we east africans eritreans,somalis,djiboutis like to think that we are black because of our skin colour, but the world particularly western countries when they think of blacks immediately the think of people who have been enslaved or usd to be slaves.
so my question is how could we east africans define our selvies as black when the world think of something different than what we think.
as far as iam concern iam somali with prud history, and afourse african.
black people are not one because our history IS NOT ONE. simple as that.
Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
That is a valid point actually. Negro was used to define slaves taken from Africa hmmm I never thought about that.
So if one is not a slave why would they call themselves black?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Hey wolofi,
Didn't we all tell you to take that vibrator out of your back pocket?
Why is it still there? : )
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
^Only s/he knows.
quote:Originally posted by cush: we east africans eritreans,somalis,djiboutis like to think that we are black because of our skin colour,
Cool
quote: but the world particularly western countries when they think of blacks immediately the think of people who have been enslaved or usd to be slaves.
Well then this is retarded, in that black is an ethnic reference to shade/skin tone.
quote: black people are not one because our history IS NOT ONE. simple as that.
don't know about that but wut I do know is that Africans are one because our bio-history is one.
(Yep, you heard me - I know of the bottlenecks, but our history includes common East/West/South/North ancestry even post OutOfAfrica migration)
but watev
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Hey Cush the Somali:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_%28insecticide%29
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
cush the roach wrote:
quote: we east africans eritreans,somalis,djiboutis like to think that we are black because of our skin colour, but the world particularly western countries when they think of blacks immediately the think of people who have been enslaved or usd to be slaves.
a walaxiuilixxilliuxioolxiaax
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by cush:
black people are not one because our history IS NOT ONE. simple as that.
Then what would you call being enslaved by Arabs and slapped around by the Italians? Surely that sounds a bit similar to other African countries I've heard about. The majority of Somalis are viewed as Black in western countries by the average lay person, so I have no idea what you're talking about on that front either. Though you can be whatever you want. Not all of you have to agree with Iman who is proud of her own skin and cares less what other people think of her.
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: That is a valid point actually. Negro was used to define slaves taken from Africa hmmm I never thought about that.
So if one is not a slave why would they call themselves black?
Your posts get dumber and dumber each time I read them, which is why I generally don't read them.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
LOL, he was exposed on the 3rd and 7th posts in the thread above.
Will you make up your mind? Are you a Sudanese Arab with corns or are you a Somali with antenae? : )
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Whites have ALWAYS defined Black Africans as, Negroid, from which term they derived, Negro.
Form Robert July's, A History Of Africa (1970):
The closing millinnia of the Paleolithic period were marked by a wet phase in the Sahara, and another followed between approximately 5500 and 2500 B.C. The well-watered Sahara now offered attraction to flora and fauna alike. From the north came the Caucasoids, ancestors to such modern peoples as the Berbers and Tuareg of North Africa and the desert, the Galla, Somali, and Beja of the east African "Horn", and most of the Egyptians of Pharoanic times.
From the south, Negroid peoples moved into the Sahara, having apparently already occupied the west African forests, the Congo basin, and parts of the eastern and central Africa. In the Sahara the Negoids apparently specialized as fisherfolk.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
meninarmer,
Take your sorry victimized, low self-esteem ass somewhere to one of those far left communes.
Nobody wants to listen to your sorry beatdown self.
Astoundingly you're more of a beatdown loser than DougM. Now that's some pitiful s--- right there.
Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by cush:
black people are not one because our history IS NOT ONE. simple as that.
Then what would you call being enslaved by Arabs and slapped around by the Italians? Surely that sounds a bit similar to other African countries I've heard about. The majority of Somalis are viewed as Black in western countries by the average lay person, so I have no idea what you're talking about on that front either. Though you can be whatever you want. Not all of you have to agree with Iman who is proud of her own skin and cares less what other people think of her.
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: That is a valid point actually. Negro was used to define slaves taken from Africa hmmm I never thought about that.
So if one is not a slave why would they call themselves black?
Your posts get dumber and dumber each time I read them, which is why I generally don't read them.
Please demonstrate why and not just conscious streaming based on feminine emotional conjecture Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: meninarmer,
Take your sorry victimized, low self-esteem ass somewhere to one of those far left communes.
Nobody wants to listen to your sorry beatdown self.
Astoundingly you're more of a beatdown loser than DougM. Now that's some pitiful s--- right there.
Yes, anyone who preaches a compelling need for black solidarity must be "beat down" and victimized.
Where you get your deductive reasoning skills, from Snoop Doggy Dog and other B.E.T. alumni? A mind, is indeed a terrible thing to waste. LMBAO @ U !! Your sole contribution to me is helping me to realize why Idi Amin had to kill so many "Negro" Africans. Posted by abdulkarem3 (Member # 12885) on :
quote:That is a valid point actually. Negro was used to define slaves taken from Africa hmmm I never thought about that.
So if one is not a slave why would they call themselves black?
not only that
africans and native americans by jack d.forbes pg. 65 in 1864 the california state supreme court sought to bar all non-caucasians from equal citizenship and civil rights the court stated: the word black may include all negroes, buut the term negro does not include all black persons....We are of the opinion that the word white,black,mulatto and black person, whenever they appear in our constitution... must be taken in thier generic sense...that the words black person, in the 14th section must be taken as contra distinguished from white, and necassarily includes all races other than the caucasian.
in the book the author brings numerous letters written from the dutch,portugese,spanish, and english in which the term was used for american indians also.
Posted by abdulkarem3 (Member # 12885) on :
the word ethiopian,moor, and negros were popular names for dark skin at a particular time
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: meninarmer,
Take your sorry victimized, low self-esteem ass somewhere to one of those far left communes.
Nobody wants to listen to your sorry beatdown self.
Astoundingly you're more of a beatdown loser than DougM. Now that's some pitiful s--- right there.
Don't put my name into this.
Seems to me the only beat down person here is you ESPECIALLY if you have a problem with blacks BEING NATIVE to Africa ..... ALL OF IT, or if you are in DENIAL of the FACTS of racism in the history of Africa.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ The FACT is, Negroid/NEGRO is a definition invented by WHITES to describe AFRICANS, same as the descriptor, AFRICA. They also invented the DNA evidence you blindly throw out as testament of who you are and where you come from. They also TAUGHT a few of you to read and analyze readings from machines, THEY defined, designed and built. All conceived, defined, and invented by WHITES. LOL, there is no AFRICAN involvement and control of the high level specification of DNA analysis, and if there is some myopic contribution, it is merely ASSIMILATED into the larger framework of WHITE design. If I am wrong, please forgive me and enlighten me were DNA analysis is an African invention, or has any African control. Sure there may be a few NEGROES in the DNA genetics program. After all, they NEED some NEGROES to collect their samples for them, and a friendly NEGRO face will comfort blacks to contribute their DNA to the CAUSE...whatever that may be. These Negroid/NEGRO AFRICANS seem to falsely believe the white man loves them and does not classify them as Negroid/NEGRO. They do not wish to be called NEGROES, yet they accept the results of their testing blindly based on what WHITES have taught them and argue aimlessly about exactly what they should be called. These fools are sadly mistaken and pathetically ignorant. If anyone is beat down, it's you sad, clueless and so easily deceived so-called, African NEGROES.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Meninarmer,
Your post mixes--as they say--apples and oranges. Sure, the term "negroes" and other such were used by Portugese and Spanish whites to describe Africans. In much the same way that Westerners described East Asians as "yellows" or "Mongoloids".
But in the case of Africa the dark pigmentation of Africans by Europeans has been noted throughout the ages. Even as far back as Greek times you have writers like Herodotus and Aristotle describing Africans in terms of their pigmentation.
Aristotle, for example, wrote that "too black a hue as an Egyptian or Kushite makes one a coward...." Even during Roman times writers like Marcellinus noted that "Aegypti plerique subfusculi et atrati sunt": Egyptians for the most part are very dark(sub-fusculi]and wore dark clothes.
And of course there are those who would not want to accept that the Ancient Egyptians actually referred to their land as "land of the Blacks".
But even so the name "Europe" comes out of Greek or Roman mythology--meaning that the vast majority of Europeans had no say in naming their continent. They saw themselves until relatively very recently as Gauls, Picts, Saxons, Visigoths, Vansdals, Celts, Angles, Vikings, etc.
And again, who could enlighten on the source of the name Asia for the world's so-called largest continent?
But the point is that somethings Europeans claim as true are mere cultural claims of just subjective valuations. Other things they claim as true are actually true--as in the case of many scientific findings. A lot of DNA theory can be confirmed scientifically--because they are just facts--like distinguishing between a cow and a goat.
Sure, Europeans have been dominat in scientific research in the last 300 years. Scientific research requires knowing how to read, write and calculate quantitatively. But ironically the Europeans learnt most of that from Africa and other places.
The truth is that when it comes to original human inventions that make scientific research possible Europe runs behind Africa, Asia and the Americas for the true mark of originality: being first to get the stone of knowledge rolling. Well, if Europe is at the forefront of scientific research, that's interesting. After all Europeans have been in Europe for some 40,000 years and it is only in the last 1,000-2,000 years that they have been able to make use of the knowledge that was diffused to them.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ This is true, but it is not apples to oranges. Closer to, apples to apple sauce, because you can have no sauce without first having the apples.
What these dumb African euro-arab wannabes are saying about the origins and intent of the word, NEGRO, is silly and false.
The fact is, regardless of what Europeans learned from Africans 400 years ago, thoday Africans can't confirm squat without dependence on european designed DNA analyzers, conceived, designed, calibrated, and distruted by Europeans.
If I am wrong, please name one black African owned scientific lab equipment manufacturer specializing in the design and manufacturing of DNA analysis equipment?
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
^ Good point. Give Diop is credit since he tried to build independent institutions with his radio carbon machine. But apart from that one example we haven't really seen any independent efforts from us. If I am wrong someone can correct me.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^Yes, Diop came to mind for me also.
What was Diop's age at death, and of what illness did he die?
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
meninarmer, The design of DNA analyzers is done by mechanical and electrical engineers. I am sure that here and there in the West--the U.S. especially--there are blacks on such design teams.
The companies that manufacture such would most likely be financed by big and small investors. And its quite possible that the big manufacturers such as GE might have a few black investors. But you are right about where such companies are based. Hardly in Africa--except possibly South Africa, and would be European in terms of board of directors, major shareholders, etc.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: meninarmer, The design of DNA analyzers is done by mechanical and electrical engineers. I am sure that here and there in the West--the U.S. especially--there are blacks on such design teams.
The companies that manufacture such would most likely be financed by big and small investors. And its quite possible that the big manufacturers such as GE might have a few black investors. But you are right about where such companies are based. Hardly in Africa--except possibly South Africa, and would be European in terms of board of directors, major shareholders, etc.
Yes, I am familiar with the small minority of black engineers on staff of large and small manufacturers, and the even smaller number of blacks who are in theoretical research who create or influence the product specifications.
More importantly, the funding and tasking of eugenics programs are basically continuations of Jewish/Nazi genetic research, and today mainly funded through Department of Defense (Department Of Health feeds into), and pharmaceutical companies for obvious different reasons.
If Africa is not providing proportional funding in independent research and development, all they can realistically hope to be is a small cog in the much wider framework of which they have little to no input.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Thanks for the input, and link. It appears Diop led a full and truly productive (independent research) life.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
quote:We was born 1923 died 86. According to Wikipedia he died in his sleep. This is a good book on his life and work.
I guess anything is possible but it is to be noted that 2 of the most influential scholars on the African condition died relatively early.
Fanon died in his 30s assumedly from cancer whild Diop just died in his sleep. His intellectual confrere but very pro-French Senghor died in his 90s. Houphouet-Boigny another very pro-French leader died in his late 90s, and Mandela, a hero to most Europeans is about to hit 90 soon with a big birthday party planned in Britain. But the great black American writer, Richard Wright also suddenly died in his 50s--while in Paris.
The thing about Diop is also interesting given that in 2007 gave a speech at Cheikh Anta Diop university, formerly the University of Dakar, but throughtout his speech he always referred to the University of Dakar, never to Cheikh Anta Diop University.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:the think of people who have been enslaved or usd to be slaves.
^ That's funny. When I think of people who have been slaves, I think of the "Slavs", after whom the term is named.
I don't let Westerners tell me how to think though....to each his own.
Posted by Habari (Member # 14738) on :
Agreed the first mass slavery occurred in Western Europe(The victims were people from Sicily, the Iberian peninsula even along British coasts) and Central Europe...Although moor muslims and arabs were the biggest perpetrators, Northern European also enslaved many Europeans and even shipped them to the Middle East:
One of the Vikings' largest profit-centers was the slave trade; any group that acts as slave-takers is likely to be viewed with disdain by their victims. During the period of the Vikings, slavery was common throughout Northern Europe, and the fact that many slaves were captured persons was irrelevant in law. A person from Poland could be captured and later sold in England, for example. Slavery was common amongst the Scandinavians themselves, as well.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
The majority of Somalis are viewed as Black in western countries by the average lay person, so I have no idea what you're talking about on that front either. Though you can be whatever you want. Not all of you have to agree with Iman who is proud of her own skin and cares less what other people think of her. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)