quote:

---

people like to quirm around a lot with their definition of black

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

people like to quirm around a lot with their definition of black

---

Black -> A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary.


Stupid thread, Troll threads like this is why you were banned from ES to begin with, yet you continually return - like a bad smell, whic is also indicative of mental illness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Black -> A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary.

---

So by that definition, what is this guy?:



Or this guy?

 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Agreed stupid thread. Wasting bandwidth. What are his other alias.

---

quote:

---

* Under how many other alias have you trolled this forum?

* How many times have you been banned?

* Why do you return instead of seeking the professional help you need?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
LOL. Rasol is a resident troll who hates admitting admixture and accepting that one droppism isn't the standard around the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
People like to quirm around a lot as to their definition of what is Black.

So here is your chance to stand up fro your beleifs. State exactly what Black means to you and then stick to that definition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie Bass:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
LOL. Rasol is a resident troll who hates admitting admixture and accepting that one droppism isn't the standard around the world.

---

The Bass says why don't *YOU* accept that fact that people around the world aren't adopting your maniacal "we are all mixed" retardology?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie Bass:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
LOL. Rasol is a resident troll who hates admitting admixture and accepting that one droppism isn't the standard around the world.

---

The Bass says why don't *YOU* accept that fact that people around the world aren't adopting your maniacal "we are all mixed" retardology?

---

Majority of people around the world don't identify according to "white", "black", "red", "yellow" or "mixed¨race", "octoroon", "quadroon" etc. They simply identify along the lines of their land, culture, language, religion etc.

---

quote:

---

You can't identify by religion as an ethnic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
People like to quirm around a lot as to their definition of what is Black.

So here is your chance to stand up fro your beleifs. State exactly what Black means to you and then stick to that definition.

---

There is only ONE definition of black. It is in the dictionary. Either YOU agree with it or YOU don't. Period. All this running around in circles worrying about what OTHER people think and how OTHER people view the word is SNIVELING.

In fact, YOU cannot CHALLENGE the accuracy of the dictionary definition of black. Therefore, RATHER than deal with YOUR inadequacies and UNABILITY to accept FACTS for what they are, you MAKE UP B.S. arguments about WHAT is black and WHAT isn't black and WHAT is tan and what isn't tan. But in reality, you AREN'T debating what is meant by black, because YOU KNOW what is meant.

In reality what YOU like to debate is WHO is MULATTO, because EVERY TIME you discuss and pretend to CHALLENGE someone YOU present pictures of the LIGHTEST SKINNED PEOPLE you can find in Africa or America and then pretend to debate. Debate WHAT? What ARE you debating? WHY are you fixated on people at the FRINGE of what is called black as if that is the CORE of the argument behind what people mean by black? Because YOU HAVE no debate about what black means. What YOU call debating is WHINING by obsessing over THAT SMALL percentage of people with BLACK ancestry who are VERY LIGHT and then try and portray THAT as a primary example of some sort of CONTRADICTION to what is being argued. NOBODY is posting pictures of people like Alicia Keys and Colin Powell as "representative" examples of the complexion BLACKS. YOU are the one posting SUCH NONSENSE and then PRETENDING that this is something to DEBATE.

You are A FOOL because you are DEBATING YOURSELF.

And as for your TROLLING about Khoisan in South Africa, notice this, most Khoisan are NOT that light. So again, as opposed to CLARIFYING anything, you are exposed as a LOON who has nothing to do but OBSESS over LIGHT SKINNED PEOPLE those who may be of MIXED ANCESTRY because YOU have an unhealthy obsession with the word black.


















From: http://www.flickr.com/photos/charlesfred/sets/1635004/with/2121958063/

So save your lame images of people with mixed ancestry or very light skin as so called "representative" of a debate about black. There is NO DEBATE. The Khoi ARE BLACK. FOOL.
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 
LOL. Mackerel thinks he used has the advantage, but Ausar decided not to moderate anymore.
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 
As for KhoiSan not being light. Depends on region and yes admixture with Bantu as well.

And tanning. Duh. Look at KhoiSan Babies.





 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
As for KhoiSan not being light. Depends on region and yes admixture with Bantu as well.

And tanning. Duh. Look at KhoiSan Babies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis2:
Majority of people around the world don't identify according to "white", "black", "red", "yellow" or "mixed¨race", "octoroon", "quadroon" etc. They simply identify along the lines of their land, culture, language, religion etc.

---

quote:

---

so what is this guy?


or this guy?

---

Well, the first one? Yes, I consider him black.

The last one? No, but I don't consider him white either.

Do you?
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 
Doug M. Thiose people are not dark skinned. Yet you claim them Black. Bottom line, it is you who don't know what you are talking about.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Chimu, Khoisan are not Central Asians, even though SOME Khoisan have similar features. Therefore, you cannot state that because SOME Khoisan are as light as Asians from the Central Asians steppes, that the Khoisan are NOT black Africans. YOU aren't making any sense and the ANALOGY is FLAWED. You SHOULD be comparing the Khoisan to OTHER Africans who they are related to and OTHER KHOISAN and stop trying to make FAKE associations that DO NOT EXIST, based on SELECTED images of the LIGHTEST Khoisan you can find.

So your half truths and HALF baked facts are exposed AGAIN for WHAT they are: PHONY attempts to ALTER the ACTUAL diversity and complexity of African people and blacks through NONSENSE associations with NON BLACKS.

Again, you are RELYING on trying to showcase the LIGHTEST people who are part of the black diaspora and associate them with people who have NO BLACK ancestry and trying to make an argument. But you are a FOOL. Khoisan ARE NOT central Asians and their features and complexions are NOT the same as central Asians, thereby making your SPAMMING of selected Khoisan as REPRESENTATIVE of ALL Khoisan another example of your NONSENSE and FEAR of the word black.

NOBODY said that those Central Asians were black. YOU said that. Therefore YOUR ANALOGY is again STUPID because you are comparing apples to oranges. YOU make up stupid analogies that MAKE NO SENSE and then pretend you have a CONTRADICTION of the facts, but in reality YOU are contradicting YOURSELF because you are an IDIOT LOON who has nothing better to do but DELUDE HIMSELF with SILLY facts that have NOTHING to do with reality. The Khoisan are BLACK AFRICANS, period and their features have NOTHING to do with Asia. Some light skin people among a population called BLACK does not mean that the word is INVALID. Alecia Keys, Colin Powell and Iranians DO NOT make BLACK an invalid term for Africans in the U.S or people anywhere else. It makes YOU a fool for trying to PICK THEM as some sort of contradiction of the word black, when they aren't.











From: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=bushmen&z=t&page=2
 

---

Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Black -> A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary.

---

So by that definition, what is this guy?:



Or this guy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolofi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Black -> A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary.

---

So by that definition, what is this guy?:



Or this guy?

---

Come on guys, it is time to man up and stop calling this dude a troll.

He is asking a valid questions despite what he has done in the past.

The two men DO look almost a-like so asking how is one black and the other not is being objectively succinct because I would like to know as well.

And no Doug, we cannot talk about what their "blood tests" say nor where they come from. We have to judge based on the opinion of their appearance without any axiom of genetic lineages or Continental location.

So answer the question. Why is the top one Black and the bottom one NOT black?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolofi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Black -> A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary.

---

So by that definition, what is this guy?:



Or this guy?

---

Come on guys, it is time to man up and stop calling this dude a troll.

He is asking a valid questions despite what he has done in the past.

The two men DO look almost a-like so asking how is one black and the other not is being objectively succinct because I would like to know as well.

And no Doug, we cannot talk about what their "blood tests" say nor where they come from. We have to judge based on the opinion of their appearance without any axiom of genetic lineages or Continental location.

So answer the question. Why is the top one Black and the bottom one NOT black?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolofi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Black -> A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary.

---

So by that definition, what is this guy?:



Or this guy?

---

Come on guys, it is time to man up and stop calling this dude a troll.

He is asking a valid questions despite what he has done in the past.

The two men DO look almost a-like so asking how is one black and the other not is being objectively succinct because I would like to know as well.

And no Doug, we cannot talk about what their "blood tests" say nor where they come from. We have to judge based on the opinion of their appearance without any axiom of genetic lineages or Continental location.

So answer the question. Why is the top one Black and the bottom one NOT black?

---

LOL. Look at him failing to address your post. Dougie is a head case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
Capitalizing words will not change the fact that you are dodging. You claim it is about complexion and then you claim it is not. LOL

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolofi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Black -> A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary.

---

So by that definition, what is this guy?:



Or this guy?

---

Come on guys, it is time to man up and stop calling this dude a troll.

He is asking a valid questions despite what he has done in the past.

The two men DO look almost a-like so asking how is one black and the other not is being objectively succinct because I would like to know as well.

And no Doug, we cannot talk about what their "blood tests" say nor where they come from. We have to judge based on the opinion of their appearance without any axiom of genetic lineages or Continental location.

So answer the question. Why is the top one Black and the bottom one NOT black?

---

LOL. Look at him failing to address your post. Dougie is a head case.

---

Exactly, once again dumb Dougie just blabbers his mouth. I told you in my post *DO NOT TALK ABOUT THEIR ANCESTRY!!!* and just judge by *APPEARANCE ALONE* and no one said the man on the bottom was *ANYTHING*. The point is; if the two said people look almost identical how is one classified differently than the other.

You once again Doug fail to comprehend simple requests.
 

---

Posted by USA (Member # 15085) on :
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Chimu:
LOL. Rasol is a resident troll who hates admitting admixture and accepting that one droppism isn't the standard around the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bass says why don't *YOU* accept that fact that people around the world aren't adopting your maniacal "we are all mixed" retardology?

One droppism is definitely not the norm around the world.
But why the defensiveness? No one is trying to force you to adopt another socially constructed definition of who/what is 'black"...Simple question, what is your definition of black?
 

---

Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
 
^ To be fair, Wolofi and Chimu have a point. If "black" is indeed based solely upon skin as rasols definition suggests, then the khoisan man is not "black" in those terms.

Doug, there is a difference between "black" and "african". Khoisan are African. Probably more african than their darker skinned neighbors. But many cannot be classified as "black". Doing so is a contradiction and double standard.
 

---

Posted by USA (Member # 15085) on :
 
The Bass says why don't *YOU* accept that fact that people around the world aren't adopting your maniacal "we are all mixed" retardology?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Majority of people around the world don't identify according to "white", "black", "red", "yellow" or "mixed¨race", "octoroon", "quadroon" etc. They simply identify along the lines of their land, culture, language, religion etc.

Yonis2,
I agree.
I would also add that phenotype/genotype and ethnicity/nationality are not necessarily always one in the same, especially when you take into consideration the socially defined aspects of these (i.e.who is describing who).
 

---

Posted by USA (Member # 15085) on :
 
^ To be fair, Wolofi and Chimu have a point. If "black" is indeed based solely upon skin as rasols definition suggests, then the khoisan man is not "black" in those terms.

Doug, there is a difference between "black" and "african". Khoisan are African. Probably more african than their darker skinned neighbors. But many cannot be classified as "black". Doing so is a contradiction and double standard.

Mmmkay,
Agreed.

I think Chimu's question addresses the socially defined/constructed concept of what is black, which has varied over time and used differently by various peoples.
Indeed, there are Africans who consider Khoisan under a seperate identity. I have personally spoken to South Africans (white & black)who do not consider them black.
 

---

Posted by USA (Member # 15085) on :
 
What point? Khoisan are NOT Asians and do not have the same range of features and complexions as the central Asians YOU POSTED. NOBODY said that Central Asians are black. Therefore WHAT is the point? NOBODY compared Central Asian WHITES with African blacks EXCEPT YOU and said that BOTH were BLACK. So THERE IS NO QUESTION to be asked except WHY are you stupid? BLACK African Khoisan are NOT Central Asians. So there is nothing VALID you can ask about such a comparison. But you are a FOOL because YOU think that because A FEW Khoisan have similar complexions to LIGHT skinned central Asians that this somehow PROOF that Khoisan are not black.

The simple fact is that you are simple and dumb and unable to accept that your posts have no value other than as a source of laughter. Only an IDIOT would compare a WHITE central Asian to an African black and THINK they are contradicting ANYONE OTHER than THEMSELVES.

So WHY did you post these two pictures and WHY do you think that this represents ANYTHING OTHER than YOUR OWN MIXED UP BRAIN? NOBODY else posted those images so YOU are the one PROVING how STUPID you are by trying to EQUATE black African Khoisan with Central Asian whites as being "similar" in complexion as a group WHEN THEY ARE NOT. But you are TOO DUMB to see this. Only a FOOL like you would pick some WHITE Central Asians as some sort of ARGUMENT about the word black.

But that is all you can do, which is post STUPID IRRELEVANT comparisons and expect to have some sort of debate. Anyone with sense would see that it is a STUPID comparison and call you out for being STUPID as opposed to engaging in such TRIFLING NONSENSE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doug M,

-You do know that many native Africans (white or black) do not group the Khoisan under the "black" label? And that many Khoisan do not self-identify together with their black African neighbors?

-I am also confused by your use of the term "white"? central Asian.
 

---

Posted by USA (Member # 15085) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
[QB] Chimu, Khoisan are not Central Asians, even though SOME Khoisan have similar features. Therefore, you cannot state that because SOME Khoisan are as light as Asians from the Central Asians steppes, that the Khoisan are NOT black Africans. YOU aren't making any sense and the ANALOGY is FLAWED. You SHOULD be comparing the Khoisan to OTHER Africans who they are related to and OTHER KHOISAN and stop trying to make FAKE associations that DO NOT EXIST, based on SELECTED images of the LIGHTEST Khoisan you can find.

So your half truths and HALF baked facts are exposed AGAIN for WHAT they are: PHONY attempts to ALTER the ACTUAL diversity and complexity of African people and blacks through NONSENSE associations with NON BLACKS.

Again, you are RELYING on trying to showcase the LIGHTEST people who are part of the black diaspora and associate them with people who have NO BLACK ancestry and trying to make an argument. But you are a FOOL. Khoisan ARE NOT central Asians and their features and complexions are NOT the same as central Asians, thereby making your SPAMMING of selected Khoisan as REPRESENTATIVE of ALL Khoisan another example of your NONSENSE and FEAR of the word black.

NOBODY said that those Central Asians were black. YOU said that. Therefore YOUR ANALOGY is again STUPID because you are comparing apples to oranges. YOU make up stupid analogies that MAKE NO SENSE and then pretend you have a CONTRADICTION of the facts, but in reality YOU are contradicting YOURSELF because you are an IDIOT LOON who has nothing better to do but DELUDE HIMSELF with SILLY facts that have NOTHING to do with reality. The Khoisan are BLACK AFRICANS, period and their features have NOTHING to do with Asia. Some light skin people among a population called BLACK does not mean that the word is INVALID. [QUOTE]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolofi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolofi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Black -> A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary.

---

So by that definition, what is this guy?:



Or this guy?

---

Come on guys, it is time to man up and stop calling this dude a troll.

He is asking a valid questions despite what he has done in the past.

The two men DO look almost a-like so asking how is one black and the other not is being objectively succinct because I would like to know as well.

And no Doug, we cannot talk about what their "blood tests" say nor where they come from. We have to judge based on the opinion of their appearance without any axiom of genetic lineages or Continental location.

So answer the question. Why is the top one Black and the bottom one NOT black?

---

LOL. Look at him failing to address your post. Dougie is a head case.

---

Exactly, once again dumb Dougie just blabbers his mouth. I told you in my post *DO NOT TALK ABOUT THEIR ANCESTRY!!!* and just judge by *APPEARANCE ALONE* and no one said the man on the bottom was *ANYTHING*. The point is; if the two said people look almost identical how is one classified differently than the other.

You once again Doug fail to comprehend simple requests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mmmkay:
^ To be fair, Wolofi and Chimu have a point. If "black" is indeed based solely upon skin as rasols definition suggests, then the khoisan man is not "black" in those terms.

Doug, there is a difference between "black" and "african". Khoisan are African. Probably more african than their darker skinned neighbors. But many cannot be classified as "black". Doing so is a contradiction and double standard.

---

quote:

---

Many of the Khoisan people who lived in the Cape

---

quote:

---

I stand by my previous statement that based on my own personal conversations with S. Africans (black and white) and sources read,the Khoisan were not labelled "black" by either themselves, whites or blacks.

---

Possible but genetics indicate that they are related to Bantus and other Black Africans like the click speakers of Tanzania. Social opinion among South Africans is just that: an opinion without scientific validity...I can't care less if they call them Black or White anyway both groups despise them historically, many Bantu don't want to associate with them, it's the same story for Pygmies in many parts of Africa:marginalization by farming groups...but the fact is that they are closely related to other Black Africans..Blackness is vague anyway...many San people would be considered Black in the USA without any problem...bear in mind that Chimu have some mixed ancestry and is confused about that.
 

---

Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
 
Khoisan can be whatever they wish to be and outside observers are free to express their outwardly opinions, but I'd think it oxymoronic that a "non-black" African people's closest living relatives are Black Africans. Seems silly to debate over as they are not related to central/east Asians.

Black person - a person with dark skin who comes from Africa (or whose ancestors came from Africa)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Black+person

Khoisan definitely fit this english criteria, so if you speak english, then Khoisan are Black. End of story.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
The Khoisan are black Africans. The ONLY ones who have a PROBLEM with it are STUPID TROLLS who come here and think that by posting images of Alecia Keys they are saying that AFRICAN AMERICANS aren't black. This is a similar STUPID TACTIC. They ASK about what black means and then PROCEED to use RETARDED analogies and STUPID comparisons to try an MAKE a case for something. But it is a CHARADE and an INSULT to THEIR OWN intelligence. NOBODY said that Alicia Keys and her complexion was TYPICAL for someone called BLACK. THAT is a SILLY STATEMENT to begin with. THEY know it and that is why THEY DISTRACT from the argument using THE LIGHTEST SKINNED AFRICANS they can find, knowing FULL WELL that this is NOT TYPICAL. MOST KHOISAN are NOT VERY LIGHT SKINNED. THEY know this, but in order to TROLL and catch those WHO DON'T KNOW BETTER, they POST the LIGHTEST SKINNED KHOISAN they can FIND to try and FOOL people into believing that this complexion is TYPICAL for a KHOISAN when it ISN'T. THAT is why this thread is USELESS because WHY ON EARTH would a thread about the WORD BLACK FEATURE EXTREMELY LIGHT SKINNED INDIVIDUALS to begin with? NOBODY calls extremely light skinned individuals "dictionary" examples of BLACKS. And CERTAINLY nobody calls CENTRAL ASIAN WHITES BLACKS EITHER. So this is a DUMB THREAD for nothing other than SHOWING OFF the ABILITY of TROLLS to WASTE TIME and AVOID DEBATE on the REAL ISSUE which is NOT how many Khoisan are VERY LIGHT or how many blacks are AS LIGHT as Alecia Keys. Those have NOTHING TO DO with WHY MOST Africans are called BLACK. That has NOTHING to do with the AVERAGE COMPLEXION of the people MOST OFTEN CALLED BLACK. AND THEY KNOW IT.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by USA:
I stand by my previous statement that based on my own personal conversations with S. Africans (black and white) and sources read,the Khoisan were not labelled "black" by either themselves, whites or blacks.

---

quote:

---

Who is Saartjie (Sarah) Baartman, and why have we named our women's centre after her?

In 1810, when Saartjie Baartman was 21, she was persuaded by an English ship's doctor, William Dunlop, to travel to England and make her fortune by exhibiting her body to Europeans. She was a Khoikhoi woman and was considered an anthropological freak in England, where for four years she was displayed as a sexual curiosity. Dubbed The Hottentot Venus, her image swept through British popular culture. Abolitionists unsuccessfully fought a court battle to free her from her exhibitors.

Deathcast of Sarah BaartmanSaartjie Baartman was taken to Paris in 1814 and continued to be exhibited as a freak. She became the object of scientific and medical research that formed the bedrock of European ideas about black female sexuality. When she died in 1816, the Musee de l'Homme in Paris took a deathcast of her body, removed her skeleton and pickled her brain and genitals in jars. These were displayed in the museum until as late as 1985.

After five years of negotiating with the French authorities for the return of Saartjie Baartman's remains, the South African government, together with the Griqua National Council which represents the country's 200 000 Griqua people, part of the Koi-San group, brought Saartjie Baartman back to South Africa. On Friday 3 May 2002, in a moving ceremony attended by many representatives of the Khoikhoi people, Saartjie Baartman was welcomed back to Cape Town. Her final resting place is in the Eastern Cape, where she was born.

At the ceremony, one of the dignitaries said that he hoped that what happened to Saartjie Baartman would never happen again to anyone or any group of people. However, every day at our centre, we see women who continue to be exploited and abused.

By naming our centre after Saartjie Baartman, we are remembering and honouring a woman who has become an icon, not only to her own Khoikhoi people, but to all women who know oppression and discrimination in their lives.

---

From: http://www.saartjiebaartmancentre.org.za/about_us_history.php

For most of their history with whites, THIS is how whites perceived the Khoi and San people of South Africa. So that NONSENSE about them not being considered BLACK is B.S. presented by TROLLS who DON'T know what they are talking about.

They were most often referred to as HOTTENTOTS or BUSHMEN by the whites.

quote:

---

In December 1815, Baartman died from an illness Georges Cuvier diagnosed as une maladie inflammatoire et eruptive. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire applied to the authorities on behalf of the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle to retain the corpse on the grounds that it was a singular (singulière) specimen of humanity and therefore of special scientific interest. The application was approved and the body removed to the Muséum where Cuvier conducted the autopsy and triumphantly published a detailed account of Baartman’s anatomy.

The report reveals a tension between acknowledging Baartman’s humanity (she is not even named), and the expectation of bestial habits borne from the belief that she represents an inferior human form. Cuvier begins by relating observations he made while she was still alive, before discussing her cadaver’s anatomical form. He notes that her personality was sprightly, memory good, and that she could speak tolerably good Dutch, a little English and had even learnt some French during her stay in Paris. His account of her dancing in the fashion of her country, and ability to play the ‘guimbarde’, a stringed instrument, ascribes a sense of vivacity to Baartman that is unusual. He adds that her shoulders and back are graceful, her arms slender, her hands charming and her feet pretty. However, his physiognomical description barely hides his disgust. Features such as the jutting of the jaws, fatness of lips and short chin recall the Negro, while the large cheeks, narrow eyes, and flattened base of the nose echo Mongolian characteristics. Physiognomy was commonly used in the nineteenth century to establish an individual’s character and to demonstrate racial and class superiority; thus Cuvier’s extended discussion of Baartman’s face serves to confirm her already lowly status. Cuvier also cannot help categorizing her with numerous species of monkey since her ears are small and weakly formed, as with the orangutan, and she frequently juts her lip outwards in a like manner; likewise, her skull resembles a monkey’s more than any other he has examined. Even her vivacity is translated into rapid and unexpected movements like those of a monkey.

This tension rests partly in Cuvier’s theory of anatomy. Cuvier emphatically classifies Baartman as a femme de race Boschimanne, as opposed to a different species or a Hottentot. His anatomical investigation established that her steatopygia was simply the excessive accumulation of fatty tissue, and that her so-called tablier was an extension of the inner labia, and thus also an over-development of a feature common to all women rather than a mark of a different species. The San were commonly believed to be the most degraded of humans and were often likened to orangutans. Vituperation characterizes contemporary accounts: one story of Dutch settlers on a hunting excursion relates how they shot a San man and ate his flesh, believing they were eating large game rather than a human. Cuvier’s anatomical observations testified to Baartman’s humanity but his decision to categorize her as a Boschimanne, rather than Hottentote, suggests that for Cuvier Baartman was as close as possible to an ape. This is crucial since Cuvier opposed Lamarck’s transmutationary theory, preferring a relatively stable view of species. He categorized humans as a single species but believed there were three physically distinguishable races, Caucasians, Ethiopians and Mongolian. Thus, Cuvier attempted to reconcile perceived animality with humanity by classifying Baartman as a Boschimanne, the lowest rung in his human hierarchy, and through preserving her as a racial type, rather than as an anomaly or separate species, erased her individuality whilst implicitly legitimating his politics of anatomy.

Cuvier’s report also addresses contemporary accounts of Khoikhoi genitalia. The interest began with accounts in travel narratives that Khoikhoi men had a single testicle, and that the women possessed protruding buttocks and a tablier. The tablier became subject to numerous contradictions, with no one able to decide if it was natural or the result of artifice. Curiosity abounded as to the cause and function of the enlarged buttocks, some proposing that it was an adaptation allowing the women to carry their children on their backs. Both sexes were the subjects of speculation, but the attention devoted to the women is extraordinary. Many writers bemoaned the difficulty of persuading the Khoikhoi to appear naked. François Le Vaillant, known for his images of Khoikhoi women, relates the lengths to which he pleaded with a Khoikhoi woman to reveal herself. Finally achieving success, he writes: Confused, abashed and trembling, she covered her face with both her hands, suffered her apron [tablier] to be untied, and permitted me to contemplate at leisure what my readers will see themselves in the exact representation which I drew of it. These images frequently present Khoikhoi women reclining, naked except for long robes that unfold along their length to reveal breasts and parted legs exposing the elongated labia. In some the women are more accommodating and hold their labia apart as an invitation to intimate examination. Both the text and images attempt to represent the women as coy but compliant in their invasion; however, for a modern reader, it is difficult not to view them as anything other than deeply disturbing, pornographic and, frankly, distastefully voyeuristic. Such accounts conferred prestige upon Cuvier’s verification of the existence and nature of the tablier. During the examination at the Jardin des Plantes both Henri de Blainville and Cuvier pleaded with Baartman to allow an examination of her tablier, with de Blainville even offering her money; but she refused and took great care to preserve her modesty. Cuvier only succeeded when her cadaver lay before him. His meticulous description of the tablier, including its length, thickness, and appearance folded and unfolded, takes up a long passage that is as graphic and violating as Le Vaillant’s images, and makes it clear that Cuvier’s attempted scientific resolution of the tablier mystery was a personal triumph.

Cuvier’s autopsy report is well known and has long been established as the basis for his vilification as a racist scientist in the literature on Baartman; however, during the nineteenth century a number of articles appeared in Britain, France and Germany concerned with the comparative anatomy of the European and Khoisan. Within this body of research, Cuvier’s and de Blainville’s early articles were the only works to focus primarily on Baartman. In later discussions of Khoisan anatomy Baartman was often used as an example, but this was within a much broader discussion on human physical difference. By the 1830s, for example, interest had shifted away from individual specimens and by the early twentieth century a single organ, the brain, was often the preferred means of comparison. In these later studies, Frederick Tiedemann and Edward Spitzka used Baartman’s brain to draw conclusions regarding the relationship between intelligence and ethnic origin. The belief that she represented peoples on the lowest level of human capability is again evident; for example, one writer describing the brain of a San woman demonstrated the simplicity of her anatomy by arguing that In this point the Bushwoman’s brain is more apelike than even that of the Hottentot Venus. The starkest reiteration of Baartman’s status as an intermediary between ape and human is perhaps the illustration used by Edward Spitzka. Here, a simple line drawing of her brain identified her as a medical specimen, whilst the use of just her brain, hovering between that of a physicist and orang-outang, established her as the definitive decontextualized object used to affirm a racialized human hierarchy. However, Baartman’s brain was one of many obtained from museum collections and was not the primary subject of either paper. Similarly, James C. Prichard incorporated a brief discussion of Baartman’s skeleton into his encyclopaedic natural history of humans. Most of these papers have been cited, if not fully analysed, within the literature on Baartman, but their importance has been overstated. Baartman’s appearance within medical texts has often been used to frame her as not only central but essential for any discussion regarding medical debates on Khoisan anatomy in the nineteenth century. For example, Fausto-Sterling has argued: The encounters between women from Southern Africa and the great men of European science began in the second decade of the nineteenth century when Henri de Blainville and Georges Cuvier met Baartman and described her for scientific circles, both when she was alive and after she was dead. This approach is fairly typical of the literature on Baartman in tracing the ‘scientific’ debates, as opposed to ‘traveller’s tales’, regarding the tablier to Baartman and the French encounter. However, evidence exists that intellectual debate outside the travel literature existed before Baartman ever graced an exhibition venue.

---

From: http://www.shpltd.co.uk/qureshi-baartman.pdf

So they have ALWAYS been considered blacks by Europeans and only the FOOL TROLLS would come here and CLAIM OTHERWISE counting on OTHER FOOLS who DON'T KNOW BETTER to believe in their NONSENSE.

San man from Namibia:


 

---

Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
 

quote:

---

Doug M:
Some Khoisan and other BLACK Africans are very light , for various reasons, but they are NOT all that light

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis2:

quote:

---

Doug M:
Some Khoisan and other BLACK Africans are very light , for various reasons, but they are NOT all that light

---

Stop contradicting yourself!
According to you a "black" person is someone with dark complexion. You said "dark brown=Black".
That's also the reason you label southeast asians as "black". You need to be consistent otherwise you risk sounding as a hypocrite. If "black" is all about dark skin then it doesn't make sense for you to call these "very light" Africans, "Black african". Your whole premise of "black" people is dark skin. Calling "very light africans", "BLACK Africans", ends up as an oxymoron going by your own definition of "blacks".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Jamie, Salassin...he is a mulatto centrist who hates his own Black ancestry and is searching for and ideology that will help him rationalise it, thru denial of the existence of Blacks throughout history [including his own bloodline].

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The Khoisan are black Africans. The ONLY ones who have a PROBLEM with it are STUPID TROLLS who come here and think that by posting images of Alecia Keys they are saying that AFRICAN AMERICANS aren't black. This is a similar STUPID TACTIC. They ASK about what black means and then PROCEED to use RETARDED analogies and STUPID comparisons to try an MAKE a case for something. But it is a CHARADE and an INSULT to THEIR OWN intelligence. NOBODY said that Alicia Keys and her complexion was TYPICAL for someone called BLACK. THAT is a SILLY STATEMENT to begin with. THEY know it and that is why THEY DISTRACT from the argument using THE LIGHTEST SKINNED AFRICANS they can find, knowing FULL WELL that this is NOT TYPICAL. MOST KHOISAN are NOT VERY LIGHT SKINNED. THEY know this, but in order to TROLL and catch those WHO DON'T KNOW BETTER, they POST the LIGHTEST SKINNED KHOISAN they can FIND to try and FOOL people into believing that this complexion is TYPICAL for a KHOISAN when it ISN'T. THAT is why this thread is USELESS because WHY ON EARTH would a thread about the WORD BLACK FEATURE EXTREMELY LIGHT SKINNED INDIVIDUALS to begin with? NOBODY calls extremely light skinned individuals "dictionary" examples of BLACKS. And CERTAINLY nobody calls CENTRAL ASIAN WHITES BLACKS EITHER. So this is a DUMB THREAD for nothing other than SHOWING OFF the ABILITY of TROLLS to WASTE TIME and AVOID DEBATE on the REAL ISSUE which is NOT how many Khoisan are VERY LIGHT or how many blacks are AS LIGHT as Alecia Keys. Those have NOTHING TO DO with WHY MOST Africans are called BLACK. That has NOTHING to do with the AVERAGE COMPLEXION of the people MOST OFTEN CALLED BLACK. AND THEY KNOW IT.

---

Prove they are black!!
 

---

Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis2:

quote:

---

Doug M:
Some Khoisan and other BLACK Africans are very light , for various reasons, but they are NOT all that light

---

Stop contradicting yourself!
According to you a "black" person is someone with dark complexion. You said "dark brown=Black".
That's also the reason you label southeast asians as "black". You need to be consistent otherwise you risk sounding as a hypocrite. If "black" is all about dark skin then it doesn't make sense for you to call these "very light" Africans, "Black african". Your whole premise of "black" people is dark skin. Calling "very light africans", "BLACK Africans", ends up as an oxymoron going by your own definition of "blacks".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Habari:

quote:

---

I stand by my previous statement that based on my own personal conversations with S. Africans (black and white) and sources read,the Khoisan were not labelled "black" by either themselves, whites or blacks.

---

Possible but genetics indicate that they are related to Bantus and other Black Africans like the click speakers of Tanzania. Social opinion among South Africans is just that: an opinion without scientific validity...I can't care less if they call them Black or White anyway both groups despise them historically, many Bantu don't want to associate with them, it's the same story for Pygmies in many parts of Africa:marginalization by farming groups...but the fact is that they are closely related to other Black Africans..Blackness is vague anyway...many San people would be considered Black in the USA without any problem...bear in mind that Chimu have some mixed ancestry and is confused about that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Habari:
That thread is about the folly of colorism, when does someone stop to be black or white, no ones knows, not even Doug M. When does someone start to be white...no one knows...when does someone start to be black...no one knows...one thing is certain colorism will always be a loser as this thread indicates...people tried and tried again...and always fail...Doug M...Good luck!!!!
From an allegedly Black African...but am I Black...I don't know....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Jamie, Salassin...he is a mulatto centrist who hates his own Black ancestry and is searching for and ideology that will help him rationalise it, thru denial of the existence of Blacks throughout history [including his own bloodline].

---

Wrong, he is a mestizo Peruvian living in the US.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Jamie, Salassin...he is a mulatto centrist who hates his own Black ancestry and is searching for and ideology that will help him rationalise it, thru denial of the existence of Blacks throughout history [including his own bloodline].

---

Wrong, he is a mestizo Peruvian living in the US.

---

Both are partly right and partly wrong.
I am not mulato, but I do have African ancestry. And I am mestizo, but in Peru, in contrast to places like Venezuela, it usually only means those with Native American and European ancestry. I am not a centrist anything. I don't claim all accomplishments for people of mixed ancestry. I don't claim the Olmecs where mixed. I do claim the Egyptians had multiple influences. I don't claim the ancient Chinese were mixed, but I do claim there was admixture in India during the Mughal culture. I am a realist. But centrists always claim everyone else is a centrist. Rasol is just projecting.

---

quote:

---

Nice try. KhoiSan maybe distantly related to Bantu

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolofi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The Khoisan are black Africans. The ONLY ones who have a PROBLEM with it are STUPID TROLLS who come here and think that by posting images of Alecia Keys they are saying that AFRICAN AMERICANS aren't black. This is a similar STUPID TACTIC. They ASK about what black means and then PROCEED to use RETARDED analogies and STUPID comparisons to try an MAKE a case for something. But it is a CHARADE and an INSULT to THEIR OWN intelligence. NOBODY said that Alicia Keys and her complexion was TYPICAL for someone called BLACK. THAT is a SILLY STATEMENT to begin with. THEY know it and that is why THEY DISTRACT from the argument using THE LIGHTEST SKINNED AFRICANS they can find, knowing FULL WELL that this is NOT TYPICAL. MOST KHOISAN are NOT VERY LIGHT SKINNED. THEY know this, but in order to TROLL and catch those WHO DON'T KNOW BETTER, they POST the LIGHTEST SKINNED KHOISAN they can FIND to try and FOOL people into believing that this complexion is TYPICAL for a KHOISAN when it ISN'T. THAT is why this thread is USELESS because WHY ON EARTH would a thread about the WORD BLACK FEATURE EXTREMELY LIGHT SKINNED INDIVIDUALS to begin with? NOBODY calls extremely light skinned individuals "dictionary" examples of BLACKS. And CERTAINLY nobody calls CENTRAL ASIAN WHITES BLACKS EITHER. So this is a DUMB THREAD for nothing other than SHOWING OFF the ABILITY of TROLLS to WASTE TIME and AVOID DEBATE on the REAL ISSUE which is NOT how many Khoisan are VERY LIGHT or how many blacks are AS LIGHT as Alecia Keys. Those have NOTHING TO DO with WHY MOST Africans are called BLACK. That has NOTHING to do with the AVERAGE COMPLEXION of the people MOST OFTEN CALLED BLACK. AND THEY KNOW IT.

---

Prove they are black!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolofi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis2:

quote:

---

Doug M:
Some Khoisan and other BLACK Africans are very light , for various reasons, but they are NOT all that light

---

Stop contradicting yourself!
According to you a "black" person is someone with dark complexion. You said "dark brown=Black".
That's also the reason you label southeast asians as "black". You need to be consistent otherwise you risk sounding as a hypocrite. If "black" is all about dark skin then it doesn't make sense for you to call these "very light" Africans, "Black african". Your whole premise of "black" people is dark skin. Calling "very light africans", "BLACK Africans", ends up as an oxymoron going by your own definition of "blacks".

---

Exactly; damn Doug, thats 4 people that succinctly show how dumb and uneducated your high school drop out azz is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

quote:

---

Nice try. KhoiSan maybe distantly related to Bantu

---

Musta.. Stop using spin to elucidate an already biased and failed point of view. You are overstating. Once we fit into context that the closest living relatives to Khoisan are other Black Africans (Ethiopians and Bantu) then it is certainly apparent that you make no sense (Asians are not Europeans btw, but both Khoisan and Bantu are African and they are indeed more related than the former two to each other).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

quote:

---

Nice try. KhoiSan maybe distantly related to Bantu

---

Musta.. Stop using spin to elucidate an already biased and failed point of view. You are overstating. Once we fit into context that the closest living relatives to Khoisan are other Black Africans (Ethiopians and Bantu) then it is certainly apparent that you make no sense (Asians are not Europeans btw, but both Khoisan and Bantu are African and they are indeed more related than the former two to each other).

---

Nice try. Eurasia is a continent. Asia and Europe is a political divide. And no, they are not closer together.

Clearly, the Khoi are closer to all Bantu Groups than to the San. They are also darker in skin color...

Which explains the darker Bushmen pictures posted by Dougie. LOL

By the way, notice the Genetic distance between the San and Bantu. 996 at best. The genetic distance analysis between Europeans and Indians? 205.
Source

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

quote:

---

Nice try. KhoiSan maybe distantly related to Bantu

---

Musta.. Stop using spin to elucidate an already biased and failed point of view. You are overstating. Once we fit into context that the closest living relatives to Khoisan are other Black Africans (Ethiopians and Bantu) then it is certainly apparent that you make no sense (Asians are not Europeans btw, but both Khoisan and Bantu are African and they are indeed more related than the former two to each other).

---

Nice try. Eurasia is a continent. Asia and Europe is a political divide. And no, they are not closer together.

Clearly, the Khoi are closer to all Bantu Groups than to the San. They are also darker in skin color...

Which explains the darker Bushmen pictures posted by Dougie. LOL

By the way, notice the Genetic distance between the San and Bantu. 996 at best. The genetic distance analysis between Europeans and Indians? 205.
Source

---

quote:

---

The genetic structure of 126 Ethiopian and 139 Senegalese Y chromosomes was investigated by a hierarchical analysis of 30 diagnostic biallelic markers selected from the worldwide Y-chromosome genealogy. The present study reveals that (1) only the Ethiopians share with the Khoisan the deepest human Y-chromosome clades (the African-specific Groups I and II) but with a repertoire of very different haplotypes; (2) most of the Ethiopians and virtually all the Senegalese belong to Group III, whose precursor is believed to be involved in the first migration out of Africa; and (3) the Ethiopian Y chromosomes that fall into Groups VI, VIII, and IX may be explained by back migrations from Asia. The first observation confirms the ancestral affinity between the Ethiopians and the Khoisan, which has previously been suggested by both archaeological and genetic findings.

---

quote:

---

The variation of 77 biallelic sites located in the nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome was examined in 608 male subjects from 22 African populations. This survey revealed a total of 37 binary haplotypes, which were combined with microsatellite polymorphism data to evaluate internal diversities and to estimate coalescence ages of the binary haplotypes. The majority of binary haplotypes showed a nonuniform distribution across the continent. Analysis of molecular variance detected a high level of interpopulation diversity (ΦST=0.342), which appears to be partially related to the geography (ΦCT=0.230). In sub-Saharan Africa, the recent spread of a set of haplotypes partially erased pre-existing diversity, but a high level of population (ΦST=0.332) and geographic (ΦCT=0.179) structuring persists. Correspondence analysis shows that three main clusters of populations can be identified: northern, eastern, and sub-Saharan Africans. Among the latter [hence, Khoisan belong to a "sub-Saharan" cluster, by this criteria], the Khoisan, the Pygmies, and the northern Cameroonians are clearly distinct from a tight cluster formed by the Niger-Congo–speaking populations from western, central western, and southern Africa. Phylogeographic analyses suggest that a large component of the present Khoisan gene pool is eastern African in origin and that Asia was the source of a back migration to sub-Saharan Africa. Haplogroup IX Y chromosomes appear to have been involved in such a migration, the traces of which can now be observed mostly in northern Cameroon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
First of all, your link doesn't even work. Secondly, dark skin doesn't equate genetic distance, by that logic, south Indians should be closely related to Bantu, but they are not.

---

quote:

---

"Gene frequencies show the similarity of Khoi is highest with southeast Bantus" (not central Asians). Any admixture hypothesis neglects the fact that Khoi and San are part of the same substratum, hence, whoever one is closely related to, the same applies to the other, hence, Khoisan.

---

quote:

---

Deeper ties with Ethiopians

---

quote:

---

Nice try. If you read what I was responding to, then you would have a clue of what I said. One response was to contradict the claim that the Darker Khoi were representative of the San. The genetic distance aspect had nothing to with color, but a response to his earlier claim that Asians were farther apart from Europeans than San were from Bantu people.

---

Bad try. You keep emphasizing skin color when it is irrelevant that KhoiKhoi and San Bushmen are apart of the same substratum. In 2008 it is generally acknowledged that they fit within the same context. You can't say one is related to Bantu due to admixture, while the other isn't, when both are deemed to be a part of the same ancestral population, from which other Black African groups are derived.

Also, you move the goal post again. I state as a matter of fact that central Asians (previously classified as "Mongoloid") are more distantly related to Europeans than Khoisan groups in south Africa are to Bantu speakers, and you go off on a tangent rambling about Indians. LOL. Indians are a part of the same ancestral stock as other Indo-European speakers by way of the Mitocandria, Central Asians are not. Khoisan are a part of the same ancestral stock as Ethiopians and Nilotes by way of the Y-Chromosome, Central Asians are not.

quote:

---

No dumb ass. An African American is mixed of European and African. He is close to both. It does not make Africans and Europeans closer. The Khoi showed similar admixture. It doesn't make the San closer to the Bantu. Try again.

---

quote:

---

Naw seriously?

---

Naw.

quote:

---

Now go read up how deep as in how long ago that split occurred. It means both have some of the oldest clades. It does not mean they are closely related.

---

It means that they are much more closely related to each other than either are to central Asians (which is the point). Since there are no human races, you are again arguing through relativism. Pathetic.

quote:

---

South Africa to Central Africa was more isolated than Asia was to Europe.

---

quote:

---

Never claimed they were related to Asians. Don't confuse two separate issues.

---

quote:

---

Khoisan can be whatever they wish to be and outside observers are free to express their outwardly opinions, but I'd think it oxymoronic that a "non-black" African people's closest living relatives are Black Africans. Seems silly to debate over as they are not related to central/east Asians.

Black person - a person with dark skin who comes from Africa (or whose ancestors came from Africa)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Black+person

Khoisan definitely fit this english criteria, so if you speak english, then Khoisan are Black. End of story.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolofi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The Khoisan are black Africans. The ONLY ones who have a PROBLEM with it are STUPID TROLLS who come here and think that by posting images of Alecia Keys they are saying that AFRICAN AMERICANS aren't black. This is a similar STUPID TACTIC. They ASK about what black means and then PROCEED to use RETARDED analogies and STUPID comparisons to try an MAKE a case for something. But it is a CHARADE and an INSULT to THEIR OWN intelligence. NOBODY said that Alicia Keys and her complexion was TYPICAL for someone called BLACK. THAT is a SILLY STATEMENT to begin with. THEY know it and that is why THEY DISTRACT from the argument using THE LIGHTEST SKINNED AFRICANS they can find, knowing FULL WELL that this is NOT TYPICAL. MOST KHOISAN are NOT VERY LIGHT SKINNED. THEY know this, but in order to TROLL and catch those WHO DON'T KNOW BETTER, they POST the LIGHTEST SKINNED KHOISAN they can FIND to try and FOOL people into believing that this complexion is TYPICAL for a KHOISAN when it ISN'T. THAT is why this thread is USELESS because WHY ON EARTH would a thread about the WORD BLACK FEATURE EXTREMELY LIGHT SKINNED INDIVIDUALS to begin with? NOBODY calls extremely light skinned individuals "dictionary" examples of BLACKS. And CERTAINLY nobody calls CENTRAL ASIAN WHITES BLACKS EITHER. So this is a DUMB THREAD for nothing other than SHOWING OFF the ABILITY of TROLLS to WASTE TIME and AVOID DEBATE on the REAL ISSUE which is NOT how many Khoisan are VERY LIGHT or how many blacks are AS LIGHT as Alecia Keys. Those have NOTHING TO DO with WHY MOST Africans are called BLACK. That has NOTHING to do with the AVERAGE COMPLEXION of the people MOST OFTEN CALLED BLACK. AND THEY KNOW IT.

---

Prove they are black!!

---

There is nothing to PROVE RETARD. YOU are the one questioning whether they are black. NOBODY ELSE other than SILLY TROLLS who have nothing better to do but WASTE TIME on NONSENSE issues. The point has been proven OVER AND OVER AGAIN and you have NOTHING to refute it with, hence YOU are FORCED TO CONTINUE TROLLING and IGNORING EVIDENCE because YOU CANT STAND IT.

This THREAD is not about Khoisan FOOL. YOU IDIOTS started the thread and YOU FOOLS keep POSTING pictures of WHITES, ASIANS, VERY LIGHT SKINNED African Americans and CLAIM that SOMEHOW these PEOPLE are the EPITOME of what OTHER people mean by the word BLACK. In all actuality YOU are the one POSTING them and NOBODY ELSE. Therefore YOU are a retard FOR CLAIMING SOMETHING that NOBODY ELSE brought up.

WHO SAID that Alicia Keys was a TEXTBOOK example of a black person? YOU RETARD.

WHO SAID that Alicia Keys had BLACK SKIN?

YOU RETARD.

WHO SAID that Central Asian WHITES had black skin?

YOU RETARD.

Who SAID that BLACK AFRICAN Khoisan had the SAME RANGE of complexions as CENTRAL ASIAN WHITES?

YOU STUPID.

So WHO ON EARTH are you debating IDIOT?

YOURSELF!

That is why YOU SOUND SO STUPID because YOU ARE ARGUING OVER YOUR OWN NONSENSE, NOT THAT PUT FORWARD BY ANYONE ELSE.

FOOL!

A thread about the word black is started and STUPID TROLLS like YOU pretend that SOMEBODY claimed CENTRAL ASIAN WHITES were black. I CHALLENGE YOU to find where ANYONE said that Central Asian whites HAD BLACK SKIN. Then on TOP OF THAT, of ALL THE AFRICANS in Africa YOU DUMMIES chose the LIGHTEST SKINNED IMAGES of Khoisan to prove a point. PROVE WHAT? NOBODY said that those images were the BEST EXAMPLE of what is meant by the word black EXCEPT YOU FOOLS. Then you ask QUESTIONS about YOUR OWN DATA SHOWING that YOU KNOW how DUMB IT IS to begin with. But NOBODY ELSE should answer for your DUMBNESS except YOU because NOBODY ELSE POSTED those images EXCEPT YOU. Out of ALL the people on earth called black YOU chose WHITE CENTRAL ASIANS as YOUR example of how the WORD should be used. ONLY DUMMIES would do something THAT DUMB and ask SOMEBODY ELSE to DEFEND SOMETHING that THEY DID NOT BRING UP.

Some people just cant see through this.

---

All of this is just feminine emotive conjecture. Grow up dude you sound like a woman. You still have yet to address ANYTHING. Coward!!!
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
[QB] Cavalli Sforza didn't mention skin color in the said piece you cited and "lighter" skin is relative. Black Africans are variable. You keep ignoring that the same man asserts an affinity between Khoisan and other black Africans from the raw data, assumptions aside.

---

The quote was a direct quote. So try that bullshit with someone else.

quote:

---

Bad try. You keep emphasizing skin color when it is irrelevant that KhoiKhoi and San Bushmen are apart of the same substratum. In 2008 it is generally acknowledged that they fit within the same context. You can't say one is related to Bantu due to admixture, while the other isn't, when both are deemed to be a part of the same ancestral population, from which other Black African groups are derived.

---

quote:

---

I'm African American as well and certainly am not related to the vast majority of Europeans. Last I checked the average was 20%, but anyways.

---

quote:

---

Then how did Bantu penetrate so easily into south Africa while this wasn't the case with Europeans in many parts of central Asia and east Asia (an area where the central Asian in your photo most likely shares most affinity)? Surely your biased claims make no sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

Black person - a person with dark skin who comes from Africa (or whose ancestors came from Africa)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Black+person

Khoisan definitely fit this english criteria, so if you speak english, then Khoisan are Black. End of story.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
[QB] Cavalli Sforza didn't mention skin color in the said piece you cited and "lighter" skin is relative. Black Africans are variable. You keep ignoring that the same man asserts an affinity between Khoisan and other black Africans from the raw data, assumptions aside.

---

The quote was a direct quote. So try that bullshit with someone else.

quote:

---

Bad try. You keep emphasizing skin color when it is irrelevant that KhoiKhoi and San Bushmen are apart of the same substratum. In 2008 it is generally acknowledged that they fit within the same context. You can't say one is related to Bantu due to admixture, while the other isn't, when both are deemed to be a part of the same ancestral population, from which other Black African groups are derived.

---

Wrong again. That is like saying Ugric people who have had extensive admixture with East Asian people are proof that East Asian people are closely related to Europeans because Ugric people are also of the European Substratum.

Khoi people, according to Cavalli-Sforza are a lot more mixed than the San.

quote:

---

I'm African American as well and certainly am not related to the vast majority of Europeans. Last I checked the average was 20%, but anyways.

---

LOL. That is 20% the Average African doesn't have. Nice try.

quote:

---

Then how did Bantu penetrate so easily into south Africa while this wasn't the case with Europeans in many parts of central Asia and east Asia (an area where the central Asian in your photo most likely shares most affinity)? Surely your biased claims make no sense.

---

Look at history and contacts all the way back to the Tocharians. Look at when the Bantu expansion occurs. Give me a break.

I find it oxymoronic that the closest relatives to "Black"Asians are "White" Asians, not Africans, and yet you guys have no problem making that distinction. LOL. The hypocricy is very entertaining.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

Black person - a person with dark skin who comes from Africa (or whose ancestors came from Africa)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Black+person

Khoisan definitely fit this english criteria, so if you speak english, then Khoisan are Black. End of story.

---

Nope. the San fail the first parameter of the definition. Dark Person. End of story.

---

Still trolling I see. STILL trying to play games and distract with NONSENSE about all Khoi and San being very light. STILL trying to use Alecia Keys as a TEXTBOOK example of black skin. Still trying to prove that the "not as Dark" Khoi and San are in the same range of complexions as Central Asian Whites and therefore NOT BLACK. Still using OUTDATED nonsense about Africans blacks as grouped into several distinct SUB RACES. Still using OUTDATED and RIDICULOUS studies to claim black Africans and Asians are of the same "race", based on LOOKS. Still spouting your SAME MIXED RACE GARBAGE in the form of TROLLING.

Still trying to use a thread about the word BLACK as a way to present your MIXED UP theories about MIXED African RACES. You care LESS about who is BLACK and more about WHO IS MIXED, you MIXED UP IDIOT. The ONLY people the San and Khoi are mixed with is OTHER AFRICANS and ALL of them have been black and have BEEN SO since over 100,000 years ago. IDIOT.

That is why YOU post this study that claims "Khoi and San had Early Mixture with Asian peoples".

That is so ABSURDLY FUNNY to be ridiculous. The Khoi and San ARE NOT RELATED TO ASIANS and ARE NOT OF THE SAME COMPLEXIONS AS ASIAN WHITES. STUPID.

You are just TOO DUMB to get it.

RETARD.
 

---

Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
 
LOL. I didn't catch that honestly. Actually, it doesn't help you and only begs to question why you rely on outdated hypotheses on human skin variation. You keep copping out to these outdated assumptions and autosomal DNA charts, and I'll continue to exercise common sense and cite modern scientists who agree about the insignificance of skin color in determining biological relatedness, as well as Y-Chromosome and Mtdna to establish ancestral ties. He even postulates possible "admixture" farther north and still uses categorical terminology based on outdated assumptions about human diversity. "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" was still a large part of Sforza's lexicon, ironically in an era when Khoisan groups were considered to be "Negroid" outliners. Pathetic reach. You've still yet to establish a closer connection with the central Asians you wish to compare them to and it goes with out saying that their closest living relatives are still other Black Africans. This is unavoidable which is why it is something you can't address.

quote:

---

Wrong again. That is like saying Ugric people who have had extensive admixture with East Asian people are proof that East Asian people are closely related to Europeans because Ugric people are also of the European Substratum.

---

quote:

---

Khoi people, according to Cavalli-Sforza are a lot more mixed than the San.

---

quote:

---

LOL. That is 20% the Average African doesn't have. Nice try.

---

quote:

---

Look at history and contacts all the way back to the Tocharians. Look at when the Bantu expansion occurs. Give me a break.

---

quote:

---

I find it oxymoronic that the closest relatives to "Black"Asians are "White" Asians, not Africans, and yet you guys have no problem making that distinction. LOL. The hypocricy is very entertaining.

---

quote:

---

Nope. the San fail the first parameter of the definition. Dark Person. End of story.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
LOL. I didn't catch that honestly. Actually, it doesn't help you and only begs to question why you rely on outdated hypotheses on human skin variation. You keep copping out to these outdated assumptions and autosomal DNA charts, and I'll continue to exercise common sense and cite modern scientists who agree about the insignificance of skin color in determining biological relatedness, as well as Y-Chromosome and Mtdna to establish ancestral ties. [quote]
Don't make me laugh. One you have not shown that it is outdated. Two the genetic distance wasn't calculated by skin color. Just correlated to it. Three, mtdna and Y Chromosome studies may show ancestral relatedness, but loose most of the ancestry in the person as only one male ancestor and one female ancestor per generation is represented. Something autosomal studies do not do.

[quote]He even postulates possible "admixture" farther north

---

quote:

---

and still uses categorical terminology based on outdated assumptions about human diversity. "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" was still a large part of Sforza's lexicon, ironically in an era when Khoisan groups were considered to be "Negroid" outliners.

---

quote:

---

You've still yet to establish a closer connection with the central Asians you wish to compare them to and it goes with out saying that their closest living relatives are still other Black Africans. This is unavoidable which is why it is something you can't address.

---

quote:

---

The point is that East Asians are more distant to Europeans than Khoi or San are to Bantu, so the comparison is apples to Oranges. It is insignificant, which is the point.

---

quote:

---

African Americans are a lot more mixed than Bantu, yet are still not more closely related to Europeans.

---

quote:

---

20% is statistically insignificant since there's only a distant relation to Europeans in that scenario. You overemphasized the "admixture" and thus, stand corrected.

---

quote:

---

If contacts between East/Central Asians were so strong, then why is there little genetic interaction? genetic isolation coincides with geographical isolation. You give ME a break and use common sense. lol. By this genetic model, East/Central Asians were MORE isolated.

---

quote:

---

What the hell? You are not talking to Clyde Winters here and White people come from Europe. This "Black" Asian/"White" Asian nonsense is a figment of your imagination. East Asians are not related to many South Asians (like Indians and Pakistanis) while some (not all, including most likely the guy in the photo that you posted) central Asians are indeed related to Europeans, yet none that I know of will be universally deemed as Black. The hypocrisy you speak of is an extension of a stretched argument that you're obviously losing. Try again.

---

quote:

---

They are on average much darker than more than 2/3rds of the world and the majority of non-Africans, so this is obviously wishful thinking on your part and more appeals to relativism.

---

Prove it.
From Jablonski's data on reflectance spectrometry.

Australia (Darwin) (SH) 19·30
Mozambique (Chopi) (SH) 19·45
Cameroon (Fali) (NH) 21·50
Namibia (Okavango) (SH) 22·92
Chad (Sara) (NH) 24·60
Namibia (SH) 25·55
Tanzania (Nyatura) (SH) 25·80
Malawi (SH) 27·00
Nigeria (Yoruba) (NH) 27·40
Nigeria (Ebo) (NH) 28·20
Burkina Faso (Kurumba) (NH) 28·60
Tanzania (Sandewe) (SH) 28·90
Liberia (NH) 29·40
Zaire (Konda) (SH) 29·40
Papua New Guinea (Lufa) (SH) 31·20
Ethiopia (NH) 31·70
Papua New Guinea (Karker) (SH) 32·00
India (Orissa) (NH) 32·05
Kenya (NH) 32·40
Namibia (Rehoboth Baster) (SH) 32·90
Zaire (NH) 33·20
Papua New Guinea (Goroka) (SH) 33·30
Ethiopia (Highland) (NH) 33·55
Mali (Dogon) (NH) 34·10
Papua New Guinea (SH) 35·30
Papua New Guinea (Mt Hagan) (SH) 35·35
Sudan (NH) 35·50
Swaziland (SH) 35·60
Papua New Guinea (Port Moresby) (SH) 41·00
India (Nagpur) (NH) 41·30
Botswana (San) (SH) 42·40
South Africa (SH) 42·50
Peru (Maranon) (SH) 43·05
South Africa (San Central) (SH) 43·75
Libya (Fezzan) (NH) 44·00
Average 46·18
India (NH) 44·60
India (Goa) (NH) 46·40
India (Southern) (NH) 46·70
South Africa (Hottentot) (SH) 46·80
Brazil (Guarani) (SH) 47·20
Peru (Nunoa) (SH) 47·70
Brazil (Caingan) (SH) 49·40
India (Bengal) (NH) 49·73
Nepal (Eastern) (NH) 50·42
South Africa (Cape) (SH) 50·96
India (Rajasthan) (NH) 52·00
Pakistan (NH) 52·30
Saudi Arabia (NH) 52·50
Jordan (NH) 53·00
India (Northern) (NH) 53·26
Russia (Chechen) (NH) 53·45
Libya (Cyrenaica) (NH) 53·50
Japan (Southwest) (NH) 53·55
Cambodia (NH) 54·00
Philippines (Manila) (NH) 54·10
India (Punjab) (NH) 54·24
Libya (Tripoli) (NH) 54·40
China (Tibet) (NH) 54·70
Morocco (NH) 54·85
Japan (Northern) (NH) 54·90
Japan (Central) (NH) 55·42
Afghanistan/Iran (NH) 55·70
Greenland (Southern) (NH) 55·70
Vietnam (NH) 55·90
Tunisia (NH) 56·30
Algeria (Aures) (NH) 58·05
Israel (NH) 58·20
Lebanon (NH) 58·20
Japan (Hidakka) (NH) 59·10
Turkey (NH) 59·15
China (Southern) (NH) 59·17
Iraq/Syria (Kurds) (NH) 61·12
United Kingdom (London) (NH) 62·30
Belgium (NH) 63·14
Ireland (Carnew) (NH) 64·50
Spain (Leon) (NH) 64·66
Ireland (Rossmore) (NH) 64·75
Ireland (Longford) (NH) 65·00
United Kingdom (Wales) (NH) 65·00
Ireland (Ballinlough) (NH) 65·20
Spain (Basques) (NH) 65·70
United Kingdom (Northern) (NH) 66·10
United Kingdom (Cumberland) (NH) 66·75
Germany (Mainz) (NH) 66·90
Netherlands (NH) 67·37
 

---

Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
 
^ Allow me to show you how you just pwned yourself

This is a khoisan for visual reference via wikipedia:



Per your data there 83 total entries, I'm assuming the data reflects the darkest groups to lightest.

quote:

---

Australia (Darwin) (SH) 19·30
Mozambique (Chopi) (SH) 19·45
Cameroon (Fali) (NH) 21·50
Namibia (Okavango) (SH) 22·92
Chad (Sara) (NH) 24·60
Namibia (SH) 25·55
Tanzania (Nyatura) (SH) 25·80
Malawi (SH) 27·00
Nigeria (Yoruba) (NH) 27·40
Nigeria (Ebo) (NH) 28·20
Burkina Faso (Kurumba) (NH) 28·60
Tanzania (Sandewe) (SH) 28·90
Liberia (NH) 29·40
Zaire (Konda) (SH) 29·40
Papua New Guinea (Lufa) (SH) 31·20
Ethiopia (NH) 31·70
Papua New Guinea (Karker) (SH) 32·00
India (Orissa) (NH) 32·05
Kenya (NH) 32·40
Namibia (Rehoboth Baster) (SH) 32·90
Zaire (NH) 33·20
Papua New Guinea (Goroka) (SH) 33·30
Ethiopia (Highland) (NH) 33·55
Mali (Dogon) (NH) 34·10
Papua New Guinea (SH) 35·30
Papua New Guinea (Mt Hagan) (SH) 35·35
Sudan (NH) 35·50
Swaziland (SH) 35·60
Papua New Guinea (Port Moresby) (SH) 41·00
India (Nagpur) (NH) 41·30
Botswana (San) (SH) 42·40
South Africa (SH) 42·50
Peru (Maranon) (SH) 43·05
South Africa (San Central) (SH) 43·75
Libya (Fezzan) (NH) 44·00
Average 46·18
India (NH) 44·60
India (Goa) (NH) 46·40
India (Southern) (NH) 46·70
South Africa (Hottentot) (SH) 46·80
Brazil (Guarani) (SH) 47·20
Peru (Nunoa) (SH) 47·70
Brazil (Caingan) (SH) 49·40
India (Bengal) (NH) 49·73
Nepal (Eastern) (NH) 50·42
South Africa (Cape) (SH) 50·96
India (Rajasthan) (NH) 52·00
Pakistan (NH) 52·30
Saudi Arabia (NH) 52·50
Jordan (NH) 53·00
India (Northern) (NH) 53·26
Russia (Chechen) (NH) 53·45
Libya (Cyrenaica) (NH) 53·50
Japan (Southwest) (NH) 53·55
Cambodia (NH) 54·00
Philippines (Manila) (NH) 54·10
India (Punjab) (NH) 54·24
Libya (Tripoli) (NH) 54·40
China (Tibet) (NH) 54·70
Morocco (NH) 54·85
Japan (Northern) (NH) 54·90
Japan (Central) (NH) 55·42
Afghanistan/Iran (NH) 55·70
Greenland (Southern) (NH) 55·70
Vietnam (NH) 55·90
Tunisia (NH) 56·30
Algeria (Aures) (NH) 58·05
Israel (NH) 58·20
Lebanon (NH) 58·20
Japan (Hidakka) (NH) 59·10
Turkey (NH) 59·15
China (Southern) (NH) 59·17
Iraq/Syria (Kurds) (NH) 61·12
United Kingdom (London) (NH) 62·30
Belgium (NH) 63·14
Ireland (Carnew) (NH) 64·50
Spain (Leon) (NH) 64·66
Ireland (Rossmore) (NH) 64·75
Ireland (Longford) (NH) 65·00
United Kingdom (Wales) (NH) 65·00
Ireland (Ballinlough) (NH) 65·20
Spain (Basques) (NH) 65·70
United Kingdom (Northern) (NH) 66·10
United Kingdom (Cumberland) (NH) 66·75
Germany (Mainz) (NH) 66·90
Netherlands (NH) 67·37

---

Of the 37 groups darker than the lightest of the 3 khoisan groups as highlighted in bold (hottentot), presented on that table, 24 of those are other African groups (roughly 2/3), while only 13 are non-African. Of those 13, 7 are from Melanesia/Australia , 5 from south asia and only 1 from south america.

None are from central asia. The Khoisan groups are darker than over 50% of the groups represented on that table, mainly represented by central asia, west asia, east asia and europe. *All* of the darker groups, can be referred as *black* per rasols definition (much of south asia, melanesia, africa).

Your *own* data does not support your view. You have effectively *pwned* yourself. There is still time to bow-out quietly.
 

---

Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
 
^^LOL... I have little else to say. Thanx Mmmkay, for reminding me how much I'm wasting my time on this mixed up troll.
 

---

Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
 
^ I'm surpised it went on for as long as it did.
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mmmkay:
Allow me to show you how you just pwned yourself

---

quote:

---

This is a khoisan for visual reference via wikipedia:

---

If you had been paying attention we mentioned that the Khoi and the San had different levels of admixture.
This is also a KhoiSan

Your point? The average still is lower than a Marañon Indian of Peru.

quote:

---

Per your data there 83 total entries, I'm assuming the data reflects the darkest groups to lightest.

---

Yep
Botswana (San) (SH) 42·40
Northern San (Mixed)
South Africa (SH) 42·50
Peru (Maranon) (SH) 43·05

South Africa (San Central) (SH) 43·75
Libya (Fezzan) (NH) 44·00
Average 46·18
India (NH) 44·60
India (Goa) (NH) 46·40
India (Southern) (NH) 46·70
South Africa (Hottentot) (SH) 46·80[/b]
Brazil (Guarani) (SH) 47·20

Peru (Nunoa) (SH) 47·70

Brazil (Caingan) (SH) 49·40
India (Bengal) (NH) 49·73
Nepal (Eastern) (NH) 50·42

South Africa (Cape) (SH) 50·96

quote:

---

Of the 37 groups darker than the lightest of the 3 khoisan groups as highlighted in bold (hottentot), presented on that table, 24 of those are other African groups (roughly 2/3), while only 13 are non-African. Of those 13, 7 are from Melanesia/Australia , 5 from south asia and only 1 from south america.

---

quote:

---

None are from central asia.

---

quote:

---

The Khoisan groups are darker than over 50% of the groups represented on that table, mainly represented by central asia, west asia, east asia and europe.

---

quote:

---

*All* of the darker groups, can be referred as *black* per rasols definition (much of south asia, melanesia, africa).

---

quote:

---

Your *own* data does not support your view. You have effectively *pwned* yourself. There is still time to bow-out quietly.

---

quote:

---

You wish.

---

Nothings changed. You pwned yourself.

quote:

---

If you had been paying attention we mentioned that the Khoi and the San had different levels of admixture.
This is also a KhoiSan

---

quote:

---

You claimed KhoiSan were darker than 2/3rds of the world population.

---

quote:

---

Really? Where is India and Nepal?

---

How about South Asia genius:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia

South asia and *central* asia are two geographically distinct entities. Populations tend to get darker the further south one goes.

quote:

---

The average (and hence the midpoint of all the populations was also on the list.

---

I simply looked at the table and mathematically determined those populations darker than the *lighest* of the khoisan groups represented (hottentot) and those not. That means there are *2* khoisan groups even further on the darkness scale. Out of 83 entries, 46 are lighter then their lightest, 36 are darker. 24 of those darker are african populations. 13 non-african. 7 are represented in south asia.

I repeat none are in *central* asia. South asia (is not) /= central asia.

Only one khoisan group , the hottentot, are above the average, and only slightly. Even adjusting for the average on the list, the khoisan are still darker than atleast 50% of the data groups represented.

As per your argument, none of the groups of equal pigmentation or darker are in central asia. Khoisan according the data table are darker than all central asian groups.

You lose.

quote:

---

Average 46·18

---

quote:

---

South Africa (Hottentot) (SH) 46·80

---

Absoultely *nothing* has changed, short of your strawman and diversionary tactics. You continue to *pwn* yourself, and honestly I'm getting a good chuckle.
 

---

Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
But are we sure that those measurements are based on unbiased sampling. I have seen San people close up and I have seen that old film--"The Gods Must be Crazy" and it struck me that the San are quite light in colour. Most Indians from India I see are brownish not yellowish--as the San--in colour.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mmmkay:

quote:

---

You wish.

---

Nothings changed. You pwned yourself.

quote:

---

If you had been paying attention we mentioned that the Khoi and the San had different levels of admixture.
This is also a KhoiSan

---

I simply posted a picture of a khoisan man. He is relatively dark. You have no point.

quote:

---

You claimed KhoiSan were darker than 2/3rds of the world population.

---

I made no such claim at any point. Ever. Strawman. Either that or now your confusing between posters (possible symptom of delusion?).

quote:

---

Really? Where is India and Nepal?

---

How about South Asia genius:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia

South asia and *central* asia are two geographically distinct entities. Populations tend to get darker the further south one goes.

quote:

---

The average (and hence the midpoint of all the populations was also on the list.

---

I simply looked at the table and mathematically determined those populations darker than the *lighest* of the khoisan groups represented (hottentot) and those not. That means there are *2* khoisan groups even further on the darkness scale. Out of 83 entries, 46 are lighter then their lightest, 36 are darker. 24 of those darker are african populations. 13 non-african. 7 are represented in south asia.

I repeat none are in *central* asia. South asia (is not) /= central asia.

Only one khoisan group , the hottentot, are above the average, and only slightly. Even adjusting for the average on the list, the khoisan are still darker than atleast 50% of the data groups represented.

As per your argument, none of the groups of equal pigmentation or darker are in central asia. Khoisan according the data table are darker than all central asian groups.

You lose.

quote:

---

Average 46·18

---

quote:

---

South Africa (Hottentot) (SH) 46·80

---

Absoultely *nothing* has changed, short of your strawman and diversionary tactics. You continue to *pwn* yourself, and honestly I'm getting a good chuckle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
LOL. Rasol's long ass post fails again to address the issue that there are Asians just as light as the KhoiSan, without any genetic mutation different than that in Africans for their skin color, who these hypocrites call White, yet they will still call all the KhoSan, especially the South African San, Black.

They also still keep on failing to admit that the issue has nothing to do with Eruopeans. They conveniently call lighter than the world average population ss WHite or Leucoderm or wahtever outside of Africa, but inside Africa all populations in the Sub Saharan range all of the sudden become Black or Melanoderm no matter what. LOL

---

quote:

---

Crazed trolls notwithstanding, this is all old information on Egyptsearch, and it's dissappointing to have to continue to correct the same myths over and over, every time a troll starts a thread and baits the same suckers into it.

---

 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Agreed. Don't feed the troll.
 

---

Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
 
^ Just as a side note for a chuckle, notice how he completely sidestepped my earlier post discrediting his argument and launched a personal attack on rasols post, all while babbling on about nothing of consequence or substance.

This is akin to showing up to a party after everybody has already left

quote:

---

Rasol's long ass post fails again to address the issue that there are Asians just as light as the KhoiSan, without any genetic mutation different than that in Africans for their skin color, who these hypocrites call White, yet they will still call all the KhoSan, especially the South African San, Black.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimpu:
LOL. Rasol's long ass post fails again to address the issue that there are Asians just as light as the KhoiSan, without any genetic mutation different than that in Africans for their skin color, who these hypocrites call White

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mmmkay:
As per your argument, none of the groups of equal pigmentation or darker are in central asia. Khoisan according the data table are darker than all central asian groups.

You lose.

quote:

---

Average 46·18

---

quote:

---

South Africa (Hottentot) (SH) 46·80

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mmmkay:
Allow me to show you how you just pwned yourself

---

You wish.

quote:

---

This is a khoisan for visual reference via wikipedia:

---

This is also a KhoiSan

Your point? The average still is lower than a Marañon Indian of Peru.

quote:

---

Per your data there 83 total entries, I'm assuming the data reflects the darkest groups to lightest.

---

Yep
Botswana (San) (SH) 42·40
Northern San (Mixed)
South Africa (SH) 42·50
Peru (Maranon) (SH) 43·05

South Africa (San Central) (SH) 43·75
Libya (Fezzan) (NH) 44·00







(Actually the first two come from Tunisia, and Kabylia [on the Northern-most tip of Africa] respectively, and the last is just a Libyan .. had to get someone as far South as Libya since we're talking about the Fezzan here)

Average 46·18
India (NH) 44·60
India (Goa) (NH) 46·40
India (Southern) (NH) 46·70
South Africa (Hottentot) (SH) 46·80[/b]
Brazil (Guarani) (SH) 47·20

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mmmkay:

quote:

---

You claimed KhoiSan were darker than 2/3rds of the world population.

---

I made no such claim at any point. Ever. Strawman. Either that or now your confusing between posters (possible symptom of delusion?).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mmmkay:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chimu:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sundiata:
They are on average much darker than more than 2/3rds of the world and the majority of non-Africans, so this is obviously wishful thinking on your part and more appeals to relativism.

---

Prove it.
From Jablonski's data on reflectance spectrometry.

Australia (Darwin) (SH) 19•30
Mozambique (Chopi) (SH) 19•45
Cameroon (Fali) (NH) 21•50
Namibia (Okavango) (SH) 22•92
Chad (Sara) (NH) 24•60
Namibia (SH) 25•55
Tanzania (Nyatura) (SH) 25•80
Malawi (SH) 27•00
Nigeria (Yoruba) (NH) 27•40
Nigeria (Ebo) (NH) 28•20
Burkina Faso (Kurumba) (NH) 28•60
Tanzania (Sandewe) (SH) 28•90
Liberia (NH) 29•40
Zaire (Konda) (SH) 29•40
Papua New Guinea (Lufa) (SH) 31•20
Ethiopia (NH) 31•70
Papua New Guinea (Karker) (SH) 32•00
India (Orissa) (NH) 32•05
Kenya (NH) 32•40
Namibia (Rehoboth Baster) (SH) 32•90
Zaire (NH) 33•20
Papua New Guinea (Goroka) (SH) 33•30
Ethiopia (Highland) (NH) 33•55
Mali (Dogon) (NH) 34•10
Papua New Guinea (SH) 35•30
Papua New Guinea (Mt Hagan) (SH) 35•35
Sudan (NH) 35•50
Swaziland (SH) 35•60
Papua New Guinea (Port Moresby) (SH) 41•00
India (Nagpur) (NH) 41•30
Botswana (San) (SH) 42•40
South Africa (SH) 42•50
Peru (Maranon) (SH) 43•05
South Africa (San Central) (SH) 43•75
Libya (Fezzan) (NH) 44•00
Average 46•18
India (NH) 44•60
India (Goa) (NH) 46•40
India (Southern) (NH) 46•70
South Africa (Hottentot) (SH) 46•80
Brazil (Guarani) (SH) 47•20
Peru (Nunoa) (SH) 47•70
Brazil (Caingan) (SH) 49•40
India (Bengal) (NH) 49•73
Nepal (Eastern) (NH) 50•42
South Africa (Cape) (SH) 50•96
India (Rajasthan) (NH) 52•00
Pakistan (NH) 52•30
Saudi Arabia (NH) 52•50
Jordan (NH) 53•00
India (Northern) (NH) 53•26
Russia (Chechen) (NH) 53•45
Libya (Cyrenaica) (NH) 53•50
Japan (Southwest) (NH) 53•55
Cambodia (NH) 54•00
Philippines (Manila) (NH) 54•10
India (Punjab) (NH) 54•24
Libya (Tripoli) (NH) 54•40
China (Tibet) (NH) 54•70
Morocco (NH) 54•85
Japan (Northern) (NH) 54•90
Japan (Central) (NH) 55•42
Afghanistan/Iran (NH) 55•70
Greenland (Southern) (NH) 55•70
Vietnam (NH) 55•90
Tunisia (NH) 56•30
Algeria (Aures) (NH) 58•05
Israel (NH) 58•20
Lebanon (NH) 58•20
Japan (Hidakka) (NH) 59•10
Turkey (NH) 59•15
China (Southern) (NH) 59•17
Iraq/Syria (Kurds) (NH) 61•12
United Kingdom (London) (NH) 62•30
Belgium (NH) 63•14
Ireland (Carnew) (NH) 64•50
Spain (Leon) (NH) 64•66
Ireland (Rossmore) (NH) 64•75
Ireland (Longford) (NH) 65•00
United Kingdom (Wales) (NH) 65•00
Ireland (Ballinlough) (NH) 65•20
Spain (Basques) (NH) 65•70
United Kingdom (Northern) (NH) 66•10
United Kingdom (Cumberland) (NH) 66•75
Germany (Mainz) (NH) 66•90
Netherlands (NH) 67•37
Of the 37 groups darker than the lightest of the 3 khoisan groups as highlighted in bold (hottentot), presented on that table, 24 of those are other African groups (roughly 2/3), while only 13 are non-African. Of those 13, 7 are from Melanesia/Australia , 5 from south asia and only 1 from south america.

None are from central asia. The Khoisan groups are darker than over 50% of the groups represented on that table, mainly represented by central asia, west asia, east asia and europe. *All* of the darker groups, can be referred as *black* per rasols definition (much of south asia, melanesia, africa).

Your *own* data does not support your view. You have effectively *pwned* yourself. There is still time to bow-out quietly.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Really? Where is India and Nepal?

---

How about South Asia genius

---

quote:

---

What you fail to notice is that if the average is higher than most groups, then they are not part of the darker groups.

---

quote:

---

I simply looked at the table and mathematically determined those populations darker than the *lighest* of the khoisan groups represented (hottentot) and those not. That means there are *2* khoisan groups even further on the darkness scale.

---

quote:

---

You also failed to notice that I was disagreeing with Sundiata on his 2/3rds claim. Not a 50% claim. And you supported him.

---

quote:

---

Still the central part of Asia.

---

quote:

---

I also find it interesting that Japanese are closer to the color of Southern Khoisan (6.75) Than the closest non KhoiSan mixed population of Sub Saharans, Swaziland (11.2 difference)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
I'm still waiting for Dougie to give a specific parameter of what is White to him and what is not. LOL

How about giving me a reflectance spectrometer reading that would be the lowest you would allow to qualify as Black.

---

YOU started the thread. WHY are you waiting for someone else to answer STUPID QUESTIONS. The only thing YOU have put forward in this thread OF YOUR OWN CREATION is the RIDICULOUS CLAIM that White Asians are of the same complexion as African Blacks.

Stupid.

Now you are asking questions in order to hide from the fact that NOT ONCE in your OWN THREAD on what black is HAVE YOU provided ANYTHING OTHER than comic relief, as YOU CONTINUE to run away from what you hate most. Hence WHITE ASIANS are DARKER than blacks. Central Asians are the same complexions as black Africans and so forth. As usual, now that YOUR COVER is blown, you proceed to ask what is black?

IDIOT, I THOUGHT YOU KNEW? YOU are the one claiming that Japanese are darker than blacks.

Therefore, the one making CONTRADICTIONS all over the thread IS YOU. So don't ASK ME to support your contradictions. I am here to help CLEAR UP the contradictions you are working SO HARD to create for yourself.

You should be grateful.

TROLL.
 

---

Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
 
^ He is arguing based upon *semantics*, nothing more.

He's not coming with the assumption that khoisan are black africans due to their genetic and historical ties with other african groups.

He wants to show that khoisan are closer in skin color to central asians, in so doing, he'll expose us as "hypocrites" who don't follow our own definitions.

Thats when his own data *blew up in his face* so to speak.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mmmkay:
^ Just as a side note for a chuckle, notice how he completely sidestepped my earlier post discrediting his argument and launched a personal attack.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mmmkay:
[QUOTE]^ Already addressed. No cigar.

---

quote:

---

I never claimed his was the correct view. I just looked at the data. His point was that Khoisan are classified as a group with the *black* peoples or the world, and your *own* data supports that, so that means your nonsensical claim that khoisan cluster with "white asians" is wrong. The nearest arguably central asian country to the *lightest* of khoisan groups (pakistan) is off by 8 points. Two of the three khoisan groups are actually several points *below* the average. the lighest group on the sample (hottentot) are barely above the average by .6 points.

---

quote:

---

More irrelevant trivia. But I'll *take the bait* this time.

---

quote:

---

1) Japan is not in central asia.

---

quote:

---

2)Swazi, like other south african bantu groups, most probably have khoisan admixture (such as xhosa).

---

quote:

---

[3) Per the data , most Khoisan still cluster with melanesians/africans and other black peoples than mainland asia and europe. It has already been shown. This argument is *over*.

---

Nice try. The Indians in Northern India Nepal etc are not Black. The unmixed southern San are not the same as populations that mixed with Migrating Bantu. And as far as clusters:
The single biggest break in the continuity of skin color in the population is After Swaziland.


Deal with it.
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 
Here, if you want clusters so much

 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
LOL As usual MMMMkay doges the main point. There are those KhoiSan, specifically Southern San that are closer in color to Non Africans than any of the non KhoiSanid populations. Mixed KhoiSanid populations are of course in an intermediate range.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mmmkay:
[QUOTE]^ Already addressed. No cigar.

---

Incorrectly addressed. You haven't shown the opposite. Go smoke outside.

quote:

---

I never claimed his was the correct view. I just looked at the data. His point was that Khoisan are classified as a group with the *black* peoples or the world, and your *own* data supports that, so that means your nonsensical claim that khoisan cluster with "white asians" is wrong. The nearest arguably central asian country to the *lightest* of khoisan groups (pakistan) is off by 8 points. Two of the three khoisan groups are actually several points *below* the average. the lighest group on the sample (hottentot) are barely above the average by .6 points.

---

Nice try. And your focus on an arbitrary claim of central asia (as center can be measured from longitude or latitude and the region of South Central Asia denotes:

Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Bhutan
India
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Maldives
Nepal
Sri Lanka
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
http://www.countriesandcities.com/regions/south-central-asia.htm
And Northern Indians have never been considered Black.

quote:

---

More irrelevant trivia. But I'll *take the bait* this time.

---

LOL. You calim it irrelevant because it contradicts your claim.

quote:

---

1) Japan is not in central asia.

---

Nor does it need to be as the discussion is purely on darkness, not regionalism. That was Dougie's strawman.

quote:

---

2)Swazi, like other south african bantu groups, most probably have khoisan admixture (such as xhosa).

---

Actually the Xhosa were sampled separately and they showed up lighter. LOL Like I said, Iw asn't considering the mixed populations.

quote:

---

[3) Per the data , most Khoisan still cluster with melanesians/africans and other black peoples than mainland asia and europe. It has already been shown. This argument is *over*.

---

Nice try. The Indians in Northern India Nepal etc are not Black. The unmixed southern San are not the same as populations that mixed with Migrating Bantu. And as far as clusters:
The single biggest break in the continuity of skin color in the population is After Swaziland.


Deal with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Retard, your own graphs, even in their doctored up shape STILL show Khoisan and Hottentots CLOSER to African blacks than anyone else. The yellow and grey areas don't change this and only obfuscate the point.

Khoisan are NOT closer to Asians and Europeans than African blacks. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

You must remember to not feed the trolls. It only encourages them. Sometimes even I have been guilty of making this mistake. Once this happens the vacuum of senseless absurdity, illogical incongruity, and irrational flapdoodle tends to take over.

Yet most amusing to me, is when I write a post like this about trolls, and don’t give them the pleasure of trolling it, by closing the comments off completely.

Some things don’t really need to be reiterated or discussed further.

---

 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 
Rasol, the resident Troll LOL
 

---

Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
 

quote:

---

LOL As usual MMMMkay doges the main point. There are those KhoiSan, specifically Southern San that are closer in color to Non Africans than any of the non KhoiSanid populations.

---

quote:

---

A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary.

---

quote:

---

Incorrectly addressed. You haven't shown the opposite.

---

quote:

---

What you fail to notice is that if the average is higher than most groups, then they are not part of the darker groups.

---

quote:

---

I simply looked at the table and mathematically determined those populations darker than the *lighest* of the khoisan groups represented (hottentot) and those not. That means there are *2* khoisan groups even further on the darkness scale.

---

quote:

---

Central Asia is largely coextensive with Turkestan. In modern context, Central Asia consists of the five former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The nations of Afghanistan and Mongolia may also be included, in addition to the western Chinese provinces of Xinjiang and Tibet.

---

quote:

---

he Indians in Northern India Nepal etc are not Black. The unmixed southern San are not the same as populations that mixed with Migrating Bantu.

---

quote:

---

A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary.

---

^

^ This arguement is *over*. Its been over for days. Actually since it began, because you are not arguing. You are trolling.


The fact remains

^ Imaginary facts. You "arguement" was dismantled.

Troll on.

 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mmmkay:
While you have completely *missed* it altogether. Whether they are closer to another african group or not is irrelevant,and so another strawman. The point, (one you keep missing) is that they cluster with the *black* peoples of the world. This includes many african and non-african groups. Their are also African groups that are not *black* idiot.

---

quote:

---

What is *black*? Since you obviously missed it, here it is again:

quote:

---

A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary.

---

---

quote:

---

You are just making it up as you go along. You have singlehandedly *re-defined* central asia all to suit your arguement (ofcourse). I'm sorry but "chimu's central asia revised edition" is'nt the standard.
This is central asia. And admit it, when you said "central asia" you did'nt have "India" in mind. You already know that. Stop the BS.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Retard, your own graphs, even in their doctored up shape STILL show Khoisan and Hottentots CLOSER to African blacks than anyone else. The yellow and grey areas don't change this and only obfuscate the point.

Khoisan are NOT closer to Asians and Europeans than African blacks.

---

Nice try. That is a simple Excel spread sheet. No doctoring needed. The fact remains that Hottentots are closer to South Central Asians than any Sub Saharan African population. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
The fact remains that Hottentots are closer to South Central Asians than any Sub Saharan African population.

---

quote:

---

And Hottentots are one of them.

---

quote:

---

Khoisan should not be stereotyped.

It is not a skin color condition, but a language group.

Khoisan speakers vary considerably in skin tone, the term should no more be used to relate skin tone than Cushitic or Bantu, all of whom are Black African peoples of various tone.

The lightest living in the South African cape region, which is not tropical, and where some of their ancestors have lived since 80 thousand kya and produced among the first modern cultures.

The darkest Khoisan live closer to the equator and are among the darkest peoples on earth.

Genetically - Khoisan have the same pattern of melonoderm allelles as are found in other Black Africans, and Black Asians.

The darkest have the least derived allelles, and reflects the reality of the very black skinned heritage of all peoples, which originated about 1.2 million years ago.

---

quote:

---

Australia (Darwin) (SH) 19·30
Mozambique (Chopi) (SH) 19·45
Cameroon (Fali) (NH) 21·50
Namibia (Okavango) (SH) 22·92
Chad (Sara) (NH) 24·60
Namibia (SH) 25·55
Tanzania (Nyatura) (SH) 25·80
Malawi (SH) 27·00
Nigeria (Yoruba) (NH) 27·40
Nigeria (Ebo) (NH) 28·20
Burkina Faso (Kurumba) (NH) 28·60
Tanzania (Sandewe) (SH) 28·90
Liberia (NH) 29·40
Zaire (Konda) (SH) 29·40
Papua New Guinea (Lufa) (SH) 31·20
Ethiopia (NH) 31·70
Papua New Guinea (Karker) (SH) 32·00
India (Orissa) (NH) 32·05
Kenya (NH) 32·40
Namibia (Rehoboth Baster) (SH) 32·90
Zaire (NH) 33·20
Papua New Guinea (Goroka) (SH) 33·30
Ethiopia (Highland) (NH) 33·55
Mali (Dogon) (NH) 34·10
Papua New Guinea (SH) 35·30
Papua New Guinea (Mt Hagan) (SH) 35·35
Sudan (NH) 35·50
Swaziland (SH) 35·60
Papua New Guinea (Port Moresby) (SH) 41·00
India (Nagpur) (NH) 41·30
Botswana (San) (SH) 42·40
South Africa (SH) 42·50
Peru (Maranon) (SH) 43·05
South Africa (San Central) (SH) 43·75
Libya (Fezzan) (NH) 44·00
Average 46·18

---

Light skin khoisan is the exception not rule

And they cluster closer to South Central Asians

Its "South Central Asians" Now? Hilarious.

^ Apparently after the the painful facts of geography have to been laid out, hence destroying his argument, the troll seeks to *re-position* from central-asia to "south central-asia".

This thread is over.

But not for him.

Because he will *surely* make another post so as to get the "last word".

But he's lost. and he *knows* it.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Doug M writes: STUPID, Hottentots ARE sub saharan and therefore CLOSER to other folks South of the Sahara.

---

quote:

---

But he's lost. and he *knows* it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
The fact remains that Hottentots are closer to South Central Asians than any Sub Saharan African population.

---

LOL! I beg of you guys to stop taking this kid seriously. I can almost guarantee that he's only looking to get a rise out of most of you.

---

quote:

---

LOL! I beg of you guys to stop taking this kid seriously. I can almost guarantee that he's only looking to get a rise out of most of you.

---

Exactly, that is the only function and purpose of Chimpu's monkey antics.


 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 
MMMCucuu.

South Central Asia is a part of Central Asia. I didn't mention Central Asia, Dougie did. San where shown to be genetically much more distant than their northern cousins to the Bantu. In reflectance spectrometry they tested lighter. And they are in the same color range as other people in other parts of the world that would not be considered Black. Try again.


 

---

Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
 

quote:

---

South Central Asia is a part of Central Asia. I didn't mention Central Asia, Dougie did. San where shown to be genetically much more distant than their northern cousins to the Bantu. In reflectance spectrometry they tested lighter. And they are in the same color range as other people in other parts of the world that would not be considered Black. Try again.

---

quote:

---

an alternative hypothesis should be considered. Some peculiar external characteristics of Khoisans and the uniqueness of clicks have struck hte imagination of many anthropologists to the point of some scholars have considered Khoisan a separate race of very remote origin (Coon 1963)

---

^

quote:

---

South Central Asia is a part of Central Asia. I didn't mention Central Asia

---

quote:

---

quote:an alternative hypothesis should be considered. Some peculiar external characteristics of Khoisans and the uniqueness of clicks have struck hte imagination of many anthropologists to the point of some scholars have considered Khoisan a separate race of very remote origin (Coon 1963)

^ [Big Grin]

---

Embarrassing quoting coon smh after ALL this time.
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mmmkay:
Just as I said, the *last word*. Now he's citing Coon.

---

quote:

---

^ He disowns an assertion while simoultaneously defending it. Even going so far as re-defining geographical terms.

He's not only your garden-variety troll but a *dishonest* one at that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
At OCA2 355, the derived allele (linked with lighter pigmentation) occurs at its highest frequencies across Europe and Asia but is also relatively common among Native American populations (18–34%) and is present at much lower frequencies (0–10%) among Bantu-speaking African groups. In contrast, the ancestral allele associated with dark pigmentation has a shared high frequency in sub-Saharan African and Island Melanesians. A notable exception is the relatively lightly pigmented San population of Southern Africa where the derived allele predominates (93%).

The photoprotective properties of a highly melanized skin and the recent African origin of modern humans suggest that the ancestral phenotype is one of the relatively dark skin (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000; Rogers et al. 2004).

---

quote:

---

The lightly pigmented hunter–gatherer San population of Southern Africa is exceptional in having a high frequency of the derived allele relative to geographically proximate and more darkly pigmented African populations (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000)

---

quote:

---

Thanks for your note. Frank has some good points. Clearly more work needs to be done on the variation within continents in particular Africa. We do have one recent paper that shines some light on these questions (The genetic architecture of normal variation in human pigmentation: an evolutionary perspective and model, McEvoy et al, 2006). Note that we did not find many genes with signatures of natural selection on the West African branch and thus no clear indication that the West Africans have gotten darker since their separation from the East Asians and Europeans. This fact, although interesting in and of its own, does not address the issue of the lighter skinned African populations. Good questions, clearly, but there is not data yet to even let us speculate intelligently.

Best Regards,
Mark

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fsweet
Comments on "Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians" by Heather L. Norton, Rick A. Kittles, Esteban Parra, Paul McKeigue, Xianyun Mao, Keith Cheng, Victor A. Canfield, Daniel G. Bradley, Brian McEvoy, and Mark D. Shriver in Molecular Biology and Evolution (2007) 24(3):710–722.

We have obtained and made available here a pre-publication copy of what is by far the most comprehensive study to date of the genetic adaptations that have produced different skin tones in populations around the world. It shows that Europeans and East Asians both got paler after the Diaspora due to natural selection, but they did so by different independent adaptations. Readers interested in the subject are urged to read the study.

The following comments do not summarize the study. Instead, they focus on aspects of the study of that are of interest to subject at hand.

The study does not address the unique depigmentation of northern Europeans. The study's European reference sample was twenty residents of Valencia, Spain. Consequently, the study explains the evolution of the intermediate skin tones of Mediterraneans as well as those of East Asians. But it ignores the extraordinary depigmentation of people native to the region with 300 miles of the Baltic and North Seas and discussed in the essay The Paleo-Etiology of Human Skin Tone. This is a bit disappointing, but the study's authors may have had no choice. It would have been good to learn more about the evolution of the pink "Nordic" skin tone as well as that of the tanned beige "Spanish" skin tone. But one cannot identify the mutations that produced the former without first identifying those that produced the latter, since the former may well have evolved from the latter. Perhaps a future study will take the next step.

The study does not try to date the paleness mutations. Although the study does not speculate when the paleness adaptations took place, the time frame can be deduced. Given that Europeans and East Asians underwent different independent paleness mutations, the mutations must have happened after the two populations split around 40 kya. At the other extreme, classical Egyptian art from about 4 kya shows pink-skinned people (as well as brown- and black-skinned subjects). Hence, Mediterranean Europeans must have become pale sometime between 4 kya and 40 kya. Other evidence suggests a date of about 5 kya for the appearance of Nordic paleness, pushing the lower limit out by another thousand years. And Paleolithic cave art showing brown-skinned Cro-Magnons brings the upper limit in to about 12 kya.

The study speculates, but offers little evidence as to the skin tone of the Diaspora band. An often-discussed topic in the OneDropRule discussion group is the skin tone of the small group that crossed the Straits of Bab El Mandeb 75 kya to colonize the planet. The only pertinent evidence uncovered by the study is that the dark skin tone of Melanesians (Papua-New Guinea) and that of the darkest sub-Saharan Africans use the same genetic system. Hence, this system must be older than the European/East Asian split (older than 40 kya). At first glance, this seems to indicate that the Diaspora band was dark, and the study speculates that this is the case. The study then uses this assumption to suggest that the relatively light skin tones of some sub-Saharans (ancient Ethiopians, Khoi San) result from recent admixture.

The problem is that no evidence suggests that ancient Ethiopians and Khoi San (who are genetically closely related remnants of the hunter-gatherers who populated the continent before the Bantu agricultural expansion) are either admixed or recent adaptations. Indeed, there is much evidence that they are the oldest phylogenetic clade of H. sap. on the planet. Furthermore, the study found that the allele that makes these ancient sub Saharans paler than other sub Saharans (MATP C374G) is common in Europeans and East Asians but rare in other sub Saharans. Taking this into account leaves three possibilities:

(1) The Diaspora band were uniformly dark brown (like today's Bantus) by chance because they did not happen to include any ancestors of today's ancient Ethiopians or Khoi San with MATP C374G in their group. The MATP C374G that appears today in Europeans, East Asians, as well as in Khoi San and ancient Ethiopians must be explained by convergent evolution -- that two later independent mutations (in Europeans and East Asians) precisely re-created the ancient MATP C374G allele left behind in Africa (in the ancestors of Khoi San and ancient Ethiopians). This is exceedingly implausible.

(2) The Diaspora band were uniformly light brown (like today's Khoi San and Ancient Ethiopians) by chance, because they all happened to have MATP C374G. That Melanesians and Bantus today both have dark brown skin via the identical complex genetic mechanism must be explained by convergent evolution -- that Melanesians' dark brown skin tone uses the identical system as that of today's Bantus due to a later independent mutation that precisely re-created the ancient dark-brown system left behind in Africa. This is also exceedingly implausible.

(3) The Diaspora band comprised a mix of dark-brown, light-brown, and medium-brown skin tones due to a mix of the same light- and dark-skin alleles found throughout most of sub-Saharan Africa today. The light-skin alleles provided the variants (including MATP C374G) that mutated into European and East Asian traits, while the dark-skin alleles remained unchanged in Melanesia. This is the simplest explanation of the facts at hand.

The most praiseworthy aspect of the study is its meticulous attention to detail in avoiding misleading measurements. For example, if you want to measure the relative impact on skin tone of different alleles in an admixed population, you must use a population that is reasonably close to Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Testing random US Americans, for instance, would not give accurate results because US Americans have a notoriously bimodal admixture distribution due to the 300-year-old endogamous color line. And so the study's authors first made sure that their sample had a normal Gaussian distribution -- a vital detail that few other researchers would have taken the trouble to ensure. Another example is that as a backup sample of West Africans, the authors actually used subjects from the Geechee/Gullah population of the U.S. Sea Islands. This is because today's West Africans are more admixed with European and Middle Eastern genes than are the Geechee/Gullahs, who due to historical coincidences are still genetically 100 percent West African today.

The least justifiable conclusion of the study, contradicted by its own data, is its marginalizing the two most ancient populations on earth (Khoi San and Ancient Ethiopians). The study does this through circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). It says that most sub Saharans today are very dark (leaving out the two oldest populations). From this it concludes that extreme darkness must be adaptive in Africa. From this it concludes that extreme darkness must always have been adaptive. From this it concludes that the Diaspora band must have been very dark. From this it concludes that the presence of MATP C374G in the Khoi San and Ancient Ethiopians must be the result of recent European or East Asian admixture -- a conclusion contradicted by the fact that MATP C374G is identical in Europeans and East Africans, even though their paleness adaptations are independent.

All in all, this is a deeply important study by some of the most talented researchers in the field. It should be read by anyone interested in the evolutionary history of skin tone variation around the world.

---

quote:

---

The mtDNA variation of 74 Khoisan-speaking individuals (Kung and Khwe) from Schmidtsdrift, in the Northern Cape Province of South Africa, was examined by high-resolution RFLP analysis and control region (CR) sequencing. The resulting data were combined with published RFLP haplotype and CR sequence data from sub-Saharan African populations and then were subjected to phylogenetic analysis to deduce the evolutionary relationships among them. More than 77% of the Kung and Khwe mtDNA samples were found to belong to the major mtDNA lineage, macrohaplogroup L* (defined by a HpaI site at nucleotide position 3592), which is prevalent in sub-Saharan African populations. Additional sets of RFLPs subdivided macrohaplogroup L* into two extended haplogroups—L1 and L2—both of which appeared in the Kung and Khwe. Besides revealing the significant substructure of macrohaplogroup L* in African populations, these data showed that the Biaka Pygmies have one of the most ancient RFLP sublineages observed in African mtDNA and, thus, that they could represent one of the oldest human populations. In addition, the Kung exhibited a set of related haplotypes that were positioned closest to the root of the human mtDNA phylogeny, suggesting that they, too, represent one of the most ancient African populations. Comparison of Kung and Khwe CR sequences with those from other African populations confirmed the genetic association of the Kung with other Khoisan-speaking peoples (WHICH SHOWS THE KHOI SAN RELATION VALIDITY), whereas the Khwe were more closely linked to non–Khoisan-speaking (Bantu) populations. (WHICH SHOWS THE ADMIXTURE OF THE KWE) Finally, the overall sequence divergence of 214 African RFLP haplotypes defined in both this and an earlier study was 0.364%, giving an estimated age, for all African mtDNAs, of 125,500–165,500 years before the present, a date that is concordant with all previous estimates derived from mtDNA and other genetic data, for the time of origin of modern humans in Africa.

---

quote:

---

Nice try, no citation of Coon.

---

quote:

---

More moronic claims.

---

?

To be fair, your study cited coon, but the fact that your denying it is hilarious.


Come back when you've presented a readable and concise refutatation of these facts.

quote:

---

I repeat none are in *central* asia. South asia (is not) /= central asia.

Only one khoisan group , the hottentot, are above the average, and only slightly. Even adjusting for the average on the list, the khoisan are still darker than atleast 50% of the data groups represented.

As per your argument, none of the groups of equal pigmentation or darker are in central asia. Khoisan according the data table are darker than all central asian groups.

---

quote:

---

Average 46·18

---

quote:

---

South Africa (Hottentot) (SH) 46·80]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mmmkay:

quote:

---

Nice try, no citation of Coon.

---

quote:

---

More moronic claims.

---

?

To be fair, your study cited coon, but the fact that your denying it is hilarious.


Come back when you've presented a readable and concise refutatation of these facts.

quote:

---

I repeat none are in *central* asia. South asia (is not) /= central asia.

Only one khoisan group , the hottentot, are above the average, and only slightly. Even adjusting for the average on the list, the khoisan are still darker than atleast 50% of the data groups represented.

As per your argument, none of the groups of equal pigmentation or darker are in central asia. Khoisan according the data table are darker than all central asian groups.

---

quote:

---

Average 46·18

---

-Lightest Khoisan group-

quote:

---

South Africa (Hottentot) (SH) 46·80]

---

---

quote:

---

An so concludes another episode of "Smackdown" featuring Jamie Chimu - the perpetually punked - mestizoo

---

quote:

---

^ An so concludes another episode of "Smackdown" featuring Jamie Chimu - the perpetually punked - mestizoo.

---

 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mmmkay:
To be fair, your study cited coon, but the fact that your denying it is hilarious.

---

quote:

---

Only one khoisan group , the hottentot, are above the average, and only slightly. Even adjusting for the average on the list, the khoisan are still darker than atleast 50% of the data groups represented.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
[QB] Firstly there are no Khoisan.

There are Khoi and another people whom the Khoi call San.

The main problem with what you present is the assumption that Khwe and San aren't self-differentiated peoples.

When the Khwe initially encountered the !Kung, and
related peoples, they dubbed them as san because they were not khoe khoe. These two peoples were not related upon their first introduction, otherwise they'd all be Khoe-Khoe.

Their theologies significantly differ as do their food procurement/production methods, further showing their separate origins as self-cognitive ethnies. The Sotho and Nguni are no less KhoeKhoe related than the San. In fact what would be enlightening, were this a forum for sharing knowledge and discussing rather than debating and flaming, is an examination of "Khoisan civilization" over the last 18000 years.

The use of Khoisan is buy in to post-colonial European grounded anthropology no matter who uses it.

---

quote:

---

As per your argument, none of the groups of equal pigmentation or darker are in central asia. Khoisan according the data table are darker than all central asian groups.

---

quote:

---

South central Asia

---

South Central Asia isn't a homogeneous region and at first you said "Central" Asia! Why move the goal post so far you conniving swine? LOL. Is it safe to say that these South Central Asians in question are closer to most Africans in color than are Central Asians? I'd say yes.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Why move the goal post so far you conniving swine?

---

Question asked, question answered.

You have to forgive poor Chimpu. He learned his debating "skills" from another confused 'mixed-up' loser, named Frank Sweets. He's trying his best, unfortunately.

Garbage in, Garbage out.
 

---

Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
 
^LOL, in other words..
 

---

Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
 

quote:

---

More stupidity. I never cited Coon.

---

Apparently after I *corrected myself* on the matter you still think I said you cited him. That, my little troll friend, is stupidity. But hey, maybe you just can't read? Kinda like that Jablonski data table?

quote:

---

I'll cite Al Takruri on this one.

---

quote:

---

South central Asia. Yes there are.

First he defends a notion that he suppossedly did'nt make, then when the facts hit him he turns to *making things up as he goes along*

---

Its seriously over.

This troll won't (or can't) admit it.

Atleast some trolls know when enoughs enough.

He does'nt.

Like the *little troll that could*

quote:

---

Garbage in, Garbage out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

quote:

---

South central Asia

---

South Central Asia isn't a homogeneous region and at first you said "Central" Asia! Why move the goal post so far you conniving swine? LOL. Is it safe to say that these South Central Asians in question are closer to most Africans in color than are Central Asians? I'd say yes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChimPu:
keep on trying to ignore the fact that the lighter San are as light as Central Asians. Yet you hypocrites call one Black and the other White.

---

Pwned once again and exposed as the back tracking liar that you are. Once it has been demonstrated that your initial claim was completely misguided, you flip flop by making a more realistic comparison (exclusively in terms of skin color, hence some of the theories espoused by Clyde Winters about India and the like) with some of the obviously much darker SOUTH central Asians, whom have adapted much closer to the tropics and resemble Africans in color more so than your original CENTRAL Asians do. You then are reduced to petty circular reasoning which will never work since your entire premise was based on a lie and no intelligent person is going to chase an argument built on top of multiple lies and deviations. Get a life Chimpu. You lost.
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
^^^

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChimPu:
keep on trying to ignore the fact that the lighter San are as light as Central Asians. Yet you hypocrites call one Black and the other White.

---

Pwned once again and exposed as the back tracking liar that you are. Once it has been demonstrated that your initial claim was completely misguided, you flip flop by making a more realistic comparison (exclusively in terms of skin color, hence some of the theories espoused by Clyde Winters about India and the like) with some of the obviously much darker SOUTH central Asians, whom have adapted much closer to the tropics and resemble Africans in color more so than your original CENTRAL Asians do. You then are reduced to petty circular reasoning which will never work since your entire premise was based on a lie and no intelligent person is going to chase an argument built on top of multiple lies and deviations. Get a life Chimpu. You lost.

---

Dream on. I didn't mention Central Asia, I responded to the claim of central Asia. And yes South Central Asia is as muc a part of Cehtral Asia as North or Mid Central Asia. Go get a clue.
 

---

Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
 
^^You idiot. That quote was in response to something I said and I made no such reference to Central Asians in my post, you did. Go back and see! Haha. Neither does this neglect the fact that you still made a false claim anyways, indicated in bold.

And to say "South" Central Asia is a part of Central Asia as much as "North" Central Asia (where do these geographical terms come from anyways?), yet Central Asians are different in color than South Asians who are darker and reside closer to the tropics, is a definite reach on your part. Point being that South Asians are closer to most Africans in color than are Central Asians further north. Perhaps YOU should get a clue.
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
I'm willing to accept that if you define said region
by exaustively listing each country per sub-region.

[This has nothing do with the minimally sampled/unsampled
continental areas missing from Jablonski's maps and data.]

quote:

---

Jaime wrote:
_a. South Central Asia is as muc a part of
1. Cehtral Asia as
_b. North or
_c. Mid Central Asia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu posted 31 March, 2008 06:45 PM:

Broad features exist in many cultures. But as Black is really a subjective perception the real issue is which populations are really related or not and which ones influenced each other culturally and ancestrally.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000142;p=6#000287

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M at 31 March, 2008 07:02 PM:

Black is not subjective. It is a physical description of a persons skin color, not world view, not language, not culture, not identity, not perception or anything else. Therefore, since the girl you posted is NOT BLACK.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000142;p=6#000290

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu at 01 April, 2008 02:58 PM:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Black
-> A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.
- Random House Unabridged Dictionary.

---

So by that definition, what is this guy?:

Or this guy?


http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000266;p=1#000003

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M at 02. April 2008 07:54 PM:
Chimu, Khoisan are not Central Asians, even though SOME Khoisan have similar features. Therefore, you cannot state that because SOME Khoisan are as light as Asians from the Central Asians steppes, that the Khoisan are NOT black Africans.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000266;p=1#000019

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu at 04. April 2008 04:02 AM:
LOL. Keep ignoring the fact that Cavalli Sforza showed that the darker Khoi were a lot more mixed than the[b]lighter[b] San. And keep on trying to ignore the fact that the lighter San are as light as Central Asians. Yet you hypocrites call one Black and the other White.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000266;p=2#000064

---

My first mention of Central Asia, and I had already been discussing with Dougie, Central Asians, not only from Mongolia but from India. And the lightest San indeed are as light as the Mongolians and the average of their reflectance spectrometry fell within the range of northern Indians LIKE THE GIRL DOUGIE CLAIMED WAS NOT BLACK.

Of course then Dougie exemplifies his hypocrisy of claiming Black as a biological fact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M at 10. April 2008 06:44 PM:
Black and White are definite terms that have been used to refer to people in parts of China:
[QUOTE]
The Tu in Huzhu and Datong counties in Qinghai also call themselves "Chaaghaan monguor" (White Mongols) in contrast to their reference to the Mongolians as "Khara Monguor" (Black Mongols).
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000142;p=10#000467

---

quote:

---

The Monguor call themselves either Monguor or Mongol (depending on their dialect). To distinguish themselves from the Mongols in Mongolia proper, they call themselves Chagaan Monggol (or Monggor), which means "White Mongols," and the latter Khara Monggol, or "Black Mongols."
http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ea210/manchu.htm

---

Who is an example of a Black Mongol, or a Mongolian from Mongolia?
Surprise, surprise
The very guy Dougie claimed was NOT BLACK.


So go argue your strawmen all you want, the fact remain you guys are hypocrites who jump around claiming people as Black when convenient for your egos. But your “factually Black” claims versus my subjective Black claims have been shot out of the water. Go argue about Central Asians some more. LOL
 

---

Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
Originally posted by Chimu posted 31 March, 2008 06:45 PM:

Broad features exist in many cultures. But as Black is really a subjective perception the real issue is which populations are really related or not and which ones influenced each other culturally and ancestrally.

The girl is from INDIA

---

quote:

---

So by that definition, what is this guy?:

---

Subjectively, I'd say he can definitely be defined as Black in America due to both his relatively dark complexion in relation to non-Blacks and his noticeably kinky hair. Though who's to say that this individual is or isn't mixed in some way, shape or form? It's just a random picture.

Would you say that he's more representative of what most Bushmen look like? Or are these people whom can obviously be seen in their native element, devoid of European attire?

quote:

---

Or this guy?

---

East or Central Asian. Certainly not South Asian though.
 

---

Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
 

quote:

---

My first mention of Central Asia, and I had already been discussing with Dougie, Central Asians, not only from Mongolia but from India. And the lightest San indeed are as light as the Mongolians and the average of their reflectance spectrometry fell within the range of northern Indians LIKE THE GIRL DOUGIE CLAIMED WAS NOT BLACK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
If this girl is from India, then why is this photo from a website called "ratehispanic".com?

---

quote:

---

Also, her features aren't that broad, especially compared to most broad faced Africans, not to mentioned that a great many of Black Africans don't have broad features, so what's your point?

---

quote:

---

Subjectively, I'd say he can definitely be defined as Black in America due to both his relatively dark complexion in relation to non-Blacks and his noticeably kinky hair. Though who's to say that this individual is or isn't mixed in some way, shape or form? It's just a random picture.

---

quote:

---

Would you say that he's more representative of what most Bushmen look like? Or are these people whom can obviously be seen in their native element, devoid of European attire?

---

Not all Bushmen. But I have seen people like him in the South Africa. And most mixed San/Coloureds don't have features that strongly "KhoiSanid"

Griqua (mixed San)

quote:

---

---

Botswana. Different. Although still pretty light.
No darker than these Punjabis

or this Thai dude

quote:

---

East or Central Asian. Certainly not South Asian though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ Actually Jamie is simply wrong, and attempting to hide his error thru obscurist illogic.

It's precisely akin to claiming that Central Asia is at the same latitude as North Africa.

When this claim is falsified, you switch your reference to South Central Asia, and offer the petty dissembly - that south central asia is a part of central asia - which is true but irrelevant to your original and falsified claim.

Jamie makes some really bad arguments, he's all noise, and no substance.

---

quote:

---

Botswana. Different. Although still pretty light.
No darker than these Punjabis

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

quote:

---

Botswana. Different. Although still pretty light.
No darker than these Punjabis

---

They are much darker actually and according to your own graph, more than likely approach the same complexion of most Swazi.`

---

I am only going by the ones in the picture. The average may be darker.

Swaziland 35.6
PNG (Port Moresby - Hanuabada) 41
India (Nagpur - Mahar) 41.3
Botswana (Kalahari - Central Bushmen, Yellow Bushmen at Lone Tree, Central San, Yellow Bushmen at Takashwani, Central San, Yellow Bushmen at Ghanzi, Central San) 42.4
South African (S. A. Negroes (73% Tswana and Xhosa), Bantu (96% Xhosa)) 42.5
South Africa (Warmbath - Hottentot) 43.75
India (Angami Nagas) 44.6

A difference of 6.8 between Swazi and the Botswanan Khoi. No they are not the same color. Yes, on average darker than Bengalis. But still on average closer to Indians in both directions. 1.1 lighter than Mid Indian Nagpur and Mahar and 2.2 darker than the Nagas. This is a Naga

This is a Mahar

quote:

---

Point being that they look like and are related to other Black Africans (No basis to separate them.. Huge basis to exclude those Punjabi and your Mongolians).

---

quote:

---

No one says skin color is static, especially in Africa. Also, what I call "pretty light" is that female from ratehispanic, these native San (devoid of European attire, hence, limited in influence) are "pretty dark" if you follow a gradient. Jeeze, for someone who hates subjectivity, you sure exercise it a lot.

---

LOL.
You mean like these pictures devoid of European clothing?

And that is tanned.
Remember those that adopt the city life are not exposed 24/7 to sunlight like a nomadic person. Which might explain some of the lighter ones.

quote:

---

Rasol is correct, you have some of the weakest arguments I've ever seen and are a hypocrite.

---

quote:

---

S. A. Negroes (73% Tswana and Xhosa), Bantu (96% Xhosa)) 42.5

---

Disregarding the mass picture spam of random individuals, do you or do you not understand what the root of the word "Negroe" represents? "Black". It is derived from such that identifies Blackness and translates into exactly that. You've only killed yourself by posting this nonsense. Now what your argument is, is that South Asians (not Central Asians, or East Asians, or Europeans) are close to South African Blacks in color. Wow, you lose once again, troll.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
And as further examples of his need to stay AWAY from blackness, he again posts tripe about who ISN'T black, focusing on images of the lightest skinned Africans he can find to make comparisons and thus suggest that generally Africans aren't black. Which again goes back to his mixed centric ideologies that is based on denying blackness and supporting mixedness. Hence, everything in this thread is data nonsense of his own making in support of this Africans ain't black nonsense, as opposed to addressing the question: what is black. The only one giving definitions of what is or isn't black here is Chima Troll himself. Because he never intended on discussing blackness, rather he intended to discuss his absurd ideas on NON blackness and hence mixedness....

Which reflects the mixed up ideas of his own brain.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

and supporting mixedness

---

quote:

---

Chimpu writes: But all Black and White groups don't have two different ancestries that are a part of their cultural history

---

quote:

---

Oh really?
So which whites have only "1" ancestry and "1" cultural history. (???)

Germans?

French?

Italian?

Saxons?

Anglo-Saxons?

Is Spain mixed?

Is Sweden mixed?

Is Greece mixed?

Is 'everyone' mixed?

If yes, then 'what' pray tell does mixed qualify?

If no then explain what "qualifies" mixed?

If mixed means not 'black' and not 'white', then what colour is mixed?

If mixed is not a colour then what relevance can it have for terms that denote colour?

If you admit mixed is of no relevance to colour then why try to use mixed to qualify colours?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
^

quote:

---

S. A. Negroes (73% Tswana and Xhosa), Bantu (96% Xhosa)) 42.5

---

Disregarding the mass picture spam of random individuals, do you or do you not understand what the root of the word "Negroe" represents? "Black". It is derived from such that identifies Blackness and translates into exactly that. You've only killed yourself by posting this nonsense. Now what your argument is, is that South Asians (not Central Asians, or East Asians, or Europeans) are close to South African Blacks in color. Wow, you lose once again, troll.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
^

quote:

---

S. A. Negroes (73% Tswana and Xhosa), Bantu (96% Xhosa)) 42.5

---

Disregarding the mass picture spam of random individuals, do you or do you not understand what the root of the word "Negroe" represents? "Black". It is derived from such that identifies Blackness and translates into exactly that. You've only killed yourself by posting this nonsense. Now what your argument is, is that South Asians (not Central Asians, or East Asians, or Europeans) are close to South African Blacks in color. Wow, you lose once again, troll.

---

Do you understand the the Khoi and the Xhosa are heavily admixed? What a moron.

---

Heavily "admixed" with what? Other Black Africans? LOL. In addition, why would South Asians be similar in color to "heavily admixed Negroes"? The point is that they are ALL labeled "Negroes" (which means 'black'), in direct contradiction to your nonsense. Also, "admixed" or not, they are closer in color to the San than any one else (42.4 compared to 42.5!) so this deflates your entire phony argument. What a failure you are...
 

---

Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by USA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
[QB] Chimu, Khoisan are not Central Asians, even though SOME Khoisan have similar features. Therefore, you cannot state that because SOME Khoisan are as light as Asians from the Central Asians steppes, that the Khoisan are NOT black Africans. YOU aren't making any sense and the ANALOGY is FLAWED. You SHOULD be comparing the Khoisan to OTHER Africans who they are related to and OTHER KHOISAN and stop trying to make FAKE associations that DO NOT EXIST, based on SELECTED images of the LIGHTEST Khoisan you can find.

So your half truths and HALF baked facts are exposed AGAIN for WHAT they are: PHONY attempts to ALTER the ACTUAL diversity and complexity of African people and blacks through NONSENSE associations with NON BLACKS.

Again, you are RELYING on trying to showcase the LIGHTEST people who are part of the black diaspora and associate them with people who have NO BLACK ancestry and trying to make an argument. But you are a FOOL. Khoisan ARE NOT central Asians and their features and complexions are NOT the same as central Asians, thereby making your SPAMMING of selected Khoisan as REPRESENTATIVE of ALL Khoisan another example of your NONSENSE and FEAR of the word black.

NOBODY said that those Central Asians were black. YOU said that. Therefore YOUR ANALOGY is again STUPID because you are comparing apples to oranges. YOU make up stupid analogies that MAKE NO SENSE and then pretend you have a CONTRADICTION of the facts, but in reality YOU are contradicting YOURSELF because you are an IDIOT LOON who has nothing better to do but DELUDE HIMSELF with SILLY facts that have NOTHING to do with reality. The Khoisan are BLACK AFRICANS, period and their features have NOTHING to do with Asia. Some light skin people among a population called BLACK does not mean that the word is INVALID. [QUOTE]

---

It makes YOU a fool for trying to PICK THEM as some sort of contradiction of the word black, when they aren't.

-In the USA, Alicia Keys falls under the African American ethnic label, which is to say they self-identify as "black" and are seen as such by the public. This despite the fact that Alicia Keys is 1/2 white, and it is very evident by her phenotype. You do realize that many black Africans would not call her black? Or for that matter, neither would they be called black in LatinAmerica.

---

quote:

---

If if bothers you that Alicia Keys considers herself black then you need to take it out with Alicia Keys. All bi-racials chooses a side. Would you be upset if she would choose her white side and say she is White? The problem you have is Alicia Keys identifying as Black, but if she identifies as White there wouldn't be no argument. If you don't like it, I suggest you box it out with Alicia Keys. It is her choice

---

Owned

Give it up Jamie I mean Chimu

Yellow Skin in Black Africa Click for video

Chimu you are the only poster who actually argue with himself(only because Doug and Rasol explain to you time and time again)about the concept of Blackness and how it is used Ethically.

sigh

I think it’s time for you to see the Psychologist
 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
STOP!

Black is not a scientific term but it sounds like many members here are trying to use scientific principles to describe it.

Black has become an arbitrary designation. There are Black people in this world that are actually truly 'Black'. And then there are people that are closely related to these same people that are truly 'Black' and there are some people that are not closely related.

Black as in Niger/Congo people are all closely related to San people. Essentially SAN people are Black due to their close relatedness in the same way that Italians are considered white even though they are actually rather tawny.

Doug - I can't believe you are wasting your time on this Chimu guy!
 

---

Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mmmkay:
^ Just shut up. There is ample proof in archived threads. Look for it.

Some of us know better. To "prove" that fulani are native africans is like "proving" the sky is blue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by USA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
[QB] Chimu, Khoisan are not Central Asians, even though SOME Khoisan have similar features. Therefore, you cannot state that because SOME Khoisan are as light as Asians from the Central Asians steppes, that the Khoisan are NOT black Africans. YOU aren't making any sense and the ANALOGY is FLAWED. You SHOULD be comparing the Khoisan to OTHER Africans who they are related to and OTHER KHOISAN and stop trying to make FAKE associations that DO NOT EXIST, based on SELECTED images of the LIGHTEST Khoisan you can find.

So your half truths and HALF baked facts are exposed AGAIN for WHAT they are: PHONY attempts to ALTER the ACTUAL diversity and complexity of African people and blacks through NONSENSE associations with NON BLACKS.

Again, you are RELYING on trying to showcase the LIGHTEST people who are part of the black diaspora and associate them with people who have NO BLACK ancestry and trying to make an argument. But you are a FOOL. Khoisan ARE NOT central Asians and their features and complexions are NOT the same as central Asians, thereby making your SPAMMING of selected Khoisan as REPRESENTATIVE of ALL Khoisan another example of your NONSENSE and FEAR of the word black.

NOBODY said that those Central Asians were black. YOU said that. Therefore YOUR ANALOGY is again STUPID because you are comparing apples to oranges. YOU make up stupid analogies that MAKE NO SENSE and then pretend you have a CONTRADICTION of the facts, but in reality YOU are contradicting YOURSELF because you are an IDIOT LOON who has nothing better to do but DELUDE HIMSELF with SILLY facts that have NOTHING to do with reality. The Khoisan are BLACK AFRICANS, period and their features have NOTHING to do with Asia. Some light skin people among a population called BLACK does not mean that the word is INVALID. [QUOTE]

---

It makes YOU a fool for trying to PICK THEM as some sort of contradiction of the word black, when they aren't.

-In the USA, Alicia Keys falls under the African American ethnic label, which is to say they self-identify as "black" and are seen as such by the public. This despite the fact that Alicia Keys is 1/2 white, and it is very evident by her phenotype. You do realize that many black Africans would not call her black? Or for that matter, neither would they be called black in LatinAmerica.

---

If if bothers you that Alicia Keys considers herself black then you need to take it out with Alicia Keys. All bi-racials chooses a side. Would you be upset if she would choose her white side and say she is White? The problem you have is Alicia Keys identifying as Black, but if she identifies as White there wouldn't be no argument. If you don't like it, I suggest you box it out with Alicia Keys. It is her choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by USA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by USA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
[QB] Chimu, Khoisan are not Central Asians, even though SOME Khoisan have similar features. Therefore, you cannot state that because SOME Khoisan are as light as Asians from the Central Asians steppes, that the Khoisan are NOT black Africans. YOU aren't making any sense and the ANALOGY is FLAWED. You SHOULD be comparing the Khoisan to OTHER Africans who they are related to and OTHER KHOISAN and stop trying to make FAKE associations that DO NOT EXIST, based on SELECTED images of the LIGHTEST Khoisan you can find.

So your half truths and HALF baked facts are exposed AGAIN for WHAT they are: PHONY attempts to ALTER the ACTUAL diversity and complexity of African people and blacks through NONSENSE associations with NON BLACKS.

Again, you are RELYING on trying to showcase the LIGHTEST people who are part of the black diaspora and associate them with people who have NO BLACK ancestry and trying to make an argument. But you are a FOOL. Khoisan ARE NOT central Asians and their features and complexions are NOT the same as central Asians, thereby making your SPAMMING of selected Khoisan as REPRESENTATIVE of ALL Khoisan another example of your NONSENSE and FEAR of the word black.

NOBODY said that those Central Asians were black. YOU said that. Therefore YOUR ANALOGY is again STUPID because you are comparing apples to oranges. YOU make up stupid analogies that MAKE NO SENSE and then pretend you have a CONTRADICTION of the facts, but in reality YOU are contradicting YOURSELF because you are an IDIOT LOON who has nothing better to do but DELUDE HIMSELF with SILLY facts that have NOTHING to do with reality. The Khoisan are BLACK AFRICANS, period and their features have NOTHING to do with Asia. Some light skin people among a population called BLACK does not mean that the word is INVALID. [QUOTE]

---

It makes YOU a fool for trying to PICK THEM as some sort of contradiction of the word black, when they aren't.

-In the USA, Alicia Keys falls under the African American ethnic label, which is to say they self-identify as "black" and are seen as such by the public. This despite the fact that Alicia Keys is 1/2 white, and it is very evident by her phenotype. You do realize that many black Africans would not call her black? Or for that matter, neither would they be called black in LatinAmerica.

---

If if bothers you that Alicia Keys considers herself black then you need to take it out with Alicia Keys. All bi-racials chooses a side. Would you be upset if she would choose her white side and say she is White? The problem you have is Alicia Keys identifying as Black, but if she identifies as White there wouldn't be no argument. If you don't like it, I suggest you box it out with Alicia Keys. It is her choice.

---

You are wrong, it doesn't bother me at all and I truly don't care what she self-identifies as, you missed the entire point. Follow the thread progression. She was used as an example of how black is very much a socially defined racial label. Previous posters stated similar conclusions.
It is you who have assumed false conclusion based on your own imagination and not on what was written.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HORUS^*^:
The only reason Alicia Keys would not be called black "in some parts" of Africa is probably because of the misconception that people like the Fulani are Arabs, so they generally don't class people who are not literally black skinned as Black. This is just a knowledge/ignorance thing.

For example, in some parts of Nigeria, The Fulanis who are 100% native Africans but are "fair skinned" are misconstrued as non-Blacks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolofi:
Prove that Fulani are 100% native Africans!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by USA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by USA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
[QB] Chimu, Khoisan are not Central Asians, even though SOME Khoisan have similar features. Therefore, you cannot state that because SOME Khoisan are as light as Asians from the Central Asians steppes, that the Khoisan are NOT black Africans. YOU aren't making any sense and the ANALOGY is FLAWED. You SHOULD be comparing the Khoisan to OTHER Africans who they are related to and OTHER KHOISAN and stop trying to make FAKE associations that DO NOT EXIST, based on SELECTED images of the LIGHTEST Khoisan you can find.

So your half truths and HALF baked facts are exposed AGAIN for WHAT they are: PHONY attempts to ALTER the ACTUAL diversity and complexity of African people and blacks through NONSENSE associations with NON BLACKS.

Again, you are RELYING on trying to showcase the LIGHTEST people who are part of the black diaspora and associate them with people who have NO BLACK ancestry and trying to make an argument. But you are a FOOL. Khoisan ARE NOT central Asians and their features and complexions are NOT the same as central Asians, thereby making your SPAMMING of selected Khoisan as REPRESENTATIVE of ALL Khoisan another example of your NONSENSE and FEAR of the word black.

NOBODY said that those Central Asians were black. YOU said that. Therefore YOUR ANALOGY is again STUPID because you are comparing apples to oranges. YOU make up stupid analogies that MAKE NO SENSE and then pretend you have a CONTRADICTION of the facts, but in reality YOU are contradicting YOURSELF because you are an IDIOT LOON who has nothing better to do but DELUDE HIMSELF with SILLY facts that have NOTHING to do with reality. The Khoisan are BLACK AFRICANS, period and their features have NOTHING to do with Asia. Some light skin people among a population called BLACK does not mean that the word is INVALID. [QUOTE]

---

It makes YOU a fool for trying to PICK THEM as some sort of contradiction of the word black, when they aren't.

-In the USA, Alicia Keys falls under the African American ethnic label, which is to say they self-identify as "black" and are seen as such by the public. This despite the fact that Alicia Keys is 1/2 white, and it is very evident by her phenotype. You do realize that many black Africans would not call her black? Or for that matter, neither would they be called black in LatinAmerica.

---

If if bothers you that Alicia Keys considers herself black then you need to take it out with Alicia Keys. All bi-racials chooses a side. Would you be upset if she would choose her white side and say she is White? The problem you have is Alicia Keys identifying as Black, but if she identifies as White there wouldn't be no argument. If you don't like it, I suggest you box it out with Alicia Keys. It is her choice.

---

You are wrong, it doesn't bother me at all and I truly don't care what she self-identifies as, you missed the entire point. Follow the thread progression. She was used as an example of how black is very much a socially defined racial label. Previous posters stated similar conclusions.
It is you who have assumed false conclusion based on your own imagination and not on what was written.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jo Nongowa:
Well, I'm African. Was raised alongside Fulas who come in all shades of 'black' as most other Africans do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolofi:
We don't know if Egyptians were all black or not mixed all we have is current Egyptian lineages and most of them aren't African lineages currently

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolofi:
We don't know if Egyptians were all black or not mixed all we have is current Egyptian lineages and most of them aren't African lineages currently

---

quote:

---

You know you are just trolling with an already DEBUNKED agenda.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
^^ You outsiders vex me, dictating to blacks as to who and what we are.
Well, we didnt ask you and aren't taking lessons from you about ourselves.
The days of your kind dominating us are over and through and may that fact
ever remain true.

You as a non-black have not one whit to do with any black peoples' identity
whether "social" or "scientific." Go back to your own non-black people and
work on theirs and your colour and ethnic classification why don't you please.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Habari:
There is another problem in this thread, what's the definition of White people...who is white? Northern Europeans have some difficulty to view Southern Europeans as their kins...in North America, Germans, Southern Europeans and Irish people were not even considered as White for some time...who is white? But also who is Black...many Africans from the diaspora wouldn't be viewed as native African because of the complexion of their skins...who is Black...some North Eastern Africans won't be viewed as native Africans in some parts of Africa because their history of admixture with West Asians...who is Black...who is White...we don't know..Colorism is a false science....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
^^ You outsiders vex me, dictating to blacks as to who and what we are.
Well, we didnt ask you and aren't taking lessons from you about ourselves.
The days of your kind dominating us are over and through and may that fact
ever remain true.

You as a non-black have not one whit to do with any black peoples' identity
whether "social" or "scientific." Go back to your own non-black people and
work on theirs and your colour and ethnic classification why don't you please.

---

Scientific analysis does not require group affiliation to be proven as valid. Black is only valid as a description of pigmentation and there are very few Black or White people.

I still haven't found Negroland on my map yet.

Afircan; Africanoid; Afro-Asian, Afro-Arab. Afro-American. Far more valid than the dyfunct term called Black.

With that said - Black is still a valid social designation and I have already stated my opinion of affiliations of the focus group of this forum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sshaun002:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Habari:
There is another problem in this thread, what's the definition of White people...who is white? Northern Europeans have some difficulty to view Southern Europeans as their kins...in North America, Germans, Southern Europeans and Irish people were not even considered as White for some time...who is white? But also who is Black...many Africans from the diaspora wouldn't be viewed as native African because of the complexion of their skins...who is Black...some North Eastern Africans won't be viewed as native Africans in some parts of Africa because their history of admixture with West Asians...who is Black...who is White...we don't know..Colorism is a false science....

---

That was the point of this thread. To show the hypocrisy of people like Rasol. He continually contradicts himself. He'll say that race doesn't exist but that Egyptians were black. When you ask him what does "black" mean, he'll say it simply refers to people with dark skin. If you show people with dark skin who are not African he will say they're not black.

Going by his loose definition of black, Ancient Egypt could have been built by people non-indigenious to Africa who had brown complexion - Arabs, Indians, you name it. As the photos of Indians and other peoples in this thread shows, relying on pictures to believe that Egyptians were Africans is not reliable. Many other peoples share similar physical characteristics with African populations even when they're not African at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Black is valid whatever way blacks say so it is.

Listen and listen well, we tell you about black
so don't get it twisted anymore around here.

Your kind no longer rules over our affairs.
We reject you and whatever your views on us.

Go back to Kykleland, quick! While there, figure
out if you're white, offwhite, Euro or Levantine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
^^ You outsiders vex me, dictating to blacks as to who and what we are.
Well, we didnt ask you and aren't taking lessons from you about ourselves.
The days of your kind dominating us are over and through and may that fact
ever remain true.

You as a non-black have not one whit to do with any black peoples' identity
whether "social" or "scientific." Go back to your own non-black people and
work on theirs and your colour and ethnic classification why don't you please.

---

Scientific analysis does not require group affiliation to be proven as valid. Black is only valid as a description of pigmentation and there are very few Black or White people.

I still haven't found Negroland on my map yet.

Afircan; Africanoid; Afro-Asian, Afro-Arab. Afro-American. Far more valid than the dyfunct term called Black.

With that said - Black is still a valid social designation and I have already stated my opinion of affiliations of the focus group of this forum.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by USA:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
What I have wrote wasn't based on false conclusion but what have been WRITTEN. Like I said, it is Alicia Keys who chooses to identify as black. The girl did grow up in Harlem in black culture. There are plenty of black Americans who share Alicia Keys phenotype and are not biracial. I can take you to the projects in New York City and you will see a lot of Alicia Key's phenotypes walking around and these people are not biracial. You have a problem with people identifying as black, but you do not possess the same jealousy when people identify as white. I've seen this case over and over again when it concerns myself.

Then you are confusing posters. Quote where I have written any of the assumptions you state.
You're assumptions are even more amusing because you are addressing someone who is very much a non-white minority and is of Afrodescendancy (non-AA) and live 15 minutes from NYC.
Your post show alot of defensivness with the typical response of anyone that questions the ODR viewpoint.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
I get to do whatever I see fit to do.
I have no care for you and your vote.

Black is what we blacks say so it is.
Your kind's day of dictating and even
influencing is over and done with.
Go tend the fire in your own kitchen.

We reject you and your attempt to
override our self-determination.

Again, go figure just what in hell you are
and whether others will allow you that status
throughout this century or whether they will
again rise up to detain and exterminate you.

You never lost a thing in Africa or any other
blackpeople's land. Your only role is one of
interested observer, to sit at our feet and
learn from us of our matters and affairs as
we dictate what we choose to you.

Flee oppressor, run far from black man's world.


You outsiders vex me, dictating to blacks as to who and what we are.
Well, we didnt ask you and aren't taking lessons from you about ourselves.
The days of your kind dominating us are over and through and may that fact
ever remain true.

You as a non-black have not one whit to do with any black peoples' identity
whether "social" or "scientific." Go back to your own non-black people and
work on theirs and your colour and ethnic classification why don't you please.

Black is valid whatever way blacks say so it is.

Listen and listen well, we tell you about black
so don't get it twisted anymore around here.

Your kind no longer rules over our affairs.
We reject you and whatever your views on us.

Go back to Kykleland, quick! While there, figure
out if you're white, offwhite, Euro or Levantine.

---

quote:

---

That was the point of this thread. To show the hypocrisy of people like Rasol.

---

quote:

---

He continually contradicts himself.

---

I don't, you simply lack intelligence, and so can't understand... 'ANYTHING' really, due to your own mental limitations.

It's easier for you to call your limitations someone elses 'contradiction', than it is to educate your own mind beyound your crudely limited, and racist mentality.

But you go on whining about my 'hypocrisy' and 'contradictions', if you think it will make you feel better.

Hasn't so far though, I noticed, but then, you never could take a hint.

quote:

---

Altakruri writes: Black is what we blacks say so it is.

---

^ So it has been.....since before the Km.t [the self proclaimed Blacks of Ancient Egypt] and so it shall remain.

Vexed Kemophobes feel free to vent in vain, but Black The AE shall ever remain.


^ Mentuhotep, The Black King wears the Red Crown.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Going by his loose definition of black, Ancient Egypt could have been built by people non-indigenious to Africa who had brown complexion - Arabs, Indians, you name it.

---

quote:

---

As the photos of Indians and other peoples in this thread shows, relying on pictures to believe that Egyptians were Africans is not reliable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by USA:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
What I have wrote wasn't based on false conclusion but what have been WRITTEN. Like I said, it is Alicia Keys who chooses to identify as black. The girl did grow up in Harlem in black culture. There are plenty of black Americans who share Alicia Keys phenotype and are not biracial. I can take you to the projects in New York City and you will see a lot of Alicia Key's phenotypes walking around and these people are not biracial. You have a problem with people identifying as black, but you do not possess the same jealousy when people identify as white. I've seen this case over and over again when it concerns myself.

Then you are confusing posters. Quote where I have written any of the assumptions you state.
You're assumptions are even more amusing because you are addressing someone who is very much a non-white minority and is of Afrodescendancy (non-AA) and live 15 minutes from NYC.
Your post show alot of defensivness with the typical response of anyone that questions the ODR viewpoint.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

That was the point of this thread. To show the hypocrisy of people like Rasol.

---

That was your CRUDE AGENDA, yes...but it was too transparent, so it failed. Perhaps there is someone stupid enough to bite at your trolling, but that only results in a *dialogue of the dumb* that discredits both parties.

Your failure is precisely why you are trying to 'explain/justify' this troll thread, and so your *excuse for the thread* is also transparent, and also fails to interest anyone with a brain.

quote:

---

He continually contradicts himself.

---

I don't, you simply lack intelligence, and so can't understand... 'ANYTHING' really, due to your own mental limitations.

It's easier for you to call your limitations someone elses 'contradiction', than it is to educate your own mind beyound your crudely limited, and racist mentality.

But you go on whining about my 'hypocrisy' and 'contradictions', if you think it will make you feel better.

Hasn't so far though, I noticed, but then, you never could take a hint.

quote:

---

Altakruri writes: Black is what we blacks say so it is.

---

^ So it has been.....since before the Km.t [the self proclaimed Blacks of Ancient Egypt] and so it shall remain.

Vexed Kemophobes feel free to vent in vain, but Black The AE shall ever remain.


^ Mentuhotep, The Black King wears the Red Crown.

---

quote:

---

Its more than just the color of skin that makes a person African.

---

quote:

---

LOL. Why do people (ala chimu, sshaun) pretend to be *smart* but always ending both exposing their agenda and sounding dumb at the same time?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
African Jew is fine but who said I was non-Black. I have always said I was part Black.

Euro-Ethiopian is a better description I suppose.


Hmm, Afro-European. Yes that is the best term.

However, I am not socially Black in Western worlds. Part Black is how I self identify. Ethiopians can be the Blackest people in the World and I am likely to have an ancestor that was that dark so yes I am also scientifically part Black and proud of it. Why should I not be proud of my Grandfather, he was a great man.

I am not sure how you can come up with a racial concept of Black that will satisfy everyone and be scientifically defineable without contradictions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:

quote:

---

Originally posted by USA:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
What I have wrote wasn't based on false conclusion but what have been WRITTEN. Like I said, it is Alicia Keys who chooses to identify as black. The girl did grow up in Harlem in black culture. There are plenty of black Americans who share Alicia Keys phenotype and are not biracial. I can take you to the projects in New York City and you will see a lot of Alicia Key's phenotypes walking around and these people are not biracial. You have a problem with people identifying as black, but you do not possess the same jealousy when people identify as white. I've seen this case over and over again when it concerns myself.

Then you are confusing posters. Quote where I have written any of the assumptions you state.
You're assumptions are even more amusing because you are addressing someone who is very much a non-white minority and is of Afrodescendancy (non-AA) and live 15 minutes from NYC.
Your post show alot of defensivness with the typical response of anyone that questions the ODR viewpoint.

---

I have a problem with biracial people identifying as only one race, because they do it to get along with the race they choose to identify.

---

This is not true. It is not your business or concern of how biracial identify. You have a problem with biracials identifying as black but don't possess the same jealousy when biracials identify as white. What about all the Asian & White biracials who identify as White, what about the Black & White biracials who identify as White. No one never make an argument about it. My black family raised me from 8-16 years old. I lived in a black community, with black culture, and with a black family. It is not only about race but about experiences and culture. It is not your say of how biracials should identify. They do not choose one race over another to "get along". Biracials choose the one race over another and still get along with the other. It is about culture, experience, and up-bringing, and in some cases their phenotype is already setting them up for how they will be treated.
 

---

Posted by R U 2 religious (Member # 4547) on :
 
Jamie writes:

"In the USA, Alicia Keys falls under the African American ethnic label, which is to say they self-identify as "black" and are seen as such by the public. This despite the fact that Alicia Keys is 1/2 white, and it is very evident by her phenotype. You do realize that many black Africans would not call her black? Or for that matter, neither would they be called black in LatinAmerica."

how would you have her to identify herself? This is the question! You acknowledge that she is half white, yet you are extremely vague on her African heritage. Should she identify herself as a Mule/Mulatto?

So you feel this woman should identify herself as a European correct? Before I post the picture, let me say if you haven't seen her in real life then you wouldn't know what her true color is ... lights camera, photoshop works wonder but I know for a fact that she's a lot darker then what you see on magazines and on TV, thus you feel this woman on the left, Alicia Keyes should be labeled white/European. I know the girl and have been in the studios with her, and let me tell you she would cuss you out for using her as your example.



She actually a little darker then this in person. Look at her compared to he European woman next to her.

Now I know this guy who grand mother look almost identical to this to the woman below but from different tribes. His grandmother is from the Sioux Native Americans ...



His grandfather is an African American and I mean extremely dark ...

Should this man identify himself as a Native America or and African American? I mean how would you see this person Jamie? ... I'll answer it for you; African American!

????

It funny how Europeans want the accomplishments of those who identify themselves as black (including the Egyptians) to be theirs ... yet they accuse others of stealing peoples cultures ...

P.S. What you are accusing AA and other of doing is the very thing that you are doing. You are extremely selective in who you want to call European. Alicia is no more mixed than this guy and because she identifies with her African heritage, the African dna that flows through her blood, she's the target of your foolish antics.
 

---

Posted by USA (Member # 15085) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by USA:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
What I have wrote wasn't based on false conclusion but what have been WRITTEN. Like I said, it is Alicia Keys who chooses to identify as black. The girl did grow up in Harlem in black culture. There are plenty of black Americans who share Alicia Keys phenotype and are not biracial. I can take you to the projects in New York City and you will see a lot of Alicia Key's phenotypes walking around and these people are not biracial. You have a problem with people identifying as black, but you do not possess the same jealousy when people identify as white. I've seen this case over and over again when it concerns myself.

Then you are confusing posters. Quote where I have written any of the assumptions you state.
You're assumptions are even more amusing because you are addressing someone who is very much a non-white minority and is of Afrodescendancy (non-AA) and live 15 minutes from NYC.
Your post show alot of defensivness with the typical response of anyone that questions the ODR viewpoint.

---

Confusing posters may be accurate, but "assumption" is totally false. There are no assumptions here. That posters do not live no damn 15 minutes from NYC. How can you be sure if that person is from African descent? The person sounds like a white lation/hispanic from central or south america to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by R U 2 religious:
Jamie writes:

"In the USA, Alicia Keys falls under the African American ethnic label, which is to say they self-identify as "black" and are seen as such by the public. This despite the fact that Alicia Keys is 1/2 white, and it is very evident by her phenotype. You do realize that many black Africans would not call her black? Or for that matter, neither would they be called black in LatinAmerica."

how would you have her to identify herself? This is the question! You acknowledge that she is half white, yet you are extremely vague on her African heritage. Should she identify herself as a Mule/Mulatto?

So you feel this woman should identify herself as a European correct? Before I post the picture, let me say if you haven't seen her in real life then you wouldn't know what her true color is ... lights camera, photoshop works wonder but I know for a fact that she's a lot darker then what you see on magazines and on TV, thus you feel this woman on the left, Alicia Keyes should be labeled white/European. I know the girl and have been in the studios with her, and let me tell you she would cuss you out for using her as your example.



She actually a little darker then this in person. Look at her compared to he European woman next to her.

Now I know this guy who grand mother look almost identical to this to the woman below but from different tribes. His grandmother is from the Sioux Native Americans ...



His grandfather is an African American and I mean extremely dark ...

Should this man identify himself as a Native America or and African American? I mean how would you see this person Jamie? ... I'll answer it for you; African American!

????

It funny how Europeans want the accomplishments of those who identify themselves as black (including the Egyptians) to be theirs ... yet they accuse others of stealing peoples cultures ...

P.S. What you are accusing AA and other of doing is the very thing that you are doing. You are extremely selective in who you want to call European. Alicia is no more mixed than this guy and because she identifies with her African heritage, the African dna that flows through her blood, she's the target of your foolish antics.

---

-That was my post you quoted.
You too have not followed the thread progression. I'll sum up that post for you:

-Someone posted Alicia Keys' image while discussing the definition of black.
-I commented that that term can be socially constructed and used her as an example.
I do not care what she self-identifies as, she is a product of her culture (USA).
She is the mixed offspring of a white (Eurodescent) and black (Afrodescent) parents. The offspring of this type of union is called a mulatto. This racial term was removed from the US census in the early 20th century. The USA also enforced the One Drop & Hypodescent rule to keep the seperation between black and white.
But this does not mean the rest of the world or history followed those type of rules.
In Apartheid S. Africa she would have been colored. In Cuba she would be called Mulata. In other LatinAmerican countries she would have been called Mestiza (mixed). Many Africans would not call her black. Due to the way race relation evolved in the USA, it is logical she would self-identify as black.

As for the rest of your post, they are all assumptions on your part that have nothing to do with the nature of my post (unless you are confusing posters).
 

---

Posted by R U 2 religious (Member # 4547) on :
 
I may have mixed up poster ... I will check ..

This happens sometimes when your doing your business and posting on forums sometimes.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
Some of you still make the mistake of allowing these trolls to dupe you into a defensive 'explanation' of Black identity.

All the while they throw around terms like 'afro-jew' and 'middle-east' and are never forced to defend them.

That's why these trolls gravitate to naive posters they can 'pick' on, and avoid dealing with those who they know DESTROY them with a quickness.

Maybe a dozen times I challenged "Mr. Mulatto" to form a list - of people who are mixed, and those who are not.

Never do they even attempt to answer, because they have no answer, which renders their entire ideology, and this 'argument' moot.


But why should they answer questions?

They simply wait for naives' to respound to their anti-Black baiting posts.

Then you spend 5 pages chasing them around, while they sit back and laugh.

Don't feed the troll. And don't chase the mule either.
 

---

Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:

quote:

---

Originally posted by USA:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
What I have wrote wasn't based on false conclusion but what have been WRITTEN. Like I said, it is Alicia Keys who chooses to identify as black. The girl did grow up in Harlem in black culture. There are plenty of black Americans who share Alicia Keys phenotype and are not biracial. I can take you to the projects in New York City and you will see a lot of Alicia Key's phenotypes walking around and these people are not biracial. You have a problem with people identifying as black, but you do not possess the same jealousy when people identify as white. I've seen this case over and over again when it concerns myself.

Then you are confusing posters. Quote where I have written any of the assumptions you state.
You're assumptions are even more amusing because you are addressing someone who is very much a non-white minority and is of Afrodescendancy (non-AA) and live 15 minutes from NYC.
Your post show alot of defensivness with the typical response of anyone that questions the ODR viewpoint.

---

I have a problem with biracial people identifying as only one race, because they do it to get along with the race they choose to identify.

---

This is not true. It is not your business or concern of how biracial identify. You have a problem with biracials identifying as black but don't possess the same jealousy when biracials identify as white. What about all the Asian & White biracials who identify as White, what about the Black & White biracials who identify as White. No one never make an argument about it. My black family raised me from 8-16 years old. I lived in a black community, with black culture, and with a black family. It is not only about race but about experiences and culture. It is not your say of how biracials should identify. They do not choose one race over another to "get along". Biracials choose the one race over another and still get along with the other. It is about culture, experience, and up-bringing, and in some cases their phenotype is already setting them up for how they will be treated.

---

quote:

---

I have problems

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Some of you still make the mistake of allowing these trolls to dupe you into a defensive 'explanation' of Black identity.

All the while they throw around terms like 'afro-jew' and 'middle-east' and are never forced to defend them.

That's why these trolls gravitate to naive posters they can 'pick' on, and avoid dealing with those who they know DESTROY them with a quickness.

Maybe a dozen times I challenged "Mr. Mulatto" to form a list - of people who are mixed, and those who are not.

Never do they even attempt to answer, because they have no answer, which renders their entire ideology, and this 'argument' moot.


But why should they answer questions?

They simply wait for naives' to respound to their anti-Black baiting posts.

Then you spend 5 pages chasing them around, while they sit back and laugh.

Don't feed the troll. And don't chase the mule either.

---

quote:

---

True indeed, good post. Jaime and prmiddleastern troll tried for 2 threads in another forum trying to convince the Bass that he's a "Zambo" and or mulatto and get mad because AAs like the Bass don't use the Latin American "racial democracy" terms where Afro-descendant people embrace the blood of their oppressors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

I have problems

---

^ You can see your problem staring back at you in the mirror.

In order to identify as bi-racial, you have to accept the idea of race to begin with.

Some of the people you want to consider bi-racial *simply do not care for this concept*.

Why don't you *grow up* and accept this fact.

Instead, you cry like some 'hurt' transracial, bi-racial, queer-racial....race obsessed loser.

No one cares! So go kill yourself if you need to, just stop infestin this forum with your insipid whining.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
True indeed, good post. Jaime and prmiddleastern troll tried for 2 threads in another forum trying to convince the Bass that he's a "Zambo" and or mulatto and get mad because AAs like the Bass don't use the Latin American "racial democracy" terms where Afro-descendant people embrace the blood of their oppressors.

---

I didn't know that native americans oppresed black people Mackandal , but anyways this confirms this is about social identity and subjectivity with emotions involved,things I don't usually give importance to.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

anyways this confirms this is about social identity

---

quote:

---

Well, then that is your problem.

---

quote:

---

We don't know if Egyptians were all black or not mixed all we have is current Egyptian lineages and most of them aren't African lineages currently

---

quote:

---

Tishkoff and her colleagues chose to investigate East African peoples for specific reasons. The number of linguistic and cultural differences is unusually high in the region, as is the variation in physical appearance—East Africans are tall or short, darker-skinned or lighter-skinned, round-faced or narrow-faced, and so on. This observation suggested that the genetic composition of the population is highly diverse, and as expected, the team found substantial variation in the mtDNA. In fact, members of five of the lineages showed an exceptionally high number of mutations compared with other populations, indicating that these East African lineages are of great antiquity. Identified by tribal affiliation, these are: the Sandawe, who speak a "click" language related to that of the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert; the Burunge and Gorowaa, who migrated to Tanzania from Ethiopia within the last five thousand years; and the Maasai and the Datog, who probably originated in the Sudan. The efforts of the University of Maryland group reflect a substantially larger database and more certain geographic origins for its subjects than earlier mtDNA studies. Further, the work by Tishkoff's team reveals that these five East African populations have even older origins than the !Kung San of southern Africa, who previously had the oldest known mtDNA.

"These samples showed really deep, old lineages with lots of genetic diversity," Tishkoff says. "They are the oldest lineages identified to date. And that fact makes it highly likely that 'Eve' was an East or Northeast African. My guess is that the region of Ethiopia or the Sudan is where modern humans originated."

Tishkoff and her colleagues chose to investigate East African peoples for specific reasons. The number of linguistic and cultural differences is unusually high in the region, as is the variation in physical appearance— East Africans are tall or short , darker-skinned or lighter-skinned , round-faced or narrow-faced , and so on. This observation suggested that the genetic composition of the population is highly diverse, and as expected, the team found substantial variation in the mtDNA. In fact, members of five of the lineages showed an exceptionally high number of mutations compared with other populations, indicating that these East African lineages are of great antiquity. Identified by tribal affiliation, these are: the Sandawe, who speak a "click" language related to that of the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert; the Burunge and Gorowaa, who migrated to Tanzania from Ethiopia within the last five thousand years; and the Maasai and the Datog, who probably originated in the Sudan. The efforts of the University of Maryland group reflect a substantially larger database and more certain geographic origins for its subjects than earlier mtDNA studies. Further, the work by Tishkoff's team reveals that these five East African populations have even older origins than the !Kung San of southern Africa, who previously had the oldest known mtDNA.

"These samples showed really deep, old lineages with lots of genetic diversity," Tishkoff says. "They are the oldest lineages identified to date. And that fact makes it highly likely that 'Eve' was an East or Northeast African. My guess is that the region of Ethiopia or the Sudan is where modern humans originated."

---

Today Black Egyptians
 

---

Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
 
Race deniers like rasol are reality deniers. Race is analogous to dog breed or subspecies. The only way his argument can work is if he denies the existance of dog breeds, too. So rasol, are dog breeds a social construct without validity? The absurdity never ends.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Race deniers are reality deniers.

---

quote:

---

Race is analogous to dog breed or subspecies.

---

quote:

---

are dog breeds a social construct without validity?

---

This is another non-sequitur. All you idiots ever do is make non-sequitur argument because you lack the intelligence necessary to engage a debate.

- Dog breeds are the product of artificial, not natural selection.

- Dog 'breeds' returned to the wild are naturally bred back to a 'mongrelised' state, and the artifically maintained dog 'breeds' vanish.

- Even if this were not the case, no point is made, since the existence of sub-species in nature is not under dispute, nor need it be, since all species in nature do *not* have sub-species.

What you are trying to dispute is the reality of the lack of any living sub-species of homo-sapiens sapiens.

This reality is confirmed immediately and from any current anthropology text.


Dog breeds can't help you here.

Your argument is stupid.

You need to go someplace else, where stupid people play, and where you can argue in stupidity, all the live-long-day.
 

---

Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

anyways this confirms this is about social identity

---

^ It does confirm that you don't have one.

Which is why you're here, muttering meally mouthed banalities and trying to cheer yourself up. You're pathetic.

quote:

---

Well, then that is your problem.

---

No actually it's yours. Since you will find nothing here but the abuse you secretly crave, being a self pitying angst-ridden 'mulatto' with no identity of his own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Race deniers are reality deniers.

---

^ Racist rhetoric is the empty rhetoric, of embittered and unintelligent losers like you.

quote:

---

Race is analogous to dog breed or subspecies.

---

The reality is there are no sub-species of humanity, by interpreting race as sub-species you moot your own argument dummy.

quote:

---

are dog breeds a social construct without validity?

---

This is another non-sequitur. All you idiots ever do is make non-sequitur argument because you lack the intelligence necessary to engage a debate.

- Dog breeds are the product of artificial, not natural selection.

- Dog 'breeds' returned to the wild are naturally bred back to a 'mongrelised' state, and the artifically maintained dog 'breeds' vanish.

- Even if this were not the case, no point is made, since the existence of sub-species in nature is not under dispute, nor need it be, since all species in nature do *not* have sub-species.

What you are trying to dispute is the reality of the lack of any living sub-species of homo-sapiens sapiens.

This reality is confirmed immediately and from any current anthropology text.


Dog breeds can't help you here.

Your argument is stupid.

You need to go someplace else, where stupid people play, and where you can argue in stupidity, all the live-long-day.

---

quote:

---

The means by which things become breeds - whether artificial selection or natural selection - is not relevant.

---

quote:

---

Accept that fact that races are breeds and vice versa.

---

quote:

---

And please leave anthropology out of this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

The means by which things become breeds - whether artificial selection or natural selection - is not relevant.

---

Wrong again.

It is relevant because the *means* is specific to your analogy.

Where X is under discussion, means in this case is the cause or the manner by which X would be created.

If in your analogy X [dog breed] is analogous to Y [people breed], and X [dog breed] is caused by Z [artificial selection].

Then in order for analogy to be apt Z [artifical selection] must also exist to explain Y [people breed]. This is especially so in this case because dog breeds [X] *DEPENDS* upon artifical selection. [the Z factor that does not exist for homo sapiens].

Since Z does not exist for people, then your analogy is FLAAAWWWEED.

The flaw is doubly relevant because the whole reason you choose 'dogs' is because they are splendid examples of descrete breeds, which in turn is because they are splendid examples of *artifical selection*, in contrast to homo sapien, and so destroying the analogy.

But you're dumb, and even with this painfully detailed explanation of your error , you still do not understand do you? lol.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QB]

quote:

---

Accept that fact that races are breeds and vice versa.

---

^ According to anthropology, the fact is, there are no decrete 'breeds' of homo-sapiens-sapiens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Lastly: As for you blatant attempt to pimp your racist ill-literature;

Also from the amazon.com site in reference to the stinking pile of pooh you are desparately trying to promote....

- perhaps one of the siliest most blatantly agenda driven books ever.

- the bell curve in new clothes, empirical lies and logical fallacies included.

- hype and hubris

and finally...

- Thus, [the authors] are forced to rely on meaningless studies on such scientifically irrelevant phenomena as skull size variation (which interestingly Franz Boas destroyed a century ago as a persuasive argument) to bolster their case and to present alternative subjective classification schemes based on "fuzzy sets" rather than the commonly accepted and objective metric of genetic variation.

Yet, preconceived notions die hard and [they] come from a physical anthropology school uncomfortable with the reams of new evidence from the Human Genome Project, etc. that have overturned cherished theories.

^ No sale chump. Go pimp your racist tripe elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

Nobody has ever successfully debunked the Bell Curve.

---

quote:

---

I've alreay pointed out the problems with your assertions

---

quote:

---

not all dogs are artificially created and they are a breed/subspecies with wolves and coyotes.

---

quote:

---

Artificially electing for traits means that the traits already existed naturally

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sshaun002:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Accept that fact that races are breeds and vice versa.

---

^ According to anthropology, the fact is, there are no decrete 'breeds' of homo-sapiens-sapiens.

---

What does anthropology say about dog breeds? Are they discrete? lol.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Nobody has ever successfully debunked the Bell Curve.

---

You do, everytime you cite it, since you can't form a proper analogy, or follow a line of reason to it's logical conclusion.


You lend credence to the theory that racists lack intelligence, and know it, and so gravitate towards the fools gold of 'ego-boost' via 'race'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

I've alreay pointed out the problems with your assertions

---

No, but you have demonstrated with each post that you don't know what you're talking about.

Example:

quote:

---

not all dogs are artificially created and they are a breed/subspecies with wolves and coyotes.

---

This is also wrong.

Canines, which include wolves, coyotes, jackels, foxes and dogs, are not a single species divided into sub-species but rather consists of a *family* of many [over 30] different species..

The 'dog' is a subspecies of the wolf, created by domestication by man.

quote:

---

Artificially electing for traits means that the traits already existed naturally

---

This is also wrong.

You will FLUNK OUT of any freshman College biology-prep class writing such ignorant drivel.

Any creature created thru sexual reproduction, potentially has new genes, and new traits. Said traits can be bred for, or bred out. Thus new traits can be created and old ones destroyed.

To state that traits 'exist' before conception [breeding] is to show complete illiteracy of the basic biology of sexual reproduction.

You really are just and ignorant racist.

You talk about genetics and anthropology and artificial selection but you don't know anything about these topics.

All you 'know' is the reviews you read of racist pseudos who you let stink your mind.

I doubt you even read their racist books, beyound the superfluous web-reviews.

Instead of clinging to the opiate of 'race', you need to educate your mind.

Race can't help you.

You're a joke.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sshaun002:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Accept that fact that races are breeds and vice versa.

---

^ According to anthropology, the fact is, there are no decrete 'breeds' of homo-sapiens-sapiens.

---

What does anthropology say about dog breeds? Are they discrete? lol.

---

^

- They say you obviously have no rebuttal to the fact that all humans are one species with no sub-species, according to the science of the study of the human species, ie - anthropology.

- They say this moots your argument, and renders you and obvious sore loser/hypocrite, since you claim that race is scientific, you equate race to subspecies, but then refuse to accept what science says about subspecies in humans of which there are ZERO, NADA, NONE, ZILCH.

- They say, this is really *the end* of your lost argument, sore loser babblings not withstanding.

- They say, if you don't like it, perhaps you can go ask a *veterinarian* what [s]he thinks about races of homo-sapiens, since you want to 'leave anthropology out of it', and analogise humans to artificially created dog breeds, instead.

- Lastly, they say: Haha, what a twit this Shawn fellow appears to be.

---

quote:

---

It is thought that some wild dogs also existed.

---

quote:

---

Yes, thru sexual reproduction *potentially* new traits are created.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sshaun002:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sshaun002:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]Accept that fact that races are breeds and vice versa.

---

^ According to anthropology, the fact is, there are no decrete 'breeds' of homo-sapiens-sapiens.

---

What does anthropology say about dog breeds? Are they discrete? lol.

---

^

- They say you obviously have no rebuttal to the fact that all humans are one species with no sub-species, according to the science of the study of the human species, ie - anthropology.

- They say this moots your argument, and renders you and obvious sore loser/hypocrite, since you claim that race is scientific, you equate race to subspecies, but then refuse to accept what science says about subspecies in humans of which there are ZERO, NADA, NONE, ZILCH.

- They say, this is really *the end* of your lost argument, sore loser babblings not withstanding.

- They say, if you don't like it, perhaps you can go ask a *veterinarian* what [s]he thinks about races of homo-sapiens, since you want to 'leave anthropology out of it', and analogise humans to artificially created dog breeds, instead.

- Lastly, they say: Haha, what a twit this Shawn fellow appears to be.

---

quote:

---

Shawn responds: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill

---

^Booooo. Same old tired 'race references' to Gill, long exploded, and recited out of lack of any new [real] ammunition...


- From the same link...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/brace.html

- and from here...

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2742766


- and here....

http://www.anthropology.emory.edu/FACULTY/ANTGA/Web%20Site/PDFs/Century%20of%20Skeletal%20Biology.pdf


^ I do agree however that you are better off saying little and simply posting your 'race-links'.

The less you say, the less foolish you end up sounding.

So....good move.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Gill has gone so far as to proclaim greater confidence in skeletal features than soft tissue ones. He says, “I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me” (2000).

Unfortunately, Gill’s confidence belies the objective evidence.
- A Century of Skeletal Biology and Paleopathology: Contrasts, Contradictions, and Conflicts, # G J Armelagos, DP Van Gerven, 2003

When applied to independent samples of known
composition (the true measure of its success), the method is *less than 20 percent accurate* a figure that hardly inspires confidence in forensic anthropology’s ability to *race a skull* notwithstanding Gill’s [self proclaimed] confidence.

^ Anything else?
 

---

Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

It is thought that some wild dogs also existed.

---

Wild dogs still exist. It is thought that you have no point, and attempt to salvage a broken analogy with strawman arguments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sshaun002:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sshaun002:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]Accept that fact that races are breeds and vice versa.

---

^ According to anthropology, the fact is, there are no decrete 'breeds' of homo-sapiens-sapiens.

---

What does anthropology say about dog breeds? Are they discrete? lol.

---

^

- They say you obviously have no rebuttal to the fact that all humans are one species with no sub-species, according to the science of the study of the human species, ie - anthropology.

- They say this moots your argument, and renders you and obvious sore loser/hypocrite, since you claim that race is scientific, you equate race to subspecies, but then refuse to accept what science says about subspecies in humans of which there are ZERO, NADA, NONE, ZILCH.

- They say, this is really *the end* of your lost argument, sore loser babblings not withstanding.

- They say, if you don't like it, perhaps you can go ask a *veterinarian* what [s]he thinks about races of homo-sapiens, since you want to 'leave anthropology out of it', and analogise humans to artificially created dog breeds, instead.

- Lastly, they say: Haha, what a twit this Shawn fellow appears to be.

---

quote:

---

Shawn responds: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill

---

^Booooo. Same old tired 'race references' to Gill, long exploded, and recited out of lack of any new [real] ammunition...


- From the same link...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/brace.html

- and from here...

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2742766


- and here....

http://www.anthropology.emory.edu/FACULTY/ANTGA/Web%20Site/PDFs/Century%20of%20Skeletal%20Biology.pdf


^ I do agree however that you are better off saying little and simply posting your 'race-links'.

The less you say, the less foolish you end up sounding.

So....good move.

---

quote:

---

The point is that not all dogs were artificially selected

---

quote:

---

The biological reality of race existing or not is irrelevant

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the last magical unicorn hunter:
Santa-Claus deniers are reality deniers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sshaun002:
Race deniers are reality deniers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by USA:
-Someone posted Alicia Keys' image while discussing the definition of black.
-I commented that that term can be socially constructed and used her as an example.
[...]
She is the mixed offspring of a white (Eurodescent) and black (Afrodescent) parents.

---

quote:

---

The offspring of this type of union is called a mulatto. This racial term was removed from the US census in the early 20th century. The USA also enforced the One Drop & Hypodescent rule to keep the seperation between black and white.
But this does not mean the rest of the world or history followed those type of rules.
[/B]

---

• Most of the world never embraced "mulatto".
• What "most of the world" does is irrelevant.
• You wrote:
  
  

  quote:

  ---

  The USA also enforced the One Drop & Hypodescent rule to keep the seperation between black and white.
  But this does not mean

  ---

• You speak of this as though it is bad to keep "white" and "black" as seperate definitions. Why then keep a seperation between black & "coloured";
• Why can't who's "mixed" by your label be just as validly black by their own label?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
Black - a reference to melanin.

---

quote:

---

The point is they're all just social labels when lacking of biological substantiation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Scientific analysis does not require group affiliation to be proven as valid. Black is only valid as a description of pigmentation and there are very few Black or White people.

---

Actually, scientifically there are NO black OR white people.

And because the spectrum contains an infinite variety even within fixed values and even then infinite shades, persistant disecting is rediculous.



^This here, is a fox.

Foxes generally come in various shades of brown-red and brown-orange.

That simple.

quote:

---

Not very useful information. Your opinion is as valid as another in regards to the description you give of yourself when you look in the mirror.

Science is not democratic. You don't get to vote on this.

---

Little do you know, Osirion is that scientifically speaking, to even imply biological mixture between humans is more than a bit rediculous. You get no vote on that.

(Which is why you kept being righteously rejected by alTakruri. )

Oh, I was gonna respond to a post where it looks as if Sshaun002 may have revealed himself in jumping on a misinterpreted rasol point too soon ('jumping on' read 'crying about') but it looks like it was in another thread so oh well.

Less time wasted anyway.
 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QB]

quote:

---

Its more than just the color of skin that makes a person African.

---

Another stupid remark and non-sequitur. When you learn to write and at least semi-intelligent reply that actually addresses what was said, then I will respond to you.

In the meantime, I hold you in contempt for being and idiot, and will ignore your babbblings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Simple fact: Black is no longer in scientific use as a way of describing race.

---

quote:

---

It is still, however, a very valid political/social grouping of people.

---

quote:

---

In a social sense, I would tend to consider myself to be Black

---

quote:

---

My preferred label for myself: African-European (mixed ancestry).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Simple fact: Black is no longer in scientific use as a way of describing race.

---

^ Not a simple fact, but rather a twisted remark.

It is *race* itself that is not considered scientifically valid, therefore there are no scientifically valid terms to describe "race", that would include the word "Jew", which is also not a race, or *any other word*.

Therefore it is the concept of race that is invalidated, not the word "Jew", or Black or other ethnic terms whose use are not dependant on the concept of 'race'.

That you can't grasp this shows the lack of clarity and reason that cripples your thought processess.

Hence and endless series of stupid replies in a stupid thread....

---

quote:

---

Just because science has not been able to define race in a way that is discrete, it does not mean that race does not exist. However, what is certain is that there is no discrete Black or White race as we understand it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
Sub-species=race refuted:


Another way to evaluate the comparative significance of the apportionment percentages
is to consider the concept of sub-species or race in zoological taxonomy. Sub-species
and race, used interchangeably by zoological taxonomists, both refer to a “clade” – that is
– a group of living things with some shared morphology (shape) and phylogeny (evolutionary origin). Other examples of clades are the familiar phylum, class, order, family, genus and species. As the terms suggest, sub-species and race refer to a cladistic divisions below the species level. An alternative approach to intra-specific variation is not to subdivide a species into discrete units, but instead to treat variations across the species’ geographic range as a gradient or “cline.” Thus brown bears could be grouped into subspecies, for example grizzly and Kodiak, or, instead, the variation could be
described as a south/north cline of increasing size. The tendency to prefer clines over clades or vice versa divides taxonomists into groups of their own “lumpers” and “splitters.”149

"The decision to use a cline as opposed to a clade, though conceptually arbitrary, is
practically objective; taxonomists use a convention to determine whether it is justified, or for that matter, worthwhile to use the concept of subspecies or race in accounting for
intra-specific variation. If the amount of genetic variation that can be ascribed to
subspecies or race is greater than 25% of the total genetic variation in the species, the use
of the additional clade is justified; otherwise not.150 As is apparent the percentage of human genetic variation apportionable to continental “race” is less than a third of the
amount typically used to justify a cladistic treatment (7% compared to 25%). By comparison, the figure for African elephants is 40% and 75% for North American grey wolves.151 Thus not only do humans exhibit less intra-specific genetic variation than other animals, but also the variation that does exist is less cladisitc, less separable into discrete lumps."


Genetic Residues of Ancient Migrations:
An End to Biological Essentialism and
the Reification of Race
William M. Richman
University of Toledo

Once again for the trolls and troll of trolls and ultra trolls, race does *NOT* equal subspecies nor are they comparable, interchangeable terms.

---

Again, there is no scientific method to define Black. No one has responded with a method which I take as acceptance of defeat on the issue.

Black can only be defined in a social context.

This man is Black:



And so is this man:



Both men are Black but only one of them is Black as we define it in America. The top one is actually considered Asian or White.

Very scientific!

I like African history and therefore consider myself Afrocentric but I think there are many under tha label that give the term Afrocentric a bad name because of lies.


Example of distortion.

This is an example of Afrocentric fraud. Look at this picture and realize that it is completely made up.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Huni-StatueHead_BrooklynMuseum.png/418px-Huni-StatueHead_BrooklynMuseum.png


Wasn't the official Huni Black enough? Oh I forgot Black is not scientific so someone decided to make it look more like a typical West African (different diet and climate I think).
 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Just because science has not been able to define race in a way that is discrete, it does not mean that race does not exist. However, what is certain is that there is no discrete Black or White race as we understand it.

---

What is certain is that you are and utterly incoherent idiot who has no point and needs to shut up now.

---

quote:

---

Again, there is no scientific method to define Black

---

quote:

---

You sound defeated

---

quote:

---

I can understand why you admit to such defeat since you know very well that the lack of evidence is not proof that something does not exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Again, there is no scientific method to define Black

---

^ Again, this is irrelevant as ethnic terms are not based on science.

The study/post from Charlie Bass is not about the scientifically validity of terms Black or Jew, which is a non-sequitur, but rather about race.

You ignored what the study says about the lack of scientific validity of race, in order to attempt to twist your discourse into a justification of your anti-Black ideology.

quote:

---

You sound defeated

---

You sound stupid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

I can understand why you admit to such defeat since you know very well that the lack of evidence is not proof that something does not exist.

---

^ Logical fallacy Burdan of Proof.

Whether pertaining to human races, or Space Aliens, to demand proof that said *does not exist* is classic argumentative error known as negative proof.

The reason I am so terse with you - is because I don't respect you, because your arguments are unintelligent and self-defeating.

Why else would you make such elementary mistakes?

---

quote:

---

Better to sound stupid and win an argument than to sound smart and be defeated.

---

^ Better to laugh at and idiot, then to argue with one.

quote:

---

Black as it is used in America refers to the Black Race of people.

---

quote:

---

Since there is no scientific basis for a Black race of people the entire thread is a waste of bandwidth.

---

quote:

---

Why else would you make such elementary mistakes?

---

quote:

---

Its called BAIT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Why else would you make such elementary mistakes?

---

quote:

---

Its called BAIT.

---

^ When no one takes it, it's called DUMB.

---

quote:

---

Are you still trying to debate when you have clearly lost?

---

quote:

---

Calling someone Black or White doesn't make a whole lot of sense

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
I apologize to the veterans on this forum for posting information that they're already familiar with, but I feel it's necessary for the newbies who come here frequently and with confused or distorted notions regarding the Ancient Egyptians, and who come with the following delusions:

Self-delusion
A recent post started out with "Some claim that Kemet means black people". The key word in this first statement is "claim" which is a synonym for "believe", which seeks to place a human language in the same category as religion. You can believe in or not believe in God, that's one thing; but you don't believe that "veni" in Latin means "I came"; you either KNOW or you don't.
However, this delusion leads to one that has been fabricated by the distorters of Egyptology.

Assisted delusion
"The Egyptians called their country "Kmt" or "Kemet" which means "Black" after the color of the soil."
This is simply an absolute lie. There is nothing in the grammar, even if one were to use an electron microscope to search for an example that the soil or earth had any connection with the use of this word. The only references to the soil in the names of Ancient Egypt were the names "TaMeri and TaMere"; "Ta" meaning "earth, land, etc."
This mantra is almost always repeated to "inform" the reader of why the word "Black" for Egypt and Egyptians was used, and probably using the age old philosophy that if you repeat a lie often enough, and long enough, it soon becomes accepted as the truth. NOT if one knows better...

KEMET

A comprehensive list of the structure and usages of perhaps the most significant word in the Ancient Egyptian language. All of these words can be found in "An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary" by E. A. Wallis Budge, Dover, NY

Used as an adjective

kem;kemem;kemom - black
kemu - black (m)
keme.t - black (f)
hime.t keme.t - "black woman" (woman of Black)
himu.t keme.t - "black women" (women of Black)

Used as a noun

keme.t - any black person, place, or thing

A determinative is then used to be more specific:

keme.t (woman) - "the Black woman"; ie, 'divine woman'
keme.t (cow) - "a Black cow" - ie, a 'sacred cow'
Keme.t (nation) - "the Black nation"

kem - a black one (m)
keme.t - a black one (f)
kemu - black ones (m)
kemu.t - black ones (f)
kemeti - two black ones


Used for Nationality

Sa Kemet - a man of Black (an Egyptian male)
Sa.t Kemet - a woman of Black (an Egyptian female)
Rome.t Kemet - the people of Black (Egyptians)
Kemetou - Blacks (ie, 'citizens')
Kememou - Black people (of the Black nation)

Other usages

Sa Kem - "Black man", a god, and son of
Sa.t Kem.t - "Black woman", a goddess (page 589b)
kem (papyrus) - to end, complete
kem.t (papyrus) - the end, completion
kemi - finished products
kem khet (stick) - jet black
...
kemwer - any Egyptian person, place or thing ('to be black' + 'to be great')

Kemwer - "The Great Black" - a title of Osiris - the Ancestor of the race

Kemwer (body of water) - "the Great Black sea" - the Red sea
Kemwer (body of water + river bank) - a lake in the Duat (the OtherWorld)
Kemwer Nteri - "the sacred great Black bulls"
kemwer (fortress) - a fort or town
Kemwer (water) - the god of the great Black lake


Kem Amut - a black animal goddess
Kemi.t-Weri.t - "the great Black woman", a goddess
Kem-Neb-Mesen.t - a lion god
Kem ho - "black face", a title of the crocodile Rerek
kem; kemu (shield) - buckler, shield
kem (wood) - black wood
kem.t (stone) - black stone or powder
kem.tt (plant) - a plant
kemu (seed) - seeds or fruit of the kem plant
kemti - "black image", sacred image or statue

Using the causative "S"

S_kemi - white haired, grey-headed man (ie, to have lost blackness)
S_kemkem - to destroy, overthrow, annihilate
S_kemem - to blacken, to defile

Antonyms

S_desher - to redden, make ruddy
S_desheru - red things, bloody wounds

Some interesting Homonyms (pages 770 > )

qem - to behave in a seemly manner
Qemi - the south, Upper Egypt
qem.t - reed, papyrus
qemaa - to throw a boomerang
qem_au - to overthrow
qemam.t - mother, parent
qemamu - workers (in metal, wood)
qemqem - tambourines
qemd - to weep
qemati - statue, image - same as kemti
qema - to create
qemaiu - created beings
Qemau;Qemamu - The Creator

Deshret - the opposite of Kemet

deshr.t - any red (ie, non-Black) person, place, or thing
...
deshr.t (woman) - "the Red woman"; ie, 'evil woman'
deshr.t (cow) - "a Red cow" - ie, the 'devil's cow'
deshr - a red one (m)
deshr.t - a red one (f)
deshru - red ones (m)
deshru.t - red ones (f) -- White or light-skinned people; devils
deshreti - two red ones

---

quote:

---

with all your smart talk you still don't sound too smart.

---

^ That's interesting. Because for all your dumb remarks, including the above...dumb is *exactly* how you sound.
 

---

Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
 
Given your weak and exceptionally broad definition of black, it's safe to say that Egyptians are not black in the American sense. Right?
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sshaun002:
Given your weak and exceptionally broad definition of black, it's safe to say that Egyptians are not black in the American sense. Right?

---

quote:

---

xyyman:

rasol you sound defeated.

---

wtf?

Sounds defeated?

LOL @ someone's delusions of grandeur.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Better to sound stupid and win an argument than to sound smart and be defeated.

---

^ Better to laugh at and idiot, then to argue with one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Why else would you make such elementary mistakes?

---

quote:

---

Its called BAIT.

---

^ When no one takes it, it's called DUMB.

---