portrayed the way he is; and why Diasporan blacks in the West who visit Egypt often get mistaken for a Baladi such was the case of the late Frank Yurco's Afro-Caribbean wife as well as so many countless cases as well as the converse-- Egyptians being mistaken for Black Diasporans in America, Canada, UK, Australia, etc. etc..
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ All of your pictures only confirm my original point-- that Copts are not a single homogeneous group of singular ethnic ancestry but a heterogeneous mixture who form a religious community.
sure and I suppose they can only be "mixed" when levantine ancestry is involved of course copts absorbing nubians or christian horners is certainly not going to alter anything
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As for them not looking "black".
ROTFLOL
Because according to you 'black' means looking Congolese.
Meanwhile the colorism article makes it clear that dark-skin is identified with being "authentic Egyptian"; there's a reason Saint Maurius is portrayed the way he is; and why Diasporan blacks in the West who visit Egypt often get mistaken for a Baladi such was the case of the late Frank Yurco's Afro-Caribbean wife as well as so many countless cases as well as the converse-- Egyptians being mistaken for Black Diasporans in America, Canada, UK, Australia, etc. etc.. [/qb]
dark skin doesn't mean looking black it means looking like most egyptians
obviously these kind of egyptians :
We'll struggle to feel egyptian when they are surrounded by people who look like this :
also Like I said nobody cares about skin color this is not what defines the ancestry or "race" of a population. Egyptians whether today or in the past could have been pitch black like dinka they would have still not be black.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
We are an ethno-religious group, the point about phenotype is a bit odd as copts as a whole are genetically close to one another, regional variation is quite small. We don't have a ethnic distinction between "light" or "dark" copts other than perhaps the obvious observation that some of us can be light and some of us can be darkskinned, but this doesn't really tell you much about our individual genetics.
posted
^ Yes Copts form a single ethno-religious community but there are differences in look depending on region and local. Antalas though only counts the fair-skinned ones as legitimate and dismisses darker types as "Nubians". LOL
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: dark skin doesn't mean looking black it means looking like most egyptians
obviously these kind of egyptians :
^ Obviously the above Egyptians you posted are NOT dark-skinned at all but fair-skinned that is WHITE!! They are Afrangi who represent the ruling elites of the country and are not even of Arab ancestry but rather Turkish, Circassian, or even European descent!
quote:We'll struggle to feel egyptian when they are surrounded by people who look like this :
^ But anyone with eyes can clearly see the black faces in the top picture.
quote:also Like I said nobody cares about skin color this is not what defines the ancestry or "race" of a population. Egyptians whether today or in the past could have been pitch black like dinka they would have still not be black.
What you said makes absolutely NO sense. "Black" is a label referring to very dark skin color. How could someone be "pitch black" in color but not be black?! LMAO
As far as ancestry, they are African thus black African and NO black African is not confined to Sub-Sahara as was shown to you multiple times.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone who has any info about the percentage of people who are "white", "black" or "medium" (regarding skin color) in todays Egypt? How is the percentage in other North African countries?
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
What you said makes absolutely NO sense. "Black" is a label referring to very dark skin color. How could someone be "pitch black" in color but not be black?! LMAO
Maybe the old designation "negroid" would be most suitable here. People can be "black" without being "negroid".
Here is one definition of negroid:
quote: Negroid (less commonly called Congoid) is an obsolete racial grouping of various people indigenous to Africa south of the area which stretched from the southern Sahara desert in the west to the African Great Lakes in the southeast, but also to isolated parts of South and Southeast Asia (Negritos). The term is derived from now-discredited conceptions of race as a biological category.
posted
This Copt gentlemen resembles famed African American jazz singer Patti Austin
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Document from the 7th century, translated from arabic. It's an eyewitness account that describes what the invading muslim arabs saw when they first arrived in Egypt.
According to the document, Copts, Abyssinians (Ethiopians) and Nubians were unable to be distinguished from one another.
Ethiopians and Nubians are both black "sub-saharan african" populations. So if another population could not be distinguished from them, then that's very telling.
"A Short History of the Copts and of Their Church" by The Rev. S.C. Malan, M.A., page 72 (1873) D. Nutt
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Someone who has any info about the percentage of people who are "white", "black" or "medium" (regarding skin color) in todays Egypt? How is the percentage in other North African countries?
That is a difficult task namely because such labels used in North Africa are the reverse of Western nations like the U.S. For example in the U.S. the so-called "one drop rule" or rather "black hint" is used where anyone with discernable African ancestry is called "black" no matter how light. People who are biracial or even "quadroon" 3-4ths white are still called 'black' as a historical way to bastardize blacks and prevent them from integrating into the greater white society. In Africa in general but especially North Africa, the practice is reversed where any white ancestry makes the person "white" and that includes Arab ancestry no matter how dark the skin coloring. This is why even North Sudanese either call themselves "white" or more commonly other euphemisms like "brown" or even "green" if very dark (black). To complicate things even more is that the U.S. federal census also used to classify all North Africans as "white". Hilariously, years ago a Nubian-Egyptian even sued the federal government for denying his black identity! LOL
quote: Maybe the old designation "negroid" would be most suitable here. People can be "black" without being "negroid".
Here is one definition of negroid:
quote: Negroid (less commonly called Congoid) is an obsolete racial grouping of various people indigenous to Africa south of the area which stretched from the southern Sahara desert in the west to the African Great Lakes in the southeast, but also to isolated parts of South and Southeast Asia (Negritos). The term is derived from now-discredited conceptions of race as a biological category.
Yes, and the wiki article explains why the racial term is obsolete. "Negroid" refers to a specific facial morphology which is not confined to Sub-Saharans.
Hence why you have Southeast Asian aboriginals are also "negroid" such as the Andamanese below:
Not to mention Paleo-Americans and prehistoric Siberians who also exhibit "negroid" features. The same holds true for so-called "caucasoid" classification and the morphological features associated with that.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ..Ethiopians and Nubians are both black "sub-saharan african" populations. So if another population could not be distinguished from them, then that's very telling.
Actually, Nubians are not Sub-Saharans but North Africans. Ethiopians are Sub-Saharans but obviously there is relation between both and both are black peoples.
quote:
"A Short History of the Copts and of Their Church" by The Rev. S.C. Malan, M.A., page 72 (1873) D. Nutt
The other portion was the whole people of Egypt, who were Qibt, and were of mixed descent; among whom one could not distinguish Qibt from Abbysinian, Nubian, or Israelite; and they were all Jacobites. Some of them were writers in government offices, others were merchants and tradesmen, others were bishops and presbyters and such like, others were tillers of the land in the country, while others were of the class of servants and domestics. But between these and the Melkite ruling population, marriages were not allowed, from mutual hatred of each other, often carried to murders on either side.
---The Sheikh and Imam Taqi-ed-din El-Maqrizi of Cairo from Baalbek, History of the Copts and of their Church
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
What you said makes absolutely NO sense. "Black" is a label referring to very dark skin color. How could someone be "pitch black" in color but not be black?! LMAO
Maybe the old designation "negroid" would be most suitable here. People can be "black" without being "negroid".
Here is one definition of negroid:
quote: Negroid (less commonly called Congoid) is an obsolete racial grouping of various people indigenous to Africa south of the area which stretched from the southern Sahara desert in the west to the African Great Lakes in the southeast, but also to isolated parts of South and Southeast Asia (Negritos). The term is derived from now-discredited conceptions of race as a biological category.
"Negroid" isn't much better since it still has as an etymological root the Spanish word for the color black.
Personally, I feel that "equatorial African" would be more accurate for the suite of facial features and other physical traits that our French troll is intent on equating with "black". But then, I am pretty sure his opponent DJ does not maintain that ancient Egyptians or other ancient North Africans necessarily all had that equatorial phenotype. From what I have seen, DJ at least has been pretty consistent in using "black" and "white" to describe skin tones regardless of what ethnicity the people he's describing belong to. So, by insisting that AE etc. didn't look equatorial, our troll is either attacking a strawman or doesn't understand what his opposition actually believes.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Here is the rest of the passage:
The other portion was the whole people of Egypt, who were Qibt, and were of mixed descent; among whom one could not distinguish Qibt from Abbysinian, Nubian, or Israelite; and they were all Jacobites. Some of them were writers in government offices, others were merchants and tradesmen, others were bishops and presbyters and such like, others were tillers of the land in the country, while others were of the class of servants and domestics. But between these and the Melkite ruling population, marriages were not allowed, from mutual hatred of each other, often carried to murders on either side.
---The Sheikh and Imam Taqi-ed-din El-Maqrizi of Cairo from Baalbek, History of the Copts and of their Church
I wonder if those Melkites nonetheless somehow got absorbed into the Coptic population after the Islamic conquest? My understanding is that Egyptian Christians are generally endogamous, preferring to marry other Christians instead of interbreeding with the larger Muslim population.
What you said makes absolutely NO sense. "Black" is a label referring to very dark skin color. How could someone be "pitch black" in color but not be black?! LMAO
As far as ancestry, they are African thus black African and NO black African is not confined to Sub-Sahara as was shown to you multiple times. [/QB]
No "black" usually refers to people from sub-saharan africa who tend to share many physical traits in common and tend to form their own genetic clusters. the label "black" is like "european" "east asian". Many people in india are dark skinned and still aren't black nor related to black africans and they are genetically closer to north europeans than people like west or central africans.
Also you claim it's only about skin color yet you claim "anyone with discernable African ancestry is called "black" no matter how light." ...
So if you want to consider these egyptians as "black" (so of course you can ultimately claim their history) then you would have to view me as black too at least if we follow your one-drop rule.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Not to mention Paleo-Americans and prehistoric Siberians who also exhibit "negroid" features. The same holds true for so-called "caucasoid" classification and the morphological features associated with that.
Some Paleo-Americans had such features, while others had not. Like four skulls from Quintana Roo where the oldest had traits reminding of todays Arctic people, one was more like Europeans, one had traits reminiscent of both Asians and modern Native Americans and one had traits reminding of todays South American natives but also of Japanese people ( Hubbe et al 2020 ). So the morphology varied some among the oldest Americans, but genetically they were related.
Even today skull morphology vary among Amerindians, which got some people in the 1800s to speculate about that "short skulled" natives were more related to Asians and "long skulled" natives were more similar to people from the Canary Islands ( Retzius 1864 )
Yeah, Caucasian is also a very broad term that encompasses all kinds of people, with different skin colors, people from Africa, Europe and Asia.
The so called "Negritos" are also interesting since they are not necessarily very close related to each other, or to Papuans and Australians.
So both Caucasoid and Negroid are rather superficial designations, just like Black and White.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: No "black" usually refers to people from sub-saharan africa who tend to share many physical traits in common and tend to form their own genetic clusters. the label "black" is like "european" "east asian". Many people in india are dark skinned and still aren't black nor related to black africans and they are genetically closer to north europeans than people like west or central africans.
"Black" is a COLOR label as in the color black. It has nothing to do with ancestry!
Here are a couple of definitions:
From Merriam-Webster 2. Black or less commonly black a: of or relating to any of various population groups of especially African ancestry often considered as having dark pigmentation of the skin but in fact having a wide range of skin colors
From Dictionary.com 1. a. relating or belonging to any of the various human populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.
Thus the Andamanese people I posted are 'black' due to their dark skin color despite not being African.
quote:Also you claim it's only about skin color yet you claim "anyone with discernable African ancestry is called "black" no matter how light." ...
You idiot, I was referring to the social context it is used here in America, the same way "white" is used in Africa to describe blacks of mixed ancestry.
quote:So if you want to consider these egyptians as "black" (so of course you can ultimately claim their history) then you would have to view me as black too at least if we follow your one-drop rule.
LOL Why would I claim their history since I'm not even of African descent but Asian!
Just face the fact not only are you NOT Egyptian even though you are North African, but if you were to visit Egypt...
Your white self would be viewed as a khawaga and NOT Baladi! LOLPosts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: "Black" is a COLOR label as in the color black. It has nothing to do with ancestry!
Here are a couple of definitions:
From Merriam-Webster 2. Black or less commonly black a: of or relating to any of various population groups of especially African ancestry often considered as having dark pigmentation of the skin but in fact having a wide range of skin colors
From Dictionary.com 1. a. relating or belonging to any of the various human populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.
Thus the Andamanese people I posted are 'black' due to their dark skin color despite not being African.
It isn't or else people like stephen curry wouldn't be seen as "black" and if it was only a color label then it's useless and shouldn't be used. People use it to talk about black africans certainly not about indians or the few hundreds andaman islanders lol
Exceptions don't make the rule.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: You idiot, I was referring to the social context it is used here in America, the same way "white" is used in Africa to describe blacks of mixed ancestry.
LOL Why would I claim their history since I'm not even of African descent but Asian!
Ah so now you agree with me about the inaccuracy of your american identity labels ? Thanks.
and you aren't asian you really think you'll fool me ? Yes random filipino obsessed with black africans and pushing the afrocentrist narrative XD
You're probably some AA with a distant filipino ancestor and larp as a full one XD
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: [qb] No "black" usually refers to people from sub-saharan africa who tend to share many physical traits in common and tend to form their own genetic clusters. the label "black" is like "european" "east asian". Many people in india are dark skinned and still aren't black nor related to black africans and they are genetically closer to north europeans than people like west or central africans.
"Black" is a COLOR label as in the color black. It has nothing to do with ancestry!
Here are a couple of definitions:
From Merriam-Webster 2. Black or less commonly black a: of or relating to any of various population groups of especially African ancestry often considered as having dark pigmentation of the skin but in fact having a wide range of skin colors
From Dictionary.com 1. a. relating or belonging to any of the various human populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.
Thus the Andamanese people I posted are 'black' due to their dark skin color despite not being African.
You are making little sense here
You say "Black is a COLOR label as in the color black. It has nothing to do with ancestry!"
yet the very definition you use lists people of geographic regions it does not just say
" a person of dark skin pigmentation"
the very definition says "specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa"
And they add "Oceania, and Australia."
Why?
because some of them specifically resemble Africans to an extent beyond just dark skin !
No examples are even necessary "dark skinned" is a concept so simple and self evident there is no need for examples apart from the use of the word black in a sentence to show it's grammatical context.
You are playing games here. You know full well East Indians or Pakistanis in America don't identify as black people yet many are as dark as average African American or darker than someone like LL Cool J
"Black" in Americas has a strong connotation for someone with afro hair or broad features as well as dark skin, stop pretending you don't know that
That is American word usage like it or not and that is why they say in the dictionary "specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa" and in effect intend >>
specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa and people who look like similar to them
- obviously not just in skin tone alone
Are they going to spell it out in detail No, it's a wink wink definition (to avoid problems) Every American knows what it is intended to mean and they give us the hint by referring to Africa
That is why the definition in Webster's dictionary of black does not simply say
What you said makes absolutely NO sense. "Black" is a label referring to very dark skin color. How could someone be "pitch black" in color but not be black?! LMAO
Maybe the old designation "negroid" would be most suitable here. People can be "black" without being "negroid".
Here is another term that was talked about years ago.
Africoid An inclusive term?
quote:
A broad term, Africoid is used not only to describe peoples of Sub-Saharan African descent, those people today called Congoids (formerly called "Negroids"), but is also used to refer to other peoples who also often are also referred to as black, but whom some anthropologists have termed Hamitic, Capoid, Australoid (also known as Veddoid when applied to Southeast Asians), and Sudroids or more inclusively Dravidians, because they exhibit certain faciocranial and other physical characteristics which are not commonly attributed to Congoid (formerly called "Negroid") peoples. Chief among these physical characteristics are limited or nonexistent prognathism,a brachycephalic cranium (in the case of Capoid blacks), or hair which is relatively straight and finer in texture (in the case of, again, some "Caucasoid", Sudroid, Veddoid, and Australoid people).
Polynesians are seen as part Africoid due to the admixture of Australoid and Mongoloid characteristics.
The Africoid concept is expounded upon in the works of Afrocentric scholars such as Cheikh Anta Diop, and Chancellor Williams.
Criticism of race categorization
Critics of the race classification school such as Alan Templeton, Rick Kittles and S.O.Y Keita generally reject emphasis on traditional racial categories. They hold that race is not very useful in understanding the movements and origins of peoples and that racial terms such as "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" too often seek to plug such peoples into stereotypical checkboxes and deny them the full range of human variability. This more race neutral view contradicts the assertions of some Afrocentrics as to idealized racial types but also echo concerns raised by writers like C.A. Diop, namely: why are European populations conceived of as varying so widely in skin color, features, hair, and other indices but not Africoids?
Africoid as a term incorporating Oceanic, Dravidian and Australoid peoples
Some Afrocentrists argue for the primacy of phenotypes in describing a broad cultural-genetic set of black peoples stretching from Africa to Australia to Asia. Other DNA data however, which details the genetic complexity of peoples, calls into question conceptions of a single, rigid black or "Africoid" type that cuts across broad areas including Asia and Australia. Physically there may be similarities (dark skin or curlier hair for example) but genetically the data are much more complex.
Indeed some supporters of the term Africoid (see Scholarly use section below) note that DNA and serological (blood)analysis for example, places populations like Australian Aborigines, Dravidians of India and dark-skinned Pacific/Indian Ocean peoples closer to the populations of mainland East Asia than the stereotypical sub-Saharan Negroid phenotype.
Scholarly use of the term Africoid descriptive of local populations Some mainstream scholars advocate a non-racial terminology more directly based on the local variability of the population data, and its changes over time, holding that this allows for a wide range of types and variation, and that continued use of racial definitions and concepts are problematic:
"Much of the previous work focused on “racial” analysis. The concept of race is problematic, and (‘racial” terms have been inconsistently defined and used in African historiography as noted recently (MacGaffey, 1966; Sanders, 1969; Vercoutter, 1978).. There is little demarcation between the predynastics and tropical series and even the early southern dynastic series. Definite trends are discernible in the analyses. This broadly shared "southern" metric pattern, along with the other mentioned characteristics to a greater or lesser degree, might be better described by the term Africoid, by definition connoting a tropical African microclade, microadaptation, and patristic affinity, thereby avoiding the nonevolutionary term "Negroid" and allowing for variation both real and conceptual."
posted
I posted a shorter version above BUT here is longer one below.
Africoid peoples
PART 1
Africoid peoples
Africoid peoples are human populations of varying phenotypes who are considered black regardless of recent African ancestry..Rashidi, Runoko. The Global African Community. "The African Perspective in India." 1998. September 2, 2007. [http://saxakali.com/Saxakali-Publications/runoko19.htm] ] Bioanthropologist S.O.Y. Keita however, uses the term to describe African descent populations whose morphological variants originate exclusively within the African continent.S.O.Y. Keita. "Studies and Comments on The Biological Relationships of Ancient Egyptians". History in Africa, 20: 129-154 (1993)]
An inclusive term?
A broad usage of the term, "Africoid" is used not only to describe peoples of African descent, but is also used to refer to other peoples who also often are also referred to as black, but whom some anthropologists have in the past termed Hamitic, Capoid, Australoid (also known as Veddoid when applied to Southeast Asians), and Sudroids or more inclusively Dravidians, because they exhibit certain craniofacial and other physical characteristics which are not commonly attributed to so-called "Negroid" peoples. Chief among these physical characteristics are limited or nonexistent prognathismFact|date=February 2008, a brachycephalic cranium (in the case of Capoid blacks), or hair which is relatively straight and finer in texture (in the case of, again, some "Caucasoid", Sudroid, Veddoid, and Australoid people). Polynesians are seen as part Africoid due to the admixture of Australoid and Mongoloid characteristics. The Africoid concept is expounded upon in the works of Afrocentric scholars such as Cheikh Anta Diop, [ Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, (Lawrence Hill Books: 1974)] and Chancellor Williams. [Chancellor Williams, The Destruction of Black Civilization, (Third World Press: new ed. 1987)] Those such as Keita however, see little value in overextending the term to include relationships among genetically distinct peoples, such as Africans and "Australoids", preferring to use the term in context with biohistorical African populations of recent African extraction.
Users of the term point to Ethiopians, Eritreans, Somalis and Nubians who exhibit phenotypical traits such as orthognathism [Hanihara et al. (2000), [http://www.femininebeauty.info/hanihara.flatness.pdf Frontal and facial flatness of major human populations] Am J Phys Anthropol, 111, 105] , non-kinky hair texture,Carleton S. Coon, [http://www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-XI8.htm "The Origin of Races"] , (New York: Knopf, 1962), chapter XI, section 8.] and keen facial features seen by some as being exclusive to Caucasoid peoples. They contend such variations are indigenous to these groups and cannot be attributed to invasions from outside Caucasoid peoples as suggested under the Dynastic Race Theory and in more recent biological studies. [Leiberman and Jackson 1995 "Race and Three Models of Human Origins" in American Anthropologist 97(2) 231-242] Such phenotypical variations, they argue, often occur within nuclear family groups and are inherent to Africoid peoples, much as there are broad variations in physical stature and body proportions between the Pygmies of the Congo, who generally reach a height of 4.5 feet, and of the Dinka or Tutsi of Rwanda, whose average height is 6.5 feet and who are described as "gracile", or gracefully slender. [Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, (Lawrence Hill Books (July 1, 1989), pp. 37-279] Similarly, they continue, African peoples commonly considered "Negroid" such as the Senegalese also may lack prognathism. [ Jean Hiernaux, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Jun., 1976)] .
Critics point outFact|date=August 2008 that the "elongated" physique common to many Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis is strictly an adaptive response to living in a tropical environment and not a sign of shared racial ancestry with neighboring black groups as has been proposed:
The elongation of the distal segments of the limbs is also clearly related to the dissipation of metabolically generated heat. Because heat stress and latitude are clearly related, one would expect to find a correlation between the two sets of traits that are associated with adaptation to survival in areas of great ambient temperature, namely, skin color and limb proportions. This is clearly the case in such areas as Equatorial Africa, the tropical portions of South Asia, and northern Australia, although there is little covariation with other sets of inherited traits. In this regard it is interesting to note that the limb proportions of the Predynastic Naqada in Upper Egypt are reported to be "super-Negroid", meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans. It would be just as accurate to call them "super-Veddoid" or "super-Carpentarian" because skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term "super-tropical" would be better, as it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more "racially loaded" term "Negroid. [Brace CL, Tracer DP, Yaroch LA, Robb J, Brandt K, Nelson AR (1993). "Clines and clusters versus "race:" a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile". [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/110532242/ABSTRACT Yrbk Phys Anthropol 36:1–31] ".]
However, many anthropologists indeed contend that this elongated morphology, as seen in East Africa has been present since Paleolithic times, while suggesting that those early African ancestors should indeed be directly ancestral to the living populations of East Africa today, and that this variation should owe little to external influences. [Hiernaux, Jean. "The People of Africa", pp142. New York.]
Additionally, some argue that certain African peoples exhibit physical characteristics beyond the scope of the classic Negroid phenotype, including narrow nasal indices in the case of Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis, as well as a minority of the often very dark-skinned peoples of the Nile region. They also cite the epicanthic eyefolds evident in the Khoisan of southern Africa. [Diop, op. cit]
Their critics counter that the phenotypical differences between Horn of African peoples and sub-Saharan blacks run much deeper than mere facial features and are compounded by genetic differences:
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. Investigations of Y chromosome markers have shown that the East African populations were not significantly affected by the east bound Bantu expansion that took place approximately 3500 years ago, while a significant contact to Arab and Middle East populations can be deduced from the present distribution of the Y chromosomes in these areas. [Juan J Sanchez et al., "High frequencies of Y chromosome lineages characterized by E3b1, DYS19-11, DYS392-12 in Somali males," "European Journal of Human Genetics" (2005) 13, 856–866]
However, many geneticists who have found similar results, where populations straddling the horn of Africa are seen to possess intermediate genetic tendencies, suggest that such genetic diversity in Africa is expected, given the immense time depths of human habitation there [S.O.Y. Keita and Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist (1997)] , while Tishkoff (1996) found such variation to be as a result of natural drift and local evolution, also citing similarities with non-Africans due to her assertion that the horn of Africa populations are direct descendants of those migrants who left Africa to people the rest of the world. [Tishkoff, Sarah (1996). "Global patterns of linkage disequilibrium of the CD4 locus and Modern Human Origins]
Africoid critics also add that skin color is not an indication of racial affiliation, but a morphological adaptation to one's environment:
Skin color is one of the most conspicuous ways in which humans vary and has been widely used to define human races. Here we present new evidence indicating that variations in skin color are adaptive, and are related to the regulation of ultraviolet (UV) radiation penetration.... Skin coloration in humans is adaptive and labile. Skin pigmentation levels have changed more than once in human evolution. Because of this, skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships among modern human groups."Jablonski, Nina and George Chaplin. (2000) The Evolution of Human Skin Coloration. J Hum Evol; 39:57-106]
Many anthropologists have observed that "Caucasoid" is applied inconsistently and challenge as Eurocentric and inappropriate the use of a term which contains a European geographic referent to refer to people who are indigenous to the African continent. Further, they argue that the term is misleading and that, as a result, it erroneously has been conflated by some to mean non-Black or even White — despite the fact that so-called "Caucasoid" Africans range from brown to mahogany to extremely dark in skin tone. This is also the case with some "Caucasoid" peoples of the Indian subcontinent, i.e., the Dravidians, whom some Afrocentrists regard as Africoid, as well. [Diop, op. cit.; Williams op. cit. ]
Many contend that affixing the "Caucasoid" label to African peoples runs counter to phenotypical naming conventions, which historically have associated peoples with their geographic points of origin. They, therefore, have been the chief proponents and users of the term "Africoid" as what they consider to be a more accurate, inclusive and all-encompassing term for indigenous, dark-skinned peoples of the African continent and the African diaspora. [Diop, op. cit.; Williams op. cit. ]
Critics, on the other hand, point out that skin color is independent of race and is strictly a signifier of long term residence in tropical latitudes. Therefore, the term "Africoid" may be misleading in some settings since it allows its users to corral people of very different genetic backgrounds into one umbrella racial group based on loosely and inconsistently shared physical characteristics such as skin color -- characteristics that are a product of adaptation and not ancestry
However, skin color is not a criterion used in defining "Africoid" within its biogeographical (as opposed to social) context, which is a term used to describe Africans and their descendants who possess variants that independently arose in Africa. [S.O.Y. Keita. "A Brief Review of Studies and Comments on. Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships". International Journal of Anthropology, (1995)]
Criticism of race categorization
Critics of the race classification school such as Alan Templeton, [Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective, Alan R. Templeton. American Anthropologist, 1998, 100:632-650] Rick Kittles and S.O.Y Keita generally reject emphasis on traditional racial categories. They hold that race is not very useful in understanding the movements and origins of peoples and that racial terms such as "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" too often seek to plug such peoples into stereotypical checkboxes and deny them the full range of human variability. [S.O.Y. KEITA, "Studies of Ancient Crania From North", AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48 (1990)] This more race-neutral view contradicts the assertions of some Afrocentrics as to idealized racial types [Williams, op. cit] but also echo concerns raised by writers like C.A. Diop, namely: why are European populations conceived of as varying so widely in skin color, features, hair, and other indices but not Africoids? [Diop, op. cit]
Critics of race categorization also dispute the notion of Caucasoid admixture in the case of the Wolof and other African peoples, holding that the differences found among the Africoid peoples are simply localized variations that do not rely on any mixture from an assortment of discrete races. [The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544] Such concepts of admixture they hold, too often rely on stereotypical definitions of a "true negro" type, allowing reclassification of peoples like Somalis, Ethiopians, Nubians, etc to a "Caucasoid" grouping or mixed grouping with Caucasoids, sometimes using different labels like "Mediterranean" or "Middle Eastern." [Keita and Kittles, pp 534-44] Narrow naso-facial features for example are found among the oldest populations of East Africa, independently of any admixture with Caucasoid or Southwest Asiatic peoples. [Jean Hiernaux, The People of Africa (Encore Editions: 1975), pp. 17-204]
They also dispute the notion that East Africans are more related to Eurasians than other tropical Africans. To the contrary, they maintain that the East African peoples are much more related to other African populations than Europeans and Asians, and that supporters of traditional race theories typically use misleading labeling (such as 'Middle Eastern') to classify African DNA data so as to decontextualize it. For example, Ethiopians are very closely related to one of the oldest African populations, the Khosian peoples or Bushmen and cluster likewise with Senegalese on several Y-chromosomal measures. [Ornella Semino,1 A. Silvana Santachiara-Benerecetti,1 Francesco Falaschi,2 L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza,3 and Peter A. Underhill3, "Ethiopians and Khoisan Share the Deepest Clades of the Human Y-Chromosome Phylogeny," Am J Hum Genet. 2002 January; 70(1): 265–268] Chromosomal variants such as haplotype IV for example are found in high frequency in west, central, and sub-equatorial Africa in speakers of Niger-Congo, and to some extent among the Nubians. Another variant, Haplotype XI has its highest frequencies in the Horn and the Nile valley. Other types such as V and XI are found more heavily in Africa and the Nile Valley than among peoples such as Arabs, Turks or others. Haplotypes VII and VIII are most prevalent in the Near East, and XII and XV in Europe. [S.O.Y. Keita, A. J. Boyce, "Genetics, Egypt, and History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246; see also S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33 url=http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=318&mforum=africa]
As regards reliance on the categories of forensic anthropology, they point out that the weight of forensic data shows Africoid peoples cannot be stereotyped as an extreme, or conceived of as mixes between idealized types, but vary widely in physical characteristics. For example:
Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans. [S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33 url=http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=318&mforum=africa]
Issues in the study of Africoid populations
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
Africoid as an approach to overcome bias in previous scholarship
Supporters of the term Africoid claim that there has been bias in previous scholarship on African or Africoid peoples and that this pattern is demonstrative of the need for more accurate terminology in describing African populations. These scholars assert that variations of phenotype found in places like Northeast Africa are simply examples of the natural biodiversity of indigenous populations, and that the definition of "African" should not be confined to a region south of the Sahara (Diop, Cheikh Anta, The African Origin of Civilization). [Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, (Lawrence Hill Books: 1974)] Among the points advanced:
*Bias seems to define Africoids as narrowly as possible while incorporating as much as possible in groupings labeled as Causacoid
*Shifting terminology and labeling of African peoples to downplay their diversity
Africoid as an approach to show population diversity
Modern re-analyses of previous studies shows a clear tendency to sometimes minimize variability within certain northeast African populations. This range of variation is the building block of the concept of Africoid populations, as opposed to their rigid separation into groupings like so-called "Caucasoid" and sub-Saharan Negroes. According to one recent re-evaluation of studies on the ancient Egyptians: :An overview of the data from the studies suggests that the major biological affinities of early southern Egyptians lay with tropical Africans. The range of indigenous tropical African phenotypes is great; and this range of variation must be considered in any discussion of the Nile Valley peoples. The early southern Egyptians belonged primarily to an African descent group which gained some Near Eastern affinity through gene flow with the passage of time. ("Keita, S. O. Y, "A brief review of studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships") [Keita, S. O. Y, "A brief review of studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships," Journal International Journal of Anthropology, Springer: Netherlands, ISSN 0393-9383, Issue Volume 10, Numbers 2-3 / April, 1995 , Pages 107-123 ] . In the classification of so-called "Negroid" peoples, traditional scholarship has established a baseline phenotype for a "true Negro" (generally a sub-Saharan type). Nonconforming characteristics in some Northeast African populations have been cause for incorporation of these peoples into a "Caucasoid" cluster. However, the same selective classification scheme is not applied to groups traditionally categorized as Negroid. Writers such as Carelton Coons report "Mediterranean" remains that seem to have "Negroid" traits, but do not mention the opposite. Nor do such scholars apply the same selective definition approach with populations of the Levant, Maghreb or those farther north. For example, scholars generally have made no similar attempt to define a "true white." [Keita, op. cit.] Others surveys of African peoples in the Nile Valley, Sahara and Sudan confirm the cultural, skeletal and material links between them from the earliest times. [ [http://www.search.com/reference/Badarian Strouhal, E., 1971, ‘Evidence of the early penetration of Negroes into prehistoric Egypt’, Journal of African History, 12: 1-9) ] ]
Lumping of Africoid population data under labels such as 'Mediterranean'
Re-analyses of scholarship also show a tendency to sometimes lump certain types of data, such as skeletical remains under broad clusters or categories such as Mediterranean. Numerous studies of Egyptian crania have been undertaken, with many showing a range of types, and workers often describing substantially Negroid remains. Often this type has been lumped into a Caucasoid cluster, typically using the term "Mediterranean." A majority of these studies show the strong influence of Sudanic and Saharan elements in the predynastic populations and yet classification systems often incorporate them into the Mediterranean grouping.
::"Analyses of Egyptian crania are numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that ancient Egyptian crania have frequently all been “lumped (implicitly or explicitly) as Mediterranean, although Negroid remains are recorded in substantial numbers by many workers.. The majority of the work describes a Negroid element, especially in the southern population and sometimes as predominating in the predynastic period (Falkenburger, 1947).. [ S.O.Y. KEITA, "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa", AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48 (1990)]
Use of racial categories in modern DNA studies
Some supporters of the term Africoid point to modern DNA studies (Templeton, Lewotinin, et. al) that show a broad range of physical variation organic to African peoples, maintaining that classifications like Caucasoid, Mediterranean and 'true' sub-Saharan negroes are artificial and stereotypical, and involve presorting ahead of time, rather than letting the DNA data speak for themselves. [Rick Kitties, and S. O. Y. Keita, "Interpreting African Genetic Diversity", African Archaeological Review, Vol. 16, No. 2,1999, p. 1-5] This broad mix of African genetic variation shown by DNA analysis, it is asserted, calls for inclusive concepts like Africoid to capture the genetic complexity on the ground. [John G. Jackson and Runoko Rashidi, Introduction To African Civilizations, (Citadel: 2001), ISBN-10: 0806521899, pp. 13-175]
Other DNA studies in turn throw doubt on "classical" racial categories. The nuclear DNA work of researcher Ann Bowcock (1991, 1994) for example, suggests that such primary groupings as Europeans may be flawed, and that such peoples arose as a consequence of admixture between certain already differentiated African and Asian ancestral stocks. Under this approach to the DNA data, Caucasians are thus not a primary grouping as in the classical categories, but a secondary type or race, due to their supposedly hybrid origins. [Bowcock AM, Kidd JR, Mountain JL, Hebert JM, Carotenuto L, Kidd KK, Cavalli-Sforza LL "Drift, admixture, and selection in human evolution: a study with DNA polymorphisms." Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1991; 88: 3: 839-43:] [A. M. Bowcock, High resolution of human evolutionary trees with polymorphic microsatellites, 1994, Nature, 368: pp.455-457]
Anthropologists such as Lieberman and Jackson (1995), also find numerous methodological and conceptual problems with using DNA sequencing and other phylogenetic methods to support concepts of race. They hold for example that: "the molecular and biochemical proponents of this model explicitly use racial categories in their initial grouping of samples" They suggest that the authors of these studies find support for racial distinctions only because they began assuming the validity of race (Leiberman and Jackson 1995 "Race and Three Models of Human Origins" in American Anthropologist 97(2) 231-242) [Leiberman and Jackson 1995 "Race and Three Models of Human Origins" in American Anthropologist 97(2) 231-242]
Whatever the approach used, modern DNA studies have in many ways undermined traditional racial categories in favor of a population variant/gradient or continuum approach. This continuum/gradient approach is embraced by supporters of the term Africoid [Jackson and Rashidi, op. cit.] as more accurate and realistic than various models that allocate peoples like Ethiopians to "Caucasoid" groupings.
Africoid as a term incorporating Oceanic, Dravidian and Australoid peoples
Some people argue for the primacy of phenotypes in describing a broad cultural-genetic set of black peoples stretching from Africa to Australia to Asia. [African Presence in Early Asia, Runoko Rashidi (Editor), Ivan Van Sertima (Editor), Transaction Publishers, 1987) pp. 79-208] Other DNA data however, which details the genetic complexity of peoples, calls into question conceptions of a single, rigid black or "Africoid" type that cuts across broad areas including Asia and Australia. Physically there may be similarities (dark skin or curlier hair for example) but genetically the data are much more complex.
Indeed some supporters of the term Africoid (see "Scholarly use" section below) note that DNA and serological (blood)analysis for example, places populations like Australian Aborigines, Dravidians of India and dark-skinned Pacific/Indian Ocean peoples closer to the populations of mainland East Asia than the stereotypical sub-Saharan Negroid phenotype. [The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544]
Scholarly use of the term Africoid descriptive of local populations
Some mainstream scholars advocate a non-racial terminology more directly based on the local variability of the population data, and its changes over time, holding that this allows for a wide range of types and variation, and that continued use of racial definitions and concepts are problematic::"Much of the previous work focused on “racial” analysis. The concept of race is problematic, and (‘racial” terms have been inconsistently defined and used in African historiography as noted recently (MacGaffey, 1966; Sanders, 1969; Vercoutter, 1978).. There is little demarcation between the predynastics and tropical series and even the early southern dynastic series. Definite trends are discernible in the analyses. This broadly shared "southern" metric pattern, along with the other mentioned characteristics to a greater or lesser degree, might be better described by the term Africoid, by definition connoting a tropical African microclade, microadaptation, and patristic affinity, thereby avoiding the nonevolutionary term "Negroid" and allowing for variation both real and conceptual." [Keita, "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa", op. cit.]
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Please forgive me but to me Africoid is a usless throwback to 1980s and 90s jargon.
Is africoid (Africa-like) hair * San beebee shots * a majority of Senegal-Niger-Congo-Kordafanian-baNtu speakers' naps * some Sahel & Sahra, Nile & NE Africa peoples' curls and waves * Mediterranean coastal folks' strings waves curls and 'bushes'?
Same can templated for skin, nose, lips, height, skull form, etc.
I feel face and body features are best described as they are without resort to continental fixation. Most continents share their sets of features with little exclusivity. The original package set of features the inventors of anthropology (colonialist, African slave holding Europeans, claimed to be objective scientists) developed geography based typologies that included * the Caucasus -- caucasian for European whites and caucasoid for African SE Asian and Zagros "whites" * Mongolia -- mongoloid for central to east and Pacific Asians extended to San Africans (nevermind the now defunct medical/mental term mongoloid idiot) * Ethiopia -- Ethiopian for all African peoples not subsumed under caucasoid or mongoloid ideologytypology. Due to slavery Ethiopian was ditched for negro, which is a condition not an ethnicity, nationality, language, geography, or faith.
Personally, I'd prefer reversion to Ethiopoid since Abyssinia does house a plethora of African phenotypes. I don't go for negro(iod) at all but would love honest admission there are white people with negroid tendencies who never get called that vile word. Prognathism, fleshy lips, broad noses, loose naps, for a few have never been strangers to European faces. Yes, I know Ethiopian as a phenotype catchword is a 2500 yr old throwback. A throwback to what was readily apparent to various ancient documenters of African phenotypes. Two generics, Aithiopian & Libyan with some of the latter known to entail the former typology or even earlier Nehesu & Tjemehu.
What to say about race since its such a dreaded term by those who have to bear its burden --as if denying race will dead racism-- but genetics and genomics both quite nicely affirm local bio-geographic populations via CODIS autosomal STaRs and STRUCTURE/ADMIXTURE SNiPs and 'whole' genomes.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: It isn't or else people like stephen curry wouldn't be seen as "black"..
I already explained to Archaeopteryx that in North America, black is attached to black ancestry i.e. African ancestry no matter how light the person's skin is. The converse is also true in Africa where Stephen Curry would be called "white". That still does not change the fact that Egyptians were not only indigenous Africans but did indeed have dark skin for them to be called melanchroi (black) by the Greeks and maure by the Romans! But that is what irks you doesn't it.
quote:..and if it was only a color label then it's useless and shouldn't be used...
And how is a label useless if it in fact serves its purpose, in this case describing color?!! You are obviously suffering from a psychological syndrome one that I and others in this forum see with a lot of fair-skinned (white) North Africans.
quote:People use it to talk about black africans certainly not about Indians or the few hundreds andaman islanders lol
Apparently you don't realize that very dark skinned Indians are called kalu (black) by lighter-skinned Indians, and Andamanese are not the only black peoples in Southeast Asia, there the other so-called Negrito groups like the Aeta of the Philippines, the Semang of Malaysia, Maniq people of southern Thailand, etc. Not to mention the Papuan New-Guineans, Melaneseians, and Papuan New-Guineans ALL are called 'black' by their Asian neighbors before the arrival of Europeans.
quote:Exceptions don't make the rule.
Indeed, they don't. The rule is very dark skin = black.
quote:Ah so now you agree with me about the inaccuracy of your American identity labels? Thanks.
How is it inaccurate if it is actually describing color??
quote:and you aren't Asian you really think you'll fool me? Yes random filipino obsessed with black africans and pushing the afrocentrist narrative XD
I'm not obsessed with Africans but with the TRUTH! Egypt is in Africa and its people are African so to call that Afrocentric is like saying someone who defends the whiteness of Celtic people is Eurocentric! LMAO it is just plain common sense.
By the way, I'm not the only Filipino. There's a guy name Paul Kekai Manansala who even had a whole web group on the black African identity of the Egyptians called Ta-Seti and even wrote articles proving it with bio-anthropological evidence!
quote:You're probably some AA with a distant filipino ancestor and larp as a full one XD
So one has to be African American to defend the truth that you are so desperate to deny? What about fellow poster Brandon who is white? Or better yet what of all the white academics and Egyptologists who also maintain Egypt's black identity like Dr. Kara Cooney, Dr. Sally-Ann Ashton or better yet Egyptian Egyptologists like Ahmed Saleh and Mostafa Gadalla?!! Are all of these people African Americans too?! LOL
Face it, you've lost the argument before you begun! I just use you as entertainment.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The terms "white" and "black" are virtually unavoidable in social interactions
But if you avoid them in anthropological discussion it eliminates many problems
"dark skinned" and "light skinned" are also subjective but with much less ambiguity and political implications than "white" or "black" (teams) therefore "dark skinned" and "light skinned" are better to use in more scientific discussions compared to white or black (if we must even talk about skin)
but people want to make it political so they will insist on declaring people by these labels
if it was not political people would use the actual color their eyes see > brown
The fact that "black" is used in place of the usually more accurate "brown" is another unmistakable hint that more that color is being discussed
So why do people insist on white or black? because we love racial categorization, some of us.
Someone can't say race doesn't exist and then start talking about "black and "white" when the vast majority of people called black are brown and those called white don't resemble the color of snow or sugar either
A lot of children learn colors by crayon colors. I recall a little girl becoming very confused as her African America father tried to explained he was black not brown while she was looking at him and her eyes were telling her brown
"White" and "Black" are clearly racial terms with a history to go with them and for the reasons above, much as some people would like to pretend they aren't (when convenient), they are
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Among the first Europeans to reflect upon the race of ancient Egyp- tians was Count Constantine de Volney (1757-1820), who visited Egypt between 1783 and 1785. He wrote of the brown-skinned Chris- tian Copts, who formed a great part of the nonurban population, that ‘all have a bloated face, puffed up eyes, flat nose, thick lips; in a word, the true face of the mulatto.’ ’ The count was surprised and puz- zled at finding in Egypt this physical type with which he was familiar in Europe, where it had resulted from matings between white people and Africans or Blacks from the Caribbean. After viewing the Sphinx, he was convinced that a similar process of miscegenation had been at work in Africa, but with Blacks as the majority population and whites the minority in the initial mixture. This led him to write about the Sphinx in words that were disconcerting to the proslavery forces of his day:
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Someone who has any info about the percentage of people who are "white", "black" or "medium" (regarding skin color) in todays Egypt? How is the percentage in other North African countries?
That is a difficult task namely because such labels used in North Africa are the reverse of Western nations like the U.S. For example in the U.S. the so-called "one drop rule" or rather "black hint" is used where anyone with discernable African ancestry is called "black" no matter how light. People who are biracial or even "quadroon" 3-4ths white are still called 'black' as a historical way to bastardize blacks and prevent them from integrating into the greater white society. In Africa in general but especially North Africa, the practice is reversed where any white ancestry makes the person "white" and that includes Arab ancestry no matter how dark the skin coloring. This is why even North Sudanese either call themselves "white" or more commonly other euphemisms like "brown" or even "green" if very dark (black). To complicate things even more is that the U.S. federal census also used to classify all North Africans as "white". Hilariously, years ago a Nubian-Egyptian even sued the federal government for denying his black identity! LOL
quote: Maybe the old designation "negroid" would be most suitable here. People can be "black" without being "negroid".
Here is one definition of negroid:
quote: Negroid (less commonly called Congoid) is an obsolete racial grouping of various people indigenous to Africa south of the area which stretched from the southern Sahara desert in the west to the African Great Lakes in the southeast, but also to isolated parts of South and Southeast Asia (Negritos). The term is derived from now-discredited conceptions of race as a biological category.
Yes, and the wiki article explains why the racial term is obsolete. "Negroid" refers to a specific facial morphology which is not confined to Sub-Saharans.
Hence why you have Southeast Asian aboriginals are also "negroid" such as the Andamanese below:
Not to mention Paleo-Americans and prehistoric Siberians who also exhibit "negroid" features. The same holds true for so-called "caucasoid" classification and the morphological features associated with that.
Indeed. And according to the "one-drop" rule embraced by Euro-Americans especially, the ancient AEs would be black. Even "Afrocentric" critic Mary Lefkowitz had to admit the same. Some people think that by "reopening" and repeating these old question they can change the reality but they fail right off the bat.
As for the designation "black" as you well note for over a century it has not only included "sub-Saharan" people but people from all continents based on skin color, a definition which ALSO includes the color brown for over a century.
"sub-Saharan
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: I posted a shorter version above BUT here is longer one below.
Africoid peoples
PART 1
Africoid peoples
Africoid peoples are human populations of varying phenotypes who are considered black regardless of recent African ancestry..Rashidi, Runoko. The Global African Community. "The African Perspective in India." 1998. September 2, 2007. [http://saxakali.com/Saxakali-Publications/runoko19.htm] ] Bioanthropologist S.O.Y. Keita however, uses the term to describe African descent populations whose morphological variants originate exclusively within the African continent.S.O.Y. Keita. "Studies and Comments on The Biological Relationships of Ancient Egyptians". History in Africa, 20: 129-154 (1993)]
An inclusive term?
A broad usage of the term, "Africoid" is used not only to describe peoples of African descent, but is also used to refer to other peoples who also often are also referred to as black, but whom some anthropologists have in the past termed Hamitic, Capoid, Australoid (also known as Veddoid when applied to Southeast Asians), and Sudroids or more inclusively Dravidians, because they exhibit certain craniofacial and other physical characteristics which are not commonly attributed to so-called "Negroid" peoples. Chief among these physical characteristics are limited or nonexistent prognathismFact|date=February 2008, a brachycephalic cranium (in the case of Capoid blacks), or hair which is relatively straight and finer in texture (in the case of, again, some "Caucasoid", Sudroid, Veddoid, and Australoid people). Polynesians are seen as part Africoid due to the admixture of Australoid and Mongoloid characteristics. The Africoid concept is expounded upon in the works of Afrocentric scholars such as Cheikh Anta Diop, [ Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, (Lawrence Hill Books: 1974)] and Chancellor Williams. [Chancellor Williams, The Destruction of Black Civilization, (Third World Press: new ed. 1987)] Those such as Keita however, see little value in overextending the term to include relationships among genetically distinct peoples, such as Africans and "Australoids", preferring to use the term in context with biohistorical African populations of recent African extraction.
Users of the term point to Ethiopians, Eritreans, Somalis and Nubians who exhibit phenotypical traits such as orthognathism [Hanihara et al. (2000), [http://www.femininebeauty.info/hanihara.flatness.pdf Frontal and facial flatness of major human populations] Am J Phys Anthropol, 111, 105] , non-kinky hair texture,Carleton S. Coon, [http://www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-XI8.htm "The Origin of Races"] , (New York: Knopf, 1962), chapter XI, section 8.] and keen facial features seen by some as being exclusive to Caucasoid peoples. They contend such variations are indigenous to these groups and cannot be attributed to invasions from outside Caucasoid peoples as suggested under the Dynastic Race Theory and in more recent biological studies. [Leiberman and Jackson 1995 "Race and Three Models of Human Origins" in American Anthropologist 97(2) 231-242] Such phenotypical variations, they argue, often occur within nuclear family groups and are inherent to Africoid peoples, much as there are broad variations in physical stature and body proportions between the Pygmies of the Congo, who generally reach a height of 4.5 feet, and of the Dinka or Tutsi of Rwanda, whose average height is 6.5 feet and who are described as "gracile", or gracefully slender. [Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, (Lawrence Hill Books (July 1, 1989), pp. 37-279] Similarly, they continue, African peoples commonly considered "Negroid" such as the Senegalese also may lack prognathism. [ Jean Hiernaux, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Jun., 1976)] .
Critics point outFact|date=August 2008 that the "elongated" physique common to many Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis is strictly an adaptive response to living in a tropical environment and not a sign of shared racial ancestry with neighboring black groups as has been proposed:
The elongation of the distal segments of the limbs is also clearly related to the dissipation of metabolically generated heat. Because heat stress and latitude are clearly related, one would expect to find a correlation between the two sets of traits that are associated with adaptation to survival in areas of great ambient temperature, namely, skin color and limb proportions. This is clearly the case in such areas as Equatorial Africa, the tropical portions of South Asia, and northern Australia, although there is little covariation with other sets of inherited traits. In this regard it is interesting to note that the limb proportions of the Predynastic Naqada in Upper Egypt are reported to be "super-Negroid", meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans. It would be just as accurate to call them "super-Veddoid" or "super-Carpentarian" because skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term "super-tropical" would be better, as it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more "racially loaded" term "Negroid. [Brace CL, Tracer DP, Yaroch LA, Robb J, Brandt K, Nelson AR (1993). "Clines and clusters versus "race:" a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile". [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/110532242/ABSTRACT Yrbk Phys Anthropol 36:1–31] ".]
However, many anthropologists indeed contend that this elongated morphology, as seen in East Africa has been present since Paleolithic times, while suggesting that those early African ancestors should indeed be directly ancestral to the living populations of East Africa today, and that this variation should owe little to external influences. [Hiernaux, Jean. "The People of Africa", pp142. New York.]
Additionally, some argue that certain African peoples exhibit physical characteristics beyond the scope of the classic Negroid phenotype, including narrow nasal indices in the case of Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis, as well as a minority of the often very dark-skinned peoples of the Nile region. They also cite the epicanthic eyefolds evident in the Khoisan of southern Africa. [Diop, op. cit]
Their critics counter that the phenotypical differences between Horn of African peoples and sub-Saharan blacks run much deeper than mere facial features and are compounded by genetic differences:
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. Investigations of Y chromosome markers have shown that the East African populations were not significantly affected by the east bound Bantu expansion that took place approximately 3500 years ago, while a significant contact to Arab and Middle East populations can be deduced from the present distribution of the Y chromosomes in these areas. [Juan J Sanchez et al., "High frequencies of Y chromosome lineages characterized by E3b1, DYS19-11, DYS392-12 in Somali males," "European Journal of Human Genetics" (2005) 13, 856–866]
However, many geneticists who have found similar results, where populations straddling the horn of Africa are seen to possess intermediate genetic tendencies, suggest that such genetic diversity in Africa is expected, given the immense time depths of human habitation there [S.O.Y. Keita and Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist (1997)] , while Tishkoff (1996) found such variation to be as a result of natural drift and local evolution, also citing similarities with non-Africans due to her assertion that the horn of Africa populations are direct descendants of those migrants who left Africa to people the rest of the world. [Tishkoff, Sarah (1996). "Global patterns of linkage disequilibrium of the CD4 locus and Modern Human Origins]
Africoid critics also add that skin color is not an indication of racial affiliation, but a morphological adaptation to one's environment:
Skin color is one of the most conspicuous ways in which humans vary and has been widely used to define human races. Here we present new evidence indicating that variations in skin color are adaptive, and are related to the regulation of ultraviolet (UV) radiation penetration.... Skin coloration in humans is adaptive and labile. Skin pigmentation levels have changed more than once in human evolution. Because of this, skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships among modern human groups."Jablonski, Nina and George Chaplin. (2000) The Evolution of Human Skin Coloration. J Hum Evol; 39:57-106]
Many anthropologists have observed that "Caucasoid" is applied inconsistently and challenge as Eurocentric and inappropriate the use of a term which contains a European geographic referent to refer to people who are indigenous to the African continent. Further, they argue that the term is misleading and that, as a result, it erroneously has been conflated by some to mean non-Black or even White — despite the fact that so-called "Caucasoid" Africans range from brown to mahogany to extremely dark in skin tone. This is also the case with some "Caucasoid" peoples of the Indian subcontinent, i.e., the Dravidians, whom some Afrocentrists regard as Africoid, as well. [Diop, op. cit.; Williams op. cit. ]
Many contend that affixing the "Caucasoid" label to African peoples runs counter to phenotypical naming conventions, which historically have associated peoples with their geographic points of origin. They, therefore, have been the chief proponents and users of the term "Africoid" as what they consider to be a more accurate, inclusive and all-encompassing term for indigenous, dark-skinned peoples of the African continent and the African diaspora. [Diop, op. cit.; Williams op. cit. ]
Critics, on the other hand, point out that skin color is independent of race and is strictly a signifier of long term residence in tropical latitudes. Therefore, the term "Africoid" may be misleading in some settings since it allows its users to corral people of very different genetic backgrounds into one umbrella racial group based on loosely and inconsistently shared physical characteristics such as skin color -- characteristics that are a product of adaptation and not ancestry
However, skin color is not a criterion used in defining "Africoid" within its biogeographical (as opposed to social) context, which is a term used to describe Africans and their descendants who possess variants that independently arose in Africa. [S.O.Y. Keita. "A Brief Review of Studies and Comments on. Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships". International Journal of Anthropology, (1995)]
Criticism of race categorization
Critics of the race classification school such as Alan Templeton, [Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective, Alan R. Templeton. American Anthropologist, 1998, 100:632-650] Rick Kittles and S.O.Y Keita generally reject emphasis on traditional racial categories. They hold that race is not very useful in understanding the movements and origins of peoples and that racial terms such as "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" too often seek to plug such peoples into stereotypical checkboxes and deny them the full range of human variability. [S.O.Y. KEITA, "Studies of Ancient Crania From North", AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48 (1990)] This more race-neutral view contradicts the assertions of some Afrocentrics as to idealized racial types [Williams, op. cit] but also echo concerns raised by writers like C.A. Diop, namely: why are European populations conceived of as varying so widely in skin color, features, hair, and other indices but not Africoids? [Diop, op. cit]
Critics of race categorization also dispute the notion of Caucasoid admixture in the case of the Wolof and other African peoples, holding that the differences found among the Africoid peoples are simply localized variations that do not rely on any mixture from an assortment of discrete races. [The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544] Such concepts of admixture they hold, too often rely on stereotypical definitions of a "true negro" type, allowing reclassification of peoples like Somalis, Ethiopians, Nubians, etc to a "Caucasoid" grouping or mixed grouping with Caucasoids, sometimes using different labels like "Mediterranean" or "Middle Eastern." [Keita and Kittles, pp 534-44] Narrow naso-facial features for example are found among the oldest populations of East Africa, independently of any admixture with Caucasoid or Southwest Asiatic peoples. [Jean Hiernaux, The People of Africa (Encore Editions: 1975), pp. 17-204]
They also dispute the notion that East Africans are more related to Eurasians than other tropical Africans. To the contrary, they maintain that the East African peoples are much more related to other African populations than Europeans and Asians, and that supporters of traditional race theories typically use misleading labeling (such as 'Middle Eastern') to classify African DNA data so as to decontextualize it. For example, Ethiopians are very closely related to one of the oldest African populations, the Khosian peoples or Bushmen and cluster likewise with Senegalese on several Y-chromosomal measures. [Ornella Semino,1 A. Silvana Santachiara-Benerecetti,1 Francesco Falaschi,2 L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza,3 and Peter A. Underhill3, "Ethiopians and Khoisan Share the Deepest Clades of the Human Y-Chromosome Phylogeny," Am J Hum Genet. 2002 January; 70(1): 265–268] Chromosomal variants such as haplotype IV for example are found in high frequency in west, central, and sub-equatorial Africa in speakers of Niger-Congo, and to some extent among the Nubians. Another variant, Haplotype XI has its highest frequencies in the Horn and the Nile valley. Other types such as V and XI are found more heavily in Africa and the Nile Valley than among peoples such as Arabs, Turks or others. Haplotypes VII and VIII are most prevalent in the Near East, and XII and XV in Europe. [S.O.Y. Keita, A. J. Boyce, "Genetics, Egypt, and History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246; see also S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33 url=http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=318&mforum=africa]
As regards reliance on the categories of forensic anthropology, they point out that the weight of forensic data shows Africoid peoples cannot be stereotyped as an extreme, or conceived of as mixes between idealized types, but vary widely in physical characteristics. For example:
Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans. [S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33 url=http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=318&mforum=africa]
Issues in the study of Africoid populations
Much of this is from a Wiki page I edited many years ago (06) giving the quoted definition of "Africoid" that a published scientist, S. Keita, gives, along with various other published scholars, not simple opinion or links to somebody's Youtube page. Assorted trolls & moles on Wikipedia killed the article, but then I discovered Egyptsearch and posted all the info they were trying to make "disappear," which rather than being buried on an obscure wiki receiving 5 hits a month, is picked up and shared via Google worldwide, just like now, rendering all the mole/troll sandbagging efforts a dismal failure.
Keita's definition of the term "Africoid" is RELATIVELY speaking, a more reasonable one reflective of African diversity than the stereotypical true "negroid" STILL being used in some parts of academia today:
"Much of the previous work focused on “racial” analysis. The concept of race is problematic, and (‘racial” terms have been inconsistently defined and used in African historiography as noted recently (MacGaffey, 1966; Sanders, 1969; Vercoutter, 1978).. There is little demarcation between the predynastics and tropical series and even the early southern dynastic series. Definite trends are discernible in the analyses. This broadly shared "southern" metric pattern, along with the other mentioned characteristics to a greater or lesser degree, might be better described by the term Africoid, by definition connoting a tropical African microclade, microadaptation, and patristic affinity, thereby avoiding the nonevolutionary term "Negroid" and allowing for variation both real and conceptual." --S. Keita. 1990. Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa. Am J Phys Anthropol. . 1990 Sep;83(1):35-48.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Personally, I feel that "equatorial African" would be more accurate for the suite of facial features and other physical traits that our French troll is intent on equating with "black". But then, I am pretty sure his opponent DJ does not maintain that ancient Egyptians or other ancient North Africans necessarily all had that equatorial phenotype. From what I have seen, DJ at least has been pretty consistent in using "black" and "white" to describe skin tones regardless of what ethnicity the people he's describing belong to. So, by insisting that AE etc. didn't look equatorial, our troll is either attacking a strawman or doesn't understand what his opposition actually believes.
Indeed. I think the term "equatorial" is not a bad one, but it seems too narrow. A better definition I think is "tropical African" - which incorporates a much broader geographic range, and ties into a clear data point- the tropical limb proportions- that characterize so much of AE and "sub-Saharan" Africa. It also includes a huge amount of micro-climates, from cool/cold cloud forest or mountain slope, to deserts, to stereotypical "jungle" or savannah which in part explains the diversity of the features of Africans, who, sad as it is to have to say in 2022, (some folk still haven't got the memo) "don't all look alike."
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ All of your pictures only confirm my original point-- that Copts are not a single homogeneous group of singular ethnic ancestry but a heterogeneous mixture who form a religious community.
As for them not looking "black".
ROTFLOL
Because according to you 'black' means looking Congolese.
Meanwhile the colorism article makes it clear that dark-skin is identified with being "authentic Egyptian"; there's a reason Saint Maurius is portrayed the way he is; and why Diasporan blacks in the West who visit Egypt often get mistaken for a Baladi such was the case of the late Frank Yurco's Afro-Caribbean wife as well as so many countless cases as well as the converse-- Egyptians being mistaken for Black Diasporans in America, Canada, UK, Australia, etc. etc..
LOL. Indeed. And light skin is nothing special in "sub-Saharan" African diversity.
And of course there are plenty of AEs who "look black" as have been shown on ES for over a decade now. Their pics are just not posted much. For those who still are stuck in the past- a snip from Reloaded:
Scholar Jablonski on skin color diversity in Africa - She notes that Africans have the most skin color diversity :- quote "more genetic diversity than all the rest of the world's people put together. This diversity is also reflected in skin pigmentation. Africans are not uniform or uniformly dark in their skin color. High levels of skin color diversity exist between different populations and also within most sub-Saharan African groups.6 This variation illustrates the complex interactions of evolutionary forces that contribute to patterns of variation in skin color at any point in time." --N. Jablonski 2012. Living Color: The Biological and Social Meaning of Skin Color
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: obviously these kind of egyptians :
^ Obviously the above Egyptians you posted are NOT dark-skinned at all but fair-skinned that is WHITE!! They are Afrangi
who represent the ruling elites of the country and are not even of Arab ancestry but rather Turkish, Circassian, or even European descent!
What you said makes absolutely NO sense. "Black" is a label referring to very dark skin color. How could someone be "pitch black" in color but not be black?! LMAO
As far as ancestry, they are African thus black African and NO black African is not confined to Sub-Sahara as was shown to you multiple times.
LOL. And said foreign derived Afrangi are not representative of the ancient peoples, nor are they necessarily representative of many of the modern masses- the baladi "sons of the soil.".
Ironically it took an Egyptian leader partially of the dreaded "negro blood" to come up with a reasonable strategy for restoring Egyptian military credibility, after they had gotten their asses kicked multiple times by the Israelis. But some still complained that he was "too black."
.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: I posted a shorter version above BUT here is longer one below.
Africoid peoples
PART 1
Africoid peoples
Africoid peoples are human populations of varying phenotypes who are considered black regardless of recent African ancestry..Rashidi, Runoko. The Global African Community. "The African Perspective in India." 1998. September 2, 2007. [http://saxakali.com/Saxakali-Publications/runoko19.htm] ] Bioanthropologist S.O.Y. Keita however, uses the term to describe African descent populations whose morphological variants originate exclusively within the African continent.S.O.Y. Keita. "Studies and Comments on The Biological Relationships of Ancient Egyptians". History in Africa, 20: 129-154 (1993)]
An inclusive term?
A broad usage of the term, "Africoid" is used not only to describe peoples of African descent, but is also used to refer to other peoples who also often are also referred to as black, but whom some anthropologists have in the past termed Hamitic, Capoid, Australoid (also known as Veddoid when applied to Southeast Asians), and Sudroids or more inclusively Dravidians, because they exhibit certain craniofacial and other physical characteristics which are not commonly attributed to so-called "Negroid" peoples. Chief among these physical characteristics are limited or nonexistent prognathismFact|date=February 2008, a brachycephalic cranium (in the case of Capoid blacks), or hair which is relatively straight and finer in texture (in the case of, again, some "Caucasoid", Sudroid, Veddoid, and Australoid people). Polynesians are seen as part Africoid due to the admixture of Australoid and Mongoloid characteristics. The Africoid concept is expounded upon in the works of Afrocentric scholars such as Cheikh Anta Diop, [ Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, (Lawrence Hill Books: 1974)] and Chancellor Williams. [Chancellor Williams, The Destruction of Black Civilization, (Third World Press: new ed. 1987)] Those such as Keita however, see little value in overextending the term to include relationships among genetically distinct peoples, such as Africans and "Australoids", preferring to use the term in context with biohistorical African populations of recent African extraction.
Users of the term point to Ethiopians, Eritreans, Somalis and Nubians who exhibit phenotypical traits such as orthognathism [Hanihara et al. (2000), [http://www.femininebeauty.info/hanihara.flatness.pdf Frontal and facial flatness of major human populations] Am J Phys Anthropol, 111, 105] , non-kinky hair texture,Carleton S. Coon, [http://www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-XI8.htm "The Origin of Races"] , (New York: Knopf, 1962), chapter XI, section 8.] and keen facial features seen by some as being exclusive to Caucasoid peoples. They contend such variations are indigenous to these groups and cannot be attributed to invasions from outside Caucasoid peoples as suggested under the Dynastic Race Theory and in more recent biological studies. [Leiberman and Jackson 1995 "Race and Three Models of Human Origins" in American Anthropologist 97(2) 231-242] Such phenotypical variations, they argue, often occur within nuclear family groups and are inherent to Africoid peoples, much as there are broad variations in physical stature and body proportions between the Pygmies of the Congo, who generally reach a height of 4.5 feet, and of the Dinka or Tutsi of Rwanda, whose average height is 6.5 feet and who are described as "gracile", or gracefully slender. [Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, (Lawrence Hill Books (July 1, 1989), pp. 37-279] Similarly, they continue, African peoples commonly considered "Negroid" such as the Senegalese also may lack prognathism. [ Jean Hiernaux, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Jun., 1976)] .
Critics point outFact|date=August 2008 that the "elongated" physique common to many Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis is strictly an adaptive response to living in a tropical environment and not a sign of shared racial ancestry with neighboring black groups as has been proposed:
The elongation of the distal segments of the limbs is also clearly related to the dissipation of metabolically generated heat. Because heat stress and latitude are clearly related, one would expect to find a correlation between the two sets of traits that are associated with adaptation to survival in areas of great ambient temperature, namely, skin color and limb proportions. This is clearly the case in such areas as Equatorial Africa, the tropical portions of South Asia, and northern Australia, although there is little covariation with other sets of inherited traits. In this regard it is interesting to note that the limb proportions of the Predynastic Naqada in Upper Egypt are reported to be "super-Negroid", meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans. It would be just as accurate to call them "super-Veddoid" or "super-Carpentarian" because skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term "super-tropical" would be better, as it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more "racially loaded" term "Negroid. [Brace CL, Tracer DP, Yaroch LA, Robb J, Brandt K, Nelson AR (1993). "Clines and clusters versus "race:" a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile". [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/110532242/ABSTRACT Yrbk Phys Anthropol 36:1–31] ".]
However, many anthropologists indeed contend that this elongated morphology, as seen in East Africa has been present since Paleolithic times, while suggesting that those early African ancestors should indeed be directly ancestral to the living populations of East Africa today, and that this variation should owe little to external influences. [Hiernaux, Jean. "The People of Africa", pp142. New York.]
Additionally, some argue that certain African peoples exhibit physical characteristics beyond the scope of the classic Negroid phenotype, including narrow nasal indices in the case of Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis, as well as a minority of the often very dark-skinned peoples of the Nile region. They also cite the epicanthic eyefolds evident in the Khoisan of southern Africa. [Diop, op. cit]
Their critics counter that the phenotypical differences between Horn of African peoples and sub-Saharan blacks run much deeper than mere facial features and are compounded by genetic differences:
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. Investigations of Y chromosome markers have shown that the East African populations were not significantly affected by the east bound Bantu expansion that took place approximately 3500 years ago, while a significant contact to Arab and Middle East populations can be deduced from the present distribution of the Y chromosomes in these areas. [Juan J Sanchez et al., "High frequencies of Y chromosome lineages characterized by E3b1, DYS19-11, DYS392-12 in Somali males," "European Journal of Human Genetics" (2005) 13, 856–866]
However, many geneticists who have found similar results, where populations straddling the horn of Africa are seen to possess intermediate genetic tendencies, suggest that such genetic diversity in Africa is expected, given the immense time depths of human habitation there [S.O.Y. Keita and Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist (1997)] , while Tishkoff (1996) found such variation to be as a result of natural drift and local evolution, also citing similarities with non-Africans due to her assertion that the horn of Africa populations are direct descendants of those migrants who left Africa to people the rest of the world. [Tishkoff, Sarah (1996). "Global patterns of linkage disequilibrium of the CD4 locus and Modern Human Origins]
Africoid critics also add that skin color is not an indication of racial affiliation, but a morphological adaptation to one's environment:
Skin color is one of the most conspicuous ways in which humans vary and has been widely used to define human races. Here we present new evidence indicating that variations in skin color are adaptive, and are related to the regulation of ultraviolet (UV) radiation penetration.... Skin coloration in humans is adaptive and labile. Skin pigmentation levels have changed more than once in human evolution. Because of this, skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships among modern human groups."Jablonski, Nina and George Chaplin. (2000) The Evolution of Human Skin Coloration. J Hum Evol; 39:57-106]
Many anthropologists have observed that "Caucasoid" is applied inconsistently and challenge as Eurocentric and inappropriate the use of a term which contains a European geographic referent to refer to people who are indigenous to the African continent. Further, they argue that the term is misleading and that, as a result, it erroneously has been conflated by some to mean non-Black or even White — despite the fact that so-called "Caucasoid" Africans range from brown to mahogany to extremely dark in skin tone. This is also the case with some "Caucasoid" peoples of the Indian subcontinent, i.e., the Dravidians, whom some Afrocentrists regard as Africoid, as well. [Diop, op. cit.; Williams op. cit. ]
Many contend that affixing the "Caucasoid" label to African peoples runs counter to phenotypical naming conventions, which historically have associated peoples with their geographic points of origin. They, therefore, have been the chief proponents and users of the term "Africoid" as what they consider to be a more accurate, inclusive and all-encompassing term for indigenous, dark-skinned peoples of the African continent and the African diaspora. [Diop, op. cit.; Williams op. cit. ]
Critics, on the other hand, point out that skin color is independent of race and is strictly a signifier of long term residence in tropical latitudes. Therefore, the term "Africoid" may be misleading in some settings since it allows its users to corral people of very different genetic backgrounds into one umbrella racial group based on loosely and inconsistently shared physical characteristics such as skin color -- characteristics that are a product of adaptation and not ancestry
However, skin color is not a criterion used in defining "Africoid" within its biogeographical (as opposed to social) context, which is a term used to describe Africans and their descendants who possess variants that independently arose in Africa. [S.O.Y. Keita. "A Brief Review of Studies and Comments on. Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships". International Journal of Anthropology, (1995)]
Criticism of race categorization
Critics of the race classification school such as Alan Templeton, [Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective, Alan R. Templeton. American Anthropologist, 1998, 100:632-650] Rick Kittles and S.O.Y Keita generally reject emphasis on traditional racial categories. They hold that race is not very useful in understanding the movements and origins of peoples and that racial terms such as "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" too often seek to plug such peoples into stereotypical checkboxes and deny them the full range of human variability. [S.O.Y. KEITA, "Studies of Ancient Crania From North", AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48 (1990)] This more race-neutral view contradicts the assertions of some Afrocentrics as to idealized racial types [Williams, op. cit] but also echo concerns raised by writers like C.A. Diop, namely: why are European populations conceived of as varying so widely in skin color, features, hair, and other indices but not Africoids? [Diop, op. cit]
Critics of race categorization also dispute the notion of Caucasoid admixture in the case of the Wolof and other African peoples, holding that the differences found among the Africoid peoples are simply localized variations that do not rely on any mixture from an assortment of discrete races. [The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544] Such concepts of admixture they hold, too often rely on stereotypical definitions of a "true negro" type, allowing reclassification of peoples like Somalis, Ethiopians, Nubians, etc to a "Caucasoid" grouping or mixed grouping with Caucasoids, sometimes using different labels like "Mediterranean" or "Middle Eastern." [Keita and Kittles, pp 534-44] Narrow naso-facial features for example are found among the oldest populations of East Africa, independently of any admixture with Caucasoid or Southwest Asiatic peoples. [Jean Hiernaux, The People of Africa (Encore Editions: 1975), pp. 17-204]
They also dispute the notion that East Africans are more related to Eurasians than other tropical Africans. To the contrary, they maintain that the East African peoples are much more related to other African populations than Europeans and Asians, and that supporters of traditional race theories typically use misleading labeling (such as 'Middle Eastern') to classify African DNA data so as to decontextualize it. For example, Ethiopians are very closely related to one of the oldest African populations, the Khosian peoples or Bushmen and cluster likewise with Senegalese on several Y-chromosomal measures. [Ornella Semino,1 A. Silvana Santachiara-Benerecetti,1 Francesco Falaschi,2 L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza,3 and Peter A. Underhill3, "Ethiopians and Khoisan Share the Deepest Clades of the Human Y-Chromosome Phylogeny," Am J Hum Genet. 2002 January; 70(1): 265–268] Chromosomal variants such as haplotype IV for example are found in high frequency in west, central, and sub-equatorial Africa in speakers of Niger-Congo, and to some extent among the Nubians. Another variant, Haplotype XI has its highest frequencies in the Horn and the Nile valley. Other types such as V and XI are found more heavily in Africa and the Nile Valley than among peoples such as Arabs, Turks or others. Haplotypes VII and VIII are most prevalent in the Near East, and XII and XV in Europe. [S.O.Y. Keita, A. J. Boyce, "Genetics, Egypt, and History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246; see also S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33 url=http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=318&mforum=africa]
As regards reliance on the categories of forensic anthropology, they point out that the weight of forensic data shows Africoid peoples cannot be stereotyped as an extreme, or conceived of as mixes between idealized types, but vary widely in physical characteristics. For example:
Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans. [S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33 url=http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=318&mforum=africa]
Issues in the study of Africoid populations
Much of this is from a Wiki page I edited many years ago (06) giving the quoted definition of "Africoid" that a published scientist, S. Keita, gives, along with various other published scholars, not simple opinion or links to somebody's Youtube page. Assorted trolls & moles on Wikipedia killed the article, but then I discovered Egyptsearch and posted all the info they were trying to make "disappear," which rather than being buried on an obscure wiki receiving 5 hits a month, is picked up and shared via Google worldwide, just like now, rendering all the mole/troll sandbagging efforts a dismal failure.
Keita's definition of the term "Africoid" is RELATIVELY speaking, a more reasonable one reflective of African diversity than the stereotypical true "negroid" STILL being used in some parts of academia today:
"Much of the previous work focused on “racial” analysis. The concept of race is problematic, and (‘racial” terms have been inconsistently defined and used in African historiography as noted recently (MacGaffey, 1966; Sanders, 1969; Vercoutter, 1978).. There is little demarcation between the predynastics and tropical series and even the early southern dynastic series. Definite trends are discernible in the analyses. This broadly shared "southern" metric pattern, along with the other mentioned characteristics to a greater or lesser degree, might be better described by the term Africoid, by definition connoting a tropical African microclade, microadaptation, and patristic affinity, thereby avoiding the nonevolutionary term "Negroid" and allowing for variation both real and conceptual." --S. Keita. 1990. Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa. Am J Phys Anthropol. . 1990 Sep;83(1):35-48.
Oh i did not see this reply until now. Interesting info.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
You are obviously suffering from a psychological syndrome one that I and others in this forum see with a lot of fair-skinned (white) North Africans.
Printer-friendly view of this topic