posted
^I was not really suggesting that Nicole Kidman is black. It was merely a hypothetical to illustrate my point.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just ignore her. Lioness and Anguishofbeing use the same debate tactics. Habitually distorting what people say is one of them
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Just ignore her. Lioness and Anguishofbeing use the same debate tactics. Habitually distorting what people say is one of them
the claim that Nicole Kidman is not light skinned black is unsupported
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just ignore her. Lioness and Anguishofbeing use the same debate tactics. Habitually distorting what people say is one of them
I'm not upset with Lioness. I just think she misunderstood my point so I clarified. I disagree with most of her opinions but she's always respectful.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Just ignore her. Lioness and Anguishofbeing use the same debate tactics. Habitually distorting what people say is one of them
the claim that Nicole Kidman is not light skinned black is unsupported
As if you ever rely on support to reinforce your positions... Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are desperate for a win, I understand. "Black" can refer to mindset, shade or even "class". It is subjective. Is Obama black? Is Bill Clinton? Are Guyanese Indians "black" like Walter Rodney claimed? Some didn't think so. Black is subjective. You lose again.
Learn the meaning of words before you toss them about. Subjective is a statement such as "Guacamole is tastes good" or your delusion that you ever won a debate against me. All the examples you gave above have an explainable context in which the word is, or may be, used and therefore not subjective.
Subjective is a statement such as "Obama is black".
You are a born loser Apocopoko. Thats objective fact.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: As if you ever rely on support to reinforce your positions...
What "support" do you have that "Moses" even existed? lol
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Subjective is a statement such as "Obama is black".
Cunny, You really get lost when you have to think don't you? No wonder you're always resorting to picture spamming. A picture paints a thousand words? Cunny, "Tiger Woods is black" is an objective statement within a given context. Some may say he's black because his father is black and others may disagree because he's not dark enough or because he has Asian ancestry. The use of the word in this case is disputed but not subjective. Each side knows why the other considers him black or not black Cunny.
quote:You are a born loser Apocopoko. Thats objective fact.
Playa Hater.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ Both of you have a point, as Anguish says "Black" can be subjective, as it varies from person to person what black is. Are Dravidians Black.??
Apoco says that "within a given context" Black is Objective, So Apoco are you willing to admit that in most circumstances Black is subjective...what about various Mulattos like Puerto Ricans and Dominans, what about Zambos like Chavez?? Are they black
LOL @ Apocopoko..LOL..
How about Apoco-loco or Apocolypto..LOL
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
As an example Jari, If you were to say to me that Dravidians are black because of X,Y, and Z. I may disagree with you that the word black applies. But the criteria you adduce X, Y, and Z are objective. It becomes a semantic debate but not subjective.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ O.K I see where you are coming from.
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Apocalypse: As an example Jari, If you were to say to me that Dravidians are black because of X,Y, and Z. I may disagree with you that the word black applies. But the criteria you adduce X, Y, and Z are objective. It becomes a semantic debate but not subjective.
In other words the way you determine if someone is black is objective but calling them black or not is subjective.
posted
^^Lioness who do you consider black? In the photos you posted above, do you consider them to be black? Why or why not?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: [QB]what about various Mulattos like Puerto Ricans and Dominans, what about Zambos like Chavez?? Are they black
You know in fact, Puerto Ricans and Dominicans are not Mulattoes. They're not directly descended first generation offsprings of a white mother and black father or vice versa. It's not that simple.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^Lioness who do you consider black? In the photos you posted above, do you consider them to be black? Why or why not?
It's hard to avoid the term "black" in casual conversation. You can apply it however you want as you see it fit the situation. It can manipulated to serve one point and then on some other occasion be applied in a different way, morphed in definition, to serve some other point. Obviously it's a racial term and many if not all the people in question are shades of brown in fact. But as far as anthropology goes it has no meaning. It's bad to mix colloquial expressions with anthropological data. This is where all the confusion stems. If you were to call the above persons and add in Michael Jordan they are all brown, calling them this would not have that racial categorization aspect as much because they actually are clearly brown in color. The color brown can be racialized to an extent also but not as easily. All people are brown to an extent, have some melanin except some of the pure albinos. Melanin pigmentation only applies to the top layer of skin. The fact that people will use the terms "black" and "white" and if you look at the colloquial definitions of these words it excludes huge other populations who don't fit in, you can see it's a problem.
It might be best to exclude color categorizing people altogether. But if you try to do it in everyday life and not use the words "black" or "white" it's very difficult people look at you funny and it's hard to not fall into it in conversation. I can't say I have had the discipline to eliminate it entirely from my conversation. But it's clearly a problem in scientific discussions where it does not belong. It's a form of politicized tribalism. Yet it were eliminated people might find other ways of taking sides in groups (they already do)
It's the same thing if you you use euphemisms for the word. These might correspond to legitimate scientific terms but when the context of the conversation is focused on debating grouping by skin pigmentation the intent is the same. Our biases can show.
posted
I'm not asking how you can apply the term, I asked you who do you consider black and if you consider the individuals you posted black or not, and why or why not...please elaborate specifically.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^Lioness who do you consider black? In the photos you posted above, do you consider them to be black? Why or why not?
It's hard to avoid the term "black" in casual conversation.
So you don't consider anyone black huh?
There are people that look closer to the color black than even very dark brown. The above individuals and most African American and many Africans do not fall into that "category" in my opinion.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Well, what exactly is your definition of black, be specific, what is the criteria? Making things up again?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^Well, what exactly is your definition of black, be specific, what is the criteria?
This is what I consider black:
This is what I consider dark brown:
brown has some reddish tone to it that you can see. It also contains smaller amounts of yellow and blue but they are at a ratio where you wouldn't notice them. This becomes obvious when you mix the three colors together, red blue and yellow, the result is brown. If you mix in white you get light brown and even more you get tan and beige.
If you mix white into black you get Grey.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Uhh, don't play dumb, I am talking about amongst humans...now let's go.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:In other words the way you determine if someone is black is objective but calling them black or not is subjective.
Oh yes it all makes perfect sense.
Wrong. Let me illustrate with an example. Suppose you and I are introduced to a family consisting of a white Irish mother (we both agree), a Congolese father (who we both agree is black)and their daughter. I consider the daughter black because of her father. You disagree. I also declare to you that their daughter is beautiful. Suppose now that this same couple has a 2nd daughter that we haven't met. Even without meeting her you know that I will define her as black. And I know that you will disagree. However, you don't know whether or not I'll find her beautiful because that is a subjective quality.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Apocalypse: "Tiger Woods is black" is an objective statement within a given context. Some may say he's black because his father is black and others may disagree because he's not dark enough or because he has Asian ancestry.
Another post riddled with contradictions. Story of your life, loser. lol
quote:However, you don't know whether or not I'll find her beautiful because that is a subjective quality.
Because dummy, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, so is "black".
quote:As an example Jari, If you were to say to me that Dravidians are black because of X,Y, and Z. I may disagree with you that the word black applies. But the criteria you adduce X, Y, and Z are objective.
So if he says they are beautiful because of X,Y and Z this then makes the once subjective quality "beautiful" objective? Desperate LOSER! LOLOLOL!!!
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because dummy, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, so is "black".
Dummy, you're out of your depth. Stay in shallow waters.
quote:So if he says they are beautiful because of X,Y and Z this then makes the once subjective quality "beautiful" objective? Desperate LOSER! LOLOLOL!!!
Cunny, again, when you're not doing photo collages you get lost.
Here we go for the slow kid.
We declare that a person is black because of X, Y, and Z. Then everyone possessing X, Y, and Z must be black by that definition.
Cunny, If I declare that person 1 is beautiful because of A, B, and C then subsequently say that person 2 is not beautiful despite having these qualities there is no contradiction, and no one can argue the point, because beauty remains subjective Cunny.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Yeah Angelina is known for not being able to make sharp distinctions.
Subjectiveness doesn't exist in the outside world, only in the head, as the beauty example illustrates. ''Black'', in whatever context it is used, denotes something external and concrete identifiable, even though it may be used in several distinct contexts.
Potential definition 1 Is Obama's skin color black as in ''charcoal black''? No Potential definition 2 Does he identify with the black community/culture more than he does with the white community/culture? Yes Potential definition 3 Does he qualify for the one drop rule? Yes Potential definition 4 Does he have African ancestry? Yes Potential definition 5 Can people with 100% African heritage possess skincolors identical to his? Yes Potential definition 6 Does he have facial features that have a higher occurrence in Africa? Yes
All criteria to call someone black None of the above is subjective
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Furthermore Kalonji, according to anguishofbeing's (aka Cunny) doctrine, nutcase Hammer is correct when he declares AE's to be white because it's all in the eye of the beholder. If that's true then all perspectives, regarding AE's, are equally valid.
AOB wrote:
quote:Because dummy, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, so is "black".
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Whenever she debates someone, her main Modus Operandi is usually finding contradictions in peoples posts, or when she can't find them, she'll force them out by juxtaposing two seemingly contradictory statements.
Example:
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Originally posted by Apocalypse: "Tiger Woods is black" is an objective statement within a given context. Some may say he's black because his father is black and others may disagree because he's not dark enough or because he has Asian ancestry.
Subjectiveness doesn't exist in the outside world...
?????
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:''Black'', in whatever context it is used
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
denotes something external and concrete identifiable.....
even though it may be used in several distinct contexts.
.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
Potential definition 1,2,3, 4, 5, 6,
you can't be serious 6 "definitions" according to you and they aren't even simply the definitions but are "potential definitions"
you must not understand, this is the definition of subjectivity.
BTW questions are not definitions your list is afraid to even be in the form. see dictionary definition of any word, does it begin with a question?
Oh excuse me I made a mistake they aren't definitions they are " criteria to call someone black" questions
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Subjectiveness doesn't exist in the outside world...
?????
Are you going to state your objections to what I have posted above or what? I don't speak question mark.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
Potential definition 1,2,3, 4, 5, 6,
you can't be serious 6 "definitions" according to you and they aren't even simply the definitions but are "potential definitions"
Thats exactly why I said ''potential definition'' rather than simply pretending they are clear cut definition. Don't get mad at me for citing these utilisations of the word ''black''. They can be inferred from the contexts in which we know they are used in western culture.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: you must not understand, this is the definition of subjectivity.
Allow me to school you on the definition of ''subjective''. Clearly you don't have a grasp of abstract words, as you've demonstrated earlier when you defined ''inherent'' as meaning something that can be meassured easily. LOL.
Examples of subjective words are value judgements eg: beautiful, ugly, weak, untrustworthy. Said words are mental constructs that we use as labels to give meaning to external entities. They usually don't exist in the external world as I've said earlier. If I say ''black'', ''blue'', ''smooth'' right after citing the aforementioned subjective words, will you have the intelligence to figure out the difference between both? What is the (here comes a puzzling word, brace yourself -->) inherent difference between the two sets of words snaky?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: BTW questions are not definitions your list is afraid to even be in the form. see dictionary definition of any word, does it begin with a question?
Focusing on my use of words, instead of responding to the content of my post is just an irrelevant distraction. Reminds me of what I said earlier about your use of debating tactics.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Oh excuse me I made a mistake they aren't definitions they are " criteria to call someone black" questions
Girly banter is no subsitute for a logical point by point refutation of what I said. Read a book, woman.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
when you come up a definition of black that are not let me know. Below you list questions. And for some reason you attach the word potential to them. The word duck for example has two different definitions. There are two potential definitions but the definitions themselves are not potential, the are set alternates. The only thing potential about the word duck is that you have the potential to use different definitions. But the definitions are not potential in of themselves, they are not tentative they are set definitions. Furthermore the alternate examples of the definitions of duck apply to two different things. One is an animal the other is bending down to avoid something. But your "definitions" (question list actually) apply to one object not two.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
Potential definition 1
Is Obama's skin color black as in ''charcoal black''? No
posted
Notice how she dropped the whole subjective issue and shifts the discussion toward my choice of words.
Notice how the words ''potential definition'' as I used them earlier can be easily swapped with ''utilisation'', as in: 6 utilisations of the word black.
Until you give a proper response to the content of my post, your posts will get slept on, woman.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Notice how she dropped the whole subjective issue and shifts the discussion toward my choice of words.
Notice how the words ''potential definition'' as I used them earlier can be easily swapped with ''utilisation'', as in: 6 utilisations of the word black.
Until you give a proper response to the content of my post, your posts will get slept on, woman.
I will respond if you define what black means. A question is not a definition.
kalonji definition of an apple:
Potential definition 1:
an apple is not a vegetable yet you can eat it yes
Potential definition 2:
Apples grow on trees yes
____________________________________________
this is the type of shoddiness you're asking me to respond to, it doesn't make sense.
You're supposed to be a science minded guy, get it together before you approach the lioness
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Lioness: an apple is not a vegetable yet you can eat it yes
Potential definition 2:
Apples grow on trees yes
These two examples don't embody different utilisations of the world apple, like my six questions embody the utilisations of the word ''black''. They (apples) aren't even descriptions, but objects. You don't even have the intelligence to understand that your apple example is totally random, off base and not structured the way mine is.
Read a book, woman.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^Uhh, don't play dumb, I am talking about amongst humans...now let's go.
I'm not playing anything. Color means color. That is all I believe
Indeed perhaps you're not playing, and you simply are dumb. Anyone with a reading comprehension above an elementary level knows my question to you was in reference to humans. So stop running, and answer the question. Unless you've been living under a rock, you should very well know that historically in the Americas there are people who have been called black and white.
Who is black to you? Not what. And why or why not...? Or is it that you're a mulatto who doesn't fit in with its white or black side of the family and hence you hate the terms black and white to describe these people? In essence, you really hate yourself! I understand.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:We declare that a person is black because of X, Y, and Z. Then everyone possessing X, Y, and Z must be black by that definition.
That's the problem jackass, who the fuk is "we" that declared an objective definition for a "black person" that "everyone" had to agree on?
quote:Subjectiveness doesn't exist in the outside world, only in the head, as the beauty example illustrates.
Well according to the resident dumbo, *if* you "declare" beauty as X then everyone possessing X MUST be beautiful by that definition. LOL!!!!
Recap:
A "black person" is subjective. Yes, it's a useful socio-political term but the truth is it's a social construct. Black being 1. identifying with a "black culture" or "community", 2. the one drop rule, 3. having "African ancestry" (how much qualifies?) 3. facial features of "higher occurrence" (WTF?! LOL) are all subjective criteria, not everyone agrees. All can be changed, argued and debated. Postmodernism 101.
quote:nutcase Hammer is correct when he declares AE's to be white because it's all in the eye of the beholder.
Scientifically, he would be as wrong as those saying they were "black". This is why Dr. Keita doesn't use socio-political terms like "black" or "white". You've been here five fuking years and still don't get it do you? LOL!
You want an objective fact? Moses is a fuking MYTH LOL!
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
Black according to any utilization can be inferred with one's eyes, and agreed upon when looking into another person's context using the criteria they used. This is separate from whether or not one agrees with the correctness of the criteria itself as a useful measure (which is the source of most dissenting).
Beauty and other value judgements go deeper than what can be inferred with one's eyes, and is always co-determined by factors such as personal experience, current standards, cultural preferences, the feelings one has toward the subject, beliefs, rationalizations etc.
This is different from the utilizations of the word ''black'', as every single one of them can be readily observed, and agreed upon by two honest dissenting parties when knowing what criteria are used. However susceptible the term is to temporal additions in criteria, this has no bearing on the falsifiability of each of the criteria that the word embodies. The latter (temporal additions of criteria) is what disqualifies it as a useful term in science: it makes it particularly vulnerable to manipulation and bias, like for example, our friends here who have a limitless potential to ascribe black to populations such as Hebrews or with shrewd word usage such as ''a type of black'' when dealing with admixed populations who are frequently more ''white'' than they are ''black'', using haplotypical analysis as my current criteria.
Conclusion: That society has accumulated different ways to conclude which and to what extend a given people or individual is black has noting to do with subjectiveness.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cunny, I know you wish could could delete that post. I'll deal with you tomorrow.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes there are many types of blacks, we don't all look alike.
Aeschylus has the king of the Argives list many a type of black when the Danaids proclaim Argive ancestry. The white king not seeing in them any modicum of whiteness tells them who he thinks their most likely relatives are
quote: "O stranger maids, I may not trust this word, That ye have share in this our Argive race. No likeness of our country do ye bear, But semblance as of Libyan womankind. Even such a stock by Nilus' banks might grow; Yea, and the Cyprian stamp, in female forms, Shows, to the life, what males impressed the same. And, furthermore, of roving Indian maids Whose camping-grounds by Aethiopia lie, And camels burdened even as mules, and bearing Riders, as horses bear, mine ears have heard; And tales of flesh-devouring mateless maids Called Amazons: to these, if bows ye bare, I most had deemed you like. Speak further yet, That of your Argive birth the truth I learn."
.
500 years later comes Manilius who after listing white peoples give us the countries with various types of blacks
quote: "Ethiopia stains the world painting humankind deeply dark Less does India's sun toast its progeny Egypt-land's Nile leniently irrigates bodies dark a country nearer us, with moderate climate imparting medium tone Sol dries peoples of Africa's dusty desert land While Mauretania's name proclaims colour in skin and face."
.
700 more years pass and al~Jahiz pens who the Zanj reckon a type of black
quote: "And they said, 'The number of blacks is greater than the number of whites, because most of those who are counted as whites are comprised of peoples from Persia, the mountains, Khurasan, Rome, Slavia, France, and Iberia, and anything apart from them is insignificant.
But among the blacks are counted * Zanj * Ethiopians * Fezzani * Berbers * Copts * Nubians * Zaghawa * Moors
the people of * Sind * the Hindus * the Qamar * the Dabila * the IndoChinese
and those beyond them. The sea is more extensive than the land, and the islands in the sea between IndoChina and Zanzibar are full of blacks, like the * Sarandib * Kalah * Amal * Zabij and its islands up to Hindustan and IndoChina
Kabul and those coasts.
"They said, 'The Arabs come from us -- not from the whites -- because of the similarity of their colour to ours. The Hindus are more yellow in color than the Arabs, yet they are counted among the black peoples."
.
The only type, so-called 'black,' who may be mostly white is the one-drop kind.
Readily seen, that variety goes haply missing from Aeschylus, Manilius and al~Jahiz. Besides the make believe 'one-drop' 'blacks' some other types of real blacks were unknown to them; Australians, Papuans, Melanesians, and so.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] Yes there are many types of blacks, we don't all look alike.
Aeschylus has the king of the Argives list many a type of black when the Danaids proclaim Argive ancestry. The white king not seeing in them any modicum of whiteness tells them who he thinks their most likely relatives are
quote: "O stranger maids, I may not trust this word, That ye have share in this our Argive race. No likeness of our country do ye bear, But semblance as of Libyan womankind. Even such a stock by Nilus' banks might grow; Yea, and the Cyprian stamp, in female forms, Shows, to the life, what males impressed the same. And, furthermore, of roving Indian maids Whose camping-grounds by Aethiopia lie, And camels burdened even as mules, and bearing Riders, as horses bear, mine ears have heard; And tales of flesh-devouring mateless maids Called Amazons: to these, if bows ye bare, I most had deemed you like. Speak further yet, That of your Argive birth the truth I learn."
.
500 years later comes Manilius who after listing white peoples give us the countries with various types of blacks
quote: "Ethiopia stains the world painting humankind deeply dark Less does India's sun toast its progeny Egypt-land's Nile leniently irrigates bodies dark a country nearer us, with moderate climate imparting medium tone Sol dries peoples of Africa's dusty desert land While Mauretania's name proclaims colour in skin and face."
.
you would have to provide evidence that either Aeschylus or Manilius were not merely listing listing people of different nations who had skin in various shades darker than their own as opposed to Aeschylus or Manilius believing such people comprised a distinct race as per the stereotype term "black".
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Bottom line:Black according to any utilization can be inferred with one's eyes, and agreed upon when looking into another person's context using the criteria they used.
Jesus stop being such a simpleton and sore loser. There disagreements about who is "black" and what do we use to judge if one is "black". Because "Subjectiveness doesn't exist in the outside world, only in the head"
Whats "black" in your head is different from what qualifies as "black" in other two persons head. Is Obama black or white?
Its a useful social construct, but noting more. You lost, again. You are just saving face, again.
"''Black'', in whatever context it is used, denotes something external and concrete identifiable"
No, what is a "black person" is projected onto the outside world by subjective mind. A "black person" is an idea. Ideas materialized are subjectiveness projected onto the outside world (like racial discrimination, apartheid etc), two can agree on an idea but this doesn't make it any less subjective as there are different degrees of subjectivity, extreme is solipsism. You dont know shyt Rev. No surprise.
Not everyone identifies with your slap dash *potential* definitions of what constitutes a "black person". LOL
quote:Beauty and other value judgements go deeper than what can be inferred with one's eyes
Apokopoko is so pissed with you right now. LOL
"We declare that a person is black because of X, Y, and Z. Then everyone possessing X, Y, and Z must be black by that definition." - Apoco
"If I declare that person 1 is (beautiful) black because of A, B, and C then subsequently say that person 2 is not (beautiful) black despite having these qualities there is no contradiction, and no one can argue the point, because (beautiful) black remains subjective" - Apoco
If black is said to be X, it is X. If beauty is said to be X, it doesn't have to be X.
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: This is different from the utilizations of the word ''black'', as every single one of them can be readily observed, and agreed upon by two honest dissenting parties when knowing what criteria are used. However susceptible the term is to temporal additions in criteria, this has no bearing on the falsifiability of each of the criteria that the word embodies.
*No one can falsify whether someone is beautiful, unworthy, cowardly etc. *No one can determine the extent of such subjective appraisals etc. *Yet everyone can falsify whether the criteria that I’ve listed pertain to a given person.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Criteria 1 Is Obama's skin color black as in ''charcoal black''? No Criteria 2 Does he identify with the black community/culture more than he does with the white community/culture? Yes Criteria 3 Does he qualify for the one drop rule? Yes Criteria 4 Does he have African ancestry? Yes Criteria 5 Can people with 100% African heritage possess skin colors identical to his? Yes Criteria 6 Does he have facial features that have a higher occurrence in Africa? Yes
All criteria to call someone black None of the above is subjective
That ends the whole debate right there.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Yes there are many types of blacks, we don't all look alike.
Aeschylus has the king of the Argives list many a type of black when the Danaids proclaim Argive ancestry. The white king not seeing in them any modicum of whiteness tells them who he thinks their most likely relatives are
quote: "O stranger maids, I may not trust this word, That ye have share in this our Argive race. No likeness of our country do ye bear, But semblance as of Libyan womankind. Even such a stock by Nilus' banks might grow; Yea, and the Cyprian stamp, in female forms, Shows, to the life, what males impressed the same. And, furthermore, of roving Indian maids Whose camping-grounds by Aethiopia lie, And camels burdened even as mules, and bearing Riders, as horses bear, mine ears have heard; And tales of flesh-devouring mateless maids Called Amazons: to these, if bows ye bare, I most had deemed you like. Speak further yet, That of your Argive birth the truth I learn."
.
500 years later comes Manilius who after listing white peoples give us the countries with various types of blacks
quote: "Ethiopia stains the world painting humankind deeply dark Less does India's sun toast its progeny Egypt-land's Nile leniently irrigates bodies dark a country nearer us, with moderate climate imparting medium tone Sol dries peoples of Africa's dusty desert land While Mauretania's name proclaims colour in skin and face."
.
700 more years pass and al~Jahiz pens who the Zanj reckon a type of black
quote: "And they said, 'The number of blacks is greater than the number of whites, because most of those who are counted as whites are comprised of peoples from Persia, the mountains, Khurasan, Rome, Slavia, France, and Iberia, and anything apart from them is insignificant.
But among the blacks are counted * Zanj * Ethiopians * Fezzani * Berbers * Copts * Nubians * Zaghawa * Moors
the people of * Sind * the Hindus * the Qamar * the Dabila * the IndoChinese
and those beyond them. The sea is more extensive than the land, and the islands in the sea between IndoChina and Zanzibar are full of blacks, like the * Sarandib * Kalah * Amal * Zabij and its islands up to Hindustan and IndoChina
Kabul and those coasts.
"They said, 'The Arabs come from us -- not from the whites -- because of the similarity of their colour to ours. The Hindus are more yellow in color than the Arabs, yet they are counted among the black peoples."
.
The only type, so-called 'black,' who may be mostly white is the one-drop kind.
Readily seen, that variety goes haply missing from Aeschylus, Manilius and al~Jahiz. Besides the make believe 'one-drop' 'blacks' some other types of real blacks were unknown to them; Australians, Papuans, Melanesians, and so.
No difference in opinion so far.
Do either of these authors mention the skin color of the Israelites?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You opine the people of Cyprus c.500BCE were a type of black?
You opine Arabian Peninsulars c.500BCE were a type of black?
You opine the IndoChinese c.800CE were a type of black?
Are they all yet black? If not, how and when did they become not so?
You define phentetic European one-droppers as criterially fit blacks?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: You opine the people of Cyprus c.500BCE were a type of black?
You opine Arabian Peninsulars c.500BCE were a type of black?
You opine the IndoChinese c.800CE were a type of black?
Their own monuments, foreign imposed descriptions, skeletal remains (in some cases)and modern remnants all corroborate these descriptions.
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: You define phentetic European one-droppers as criterially fit blacks?
I listed criteria that are/have been used in western culture for being called black, not necessarily my own.
I do have to acknowledge though, I came across some sources today that corroborate a protrusion of people with relatively broader faces/noses than those preceeding them in several late bronze age Israelite cities. I believe Lachish was one of those cities. Studies focusing on teeth however show West Asian indigenous variation, unlike African (Ancient Egyptian) samples.
Whether these people were Canaanites to the Hebrews of the bible, Hebrews themselves or some other group and how distinct they were cranio- facially from preceeding groups remains to be figured out.
I will post what I've found tonight.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Criteria 1 Is Obama's skin color black as in ''charcoal black''? No
this is ridiculous. It's like saying a criteria for determining if an apple is red is that it's not blue
how about asking if the object if of the color it's supposed to be rather than what it's not supposed to be? ex. Is the fruit red in color?
Criteria 2 Does he identify with the black community/culture more than he does with the white community/culture? Yes
Eminem, next
Criteria 3 Does he qualify for the one drop rule? Yes
antiquated Jim Crow garbage, you can't be serious. How is this one drop determined? useless
Criteria 4 Does he have African ancestry? Yes
Do light skinned Berbers and Libyans qualify? Do Australian Aborigines and Negritos qualify? By what method is African ancestry determined? The method is subjective, the criteria is subjective
Criteria 5 Can people with 100% African heritage possess skin colors identical to his? Yes
what color are you referring to is it a secret?
If we were discussing bananas would you be asking all sorts of questions that intentionally leave out the word yellow? by what method is the skin color being determined? the method is subjective
Criteria 6 Does he have facial features that have a higher occurrence in Africa? Yes
by what method is this determined? the method is subjective.
Your argument carries no weight because the methodology in determining of these things is disputed and subjective and the things you say are criteria for determining if someone is black or not is subjective
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I listed criteria that are/have been used in western culture for being called black, not necessarily my own.
^^^^^^ why did I even bother replying to these if the criteria that you listed is not necessarily your own that means the definition of who is black and who is not black depends on who you are talking to, therefore subjective
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
While some Euros do consider mulattos black, no western culture save the USA has a one drop rule that excludes people of any known slavery era African antecedents from being other than black.
There is no passing for white. A phenetically European person is white and no type of black.
Ibero-America has precise terms down to the finest gradients for people, admixed or not.
They may choose to identify either black or white, but such admixtures are neither black nor white. Outside of the USA I think this holds true for western culture and of course so for Arab and African cultures not kowtowing to USA norms.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: You define phentetic European one-droppers as criterially fit blacks?
I listed criteria that are/have been used in western culture for being called black, not necessarily my own.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have moved on from the Moses to Shem colour topic. Lachish is nothing new and was brought up a few times.
Hebrew, Israelite, Judahite, Judaean, and Jew are not necessaryly synonymous terms, especially dealing with BCE populations.
Sensu scrictu, the era of Hebrews end when the Children of Israel become the People of Israel. The Israelite era ends when the United Monarchy collapses into separate kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Once the KoI is destroyed her refugees join the KoJ which in turn is laid waste.
Returned exilees and local refugees compound a new state, Judah, later known as Judea. This Judaean peoplehood, includes many nationalized foreigners (converts). Scattered by Rome the Jews disperse to practically every place on the earth, their numbers augumented by host nation converts.
The People of Israel start out as a combining of the Hebrew Children of Israel plus the (mistranslated) Mixed Multitude. Thereafter they marry with every people they contact, heavily so with Canaanites. By the time Judah/Judea is forged, an exilee priest has to arraign a family court forcing divorce and custody loss on local refugees including its priesthood who married 'the women of the land' without nationalizing them.
We have the extensive ossuary of Lachish where those entered differ little from the population of the nearby Gaza. Assyrian reliefs show how the citizens looked.
However, if the earlier Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser depicts Yehu and citizens of the KoI they hardly resemble Judahites.
There are various written Greco-Latin reports on the affinities of Judahites and Judaeans. The majority do assume an Egyptian or Sudani origin or similar appearance. One even speaks of those of "another race" adopting the laws of the Judaeans, and converts once admitted to the peoplehood become as one of the people.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I do have to acknowledge though, I came across some sources today that corroborate a protrusion of people with relatively broader faces/noses than those preceeding them in several late bronze age Israelite cities. I believe Lachish was one of those cities. Studies focusing on teeth however show West Asian indigenous variation, unlike African (Ancient Egyptian) samples.
Whether these people were Canaanites to the Hebrews of the bible, Hebrews themselves or some other group and how distinct they were cranio- facially from preceeding groups remains to be figured out.
I will post what I've found tonight.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic