"Notice how Palestine is -not- a part of the 'Arab World'? North Africa is the "Arab World". Palestine is not.
What does this teach you?"
That arabs got their ass kicked?
Not that there aren't parts of Asia were Arabs are the (vast) majority, which could very well be labeled as "Arab Asia". But, this matters little anyway.
Regarding black Africa, what % of Africa isn't black? The coastal areas of the North, no? That's basically it. There's another meaning for black Africa though, the fact that most of its interior was unknown, back then in the 19th century, hence it's blackness/darkness.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
And how do you classify the settler European populations in Southern Africa? I believe that there are still some 5 million in South Africa. And in Namibia and Zimbabawe there are noticeble European settlers there too. And add to those numbers the transplanted South Asian slaves/indentured populations in South Africa and Kenya.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes: @rasol:
"Notice how Palestine is -not- a part of the 'Arab World'? North Africa is the "Arab World". Palestine is not.
What does this teach you?"
quote:Miquel: That arabs got their ass kicked?
And, following that logic, who got 'kicked' in North Africa - aka the Arab world? The Berber? The Blacks? That's who.
Hence there is and Arab world, which subsumes the Berber world, and the Black world.
These conversations usually stay stuck at a naive level [Nur], because there is seldom anything more than a child's understanding of the political and polemic forces that drive peoples conceptions of the world - which they *falsely* imagine makes some kind of 'objective sense', beyound having been dictated to them to serve the interests of forces more powerful, and sometimes move clever [sadly] than they are.
Here is the real question that this thread should have been predicated on, but which I knew from the start would never be intelligenty addressed:
Is there a Black world?
Or are Blacks still essentially a diaspora people [even in Africa] who live in - The Westeren World, the Arab World, or even - now - the Magrebian Berber world?
In the above world conceptions at the end of day, they are still Blacks, and often marginalised and discriminated against as such.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
And how do you classify the settler European populations in Southern Africa?
It was precisely the attempt of these people to remove Southern Africa from Black Africa and declare it to be a part of 'the western world'.
The west is conceptualised in the following way -
It has nothing whatsover to do with geography.
It is all the land, territory, and 'people' that the white peoples of Europe control.
The west's interest in "Black AFrica" therefore is purely one of containment and constriction.
For the Apartheid supporters in the West, South Africa, was as Western as United States or Australia and for the same reason.
Black Africa was constricted to the 'bantu-stans', or 'reservations' [the concept was modeled on the systematic decimation of the Native Americans].
For the AFrican National Congress, Southern Africa, all of it, is a part of Black Africa - which is what the concept of the Black Majority however gently asserted, is ultimately pedicated on.
It is a conception that implicitly acknowledges the reality of the Black World, and moreover seeks its betterment.
In this conception of Black Africa - there was *no* ws.t Africa.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
lamin how do I classify those people? In what way? If they are Africans? Yes, they are. I already said that black people born in Europe is as European as myself. Europe, Africa, etc are merely geographic terms. Are they native to Africa? Yes, they were born there. The same with black people in Europe.
Now, using the black man in Europe. Had he been born in Portugal, would he be *an ethnic* Portuguese? My answer is mostly no. Neither he, nor the remaining ethnic Portuguese would see the situation that way.
Consequently, a "White/European" South African isn't of the same ethnicity of the "Blacks". Unless, they all believe in a "South African" ethnic group which doesn't take race into acount. Defining an ethnic group isn't easy either. Are people in the USA simply part of the ethnic group "American"? But what about African-Americans, Italian-Americans, etc. These designations seem to imply that such group doesn't exist or is divided. Who knows? I don't. Since I am neither an American nor a South African I can't comment on it really. Only about Portuguese I'm afraid.
@rasol:
Yes, the Arab world is in conflict with the Berber world. And the black too since black Arabs tend to identify as Arabs and not Black, or not?
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, I don't follow you. Yes, the black (world) too (is in conflict with the Arab world). Did I wrote it wrong or what? Explain if you don't mind. Black world would be the part of the world were most people identify themselves as black. Since afaik, that place would be at least in part located in Africa, then yes those two worlds are in conflict. Like in Sudan, the country. But then, I'm not even sure how many people, in Africa or otherwise, see themselves as "Black". But again, since I not an Arab nor Black, nor African, or an expert I can't really know. What I said is my impression of the world. Take it as you want.
And don't forget the rest of my sentence.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't rewrite anything, my original post is still there. Frankly I still don't get your point. If you have something to say to me then, by all means, say it. And now my knownledge of english fails me. In Portuguese there's a word "subentender" which translating literaly means "subunderstanding". Now, I didn't have to write those things, which I latter put in brackets for your benefit, because it's "subentendido/subunderstood" what I was talking about. One person does not has to put everything laid out in the open when talking or writing. Simply because most people can "subentender/subunderstand" what the other means. This is achieved by context and simple gramaticaly knownledge. Strangely enough, you see to lack both? At least in this case. Perhaps English isn't your first language either, or simply my English failed me in more than one way. But as I said, if that is it then tell me, and stop doing whatever you're trying to do.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it's not misunderstanding. I guess implied is the closest word for it. As in, not having to explain everything point for point because people will get the point anyway. Better yet, not having to write all the words in phrase, because people will understand it's meaning. This is what "subentender" means. Seems I was wrong though. Better start writing everything, so as not to cause more irrelevant discussions.
Well, rasol seems to have a lack of understanding of what I was saying in that post. In another thread another poster also had some problems. But really, it could be my english or even my capacity to express my self in general. Not to worry though, whenever that happens and if prompted I will endeavour to explain it better. I just wish people wouldn't jump to conclusions, just like rasol did back there. A conclusion which he still hasn't revealed by the way. I do wonder what he thinks I meant back there..
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your question was what percentage of Africa isn't black. You answered by saying that the only people that fit that designation are, as you put it "the coastal areas of North Africa".
I responded by pointing out that there are "non-black" populations in Southern Africa--especially in South Africa. Whether they are African or not was not part of my query.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, right lamin, sorry about that. I failed to make the connection. My point there was mostly to say that non-black africa is such a small part of it, that one shouldn't even bother with the distinction Yes, true, I forgot about Whites in South Africa. But even there, they are the minority, I don't think their presence would turn that part of Africa into a non-black area. Of course, are there towns or regions where they are the majority? That would make those areas part of non-black Africa.
But really lamin, personaly I don't divide Africa into black, non-black/white whatever. It's all Africa to me. At best I will divide it by cultural lines or geographical lines. The ones that matters, at least to me. In South Africa whites seems to share their culture at least with the coloreds, creating a Afrikaner culture. I suppose many blacks are also part of this culture while others are more Zulu, Xhosa, etc.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Finally, you're starting to speak. Still, not saying all you want.
If you already know. Then please tell, what's my own mentality?
What do you want me to admit exactly? Plase, tell me.
I can't deny of confirm something which hasn't been declared, so how can my post be denial?
Confront me then, with the knowledge you claim to posess about my psyche. Either do that, or don't bother to post.
I'll answer your question, even though you don't answer mine. Why did I wrote it that way? Don't really know. (seems you do, lol) I was in a hurry (when am I not, lol), and the Berber-Arab conflict was the main subject in my mind, for multiple reasons. Then I decided to add the black side of the issue kinda of hastely it seems. To tie with what you were saying. No more, no less.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why did I wrote it that way? Don't really know.
I want you to think about it for a couple of days, and if you still can't answer the question about why you write what you write, [which is rather sad] then I will do it for you. After all, you should be less interested in my answer, and more interested of being sure of what you are saying, and why you say it.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I have done all the thinking I am going to do. I gave what it seemed to be my impression of the event. Of the thought process that went in my mind. But you disagree and are of course entitled to do so. Actually, I am not that interested in being sure since I am not being evaluated here (not for something that matters for my life) nor do I pretend being teaching anyone, in which case I also would have to be sure. At least ideally, lol. If fact, I have many doubts and I am aware of my limitations. The only certainty I really have is that I'm going to die someday.
Can't you give your answer now? I would apreciate it. Being sad or not is irrelevant. You made a comment and haven't explained what you meant. Of course, you don't have to, but as I said, I would be thankfull if you were to do so.
In essence, what do I reveal?
"You reveal more than you know by the way in which you wrote that"
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Neither geography or phenotypic labels has primacy in ethnic identification
Indeed, which is why i said the following in one of the first few posts of this thread:
a name (i.e. geographic terms btw) should only denote geographic location, rather than identity.
quote: but names of continents and regions have also been known to be subjective political constructs as opposed to geographical reality.
This was definitely another underlying factor that caused disagreement, however i was speaking in a strictly political sense(meaning any technicalities regarding actual tectonic locations would be best ignored, due to overall irrelevancy to the actual subject at hand).
Posts: 214 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:How many people here, who find "black Africans" offensive, will agree with the term "tropical Africans"?
Tropical African is anthropology.
Black African is ethnicity.
The two terms do not serve the same function and never will.
Now of course, this doesn't really answer the question at hand.
At any rate...
To be specific, 'tropical African' contextualizes Africans in geographical terms, while 'black African' contextualizes Africans in color terms.
Going by possible contextualizations...
Context 1: "Black" as a euphemism for considerable skin pigmentation, as an adaptive response to UV radiations in the tropics, would make "tropical Africans" and "Black Africans" mutually inclusive, not exclusive. Here, "Black Africans" would simply be an allusion to considerably pigmented Africans with recent ancestry in the tropics of Africa.
In the above context, 'black Africans' would just be a subset of the worldwide grouping, meeting the same specifications in their respective habitats.
Context 2: "Black" as ethnic construct; this would go beyond the shallow issue of skin color, but allude to ancestral kinship(s) tying the said people of a single nationality to a specific region(s), where people are known to be generally dark skinned.
In the context above, the use of the term would largely be 'localized', as being part of the variety of such human groupings used by society in a single nation. In a country like say, South Africa for example, 'black Africans' would be used to discern these indigenous Africans from the 'white setter' populatons...just like the discrete human 'races' in the U.S. are used to typify people into discrete groups. Or else take the "Red" and "black" dichotomy in social human groupings, as that exemplified in Kemet.
However subtle the differences between the two contexts above might appear, there is one nonetheless.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Neither geography or phenotypic labels has primacy in ethnic identification
Indeed, which is why i said the following in one of the first few posts of this thread:
a name (i.e. geographic terms btw) should only denote geographic location, rather than identity.
But your post seems to be restricting the use of 'geographical' terms as an ethnic identifier. If not so, please clarify.
My take: My point was that, societies could well choose to use geographical, color, phenotypic or even linguistic terms to subjectively name ethnic groups, as a way of dividing people in society into discernable groups, so as to fulfill jingoistic ends and/or presumably demographic purposes in official publications of statistics corresponding to respective 'sections' of the socially segmented society. None of the above terminology have any primacy in the already 'subjective' issue of ethnic identification; ethnic constructs are subjective, precisely because they vary from place to place and culture to culture, and could take form in the number of aforementioned ways, and above all, they are not expected to meet the methodological approach of science, which addresses any given falsifiable thesis. The rule of scientific conduct is standard anywhere, as it pertains to poving or disproving a thesis and hence forth, arriving at the most logical conclusion.
quote:nur23_you55ouf
quote: but names of continents and regions have also been known to be subjective political constructs as opposed to geographical reality.
This was definitely another underlying factor that caused disagreement, however i was speaking in a strictly political sense(meaning any technicalities regarding actual tectonic locations would be best ignored, due to overall irrelevancy to the actual subject at hand).
Political designations devoid of scientific merit are just as subjective as color designation of an ethnic group.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:To be specific, 'tropical African' contextualizes Africans in geographical terms,
"Tropical" is and anthropological term refering to morphological adaptation to tropical climates.
Tropical morphology includes the folowing:
1) dark skin,]
2) elongation and attenuation of the limbs.
3) steatopygia.
4) Broad and low nasal passage.
5) Curly hair.
These features concord with 'tropical' in the sense that tropical references 'climate'... not geography.
Moreover as climate varies and adaptation is also a varient, tropical features are by no means uniformly found in a given population, area or even a given climate zone.
South African Khoisan may be tropical in terms of steatopygia, but they are not in terms of limb ratio.
Some North East Africans are ultra tropical in terms of skin color and limb ratio, but have no tropical characteristics for nasal form and so on.
Black is only a reference to dark skin color, and a common ethnonym based upon this.
Tropical is not and ethnonym at all.
It never has been for the reasons just given.
It never will be either for the same reasons.
So tropical is not a replacement word for Black. re:
quote:How many people here, who find "black Africans" offensive, will agree with the term "tropical Africans"?
quote:Now of course, this doesn't really answer the question at hand.
Of course, that is and answer to your question, unless by asking -how many(?)-, you actually want a number for and answer?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:To be specific, 'tropical African' contextualizes Africans in geographical terms,
"Tropical" is and anthropological term refering to morphological adaptation to tropical climates.
Tropical morphology includes the folowing:
1) dark skin,]
2) elongation and attenuation of the limbs.
3) steatopygia.
4) Broad and low nasal passage.
5) Curly hair.
These features concord with 'tropical' in the sense that tropical references 'climate'... not geography.
And how does that falsify the notion that 'tropical Africa' is a geographic term? What do the tropics of Cancer or Capricorn, and the equator designate, if not correspondence with geography?
quote:rasol:
Moreover as climate varies and adaptation is also a varient, tropical features are by no means uniformly found in a given population.
Who said otherwise? Citation.
quote:rasol:
South African Khoisan may be tropical in terms of steatopygia, but they are not in terms of limb ratio.
Unless you can establish its relevance to my question, this is just a red herring.
quote:rasol:
Some North East Africans are ultra tropical in terms of skin color and limb ratio, but have no tropical characteristics for nasal form and so on.
See above.
quote:rasol:
Black is only a reference to dark skin color, and a common ethnonym based upon this.
Try telling this to "black Americans" or even other societies where 'black Africans' used 'red', 'wheat color', 'black' or what have you with respect to the other.
quote:rasol:
Tropical is not and ethnonym at all.
Who said it was?
quote:rasol It never has been for the reasons just given.
It never will be either for the same reasons.
So tropical is not a replacement word for Black. re:
Now that you've addressed things that the my question hasn't asked, it wouldn't hurt now to answer what the question does ask.
quote:
quote:How many people here, who find "black Africans" offensive, will agree with the term "tropical Africans"?
quote:Now of course, this doesn't really answer the question at hand.
Of course, that is and answer to your question, unless by asking -how many(?)-, you actually want a number for and answer?
I don't see your answer to this...
How many people here,
*who find "black Africans" offensive.
*will agree with the term "tropical Africans"?
...other than going off on a tangent with a bunch of red herrings.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where Africans themselves apply a red/black or white/black internal dichotomy to themselves I have no problem.
My problem is with the media, academicians, etc., constantly using the term black Africa while having jettisoned yellow and yellow/brown in terms of Asian descriptors. Just as they've never coined Arab Asia to describe the Arabian Peninsula.
Black Africa is no more or less than the current euphemism to replace Negro Africa and is used synonymously for sub-Saharan Africa.
And although forum members can find black Africans all over the continent and adjacent isles, know for sure outside ES AE&E forum black Africa(n) refers only to sub-Sahara negroes though sub-Sahara is objective geography and includes the Horn, the Horn populations are thought to include black non-negroes.
Asia is just as colour divided as Africa if not more so yet it regions and peoples aren't labeled with colour descriptors. Why is that? So-called SW Asia should be red Asia, south Asia should be black Asia, SE Asia should be yellowbrown Asia, East Asia should be yellow Asia (maybe even yellowwhite Asia as should central and north Asia) and West Asia should be white Asia. But, we hardly see the media using even these compass descriptors in application to Asia.
The idea behind black Africa is to keep the mind focused on colour issues and matters and that tropical/inner Africans real attribute unlike any other people in the world is their colour.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing this thread has solidly done is reveal the doublespeak on this forum in regards to black as an ethnicity term.
While on the one hand taking pains to define black as only a colour designation and pointing out blacks in India, SE Asia, Austalia, and Pacifica, yet the concept of a black world excludes all of them and only devolves to black Africans.
So no there is no berber or arab vs black world since no berber or arab are involved with New Guinea or Fiji or ...
Yes there is a berber world based on geographic origins and language.
Yes there is a arab world based on language, religion, and culture.
Yes there is a black world but it for sure isn't limited to inner Africans at home or in diaspora. Some other world than black world must be coined for them.
If placing black world in battle against berber and/or arab world is what defines it then a good portion of Africa is out the picture (southeast Atlantic shores of Africa don't interact with either berber or arab worlds.
What is black world or more precisely what part(s) of the black world were meant when that term was broached in this thread?
Black world, going by the forum's meaning always given out when pressed (black is color), is only delineated by relative skin colour. And indeed there is no language black, there is no cuntry black, there is no culture black. Without some cultural signifier of unity no "world" is possible where there is no commonality based on something intrinsically valuable and mass appealing.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"And indeed there is no language black, there is no cuntry black, there is no culture black"
Indeed. I ask you, since it appears many of you are black. How many blacks do really identify as blacks and not as their particular group? In essence, is "black" an important self-denomination?
I have noticed, that for some reason, blacks (and whites) in the USA pay much more attention to this. I would assume it's because they have lost their culture, many of them don't know their roots, and the only thing that remains for them is the skin color. (though why don't they simply call themselves Americans is beyond me). Btw, I do think that African-American is an ethnic group, with its culture and even its language but not all blacks are African-Americans and even some African-Americans are not black when looking at their skin color. What ties them together would the common origin in the many african peoples who where brought to America, as slaves no less. So a Nigerian would move now to America, would not be part of these African-American ethnicity.
Am I correct to assume this?
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only those stripped of all ancestral language, faith, name, culture, consciousness, primarly identify themselves by colour.
Nigerian-Americans do not have the Middle Passage history or combined European, "Native "American," etc., geneaology of the ones now calling themselves Black Americans.
The same holds true for all other free will migrants from Africa with their cultural heritage wholely intact, kept up, and still practiced.
No Euro settler colonizers are African in any sense of the word, imho, unless that like the lançados they have "gone native" (in which case by the 3rd generation they have lost most of anything European about themselves).
But Indians who have lived in Africa for generations, but brought black skin with them from India, and revere certain holy sites in "Cusha Dwipa" I would allow them some auxillary African status (despite the protest east coast Africans would make to my doing so).
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. German shepherd is a breed of dog. A phenotype of dog if you want. Phenotypes might have geographical terms in them, but that doesn't mean they can only be from there and that if they are born someplace else they will change.
I don't know how's your stance towards Human phenotypes. Certain anthropologists have created various terms to define human variation. They aren't perfect but they get the point.
I myself would be a so called Mediterranid phenotype. Named as such because it's characteristic and common around the Mediterranean Sea. Still not everybody around the Mediterranean Sea is Mediterranid and not all Mediterranids live only around the Med Sea.
If I was born in Africa, I would be (geographically) an African. Period. Wether you like it or not. It's irrelevant. And I would still be Mediterranean and not transformed into whatever phenotype would be common in the area I was born.
The same with the dog. A german sheppard in Ireland would be an irish (geographically) german sheppard.
That was a bad comparison.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gobbledeegook -- there is no Irish German Sheppard and if there were it'd be an Irish Setter German Sheppard mix breed.
Population genetics bears out my analogy making it an excellent comparison since dog breeds are the exact in-species diffentiators akin to human populations especially so recognized by old school geo-physical anthropology.
Your Coonian anthropology is woefully outdated. There's no such thing as a Mediterranid. You have little in common with a Libyan or Lebanese or Greek in the way of DNA, cuisine or other culture less lone phenotype.
Whether you like it or not, if you were born in Africa unless you're genetically Afican you still could never ever wever be African, just at best a citizen of the particular African country where born.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Had I been born in Africa I would not be genetically African true, but I would be geographically African.
Regarding the Mediterranid, it was only an example, I am aware of the its limitations. Still, I have a certain phenotype, which I have seen in many other parts of the world, therefore not being confined to Iberia. Call it whatever you want. Doesn't change anything.
Btw, Genes and Phenotype don't have to match.
And a german sheppard born in Ireland would be Irish. If asked about it's place of origin one would say Ireland, no? If I had been born in Africa, is someone asked me where I was from, I would say Africa. (well most likely I would have said a town or a country, since Africa is a bit vague, but you get the point)
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
German Shepherds originate from the need of Germans in Germany for a sheep dog with capacities of loyalty to their owners coupled with guidance and protection of their owner's sheep.
But enough of this "philosophical" shatter chitter chatter.
Scientifically, no one without recent African Hg's and Ht's is African, period. Ipso facto.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, at best, as I indicated above, maybe a citizen of the particular nation where born.
Population genetics is geographic origin based scientific knowledge. A geographic African is one who's DNA markers are of continental African derivation.
Your private definition is worthless as far as for our serious endeavors on this forum (which I admit has veered dangerously close to becoming a mere chat list especially since your advent here).
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
1) You won't transmit it. 2) Won't get "chalenged" from time to time?
Ok.
African:
Of or relating to Africa or its peoples, languages, or cultures. n. 1. A native or inhabitant of Africa. 2. A person of African descent.
Native:
1. Existing in or belonging to one by nature; innate: native ability. 2. Being such by birth or origin: a native Scot. 3. Being one's own because of the place or circumstances of one's birth: our native land. 4. Originating, growing, or produced in a certain place or region; indigenous: a plant native to Asia. 5. a. Being a member of the original inhabitants of a particular place. b. Of, belonging to, or characteristic of such inhabitants: native dress; the native diet of Polynesia. 6. Occurring in nature pure or uncombined with other substances: native copper. 7. Natural; unaffected: native beauty. 8. Archaic Closely related, as by birth or race. 9. Biochemistry Of or relating to the naturally occurring conformation of a macromolecule, such as a protein.
n. 1. a. One born in or connected with a place by birth: a native of Scotland now living in the United States. b. One of the original inhabitants or lifelong residents of a place. 2. An animal or plant that originated in a particular place or region.
So:
(native)2.Being such by birth or origin + (african)1. A native or inhabitant of Africa.= A person born in Africa is an African.
It's not a private definition. It's wortheless for your work. But then, is this your work? LMAO.
This merely a forum. A tourism forum no less. On which people discuss issues regarding Egypt. This particular sub-forum is for Ancient Egypt and Egyptology.
Yes, debating what African means is out of its original intent, and so are 50% of the stuff here.
Have a good day sir. Also, removing the stick located in a certain place of your body might be usefull.
posted
And removing the dick plunging in and out a certain place of your face may allow you to articulate with clear enunciation after you spit out what it shot there.
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes: Also, removing the stick located in a certain place of your body might be usefull.
Now refocusing on the addressed issue, the very definitions you provide shoot down the veriest inkling of what you champion. Demagogery won't work here. Dis ain'tcher Dodona, the dodo is an extinct species here. And should any resurrect, well, they squawk but they just don't fly.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I fail to see, how does that adresses what I just said.
Furthermore, that sounds like a serious offense...Banning?
I was merely implying that you are too stiff. Which you are. Implying afterwards that I am some sort of cocksucker and that this is the cause of my aleged lack of clear enunciation skills is going too far I think.
Anyway, go on..with your work. Don't let me disturb you.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
You get what you give, in spades from this spade. Civil discourse begets civil discourse Coarse implications gender coarser ones.
Comport yourself accordingly.
Carrying on little to no work today just cavorting about the pool with rum cigar music and company all which allow me free time to involve myself in the not very deep chit chat of my favorite group of cyber associates.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If my behaviour is out of line, the mods are free to warn me or ban me. Until then, I'll behave the same way I have until now.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
...other than going off on a tangent with a bunch of red herrings.
Taken literally, the question is obtuse. But if you want a silly answer to a silly question:
'how many',?
the answer is 1.
Now what?
I treated the question as if it were intelligent.
As if you were asking if tropical african, is a suitable substitute term for Black African.
This is and interesting question rather than and obtuse one.
The answer to this question is no.
But you're right, if you did not mean to ask and intelligent question but rather and obtuse one, then this is indeed a red herring.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
...other than going off on a tangent with a bunch of red herrings.
Taken literally, the question is obtuse.
Taken literally,...because you are too dense to understand it.
It is like someone asking for an answer to 2+2, and you coming up with an answer of 'elephant' for it; just utter intellectual depravity.
quote:rasol:
But if you want a silly answer
I knew that you could be counted on that...to a question which would otherwise be a no-brainer to even someone who has never been to school, much less literate.
quote:rasol:
'how many',?
the answer is 1.
Ah, your classic sub-intelligent signature of cutting 'complete' comments into just one or two word pieces, as the 'maximum' load of words that can penetrate your skull at a time.
So let me see if I can help you out, rasol:
Rasol's answer to: "How many people here, who find "black Africans" offensive, will agree with the term "tropical Africans?"
is "1". So the only two words that you can understand from the question at hand, is 'how many', for which you came to the conclusion "1". Does this mean that you're this "1" who finds 'black African offensive', or you just randomly spat out '1', because it was the single random thing that mindlessly popped up?
quote:rasol:
Now what?
So now, try your very best to read the questions above as "completely" as you can, bypassing your maximum mental capacity of aborbing just one or two words out of an entire question. Let's see where that takes you first.
quote:rasol:
I treated the question as if it were intelligent.
And I treated you as if you were capable of being trained to read a full sentence and complete question, rather than just absorbing just one or two words out of them.
quote:rasol:
As if you were asking if tropical african, is a suitable substitute term for Black African.
Now, follow me rasol carefully, and I know this can be a monumental task for you:
Carefully read...
"How many people here, who find "black Africans" offensive, will agree with the term "tropical Africans?"
Please wear those huge goggles, if it will help:
Were you on Pluto, when you were supposed to be educated on the idea that, while 'black African' can simply be used as a euphemism [albeit a subjective term] for dark skinned Africans who bear considerable skin pigmentation as a response to intense UV radiation levels of the tropics, it is also known to be used as an ethnic identifier in certain societies...while tropical Africans [Saharo-tropical Africans] would be in reference to Africans who are indigenous to or have recent ancestry in the tropics of Africa? The latter [tropical Africans] is 'objective' terminology used in bio-anthropology, whereas the former [black Africans] isn't. So of course, they can't be substituted with respect to the other, in that regard. However, outside of the science, they can.
Tropical Africans are inclusive of what is called 'black African', whereby 'black' is merely alluding to skin shade. Other groups who are still called 'black' in sub-tropical Africa and supra-tropical Africa, are so because of relatively recent ancestry in the tropics and have not ventured considerably away from the tropics, either sub-wise or supra-wise.
As localized socio-ethnic identifier in certain societies, it still alludes to dark skin at the most basic level, but more meaning is attached to this than just the issue of skin description. Here common recent ancestry to a single region(s), usually perceived to be where the ancestry emanates from dark skin peoples [of the tropics], is used to provide additional meaning to the socio-ethnic identifier, that transcends the mere issue of skin description.
quote:rasol:
This is and interesting question rather than and obtuse one.
The answer to this question is no.
For a person who proclaims to identify something obtuse when he sees one, you sure can't see through the obtuseness of your incapacity to differentiate the most basic elements of grammar, i.e. between 'an' & 'and', just like in the following, amongst many thousands of such examples in your posts over the years:
This is and interesting question rather than and obtuse one
Don't tell me that public money is used your country to fund such sorry English work.
Anyway, go on...
quote:rasol:
this is indeed a red herring.
From the only two words that you've managed to decipher from an entire question, I must say that you haven't done a bad job of assuring us that your severe intellectual deficit was able to allow you to at least draw up a red herring for an answer. Indeed, I figured so.
But hey, you can try again, and see if you will make some progress in addressing the specifics of the question, by deciphering more than one or two words from it. Good luck.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
[...]as the 'maximum' load of words that can penetrate your skull at a time.[...]
Please wear those huge goggles, if it will help[...]
ROFLMAO!^, but to the point of this post...
alTakruri, I find that it remains up to us to refrain from marginalizing 'black' africans.
However, I am beggining to sway towards your side again, as I think it may indeed be more strategic to just use african, and marginalize Arabs, and others in Africa as it's more logical.
And who made the law saying "tropical african" can NEVER make the flynch from an *anthropological* **TERM** to an ethny? ...After all, it's no less legit that 'black' african.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: I've already stated before that i see myself as a Somali then African and that's it. My parents don't identify as "black", and neither do i, and for sure my children won't either, and their children will hopefully not do that too.
Why would anyone want to base their identity on a colour?
So with this being said ... why is it ok for Moors to have a name, culture or even nation based off of the color 'black'. but is it not ok for African Americans to identify themselves as black?
Km.t means 'black' or 'black people' but when African Americans identify themselves as such ... you wonder why our identity is based on a color?
As you know African American come from a wide range of African cultures, and it is because of this that calling ourselves 'black' is a suitable termology. We had to create a culture here in the United States which is actually identified as the 'African American culture' or 'The Black Culture'.
Here in America, it doesn't matter which culture of Africa you came from during the slave trade we were all referred to as one .. in a attempt to make us forget our culture[s]. They were successful in their attempts so many cultures had to come together and be one people just to survive. The identity as 'Negro' was given to us which as you know mean black, but the word had such a negative vibe to it that we decided to be addressed as African American or either black.
In reality you don't hear on a regular black folks calling themself 'Black American's' because we don't use that term. We say African American's because their were many nations, villages, cutltures, in AFRICA that were removed from their land; having to learn how to communitate with each other in a peaceful manner ... and because of the problem of not knowning where we come from and having mixed with each other so much ... our culture[s] are based on our African heritage[s] ... such as music [drum-beats], dance, even the way we worship in churches and other places ... it African at its root. European churches are totally different from African American church [we dance as we danced in Africa during ceromonies and worship as we didn't in ceremonies] - These thing we brought with us and these things we didn't let go of ... thus African American[s] became something like a pan-African union ... having to communicate with old waring villages ... but find peace amongst each other. Words like African American is what united these deferent cultures in American and the word 'Black' has done the same.
We as in African American/Black Americans are a culture ... a cultures that is the combination of many cultures. We are a nation within a nation ... not in the legal sense of the word but in the cultural sense of the word.
Why such a problem with a people whom chooses to indentify themselves as 'Black'? We are not the first do it and we may not be the last but black & African Americans is our identity and it is the identity of choice.
Have we done something wrong Yonis?
Peacefull question ...
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here in America we don't look at Africa as Black Africa ... Black Africa is like a redundant term to many of us who have never been their or have done research on Africa like most of us should have. Yes there are invaders on the land but that doesn't take away from the original state of Africa and what it was to us.
When the term is used here in front of learned African American's it is swiftly reject!
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morgan Freeman is black American. Dare call him African American.
The Middle Passage descendents do not all have a single identifier they all agree to be known by.
Some want to revert to using colored because they feel they interacted more kindly to each other as a community and had more financial enterprises back when they were colored without the negative dictionary connotations of the English word "black."
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
ROFLMAO!^, but to the point of this post...![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic