posted
In my opinion I think this term is much more accurate. While I am "black" myself and use the term black socially, I believe the term "black" is much to "small" for the African world that is large and diverse and beyond even the African continent.
Like I said the African world is huge. And Africans are obviously the most genetically/phenotypically diverse people on this planet.
A term like "Africoid" would fit that extremely large diversity. It would fit the biological diversity of Africans. It wouldn't be limited to one phenotype, but extend to phenotypes that one would consider "Caucasoid" or ones considered to be not associated with black people. And like I said it would extend to African descent people outside of Africa.
I also think it would break barrier terms such as "Sub Saharan" or "Black African". To be considered Africoid one must have in-built genetic African diversity from the continent.
This to me would be valid in scientific discussions...
Anyways this is all just my opinion, but thoughts?
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
But to clarify my true agenda behind this thread. I was having an interesting discussion on another site about African diversity. The discussion soon went to the Tuaregs. The person I was debating with while agreed that Tuaregs were "African", they were not "black". While I somewhat agree, I do know that Tuaregs are not one monolithic people and vary in phenotype. But he was mainly referring to these types.
While they are indigenous Africans and share African genetic lineages, he called that they are not phenotypically "black". This is why I thought up the term "Africoid".
I apologize if I am not explaining things clearly, just want to try and state my reasons.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
A much better definition according to S.O.Y Keita-"to describe African descent populations whose morphological variants originate exclusively within the African continent." S.O.Y. Keita. "Studies and Comments on The Biological Relationships of Ancient Egyptians". History in Africa, 20: 129-154 (1993)
posted
Tuaregs are an admixture between Africans and non-African populations in the past.
Whether you consider any populations biologically Africans is a bit subjective for any substantially admixed populations in Africa (Tuaregs, Berbers, Nubians, Beja, Somali, etc). Personally, I go with 50% of African "genes" to classify any groups or individual as biologically Africans. African "genes" (or alleles) are those which appeared in Africa after the OOA migrations and before any back migrations of non-Africans in Africa (for example you can see it at K=2 in the admixture software prediction).
Under that subjective 50% criteria, most Tuareg and East Africans like Somali are biologically Africans. While Berbers and modern Egyptians are not.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ Though I mentioned genetics multiple time, this thread is really mainly touching base on Phenotype. As their morphology is indigenous to Africa.
Also how are Nubians, Somalis and Beja substantially admixed? I thought Somalis were the least admixed of Cushite speaking horners?
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Also how are Nubians, Somalis and Beja substantially admixed? I thought Somalis were the least admixed of Cushite speaking horners?
The easiest way to see it, as I said above, is to use the admixture software analysis at k=2.
posted
The term has already been used, 11.000 results on youtube
The Black Scholar: Journal of Black Studies and Research Who Were The First Americans? LH Clegg - The Black Scholar, 1975 - Taylor & Francis ... 3--Did invading Mongoloids usurp Afri- coid territories and,
3--Did invading Mongoloids usurp Afri- coid territories and, as their white counter- parts in the "Old World," arrogate black cul- tural achievements? 4-Finally, are the remote Africoid tribes, that have survived into this very day in Cen- tral and South America, remnants of once ...
this guy Jean Borgatti wrote the following in 2001
quote:
Asia has long been home to ancient Africoid cultures and peoples. The word Africoid here refers to those native inhabitants of Asia whose phenotype closely resembles that of Africans. Asia's Africoid populations include such groups as the Dravidians of India and various peoples of Southeast Asia and the South Seas referred to as Melanasians, Oceanic Negroids, Negritos, Australoids and more.
Jean Borgatti, Ph.D. Part-time Faculty: African, Amerindian, and Oceanic art Department of Visual and Performing Art Clark University Worcester, MA
^^^ the man has written a lot of articles on African culture
You will find that in afrocentric writing going back to the 70's the term "Africoid" is applied to African looking people in parts of the world that are not Africa.
How old is the term? I'm not sure. I saw a citation for 1962 and possible one for 1926 or earlier but that could be a mistake
If you look at scientific articles in peer reviewed articles "Africoid" means "Negroid"
Simultaneous Quantitation of Cocaine, Opiates, and Their Metabolites in Human Hair by Positive Ion Chemical Ionization Gas Chromatography—Mass Spectrometry Karin M. Höld
" Subject hair samples Hair samples (anterior and posterior) were collected from five healthy Africoid or Caucasian males who participated in re- 126 Page 3. .."
_______________________
The word "africoid" is simply an alternate word for "negroid" but is location based rather than color based, perhaps better for this reason
"Africoid" means African or looks African
However as SOY Keita pointed out people of similar phenotypes may be gentetically dissimilar
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Tuaregs are an admixture between Africans and non-African populations in the past.
Whether you consider any populations biologically Africans is a bit subjective for any substantially admixed populations in Africa (Tuaregs, Berbers, Nubians, Beja, Somali, etc). Personally, I go with 50% of African "genes" to classify any groups or individual as biologically Africans. African "genes" (or alleles) are those which appeared in Africa after the OOA migrations and before any back migrations of non-Africans in Africa (for example you can see it at K=2 in the admixture software prediction).
Under that subjective 50% criteria, most Tuareg and East Africans like Somali are biologically Africans. While Berbers and modern Egyptians are not.
LOL So, have you met a Tuareg ever personally?
And of what subgroup are you speaking anyway? LOL Most likely you yourself don't even know. LOL
You go with 50% of African? Ok. LOL
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: But to clarify my true agenda behind this thread. I was having an interesting discussion on another site about African diversity. The discussion soon went to the Tuaregs. The person I was debating with while agreed that Tuaregs were "African", they were not "black". While I somewhat agree, I do know that Tuaregs are not one monolithic people and vary in phenotype. But he was mainly referring to these types.
While they are indigenous Africans and share African genetic lineages, he called that they are not phenotypically "black". This is why I thought up the term "Africoid".
I apologize if I am not explaining things clearly, just want to try and state my reasons.
If you mean by black a racist bantu stereotype created by whites during the 17th, 18th, 19th century it possible could be true. Question: should I take their idioticy as valid? The people you see in that pic have typical North Saharan traits. This goes from the east to the west coast.
Go ask that peson wjhat would happen in any of them would walk down the streets of America, ie down South. LOL
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Also how are Nubians, Somalis and Beja substantially admixed? I thought Somalis were the least admixed of Cushite speaking horners?
The easiest way to see it, as I said above, is to use the admixture software analysis at k=2.
Booboo, where is archeological and anthropological evidence for all this back migration?
They try to corporate/ correlate this paper into their theory. "Lakeside Cemeteries in the Sahara: 5000 Years of Holocene Population and Environmental Change".
Thou, nowhere does it state such in this paper, but in fact the opposite. Then again, I have seen plently of white extremists claiming it was due to Med-europeans moving into the green-Sahara.
Now here is the thing, about 3 years ago I encountered into someone on Youtube, a very racsit white individual. Who claimed that whites/ europeans / cac's were actually the progenitors and the actual ancient Egyptians. I explained that anceint Egyptians originated from the Sahar-Sahel.
He then claimed that he had a friend from some university, who was at the Sahel doing genetic research on indigenous people, and how they was going to PROVE that cac's lived there blah blah blah.
quote: There has been enormous literature about phenotypic variation in Africans. The ultra-migrationism of old was replaced by ultra-selectionism that sought to explain every phenotypic marker of Eurasian admixture in Africa not as evidence of such admixture, but as a parallel process of evolution whereby some Africans tended to resemble some Eurasians not because of admixture but because of adaptation to similar environmental conditions.
See, I've met plenty of racist white folks who never have and never will except the OoA. They don't derive from niggers as they put it. So the answer is/was a new basal and backmigrations.
To put is as simple and raw, they have to coverup a lie a with another lie. There is no turnng back. They have chosen this path centuries ago.
What was the purpose of this so called medical paper anyway? LOL
More to come...LOL
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Researchers from the African Genome Variation Project (AGVP) have published the first attempt to comprehensively characterise genetic diversity across Sub-Saharan Africa. The study of the world's most genetically diverse region will provide an invaluable resource for medical researchers and provides insights into population movements over thousands of years of African history. These findings appear in the journal Nature.
[...]
quote: "Given the evolutionary history of many African populations, we expect them to be genetically more diverse than Europeans and other populations. However we know little about the nature and extent of this diversity and we need to understand this to identify genetic risk factors for disease."
quote: We speculate that residual differentiation between Ethiopian and other SSA populations after masking Eurasian ancestry (pairwise FST = 0.027) may be a remnant of East African diversity pre-dating the Bantu expansion10.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] The term has already been used, 11.000 results on youtube
The Black Scholar: Journal of Black Studies and Research Who Were The First Americans? LH Clegg - The Black Scholar, 1975 - Taylor & Francis ... 3--Did invading Mongoloids usurp Afri- coid territories and,
3--Did invading Mongoloids usurp Afri- coid territories and, as their white counter- parts in the "Old World," arrogate black cul- tural achievements? 4-Finally, are the remote Africoid tribes, that have survived into this very day in Cen- tral and South America, remnants of once ...
The best arguments came from HillY, Game Theory (of course), EliasAlucard is loony in the head for real mentally deranged. This loon doesn't know that the Romans encountered BLACK looking people. Nothing like them cac's. SMH LOL And on average the Norh African east and west still looks like a mixed black person to a variate degree (mulatto, quadroon and octoroon). And Phoenicians were of the E-M34 linage. Serge is another loon.
Sanjub_Saraswati and Lol_Race are great posters as well. And Maafa and Grasshoppa were just on point.
Louisvilleslugger:
Africoid- "to describe African descent populations whose morphological variants originate exclusively within the African continent." S.O.Y. Keita. "Studies and Comments on The Biological Relationships of Ancient Egyptians". History in Africa, 20: 129-154 (1993)
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
this guy Jean Borgatti wrote the following in 2001
quote:
Asia has long been home to ancient Africoid cultures and peoples. The word Africoid here refers to those native inhabitants of Asia whose phenotype closely resembles that of Africans. Asia's Africoid populations include such groups as the Dravidians of India and various peoples of Southeast Asia and the South Seas referred to as Melanasians, Oceanic Negroids, Negritos, Australoids and more.
Jean Borgatti, Ph.D. Part-time Faculty: African, Amerindian, and Oceanic art Department of Visual and Performing Art Clark University Worcester, MA
^^^ the man has written a lot of articles on African culture
But is his defintion right?
Afri-coid
Africa coid What he he saying is that in phenotype they do resemble Africans.
We had a thread on this once on EG. Oceanic people resembling African and vs.
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: But to clarify my true agenda behind this thread. I was having an interesting discussion on another site about African diversity. The discussion soon went to the Tuaregs. The person I was debating with while agreed that Tuaregs were "African", they were not "black". While I somewhat agree, I do know that Tuaregs are not one monolithic people and vary in phenotype. But he was mainly referring to these types.
While they are indigenous Africans and share African genetic lineages, he called that they are not phenotypically "black". This is why I thought up the term "Africoid".
I apologize if I am not explaining things clearly, just want to try and state my reasons.
If you mean by black a racist bantu stereotype created by whites during the 17th, 18th, 19th century it possible could be true. Question: should I take their idioticy as valid? The people you see in that pic have typical North Saharan traits. This goes from the east to the west coast.
Go ask that peson wjhat would happen in any of them would walk down the streets of America, ie down South. LOL
Good point... It seems the term black have different meanings between different groups. Which I understand. In America(without knocking their background), those Tuaregs would be considered black. Especially in Jim Crow era America.
But since they are Berbers, Eurocentrics/racists must do the "opposite" of the one drop rule. lol!
This is why I suggested the "Africoid" terms so don't play into their silly semantics.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] The term has already been used, 11.000 results on youtube
The Black Scholar: Journal of Black Studies and Research Who Were The First Americans? LH Clegg - The Black Scholar, 1975 - Taylor & Francis ... 3--Did invading Mongoloids usurp Afri- coid territories and,
3--Did invading Mongoloids usurp Afri- coid territories and, as their white counter- parts in the "Old World," arrogate black cul- tural achievements? 4-Finally, are the remote Africoid tribes, that have survived into this very day in Cen- tral and South America, remnants of once ...
The best arguments came from HillY, Game Theory (of course), EliasAlucard is loony in the head for real mentally deranged. This loon doesn't know that the Romans encountered BLACK looking people. Nothing like them cac's. SMH LOL And on average the Norh African east and west still looks like a mixed black person to a variate degree (mulatto, quadroon and octoroon). And Phoenicians were of the E-M34 linage. Serge is another loon.
Sanjub_Saraswati and Lol_Race are great posters as well. And Maafa and Grasshoppa were just on point.
Louisvilleslugger:
Africoid- "to describe African descent populations whose morphological variants originate exclusively within the African continent." S.O.Y. Keita. "Studies and Comments on The Biological Relationships of Ancient Egyptians". History in Africa, 20: 129-154 (1993)
Aye... Forumbiodiversity. While I do like some members on that site like Beyoku. That site I sometimes can't take seriously, especially by some of the post in that thread.
Its like those people are stuck in the Carleton S Coon era with their obession with "Negroid" and "Caucasoid". Even the black members too! These people correlate physical anthropological with genetiscs! How the hell can someone have "Negroid admixture"????
We're in the freaking 21st century for crying out loud. According to their logic these Nigerian Fulanis are not, "Negroid".
But yet Nigerian Fulanis show close affinity to other Niger-Congo speakers who are considered "Negroid".
Sanjub_Saraswati and Louisvilleslugger were the only smart people on the thread...
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black is no less valid than Africoid. The same folks playing semantics with the word black will play semantics with the word Africoid. I prefer tropically adapted which is a more biological oriented term not tied to any specific cultural, social or nationalistic construct. To those who don't know the propaganda, it can be confusing but the point is they play these games with semantics in order to avoid the logical conclusion that ALL human features originate with black people. By muddying up the water with all these "racial" categories and other constructs they can inject "white" or "caucasian" histories into any population they see fit based on any history or culture they think has "value" to them, AKA ancient Egypt. Once you stress the fact that African populations are the most diverse on earth, then they are forced to either claim that black Africans have multiple "racial" types or race is an artificial construct. The current scam is to try and treat black Africans as all having the same "type", which is the purpose of the term "negroid" which does not fit the facts on the ground. It is meant to pigeonhole Africans into limited subset of features and then assign diversity to non African populations, leading to absurd claims like multi regional human evolution based on genetic mixing with other species of hominids. All of this is simply trying to cover up and hide the fact that all human features originate with black African or tropically adapted people migrating out of Africa.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: But to clarify my true agenda behind this thread. I was having an interesting discussion on another site about African diversity. The discussion soon went to the Tuaregs. The person I was debating with while agreed that Tuaregs were "African", they were not "black". While I somewhat agree, I do know that Tuaregs are not one monolithic people and vary in phenotype. But he was mainly referring to these types.
While they are indigenous Africans and share African genetic lineages, he called that they are not phenotypically "black". This is why I thought up the term "Africoid".
I apologize if I am not explaining things clearly, just want to try and state my reasons.
If you mean by black a racist bantu stereotype created by whites during the 17th, 18th, 19th century it possible could be true. Question: should I take their idioticy as valid? The people you see in that pic have typical North Saharan traits. This goes from the east to the west coast.
Go ask that peson wjhat would happen in any of them would walk down the streets of America, ie down South. LOL
Good point... It seems the term black have different meanings between different groups. Which I understand. In America(without knocking their background), those Tuaregs would be considered black. Especially in Jim Crow era America.
But since they are Berbers, Eurocentrics/racists must do the "opposite" of the one drop rule. lol!
This is why I suggested the "Africoid" terms so don't play into their silly semantics.
In europe no Berber is considerd a cac or white. That is an absured claim. And certainly not a Tuareg.
Here is a blog from a old poster. Dana, she's an anthropologist. And has written a considerable amount on Berbers in particular.
I've heard many times that Berbers/North Africans in Europe are called the N word.
I even had a young Moroccan boy at on time being called niggger by a young Turkish boy. The young Moroccan boy clearly understood. They were about 8 years old. And on occasion real biracial children are being mistaken for Moroccans.
I had a discussion, actually quite a few lol on Topix years ago. Some of my Moroccan friends there had pictures up and they were called ape and what not, by these ignorant whites/ cac's.
I once posted a pic of a Moroccan female rapper without telling who she was. The reply by them was YOU AFRICAN AMERICANS are not North African. LOL
This is her and the pic I had posted:
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
I've heard many times that Berbers/North Africans in Europe are called the N word.
I even had a young Moroccan boy at on time being called niggger by a young Turkish boy. The young Moroccan boy clearly understood. They were about 8 years old. And on occasion real biracial children are being mistaken for Moroccans.
I had a discussion, actually quite a few lol on Topix years ago. Some of my Moroccan friends there had pictures up and they were called ape and what not, by these ignorant whites/ cac's.
I once posted a pic of a Moroccan female rapper without telling who she was. The reply by them was YOU AFRICAN AMERICANS are not North African. LOL
This is her and the pic I had posted:
lol...Topix is a real cesspool.
But I never knew North Africans were met with racism on Topix. I unusually saw some of them side with Eurocentrics/racists. But yeah Topix is not a true glimpse of reality as even Horners were extremely racist. But I know that is not true especially for Ethiopians as I met MANY cool ones around the net and my sister who is black was/is treated very kindly in Ethiopia.
I also heard from many, many, many blacks from France that "Sub Saharan Africans" and North Africans get a long quite well and they live in the same neighborhoods. Also heard that many North African women date "Sub Saharan African" men.
Btw that Moroccan rapper looks good. May post her on that North African women thread I showed you. Again you should join and help out.
The site can use someone like you. Anyways in the thread many of the posters agreed that Moroccans resemble biracials a lot.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
Hmmmm... I thought Tuaregs represented an older branch of Berbers? Due to their affinity to some Northeast African groups like the Beja? Also considering their high frequencies of E-M81. Shouldn't the Tuargegs be considered the "foundation" of the Berbers?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
PS: Cool video. I consider Fulanis to be "intermediate" between Niger-Congo speakers and Berber speakers.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Black is no less valid than Africoid. The same folks playing semantics with the word black will play semantics with the word Africoid. I prefer tropically adapted which is a more biological oriented term not tied to any specific cultural, social or nationalistic construct. To those who don't know the propaganda, it can be confusing but the point is they play these games with semantics in order to avoid the logical conclusion that ALL human features originate with black people. By muddying up the water with all these "racial" categories and other constructs they can inject "white" or "caucasian" histories into any population they see fit based on any history or culture they think has "value" to them, AKA ancient Egypt. Once you stress the fact that African populations are the most diverse on earth, then they are forced to either claim that black Africans have multiple "racial" types or race is an artificial construct. The current scam is to try and treat black Africans as all having the same "type", which is the purpose of the term "negroid" which does not fit the facts on the ground. It is meant to pigeonhole Africans into limited subset of features and then assign diversity to non African populations, leading to absurd claims like multi regional human evolution based on genetic mixing with other species of hominids. All of this is simply trying to cover up and hide the fact that all human features originate with black African or tropically adapted people migrating out of Africa.
Cosigned.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Hmmmm... I thought Tuaregs represented an older branch of Berbers? Due to their affinity to some Northeast African groups like the Beja? Also considering their high frequencies of E-M81. Shouldn't the Tuargegs be considered the "foundation" of the Berbers?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
PS: Cool video. I consider Fulanis to be "intermediate" between Niger-Congo speakers and Berber speakers.
Yes, the Tuareg have affinities with Beja and other Sahara-Sahelian ethnic groups. Thus the features show.
Technically the Tuareg could be considered the foundation of the Berbers.
quote: The remarkable archaeological site, dating back 10,000 years and called Gobero after the Tuareg name for the area, was brimming with skeletons of humans and animals — including large fish and crocodiles. Gobero is hidden away within Niger’s forbidding Ténéré Desert, known to Tuareg nomads as a “desert within a desert.”
quote:This site has been called Gobero, after the local Tuareg name for the area. About 10,000 years ago (7700–6200 B.C.E.), Gobero was a much less arid environment than it is now. In fact, it was actually a rather humid lake side hometown of sorts for a group of hunter-fisher-gatherers who not only lived their but also buried their dead there. How do we know they were fishing? Well, remains of large nile perch and harpoons were found dating to this time period.
BTW, the above is what they claimed as "their" suppose backmigration, we've seen earlier on. They try to claim it as theirs. Which is ridiculous of course.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Just what I thought. Tuaregs are the founding branch of the Berber people. I mean isn't the Tuareg language also much other than the other Berber languages?
Due to this I find it extremely funny and ironic how some Eurocentrics want to separate Tuaregs from Berbers.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
I've heard many times that Berbers/North Africans in Europe are called the N word.
I even had a young Moroccan boy at on time being called niggger by a young Turkish boy. The young Moroccan boy clearly understood. They were about 8 years old. And on occasion real biracial children are being mistaken for Moroccans.
I had a discussion, actually quite a few lol on Topix years ago. Some of my Moroccan friends there had pictures up and they were called ape and what not, by these ignorant whites/ cac's.
I once posted a pic of a Moroccan female rapper without telling who she was. The reply by them was YOU AFRICAN AMERICANS are not North African. LOL
This is her and the pic I had posted:
lol...Topix is a real cesspool.
But I never knew North Africans were met with racism on Topix. I unusually saw some of them side with Eurocentrics/racists. But yeah Topix is not a true glimpse of reality as even Horners were extremely racist. But I know that is not true especially for Ethiopians as I met MANY cool ones around the net and my sister who is black was/is treated very kindly in Ethiopia.
I also heard from many, many, many blacks from France that "Sub Saharan Africans" and North Africans get a long quite well and they live in the same neighborhoods. Also heard that many North African women date "Sub Saharan African" men.
Btw that Moroccan rapper looks good. May post her on that North African women thread I showed you. Again you should join and help out.
The site can use someone like you. Anyways in the thread many of the posters agreed that Moroccans resemble biracials a lot.
All of the above is cosigned.
What you have sen on the net is rubbish. And doesnt deal with reality.
I haven't been to France but from what I know and heard, yes that is true. Where I live there are no distinctions as euronuts try to make it out. People from North Africa, Caribbean etc...all get along well. Never heard anyone from North Africa claim to be a cac btw.
And especially at topix a lot of white trolls come with fake accounts and fake pictures.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: All of the above is cosigned.
What you have sen on the net is rubbish. And doesnt deal with reality.
I haven't been to France but from what I know and heard, yes that is true. Where I live there are no distinctions as euronuts try to make it out. People from North Africa, Caribbean etc...all get along well. Never heard anyone from North Africa claim to be a cac btw.
And especially at topix a lot of white trolls come with fake accounts and fake pictures. [/QB]
I haven't been to France either, but from my reality I too can kinda tell its true. I use to date this Moroccan girl. And prior to dating me she use to date black guys. I'll admit it could have been because she was Americanized and lived around black people, but her parents were also pretty relaxed with me. Kinda defeats the myth that most North Africans are racist to blacks like how it gets promoted online.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @Doug M
But wouldn't tropical adapted also include non-African people like Melanesians and Australian aboriginals?
Tropically Adapted AFRICANS covers most bases. And yes of course, people from tropical areas will show tropical features.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Hmmmm... I thought Tuaregs represented an older branch of Berbers? Due to their affinity to some Northeast African groups like the Beja? Also considering their high frequencies of E-M81. Shouldn't the Tuargegs be considered the "foundation" of the Berbers?
posted
The terms "Africoid" or "Negroid" has been used by afrocentrists such as Van Sertima and also white scientists. I can cite the term being used dozens of times in past decades
But still It is an outdated term and words ending in "oid" to describe human populations is becoming less and less
The term for African is African
no need to attach "oid" to it
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've come to believe that any search for a reliable all-encompassing label for darker-skinned African populations that won't be loaded with unwanted connotations is futile. But for my part, I've decided "Black African" works fine as a strictly morphological descriptor. It was originally meant to connote a certain range of skin colors and didn't necessarily address genetic population substructure or whatever (since pre-modern Europeans wouldn't have even developed the necessary evolutionary theory). And really, the relative paucity of Eurasian lighter-skin alleles is what populations as disparate as Herto and Omo, ancient Egypto-Nubians, and modern Nigerians and Somalis share on a morphological level. Not much more to it.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I've come to believe that any search for a reliable all-encompassing label for darker-skinned African populations that won't be loaded with unwanted connotations is futile. But for my part, I've decided "Black African" works fine as a strictly morphological descriptor.
There is a term for Africans it's African
there is no need to separate Africans into Black Africans and Non-Black Africans
(unless you are only referring to recent migrants to Africa, of the past several hundred years who are only African in citizenship)
For eample a lighter skinned Khosian could be brought up and then somebody could try to argue they are not dark enough to be a black African. That is why using the term "Black African " is obsolete and usually leads to unecessary semantic controveries
The term for Africans is African If you want to get into ancestry, look at the DNA and history of a region -rather than having to apply a sterotyped color name
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
This is the real issue for the thread but it is not an issue for me.
Above we have a dark skinned man from Papua New Guinea. He is classified by anthropolgists as Oceanic He is part of a population that is thought to have been living outside of Africa for 60,000 or more years and his DNA would reflect that
Now, people want to include people like this for political purposes into their group because there's power in numbers- He looks kind of African so he's "black" (a sociial construct term) or he's "Africoid"
All that means is he has what they used to call "Negroid" physical traits and looks similar to Africans
But it leads to confusion when the political agenda is always being mixed into detailed scientific analysis
So all of these terms "black"," Africoid" etc is really code for Negroid, just a nicer way of saying it.
So instead of using euphamisms keep it real and just say "Negroid"
-or change your prespective on the fundamental post-phenotype-is-everything level
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
What I mean is that my personal definition of "Africoid" means those indignous to Africa and with "African genetics."
@Lioness
What does that post have ti do with Tuaregs being the foundation of Berber group. Of course Tuaregs have some Eurasian linages, especially in their MtDNA(like most Berbers), but how does that dismiss them being the founding group of the Berbers?
@Truthcentric
"Black African" does not work fine. And I'll go on to say that I really don't like the term. Why isn't there a "white European" or "yellow Asian"??? But more importantly its invalid when having anthropological discussions about Africans.
Like Lioness said it seems to divide Africans. Heck SOME Africans even Somalis and Fulanis sometimes don't go by western terms such as "black".
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes you suprise me with flashes of brilliance .
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I've come to believe that any search for a reliable all-encompassing label for darker-skinned African populations that won't be loaded with unwanted connotations is futile. But for my part, I've decided "Black African" works fine as a strictly morphological descriptor.
There is a term for Africans it's African
there is no need to separate Africans into Black Africans and Non-Black Africans
(unless you are only referring to recent migrants to Africa, of the past several hundred years who are only African in citizenship)
For eample a lighter skinned Khosian could be brought up and then somebody could try to argue they are not dark enough to be a black African. That is why using the term "Black African " is obsolete and usually leads to unecessary semantic controveries
The term for Africans is African If you want to get into ancestry, look at the DNA and history of a region -rather than having to apply a sterotyped color name
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I've come to believe that any search for a reliable all-encompassing label for darker-skinned African populations that won't be loaded with unwanted connotations is futile. But for my part, I've decided "Black African" works fine as a strictly morphological descriptor.
There is a term for Africans it's African
there is no need to separate Africans into Black Africans and Non-Black Africans
(unless you are only referring to recent migrants to Africa, of the past several hundred years who are only African in citizenship)
For eample a lighter skinned Khosian could be brought up and then somebody could try to argue they are not dark enough to be a black African. That is why using the term "Black African " is obsolete and usually leads to unecessary semantic controveries
The term for Africans is African If you want to get into ancestry, look at the DNA and history of a region -rather than having to apply a sterotyped color name
I'm surprised I did not read this post thoroughly. You hit the nail in what this thread is about...
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. I prefer the label African .....for Africans and Black African for the AEians. Keeping in mind there are indigenous light colored Africans such as Tunisians who are MORE African than some "Bantu" groups.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
In addition ....there is one thing that unite the majority of modern Africans (the mantra) of AMRTU, ......PN2!!!!
BUT the is not about genetics. So.......there really isn't an Africoid phenotype because there is no race. Just a continuum.
I know that now .
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I like the label.......AFRICOID!!! problem is...there is no Africoid phenotype .
Case in point. That new thread I created on the DNA of Scots. Who would of thought. The "whitest" people on the planet are the Orkneys. But they carry unique African haplotypes carried by only Africans .
That is all it is,
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @Zaharan
What I mean is that my personal definition of "Africoid" means those indignous to Africa and with "African genetics."
@Lioness
What does that post have ti do with Tuaregs being the foundation of Berber group. Of course Tuaregs have some Eurasian linages, especially in their MtDNA(like most Berbers), but how does that dismiss them being the founding group of the Berbers?
@Truthcentric
"Black African" does not work fine. And I'll go on to say that I really don't like the term. Why isn't there a "white European" or "yellow Asian"??? But more importantly its invalid when having anthropological discussions about Africans.
Like Lioness said it seems to divide Africans. Heck SOME Africans even Somalis and Fulanis sometimes don't go by western terms such as "black".
We are talking about the biological reality that indigenous Africans having evolved in a tropical environment have dark skin. That is a biological fact and has nothing to do with culture, self identity or anything else. Genetics doesn't help because most genes do not characterize skin color and the genes for dark skin in one African population is the same for all others, again because they all evolved in tropical/sub tropical environments. Of course "black" is a term referring to populations with various shades of brown skin resulting from evolution in tropical environments.
So you have to be consistent. There is nothing inconsistent about 'black' or 'Africoid' if you are using it biologically. Africoid can be used to refer to tropically adapted humans who evolved and lived in Africa longer than any other place. However, the problem with that is that black populations outside of Africa are also subject to environmental adaption meaning any native population in a tropical environment is bound to be black as part of being in a tropical environment not necessarily due to being in Africa. Africa is not the only place in the world with a tropical environment where tropical adaptation can evolve or be maintained in a population.
Again it is not 'black people' who are generally inconsistent, contradictory and hypocritical in their usage of terms. It has historically been the white racist anthropologists in their desire to divide up the world into 'races' based on skin color and perception of who is good, better and best in a racial hierarchy with whites at the top.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: We are talking about the biological reality that indigenous Africans having evolved in a tropical environment have dark skin. That is a biological fact and has nothing to do with culture, self identity or anything else.
Aye... I think you read me wrong because no one mentioned culture.... And the reason why I suggested "Africoid" is that in athropology/science we don't use social racial terms such as, "black".
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Genetics doesn't help because most genes do not characterize skin color and the genes for dark skin in one African population is the same for all others, again because they all evolved in tropical/sub tropical environments. Of course "black" is a term referring to populations with various shades of brown skin resulting from evolution in tropical environments.
The thing is not all Africans have "dark skinned", some evolved "lighter" skin such as the Khoisan people.
Plus it depends on what we consider "dark skin" as people have their own definition of it as with light skin too...
As for genetics, that's partially what my thread is about, because my definition of "Africoid" because Africans are so genetically diverse, one most have African genetic lineages to be considered "Africoid" along with having in-built native African tropical adaption. I'll get to that in the next post...
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So you have to be consistent. There is nothing inconsistent about 'black' or 'Africoid' if you are using it biologically.
But we don't use "black" or "white" in science. And yes it does become inconsistent or confusion, because there are Asians who are "black", but genetically distant from Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Africoid can be used to refer to tropically adapted humans who evolved and lived in Africa longer than any other place. However, the problem with that is that black populations outside of Africa are also subject to environmental adaption meaning any native population in a tropical environment is bound to be black as part of being in a tropical environment not necessarily due to being in Africa. Africa is not the only place in the world with a tropical environment where tropical adaptation can evolve or be maintained in a population. Again it is not 'black people' who are generally inconsistent, contradictory and hypocritical in their usage of terms. It has historically been the white racist anthropologists in their desire to divide up the world into 'races' based on skin color and perception of who is good, better and best in a racial hierarchy with whites at the top.
The bolded is why I want to refrain from using "tropically adapted" when grouping African descent people together as African. "Tropically adapted" is not limited to Africa and can be come confusion. Again my definition of "Africoid" is having in-built African diversity adaption and carrying indigenous African lineages.
"Africoids" would have the most diverse phenotype that covers "broads" features, kinky to wavy/loose hair, narrow nose, light to dark skin, "elongated features",etc,etc. Why? Because Africans are the most diverse people on the planet. And there needs to be a term that fits that diversity, but is specific to Africans only...
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
I see what you mean about "Black" as a label. Nonetheless, I believe all these arguments over its usefulness, or what we should call your "Africoids", are rooted in a reaction against the Eurocentric trend of dissociating ancient Egyptian civilization, and by extension the larger Northeast African region, from the West/Central African heritage of Middle Passage descendents. You want to knock down this dissociation and the oppositions will fight to the death to maintain it.
Let me propose the dissociation itself is based off a relatively recent redefinition of "Black" identity.
I don't think the first Europeans to call anyone from Africa "black" (or equivalent descriptors in other languages) would have paid much heed to population substuctures within the continent, if they even noticed it (they did not have a theory of evolution back then). Aethiopia, "burnt face", originally connoted a Northeast African people not so different from their Egyptian contemporaries. If anything, earlier Europeans were more liberal with the "black" adjective than today's racialists, hence their applying it to the likes of South Indians, Melanesians, and Aboriginal Australians---all of whom are indisputably affiliated with Eurasian rather than West African ancestry.
It was only after the Middle Passage had been established when Black identity as we know it was narrowed down to West Africans and their Bantu offshoots, as opposed to anyone with dark skin. I wouldn't be surprised if that actually had to do with dissociating their enslaved descendents from Northeast African influences on Greek and then Western civilization. If you wanted to maintain your system of racialized domination, you'd look for the slightest excuse to cut out a rift between your slaves and the ancient civilization that influenced and fascinated yours.
Call African people whatever you like, but I think the opposition may be a bit too invested in disconnecting Egypt from Black or African identity to accept your redefinition.
Call African people whatever you like, but I think the opposition may be a bit too invested in disconnecting Egypt from Black or African identity to accept your redefinition.
Call me crazy but I recommend Africans be called Africans
If you look on a map Egypt in in Africa
However you still don't get the gist of this topic The word "Africoid" hasd been employed to indicate African looking people in regions of South Asia and Austrailia
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: We are talking about the biological reality that indigenous Africans having evolved in a tropical environment have dark skin. That is a biological fact and has nothing to do with culture, self identity or anything else.
Aye... I think you read me wrong because no one mentioned culture.... And the reason why I suggested "Africoid" is that in athropology/science we don't use social racial terms such as, "black".
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Genetics doesn't help because most genes do not characterize skin color and the genes for dark skin in one African population is the same for all others, again because they all evolved in tropical/sub tropical environments. Of course "black" is a term referring to populations with various shades of brown skin resulting from evolution in tropical environments.
The thing is not all Africans have "dark skinned", some evolved "lighter" skin such as the Khoisan people.
Plus it depends on what we consider "dark skin" as people have their own definition of it as with light skin too...
As for genetics, that's partially what my thread is about, because my definition of "Africoid" because Africans are so genetically diverse, one most have African genetic lineages to be considered "Africoid" along with having in-built native African tropical adaption. I'll get to that in the next post...
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So you have to be consistent. There is nothing inconsistent about 'black' or 'Africoid' if you are using it biologically.
But we don't use "black" or "white" in science. And yes it does become inconsistent or confusion, because there are Asians who are "black", but genetically distant from Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Africoid can be used to refer to tropically adapted humans who evolved and lived in Africa longer than any other place. However, the problem with that is that black populations outside of Africa are also subject to environmental adaption meaning any native population in a tropical environment is bound to be black as part of being in a tropical environment not necessarily due to being in Africa. Africa is not the only place in the world with a tropical environment where tropical adaptation can evolve or be maintained in a population. Again it is not 'black people' who are generally inconsistent, contradictory and hypocritical in their usage of terms. It has historically been the white racist anthropologists in their desire to divide up the world into 'races' based on skin color and perception of who is good, better and best in a racial hierarchy with whites at the top.
The bolded is why I want to refrain from using "tropically adapted" when grouping African descent people together as African. "Tropically adapted" is not limited to Africa and can be come confusion. Again my definition of "Africoid" is having in-built African diversity adaption and carrying indigenous African lineages.
"Africoids" would have the most diverse phenotype that covers "broads" features, kinky to wavy/loose hair, narrow nose, light to dark skin, "elongated features",etc,etc. Why? Because Africans are the most diverse people on the planet. And there needs to be a term that fits that diversity, but is specific to Africans only...
Dark and light are relative. "Black" people as a term does not mean one exact shade of skin color. Again, the consistent definition is dark skin that evolved from tropical adaptation. Even though SOME Khoisan are light (and some of them are mixed like the Griqua, while others are much darker as well), that doesn't change the fact that their skin color evolved from a tropical/sub tropical environment and they are still included within the range of populations considered as "black", "africoid", "tropicall adapted" or whatever you want to call it. There is no confusing the lighter skinned Khoi with a northern adapted European or Asian. The biological history is different. That is why consistency is the key. Also, tropical environments ouside Africa are the reason why "black" people exist outside Africa. Which is why I prefer to avoid geographic references in the range of populations covered by tropical adaptation.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic