posted
For obvious reasons calling onself "black" is not typical of places in "dark skinned " societies. To them their skin is normal, not dark it's a given so it's not attached to identitiy like terms like "black power" is in America and Europe. To them their skin is not dark, it's just the way skin is, of no particular importants
Identifying people by color is only more common in nation states that have a significant number of minorities who have a markedly different skin tone than the majority. Only then does it become practical to use as an easy why to estimate ethnic difference. In such a case it could become politically useful (or also divisive)
Colorism is not a part of traditional African culture, ask Africans. It's Pan Africanism, not Pan-Blackism
Twenty-two million African-Americans - that's what we are - Africans who are in America
El Hajj Malik Shabazz
[/QUOTE]excerpt:
'Blackness' fails at every level in both the historical and political context. Africans are the natural people of Africa: The diverse hair textures, the diverse skin hues, are all specific adaptations to living in the diverse African landscape. For this reason alone 'skin blackness" is certainly not a marker for African identity; far too many native Africans, depending on geography, have light skin. The Motherland of these adaptations and the cultures are primarily Africa; hence the relevance of the name. [2] 'African' refers exclusively to the historical people of Africa and their descendants in the Diaspora.In plain language, no one is an African unless they can also be considered a 'Black' person. But not every 'Black person' is an African.
Slavery was both mental and physical, much of the physical has been washed away—But the mental remains. And one of the greatest objectives in making "good slaves" was to remove the African connection. And hence Africans were made black/Negro/colored, and homeless — no other connection, other than the reality of the master's plantation —no dreams, other than those of a slave—no higher destiny, other than to service the master's empire, and no greater identity except relative to the slave-master's skin color. And still today the consequences of that enslavement, while diminishing, still impact all African people where identity and agency are concerned.
"white" depends for its stability on its negation, "black." Neither exists without the other, and both come into being at the moment of imperial conquest
Franz Fanon
They have for a long time argued that these groups are not "true Africans." or in the case of Egypt "Egyptians were not black Africans" when the very term "black African" and "Sub-Saharan African" are racist constructions in colonial theory. This is why the term black is so problematic because it is based on a mis-observation of perceived skin color which is used to define populations which might not share anything in common; For example the people of Australia and Solomon Islands.
Africa, unlike "black," is a name, not a adjective. You can get on a plane and visit it, you can find it on a Sat Nav, it has boundaries, governments, you can grow crops on it, and build a house on it. But some say, Africa was a foreign name given to us, if this is true, it was given to us by our contemporaries not our conquerors. However, the word has Berber Tunisian origins meaning " A sunny place" - Ifriqiya . Either Romans appropriated this word from which it is believed the modern word Africa came about the describe the entire continent. Or the Berbers Berberized the Roman word. Either way, Africa is a unique name of a place and Africans are simply people who are native to that place. And over the course of history different names such as Habesha and Takruri were used to refer to African people of various regions, Ethiopia and West Africa respectively. Also the word Moor has been used across the centuries but as critics have established, the term "Moor" was used interchangeably with such other ambiguous terms such as "Ethiopian," "Negro," and even "Indian" to designate a figure from different parts or the whole of Africa (or beyond) who was either black or Muslim, neither, or both. [3]
Black is a problem because it is a color (not because it is a European word) and It has no other meaning in any European language. Africans were called Black because it was, according to conquers, the "best" thing to describe a people they had no respect for. The sum total of the identity was summed up as black--and nothing else. Africa is a name, like Marcus, Tewdos, Malcolm, Karenga, Jobarteh--Ethiopian is a Name, Italy is a name, Rome is a name, England is a name, Briton and Britain a name, Nubian is a name, Habesha is a name, Sudan is now a name. Where it comes from is of no consideration, because all names have their origin somewhere. Where it started and what it means today, as a name, is not the same. The word Holocaust is Greek, the word Ethos is Greek, Ethnogenesis is Greek, theology is Greek, Pedagogy is Greek, on and on til the cows come home. If we start down this logic of Africa is from Europe then it is a wasted effort because then we would have to start recreating every single word. Most of the English language words are not of English origin. (loanwords).
“Black” as an identity ultimately sets Africans outside of their connection to history and culture. Black does not connect us to Kemet, it only goes back 500 Years ago. Hence, “black” people are an “urban” people/culture and “urban” people's history is 5 minutes old. In addition, because it is a term placed on us, we have no bases for its control, and hence they are able to say; “Ancient Egyptians weren't black.” Black has no meaning; except the meaning they place on it, if and when they chose.
Oppressors do not like calling the real names of their victims. In cases of kidnapping the victim's family always humanizes the victim by saying their name. It creates a realization in the perpetrators mind that the person they have kidnapped also has a history, a life, a family, love and is therefore not is not disposable. Whites slavers were far happier in removing the humanity of Africans by re-classifying people as blacks. Not even "Black people", just blacks. It dehumanized the person to a mere color, which had no name, no history, no culture and most importantly no Motherland. To raid a village and kill women and children, you have to first remove the notion of them possession any humanity. Notice how Israel will always say "those people." Because to say "those Palestinians" gives Palestine a claim to the land called Palestine. South Africa also does not want to link Africans to land, hence the preferred identification with "blacks", void of history, agency, culture and land rights. And in the newly fabricated contrived rainbow, everyone became African-- thus everyone had claim.
The term Black people has no function in any debate beyond European enslavement, it has only been a name imposed by "the other." Black pride is reactionary pride, necessary then, irrelevant now. As Africa blossoms into a greater historical and cultural awareness of a Motherland, Africans are starting to detach themselves from slave names and slave definitions and embrace terminologies which better do justice to a historical and cultural reality.
Garvey also believed that African Americans were universally oppressed and any program of emancipation would have to be built around the question of race. Now Runoko Rashidi travels far and wide expanding the so-called Black race, and if Black means non-White then there is some merit in that. But If 18th century definitions of "African" physical features are the only criteria for being African, i.e. broad nose, then many Africans will become unAfrican and many non-Africans will become African.
Black is a construction which articulates a recent social-political reality of people of color (pigmented people). Skin darkness or blackness is caused by the sun; Africaness is an an identity of far greater ontological weight. Black is not a racial family, an ethnic group or a super-ethnic group. Political blackness is thus not an identity but moreover a social-political consequence of a world which after colonialism and slavery existed in those color terms.
Brief History : During the displacement of the African Holocaust people were disconnected from culture, language and identity, they went from Fulani, Hausa, Igbo to a relative color, aptly describing their status in European society-- Black. Now stuck with this name, and with no agency, no conscious of self outside of the chains of the Holocaust, being black became a source of reactionary pride. (especially in the 60's). This happened also because the involuntary Diaspora had a deep self-hatred for their African connection, and would prefer to be a empty color than connected to their Motherland--that was the dept of the self hatred. And this produced reactionary love because they had to be something, and they could not be European, so in the psyche reaffirming a negative name was in some sense a statement of ownership--a statement of being. In reality it was a statement of displacement and self-hatred.
"White" depends for its stability on its negation, "black." Neither exists without the other, and both come into being at the moment of imperial conquest. - Franz Fanon. If there are no White people, could there be Black people? For over 100,000 years there were only native people of Africa on the planet, and since there were no "White" people there could not have been Black people, since everyone would have been "Black"? And if all the "White people" vanished from the Earth, would the remaining "Black" people still be Black? Black and White are therefore debunked as regressive incomplete terms for describing people.
Most of Africans in the West and Southern Africa have an image of self built out of a house of racism. They are hence blacks, finding identity in the fringes of whiteness. Today only two major racial groups adhere to color definitions; the African (the most oppressed group on Earth) and the apex oppressor, the European (White). While every other self-determined people have commuted color labels, the African in lands of strong white influence still romantically hold on to it.
If there are a black or Black people then where do "black" people come form? Since Asians come from Asia, Indians from India (all makes perfect logically sense). So where do Black people come from? Blackia, Negroland or Blackistan following the obvious naming convention. So if they do not come from these fictitious places and we find that so-called Black people come from Africa (at some time in our recent history) then why not just call them Africans? What is the purpose of Blackness?
In Israel Ethiopians are Black but Ethiopians did not consider themselves to be Black when they arrived. You see young people identifying with reggae music, Afro-Caribbean culture that people tend to view as natural, but it's not natural. It's a choice they made, because it speaks to them. (Kaplan) All over the African world where African people from anywhere come into contact with mainstream "Black" culture there is a current creating new Blackness as an identity. Just as consciousness via music and revolution has created a global Pan-African identity. But there is a difference. Africaness is rooted in a cultural understanding of African peoples links and interconnectedness to development and civilization, Blackness on the other hand is link to a culture relevant to YouTube and MTV base. Blackness has zero concern with anything beyond attitude, speaking bad English, wearing your pants low, walking with bad posture, and gaining status by being as ignorant as possible. While Africaness seeks to create an alternative to the White world linguistics and identity, Blackness is a sub-culture in Whiteness. It is not concerned with Swahili but broken English. It is not concerned with African clothing - but with Western designer garments worn low. Its historical references are not the battles between Ancient Egypt and Nubia but between Tupac and Biggie. Africaness is concerned with our humanity, while Blackness is concerned with consumerism. It is a statement of ownership of self and ideals. Africaness defines itself and creates it's own agenda. Blackness is defined as the opposite of whiteness and it's agenda has been pre-arranged . The New Blackness takes African people further into a Western identity trap of still being alienated but without a framework for self-development.
posted
You don't know anything about Black people. To the ancient Black races Blackness was God. Thus we have Kar-Ma.=Great Blackness.
The Western concept of black as negative is a pink man's creation. To the ancient Black races black was beautiful, thus the first man was Adam "made of the black earth".
Stupid white man. The Egyptians called themselves Kamit (Black), while the Mande referred to themselves as Si (Black). And the Akkadians called themselves sag-gig-ga “Black people”. even the Assyrians who called themselves almat kakkadi ‘black people”.
And don't post that garbage about "black heads", stupid , if the head was Black, the body was too.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
There is a lot of written text that the Egyptians left. But you don't find color words like "black" associated with their word for skin. So we don't know what the association was. I never said the word "black" is bad stop being paranoid. The concept of black skinned people is not African. The color black has different symbolic meanings in different African cultures. Often it is not associated with skin because the people's color is brown. The stereotype identity colors "black", " white" :"yellow" and "red", and of course "white" is not accurate either, comes from multi-ethnic nation states, for instance ancient Greece and modern America
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
while the Mande referred to themselves as Si (Black). And the Akkadians called themselves sag-gig-ga “Black people”. even the Assyrians who called themselves almat kakkadi ‘black people”.
And don't post that garbage about "black heads", stupid , if the head was Black, the body was too.
Akkadians and Assyrians are not Africans you crackpot
And you have to leave Africa to try to prove that Africans called themelves black people ?? That's an instant fail
"Black" is an African American political concept. I'm not saying it's bad. But it is not a strongly African concept as per identity by skin color. It's colorism and Africans historically have not been into that
Let the Africans speak on this topic
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
There is a lot of written text that the Egyptians left. But you don't find color words like "black" associated with their word for skin. So we don't know what the association was. I never said the word "black" is bad stop being paranoid. The concept of black skinned people is not African. The color black has different symbolic meanings in different African cultures. Often it is not associated with skin because the people's color is brown. The stereotype identity colors "black", " white" :"yellow" and "red", and of course "white" is not accurate either, comes from multi-ethnic nation states, for instance ancient Greece and modern America
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
while the Mande referred to themselves as Si (Black). And the Akkadians called themselves sag-gig-ga “Black people”. even the Assyrians who called themselves almat kakkadi ‘black people”.
And don't post that garbage about "black heads", stupid , if the head was Black, the body was too.
Akkadians and Assyrians are not Africans you crackpot
And you have to leave Africa to try to prove that Africans called themelves black people ?? That's an instant fail
"Black" is an African American political concept. I'm not saying it's bad. But it is not a strongly African concept as per identity by skin color. It's colorism and Africans historically have not been into that
Let the Africans speak on this topic
LOL. Kemites and Mande are Africans stupid. The Assyrians and Akkadians also came from Africa. So they are just as much African as any AFRO-American.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Clyde stop trolling. I never said Kemites wers not African, can you read?
You said Africans, I gave you Africans. You are a tricky racist. White Americans and Australians can be Europeans--but, Africans are suppose to be situated only in Africa. Stop the BS. .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] Clyde stop trolling. I never said Kemites wers not African, can you read?
You said Africans, I gave you Africans.
Assyrians and Akkadians are not Africans you crackpot,
This thread is about what >> Africans living in Africa do or do not call themsleves as pretaining to skin color based identity
If you want to do a thread on what Africans outside of African called themselves, go do it. That is not this thread
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
" "white" depends for its stability on its negation, "black." Neither exists without the other, and both come into being at the moment of imperial conquest " Franz Fanon per the lioness, - - -
Dr. Winters: " The Egyptians called themselves Kamit (Black), while the Mande referred to themselves as Si (Black). And the Akkadians called themselves sag-gig-ga “Black people”. even the Assyrians who called themselves almat kakkadi ‘black people”. "
- - -
I've been trying to figure out how KMT = black, so far I've got sand/salt/silt/tilth/silver, all related to sunlight.
Kemite ~ Hamitic? I get Ham = Hind/(t)high end/Xy endu.
KMT/GBT/GPT/JBT/JBS/XyaMbuaTla(ya) could be read as sun-burnt, but I think it would be more accurate as "sun-borne", and this carries weight because it seems to fit with others:
Sudan has a five colour terminology azraq:blue akhdar:green asmar:brown ahmar:red asfar:yellow
Ethiopia tequr:black teyem:brown qey:red
Fon me-wi:black people nya/na-wi:male/female black (very dark or pitch black complexion nya/na-vo:male/female red (lighter than average skin complexion
Yoruba dudu:black light-skinned Africans are referred to as pupa:red-yellow (think 'palm oil') and funfun:White (albinos).
Ibo ojii:black ocha:white
Also see threads I bumped today
I made a post about colour terms in Mali but can't find it. Think it was in one of the Mali Tuareg Rebel threads.
Fon me-wi:black people nya/na-wi:male/female black (very dark or pitch black complexion nya/na-vo:male/female red (lighter than average skin complexion
Yoruba dudu:black light-skinned Africans are referred to as pupa:red-yellow (think 'palm oil') and funfun:White (albinos).
Ibo ojii:black ocha:white
Then there are the Kel taGelmust with their various designations for themselves, coastal Berbers, and Gnawas, yellow, white, grey; or internal assignments by class noble, vassal, and enslaved, red green black.
You black guys who have no other identity than Black just don't get it or don't want to get it. USA will never dominate our own precise choice terms for our skin colours.
Long before there was a western science of physical anthropology and its classification of race the peoples of Africa had their own racial concepts and couldn't care less what outsiders say.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic