...
EgyptSearch Forums
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Post New Topic  New Poll  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » When to use "black" and when not to... (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 41 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  39  40  41   
Author Topic: When to use "black" and when not to...
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Swenet, you are all over the place and getting yourself confused. You say that skin color is not used as a way to describe people all over the world and you failed. You tried to claim that the word black is not understood when used as a reference to skin color and failed. Now you are trying to claim that because usage of terms change over time that skin color is not still a way of describing a population which can and is used by a great many people all over the world to this day. So now what? [/qb]

When you attribute claims to me, please reproduce them in your post, so I and others can see which claim you're addressing and whether you're accurately describing them. I really, really, want to see you point I where I said any of that.

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Are you going to answer the question or not? Were the ancient Egyptians black or not?

The below doesn't qualify as an answer? If not, why?

I already said many times that according to several traditions, including the al Jahiz one, the early Greek tradition, the ancient Egyptians would be 'black'. They would NOT be black according to the late Greek tradition, according to some Greek authors.
--Swenet

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
And when I say racists I am talking about people who wrote in their OWN WORDS that they were racist and that they understood race to be the division of the world between the white race as the superior race and everyone else being somewhere on a scale inferior to WHITE PEOPLE based on skin color as how they identified race. That is fact and ancient Egypt was the cornerstone of their attempts to prove this.

Who are these elusive, shadowy figures presumably active in Egyptology and bio-anthropology and how did you come to the conclusion that modern professionals who use black in ways you don't like, fit the people you're describing? Name them. Name them all. Let's look at the specifics.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:


Everybody wants to say "black" is not a race
it's just color, a range of brown.

Yet when asked what the range is, no one can answer

--because they were BSing when they said it was just color.

"Black people" is a concept Europeans came up with to justify them calling themselves white, It's a duality system

So is negroid, caucasoid etc... and every other oid.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"Black people" was a trick concept that Europeans played on dark skinned Africans so that they wouldn't affilate the many brown people of the world.
That is why AA's love the term black so much.
Like "white" there's an illusion of exclusivity. Obviously the American contruct "black" does not include dark skinned Mexicans or Indians because neither of these people call themselves "black people"
So when this is pointed out some black anthro enthusiasts try to say "black" also includes all these other people. It's just an of the moment rhetorical stunt to try to protect the brand. When the pressure's off the exclusivity returns.

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:


Everybody wants to say "black" is not a race
it's just color, a range of brown.

Yet when asked what the range is, no one can answer

--because they were BSing when they said it was just color.

"Black people" is a concept Europeans came up with to justify them calling themselves white, It's a duality system

So is negroid, caucasoid etc... and every other oid.
yeah , so what ?
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
When you look at a chocolate bar and say it's brown you are stating a fact

But if you look at a brown person of African descent and ignore your eyes and call them black, that is race

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This thread is a false debate created by racist idiots and agents of confusion and people influenced by them.

Ancient Egyptians were their own people like Zulu and Ancient Greece people were their own people. This doesn't prevent American and British people, for example, to include Ancient Greece as part of their history.

Ancient Egyptians were indigenous Africans more related to African-Americans, for example, than people in Europe or Middle East.

Unrelated people can share the same skin color, certain facial features or limb proportion but they can't share the same DNA.

DNA are passed down from parents to child. That's why DNA are used in paternity test, to identify suspects/victims in criminal investigations, by DNA ancestry company or in population genetics.

Since Ramses III and son were E1b1a, it means they had at least one African male parent ancestor.

The current genetic results taken from Ancient Egyptian mummies and other ancient specimen makes it clear Ancient Egyptians were related to modern Africans in sub-Sahara Africa. European lineages (like the I haplogroup) have been found in later foreign dynasties like during the Greek or Roman dynasty so they were probably rare but not absent before those times (Hyksos -foreign rulers- for example were people from the Middle East called Aamu by Ancient Egyptians).


 -

 -

 -

All those things and more are discussed in this other thread: LINK

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:


Everybody wants to say "black" is not a race
it's just color, a range of brown.

Yet when asked what the range is, no one can answer

--because they were BSing when they said it was just color.

"Black people" is a concept Europeans came up with to justify them calling themselves white, It's a duality system

So is negroid, caucasoid etc... and every other oid.
yeah , so what ?
[Roll Eyes]
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
@Doug M

To prevent misunderstandings from dragging on longer than they have to, I'm going to correct your statements with what I actually said. Last thing I want is another round with attributions that aren't mine.

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
You say that skin color is not used as a way to describe people all over the world and you failed.

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
You tried to claim that the word black is not understood when used as a reference to skin color and failed.

What I actually said was specific to people in the modern day West. Your dictionary entries don't specify who is black in the modern day West.

Google "black people", go to the image section and tell me how many dark skinned Asians and North Africans you see. How do you reconcile this narrow focus on only certain African descended groups with your dictionary entry? In the West, 'black people' is generally used the same way 'white people' is used: restrictive. (i.e. it excludes pale Asians in everyday use).

Your other response was to post historical uses of the term 'black' in various time periods and regions in Europe. My question: are the modern people you try to impose these older traditions on aware of them? If no, explain to me in detail how it makes someone necessarily racist for subscribing to the tradition of the term they're familiar with.

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Now you are trying to claim that because usage of terms change over time that skin color is not still a way of describing a population which can and is used by a great many people all over the world to this day.

The point is that, since the range of diversity covered under the same racial terms changes over time, the same dark skinned population can easily fall within and outside the meaning of the same term, over time.

Another point is that, just because the same terms in different languages have the literal or symbolic meaning of 'black', it doesn't mean that the same range of pigmentation is implied. In certain places in Africa you can have 'black' and 'red' races, and both can, in turn, fit in someone else's range of the 'black' race.

If you introduce those terms into the discussion to make a point, you have to substantiate that with some sort of analysis. I'm not taking anyone's word for it that they're all the same.

Serious replies to these points are appreciated.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Swenet, I did look it up out of curiosity. I know a search-engines work by collecting "meta-data".


Anyway, shockingly I found this, following:


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sol-campbell-turns-skin-white-5527010


 -


 -


 -

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Doug M

To prevent misunderstandings from dragging on longer than they have to, I'm going to correct your statements with what I actually said. Last thing I want is another round with attributions that aren't mine.

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
You say that skin color is not used as a way to describe people all over the world and you failed.

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
You tried to claim that the word black is not understood when used as a reference to skin color and failed.

What I actually said was specific to people in the modern day West. Your dictionary entries don't specify who is black in the modern day West.

Google "black people", go to the image section and tell me how many dark skinned Asians and North Africans you see. How do you reconcile this narrow focus on only certain African descended groups with your dictionary entry? In the West, 'black people' is generally used the same way 'white people' is used: restrictive. (i.e. it excludes pale Asians in everyday use).

Your other response was to post historical uses of the term 'black' in various time periods and regions in Europe. My question: are the modern people you try to impose these older traditions on aware of them? If no, explain to me in detail how it makes someone necessarily racist for subscribing to the tradition of the term they're familiar with.

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Now you are trying to claim that because usage of terms change over time that skin color is not still a way of describing a population which can and is used by a great many people all over the world to this day.

The point is that, since the range of diversity covered under the same racial terms changes over time, the same dark skinned population can easily fall within and outside the meaning of the same term, over time.

Another point is that, just because the same terms in different languages have the literal or symbolic meaning of 'black', it doesn't mean that the same range of pigmentation is implied. In certain places in Africa you can have 'black' and 'red' races, and both can, in turn, fit in someone else's range of the 'black' race.

If you introduce those terms into the discussion to make a point, you have to substantiate that with some sort of analysis. I'm not taking anyone's word for it that they're all the same.

Serious replies to these points are appreciated.

The point is you fail to grasp the question I asked which is for a SPECIFIC population in Africa. I am not talking about anything else right now other than Egypt in ancient times and Africa generally. There is absolutely NO REASON for the term BLACK PEOPLE to be questioned as a valid reference to populations in Africa, just as there is no valid reason why WHITE PEOPLE is not a valid reference to the people of Europe, all of which is based on skin color. Of course every single person in Europe or Africa may not fit that description but you know what the f*ck is meant by the terms and simply refuse to admit that it is a simple reference to skin color. That is my whole point and you simply are trying to duck and dodge because you want to open up the door to all other sorts of ways of looking at words other than what is the simplest and most obvious answer. People in Europe are called white because on average they are very pale and people in Africa are called black because on average they are very dark. It is that dam simple. And as I have said over and over again, people with eyes have made this simple observation throughout history and used words like black or white to describe folks who fit that definition.

The issue here is whether the ancient Egyptians or Africans in general fit the description as black people in terms of skin color. The obvious answer is yes and there is nothing else really to say about it. You simply are going above and beyond in order to entertain nonsense instead of getting to the bottom line point: the history of such terms as black people or white people is based on simple observation of outward skin color characteristics and nothing else. It isn't more complicated than that which is why most people on earth understand what is meant when you say it. Whether or not other folks have tried to add other meanings to this basic observation of skin color does not change the fact that SKIN COLOR itself is a fact of human biology and can be described with simple color references which are valid and viable in spoken language given that those described as such actually fit the description.

So please stop replying to me with nonsense.

We all know full well that European 'scientists' have spent the last 500 years trying to redo world history in order to downplay the importance of 'black people' in world history while playing up the history of 'white people'. They know what black people means worldwide and they know what white people means because they use that definition to divide the world up based on their racist beliefs to the point of contradicting their own logic in order to promote ideas of racial superiority. That kind of scientific and academic racism is not objective and not really scientific it is based on an agenda and you unfortunately are more open to that agenda than folks who see it and call it for what it is.

That said, humans have been using terms like black or white in reference to human populations since long before there was a white supremacist scientist and to claim that because of these racists we should ignore the simple obvious facts of skin color in language is ridiculous.

The facts are that all humans come from black people and that all human features descend from aboriginal black populations all over the world and as part of that history and diversity there are black populations all over the planet. Obviously I am talking about skin color as a part of human diversity and therefore it doesn't require rocket science to understand what I am saying.

Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You call it 'nonsense' that people have different traditions for applying the term 'black' to populations and that this undermines the simpleton narratives you're trying to construct and impose on others? You're free to call it non sense, racism, etc. and be in denial all you want.

In the real world, however, we can see that people throughout time haven't always agreed with the notion that various shades of brown along the Nile Valley (or anywhere else, for that matter) should all be lumped into the term 'black'. Sometimes traditions applied 'black' and related terms in a restricted sense. Are you salty over that?

quote:
"For in the correspondingly situated places on our side of the equator, that is those on the Summer Tropic [i.e. at Egypt's latitude], people do not yet have the color of the Aithiopians, and there are no rhinoceros and elephants; but in places not much to the south of these, moderately black people are to be found, such as those who live in the "Thirty Schoinoi" [region in lower Nubia] outside of Soene. Of the same type, too, are the people of Garame, whom Marinos also says (and indeed, for this very reason) live neither right on the Summer Tropic nor to the north, but entirely to the south of it. But in places around Meroe people are already quite black in color, and are at last pure Aithiopians, and the habitat of the elephants and more wonderful animals is there."
--Ptolemy

quote:
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.
--Manilius

quote:
"if the moderns have confined the appellation Ethiopians to those only who dwell near Egypt, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients."
--Strabo

Like I said. Build a case, gather evidence, then come back and we can have a more symmetric discussion. All you've done so far is give your opinions and views and expect others to take your word for it.

I could post many, many more examples from Greco-Roman times. I'm holding back because I know that would just invite strawmen and propaganda from certain folks itching to portray me as a Eurocentric mouthpiece. I invite more rational and open-minded ES readers to look up Greco-Roman texts and come to their own conclusions. There were times when ancient Greeks emphasized brown skin color gradients and times when many dark skinned people from certain regions were all lumped together as 'Aethiopians'.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Firewall
Member
Member # 20331

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Firewall     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Interesting thread/topic.
I did not read everything or every post however.

quote:



These mixed Dominicans are more "African" than those Adamanese will ever be.

 -


quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

I don't need to go all over the earth finding examples of folks who are mixed an 'could' possibly be called not black and have various ways of self identifying not labeling themselves as black.


I wanted to bring this up for the moment.
I don't really want to change the topic,but i have to mention this real quick,then after this you guys could back to the main topic.

The Dominicans girls in the pic above.
Some look mixed,some don't(most don't),but of course it's possible that the ones that don't look mixed,could be mixed or just have some admixture or none.


This is interesting too.

Dominican Republic

Population
2015 estimate -9,980,243

Ethnic groups
quote:

The Dominican Republic's population is 73% of racially mixed origin, 16% White, and 11% Black.Ethnic immigrant groups in the country include West Asians—mostly Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians.
Numerous immigrants have come from other Caribbean countries, as the country has offered economic opportunities. There are about 30,000 Jamaicans living in the Dominican Republic.There is an increasing number of Puerto Rican immigrants, especially in and around Santo Domingo; they are believed to number around 10,000. There are over 700,000 people of Haitian descent, including a generation born in Dominican Republic.

Some of those called mixed only above are black too.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

humans have been using terms like black or white in reference to human populations since long before there was a white supremacist scientist and to claim that because of these racists we should ignore the simple obvious facts of skin color in language is ridiculous.


^^ this is false

traditional ethnic groups don't call themselves a skin color, that is bullshh. Exceptions to this are very rare

Doug has been brainwashed by European colorism and he doesn't even know it. This ignorance is tiresome, no support to his statements

He believes there are two types of people, tropical black and cold white, that of course is a another form of unspoken racial categorization

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The pharoahs of Egypt are depicted with dark brown skin. That is all that is needed
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
According to various sources ‘black’ was a derogatory term in the Afram community before the I’m black and proud movement. So it’s interesting to see that some pass it off as some sort of gospel that has always been etched in stone everywhere.

And the suggestion to go back to pre white supremacy European color classifications is quite comical given the common view back then that dark skin was Ham's curse. In light of this it’s interesting that some claim that individuals who are going by the modern day western use of ‘black’ are automatically “racist”. The older use isn't even more ugly? Oh, but its racist connotations are okay in that case, because it at least included Egyptians? Lol.

Some indigenous people apparently use completely different skin color systems. I'm told that the Khoisan are ‘white’ in the eyes of some neighboring Bantu speakers, with Europeans being ‘red’ in this tradition, IIRC. Some of that stuff Awlaad Berry had to say about certain Arab classifications of various shades of dark skin also deserve mention.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Askia_The_Great     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Black was NOT consider a derogatory term to Haitians, especially after they won their independence.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
^Noted. Any more info?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Askia_The_Great     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
^Noted. Any more info?

Well I would have to search around for info. But just saying that around the same time, "black" was not considered a bad term to other people of African descent in the diaspora like Haitians. Who after their independence took pride in being the first "black republic" and IIRC the leaders wanted Haiti to be a safe haven for "blacks" around the diaspora.

I'm also part Haitian descent(other half AA) and Haitians have long considered themselves "black" just as long or longer than AA's. I'm just pointing this out. [Smile]

Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Askia_The_Great     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
@Firewall

Noted, but my point is that those Adamanese would be considered "pure African" or "stereotypical African" than those Dominicans by phenotype according to most laymens. Those Dominicans to laymen would be considered biracial, while those Adamanese would be considered a "true unmixed black African" to your average joe.

Yet those Dominicans(whether they look black or mixed to you) are more "African" than those Adamanese would ever be...

Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
^Noted. Any more info?

Well I would have to search around for info. But just saying that around the same time, "black" was not considered a bad term to other people of African descent in the diaspora like Haitians. Who after their independence took pride in being the first "black republic" and IIRC the leaders wanted Haiti to be a safe haven for "blacks" around the diaspora.

I'm also part Haitian descent(other half AA) and Haitians have long considered themselves "black" just as long or longer than AA's. I'm just pointing this out. [Smile]

You aint gotta be apologetic about it. If its their tradition then that's what it is. I meant to ask about the way they classify people the people they're familiar with in color terms. If it's not any material you can immediately expand on, never mind. Don't have to go through to effort of searching for it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tropicals redacted
Member
Member # 21621

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for tropicals redacted     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"musician Goldie and swarthy modern Egyptians are 'black'"
--Carlos Oliver Coke

Bullshit.

Goldie IS seen as black, and never said anything about swarthy modern Egyptians being such.

The quotation is Sidney Anson bullshit.

Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tropicals redacted
Member
Member # 21621

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for tropicals redacted     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Stuart Tyson Smith:

1998 review of Egypt in Africa

"Thus, while the Egyptians can be reasonably characterized as "black" by modern standards, we must acknowledge not only similarities, but also the evidence for the physical and cultural diversity of African peoples."

Submission to The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt Volume 3 (2001).

"Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial characteristics are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of the race of the ancient Egyptians depends on modern cultural definition, not scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards , it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as "black", while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans" (p28).

Operative terms here being 'modern' and 'American', although British perceptions are similar to those of the US.

Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tropicals redacted
Member
Member # 21621

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for tropicals redacted     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Nearly three-quarters of African immigrants reported their race as "Black."

In 2009, 74.4 percent of the African-born population reported their race as Black, either alone or in combination with another race. African immigrants identified as Black at a much higher rate than the native born (14.0 percent) and the foreign born overall (8.6 percent),and accounted for 33.3 percent of all foreign-born Blacks and 2.7 percent the total Black population in the United States.

Racial self-identification varied widely by African country of origin. For example, nearly all immigrants from Ghana (99.7 percent), Somalia(99.3 percent) , Cameroon (98.8 percent), Nigeria (98.7 percent), and Ethiopia (98.2 percent) reported their race as Black, either alone or in combination with another race, compared to 4.6 percent of Algerians, 5.6 percent of Egyptians, 8.1 percent of Moroccans, 13.8 percent of South Africans, 56.7 percent of Tanzanians, and 65.7percent of Cape Verdeans ."

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/african-immigrants-united-states

'Elongated' Africans see themselves as 'black' in modern American context shock.

Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Operative terms here being 'modern' and 'American'.
Operative reality: Carlos still fails.

Current US views on what 'black' generally means to US citizens and how it evolved:

quote:
Negro superseded colored as the most polite word for African Americans at a time when black was considered more offensive.[3] This word was accepted as normal, including by people classified as Negroes, until the late 1960s, after the later African-American Civil Rights Movement. One well-known example is the identification by Martin Luther King, Jr. of his own race as "Negro" in his famous speech of 1963, "I Have a Dream".

During the civil rights movements era of the 1950s and 1960s, some black American leaders in the United States, notably Malcolm X, objected to the word Negro because they associated it with the long history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination that treated African Americans as second class citizens, or worse.[4] Malcolm X preferred Black to Negro, but also started using the term Afro-American after leaving the Nation of Islam.[5]

Since the late 1960s, various other terms have been more widespread in popular usage. These include black, Black African, Afro-American (in use from the late 1960s to 1990) and African American (used in the United States to refer to black Americans, people often referred to in the past as American Negroes).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro

quote:
The Black racial category includes people who marked the “Black,
African Am., or Negro” checkbox. It also includes respondents who
reported entries such as African American; Sub-Saharan African
entries, such as Kenyan and Nigerian; and Afro-Caribbean entries,
such as Haitian and Jamaican.*

https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf

So, how exactly do, say, brown skinned Tuareg fit here?

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tropicals redacted
Member
Member # 21621

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for tropicals redacted     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
^Irrelevant.

Sid runs from reality, as given to him by Somalis and Ethiopians.

Seems Horners see themselves as black in even greater numbers than Cape Verdeans, who ARE seen as a black population in Europe and the US.

Lame attempt at chicanery...maybe your online fans here will be dazzled, but doubt it will survive contact with the real world.

Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 10 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
So, let me get this straight. He brings in his usual citations saying that the AE would be considered black using US standards. US standards are then posted. Then he shifts the goal post to what Somali and Ethiopians reportedly believe and calls his own previously set goal post "irrelevant".

Not only that, but he then blames me for "chicanery". These extremely bizarre antics and flip flops is really all one needs to know about Carlos Oliver Coke.

This is EXACTLY what Carlos Oliver Coke does to academics who tell him they subscribe to the WESTERN use of black. He's told they're using the modern day WESTERN tradition (as most westerners do), and then he tries to debate them using his own free-floating, clumsily defined, cooked up definition. When they reject said definition (probably because they realize it's just Carlos' trojan horse), Carlos calls them "wasist".

quote:
maybe your online fans here will be dazzled, but doubt it will survive contact with the real world.
This is the funny part. Crazy people always think the whole world is wrong and they're right.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke:
Seems Horners see themselves as black in even greater numbers than Cape Verdeans, who ARE seen as a black population in Europe and the US.

And anyone who has interacted with Cushitic and Ethio-Semitic speaking Somalis and Ethiopians in real life, on blogs and forums know they can be quite snobbish toward certain Africans. Without credible polls I can't make sweeping statements, but what can be said is that many of these people don't identify 'racially' with all African populations beyond their immediate linguistic kin. Many of them are obviously cognizant of their often dark brown and jet-black skin, but this is no guarantee that they identify racially with the people considered "black" in the US.

Of course, Carlos Oliver Coke's chronic lack of understanding about what constitutes admissible evidence leads him to post useless stuff like this all the time. Given the alternative multiple choice items usually offered and the social benefits associated with checking 'black' in the US, these results can hardly be considered useful for what Carlos is using them for.

I recall Carlos Oliver Coke's anger towards a certain academic when he was told that self-identification plays a role in assessing "race". Now he's doing the same thing. It's always about expediency and deception with this guy.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Just another example of Carlos Oliver Coke's sleight of hand and his many trojan horses.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Firewall:
Interesting thread/topic.
I did not read everything or every post however.

How is that an interesting topic? I'm really curious about it. It seems like another lame bait created by racist idiots to try dissociating Ancient Egypt from the rest of Africa.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
And mark my words. Carlos Oliver Coke will NEVER admit he was wrong in regards to his US standards. He's been trying to recover from his many blunders in his attempt to prove me wrong, ever since 2014. He never admitted he was wrong, and he's not going to now, either. Just watch.

His book desperately relies on his many trojan horses. Besides, he's already lied about me and my beliefs (in regards to this topic) to certain people. He doesn't want to lose face by going back. So, in all probability, he will just resurface elsewhere at some other time to redeem himself and his repulsive methods.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Swenet if one were to say "the Egyptians were North East African black people", even if that's not 100% accurate wouldn't that be progress for American and European culture?
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I don't necessarily care about the ways forum members use 'black' right now, right? (Djehuti and others I associate with still use it). So why would I try to get in the way of something like that? Carlos is trying to change people and punishes them if they refuse by posting their private conversations, not me. I've already said that in that other thread when someone entertained the idea of collectively dropping the term 'black'.

As far as I'm concerned, the problem primarily comes in when some guy starts to tell others how to apply US racial terms to further their own agenda, calling them "racist" if they refuse. Also, when they're assuming a teaching role and plan to knowingly deceive the public with subtle misinformation. Or when they try to question my sincerity for my choices in the "racial" terminology I use.

So, as long as it results in scientifically accurate portrayals (i.e. if using the term triggers the right imagery in the minds of the audience Carlos tries to cheat), I wouldn't object to it. At least not with the objections I've used so far. I can't rule out having some other qualm after new data emerges.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
You call it 'nonsense' that people have different traditions for applying the term 'black' to populations and that this undermines the simpleton narratives you're trying to construct and impose on others? You're free to call it non sense, racism, etc. and be in denial all you want.

In the real world, however, we can see that people throughout time haven't always agreed with the notion that various shades of brown along the Nile Valley (or anywhere else, for that matter) should all be lumped into the term 'black'. Sometimes traditions applied 'black' and related terms in a restricted sense. Are you salty over that?

quote:
"For in the correspondingly situated places on our side of the equator, that is those on the Summer Tropic [i.e. at Egypt's latitude], people do not yet have the color of the Aithiopians, and there are no rhinoceros and elephants; but in places not much to the south of these, moderately black people are to be found, such as those who live in the "Thirty Schoinoi" [region in lower Nubia] outside of Soene. Of the same type, too, are the people of Garame, whom Marinos also says (and indeed, for this very reason) live neither right on the Summer Tropic nor to the north, but entirely to the south of it. But in places around Meroe people are already quite black in color, and are at last pure Aithiopians, and the habitat of the elephants and more wonderful animals is there."
--Ptolemy

quote:
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.
--Manilius

quote:
"if the moderns have confined the appellation Ethiopians to those only who dwell near Egypt, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients."
--Strabo

Like I said. Build a case, gather evidence, then come back and we can have a more symmetric discussion. All you've done so far is give your opinions and views and expect others to take your word for it.

I could post many, many more examples from Greco-Roman times. I'm holding back because I know that would just invite strawmen and propaganda from certain folks itching to portray me as a Eurocentric mouthpiece. I invite more rational and open-minded ES readers to look up Greco-Roman texts and come to their own conclusions. There were times when ancient Greeks emphasized brown skin color gradients and times when many dark skinned people from certain regions were all lumped together as 'Aethiopians'.

I call it nonsense because you act like people don't understand what is meant when someone says "black person" especially in the context of Africa. You keep trying to claim that the term "black people" isn't valid and shouldn't be used as if there aren't people who are indeed called 'black people' as a reference to their skin color both IN and outside Africa. You keep trying to claim that the obvious outward appearance of these people is somehow not the basis of such words as black, negro and Maure when we all know that is not the case. You keep trying to pretend that when someone has historically used such terms that somehow it was based on cellular biology, genetic lineages, haplogroups or skeletal metrics and not plain old fashioned and simply obvious skin color, when that too is obviously false. You keep trying to claim that the dictionary definition of 'black people' is somehow rare and obscure in the English language to the point where someone doesn't understand what you mean when you say it. You keep trying to claim that 'black people' is something specific to the history of Europeans in the American continent as if the term and other terms like it weren't used for thousands of years prior for Africans by Africans and others not of the African continent as in Europe where the English language originates. And you have similar terms for populations with black skin elsewhere outside of Africa in other languages that are also many thousands of years old and predate "western" concepts of race.

Point blank it is nonsense because what you are claiming is that the simple observation of someones skin color is not valid as a way of describing said person or population and that this is not the basis of the words "black people" or "white people" being used throughout history. Therefore, what you are saying makes no sense.

And the part that really gets me is that you sit here and try to claim that the folks who are quibbling about the use of the term black, especially in reference to ancient Egypt are doing so because of their desire to be scientifically 'accurate' and "objective" which you know I have already said is total and absolute 'bullsh*t' because it is these same 'westerners' who came up with the so called 'western' racial constructs that you claim don't apply outside of the west. Which at the end of the day because it is the same 'western' language they are using and 'western' ideologies, it makes them hypocrites. And further you really jumped the tracks when you blindly follow these hypocrites and claim that 'western' racial constructs are NOT based on skin color.

So please, like I said before stop including me in your nonsense logical fallacy.

Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Here we go again.

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
I call it nonsense because you act like people don't understand what is meant when someone says "black person" especially in the context of Africa. You keep trying to claim that the term "black people" isn't valid and shouldn't be used as if there aren't people who are indeed called 'black people' as a reference to their skin color both IN and outside Africa.

Already shown to be wrong (but you keep ignoring it):

I already said many times that according to several traditions, including the al Jahiz one, the early Greek tradition, the ancient Egyptians would be 'black'. They would NOT be black according to the late Greek tradition, according to some Greek authors.
--Swenet

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
You keep trying to claim that the obvious outward appearance of these people is somehow not the basis of such words as black, negro and Maure when we all know that is not the case.

Again, since you keep ignoring it:

I already said many times that according to several traditions, including the al Jahiz one, the early Greek tradition, the ancient Egyptians would be 'black'. They would NOT be black according to the late Greek tradition, according to some Greek authors.
--Swenet

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
You keep trying to pretend that when someone has historically used such terms that somehow it was based on cellular biology, genetic lineages, haplogroups or skeletal metrics and not plain old fashioned and simply obvious skin color, when that too is obviously false.

Of course it didn't start that way. But that doesn't mean they can't get the sense that certain racial terms as they and their audience understand them, aren't appropriate for certain studied populations, due to their affinities.

quote:
Point blank it is nonsense because what you are claiming is that the simple observation of someones skin color is not valid as a way of describing said person or population
Go search in the first post you replied to where I said skin color is not a valid way of describing populations:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009335;p=1#000000

Here, let me help you:

although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown
--Swenet

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
To be honest, even if I was a contributor to it, I am dead sick of all the in-fighting in this community. It's depressing to witness. If only there was a way to stop it.

--------------------
Brought to you by Brandon S. Pilcher

My art thread on ES

And my books thread

Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Here we go again.

quote:
I call it nonsense because you act like people don't understand what is meant when someone says "black person" especially in the context of Africa. You keep trying to claim that the term "black people" isn't valid and shouldn't be used as if there aren't people who are indeed called 'black people' as a reference to their skin color both IN and outside Africa.
Already shown to be wrong (but you keep ignoring it):

I already said many times that according to several traditions, including the al Jahiz one, the early Greek tradition, the ancient Egyptians would be 'black'. They would NOT be black according to the late Greek tradition, according to some Greek authors.
--Swenet

quote:
You keep trying to claim that the obvious outward appearance of these people is somehow not the basis of such words as black, negro and Maure when we all know that is not the case.
Again, since you keep ignoring it:

I already said many times that according to several traditions, including the al Jahiz one, the early Greek tradition, the ancient Egyptians would be 'black'. They would NOT be black according to the late Greek tradition, according to some Greek authors.
--Swenet

quote:
You keep trying to pretend that when someone has historically used such terms that somehow it was based on cellular biology, genetic lineages, haplogroups or skeletal metrics and not plain old fashioned and simply obvious skin color, when that too is obviously false.
Of course it didn't start that way. But that doesn't mean they can't get the sense that certain racial terms as they understand them, aren't appropriate for certain skeletal remains, due to their affinities.

quote:
Point blank it is nonsense because what you are claiming is that the simple observation of someones skin color is not valid as a way of describing said person or population
Go search in the first post you replied to where I said skin color is not a valid way of describing populations:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009335;p=1#000000

Moron you keep proving me right. Jahiz and these other writers were using the words 'black' in reference to what? Skin color? If that is the case then you made my point for me. And now thousands of years later, western racism is based on what? Skin color, with the two main races being what? Blacks and whites. Now please stop with your nonsense. So the ancient Greeks knew what 'black people' meant. Al Jahiz knew what black people meant. White Europeans and racists know what black people means. But Swenet claims somehow these people are not all talking about the same dam thing: skin color.

So for the fifteenth time you have been shown that the word 'black people' has not changed and is still understood by all these folks to mean the same dam thing: people with black skin.

So stop making a fool of yourself.

Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You keep arguing against me when there isn't even a real disagreement where you think there is one. Look back how often I've told you this. It took how many times of telling you this in the same post, before you got it? I simply assigned YOUR use of 'black' to the al Jahiz tradition and kept telling you to stop infringing your use onto other uses because they don't imply the same pigmentation ranges and are DISTINCT traditions.

[Roll Eyes]

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post again. My replies, which you probably didn't even read (look how many times I had to quote the same piece before you read it), are posted throughout this thread.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
As populations inhabiting tropical and subtropical environments black people can and have been found all over the globe.


 -



^^^ this is an actual Doug quote from another thread with the picture he posted to go with it.

Look, if we are talking about who is black or not in 2015 in America it doesn't go by the ancient Greeks or Al-Jahiz.

In America in 2015 the definition of a black person is a dark skinned person with an afro.

Americans do not call the above Amazonians "black people'.
East Indian people in America who can be quite dark do not call themselves "black people" nor do other Americans.


So in America in 2015 "black" is not only skin color, period. Doug is a fool. These people themselves don't even call themselves black people. So stop the nonsense

And Doug claiming ancient people referred to skin color to define their ethnicity is a lie and he continues to have no support for it.

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"Misreading Black Others in Greco-Roman Antiquity Rezension zu: Erich S. Gruen, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity" (Princeton 2011).

--Tristan Samuels

https://www.academia.edu/5509538/Misreading_Black_Others_in_Greco-Roman_Antiquity


"The Riddle in the Dark: Re-thinking 'Blackness' in Greco-Roman Racial Discourse"

--Tristan Samuels

https://www.academia.edu/3759274/The_Riddle_in_the_Dark_Re-thinking_Blackness_in_Greco-Roman_Racial_Discourse


https://utoronto.academia.edu/TristanSamuels

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
III ETHIOPIA AND EGYPT

http://www.sacred-texts.com/afr/dbn/dbn05.htm

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"The lower parts of the country on either side of Meroê, along the Nile towards the Red Sea, are inhabited by Megabari and Blemmyes, who are subject to the Aethiopians and border on the Aegyptians, and, along the sea, by Troglodytes (the Troglodytes opposite Meroê are a ten or twelve days' journey distant from the Nile), but the parts on the left side of the course of the Nile, in Libya, are inhabited by Nubae, a large tribe, who, beginning at Meroê, extend as far as the bends of the river, and are not subject to the Aethiopians but are divided into several separate kingdoms. The extent of Aegypt along the sea from the Pelusiac to the Canobic mouth is one thousand three hundred stadia. This, then, is what Eratosthenes says.


http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/17A1*.html

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by tropicals redacted:
Stuart Tyson Smith:

1998 review of Egypt in Africa

"Thus, while the Egyptians can be reasonably characterized as "black" by modern standards, we must acknowledge not only similarities, but also the evidence for the physical and cultural diversity of African peoples."

Submission to The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt Volume 3 (2001).

"Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial characteristics are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of the race of the ancient Egyptians depends on modern cultural definition, not scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards , it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as "black", while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans" (p28).

Operative terms here being 'modern' and 'American', although British perceptions are similar to those of the US.

It's remarkable how they "now" try to twist it into Eurasian/ caucasoids diversity.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Operative terms here being 'modern' and 'American'.
Operative reality: Carlos still fails.

Current US views on what 'black' generally means to US citizens and how it evolved:

quote:
Negro superseded colored as the most polite word for African Americans at a time when black was considered more offensive.[3] This word was accepted as normal, including by people classified as Negroes, until the late 1960s, after the later African-American Civil Rights Movement. One well-known example is the identification by Martin Luther King, Jr. of his own race as "Negro" in his famous speech of 1963, "I Have a Dream".

During the civil rights movements era of the 1950s and 1960s, some black American leaders in the United States, notably Malcolm X, objected to the word Negro because they associated it with the long history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination that treated African Americans as second class citizens, or worse.[4] Malcolm X preferred Black to Negro, but also started using the term Afro-American after leaving the Nation of Islam.[5]

Since the late 1960s, various other terms have been more widespread in popular usage. These include black, Black African, Afro-American (in use from the late 1960s to 1990) and African American (used in the United States to refer to black Americans, people often referred to in the past as American Negroes).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro

quote:
The Black racial category includes people who marked the “Black,
African Am., or Negro” checkbox. It also includes respondents who
reported entries such as African American; Sub-Saharan African
entries, such as Kenyan and Nigerian; and Afro-Caribbean entries,
such as Haitian and Jamaican.*

https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf

So, how exactly do, say, brown skinned Tuareg fit here?

I wonder how they perceive the brown skin Tuareg when he/ she walks down the streets of N.Y. or any other state.

The categorization is based upon slavery and slave descendants, which is very narrow minded and based on racism.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131511/Sex-Sahara-Striking-photographs-mysterious-Islamic-tribe-women-embrace-sexual-freedoms-dictate-gets-divorce-don-t-wear-veil-men-want -beautiful-faces.html


 -

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This article is more consistent the way Doug M sees it:

Who is Black? Striking Images of the World’s Dark-Skinned People Inaccurately Considered Non-Black

http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/03/06/black-striking-images-various-types-black-people-around-world/

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
As populations inhabiting tropical and subtropical environments black people can and have been found all over the globe.


 -



^^^ this is an actual Doug quote from another thread with the picture he posted to go with it.

Look, if we are talking about who is black or not in 2015 in America it doesn't go by the ancient Greeks or Al-Jahiz.

In America in 2015 the definition of a black person is a dark skinned person with an afro.

Americans do not call the above Amazonians "black people'.
East Indian people in America who can be quite dark do not call themselves "black people" nor do other Americans.


So in America in 2015 "black" is not only skin color, period. Doug is a fool. These people themselves don't even call themselves black people. So stop the nonsense

And Doug claiming ancient people referred to skin color to define their ethnicity is a lie and he continues to have no support for it.

What Doug is saying is, that this is due to white supremacy. They have created this catagory basis. While essentially black simple means dark skin (never was said the hue, or did they, the brown paper bag test?), which is what they have.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Askia_The_Great     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
To be honest, even if I was a contributor to it, I am dead sick of all the in-fighting in this community. It's depressing to witness. If only there was a way to stop it.

Agreed...
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
To be honest, even if I was a contributor to it, I am dead sick of all the in-fighting in this community. It's depressing to witness. If only there was a way to stop it.

Agreed...
What is ridiculous is that most of us know Ancient Egyptians are Africans, more related to lets say African-Americans than white Europeans or West Asians. So there's no need to create any of those distractions.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
You keep arguing against me when there isn't even a real disagreement where you think there is one. Look back how often I've told you this. It took how many times of telling you this in the same post, before you got it? I simply assigned YOUR use of 'black' to the al Jahiz tradition and kept telling you to stop infringing your use onto other uses because they don't imply the same pigmentation ranges and are DISTINCT traditions.

[Roll Eyes]

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post again. My replies, which you probably didn't even read (look how many times I had to quote the same piece before you read it), are posted throughout this thread.

Nonsense. 'black people' and 'white people' are standard terms used in the English dictionary and that definition has not changed in thousands of years and is no different than what it meant in the time of Al Jahiz. YOU said that yourself when you said they used it as a reference to dark skin people in Africa. So please stop trying to wiggle your way out of the fact that black people and white people as English language terms has a usage and definition that has not changed and is based on observations of folks going back thousands of years. That is not "my" definition of the words, those are the standard definitions created thousands of years ago by people like even the Egyptians themselves calling themselves 'black people', Jahiz calling Africans 'black people', the Greeks and others all over the dam planet calling certain people 'black people' because of their skin color. You are simply defending a nonsense excuse to ignore historical fact that skin color is an obvious basis for the use of certain terms in language. And above all else, since when did 'black people' stop being the majority population in Africa to the point where you are claiming that the use of the term is no longer consistent with the terms used thousands of years ago?

You are full of nonsense.

Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Operative terms here being 'modern' and 'American'.
Operative reality: Carlos still fails.

Current US views on what 'black' generally means to US citizens and how it evolved:

quote:
Negro superseded colored as the most polite word for African Americans at a time when black was considered more offensive.[3] This word was accepted as normal, including by people classified as Negroes, until the late 1960s, after the later African-American Civil Rights Movement. One well-known example is the identification by Martin Luther King, Jr. of his own race as "Negro" in his famous speech of 1963, "I Have a Dream".

During the civil rights movements era of the 1950s and 1960s, some black American leaders in the United States, notably Malcolm X, objected to the word Negro because they associated it with the long history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination that treated African Americans as second class citizens, or worse.[4] Malcolm X preferred Black to Negro, but also started using the term Afro-American after leaving the Nation of Islam.[5]

Since the late 1960s, various other terms have been more widespread in popular usage. These include black, Black African, Afro-American (in use from the late 1960s to 1990) and African American (used in the United States to refer to black Americans, people often referred to in the past as American Negroes).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro

quote:
The Black racial category includes people who marked the “Black,
African Am., or Negro” checkbox. It also includes respondents who
reported entries such as African American; Sub-Saharan African
entries, such as Kenyan and Nigerian; and Afro-Caribbean entries,
such as Haitian and Jamaican.*

https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf

So, how exactly do, say, brown skinned Tuareg fit here?

I wonder how they perceive the brown skin Tuareg when he/ she walks down the streets of N.Y. or any other state.

The categorization is based upon slavery and slave descendants, which is very narrow minded and based on racism.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131511/Sex-Sahara-Striking-photographs-mysterious-Islamic-tribe-women-embrace-sexual-freedoms-dictate-gets-divorce-don-t-wear-veil-men-want -beautiful-faces.html


 -

Wrong. Remember when the U.S. was in Libya overthrowing Qaddafi? Who were they saying were the allies of Qadafi? The 'black' Tuaregs from Southern Libya. Come on dude with this. Black people means black people and NOBODY is confused about what it means when it comes to Africans. And you don't have to go to America to see this as the exact SAME thing is in Europe where Africans of all shades are lumped together still as black people.

Racism is based on skin color and benefits white people when it comes to identifying those who are not in 'the club'. Stop trying to pretend there is some other basis of racism or that is unique to the United States. ALL of the Americas has the same meaning when it comes to black people albeit some parts of the Americas like the Portuguese and Spanish areas have more subdivisions based on mixture but it is still based on outward appearance at the core, along with degrees of mixture between populations. Brown has always been part of what is called black, especially when it comes to folks in Africa as black folks come in various shades.

 -
http://newscastmedia.com/blog/2011/11/08/part-ii-libyan-skeptics-appear-to-believe-gadhafi-is-still-alive/

And for goodness sake, Negro, black and African American are synonyms when it comes to Africans held captive in America. It means dark skin folks from Africa. There is no 'change' in that definition. I don't know why people pretend this is so dam complex. You keep allowing white folks who are the ones trying to redefine their own words because of a racist agenda to get you confused. If they call dark skin folks from Africa in the Americas blacks or Negroes, going back to the same terms being used in Europe and Spain from long ago, how is it they don't use the same terms for the same people in the continent of Africa? Whats different? They are both Africans? OBVIOUSLY, they are quibbling because they have an agenda and you folks keep giving them a pass on B.S.

Notice how NOBODY is confused about what 'white people' means when it comes to America and nobody says that there is confusion about the term not applying to people in Europe.

The root of all this confusion is white people and their desperate attempts to recategorize and classify people based on their own racist agenda. Nothing more and nothing less. There are plenty of books going back to the 18th and 19th century written by white folks laying out all these 'racial' schemes and it is contradictory. And we know how this agenda applies in Northern Africa. So again, why are we claiming these folks are 'objective' when they claim certain terms aren't valid anymore. Yet they still use those terms every day. They don't say that about 'white people' now do they?

I mean didn't you post these yourself showing that England certainly knows what black and white means and that it is a reference to skin color?

 -

Skin color is not race. The fact that people no longer believe in 'race' as a biological subspecies among humans does not mean that SKIN COLOR does not exist and that you can't describe it as 'black' or 'white'. Skin color is also not a tribal identity, ethnic identity or pejorative identity among most populations around the world, except in a few cases as in KMT. When you say 'black people' in reference to a population it does not mean race it only means skin color. White folks have muddied the concept because they use skin color as the basis of race, but that does not mean that calling someone black is identifying a race. Nobody is confused when you say 'black Indians' or 'white Indians' from India. Nobody is confused when you say 'black Iranian'. Nobody is confused when you say 'black Israeli'. Nobody is confused when you say 'black Australian' or even 'black Native American'.

Dark black, coal black or jet black people are the first humans on earth and have been on earth longer than any other human population. And certainly there will ALWAYS be black people on earth no matter the attempts by WHITE PEOPLE to erase them from it, both in the present day and in history.

When people start complaining about these terms it is because what they are saying is 'black people' don't exist or are only limited to a certain sub group of Africans, which is demonstrably and totally false.

Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Doug, I posted those pictures from the Britain not because if the color but because of facial structures. Focusing more on the first two. But those guys, all have completely different facial features.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Doug, I posted those pictures from the Britain not because if the collor but because of facial structures. Focusing more on the first two. But those guys, all have completely different facial features.

The point is that the poster shows clearly that black people is a reference to skin color and that this is how Europeans use it. It does not say that 'black people' or 'white people' is a reference to bone structure.

Man how can you be so purposely deceptive.

I mean the dam poster says it quite clearly that they are talking about skin color. How can you not see that? So it is you in this case that is twisting something that is an obvious reference to skin color and trying to claim that this is not what the obvious meaning is.

This is a perfect example of what I mean by folks on this thread going out of their way to avoid the obvious meaning of these words even when it is spelled out clearly right in front of their faces. Yet they are going to argue that other people are confused and misusing language. No, you guys are confused and trying to misuse language.

Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 41 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  39  40  41   

Post New Topic  New Poll  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3