posted
There are many peoples who are black but their ethnonym is not Black, the difference between lower case black and upper case Black. I only know of one black people who use(d) Black as their ethnonym, the Black Americans.
As always, I identify black peoples as those deemed so by * Aeschylus * Manilius * al~Jahiz
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
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: "Ethiopians stain the orb deeply dark drenching humanity's forms. India's progeny is less scorched Egypt's Nile inundates the earth darkens bodies in grades like the irrigated field, now nearer the middle which produces a tone observing moderation. Sol dries the Afer peoples' dusty desert land, while Mauretania's own mouth named itself by the colour they have."
.
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: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
I challenge the author of this thread to produce quotes by the first two authors where they speak about people, and in the original language they wrote in, referred to someone using their native tongue, a word for the color black. Also al~Jahiz, now that I think about it he wrote "on the superiority of the blacks on the whites" I'm not sure the actual words in Arabic he used in the original, so all three authors
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tukuler - Are those quotes to make us laugh at the silliness of the Albinos in their bogus self-serving translations of ancient texts?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Tukuler - Are those quotes to make us laugh at the silliness of the Albinos in their bogus self-serving translations of ancient texts?
real blacks were unknown to them
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
note: for the new members, noting the member names of the first two posts, alTakruri and Tukuler, it's the same person switiching accounts for some reason. Everbody knows this ( ask other members) yet despite that fact in the second post he says "Yes..." as if answering a different person, lol
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
You guys are welcome to reference the originals and give up your own translations.
My point is until last century or so nearly all the peoples mentioned were recognized as blacks whereas today only people descended from or at the source of western hemi sphere transported enslaved Africans are called blacks.
I maintain indigenous Africans, some Arabs, large numbers of Indians, most Indo-Chinese and of course Papuans and Melanesians are black people regardless of only remote genetic affiliation.
I do not recognize sociological blacks (people of only minute antecents of the above listed) as real blacks. I don't go for nonsense as blacks passing for white. They are not real blacks immediately identifiable as of one of the black peoples.
I do recognize such sociological blacks right to self-identify as black though physically they are not black.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Stupid twit
Of course al~Takruri and Tukuler are synonymous. Info in the From parm verify the obvious and I have posted the al~Takruri and Tukuler tags are both mine when one poster didn't get it.
When I choose to use either is my business.
Both the 1st and 2nd posts of this thread are cut and paste jobs of original posting back in November of 2010.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ see people, he uses the black = skin color only definition
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Yes people black is color!
Well black is a color not a facial cast or body shape. I limit it Old World peoples and include any hybrids of majority descent from a black people.
Black is by no means the same as negro in English which is restrictive.
Two centuries ago Euros introduced the concept "black but not negro" which today is modified to "black means negro" where negro is an extreme phenotype supposedly West African.
Because black is a skin colour type most African, some Arabs, many Indians, etc cannot escape the black label and outside of Euro countries such people are still black. Eg. decades ago during the Jesse Jackson mediated Iran hostage crisis the Iranians said they would release the blacks. They then freed an Indian and a Black American, the Black American decided to remain a hostage with American loyalty than superceded colour.
Bottomline: yes there are many black races, not one global recently related black race
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB]
~who's blacker ???
Now as for assholes who can't see the difference in actual dark skin and sunburnt light skin their agenda is obvious.
Not to mention they focus on an individual rather than the group descent of the individual
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
As always, I identify black peoples as those deemed so by * Aeschylus * Manilius * al~Jahiz [/QB]
In other words, topping the list for describing who people are, a Greek and a Roman determine it, as authorites
And the irony is, if I am not mistaken, they do not even use the Greek or Latin words for black
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Now as for assholes who can't see the difference in actual dark skin and sunburnt light skin their agenda is obvious.
Manilius:
.....The Ethiopians stain the world and depict a race of men steeped in darkness; less sun-burnt are the natives of India; the land of Egypt, flooded by the Nile, darkens bodies more mildly owing to the inundation of its fields: it it a country nearer to us and its moderate climate imparts a medium tone. The Sun-God dries up with dust the tribes of Africans amid their desert lands; the Moors derive their name from their faces, and their identity is proclaimed by the colour of their skins. Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Timeframe oh witless twit.
Where's you analytic skills?
Continuity and consistency on who is black in chronological listing from some available literature listing black peoples
All distraction aside you cannot assail ancient Greeks common era Romans and the medieval Zanj themselves all agree who is black and black is not limited to people of enslaved African ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Timeframe oh witless twit.
Where's you analytic skills?
Continuity and consistency on who is black in chronological listing from some available literature listing black peoples
All distraction aside you cannot assail ancient Greeks common era Romans and the medieval Zanj themselves all agree who is black and black is not limited to people of enslaved African ancestry.
quote the original language passages in Greek or Latin where the word for "black" is used
then answer why Greeks and Romans are the authority on ethnic groups other than themselves
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
seventeen mirrors floating on the sea catch as catch can but you can't catch me
You forgot the Zanj oh dumbass twit.
Who the Zanj say are black is no different than what the Greek and Roman said.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Timeframe oh witless twit.
Continuity and consistency on who is black in chronological listing from some available literature listing black peoples
All distraction aside you cannot assail ancient Greeks common era Romans and the medieval Zanj themselves all agree who is black and black is not limited to people of enslaved African ancestry.
quote the original language passages in Greek or Latin where the word for "black" is used
then answer why Greeks and Roamns are the authority on ethnic groups other than themselves
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Laugh at the clown's clowning around when (s)he twit knows (s)he has no sound argument against the facts and justs accepts the 21st century Euro imposed definition of who is black in preference to all others definitions.
I have no time for fool ass clowns.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Laugh at the clown's clowning around when (s)he twit knows (s)he has no sound argument against the facts and justs accepts the 21st century Euro imposed definition of who is black in preference to all others definitions.
I have no time for fool ass clowns. [/QB]
Laugh at the clown, who includes indo chinese as black yet calls other dark people "sun burnt" and then when we go to the Greeks and Romans they are also using "sun burnt' descriptions, the hypocrisy. By your definition all the above should be black. I didn't say that was wrong, if you use color only-then do it consistently fool
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Roman Catholic Church burned all the Ancient libraries and books of the Mediterranean world. One Catholic bishop stated there is no trace of the Ancient literature. Few manuscript from the 20 cent BC survive today. Most of the ancient books are copy of copy of copy.
Who were copying those manuscripts?. The Catholic Church monk. The same people that was burning libraries were the one copying ancient manuscripts. The Benedicts monks and Jesuits erased many pages of ancient manuscripts and forged many pages of ancient manuscripts. Few ancient text are 100% pure. Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte stated History was European lie agreed upon. The Spanish, British, French, Portuguese, Jesuit colonized the world and they translated and corrupted many text. Some of the original uncorrupted text are probably in the Vatican library or the Russian Orthodox Church library(Constantinople books).
The Roman considered themselves at some time an intermediate people aka mulato between the dark skin Ethiopian and the pale skin German. I don't think the Roman, Iberian and Persian were white people as describe by Manilus and Al Jahiz. I think those people were in majority mulato during classical time with a large black minority population. The Southern European population of Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece are dark skin today. Large part of the Romanian and Bulgarian population are dark skin.
posted
Thread bumped moved and reopened as a sidebar to a currently discussed issue
There are many peoples who are black but their ethnonym is not Black, the difference between lower case black and upper case Black. I only know of one black people who use(d) Black as their ethnonym, the Black Americans.
As always, I identify black peoples as those deemed so by * Aeschylus * Manilius * al~Jahiz
=-=-=
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: "Ethiopians stain the orb deeply dark drenching humanity's forms. India's progeny is less scorched Egypt's Nile inundates the earth darkens bodies in grades like the irrigated field, now nearer the middle which produces a tone observing moderation. Sol dries the Afer peoples' dusty desert land, while Mauretania's own mouth named itself by the colour they have."
.
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 actual blacks were unknown to them; Australians, Papuans, Melanesians, and so.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This type of etymological battles are only good for agents of confusion. A waste of time.
Yes, it's true that the same word can have different meaning depending on the context.
For example, Europeans can also means recent immigrants to Europe in a political context. For example, people of African and Asian origin living in Europe are Europeans. As they are European citizen. But on a biological, historical context when we talk about Europeans we mean white/caucasian people. For example, maybe the Alzheimer disease can be more or less preponderant in people of European descent. In this context we mean white/caucasian people, not Europeans of Asian or African descents.
On a biological/historical context: black, African, indigenous Africans, sub-Saharan Africans, people who stayed back in Africa during the OOA migrations, etc, have all the same meaning.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Thread bumped moved and reopened as a sidebar to a currently discussed issue
There are many peoples who are black but their ethnonym is not Black, the difference between lower case black and upper case Black. I only know of one black people who use(d) Black as their ethnonym, the Black Americans.
As always, I identify black peoples as those deemed so by * Aeschylus * Manilius * al~Jahiz
=-=-=
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: "Ethiopians stain the orb deeply dark drenching humanity's forms. India's progeny is less scorched Egypt's Nile inundates the earth darkens bodies in grades like the irrigated field, now nearer the middle which produces a tone observing moderation. Sol dries the Afer peoples' dusty desert land, while Mauretania's own mouth named itself by the colour they have."
.
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 actual blacks were unknown to them; Australians, Papuans, Melanesians, and so.
You identify black peoples as those deemed so by * Aeschylus * Manilius * al~Jahiz
This is 2015 why does the unproven opinion of these particular ancient writers determine who is black ?? Because they were famous??? That must be the sole reason
Yet only al~Jahiz actually uses the word "black" (in Arabic)
And they use any proofs??? None whatsoever It's useless
And I ask you what is the complete color list for human beings? Is it "black" and "white" ? or is it "black" "brown" and "white" ? or is it "black" "white" "yellow" ? or is it "black""white "yellow""red" ? or is it all just "brown" ?
How many categories of color did the ancients prove there are?
Yet only al~Jahiz actually uses the actual word "black" (and "white") and applies it to these ethncities
_______________________________
As to what makes one "black" Aeschylus, Manilius and al~Jahiz shed no light on that matter
al~Jahiz does not answer the question he merely lists countries or ethnic groups and their relative light or darkness of skin tone have already decided which of these groups are black and which are white
None of those listings indicate method
So I assume that "black" people as per your upper and lower case idea are not necessrily of African descent therefore lower case "b" "black" must only mean skin color
Therefore the the geographical region you come from is not what determines it. The determination is by physical observation on how dark a person's skin color is and if it is suffiently dark enough to be black Then only after this point would you be able to generalize about a geographical region or ethnic group to be able to determine if such group generally are dark enough to be "black"
So we can have fun with all the great old classic poetic writing however the bottom line is if you want to determine who is black and who is white and attempt to make it scientifically measurable you need to have a color chart and select a cut off point
That is all you have then to determine who is black and who is white, a color range, not a hypothetical one, not a list of ethnic groups and actual color chart with a cut off point
So forget the ancient writers, that is a red herring, there's no methodology
Something is not true because an anceint writer said it was true It has to be proven
If you want to determine something to be black you can
You can label a shade of gray or brown as "black" That is the cut off point So that indcates a range of darkness Anything as dark as that shade of gray or darker is black
That is the sole and only method to determine who is black and who is not, it is crystal clear and simple
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you want to determine something to be black you can
You can label a shade of gray or brown as "black" That is the cut off point So that indcates a range of darkness Anything as dark as that shade of gray or darker is black
That is the sole and only method to determine who is black and who is not, it is crystal clear and simple [/QB]
You're completely wrong. Technically speaking NOBODY is black. We are all various shades of dark brown to pinkish white color.
We must always apply words within the context they are said. As similar words can have different meaning in different contexts. This is pretty basic. Black is a color in one context, and an ethnic label in another. Usually black in the context of the description of ethnicity or in African history has the meaning "African people".
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
We must always apply words within the context they are said. As similar words can have different meaning in different contexts. This is pretty basic. Black is a color in one context, and an ethnic label in another. Usually black in the context of the description of ethnicity or in African history has the meaning "African people".
I was using Tukuler's definition as a given for argument's sake
Black = dark skinned person of recent African descent
black = any dark skinned person
_______________________________________
The nice thing about it is you can say one or the other orally without commiting to one or the other
In his post he was dealing with "black" rather than Black so for that you need to set up a measurement method to determine who is and who isn't Everybody who does it uses their eyes and tries to evaluate if the person is dark enough to be lower case black
The problem is that in time these lower case blacks might wnat to fight for the right to be upper case blacks But it reamins to be seen if Upper Case Blacks would acknowledge them as Upper Case (or just Upper Case-ish) naturally an Andaman Islander might have an edge over a Pakistani in this
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: In his post he was dealing with "black" rather than Black so for that you need to set up a measurement method to determine who is and who isn't
If you use a measurement method you will find out as your own eyes that nobody is black.
Blacks in the context of an ethnic label usually means people of African descents.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: In his post he was dealing with "black" rather than Black so for that you need to set up a measurement method to determine who is and who isn't
If you use a measurement method you will find out as your own eyes that nobody is black.
Blacks in the context of an ethnic label means people of African descents.
many of the veteran ES members regard the term "black" as meaning anybody, including certain brown people who are dark skinned "black"
So that's their definition and it's outside of an African descent limit
Accordingly this Mongolian, Peruvian and Solomon Islander (east of Papua New Guinea) are black people yet not African>
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: honorary mention
The only thing, you're right about. Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
That's merely your limited opinion uninformed from history and only acceptive of Euro redefinitions of the true negro.
Black is not and has never been limited to the "negro people of sub-Saharan Africa."
oo bad you're reluctant and unwilling to learn what the Zanj (a people you'd call SSA) said about who is black.
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."
Upsetting to your agenda, and all hose who would pigeon-hole blacks to "SSA" when all throughout time and literate countries dark skinned peoples of all land masses shoring the Indian Ocean are called blacks.
Yes very upsetting, is it not?
Also, I've presented evidence from three sources while you cannot present even a single solitary source to back you up, just f e e l i n g s.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: This type of etymological battles are only good for agents of confusion. A waste of time.
Yes, it's true that the same word can have different meaning depending on the context.
For example, Europeans can also means recent immigrants to Europe in a political context. For example, people of African and Asian origin living in Europe are Europeans. As they are European citizen. But on a biological, historical context when we talk about Europeans we mean white/caucasian people. For example, maybe the Alzheimer disease can be more or less preponderant in people of European descent. In this context we mean white/caucasian people, not Europeans of Asian or African descents.
On a biological/historical context: black, African, indigenous Africans, sub-Saharan Africans, people who stayed back in Africa during the OOA migrations, etc, have all the same meaning.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
All humans on earth originated with populations of tropically adapted Africans with black skin who exited Africa 60 to 80 thousand years ago. And those population did not lose their tropical adaptation until between 10 or 20 thousand years ago in various places around the planet. Therefore, black skin is the aboriginal phenotype of mankind on all parts of the planet. And so, being aboriginal it is not 'out of place' separate or different from the features found in Africa as it is based on the same biological adaptation to the tropical environment among the first humans. Hence, you still indigenous black groups among native populations all over the world.
Now the problem is that white folks want to be the earth's daddy. They can't stand that blacks are the first humans because that contradicts everything white folks try to teach the world. European cavemen are not the first humans and the first cavemen were Africans in Africa not Europeans. Humans don't descend from Europeans and therefore white skin is not an aboriginal human phenotype. That is why so many are upset about it.
And all of this was invented by white European racist anthropologists in the 18th and 19th centuries who tried to lump people around the world into different 'racial' categories based on their racist views of white supremacy and identity. Curiously enough most of the evidence for the black populations all over the planet comes from these same people in the same time periods as well. And that was only 150 years ago. If there were still so many black populations all over the planet at the height of European imperialism and colonization 200 years ago, then what do you think things looked like 2000 years ago and going back even farther?
But the problem now is that science has definitively proven that Africa is the home of the modern human species. And in reality the white scientists already knew this from the aforementioned research done 100 years ago. The difference is that then these original populations were being labeled as 'savage' or 'primitive' and therefore deserving to be killed off by white supremacy. Now the propaganda is to pretend that the aboriginals were all white or close to white all over the planet. That is all contradicted by their own research, but it shows just how deliberate and deceitful these people are.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: All humans on earth originated with populations of tropically adapted Africans with black skin who exited Africa 60 to 80 thousand years ago. And those population did not lose their tropical adaptation until between 10 or 20 thousand years ago in various places around the planet. Therefore, black skin is the aboriginal phenotype of mankind on all parts of the planet. And so, being aboriginal it is not 'out of place' separate or different from the features found in Africa as it is based on the same biological adaptation to the tropical environment among the first humans. Hence, you still indigenous black groups among native populations all over the world.
Now the problem is that white folks want to be the earth's daddy. They can't stand that blacks are the first humans because that contradicts everything white folks try to teach the world. European cavemen are not the first humans and the first cavemen were Africans in Africa not Europeans. Humans don't descend from Europeans and therefore white skin is not an aboriginal human phenotype. That is why so many are upset about it.
And all of this was invented by white European racist anthropologists in the 18th and 19th centuries who tried to lump people around the world into different 'racial' categories based on their racist views of white supremacy and identity. Curiously enough most of the evidence for the black populations all over the planet comes from these same people in the same time periods as well. And that was only 150 years ago. If there were still so many black populations all over the planet at the height of European imperialism and colonization 200 years ago, then what do you think things looked like 2000 years ago and going back even farther?
But the problem now is that science has definitively proven that Africa is the home of the modern human species. And in reality the white scientists already knew this from the aforementioned research done 100 years ago. The difference is that then these original populations were being labeled as 'savage' or 'primitive' and therefore deserving to be killed off by white supremacy. Now the propaganda is to pretend that the aboriginals were all white or close to white all over the planet. That is all contradicted by their own research, but it shows just how deliberate and deceitful these people are. [/QB]
As we can see with this Peruvian and South African, the much darker Peruvian is that much more original than the South African
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
In 1871 Charles Darwin was one of the first to propose common descent of living organisms, and among the first to suggest that all humans had in common ancestors who lived in Africa
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: It's not that I enjoy being mean to Africans, it's just that Africans have to learn how to shut-up, among many other things. They have been abject failures at society and civilization building. Contrary to their own belief, they have no innate wisdom to offer. They just need to be quiet and try to learn.
The reason that many African Americans have prefer to be called "Black" instead of "African" is that they are ashamed to be African
Europeans provided the solution. They imposed skin color as the primary identity marker rather than nationality or traditional ethnic group name
The Spanish and Portugese first introduced the concept to Africans they imported as slaves to the Americas, They called them "negroes" meaning black in reference to their dark skin
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
@the lioness You do know Peru obtained Africans for servitude like other European colonies in the Americas resulting in mixtures of features. How is the Peruvian more original Blaak than Mr.Nelson Rohilah Mandela?
-------------------- Tehutimes Posts: 115 | From: north america | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Mike111 Your venom toward Africans includes quadroon/mixed confused Tuareg,Arab,Greek,Turk,& Colored/ Afrikaner blends in addition to basic Blaak Africans?
-------------------- Tehutimes Posts: 115 | From: north america | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
You identify black peoples as those deemed so by * Aeschylus * Manilius * al~Jahiz
This is 2015 why does the unproven opinion of these particular ancient writers determine who is black ?? Because they were famous??? That must be the sole reason
Yet only al~Jahiz actually uses the word "black" (in Arabic)
And they use any proofs??? None whatsoever It's useless
And I ask you what is the complete color list for human beings? Is it "black" and "white" ? or is it "black" "brown" and "white" ? or is it "black" "white" "yellow" ? or is it "black""white "yellow""red" ? or is it all just "brown" ?
How many categories of color did the ancients prove there are?
Yet only al~Jahiz actually uses the actual word "black" (and "white") and applies it to these ethncities
_______________________________
As to what makes one "black" Aeschylus, Manilius and al~Jahiz shed no light on that matter
al~Jahiz does not answer the question he merely lists countries or ethnic groups and their relative light or darkness of skin tone have already decided which of these groups are black and which are white
None of those listings indicate method
So I assume that "black" people as per your upper and lower case idea are not necessrily of African descent therefore lower case "b" "black" must only mean skin color
Therefore the the geographical region you come from is not what determines it. The determination is by physical observation on how dark a person's skin color is and if it is suffiently dark enough to be black Then only after this point would you be able to generalize about a geographical region or ethnic group to be able to determine if such group generally are dark enough to be "black"
So we can have fun with all the great old classic poetic writing however the bottom line is if you want to determine who is black and who is white and attempt to make it scientifically measurable you need to have a color chart and select a cut off point
That is all you have then to determine who is black and who is white, a color range, not a hypothetical one, not a list of ethnic groups and actual color chart with a cut off point
So forget the ancient writers, that is a red herring, there's no methodology
Something is not true because an anceint writer said it was true It has to be proven
If you want to determine something to be black you can
You can label a shade of gray or brown as "black" That is the cut off point So that indcates a range of darkness Anything as dark as that shade of gray or darker is black
That is the sole and only method to determine who is black and who is not, it is crystal clear and simple
.
Not as deemed but as reported by them.
Aeschylus, Manilius, and al~Jahiz are are used for the obvious reason they show a 1200 year temporal application of black onto peoples in perimeter of the Indian Ocean.
al~Jahiz in particular because he documented the Zanj (East African) catalog of the blacks. It is the second such historical notice from a black and African people.
I believe in building up on what previous generations handed down to us just as do the other peoples of the world who are not starting at square one as if African Studies didn't exist until you became aware of it.
You erringly claim neither Aeschylus nor Manilius use black. Have you not read Aeschylus, neither the pertinent snippets many have posted over the years nor Brada Anansi's forwarding of the entire play Suppliant Maidens?
I will not rehearse that for you now but will ask how you could claim to analyse Manilius and not see black in his line on Mauretania(ns) and the obvious Greco-Latin dichotomy of blacks in the south Mediterranean and southward versus the diametric opposite regarding whites. Really? Must I remind you that to this day mauros means black negro nigger in Greek?
Isn't it foolish to expect the three to assign the East Asians and Western Hemisphere peoples a color when nobody then and there knew they existed, (with even to date but one East Asian skeleton recovered in Rome this century)?
Among the African blacks at least there's recognition of black red and yellow skin complexions. Arabians see themselves as reds and blacks.
European whites have their basic blond brunette split, redheads and ravenettes seem left out until realizing blond and brunette in this application refers to skin complexions white and olive.
Greeks noticed the yallah complexion of the originally black Colchians after generations of settlers marrying natives.
Pre-Euro contact Chinese and Japanese literature speaks of their self-identified white complexion. Their are historical notice of a previous black aborigenee habitation and occasional very dark complexioned south Chinese. The Japanese call Melanesians black.
All the above peoples regard N Euros as the pink/white man par excellence and not to confuse internal use of red/white with pink. Mauritania is the prime example where in its Zenaga infused Yemenini Arabic (Hassaniyya language) white can mean a clear brown complexion the tone of peanut butter.
I've seen Mongolian blacks on ES before. May not be many of them but that sun burnt man of a lighter natural colour is not one of them. The Peruvian has a natural deep brown complexion that if seen on an Africa you'd call it black with no problem.
Stop it please stop it. Nobody pulls out a measures chart to see who is black or white or brown or yellow either.
Sure I defined black lands geographically. You must read attentively. I drop gems you missed mining. Did I not say everywhere Indian Ocean waves break to shore is inhabited by blacks?
Why do you refuse to learn
There are
African blacks
Levantine blacks
[Persian] Gulf blacks
Makran blacks
Deccan blacks
Bengal Bay blacks
(and unknown to the cited ancients
Australian blacks
Melanesian blacks
not counting the aboriginal blacks of the Americas).
Why get all wound up just because people throughout time in recorded literature all point to the same sets of peoples as black? The reason why is transparent.
Stop it please stop it. Nobody pulls out a measures chart to see who is black or white or brown or yellow either.
If I were to ask you "how do you determine if a persons is black or not?"
And you said "the only way it could be determined by looking on lists of ethnic groups that ancient writers said were black"
I would say that method has no scientific credibility whatsoever
and I would be correct
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Looks like the Chinese have abandoned multi-regionalism. The following also shows a more grounded in simplicity acknowledgement that uptight Western scientists avoid (except of course for Euro genetics where they have no problem applying Caucasian and caucasoid to non-Caucasus populations).
Again, the topic starter queries When & why did they stop being black? Says who?
The migration history of haplogroup D-M174 is most mysterious. By now, we have known little about the origin and dispersal of this haplogroup. This haplo- group was derived from African haplogroup DE-M1 (YAP insertion) and is associated with a short black Asian physical style. Haplogroups E and D are brother haplogroups. While haplogroup E was carried westwards to Africa by the tall black people, haplogroup D might have been carried eastwards to East Asia by the short black people (Figure 3). Haplogroup D-M174 has high frequencies in the Andaman Negritos, the northern Tibeto-Burman populations and the Ainu of Japan, and also appears at low frequencies in other East and Southeast Asian and Central Asian populations. [...] The paragroup D* is restricted to the Andaman Islands, which has been isolated for at least 20 thousand years. Some other minor haplogroups, also included in D*, can be found around Tibet. Most of the populations with haplogroup D have very dark skin color, including the Andamanese, some of the Tibeto-Burman and Mon-Khmer people. The Ainu people may have developed pale skin to absorb more ultraviolet light in high latitude regions.
Found that while researching for an Andamans: 'relic' or modern thread as followup to an idea at ESR presented by Clyde and Enrique.
Another thread I'm toying around with is a 'misconceptions' topic. Allusions to "barriers" in various books, reports, and articles suggests listing and discussing that and other oppurtune bio-genetic crutch concepts limiting inner African expansions to elsewhere in some minds.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't quite buy the notion in that article of "relic" populations - such as the Andamese, etc. Why can't they just be another regular population with their own varying genetic diversity?
Re them there Chinese. Do you detect a shift in their scholarship? They have been notorious in the past for ignoring recent data and pushing a "Chinese first" multi-regional model, oft in the face of clear contrary data. The article you post is a good one, breaking down the movement from tropical SE Asia into the colder climes of northern China. Good find. I wonder about their statement though:
"Genetic legacy of the Paleolithic black Asians
The migration history of haplogroup D-M174 is most mysterious. By now, we have known little about the origin and dispersal of this haplogroup. This haplogroup was derived from African haplogroup DE-M1 (YAP insertion) and is associated with a short black Asian physical style. Haplogroups E and D are brother haplogroups. While haplogroup E was carried westwards to Africa by the tall black people, haplogroup D might have been carried eastwards to East Asia by the short black people (Figure 3).
^^If the origin is Africa why would there be a need for haplogroup E to be carried "westwards to Africa"?
^Speaking of the term "black".. and color barriers...
Another thread I'm toying around with is a 'misconceptions' topic. Allusions to "barriers" in various books, reports, and articles suggests listing and discussing that and other oppurtune bio-genetic crutch concepts limiting inner African expansions to elsewhere in some minds.
True. It is a barrier in many minds and distorted models. While few would deny something like the Sahara did to some extent, RELATIVELY slow down movement, compared to say green plains or the Mediterranean water highway, and made life harder in some ways- (what desert doesn;t) it is also a moving target historically, greenbelt in one era, arid ozne in another, and African people one far north of todays' "border" are today classified as "sub-Saharan." You should go for it. Far as I see the shifting border makes a lot of academic and popular notions problematic.
What do you think of the idea of the Sahara as a "transmission belt" or "motor" of more elaborate cultures in Africa? It is Pan African, and didn't some of the major West African empires butt up against the Sahara or depend on trade across the desert?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Not the thread for this but the Sahara as a desert is not a barrier. Barriers are impermeable.
Remember people live in Sahara.
The Sahara as a desert and Gibraltar Strait in some eras are obstacles (hurdles) making transversal less than easy but not impossible.
What's overlooked is the role of the so-called Strait of Sicily which lacks certain navigational impediments of Gibraltar.
Who is whiter? What is that man's ethic background?
Ancient Aethiopia was larger then, as we know it now. Abyssinia was renamed to Ethiopia.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
You identify black peoples as those deemed so by * Aeschylus * Manilius * al~Jahiz
This is 2015 why does the unproven opinion of these particular ancient writers determine who is black ?? Because they were famous??? That must be the sole reason
Yet only al~Jahiz actually uses the word "black" (in Arabic)
And they use any proofs??? None whatsoever It's useless
And I ask you what is the complete color list for human beings? Is it "black" and "white" ? or is it "black" "brown" and "white" ? or is it "black" "white" "yellow" ? or is it "black""white "yellow""red" ? or is it all just "brown" ?
How many categories of color did the ancients prove there are?
Yet only al~Jahiz actually uses the actual word "black" (and "white") and applies it to these ethncities
_______________________________
As to what makes one "black" Aeschylus, Manilius and al~Jahiz shed no light on that matter
al~Jahiz does not answer the question he merely lists countries or ethnic groups and their relative light or darkness of skin tone have already decided which of these groups are black and which are white
None of those listings indicate method
So I assume that "black" people as per your upper and lower case idea are not necessrily of African descent therefore lower case "b" "black" must only mean skin color
Therefore the the geographical region you come from is not what determines it. The determination is by physical observation on how dark a person's skin color is and if it is suffiently dark enough to be black Then only after this point would you be able to generalize about a geographical region or ethnic group to be able to determine if such group generally are dark enough to be "black"
So we can have fun with all the great old classic poetic writing however the bottom line is if you want to determine who is black and who is white and attempt to make it scientifically measurable you need to have a color chart and select a cut off point
That is all you have then to determine who is black and who is white, a color range, not a hypothetical one, not a list of ethnic groups and actual color chart with a cut off point
So forget the ancient writers, that is a red herring, there's no methodology
Something is not true because an anceint writer said it was true It has to be proven
If you want to determine something to be black you can
You can label a shade of gray or brown as "black" That is the cut off point So that indcates a range of darkness Anything as dark as that shade of gray or darker is black
That is the sole and only method to determine who is black and who is not, it is crystal clear and simple
.
Not as deemed but as reported by them.
Aeschylus, Manilius, and al~Jahiz are are used for the obvious reason they show a 1200 year temporal application of black onto peoples in perimeter of the Indian Ocean.
al~Jahiz in particular because he documented the Zanj (East African) catalog of the blacks. It is the second such historical notice from a black and African people.
I believe in building up on what previous generations handed down to us just as do the other peoples of the world who are not starting at square one as if African Studies didn't exist until you became aware of it.
You erringly claim neither Aeschylus nor Manilius use black. Have you not read Aeschylus, neither the pertinent snippets many have posted over the years nor Brada Anansi's forwarding of the entire play Suppliant Maidens?
I will not rehearse that for you now but will ask how you could claim to analyse Manilius and not see black in his line on Mauretania(ns) and the obvious Greco-Latin dichotomy of blacks in the south Mediterranean and southward versus the diametric opposite regarding whites. Really? Must I remind you that to this day mauros means black negro nigger in Greek?
Isn't it foolish to expect the three to assign the East Asians and Western Hemisphere peoples a color when nobody then and there knew they existed, (with even to date but one East Asian skeleton recovered in Rome this century)?
Among the African blacks at least there's recognition of black red and yellow skin complexions. Arabians see themselves as reds and blacks.
European whites have their basic blond brunette split, redheads and ravenettes seem left out until realizing blond and brunette in this application refers to skin complexions white and olive.
Greeks noticed the yallah complexion of the originally black Colchians after generations of settlers marrying natives.
Pre-Euro contact Chinese and Japanese literature speaks of their self-identified white complexion. Their are historical notice of a previous black aborigenee habitation and occasional very dark complexioned south Chinese. The Japanese call Melanesians black.
All the above peoples regard N Euros as the pink/white man par excellence and not to confuse internal use of red/white with pink. Mauritania is the prime example where in its Zenaga infused Yemenini Arabic (Hassaniyya language) white can mean a clear brown complexion the tone of peanut butter.
I've seen Mongolian blacks on ES before. May not be many of them but that sun burnt man of a lighter natural colour is not one of them. The Peruvian has a natural deep brown complexion that if seen on an Africa you'd call it black with no problem.
Stop it please stop it. Nobody pulls out a measures chart to see who is black or white or brown or yellow either.
Sure I defined black lands geographically. You must read attentively. I drop gems you missed mining. Did I not say everywhere Indian Ocean waves break to shore is inhabited by blacks?
Why do you refuse to learn
There are
African blacks
Levantine blacks
[Persian] Gulf blacks
Makran blacks
Deccan blacks
Bengal Bay blacks
(and unknown to the cited ancients
Australian blacks
Melanesian blacks
not counting the aboriginal blacks of the Americas).
Why get all wound up just because people throughout time in recorded literature all point to the same sets of peoples as black? The reason why is transparent.
It proofs lioness is trolling around, as he/ she has been doing for the last 6 years, with multiple accounts.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
My point is until last century or so nearly all the peoples mentioned were recognized as blacks whereas today only people descended from or at the source of western hemi sphere transported enslaved Africans are called blacks.
I maintain indigenous Africans, some Arabs, large numbers of Indians, m[any] Indo-Chinese and of course Papuans and Melanesians are black people regardless of only remote genetic affiliation.
I do not recognize sociological blacks (people of only minute antecents of the above listed) as real blacks. I don't go for nonsense as blacks passing for white. They are not real blacks immediately identifiable as of one of the black peoples.
I do recognize such sociological blacks right to self-identify as black though physically they are not black.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Yes people black is color!
Well black is a color not a facial cast or body shape. I limit it to Old World peoples and include any hybrids of majority descent from a black people.
Black is by no means the same as negro in English which is restrictive.
Two centuries ago Euros introduced the concept "black but not negro" which today is modified to "black means negro" where negro is an extreme phenotype supposedly West African.
Because black is a skin colour type most African, some Arabs, many Indians, etc cannot escape the black label and outside of Euro countries such people are still black. Eg. decades ago during the Jesse Jackson mediated Iran hostage crisis the Iranians said they would release the blacks. They then freed an Indian and a Black American, the Black American decided to remain a hostage with American loyalty than superceded colour.
Who is whiter? What is that man's ethic background?
Ancient Aethiopia was larger then, as we know it now. Abyssinia was renamed to Ethiopia.
Actually, the female's photo is photoshopped to make it appear lighter. The same thing Jews do to Oprah and many AAs on TV, Ads, etc. The Arab's photo has the contrast raised slightly to make appear darker. A 10 year old can see this.
Posts: 4693 | From: Saturn | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Narmertot, you are unfamiliar with Nigerian girls. many are dark but some are not and it's not due to photoshop
Do the Arabic terms ahmar and abyad ring a bell?
Anyway, finally we are getting somewhere.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Who is whiter? What is that man's ethic background?
Ancient Aethiopia was larger then, as we know it now. Abyssinia was renamed to Ethiopia.
Actually, the female's photo is photoshopped to make it appear lighter. The same thing Jews do to Oprah and many AAs on TV, Ads, etc. The Arab's photo has the contrast raised slightly to make appear darker. A 10 year old can see this.
The picture is photoshopped that is obvious. But it doesn't mean her skin color isn't real.
Meet the African Beauties Competing at the Miss Nigeria USA 2017 Beauty Pagean
Who is whiter? What is that man's ethic background?
Ancient Aethiopia was larger then, as we know it now. Abyssinia was renamed to Ethiopia.
Actually, the female's photo is photoshopped to make it appear lighter. The same thing Jews do to Oprah and many AAs on TV, Ads, etc. The Arab's photo has the contrast raised slightly to make appear darker. A 10 year old can see this.
The picture is photoshopped that is obvious. But it doesn't mean her skin color isn't real.
Meet the African Beauties Competing at the Miss Nigeria USA 2017 Beauty Pagean
Who is whiter? What is that man's ethic background?
Ancient Aethiopia was larger then, as we know it now. Abyssinia was renamed to Ethiopia.
Actually, the female's photo is photoshopped to make it appear lighter. The same thing Jews do to Oprah and many AAs on TV, Ads, etc. The Arab's photo has the contrast raised slightly to make appear darker. A 10 year old can see this.
The picture is photoshopped that is obvious. But it doesn't mean her skin color isn't real.
Meet the African Beauties Competing at the Miss Nigeria USA 2017 Beauty Pagean
^So, tell what is the region of this "vast majority of Nigerians" you are showing? What is the ethnic background and how do they represent "all Nigerian" ethnic groups?
This is your link, correct?
See, no one is claiming that Nigerians don't have dark skin, the claim rather is that Nigerians solely have dark skin, which is not true.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic