quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes: Oh..such a pity.
What's the point of having all that knowledge if:
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.
Many thanks.
So then basically if I break into your house and hold you hostage with me and my wife and have a child in your house ... does that make your house my birth childs house as well?
actually let ask this while I'm asking questions.
If I kidnap you and your wife from your house and you have a baby in the house that I took you to ... does that mean your house is no longer your but that house of birth becomes yours? Or better yet do you get to call both houses your homes because you've had a baby in the house?..
We know it still belong to those who were taken from the house by why is it yours now? If I am the kidnapper and I take you to my house, does make my house become yours as well?
I saw this movie stars house and we just happen to be friends so if I get my wife pregant again, I will make sure she has a baby at his house and then argue him up and down about his house being my babies house and mine because my baby was born there ...
Thanks for the info ... I didn't know that we could do that!
Thank you for your swift response.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Willing Thinker {What Box}:
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.
Recap: I agree with the general idea of simply referring to 'indigenous' Africans as "Africans", but I can also understand why "black Africans" would keep cropping up in both ancient north African and north African/sub-Saharan African 'dichotomy' discourse.
^One perspective, and a personal one at that, but here's another:
It must be advocated that the terms “Negro” and “Black African” be dropped from the biological lexicon in favor of “Saharo-tropical variant,” which subsumes the range of morphologies of great time depth found in Africa. - Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships, S.O.Y. Keita.
So, when we say 'black Africans', we are really talking about people with recent 'tropical African ancestry', which can be verified by way of TMRCA lineages, morphological traits and even phenotype like 'dark skin'.
"Black African" is little more than just reference to skin, it is referencing the 'entirety' of an individual [but with emphasis to skin color], which has the same effect as 'Tropical African'. Different words used as an adjective, but achieve the same ends, which is reference to 'indigenous Africans' who normally happen to be of some dark skin shade, but who also come in a variety of morphologies and skin gradient. In fact, 'Saharo-tropical African' as a bio-anthropological term, far more accounts for the variety in indigenous Africans, than does the term "Black African" in of itself.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: 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."
Also
Alot of young Americans simply use black. Alot of us simply use black. The youth, I mean.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every statement you've posted on what to use I agree on.
quote:Supercar:
Different words used as an adjective, but achieve the same ends, which is reference to 'indigenous Africans' who normally happen to be of some dark skin shade, but who also come in a variety of morphologies and skin gradient. In fact, 'Saharo-tropical African' as a bio-anthropological term, far more accounts for the variety in indigenous Africans, than does the term "Black African" in of itself.
posted
Another inane argument over the meaning and usage of the label 'black'.
Notice you never hear such arguments or complaints about the label 'white'!
Posts: 26353 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It must be advocated that the terms “Negro” and “Black African” be dropped from the biological lexicon in favor of “Saharo-tropical variant.
...which leads back to my 1st reply to this thread....
quote:There are a few things wrong with the general premise of this thread, which places anthropology [scientific objective] and ethnicity [subjective identity constructs] under the same grab bag and then imagines to objectively assess them.
^ If you try to base ethnicy on objective biological measurement....you WILL FAIL, and worse, you will end up repeating the very error that led to typological races and all its attendant hypocrisies, to begin with, which is rooted in the fallacy that social constructs and be objectified and validated scientifically.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
The two terms do not serve the same function and never will.
Guess I misunderstood you.
EDIT:
quote: There are a few things wrong with the general premise of this thread, which places anthropology [scientific objective] and ethnicity [subjective identity constructs] under the same grab bag and then imagines to objectively assess them.
Not sure this is the right place to post this. I could of done this in the Moor thread, or the Race of the Egyptian thread. Hope to get some feedback. - - -
Looking through the CIA country statistics website I came across some interesting/misguided information. I was trying to get a breakdown of the different ethnics group in countries in North Africa. Based on the info provided I am trying to understand what is an “Egyptian” compared to an Arab. This forum states that the “Arabs” are a minority in North Africa and mainly occupy the coastal reagins of North Africa and indigenous Black Africans are the majority. Where is there proof of this. Here is what the CIA sites states.
Egypt – Egyptian 98%, Berber, Nubian, Bedouin, and Beja 1%, Algeria – Arab-Berber 99%, European less than 1% Libya – Berber and Arab 97%, other 3% (includes Greeks, Egyptians, etc Morrocco – Arab-Berber 99.1%, W. Sahara - Arab, Berber 100% Tunisia - Arab 98%, European 1% Mauritania – mixed Moor/black 40%, Moor 30%, black 30%
Wher can I get some "objective" info on the breakdown? Thanks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black African is not an ethnicity. There is no self-named people black African. There is no language calling itself black African. There is no system of spirituality invoked as black African.
Black African is a useless term designed to keep African peoples focused on colour. For most non African people they only thing they notice about inner Africans is their colour.
There are many ethnies, languages, cultures, belief systems in Africa, all much more important to the peoples of Africa then the fact that their skin is on average the darkest on earth (though other peoples with similar complexions aren't saddled and ridden with their blackness to the point that's all that matters about them).
Physical characteristics do not define ethnicity. Colour and phenotype have nothing to do with ethnicity.
Black African is not an ethnicity, it is an unneccessary colour qualifier on people from a specific geographic region such as we never see so blanketly and constantly applied to any other set of peoples in their geographic region of nativity and habitation.
Black African is no more than an update on the term Negro Race and is used as such by the world at large. To use black African without further qualification is to support the concept of race.
quote: Black African is ethnicity.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I didnt' say it was. And all of your comments that follow are actually strawman which depend upon 'twisting' what you actually quoted which was this...
quote:Black African is ethnicity.
All of the rest of your remarks are either based on refuting the idea that Black African is a -singlular- ethnicty which was never said, as opposed to and ethnic reference, which is what was said, and moreover is implicitly acknolwedged in your post.
Thus:
quote:Black African is a useless term designed to keep African peoples focused on colour. For most non African people they only thing they notice about inner Africans is their colour.
You likely won't admit it, but the above comment does 3 things.
1) Admits Black African is and ethnic term.
2) Admits the term is common.
3) Explains precisely why the term is common. It almost constitute a Freudian slip in fact.
The rest your post is dedicated to rationalising why you -do not like- this term.
Your opinions on this distinct issue are perfectly valid, as I said...I never try to tell anyone else why they should or should not call themselves African, Black, Jewish, African American, Black Jew...or whatever.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:For most non African people they only thing they notice about inner Africans is their colour.
This not only explains why Black is historically a common ethnic term, it also explains why tropical - in my opinion- will never be.
Tropical is also not necessarily and accurate reference to entire morphologies biologically either.
For example - it isn't clear why South African Khosian would be regarded as tropicAL.
They don't live in the tropics, and their skeletal limb ratios - which are the primary basis for the anthropological label -tropical-, are -non tropical-.
Whether their skin color is deemed tropical is also questionable as a 'scientific' matter.
They are however Black Africans, which is a superfical and political ethnic label, just *like all other* ethnic labels. Black African is and ethnic label, tropical is not. It never will be.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This may've been missed while editing the post it appears in above so here it is again but please go back and read it as imbedded in the earlier post.
Physical characteristics do not define ethnicity. Colour and phenotype have nothing to do with ethnicity.
To distinguish the two major broad collectives of people in Africa I use coastal African and inner African.
Coastal Africans adjoin the Mediterranean littoral of Africa and have substantial infusion from north Mediterranean peoples beginning in the late neolithic.
Inner Africans are those who are inland from the Mediterranean littoral clear to Cape Agulhas and consequently have much lesser if any infusion from people along the Mediterranean's shores and where they do have such infusion it was neither intense nor did it begin in the late stone age.
While I do understand tropical African refers to tropically adapted Africans I don't use the term due to possibility of literalists interpreting it to mean only those between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. For those literalists many inner Africans such as those in most of Namibia and Botswana, a bit of Mozambique, and all of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland would be left out. Likewise the Saharans of Algeria and Libya, most of Egypt lies outside the tropics too.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Tropical is also not necessarily and accurate reference to entire morphologies biologically either.
For example - it isn't clear why South African Khosian would be regarded as tropicAL.
They don't live in the tropics, and their skeletal limb ratios - which are the primary basis for the anthropological label -tropical-, are -non tropical-.
Whether their skin color is deemed tropical is also questionable as a 'scientific' matter.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Of course it is. Just like what you write rationalizes what you prefer and promote.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ... your post is dedicated to rationalising why you -do not like- this term.
Actually I don't disagree with this, since i've said all along that ethnicity is only social rationale. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
This not only explains why Black is historically a common ethnic term, it also explains why tropical - in my opinion- will never be.
The rationale often proferred here, as noted in the parent thread, is the use of 'Black African' as a supposed reference to skin color, which in essence, is attempting to say that this term is being used towards biological ends, not 'racial' [aka "ethnic reference"]. It is in this context, that 'tropical African' was proferred.
Tropical African is even more biologically correct than 'black African' will ever be.
quote:rasol:
Tropical is also not necessarily and accurate reference to entire morphologies biologically either.
For example - it isn't clear why South African Khosian would be regarded as tropicaL.
They don't live in the tropics, and their skeletal limb ratios - which are the primary basis for the anthropological label -tropical-, are -non tropical-.
Whether their skin color is deemed tropical is also questionable as a 'scientific' matter.
What is so unique about the Khoisan's body plan?
Tropical Africans don't have one set of 'body plan', granted that certain body plans, like the so-called 'elongated' type, are frequently found here than elsewhere.
quote:rasol:
They are however Black Africans, which is a superfical and political ethnic label, just *like all other* ethnic labels.
Well, why are they then called 'Black Africans', if it is not ultimately because of their recent ancestry from tropical Africa, and that their dark skin hue is a throwback to ancestry in that region?
Much of ancient Egypt lay outside of the tropics, just as the modern nation does today. Should we then say that they weren't akin to tropical Africans, because they moved from the tropics and settled in the supra-tropical environment? What about those "black peoples" who no longer live in the tropics, like say Blacks of the Americas; does their general morphology cease being subsumed by the Tropical African continuum?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Al Takruri, Here is the deal, you take the Black(in Black African) and we native African take back African(in African American). Hint: it is true that the majority of Africans define themselves as belonging to ethnic groups then as Africans...but the term Black is found in many languages to define Black Africans from other groups who are not as dark because of some non African ancestry or because they are non Africans who are not as dark...so it is part of the African landscape and here to stay...Yom is aware of that, Rasol as well and myself included...let's take back African from African American...and please refrain from delving in your fantasies, you can't impose your point of view to a whole group people who can't care less about your wishes...You have a problem with Black Africans...Even AE defined themselves as Black with respect to lighter folks. It's possible that it has no scientific meaning but it's a social and sometime political reality...but definitely other social aspect are more important like your ethnic background or even your geographical background than the color of your skin in an African context...
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: Al Takruri, Here is the deal, you take the Black(in Black African) and we native African take back African(in African American). Hint: it is true that the majority of Africans define themselves as belonging to ethnic groups then as Africans...but the term Black is found in many languages to define Black Africans from other groups who are not as dark because of some non African ancestry or because they are non Africans who are not as dark...so it is part of the African landscape and here to stay...Yom is aware of that, Rasol as well and myself included...let's take back African from African American...and please refrain from delving in your fantasies, you can't impose your point of view to a whole group people who can't care less about your wishes...You have a problem with Black Africans...Even AE defined themselves as Black with respect to lighter folks. It's possible that it has no scientific meaning but it's a social and sometime political reality...but definitely other social aspect are more important like your ethnic background or even your geographical background than the color of your skin in an African context...
I agree Blacks in America should be called Afro-Americans, instead of African-American.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by R U 2 religious: So then basically if I break into your house and hold you hostage with me and my wife and have a child in your house ... does that make your house my birth childs house as well?
actually let ask this while I'm asking questions.
If I kidnap you and your wife from your house and you have a baby in the house that I took you to ... does that mean your house is no longer your but that house of birth becomes yours? Or better yet do you get to call both houses your homes because you've had a baby in the house?..
We know it still belong to those who were taken from the house by why is it yours now? If I am the kidnapper and I take you to my house, does make my house become yours as well?
I saw this movie stars house and we just happen to be friends so if I get my wife pregant again, I will make sure she has a baby at his house and then argue him up and down about his house being my babies house and mine because my baby was born there ...
Thanks for the info ... I didn't know that we could do that!
Thank you for your swift response. [/QB]
Are you comparing houses with continents? Your example makes no sense since I am not talking about onwership, but simply place of birth. Being born into someplace doest note make that place "yours". Correct if I am wrong, but you are basically saying that "White" people born in Africa do not have a claim to the land or that they do not posess it. Well, that may be so. That wasn't my point. But they are still Africans. Again, geographically speaking. The place of birth of your son would be my house, and the fact that the house wasn't yours wouldn't change that.
Btw, if you ask me, ownership is simply based on force. Either your personal one or the state's/ community's. In a lawless environment you can simply walk over to my house, kill me, and take the house for yourself. Or I can shoot you first and keep my house. In a state/community were laws/rules exist the situation will be resolved acording to those very same laws/rules. So yes, Europeans who conquered land in Africa, and forced their will there owned the land (or made and enforced the rules regarding ownership) for all intents and purposed until "natives" rised up and took it back, the same way Black Moors owned the land in Iberia (or made and enforced the rules regarding ownership), until some of my ancestors decided to take it back. Now to take back something, it means it isn't your at the momment. Such discussions usually get very emotional (It's my land, the land of my ancestors, blablabla) but in the real world this matters little. And no, I am not an advocate of conquest and colonization, since myself I wouldn't like to be conquered and colonized, and I am glad that more and more an International system of laws is being created (the UN).
This is off-topic anyway. So in short, anyone born in Africa is an African, though they don't have any claim to he land there, unless laws/rules say so, or they have the force to make it so.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
In case you hadn't noticed, I'm the one who put up the proofs of the AE defining the populations of the Nile Valley as the BLACK COMMUNITY. And if you for a moment imagine me to be other than an African black you're as silly as that rotten tomato avatar of yours looks.
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: Al Takruri, Here is the deal, you take the Black(in Black African) and we native African take back African(in African American). Hint: it is true that the majority of Africans define themselves as belonging to ethnic groups then as Africans...but the term Black is found in many languages to define Black Africans from other groups who are not as dark because of some non African ancestry or because they are non Africans who are not as dark...so it is part of the African landscape and here to stay...Yom is aware of that, Rasol as well and myself included...let's take back African from African American...and please refrain from delving in your fantasies, you can't impose your point of view to a whole group people who can't care less about your wishes...You have a problem with Black Africans...Even AE defined themselves as Black with respect to lighter folks. It's possible that it has no scientific meaning but it's a social and sometime political reality...but definitely other social aspect are more important like your ethnic background or even your geographical background than the color of your skin in an African context...
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
If the issue of "race" is to be normalised biologically they way science does it with all flora and fauna then clearly someone of European extraction born in Africa could not be classified as "African" in much the same way that a Polar Bear born in a zoo in Nigeria would not be a "Tropical Bear". Same for "African Elephant" versus "Asian Elephant" or "African Gray Parrot" vs. other sub-species.
Or think of "North American Brown Bear" and "Polar Bear" or terms like "Artic Fox" and "Artic Tern".
The point is that there is a population cluster with phenotypical traits developed on the tropical/sub-tropical terrain of Africa over millenia. To use technical language we can call those populations "Homo Sapiens Africanus". Europeans whereever born woould be "Home Sapiens Europaeus", etc.
The goal is to be as scientific as much as possible by using the same methodology that biologists of the world's flora and fauna do. So, Burmese python is just that--a Burmese python, wherever found.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We went through that in the 70s. Arfican American means Americans of African decent.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: Al Takruri, Here is the deal, you take the Black(in Black African) and we native African take back African(in African American). Hint: it is true that the majority of Africans define themselves as belonging to ethnic groups then as Africans...but the term Black is found in many languages to define Black Africans from other groups who are not as dark because of some non African ancestry or because they are non Africans who are not as dark...so it is part of the African landscape and here to stay...Yom is aware of that, Rasol as well and myself included...let's take back African from African American...and please refrain from delving in your fantasies, you can't impose your point of view to a whole group people who can't care less about your wishes...You have a problem with Black Africans...Even AE defined themselves as Black with respect to lighter folks. It's possible that it has no scientific meaning but it's a social and sometime political reality...but definitely other social aspect are more important like your ethnic background or even your geographical background than the color of your skin in an African context...
I agree Blacks in America should be called Afro-Americans, instead of African-American.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: Al Takruri, Here is the deal, you take the Black(in Black African) and we native African take back African(in African American). Hint: it is true that the majority of Africans define themselves as belonging to ethnic groups then as Africans...but the term Black is found in many languages to define Black Africans from other groups who are not as dark because of some non African ancestry or because they are non Africans who are not as dark...so it is part of the African landscape and here to stay...Yom is aware of that, Rasol as well and myself included...let's take back African from African American...and please refrain from delving in your fantasies, you can't impose your point of view to a whole group people who can't care less about your wishes...You have a problem with Black Africans...Even AE defined themselves as Black with respect to lighter folks. It's possible that it has no scientific meaning but it's a social and sometime political reality...but definitely other social aspect are more important like your ethnic background or even your geographical background than the color of your skin in an African context...
I pretty much know this comment was geared toward me. An African is born African (in the broader sense), African Americans mtdna and Y-dna proves this. This is our link to the continent. If you can prove that we are not genetically related as in mordern relations to Africans then I to will agree that we need to drop the name African American
Personally I think your ignorant ... why is it ok for a kenyan to move to America have kids and they kids are identified as Kenyan Americans? Is it because they know where they came from in Africa? If the parent loose their memory ... does that mean they are to label themselves as Americans?
For generations those parent will remind their kids that they are in fact Kenyans or Ghanan, Malian, Gabonese, etc ... who just so happen to live in America. We were forced to forget, tho we cannot claim any place in particular, but what genetics show is that we are of West African, Central West African and some South-east African decent. This cannot be changed and genetics make sure of this.
Now ... prove to me through genetics that we are not of African decent and I will shut up about this African American thing ... otherwise shut the .... up!
P.S. I've learned a lot on this forum within the last 3 years, but I'm a more casual writer ... please do not for one moment think because I'm not as direct as rasol, Al T, Supercar, or any of the other great writers on this forum that I will not be able to handle my own technically ... so if you would like to debate this topic then I will debate it.
I just simply bring a different style to this forum ... we don't need ten rasols, Supercars, alTakruri or Djehuti[s] ... In other words ... bring it if this is what you want!
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Believe it or not, that's exactly how the earliest anthropologists went about labeling their races. None of this "kittens born in an oven are bisquits."
quote:Originally posted by lamin: The point is that there is a population cluster with phenotypical traits developed on the tropical/sub-tropical terrain of Africa over millenia. To use technical language we can call those populations "Homo Sapiens Africanus". Europeans whereever born woould be "Home Sapiens Europaeus", etc.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
If the issue of "race" is to be normalised biologically they way science does it with all flora and fauna then clearly someone of European extraction born in Africa could not be classified as "African" in much the same way that a Polar Bear born in a zoo in Nigeria would not be a "Tropical Bear". Same for "African Elephant" versus "Asian Elephant" or "African Gray Parrot" vs. other sub-species.
Or think of "North American Brown Bear" and "Polar Bear" or terms like "Artic Fox" and "Artic Tern".
The point is that there is a population cluster with phenotypical traits developed on the tropical/sub-tropical terrain of Africa over millenia. To use technical language we can call those populations "Homo Sapiens Africanus". Europeans whereever born woould be "Home Sapiens Europaeus", etc.
The goal is to be as scientific as much as possible by using the same methodology that biologists of the world's flora and fauna do. So, Burmese python is just that--a Burmese python, wherever found.
"Races" in humans cannot be normalized scientifically, which is why it is pseudo scientific. Overall genetic variation across humans of different geographical backgrounds is only ~ .01%.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess today the more enlightened would say "populations" instead of "races". But to properly understand humans as a part of biological nature one has to apply the same methodology and principles that are applied in the classification and genomic understanding of the world's flora and fauna.
The very interesting thing about homo sapiens though is that, unlike other animals, he/she is not "niche-specific". Culture or "learned behaviour" is what determines everything about humans especailly where decision-making is involved.
Example: a Mike Tyson clone could easily have been raised to be King of England--accent, diet, posture, tastes and all.
Thus although interaction with specific environments have produced easily identifiable human populations, all that amounts to is surface phenotype including its dynamic articulation. Yet even this would apply to only small percentages of thse populations in question.
Simple experiment: just sit on any park bench of any large university in North America or Europe and guess the geographical region of origin of students as they stroll by. Taxonmically all will be easily fittable into some long extant population of Africa, Asia, Europe, pre-Columbian America and Australasia.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
But note that those African countries you name are mere Euro-generated artificialities of very recent vintage. It's the ethnicity that's more durable--and even then, they have been subject to new changing modes of identification over the last several thousand yaars as people migrated to different parts of Africa. A recent migratory trend would be the so-called Bantu expansion.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Europeans use so many simple tactics to divide and conquer Africans and their descendents and they just continue to fall into the traps. Africa has more resources than any other continent. If Africa were to unite it would be the main world power.
Posts: 8 | From: America | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
But were you at liberty to inquire, trust me, you might just find you missed your guess.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Simple experiment: just sit on any park bench of any large university in North America or Europe and guess the geographical region of origin of students as they stroll by. Taxonmically all will be easily fittable into some long extant population of Africa, Asia, Europe, pre-Columbian America and Australasia.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
But note that those African countries you name are mere Euro-generated artificialities of very recent vintage. It's the ethnicity that's more durable--and even then, they have been subject to new changing modes of identification over the last several thousand yaars as people migrated to different parts of Africa. A recent migratory trend would be the so-called Bantu expansion.
I totally agree with what this statement. Africa is trying to dis-associate African American from Africans as though we don't have the same dna running through us.
I'm asking him to rpove that AA's are not genetically related to CA's.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where are we going here, a guy who I'm not sure if he has any drop of African blood is writing:
quote:alTakruri:Like Hamite black Africa(n) is a term to be jettisoned from the vocabulary of progressive Africana students and scholars, In my opinion.
That's an insult for a Black Native African, and Rasol, Yom and other native African posters agree with me. It is understandable that some in the Horn of Africa, Sudan and Mauritania or Chad are confused due to often fabricated genealogies for religious and cultural reasons, but I can guarantee the majority of Africans view themselves as Black no doubt, it is the same in other parts of the world. alTakruri remind me of the Arabized Nazi of Mauritania and Sudan and some other horners who have created some genealogies that don't reflect their genetic makeup, and I forgot the Afrikaaner: They have one goal in common the cultural, social and complete destruction of Black Africa(n). It didn't work and alTakruri you won't succeed either.
[Redacted to remove insult. Consider this an unofficial warning, Africa - Henu]
posted
I can gaurantee you that I have Africa blood ... sir ... It seems as though your running now ...
I pose no threat to you because as far you should be concerned I don't write technical ... thus you should be able run through me like water ... lol.
I definitely have African blood but this is about the name AA ... I asked you if you can prove to me that African American are not genetically connected to Africans then I will forever remove the name African American from my vocabulary ...
A European is a European in America regardless of his position in this country ... regardless how long he has been here ... they call themselves Americans but they also recognize that they are Europeans ... For this reason is why they are trying to make Egypt European ... So that they can have connection.
If they still recognize that they are European then why is it wrong for an African ... genetically misplaced ... not to call himself and African who is an American based on geography?
I've traced my heritage back to the slave ships and have full documentation on my great great great great great great great grandfather who made it here ... from the Senegal ... Now what?
There is no mistake about the fact of my African Heritage ...
Now debate or shut the .... UP!!! If you can't prove that African Americans don't deserve the name AA then you shouldn't promote your bias b/s no more ...
You are not to be taken serious ...
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
African-Americans are merely displaced West and Central Africans and any suggestion to the contrary is nothing more than socio-politically based poppycock, fueled by self-hatred.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: Al Takruri, Here is the deal, you take the Black(in Black African) and we native African take back African(in African American). Hint: it is true that the majority of Africans define themselves as belonging to ethnic groups then as Africans...but the term Black is found in many languages to define Black Africans from other groups who are not as dark because of some non African ancestry or because they are non Africans who are not as dark...so it is part of the African landscape and here to stay...Yom is aware of that, Rasol as well and myself included...let's take back African from African American...and please refrain from delving in your fantasies, you can't impose your point of view to a whole group people who can't care less about your wishes...You have a problem with Black Africans...Even AE defined themselves as Black with respect to lighter folks. It's possible that it has no scientific meaning but it's a social and sometime political reality...but definitely other social aspect are more important like your ethnic background or even your geographical background than the color of your skin in an African context...
I agree Blacks in America should be called Afro-Americans, instead of African-American.
So what does the "Afro" suggest? Last time I checked, that was a hair style. The other definition alludes to the African origin of who or what it is being applied to. African-Americans have enough identity issues as it is, so let's just stick to what we know and what's apparent instead of changing identities every thirty years (Negro, colored, black, African-American, Afro-American, New Afrikan). I'd think that would be more responsible.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what does the "Afro" suggest? Last time I checked, that was a hair style. The other definition alludes to the African origin of who or what it is being applied to. African-Americans have enough identity issues as it is, so let's just stick to what we know and what's apparent instead of changing identities every thirty years (Negro, colored, black, AFRO-AMERICAN, then African-American , New Afrikan). I'd think that would be more responsible.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
AFRICA ... Your a done deal ... you ran from a person who writings doesn't seem technical enough to handle his own ...
You are nothing for anyone to worry about!
Bye Bye ... ignore list has become my top priority for you.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
If the issue of "race" is to be normalised biologically they way science does it with all flora and fauna then clearly someone of European extraction born in Africa could not be classified as "African" in much the same way that a Polar Bear born in a zoo in Nigeria would not be a "Tropical Bear". Same for "African Elephant" versus "Asian Elephant" or "African Gray Parrot" vs. other sub-species.
Or think of "North American Brown Bear" and "Polar Bear" or terms like "Artic Fox" and "Artic Tern".
The point is that there is a population cluster with phenotypical traits developed on the tropical/sub-tropical terrain of Africa over millenia. To use technical language we can call those populations "Homo Sapiens Africanus". Europeans whereever born woould be "Home Sapiens Europaeus", etc.
The goal is to be as scientific as much as possible by using the same methodology that biologists of the world's flora and fauna do. So, Burmese python is just that--a Burmese python, wherever found.
Yes lamin, of course, I was merely speaking geographically. Biologically the answer will be different.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
To all posters, all of my posts were directed to anti-Black African alTakruri, I believe the only one who noticed his anti-Black African is Rasol...it's easier for a native Black African to discern those people, they want us to disappear and some still live in Africa: Afrikaaner, Arabized Mauritanians and Sudanese...alTakruri is their brothers...
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
You have issues you need to work out, but it is not my place to tell you what you need to do or not. What it boils down to is dedication to studies. You are the only one on this forum that denies your fellow African brothers, diasporic Africans; their right to claim what is particularly theirs.
It appears that you are an adesultory student of Euro-centric fables which renunciates the very act of gesticulation. To the abnegation; vacillating is ineluctable!
Posts: 8 | From: Fresno | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're a fraud. You're no African you're a white Euro-American merely spoofing an African identity. Being uneducated you can do little more than post ad hominems about me. You do not even begin to understand what I write less lone hope to critically analyse it.
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: To all posters, all of my posts were directed to anti-Black African alTakruri, I believe the only one who noticed his anti-Black African is Rasol...it's easier for a native Black African to discern those people, they want us to disappear and some still live in Africa: Afrikaaner, Arabized Mauritanians and Sudanese...alTakruri is their brothers...
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You do not even begin to understand what I write less lone hope to critically analyse it.
There is nothing to understand, a racist psyche is just that:racist, to my fellow African Americans please read his posts again, you'll understand that he's no friend of Black African...we are all Africans(including AA), but if someone is with Al then you must have some issues...read the posts...please...he's a racist...another poster mentioned that earlier...
quote:Al Takruri:alTakruri:Like Hamite black Africa(n) is a term to be jettisoned from the vocabulary of progressive Africana students and scholars, In my opinion.
Always this obsession with destroying Black Africans...
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
You are far to perspicacious to reply to such and vacuous idiosyncratic person as this. I am not as knowledgeable as most Anthropologist on this colloquium but, responding to such a fatuous arcane; it devalorizes your savvy!
I speak in fraternization.
Posts: 8 | From: Fresno | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why should people care about the black label? Or any other colour or physical label?
I can't speak from the point of view of a "black man" but as "white man", I feel no special attachement to them. Most of the people who tried to conquer my country or my ancestors were white anyway, and I would much faster identify with a black person who was similar to me psychologically, than a white one who was different. On other hand, I do feel a special atachment based on culture, so I feel close to Portuguese, Iberians, Latins...Europeans, etc, but only as far as our culture is similar. Again, I would probably bond faster with a Brazilian or a Cape Verdian of any race than White Bosnian or something.
Going to Africa, why should Hausa feel close to a Zulu? A Masai to a Ibo? And so? Only because they are "black"? It doesn't make much sense.
So I agree with alTakruri and I perceive no racism comming from him, more like realism.
And when it comes to diasporans, who have lost their identity, then they should use the one of the country where they are now. There's a problem here though. The majority may no accept it. Then resorting to the black label as mean of creating union is logical, like what happened with African-Americans, many who simply call themselves black. Many whites wouldn't let them become "real Americans", same thing with other europans of non-wasp origin (italian americans, irish americans, etc) I just hope that rift will disapear someday.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
You are far to perspicacious to reply to such and vacuous idiosyncratic person as this. I am not as knowledgeable as most Anthropologist on this colloquium but, responding to such a fatuous arcane; it devalorizes your savvy!
I speak in fraternization.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And when it comes to diasporans, who have lost their identity, then they should use the one of the country where they are now.
Using a country is like using a tool ... it is only good as long as the tool is usable, but when that tool dulls, or become dangerous with jagged edges, then the tool is only good to itself an not the user of the tool.
Miguel Antunes ... I understand where you are coming from but what happens when the tool that you believe in so much is used to hurt one of its components? I've seen tools that got caught in its own cycle just to destroy another piece so that it can work for a few more minutes ..
It doesn't save the tool because the tool still breaks but at a later day which makes it un-repairable.
In 1982 A.D .. Jerry Cooney boxed Larry Holmes in America for the championship heavyweight boxing title ... His corner said "Beat that bastard, do it for America. ... America is depending on you" ...
He showed on national tv that Africans living in America r not considered Americans because we weren't invited her but came as servants ...
Miguel Antunes, you are consider an American despite being conteniental or not ... If you've never been here you will be excepted faster then an African or African American ... Thus I feel you but you don't feel me.
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
But the biological is usually conflayed with the geographical because it is the geography in the final analysis that determines the biological. Think of the flora and fauna of places like New Zealand and Australia, or the Galapagos where Darwin witnessed "evolution by natural[geographic]selection" first hand.
On Indentity
Note that the Portugese have recently evolved a separate identity from that of Spaniards despite the fact that there was originally no distinction. From what I have observed no group or person is without and identity even when such identities have changed rapidly over time.
An interesting example of identity is that of the Jewish people--i.e. those of European origin: historically they have been nationals of many countries, speaking only the languages of those countries[and Yiddish, a Germanic language of East European origin] and knowing nothing of Hebrew. Yet the Jewish identity always trumped the other identities both for themselves and their co-nationals. As long as they believed they were Jews and went through a few rituals when young but always cognizant of Jewish ritual days such as Passover and so on.
The point about identity is that it is most effective when the group or individual is in charge of it and calls all the shots about how such identities should be established and evolve.
The problem with Africa and its inhabitants is that in the last 1,500 years the identities of Africans have been shaped by forces external to its groups--that have led to divided even schozoid personalities that have been and are being exploited by others for material and psychological advantage.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
P.S ... just so others will know if you don't ... I don't have anything to hide ... I'm the same person as El-Ah ... I was just on a different computer logging into a name that I haven't used for over a year (I haven't used that computer for a year as well)! It is the same network, I just haven't used that computer for the internet!
I have two names and they are RU2religious & El-Ah. I just so happen to articulate my points in a more adroit palaver[ish] fashion ... as El-Ah.
Its fun but to people like Africa I, who responds without thinking about the repercussions or who thinks their personal perspicacity is above others usually drown when faced with opposition that will test the very essence of their perspicuity.
Once again, we only need one Djehuti, rasol, Supercar, alTakruri, Doug M, Scorpion_King and so forth ... its nice to have someone who speaks with a question based format. Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Notice you never hear such arguments or complaints about the label 'white'!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
, New Afrikan). I'd think that would be more responsible.
Printer-friendly view of this topic