I think most people are familiar with the infamous "stormfront" website. It caters to the far right, white nationalists crowd mainly. Every now and again, I peek in there to see what they are talking about. They are very resourceful.
Anyhow, a point that I have made for the longest seems to be shared by them, a point I raised here once before. I can't for the life of me figure out why a certain group of blacks I dub "blaccentrists" insists on claiming all people with any degree of melanin content racially black. It is as if to be black, racially, all you need is dark skin. These people ignore hair texture and phenotype, not to mention, genetics.
Take a look at a comment made by a Stormfront discussant (Link) about the photo below. Do you agree?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Are you crazy this guy looks substantially African and looks to the eye to be 65-80% African. The turban doesn't change that Yemenis mtDNA shows close affinity to Egypt and North and East Africa.
Yemen
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
I believe when the stormfront whites say "African" they're referring to subsaharan "Black" African, like you and me. Dude in the picture and the ones in the photo you supplied look nothing like Subsaharan black.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Phenotypes in Africa vary widely. The Yemeni phenotype even though relatively rare in parts of Africa does exist.
And besides "sub-saharan Africa" is a racist colonial term. More objective to say West Africa,East Africa, North Africa, and South Africa.
Are black and are inferior because IQ, never making a civilization without whites/whoever else, blah lah blah
Black People:
Upper Egyptians look like who again?
White supremacy:
quote:It is as if to be black, racially, all you need is dark skin. These people ignore hair texture and phenotype, not to mention, genetics.
Whatever... Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
If 'Subsaharan Africa' is a racist term then so is Africa. Anyhow the UN recognizes the term, so perhaps it is racist to you. But to world body, it is not racist. I will continue to use it until the world rejects the term. Lastly, the Hausa women may be fair complected but you can still observe their pronounced Africoid features; their phenotype and hair texture clearly are racially black features. Your example fails in my opinion.
quote:Originally posted by lamin:
Phenotypes in Africa vary widely. The Yemeni phenotype even though relatively rare in parts of Africa does exist.
And besides "sub-saharan Africa" is a racist colonial term. More objective to say West Africa,East Africa, North Africa, and South Africa.
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
Only one photo you posted (see below) shows black African people. The others do not.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: White supremacy:
Ok so these guys
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
the Ethiopian also is black. I neglected to include that one.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Only one photo you posted (see below) shows black African people. The others do not.
True, the others do not show black Africans. But they are black people. And this is how white supremacy operates. They oppress and label people as black and then when it comes time to explain themselves they act as though the only negroes in the world to ever experience blackness are Sub Saharan Africans.
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
Dude, that makes no sense. Japanese and Whites are white skin. So do we include Japanese when we say "white people?"
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Only one photo you posted (see below) shows black African people. The others do not.
True, the others do not show black Africans. But they are black people. And this is how white supremacy operates. They oppress and label people as black and then when it comes time to explain themselves they act as though the only negroes in the world to ever experience blackness are Sub Saharan Africans.
Posted by AshaT (Member # 22658) on :
Indians, Aithiopians, Egyptians, Arabs, Moors, Australian Aborigines, etc.; all called black people in history. Does it have any scientific basis?? No more than white people being called white.
When has white supremacy ever made sense?
And just because something is "recognized" by whoever runs or doesn't run what, doesn't make it ok, or true. "Sub-Saharan African" is an inherently racist term, meant to demean people of a very specific phenotype that is more caricature than reality, and separate North Africa from the rest of the continent, in an attempt to claim all the achievements that side for the "" Caucasoids"". It is a false and misleading term. To say otherwise is to deny history and basic, obvious facts.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by AshaT: Indians, Aithiopians, Egyptians, Arabs, Moors, Australian Aborigines, etc.; all called black people in history. Does it have any scientific basis?? No more than white people being called white.
When has white supremacy ever made sense?
THANK YOU AshaT. Why do people think its up to US to make sense out of a stupid ideology that's goal is to oppress us? Guess people really think we're supposed to mule for everyone else's agendas, particularly when its to our detriment.
quote: And just because something is "recognized" by whoever runs or doesn't run what, doesn't make it ok, or true. "Sub-Saharan African" is an inherently racist term, meant to demean people of a very specific phenotype that is more caricature than reality, and separate North Africa from the rest of the continent, in an attempt to claim all the achievements that side for the "" Caucasoids."
Who go back to being negroes outside of anthropolgy boards. While non blacks are abundant in northern Africa, many blacks still do live there, and this is not made clear by attempting to say blackness is only in Sub Saharan Africa.
Another problem is the term "sub Saharan" is Saharan centric. Sub Saharan Africa only describes different areas of Africa from their relationship to the Sahara. The Sahara is the only area in this type of discussion that is described by its environment. And since the "official" word only considers the non blacks living there, this is a example of centering ideas of non blacks or "whiteness" in Africa. Not that most whites view MENA as white.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Excuse me for cheering.
Wise words from AshaT and Oshun.
___ Colonization politically ended ~55 years ago. Jim Crow legally ended ~50 years ago (voting rights still waiver by machination). Apartheid was dismantled ~30 years ago. In Latin America 'good looks' is still an employment qualification.
Not 2 full generations of 'freedom' either side the Atlantic.
Yet many act like the playing field is level. Like a lifelong malnourished couch potato can be an Olympian after a few weeks at the gym and an organic balanced diet.
Then many have something like Stockholm Syndrome and full-fledge believe and think (even identify) as accepted European descent white academics and bloggers.
BTW anyone familiar with oriental literature has read white self-identification. Even outside of literature Chinese Indonesians are White Chinese.
SIMON SEZ ... Who is Simon? What makes what he says the way the whole world must think and agree to?
I am not one waiting for Simon Says to move forward. Anybody who does and is in the way is gonna get shoved aside.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
The Japanese and other Light Skinned Asians consider themselves "white" in their culture and self out look and Im sure they considered themselves as such before they came into contact with Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Dude, that makes no sense. Japanese and Whites are white skin. So do we include Japanese when we say "white people?"
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
If These women had been living in the South during Jim Crow they'd been sitting in the back of the Bus..
Also lets not forget the black natives of Asia(Both S.E and Far East) were described as black, not by Europeans, not by Afrocentrics but by the now dominant Leukoderm Asians.
image source added -lioness
[ 27. November 2018, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
Aren't these people Negritos? They are not considered Asian.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: If These women had been living in the South during Jim Crow they'd been sitting in the back of the Bus..
Also lets not forget the black natives of Asia(Both S.E and Far East) were described as black, not by Europeans, not by Afrocentrics but by the now dominant Leukoderm Asians.
image source added lioness
[ 27. November 2018, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^Who doesnt consider Nigritos as an indigenous people of Asia?
Genetically, Historically, Culturally and by all standards the Negritos are the indigenous people of Asia. I like to know who doesnt consider them as such.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
My only problem with their argument is that some of those people despite their skin tone, dont consider themselves to be black nor have some cumbyeya relationship with blacks from Africa, esp. the Yemenis(and other Arabs)...Their Anti-African Pro-white/bidane Arab racism predates any European influence. The Negritos might be a different story though, Id find it hard to believe they dont see themselves as black TBH. They rival some Nilotic folks with their amount of Melanin.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Excuse me for cheering.
Wise words from AshaT and Oshun.
___ Colonization politically ended ~55 years ago. Jim Crow legally ended ~50 years ago (voting rights still waiver by machination). Apartheid was dismantled ~30 years ago. In Latin America 'good looks' is still an employment qualification.
Not 2 full generations of 'freedom' either side the Atlantic.
Yet many act like the playing field is level. Like a lifelong malnourished couch potato can be an Olympian after a few weeks at the gym and an organic balanced diet.
Then many have something like Stockholm Syndrome and full-fledge believe and think (even identify) as accepted European descent white academics and bloggers.
BTW anyone familiar with oriental literature has read white self-identification. Even outside of literature Chinese Indonesians are White Chinese.
SIMON SEZ ... Who is Simon? What makes what he says the way the whole world must think and agree to?
I am not one waiting for Simon Says to move forward. Anybody who does and is in the way is gonna get shoved aside.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Which means not all skin folk are kinfolk. Having an anti black attitude doesn't mean they're not black. Otherwise the many self hating blacks in the U.S to the darkest Dominicans attempting to act like nationality is the same as race to cope with racial identity aren't black. People like that want to identify with white supremacists by assimilating racially but don't have the power to make this idea exist beyond their own minds. So they just stay in their spaces telling themselves they're not black like it's going to get them anywhere.
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
Slow your roll, dude. I never said they were not indigenous to the land. I said they are not considered "Asian." I am sure the name Asia was not coined by Negritos.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^Who doesnt consider Nigritos as an indigenous people of Asia?
Genetically, Historically, Culturally and by all standards the Negritos are the indigenous people of Asia. I like to know who doesnt consider them as such.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^How are they not Asian if they are indignous to the land, what Pray tell are they then?
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
It wasn't coined by Asians that aren't Negritos either. Negritos were among the first to leave Africa. So if they aren't indigenous to Asia no one is.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Slow your role, dude. I never said they were not indigenous to the land. I said they are not considered "Asian." I am sure the name Asia was not coined by Negritos.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^Who doesnt consider Nigritos as an indigenous people of Asia?
Genetically, Historically, Culturally and by all standards the Negritos are the indigenous people of Asia. I like to know who doesnt consider them as such.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Negritos were among the first to leave Africa.
you claim only
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Im thinking he means they decend from the first Homosapiens to leave Africa
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
quote:The population history of the indigenous populations in island Southeast Asia is generally accepted to have been shaped by two major migrations: the ancient "Out of Africa" migration ∼50,000 years before present (YBP) and the relatively recent "Out of Taiwan" expansion of Austronesian agriculturalists approximately 5,000 YBP. The Negritos are believed to have originated from the ancient migration, whereas the majority of island Southeast Asians are associated with the Austronesian expansion. We determined 86 mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) complete genome sequences in four indigenous Malaysian populations, together with a reanalysis of published autosomal single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data of Southeast Asians to test the plausibility and impact of those migration models. The three Austronesian groups (Bidayuh, Selatar, and Temuan) showed high frequencies of mtDNA haplogroups, which originated from the Asian mainland ∼30,000-10,000 YBP, but low frequencies of "Out of Taiwan" markers. Principal component analysis and phylogenetic analysis using autosomal SNP data indicate a dichotomy between continental and island Austronesian groups. We argue that both the mtDNA and autosomal data suggest an "Early Train" migration originating from Indochina or South China around the late-Pleistocene to early-Holocene period, which predates, but may not necessarily exclude, the Austronesian expansion.
quote:The population history of the indigenous populations in island Southeast Asia is generally accepted to have been shaped by two major migrations: the ancient "Out of Africa" migration ∼50,000 years before present (YBP) and the relatively recent "Out of Taiwan" expansion of Austronesian agriculturalists approximately 5,000 YBP. The Negritos are believed to have originated from the ancient migration, whereas the majority of island Southeast Asians are associated with the Austronesian expansion. We determined 86 mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) complete genome sequences in four indigenous Malaysian populations, together with a reanalysis of published autosomal single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data of Southeast Asians to test the plausibility and impact of those migration models. The three Austronesian groups (Bidayuh, Selatar, and Temuan) showed high frequencies of mtDNA haplogroups, which originated from the Asian mainland ∼30,000-10,000 YBP, but low frequencies of "Out of Taiwan" markers. Principal component analysis and phylogenetic analysis using autosomal SNP data indicate a dichotomy between continental and island Austronesian groups. We argue that both the mtDNA and autosomal data suggest an "Early Train" migration originating from Indochina or South China around the late-Pleistocene to early-Holocene period, which predates, but may not necessarily exclude, the Austronesian expansion.
you have quoted "believed to have originated from the ancient migration" that is not evidence
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
And what is your take on their origins, if I may ask?
quote:The population history of the indigenous populations in island Southeast Asia is generally accepted to have been shaped by two major migrations: the ancient "Out of Africa" migration ∼50,000 years before present (YBP) and the relatively recent "Out of Taiwan" expansion of Austronesian agriculturalists approximately 5,000 YBP. The Negritos are believed to have originated from the ancient migration, whereas the majority of island Southeast Asians are associated with the Austronesian expansion. We determined 86 mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) complete genome sequences in four indigenous Malaysian populations, together with a reanalysis of published autosomal single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data of Southeast Asians to test the plausibility and impact of those migration models. The three Austronesian groups (Bidayuh, Selatar, and Temuan) showed high frequencies of mtDNA haplogroups, which originated from the Asian mainland ∼30,000-10,000 YBP, but low frequencies of "Out of Taiwan" markers. Principal component analysis and phylogenetic analysis using autosomal SNP data indicate a dichotomy between continental and island Austronesian groups. We argue that both the mtDNA and autosomal data suggest an "Early Train" migration originating from Indochina or South China around the late-Pleistocene to early-Holocene period, which predates, but may not necessarily exclude, the Austronesian expansion.
Basically, they're saying their research at the very least would agree that a lot of their ancestry got there earlier than the later (and much lighter) people.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase: [QB] And what is your take on their origins, if I may ask?
Genome Biol Evol. 2017 Aug; 9(8): 2013–2022. Published online 2017 Jul 11. doi: [10.1093/gbe/evx118] PMCID: PMC5597900 PMID: 28854687 Discerning the Origins of the Negritos, First Sundaland People: Deep Divergence and Archaic Admixture
We did not observe any direct links between the different Negrito groups and the African Pygmies (Biaka) (fig. 3B and supplementary fig. S12, Supplementary Material online). This is in agreement with previous results (Omoto et al. 1978, 1981; Basu et al. 2015) and suggests that observed morphological similarities among the Negritos and African pygmies are more likely due to convergent evolution.
Human presence in Southeast Asia dates back to at least 40,000 years ago, when the current islands formed a continental shelf called Sundaland. In the Philippine Islands, Peninsular Malaysia, and Andaman Islands, there exist indigenous groups collectively called Negritos whose ancestry can be traced to the “First Sundaland People.” To understand the relationship between these Negrito groups and their demographic histories, we generated genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism data in the Philippine Negritos and compared them with existing data from other populations.Phylogenetic tree analyses show that Negritos are basal to other East and Southeast Asians, and that they diverged from West Eurasians at least 38,000 years ago. We also found relatively high traces of Denisovan admixture in the Philippine Negritos, but not in the Malaysian and Andamanese groups, suggesting independent introgression and/or parallel losses involving Denisovan introgressed regions. Shared genetic loci between all three Negrito groups could be related to skin pigmentation, height, facial morphology and malarial resistance. These results show the unique status of Negrito groups as descended from the First Sundaland People.
In summary, we demonstrated that the Negritos of Andaman Islands, Malay Peninsula, and Philippine Islands represent one of the earliest branches of anatomically modern humans to have reached SEA, befitting the term the “First Sundaland People” instead of “Negritos.” The interactions they had with the environment, the pre-existing archaic humans in the region, and much later with agriculturalist migrants from the Asian mainland have all shaped their current genetic and cultural diversity. _________________________________
wikipedia
Recent African origin of modern humans
The most significant "recent" wave took place about 70,000 years ago, via the so-called "Southern Route", spreading rapidly along the coast of Asia and reaching Australia by around 65,000–50,000 years ago,[11][12][note 2] while Europe was populated by an early offshoot which settled the Near East and Europe less than 55,000 years ago.[
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
still thought to be an old OOA population however
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^How are they not Asian if they are indignous to the land, what Pray tell are they then?
Let me explain it this way. I am not saying they are not indigenous to that land. What I am saying is they are not Asian; the term Asia/Asian is reserved for a very specific population; the Greek Herodotus was the first to use the term and at the time the land was populated by socalled "Mongoloids."
I hope that clears it up for you. I am sure their ancestors had a different name for them.
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase: It wasn't coined by Asians that aren't Negritos either.
The term was historically applied to Asians, not Negritos. Today we have Afrikaners in Africa who are white. They are not indigenous to the land. Would it be proper to apply that term to Black Africans 500 years from now, Black Africans who descend from the indigenous population of that continent? That is the best analogy I submit to you.
Posted by AshaT (Member # 22658) on :
What are you even trying to say? An Asian is an Asian is an Asian. It's a term traditionally applied to those who live in/come from Turkey and the lands east of it. That's it. Though it has been narrowed to most often meaning East Asians, at the end of the day it's just a geographical term. One that covers vast areas of land, and a huge variety of people. Do you think the first users of "Asia" really knew about the many different ethnicities and their various phenotypes? Do you think they even cared? It's a small label for a huge area. By definition, Negritos are Asian. So are Andaman Islanders, Filipinos, Iranians, Indians, Koreans, etc. Plenty of peoples went by different names than those given to them by outsiders. Irrelevant. And I really can't take you seriously when you continue to use all these "-oids". The archaic is jumping out.
What are you even arguing at this point? Black is a non-scientific phenotypical descriptor that has been used by various peoples at various times. Black =/= black. That does not make black an invalid term to describe an individual or a people. Neither does colourism/racism, internal or external. It is merely a superficial descriptor blown out of proportion by early anthropologists. AKA White Imperialistic Supremacists. It's really not that deep.
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
Stop it. Andaman Islanders are part of the greater Indian continent. Do you seriously think they consider them Indians? lmao
quote:Originally posted by AshaT: What are you even trying to say? An Asian is an Asian is an Asian. It's a term traditionally applied to those who live in/come from Turkey and the lands east of it. That's it. Though it has been narrowed to most often meaning East Asians, at the end of the day it's just a geographical term. One that covers vast areas of land, and a huge variety of people. Do you think the first users of "Asia" really knew about the many different ethnicities and their various phenotypes? Do you think they even cared? It's a small label for a huge area. By definition, Negritos are Asian. So are Andaman Islanders, Filipinos, Iranians, Indians, Koreans, etc. Plenty of peoples went by different names than those given to them by outsiders. Irrelevant. And I really can't take you seriously when you continue to use all these "-oids". The archaic is jumping out.
What are you even arguing at this point? Black is a non-scientific phenotypical descriptor that has been used by various peoples at various times. Black =/= black. That does not make black an invalid term to describe an individual or a people. Neither does colourism/racism, internal or external. It is merely a superficial descriptor blown out of proportion by early anthropologists. AKA White Imperialistic Supremacists. It's really not that deep.
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
The word black is used in different contexts to yield different meanings. Black is a racial term (noun) and black is a color (adjective.) If I am going to describe an East Indian I would say they are black in color or black skinned. However I would not say they are a "Black people." That is not their race.
I do see there are a good number of Afrocentrists who attempt to get around this distinction by blurring the difference between racial black and skin color black. They use this tactic to fraudulently lay claim to histories and legacies normally not belonging to Black Africans.
quote:Originally posted by AshaT: What are you even arguing at this point? Black is a non-scientific phenotypical descriptor that has been used by various peoples at various times. Black =/= black. That does not make black an invalid term to describe an individual or a people. Neither does colourism/racism, internal or external. It is merely a superficial descriptor blown out of proportion by early anthropologists. AKA White Imperialistic Supremacists. It's really not that deep.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
classic
Black Crystal what race are these people?
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
Mongoloid, Caucasoid admixture and Australoid.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: classic
Black Crystal what race are these people?
Posted by AshaT (Member # 22658) on :
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
Ethnically no, and they'd be correct. But Asia is a continent not a nation or culture. Negritos are native to Asia whether the lighter Asians want to call them Asian or something else.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Stop it. Andaman Islanders are part of the greater Indian continent. Do you seriously think they consider them Indians? lmao
quote:Originally posted by AshaT: What are you even trying to say? An Asian is an Asian is an Asian. It's a term traditionally applied to those who live in/come from Turkey and the lands east of it. That's it. Though it has been narrowed to most often meaning East Asians, at the end of the day it's just a geographical term. One that covers vast areas of land, and a huge variety of people. Do you think the first users of "Asia" really knew about the many different ethnicities and their various phenotypes? Do you think they even cared? It's a small label for a huge area. By definition, Negritos are Asian. So are Andaman Islanders, Filipinos, Iranians, Indians, Koreans, etc. Plenty of peoples went by different names than those given to them by outsiders. Irrelevant. And I really can't take you seriously when you continue to use all these "-oids". The archaic is jumping out.
What are you even arguing at this point? Black is a non-scientific phenotypical descriptor that has been used by various peoples at various times. Black =/= black. That does not make black an invalid term to describe an individual or a people. Neither does colourism/racism, internal or external. It is merely a superficial descriptor blown out of proportion by early anthropologists. AKA White Imperialistic Supremacists. It's really not that deep.
EDIT: Oh and...
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: The word black is used in different contexts to yield different meanings. Black is a racial term (noun) and black is a color (adjective.) If I am going to describe an East Indian I would say they are black in color or black skinned. However I would not say they are a "Black people." That is not their race.
I do see there are a good number of Afrocentrists who attempt to get around this distinction by blurring the difference between racial black and skin color black. They use this tactic to fraudulently lay claim to histories and legacies normally not belonging to Black Africans.
Few Afrocentrics believe Olmecs and the like were black Africans. And many blacks don't rely strictly on skin color to feel pursuaded of blackness in Egyptians. Black people are not fraudelently claiming a history in most cases. What's happening is that blacks are realizing race isn't biologically sound and are expanding past initial ideas of Afrocentrism. White supremacists are mad. It's not fraudulent for a communist in the U.S to say that "their" history is also in Russia and in a variety of Asian countries. Why? Because the ideology is not strictly in the U.S and membership to the movement doesn't require close genetic relationship. Blackness is not a biological construct. Human beings with some of the greatest genetic distances have been rendered as black.
Why should people attempting to discuss "black history" need to focus strictly on blacks with a close genetic relationship? You white supremacists are the ones trying to argue race to be a genetic construct and are butthurt because fewer blacks with each generation are interested in lowering themselves to argue at your level. YOU are the ones attempting to force us to argue at your pace. We won't. Everyone else has begun to acknowledge it isn't genetic. We don't owe you a conversation restricted to our immediate relatives if we don't want to have that talk with you. You should've thought about that before you labeled a whole bunch of unrelated peoples black and gave them hell for it. We always come back to this mule mentality we're supposed to have. It's our job to treat race as biological to help white supremacists make their points. We're supposed to make sense of race and "racial features" and be cool whenever they shift goal posts. Southern Egyptians (Ancient) resembled more closely Ethiopians and Nubians but this isn't "black enough." Oh, except when it was when they thought that civilization came from northerners. When tropes of subjugation and slavery could be applied to southern Egypt, they were more than happy to insist they were black.
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^Who doesnt consider Nigritos as an indigenous people of Asia?
Genetically, Historically, Culturally and by all standards the Negritos are the indigenous people of Asia. I like to know who doesnt consider them as such.
Thats why I dont play the race shell game. If they dark skin I call them melinated if they not I call them albine.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The only reason the word "black" is supposedly so problematic in anthropology and human history is because of racism and colonization. When Europeans started colonizing the world they found so many blacks that they knew the world started with black people. And by inference that means culture, civilization, arts and science started with black people all over the planet. So they had to make up the pseudo science of race to distort the facts of history and make up all sorts of "other races" as if these "different shades of brown" aren't just variations of evolution among aboriginal black people. And of course in all of this they have always put light skin at the top of the pyramid of human evolution. This was then used as part of the indoctrination process in colonies world wide and promote white skin supremacy. Also the continuing European global control of major institutions of biology and anthropology based on the theft of artifacts from people around the world in the during colonial era, allows them to continue spreading propaganda and misinformation in the name of "science".
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
Rubbish....
Why not measure race by hair texture or cranial morphology? Why must race be determined by skin color, solely, as you indicate?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The only reason the word "black" is supposedly so problematic in anthropology and human history is because of racism and colonization. When Europeans started colonizing the world they found so many blacks that they knew the world started with black people. And by inference that means culture, civilization, arts and science started with black people all over the planet. So they had to make up the pseudo science of race to distort the facts of history and make up all sorts of "other races" as if these "different shades of brown" aren't just variations of evolution among aboriginal black people. And of course in all of this they have always put light skin at the top of the pyramid of human evolution. This was then used as part of the indoctrination process in colonies world wide and promote white skin supremacy. Also the continuing European global control of major institutions of biology and anthropology based on the theft of artifacts from people around the world in the during colonial era, allows them to continue spreading propaganda and misinformation in the name of "science".
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
It won't take the conversation much further. Race is more intuitive. It's not something that is well grounded through analysis of facial features or hair. This is often deflected because white supremacists often expect that no one will know of Negritos and Aboriginals from the world as well as their initial disdain for Upper Egypt. That or they think when we do know of them, they can deflect by discussing differences in cranial descriptions(ex: Australoid) to distract from the fact they were racially labeled as a black people. Once their opponent understands that white supremacist history proves cranial descriptions aren't the same as race, things turn sour for the supremacists from there. We don't owe it to these people to build and offer support to their ideology where it weak.
White supremacists have deemed people black with many different types of hair textures and hair colors. Aboriginals and Negritos can have hair textures and colors in many varieties but were treated like blacks. Cranial morpohologies can also vary. People with "Caucasoid" cranial morphologies have also been deemed black, especially in East Africa. Even Upper Egyptians of the ancient past used to be deemed black savages tamed by a northern dynastic race until they found out the dynastic culture came from the south. Fact of the matter is, race is a loosely defined idea not based any biological reality. It shows in all the many people that have been labeled black by white supremacists, many of whom have no close relationship to each other.
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
Show me a TRIBE of aboriginals with bone straight hair, blue eyes and thin face features. The individual examples of variations within those nonwhite tribes won't fly. You need to show an entire population with features traditionally associated with another group for your argument to fly. Typically Afrocentrists will make absurd claims that Blacks produced white folks, thus their features belong to them. And then proceed to hold up photos like the following Solomon tribe as evidence:
Uh, no. You need to show a tribe with blonde hair, blue eyes, and aquiline features! One out of three traits ain't cutting the mustard!
quote:Originally posted by Ase: It won't take the conversation much further. Race is more intuitive. It's not something that is well grounded through analysis of facial features or hair. This is often deflected because white supremacists often expect that no one will know of Negritos and Aboriginals from the world as well as their initial disdain for Upper Egypt. That or they think when we do know of them, they can deflect by discussing differences in cranial descriptions(ex: Australoid) to distract from the fact they were racially labeled as a black people. Once their opponent understands that white supremacist history proves cranial descriptions aren't the same as race, things turn sour for the supremacists from there. We don't owe it to these people to build and offer support to their ideology where it weak.
White supremacists have deemed people black with many different types of hair textures and hair colors. Aboriginals and Negritos can have hair textures and colors in many varieties but were treated like blacks. Cranial morpohologies can also vary. People with "Caucasoid" cranial morphologies have also been deemed black, especially in East Africa. Even Upper Egyptians of the ancient past used to be deemed black savages tamed by a northern dynastic race until they found out the dynastic culture came from the south. Fact of the matter is, race is a loosely defined idea not based any biological reality. It shows in all the many people that have been labeled black by white supremacists, many of whom have no close relationship to each other.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
You're asking for a level of homogeneity that many Europeans don't even have, many Europeans have curls that are as loose as Aboriginals or Negritos. Reading this telegraph article saying about 60 percent of Europeans have wavy to curly hair. Interested in finding the source for this, but I don't doubt it. In my experience it's about that much and even "European straight" isn't often as bone straight as it can get in Asia.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Uh, no. You need to show a tribe with blonde hair, blue eyes, and aquiline features! One out of three traits ain't cutting the mustard!
[/QB][/QUOTE]
This whole conversation has been about blacks "claiming" people who "aren't really black" because they're fraudulently claiming all people of a certain skin color. You demanded that people consider other features and genetics and now you're deflecting. There is no single crania, hair color, hair texture or genetic profile to make that possible for blacks. White Supremacists say that deviations in crania, hair color and looseness, etc makes distinct races, but branded people of different types in all such categories as black. Whatever Europe looks like or however unique you think they are in appearance does not change that. It does not make the social creation of blackness more rational. Skin color was perhaps the only feature that united these groups in their entirety which is why these so-called "frauds" often claim darker peoples. Ironic you don't see they're trying to find some type of phenotypic unity that would make the foundation of the supremacist mindset somewhat more solid than it actually is. That is somehow "fraudulent" to you. But keep on putting your foot in your mouth. Typical of you to cape for white supremacists while pretending to be black It's not our job to make sense of white supremacist irrationality. Its your job to rationalize this stupidity. It's your view, so you go do it for your brethren.
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
outrageous! please review the below topography and how a population of fair hair and eye is spread over a specific section of Europe. Clearly those features are exclusive to them.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: You're asking for a level of homogeneity that many Europeans don't even have, as many Europeans have curls that are as loose as Aboriginals or Negritos. Reading this telegraph article saying about 60 percent of Europeans have wavy to curly hair. Interested in finding the source for this, but I don't doubt it. In my experience it's about that much and even "European straight" isn't often as bone straight as it can get in Asia.
Ase. you dont understand the point I am making which is, why do you get to determine the criteria for race when it was already determined by its authors?!?! Are you attempting to reinvent the wheel?
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
"I" am reinventing the wheel? Incorrect. They were the ones that treated upper Egyptians and Nubians like black savages. They were the ones that treated Aboriginals as black. They were the ones that coined the term "Negritos" to describe darker Asians. Blackness was applied to them and black Africans by whites. So some blacks are claiming dark skinned people because there were no other unifying characteristics to establish a "criteria."
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
Bruh. Black = Subsaharan African. It ain't that deep!
quote:Originally posted by Ase: "I" am reinventing the wheel? Incorrect. They were the ones that treated upper Egyptians and Nubians like black savages. They were the ones that treated Aboriginals as black. They were the ones that coined the term "Negritos" to describe darker Asians. Blackness was applied to them and black Africans by whites. So some blacks are claiming dark skinned people because there were no other unifying characteristics to establish a "criteria."
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The only reason the word "black" is supposedly so problematic in anthropology and human history is because of racism and colonization. When Europeans started colonizing the world they found so many blacks that they knew the world started with black people. And by inference that means culture, civilization, arts and science started with black people all over the planet.
Outside of Africa what other black people started civilizations and used science?
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
Cept whites branded people who weren't Sub Saharan Africans as black (both ancient and modern). So how does it strictly refer to SSAs? In the words of a certain celebrity
Cuz I ain't muling!
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Bruh. Black = Subsaharan African. It ain't that deep!
quote:Originally posted by Ase: "I" am reinventing the wheel? Incorrect. They were the ones that treated upper Egyptians and Nubians like black savages. They were the ones that treated Aboriginals as black. They were the ones that coined the term "Negritos" to describe darker Asians. Blackness was applied to them and black Africans by whites. So some blacks are claiming dark skinned people because there were no other unifying characteristics to establish a "criteria."
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: [QB] Bruh. Black = Subsaharan African. It ain't that deep!
Besided African Americans are not SSA and they are the poster boys for the black race.
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
Yes. It shows that the black race is opinion. Some people would say its for people living below the desert in Africa but opinions change for African Americans, pale African and Berbers. Race is opinion. Pigment genes are objective so I personally go by pigment genes.
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: Yes. It shows that the black race is opinion. Some people would say its for people living below the desert in Africa but opinions change for African Americans, pale African and Berbers. Race is opinion. Pigment genes are objective so I personally go by pigment genes.
Race is not opinion when you are claiming people who do not want to be claimed by you!!! That is likened to browbeating someone with your belief!
Do these people claim on they're black?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
No, black = much more than anybody's SSA. Always has, always will
I am not recently (last 12ky) related to Asia's blacks. Hell I don't even claim close relation to most of Africa's blacks. I don't claim stake to any history outside of my particular ethnicity. Don't mean mine and theirs together don't equal a linked African History.
Same for all the blacks (and black is a color).
I am not the Melanesian (pursue that word's etymology). I am not the Black Fella of Australia (who celebrate a Black History month and resent Americans trying to exclusively claim black status). Nor am I the Arab Crow or Indian lil black Sambo.
I am big red Samba of the Senegal, my recent relations are other Atlantic speakers and neighboring folk intermarried with Atlantic speakers. Just one set of black people in West Africa among other black peoples in Africa among other black peoples of the southern Eastern Hemisphere.
East Africans knew of blacks far from the continent and never claimed any but colour relationship. That's on record from 1200 years ago, long before your people invented your negro (a highly stereotyped set of physical features supposedly shared by enslaved Gulf of Guinea Africans) or racially hierarchical anthropology without asking the opinion of any of the people involved: "Shut up and listen to us telling you who and what you are" backed up by our armies and navies and our myopic European ethnocentric ideaologies.
And the strawman attacks against unquoted uncited supposed Afrocentrics, please. Please reference even just one degreed published Afrocentric. Do you know any? Do you know what Afrocentrism actually is? It's an academic discipline taught at a handfull of universities is what it is.
Yet everybody here to their disadvantage accepts a hostile white media manufactured and defined Afrocentrism as authentic.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
What black people chose to define themselves racially as black in a western sense? I don't know too many Africans brought to the Americas begging to be deemed "black" by white supremacists. If a Dominican doesn't want to be black but looks black, that doesn't mean he's white. Same with self hating African Americans. Suddenly, when it's inconvenient to white supremacists, racial identity becomes a matter of choice and are just helping protect people from a fraudulent mindset created through their/your irrational doctrines. Course when a few white liberals fell for your nonsense, truly believed that race is a "choice" and did stuff like this
the powers that be let em know with the quickness that race is only a choice when debating blacks, not in real life. Gender is a social construct that can be chosen according to the west, but not race. You keep dodging too. WHAT are the features that ALL black people had/have besides darker skin colors? Blacks can be Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid, blonde hair, kinky hair, black hair, loose hair and tens of thousands of years distance in genetic relationship.
Still they were/are deemed black. So how is blackness as a race not opinion? What makes race a valid biological construct? If you don't like people talking about black = darkskin, explain what (besides darker skin) connects all the people that were regarded as black by the same white supremacists trying to shift goalposts? You can't. You tried it by attempting to limit discussion to Sub Saharan Africa so now you're just ignoring what you've been asked to do to demonstrate your point. And of course as some rightfully pointed out there's still a LOT of diversity even among SSAs.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal:
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: Yes. It shows that the black race is opinion. Some people would say its for people living below the desert in Africa but opinions change for African Americans, pale African and Berbers. Race is opinion. Pigment genes are objective so I personally go by pigment genes.
Race is not opinion when you are claiming people who do not want to be claimed by you!!! That is likened to browbeating someone with your belief!
Do these people claim on they're black?
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Race is not opinion when you are claiming people who do not want to be claimed by you!!! That is likened to browbeating someone with your belief!
Do these people claim on they're black?
Its still opinion. They might agree or disagree. At one point many had the opinion that Irish were too monkeyish to be white. It would have been my opinion that they are too pale to not be white if you are going to have a white race.
When Candace Owens was a model did not classify herself as black. I think she said she was Caribbean. Most would disagree but its her opinion.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Rubbish....
Why not measure race by hair texture or cranial morphology? Why must race be determined by skin color, solely, as you indicate?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The only reason the word "black" is supposedly so problematic in anthropology and human history is because of racism and colonization. When Europeans started colonizing the world they found so many blacks that they knew the world started with black people. And by inference that means culture, civilization, arts and science started with black people all over the planet. So they had to make up the pseudo science of race to distort the facts of history and make up all sorts of "other races" as if these "different shades of brown" aren't just variations of evolution among aboriginal black people. And of course in all of this they have always put light skin at the top of the pyramid of human evolution. This was then used as part of the indoctrination process in colonies world wide and promote white skin supremacy. Also the continuing European global control of major institutions of biology and anthropology based on the theft of artifacts from people around the world in the during colonial era, allows them to continue spreading propaganda and misinformation in the name of "science".
Because "race" is a pseudo-scientific concept created by white people in the last 500 years to justify conquest and murder and erase the history of black people and civilizations around the world.
It has nothing to do with anything other than white people wanting to distort the history of the planet and put themselves on top because of their WHITE skin.
They have done such a good job of brainwashing most of the planet that nobody questions what "white" means. Yet some folks have the gall to question what black means....as if it isn't obvious.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
They have done such a good job of brainwashing most of the planet that nobody questions what "white" means.
what does "white" mean?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
Besides African Americans are not SSA
Why are you saying this if there is so much record of slaves ships, numbers of Africans coming from West Africa and the vast majority of AAs who have had their DNA tested have SSA haplotype E1b1a rather than E-M81 the berber marker? Don't tell me you have been duped by that MST madness
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
MST madness? Why are you deprecating this sect? What is so insane compared to other Big 3 tenets? But maybe I get a bigger point. Why default to any religion created in the USA for any peoples' origins?
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Or what about Aristotle's observation(racist?) that "Too black a hue marks a coward as is the case with Egyptians and Nubians. So too, too white a hue as you see with women. The best color is the intermediate tawny color the lion. That color makes for courage"
PHYSIOGNOMICA Or the Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus who wrote that "Aegypiti plerique(the majority) subfusculi(very dark) et atrati(wearing black clothes)sunt(are)
Then note too that in Greco-Roman times blacks were known as "Ethiopians" and in Elizebethan times there were "black-a-moor" and "tawny moor"--living Supra Sahara.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
E M81 is also E 1b1b and has origins in East Africa in the vicinity of Tanzania.
Why are you saying this if there is so much record of slaves ships, numbers of Africans coming from West Africa and the vast majority of AAs who have had their DNA tested have SSA haplotype E1b1a rather than E-M81 the berber marker? Don't tell me you have been duped by that MST madness
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The majority of African Americans are of West African SSA descent. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. That doesn't some weren't from other place.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin:
Don't tell me you have been duped by that MST madness
nobody try to save lamin here.
He's pretending he knows what MST is but he doesn't.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
You were just trying to hide things by using the term "Berber marker" and E M81. instead of saying E1b1b. Both E1b1a and E1b1b descend from an African source E. And there is empirical evidence that E1b1b has roots in East Africa.
URL deleted too long for thread format
[ 01. December 2018, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: You were just trying to hide things by using the term "Berber marker" and E M81. instead of saying E1b1b. Both E1b1a and E1b1b descend from an African source E. And there is empirical evidence that E1b1b has roots in East Africa.
URL deleted too long for thread format
Most African Americans are not of East African descent nor Berber
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Point is that you are still being evasive. E1b1b is not some "Berber" haplogroup. It is rather an East African haplogroup sharing the same parentage as E.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
