This is topic Black and Indian, two different things in forum Deshret at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=013420

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
The term "Black" sometimes seems arbitrary, and more political than descriptive in todays world.

Here is one example. This is an Indian guy who pretended to be "Black" to gain admission to med school. In the left picture he is Indian, and in the right picture he is Black, even if he is darker in the left picture. He also told that he was treated very differently when people thought he was Black (ie African American) than when he was an Indian.



Why I faked being black for med school
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
The term black is a reference to a color and in this case skin complexion. Humans ever identified themselves simply based on that as opposed to language, culture, family and so forth. It was only in the colonial era when Europeans began colonizing the globe that such terms came into dominance as a reference to large numbers of people under the guise of "race". And this only applied primarily to those people such as Africans who were enslaved in the Americas and native populations. For example populations in the Americas never used the term "Indian" as that term was applied by Europeans thinking they were in India. The term "Negro" came to be used for all Africans enslaved in the Americas no matter their ethnic or linguistic identity. This was especially true in North America where slaves were stripped of their original ethnic identity, language and culture. As part of trying to reclaim their identity in the Americas, many Africans began to use the term "black". But in reality that is no better than "Negro" and does nothing to identify a language or culture.

So it is not that "black" or "white" are arbitrary, it is that these terms were used to distinguish European colonizers from their slaves and conquered natives. That is the basis of "race" in the colonial era, which is used on census forms. Indian is not a race, but a national identity and within India there are many different ethnic identities and cultures. And obviously, many Indians are indeed black in terms of skin color due to be tropically adapted people similar to many Africans. This is why this person could pass themselves off as a person of African descent in America by cutting their hair.

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

The problem for people of African descent in America is that they refuse to call themselves Africans as opposed to just "black". Black doesn't mean anything. There is no "black land" that black people come from. It is purely an identity based on a superficial characteristic and not a reference to any specific historical culture, language, continent, geographical region or ethnic identity.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
It also tells something about society, and the history of race relations in USA that he got treated so very differently when people thought he was an African American compared with how he was treated when he was considered an Indian. Same color but different treatment.

quote:

---

What I wasn’t prepared for was the startling change in the way people treated the “black” me. People became suspicious, even hostile. Walking to class one morning, a lone female student ran into a snowy field to avoid me.

One evening I was driving my shiny red Toyota 4Runner truck slightly under the speed limit. A cop pulled me over and seemed irritated, bluntly asking how I could afford such an expensive car.

One morning I went to the grocery store I’d frequented for three years to buy some junk food to tamp down a hellacious frat-party hangover. I made my purchase and headed to the door when suddenly their security guard stepped in my way and accused me of shoplifting. I protested so he threw me to the floor and rifled through my bag.

Nothing remotely like this had ever happened when I was just another Indian doctor’s son. Walking in a black man’s shoes dimmed much of the youthful enthusiasm I’d had about my deception.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
So wait you are surprised? As if America and most colonial societies, by the very nature of their existence, have not been treating people differently based on perceived notions of race? And just when exactly did these overtly racist societies become so open to diversity? Because the way you say it makes it seem that this always was the case, when it wasn't. Case in point look at the historic treatment of Africans, Indians and others in the Western hemisphere.

Not to mention that the original article is nothing but apologetic discourse from a group of people who have openly aligned themselves with colonial powers for better treatment over Africans and indigenous people. Why would he go through all of that to pretend not to know the history and ongoing continuing struggle against racism in Western society?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
The interesting in this context is that not only skin color is determining how Indians respective African Americans are treated, but it is more about history of race relations concerning these specific groups.

It is also interesting the different ways African immigrants and African Americans relate to, and perceive the majority society.

---

That man doesn't even look black, I clocked him as Indian immediately just by looking at the picture. Also, its weird that someone from Sweden is so engrossed in race relations in the US.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Maybe as weird as Black Americans are so engrossed in Egypts past without themselves having any roots in Egypt (many have not even been in Egypt, or have any relatives or other connections there).
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Maybe as weird as Black Americans are so engrossed in Egypts past without themselves having any roots in Egypt (many have not even been in Egypt, or have any relatives or other connections there).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

Another case of "I'm white and I say so".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Maybe as weird as Black Americans are so engrossed in Egypts past without themselves having any roots in Egypt (many have not even been in Egypt, or have any relatives or other connections there).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Well, someone thought it strange that a Swede was "engrossed" in racial problems in USA, I just said it is not more strange than some Black Americans obsessing over Egyptian history and which race ancient Egyptians were. We all have our interests, weird or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Well, someone thought it strange that a Swede was "engrossed" in racial problems in USA, I just said it is not more strange than some Black Americans obsessing over Egyptian history and which race ancient Egyptians were. We all have our interests, weird or not.

---

Egypt shares the continent of Africa, that is part of African heritage. No matter what you think I find it strange that a swede seems to think that looking at Egypt or Africa is something he can do, but African Americans should only look at west Africa for there heritage.

Not only does the hieroglyph for face match the face of many African Americans, theres NO HIEROGLPH OF A WHITE PERSON FOR FACE. the country of egypt is inside Africa so why does a white man who has nothing to do with Egypt think he has a right to tell African Americans what they can and cannot educate themselves about.

---

 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Better we discuss Egypt in another thread. This thread is about Indians and African Americans.
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
Indians and Africans are Black no matter how its shown

























what this means is the color of the skin is Black.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Yes, they have rather similar skin tones, but still they seem to be treated differently, at least in USA.

And many Indians seem reluctant to marry African Americans. It is not always people of the same skin tone gets along.
 

---

Posted by Kimbles (Member # 23765) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Yes, they have rather similar skin tones, but still they seem to be treated differently, at least in USA.

And many Indians seem reluctant to marry African Americans. It is not always people of the same skin tone gets along.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
For me personally, I have relatives in America which creates a certain interest. I also have friends who are in interracial relationships, and I have myself been in such relationship so this is a question that interests me some.

Many Swedes have relatives in America (and in other countries too), many Swedes travel a lot, and not so few Swedes marry people from other cultures, countries and "races". We are not so isolated as we once were.

---

Nobody cares, NEXT! Your types are obsessed with race, but then you'll be screaming about people always bringing up race or the "race card". A hit dog will always holler.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Well, maybe you don´t care, but there can be others who are interested in these questions. I write about what I want as long it does not go against the rules of this forum.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
'Black' in America is often identified with African ancestry. Of course 'black' in and of itself is a skin color instead of 'Black American' which implies a specific ethnic group or ancestry.

As those here have already shown there are black skinned Indians and the word for such in India is kalu which means 'black'. There are also black peoples indigenous to Southeast Asia, Australia, and the Pacific Islands. Does this mean they are they are the same as Africans or African Americans?? Of course not.

In fact, I remember we had the discussion about Gypsies here and how they too were labeled as 'black' and even mistaken for Egyptians hence the name 'Gypsy' even though they are originally from India.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
It is an interesting phenomena in itself that people with skin tones who often are different shades of brown are called Black (just a few of them are literally black). In other contexts we seldom use the word black for brown things, like in the example I showed in a thread with a black and brown cat. In such a case we call the brown cat brown and the literally black cat for black. And that goes for many other things also at least in our modern world. It has been discussed much how the ancient Greeks called other people and what those color designations really means. That can make one wonder what color the ancient Greeks would have called this cat:



Reminds me of a old article I once found:

Terms for "Brown" in Ancient Greek - By Robert J. Edgeworth,

In another article an African proposes that the term Black for Africans should be abandoned

quote:

---

This article argues that the use of the terms ‘black’ and ‘white’ as human categories, together with the symbolic use of these terms, help to sustain the perception of Africans as inferior, because their categorical use was accompanied by a long-standing set of conceptual relationships that used the terms symbolically to connote a range of bad and good traits, respectively. This set of associations creates an underlying semantic system that normalised the assumed superiority of those labelled white and the assumed inferiority of those labelled black. The use of this dichotomy as a human categorising device cannot be separated from its symbolic use. It is therefore incumbent on egalitarians to abandon either the symbolic or the categorical use of the dichotomy. I argue that abandoning the categorical use is the preferable option because the negative symbolism of the term ‘black’ is deeply embedded in the English language and in Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Back on track again:

Interesting video about Indians having a reluctance to marry Black people (maybe they do not very often marry white people either, but I have seen a couple of cases).

THIS IS WHY INDIANS DON'T MARRY BLACK PEOPLE

---

https://twitter.com/ThanosBullx/status/1672332289555021829

https://twitter.com/ThanosBullx/status/1680706594949005312

^Snowbunnies declaring their love for noble black men^

Is this the reason the white race may be a mere fragment of our imagination in the near future?

I think those videos need to be thoroughly analysed. A cultural anthropologist is necesssary for full decipherment IMO.

Maybe Robert Sepher's expertise is necessary?? I can't even begin to fathom what his analysis of that data would be??? I can only surmise his summary would be "rather odd".
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Robert Sepher? Isn´t he into pale VRIL girls?


 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shebitku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Back on track again:

Interesting video about Indians having a reluctance to marry Black people (maybe they do not very often marry white people either, but I have seen a couple of cases).

THIS IS WHY INDIANS DON'T MARRY BLACK PEOPLE

---

https://twitter.com/ThanosBullx/status/1672332289555021829

https://twitter.com/ThanosBullx/status/1680706594949005312

^Snowbunnies declaring their love for noble black men^

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
The term "Black" sometimes seems arbitrary, and more political than descriptive in todays world.

Here is one example. This is an Indian guy who pretended to be "Black" to gain admission to med school. In the left picture he is Indian, and in the right picture he is Black, even if he is darker in the left picture. He also told that he was treated very differently when people thought he was Black (ie African American) than when he was an Indian.



Why I faked being black for med school

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The term black is a reference to a color and in this case skin complexion.

---

that's delusional
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 


^ What's funny is that the guy who is Mindy Kaling's brother, just shaved his head. As if hair texture determines whether one is black or not. What about Africans who have loose wavy hair texture?

The point is that the label of 'black' is based on skin color.

Mindy Kaling herself



Roma (Gypsy) women from Spain also of South Asian ancestry.







So yes 'black' and 'Indian' are two different things but that doesn't mean one is exclusive of the other. The same way with 'black' and 'African'. Not all Africans are black as Maghrebi like Antalas shows not to mention white South Afrikaaners.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
One point with the article and with the OP is that the guy did not change color but when people thought he was African American he was treated differently from when he was thought to be an Indian. So it seems skin color alone does not determine how one is treated, it is also a matter of perceived race, or ethnicity. Racial hierarchies and ethnic hierarchies are not based solely on skin color.

These hierarchies can sometimes be complicated and are often historically determined, as with the Romes, in many European countries Romes are treated worse than Indians even if many Indians are darker and even if Romes and Indians have similar origin.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Black is a descriptor of skin color, yes (even if brown would be more correct in most cases) but also a social label. Some people are called black in our society while the same label are not designated to others. Some people self identify as black, while others do not do that. Some are even rejecting that label, even if they have the same skin tone as others who are labeled (or identify) as black.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
And some believe that Black and White are oversimplified categories which carry a lot of historical baggage and should be abandoned.

quote:

---

This article argues that the use of the terms ‘black’ and ‘white’ as human categories, together with the symbolic use of these terms, help to sustain the perception of Africans as inferior, because their categorical use was accompanied by a long-standing set of conceptual relationships that used the terms symbolically to connote a range of bad and good traits, respectively. This set of associations creates an underlying semantic system that normalised the assumed superiority of those labelled white and the assumed inferiority of those labelled black. The use of this dichotomy as a human categorising device cannot be separated from its symbolic use. It is therefore incumbent on egalitarians to abandon either the symbolic or the categorical use of the dichotomy. I argue that abandoning the categorical use is the preferable option because the negative symbolism of the term ‘black’ is deeply embedded in the English language and in Christianity.

---

Africans are not black: why the use of the term ‘black’ for Africans should be abandoned - Kwesi Tsri
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Just to show how ridiculously subjective the label of 'black' is, Indians like Mandy Kaling and her brother call themselves "brown" to distinguish themselves from Americans of African descent, yet if they went to India they and other Indians of their complexion would be called "kalu" (blacks).
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Yes, and many seems to follow the old labels from the days of racial biology where Indians and North Africans were classified as Brown, other Africans as Black. In Asia Andamanese people are Black but not Indians. Melanesians are considered Black but not Indonesians and so on.

Here is one example of the old labels


Lothrop Stoddard's "Distribution of the primary races", from 1920. He divided people into White, Yellow, Brown, Black and Amerindian. These classifications varied but often "Black" people were at the bottom of these hierarchies

Larger image

And as you say, the classifications vary depending on where you are, and they have also varied over time.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


Much of the 2020 U.S. census reflects the view of
Americans. It reflects the most common usage in America.
Although they do switch certain things sometimes, or add or take away things in an attempt to satisfy as may people as possible with this form.
Obviously some of these categorization some people might argue with but I want to stick here to the topic "blacks" and "Indians", these categories
.
Ideally skin color would not be used on the census

and if it was to be used it should not be attached to ethnic nationalities

So if someone insisted on color categorizing people those skin color box should be entirely separate with no examples of ethnic groups.
A color chart would not have any of these suggested nationality biases on who is black
(but better yet not have any colors on the census, that is dumb as hell)

Notice for instance how there are no color boxes attached to Chinese, Japanese and Koreans and many others.
It says at the top one can mark more than one box
So if somebody checks Chinese or Japanese or Korean and if they are as light as a European will they also pick "white"??
Probably not because that "white" box has examples next to it and none are East Asian and Asians don't like to identify as colors anyway
In the same way someone who checks "Asian Indian"
who might have very dark skin is not likely to
pick "black" in addition to "Asian Indian"
and if we look the list of examples for the "black" box none are Asian

Now all of this is kind of stupid but it does reflect the way vast majority of Americans think.

For instance the average American is not going to call this person "black" >>


Vijay Jojo Chokal-Ingam

The average American perceives "black" as meaning someone with dark skin who has one or more other physical traits they perceive as common to Africans that are not only dark skin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
What's funny is that the guy who is Mindy Kaling's brother, just shaved his head. As if hair texture determines whether one is black or not. What about Africans who have loose wavy hair texture?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The term black is a reference to a color and in this case skin complexion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
the label of 'black' is based on skin color.

---

Vijay Jojo Chokal-Ingam

quote:

---

I shaved my head, trimmed my long Indian eyelashes, joined the University of Chicago’s Organization of Black Students (a black friend ran it, knew my scam and got me in) and began applying to medical schools as a black man. I transposed my middle name with my first name and became Jojo, the African-American applicant...

---

According to Doug and Djehuti, Vijay Jojo Chokal-Ingam is black and if he picked "Asian Indian" on the census but did not also pick "black" he is simply in denial, he is black.

So without even commenting on if he is "black" or not all of these deceptive things he did
demonstrate that the average American does not perceive black people as simply "anybody with dark skin"
And affirmative action programs do not categorize people by skin alone (if at all)
Thus since most Americans use the word "black" to mean a dark skinned person of African or African diaspora descant he was compelled to use these little tricks and gimmicks beyond being about dark which he already has.

It is possible that his medical school application
did have a check box for "black"
or was it "African American" I'm not sure.
If it said "African American" than Vijay Jojo Chokal-Ingam should have titled his book
"Almost African American"
and we would not have to even bother with
what these ambiguous terms "white" and "black"
should mean




2016

However in the thread topic article he wrote he says

quote:

---

https://nypost.com/2015/04/12/mindy-kalings-brother-explains-why-he-pretended-to-be-black/

I was always in a state of terror that I would be found out. During one interview at Case Western Reserve University, I was confronted by a black doctor and admissions committee member. He barraged me with questions about my family and personal background. I said that my family came from Nigeria. It was technically correct because my Indian parents had lived in Nigeria before moving to the United States.

Finally he said, eyes cold, in more of a question than a statement, “I read your application. It says you’re black.” I nodded.

Finally he said, eyes cold, in more of a question than a statement, “I read your application. It says you’re black.” I nodded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The term black is a reference to a color and in this case skin complexion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
the label of 'black' is based on skin color.

---

^^ then obviously this black person did not agree with Doug or Djehuti,
otherwise he would not have to make that remark.
He would have simply looked at Vijay, seen the dark skin, determined he was black with his eyeballs and not have to say anything,
But that is not how America works

short video of Vijay Jojo Chokal-Ingam
2015, when the story hit the media

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4LSOWTvGJg

_____________________________________
.


.



5 minute
video of Vijay Jojo Chokal-Ingam
Nov 5, 2022
speaking against Affirmative Action in higher education in front of the Supreme Court

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ87aAEYtJQ
 

---

Posted by Kimbles (Member # 23765) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shebitku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Back on track again:

Interesting video about Indians having a reluctance to marry Black people (maybe they do not very often marry white people either, but I have seen a couple of cases).

THIS IS WHY INDIANS DON'T MARRY BLACK PEOPLE

---

https://twitter.com/ThanosBullx/status/1672332289555021829

https://twitter.com/ThanosBullx/status/1680706594949005312

^Snowbunnies declaring their love for noble black men^

Is this the reason the white race may be a mere fragment of our imagination in the near future?

I think those videos need to be thoroughly analysed. A cultural anthropologist is necesssary for full decipherment IMO.

Maybe Robert Sepher's expertise is necessary?? I can't even begin to fathom what his analysis of that data would be??? I can only surmise his summary would be "rather odd".

---

Why are you linking twitter accounts that have an obsession with cuckolding white men. Bizarre...

Massive *side eye*...


 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
 
THE sister looks brown but her brother looks black even with the hair.
 

---

Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
 
Yeah, Mindy's brother has a similar look as Professor Griff from Public Enemy.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The term black is a reference to a color and in this case skin complexion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
the label of 'black' is based on skin color.

---

She does not say he's not dark enough to be black
(and look who's talking)




She said Indian doesn't mean black
by implication she would probably say African does mean black.
So it's highly likely she would also say the darker Vijay here is not black either
and Vijay himself says he's not black, that was something he faked (he claims)

Millions of Americans might say this
some might not

Black is whatever you want it to mean
and in different situations you can use the meaning that best supports your argument

However, if instead of "Black"

you use

Dark skinned

or

Of African Ancestry

Each of those are also subjective
but they are not as vague as "black'
but some people prefer the vagueness
because it has more flexibility in argumentation
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
you people are fighting for Black not to be used because it goes back to God.

Your openly showing your bias and claiming that brown is better when its not better its a man breathed word that takes people away from God.

The Holy Bible has Black, red, yellow and white. These are colors that God breathed and makes sense and has the human race identify as

No matter what you say, this guy is Black



compare to this person.




thats his skin color, theres no need for gymnastic with the skin color of him compared with others.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


KING , is this 3 brown people then?
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


KING , is this 3 brown people then?

---

NO!

They are 3 Black People and there color Goes back to God, not to Man made brown
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
They are 3 Black People and there color Goes back to God, not to Man made brown

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
They are 3 Black People and there color Goes back to God, not to Man made brown

---

Is there such a thing as a brown person?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:


What is brown is something made up by White people to seperate those from Black people and take them out of God Hands.

BROWN IS MAN TRYING TO PLAY GOD

---

what color are these horses?



or bears?
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Yes, and many seems to follow the old labels from the days of racial biology where Indians and North Africans were classified as Brown, other Africans as Black. In Asia Andamanese people are Black but not Indians. Melanesians are considered Black but not Indonesians and so on.

Here is one example of the old labels


Lothrop Stoddard's "Distribution of the primary races", from 1920. He divided people into White, Yellow, Brown, Black and Amerindian. These classifications varied but often "Black" people were at the bottom of these hierarchies

Larger image

And as you say, the classifications vary depending on where you are, and they have also varied over time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Skin color is a fact of biology and Indians have black skin for the same reason Africans have black skin and other groups have black skin: tropical adaptation.

---

quote:

---

Skin color is a fact of biology and Indians have brown skin for the same reason Africans have brown skin and other groups have brown skin: tropical adaptation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
lioness listen.

Humans are not animals.

Comparing humans to animals is beastiality

---

simple question

what color is this?
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
lioness listen.

Humans are not animals.

Comparing humans to animals is beastiality

---

simple question

what color is this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
Lioness, Black speaks to what God called people.

Rather listen to God then what man says.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
Lioness, Black speaks to what God called people.

Rather listen to God then what man says.

---

who created the English language?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Skin color is a fact of biology and Indians have black skin for the same reason Africans have black skin and other groups have black skin: tropical adaptation.

---

^^ above statement scientifically corrected >>

quote:

---

Skin color is a fact of biology and Indians have brown skin for the same reason Africans have brown skin and other groups have brown skin: tropical adaptation.

---

A minority of brown skin people have skin so dark
it might be mistaken for black

Similarly "white" is not accurate

So why are these terms used?
It's politics

people want to divide the world into two colors and attribute comrade to one and enemy to the other

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
Lioness, Black speaks to what God called people.

Rather listen to God then what man says.

---

who created the English language?

---

God created all human languages. Its named from man but originated with God.

---

what is the word in the English language for this color?
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
Lioness, Black speaks to what God called people.

Rather listen to God then what man says.

---

who created the English language?

---

God created all human languages. Its named from man but originated with God.

---

what is the word in the English language for this color?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:


What is brown is something made up by White people to seperate those from Black people and take them out of God Hands.

BROWN IS MAN TRYING TO PLAY GOD

---

I disagree.
If someone said the above people are brown,
It's easy to agree with because if you look at then they are all brown. The statement matches what you observe with your eyes

but if someone instead says some or all of them are black
it's more divisive
Then you get endless disputes about how we can we be looking at brown colored people
who are not black colored like a piece of charcoal or licorice
but call some of them "black" but not others
It's defiantly political commentary rather than objective scientific observation
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:


What is brown is something made up by White people to seperate those from Black people and take them out of God Hands.

BROWN IS MAN TRYING TO PLAY GOD

---

I disagree.
If someone said the above people are brown,
It's easy to agree with because if you look at then they are all brown. The statement matches what you observe with your eyes

but if someone instead says some or all of them are black
it's more divisive
Then you get endless disputes about how we can we be looking at brown colored people
who are not black colored like a piece of charcoal or licorice
but call some of them "black" but not others
It's defiantly political commentary rather than objective scientific observation

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kimbles:

And who are the "people" you are referring to that wants to divide the world into color based classifications?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:


Brown is a man made word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:


Brown is a man made word.

---

Brown is an English word and you said God created all human languages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:


Brown is not a word used from God.

---

you may not be qualified to discuss this topic
because I suspect as a child you may have not learned your colors
but I could be wrong
what color is this cup?
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:


Brown is not a word used from God.

---

you may not be qualified to discuss this topic
because I suspect as a child you may have not learned your colors
but I could be wrong
what color is this cup?

---

You may think that worshiping white people and there ideas is what its about but I do not participate inside your games of buffoonery.

That cup is Black and that is what it is, brown is a man made word that is not something that is right. Black is Black, and Black is brown.

separating Black is all your doing.

God made Black not brown.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 



KING, what color is his shirt?
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

KING, what color is his shirt?

---

Why are you asking me these questions.

God made black not brown.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 



KING, what color is his shirt?

________________________________________


.




also what color is this piece of fruit?


I'm trying to find out if you know God's colors
If you are qualified

you should be able to answer these question because evasiveness is devilish
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:



KING, what color is his shirt?

________________________________________


.




also what color is this piece of fruit?


I'm trying to find out if you know God's colors
If you are qualified

you should be able to answer these question because evasiveness is devilish

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
God created all human languages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
God created all human languages.

---

don't be silly, you made that up

the bible does not say God created all human languages

that's what the devil wants you to think

---

quote:

---

Genesis 11:7-9
Come, let’s go down and confuse the people with different languages . Then they won’t be able to understand each other.”

In that way, the LORD scattered them all over the world , and they stopped building the city.

That is why it is called Babel, for there the LORD confused the language of the whole world , and from that place the LORD scattered them over the face of all the earth

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
the selfhate of your brown is showing that you have no idea of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:
I swear, this goddamn forum has reverted back to the 2014-2015 era of arguing over what is and isn't "Black" or whether the term should be used at all. Is there even a point to these arguments anymore?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:
I swear, this goddamn forum has reverted back to the 2014-2015 era

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
Its safe to say that Black is what identify you as a God breathed person. Someone who loves to claim God and see that the Love of God is breathed into Black.

While brown is something white man made up to stick his nose into God life and steal humans from Gods Grasps.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
God made all humans Black, White, red, yellow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
yet its only the White that tries to steal from Gods throne and thinks they can claim a color for themselves called brown.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Yes but how different is that from Djehuti doing a colorlines thread in Egyptology about who is black according to the Greeks

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Yes but how different is that from Djehuti doing a colorlines thread in Egyptology about who is black according to the Greeks

---

From what I have seen, DJ have been consistent in using the term "black" in reference to a degree of skin pigmentation. However, certain other posters on this forum aren't comfortable with that usage, since it could apply to certain human populations they don't want associated with "Black people" (a label they'd rather have delimited to certain African groups, or perhaps the old "Negroid" construct). Hence all these recurring arguments over who is and isn't "Black" and what that term even encompasses.

Admit it, you dudes just don't want ancient North Africans, South Asians, or anyone else outside equatorial Africa to be Black. That makes you uncomfortable. Maybe ask yourselves why.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:
Btw, I have noticed that Brandon had an account dedicated to hentai involving interracial sex with black women. Additionally, he is on the autism spectrum. Therefore, when he defends afrocentrists, it isn't motivated by sincere reasons but rather driven by a weird and creepy fetishization. I have already alerted and shared this information with some moderators about this "Mr. Chocoholic"...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kimbles:
^I never understood the use of this term either when referring to the African continent and its history. Like, what does Black Americans claiming history we weren't a part of have to do with Africa? In that case, why not use the term "black washing" instead which would make much more sense.

What makes it even more bizarre is that he thinks most of us actually believes in that shit, he doesn't even know anyone from the States yet he feels so comfortable speaking on what he thinks we believe in as a whole lol.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Maybe one should listen to what people themselves identify with. If for example an Indian does not want to identify as black or be lumped together with African Americans it is up to him, even if he happens to have a dark brown skin tone.


A short funny video with an Egyptians take on Blackness and race

Black or not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
[qb] Maybe one should listen to what people themselves identify with. If for example an Indian does not want to identify as black or be lumped together with African Americans it is up to him, even if he happens to have a dark brown skin tone.


A short funny video with an Egyptians take on Blackness and race

Black or not?

---

Dude. Colorism is rampant in India based on skin color. They know full well what black is and they are running away from it as much as any group. Nobody is confused about black being purely a description of skin color

---

Doug's ongoing delusion is that black color means brown

Ask people what are the races,
they are likely to say "white" "black" and "Asian"

but then ask a person who identifies as black what color their hair and skin are they are going to say black hair and brown skin because they know the colors don't match

So why are they called "black" ?
It's because using an inaccurate word to describe brown is a signifier that more than just dark skin is being described



this is an extremely common view ^^
and Doug is in compete denial of it

One could even get into a debate questioning if any of the above people are black, but that is a different issue. Some people would call the above people "light skinned" and they are and if you say they are dark skinned then you are also saying the average European is the yardstick, that anyone darker than the average European is black.

However even if the tiniest degree of lightness is added to black it becomes gray (not even brown)
It has very few variations if any.
So why if there is a vast variety of brown people in the world why would some call themselves black?
It is because black when applied to brown people
is a political race word and it means
"dark skinned person of African descent or with features resembling people of African descent"


Mexican comedian George Lopez

Doug's argument is that George Lopez should call himself black and he doesn't because he's racist

That is a political hope, to try to get all dark skinned people to unite and overthrow or free themselves from light skinned people
but Mexican and Indians are not going to call themselves black , it's never going to happen and Doug knows it

And if you wanted to employ a strategy to for dark skinned people to overthrow light skinned people and the basis of uniting on skin color, the term "brown" includes virtually all of them, it's much broader .
Or the term "dark skinned people"
or "people of color" could be used not even dealing with a particular color

Are Central and South Americans and East Indians Indians going to one day call themselves "black people" ?
not going to happen so why keep fantasizing about it?

That is not to says anecdotal and Indian never described themselves as black but as a social group they are not going to be calling themselves black people ever, nor will Mexican or other natives of the Americas.
Why"
Is it because they are racist? Some are but that's secondary.
"Black" has a strong connotation of African descent, despite Doug and Djehuti not wanting it to
So the reason they would not call themselves black is because they are not African.
And that is not going to change

But we can all agree all of these people, Africans, East and Native Americans are brown,
that's a fact
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
Not only is lioness a negative person, she shows it inside wanting people to identify with a man made color and then wanting people to identify with dark skin, dark means evil its that simple that what is dark skin should be called rich skin.

Black is something that brings people together and bolsters a true tale that implies that throughout the past no people identify themselves as brown, thats a man made word.
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:
"You don't want them to be associated with black people" why should they be associated with black people in the first place ?

Additionally, why do you make associations solely based on trivial traits like skin color ? Wouldn't genetics and culture be more important and appropriate factors for such connections ?

The underlying reason behind this lies in Afrocentrists, particularly those from America, anchoring their identity solely on skin color due to deep acculturation. They may find it hard to conceive that Africans don't primarily identify with skin color and may not feel an inherent kinship with other dark-skinned populations beyond Africa, even within the continent. This behavior could be seen as a means to claim and appropriate the cultures and histories of others, as well as trying to insert themselves into every ancient society. Such actions simply stem from an inferiority complex and a search for acceptance.

Btw, I have noticed that Brandon had an account dedicated to hentai involving interracial sex with black women. Additionally, he is on the autism spectrum. Therefore, when he defends afrocentrists, it isn't motivated by sincere reasons but rather driven by a weird and creepy fetishization. I have already alerted and shared this information with some moderators about this "Mr. Chocoholic"...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
dark means evil

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
skin color is not trivial, thats what most people identify with inside every country and it shows the connection throughout the world.

Who are you to claim to know what Africans identify with???? You seem to not get it, Black is something that links to the past and to God, what does it matter that you don't believe inside skin color, but think that people would link themselves to something they cannot see DNA.

Your mind is corrupted by you pseudo DNA and made up sciences. What you is, is a person who does not understand that the deeper then skin color approach is a LIE

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
dark means evil

---

Only stupid people think that

If someone says "I like dark chocolate"

That doesn't not mean they like it because it's more evil than milk chocolate

So we can't use dumb definitions that don't apply

Somebody could say black is evil or white is evil

Again, stupid definitions for stupid people only

---

quote:

---

Dark Is Evil

Darkness is associated with evil, ugliness,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
skin color is not trivial, thats what most people identify with inside every country and it shows the connection throughout the world.

Who are you to claim to know what Africans identify with???? You seem to not get it, Black is something that links to the past and to God, what does it matter that you don't believe inside skin color, but think that people would link themselves to something they cannot see DNA.

Your mind is corrupted by you pseudo DNA and made up sciences. What you is, is a person who does not understand that the deeper then skin color approach is a LIE

---

You have been trained by Europeans to think skin color is an important or main part of a person's identity.
It is not. It is superficial and trivial

and historically Africans did not go around saying they were brown or black all the time

The had tribal names that they identified with, not this dumb color stuff

wake up you've been brainwashed

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
skin color is what most people first identify with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
skin color is what most people first identify with.

---

Correction: America

that's the problem

Americans have brainwashed to identify with their skin color

Most of the rest of the world have not

KING you need tp travel world more, get some new perspectives


If you looked at a book on America history it would probably say "white people" and "black people " in it 50 times

But if you look in the bible it's very few.
There might be skin color talked about occasionally but they don't label whole groups of people as a color, nor did the Egyptians

Also we don't even go by the bible at Egyptsearch,
we worship multiple gods

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
KING, you probably have never even left America

---

Lioness your worship of white man and there labels is why you have a self hating mentality and it shows inside your views on God.

America is not something that trumps culture so I will repeat.

Post cultures and people claiming Brownskin or darkskin over Blackskin

EDIT: Show any ancient culture or Ancient civilization claiming brownskin or darkskin over Blackskin.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


KING, as a child you my not have learned the full color lesson. Here it is
Don't hate brown people
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


KING, as a child you my not have learned the full color lesson. Here it is

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
Show any ancient culture or Ancient civilization claiming brownskin or darkskin over Blackskin.

---

I never said brown people were over black people




what I'm saying is if you are not this color you are not black, period
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:


EDIT:you say america is about color labels, yet you go by the color label of white people.

---

"white" is the other fake category

His shirt is white
his skin is not white

We need to stop being delusional

"white" and "black" are fake

throw it all in the garbage and wake up,
trust your eye for once
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
Show any ancient culture or Ancient civilization claiming brownskin or darkskin over Blackskin.

---

I never said brown people were over black people




what I'm saying is if you are not this color you are not black, period

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
Show any ancient culture or Ancient civilization claiming brownskin or darkskin over Blackskin.

---

I never said brown people were over black people




what I'm saying is if you are not this color you are not black, period

---

You go by the terms of white people who made up brownskin and darkskin. In all Ancient Cultures and civilization show them using brownskin or darkskin instead of using Black Skin as an identifier or using brownskin or darkskin as a talking point.

---

KING you're just being racist against brown

Yet you yourself are brown

Look at the chart, the word brown is used
because we can see it is different from black,
trust you eyes not your lying mind



This is black

anybody who doesn't match this color
is not black

So you can pretend all day long

but it is a fantasy. Let's deal with reality

Guess what, ancient people were wrong about a lot of stuff

You say you are a Christian
but Christians rejected the ancient Egyptian belief in multiple gods

so don't try to play games about what the ancients said
You don't believe in multiple gods so you are rejecting the ancient beliefs

don't play with me I'll make mincemeat out of you
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
Show any ancient culture or Ancient civilization claiming brownskin or darkskin over Blackskin.

---

I never said brown people were over black people




what I'm saying is if you are not this color you are not black, period

---

You go by the terms of white people who made up brownskin and darkskin. In all Ancient Cultures and civilization show them using brownskin or darkskin instead of using Black Skin as an identifier or using brownskin or darkskin as a talking point.

---

KING you're just being racist against brown

Yet you yourself are brown

Look at the chart, the word brown is used
because we can see it is different from black,
trust you eyes not your lying mind



This is black

anybody who doesn't match this color
is not black

So you can pretend all day long

but it is a fantasy. Let's deal with reality

Guess what, ancient people were wrong about a lot of stuff

You say you are a Christian
but Christians rejected the ancient Egyptian belief in multiple gods

so don't try to play games about what the ancients said
You don't believe in multiple gods so you are rejecting the ancient beliefs

don't play with me I'll make mincemeat out of you

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
Lioness your the biggest joke on the forum, you can only make mincemeat out of your love and worship of white man and there labels.

WHITE PEOPLE CREATED BROWN SKIN LABEL SEPERATING BROWN FROM BLACK

show any Ancient Cultures that claim Brown or darkskin instead of claiming Blackskin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
Lioness your the biggest joke on the forum, you can only make mincemeat out of your love and worship of white man and there labels.

WHITE PEOPLE CREATED BROWN SKIN LABEL SEPERATING BROWN FROM BLACK

show any Ancient Cultures that claim Brown or darkskin instead of claiming Blackskin.

---

The almighty God created brown things and black things

I told your ass black is beautiful

But it you want to deny that God did not also create brown is
is to deny the Most High

---

Brown is a term created by white people to separate brown from Black and delimit Black accomplishment.

Show where God created brown instead of Brown being part of Black show any religion that claim brown .

also show where the Ancient people acknowledged brown.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
.
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 
Out of curiosity…

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
God made all humans Black, White, red, yellow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:
Out of curiosity…

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
God made all humans Black, White, red, yellow.

---

Since you are appealing to the Christian God here, may I ask where the Bible states this? Some people interpret the sons of Noah as the ancestors of people with different skin colors (i.e. Ham as the ancestor of dark-skinned peoples, Japheth as the ancestor of light-skinned peoples, and Shem as the ancestor of those with medium tones), but I don't think the Book of Genesis actually describes the three sons' appearances. And who in your view are the red and yellow people of the world?

---

quote:

---

Numbers 12:10

When the cloud lifted from above the tent, Miriam’s skin was leprous —it became as white as snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had a defiling skin disease,

---

quote:

---

Song of Solomon 1:5 “ I am black and beautiful , You daughters of Jerusalem, Like the tents of Kedar, Like the curtains of Solomon.

---

quote:

---

How did brown get its name ?
Brown - Wikipedia
The term is from Old English brún , in origin for any dusky or dark shade of color. The first recorded use of brown as a color name in English was in 1000 . The Common Germanic adjectives *brûnoz and *brûnâ meant both dark colors and a glistening or shining quality, whence burnish.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown#:~:text=The%20term%20is%20from%20Old,or%20shining%20quality%2C%20whence%20burnish.

See no matter how you word it, brown is a made up word from white people trying to play God.

No Ancient use of Brown is there.

Brown started at around the 1000ad.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


It doesn't matter what word you prefer

this color is not black
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


It doesn't matter what word you prefer

this color is not black

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


It doesn't matter what word you prefer

this color is not black

---

that color is a part of Black. and there is no need to call it brown, when for ages it has been called a part of Black

---

If you mix blue paint with yellow paint you get green



So you could say yellow is a part of green
but green is still called green not yellow

A color is a color , "part of" is irrelevant
to the name of the color

_______________________________________



this color is either black or it is not black

and it is not black

No person in America would call this color black

that is because their eyes tell them it is not the same as black


What would be a lighter version of black?




gray


Learn your colors
the names of colors is based on difference our eyes can see
The whole world can see the difference between black brown and gray
So it doesn't matter what the language they say it is
Their eyes tell them it's different

So if you find some ancient writing saying something that doesn't matter
What matters is the accurate description of how our eyes can tell the difference
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


KIng, reality check

we know that brown is not gray because brown has
some red or yellow mixed with it

black is a pure color.
You could says it's all color mixed together
but that doesn't means you would call it red or blue or brown

If you are looking at a dark color
if you see any evidence of a color not black in it

then the color is not black

black is a special pure color

If you look at that black square
you can't see any other color in it
even if theoretically its all colors combined

trust your eyes
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


It doesn't matter what word you prefer

this color is not black

---

that color is a part of Black. and there is no need to call it brown, when for ages it has been called a part of Black

---

If you mix blue paint with yellow paint you get green



So you could say yellow is a part of green
but green is still called green not yellow

A color is a color , "part of" is irrelevant
to the name of the color

_______________________________________



this color is either black or it is not black

and it is not black

No person in America would call this color black

that is because their eyes tell them it is not the same as black


What would be a lighter version of black?




gray


Learn your colors
the names of colors is based on difference our eyes can see
The whole world can see the difference between black brown and gray
So it doesn't matter what the language they say it is
Their eyes tell them it's different

So if you find some ancient writing saying something that doesn't matter
What matters is the accurate description of how our eyes can tell the difference

---

Lioness stop your foolishness, before the white man came up with brown that you are promoting, people called that color Black.

Black is good use of the terms and it is solidly backed by people not looking to change the colors of God.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


KIng if anybody in your actual everyday life is talking about the color of an object
you know you are not going to call an object the above color black

so stop with the games
I don't care what the ancients said, some of them thought the world was flat, ancient does not mean correct
the above color has some red qualities although it's not red

Black has zero red qualities

Black is Black
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
Lioness it does not matter if white man who you worship came up with a color that is easier for you to claim.

The fact is that brown is made up by white man, what was called brown was Black inside ancient terms and should not be replaced since its part of God colors and brown is part of man made color inside an attempt to take colors away from God colors.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
[QB] Lioness it does not matter if white man who you worship came up with a color that is easier for you to claim.

The fact is that brown is made up by white man,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
[QB] Lioness it does not matter if white man who you worship came up with a color that is easier for you to claim.

The fact is that brown is made up by white man,

---

No God created brown

and black

and they are two different things

We can tell the difference between the color of a tree chunk and a piece of charcoal

God created that difference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1vKOchATXs

here's the video evidence, see time 1:55

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:


show anything with God that shows he created brown

---

God came up with these various brown things

it wasn't the white man
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:


show anything with God that shows he created brown

---

None of these things is Brown, Brown is a term used inside 1000ad



God came up with these various brown things

it wasn't the white man

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
KING if you told me that in your everyday life you never use the word brown I wouldn't believe it

"Car" "airplane" "electricity"

none of these are ancient

the words are irrelevant to the reality of the object

Somebody who saw a car for the first time in their life does not need to know the word for it to have seen a car.
If you saw an insect you never saw before you have seen it, despite not knowing the word for it


Thus the reality of a persons eyes is that they can distinguish brown from black

Thus you and many other people of the world are brown in color

A smaller portion of brown people call themselves "black" and the reason they do this is because
they are communicating "I am brown but of African descent"

So black people are are smaller portion of the much larger category they belong to, brown people,
their actual color

And out of the people who call themselves black a tiny amount of them may be a brown so dark that they are nearly black

But most are not, they are brown


God could never have created brown
but she did

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Whoever created the system so do many perpetuate it. So either can people complain over it or try to get away from it and abandon the old categories.

Maybe a better way to go than whine over white supremacy.

---

quote:

---

In the beginning of such a discussion many reflections of a general character respecting the races about to be considered suggest themselves to the inquirer. One of the first of these is the laying of geographical boundaries around that division of mankind defined as Black. This great task in our present state of knowledge is not difficult to perform. Time was in the near past, however, when the boundaries of the Black races were unknown. Those boundaries, indeed, were supposed to be vastly more extensive than subsequent inquiry has shown to be the fact. The whole tendency of ethnological investigation for the last half century has been to narrow the geographical areas occupied by the Black races.


WE now purpose to take up and consider in its turn the last of the three primary divisions of the human family. This is the Black race, to which many references have already been made in preceding portions of this work. Our prime classification of the various branches of the human family has, from the first, proceeded on the general line of color, and this method we now follow to its ultimate results by including in our last group of peoples all those who by the test of complexion may be classified together as Blacks.

In the beginning of such a discussion many reflections of a general character respecting the races about to be considered suggest themselves to the inquirer. One of the first of these is the laying of geographical boundaries around that division of mankind defined as Black. This task in our present advanced state of knowledge is not difficult to perform. Time was in the near past, however, when the boundaries of the Black races were unknown. Those boundaries, indeed, were supposed to be vastly more extensive than subsequent inquiry has shown to be the fact. The whole tendency of ethnological investigation for the last half century has been to narrow the geographical areas occupied by the Black races.

Not so long ago it was supposed, in a general way, that all of Africa, ancient and modern, was essentially Nigritian in its populations. This has now been shown to be [wholly incorrect. All of North Africa above the twentieth parallel has been entirely excluded from he classification. This large part of the continent has belonged in the past - and so belongs in the present - to the Hamitic races, and, perhaps, in a smaller measure to the Semites. The limits of the Black race have thus been narrowed on the north to the inner tropics. The remainder of the continent, except on the east, belongs to the Blacks - though the southern part, below the Tropic of Capricorn, has had an ambiguous ethnography, the true character of which is not yet definitely ascertained. We may thus say in general terms that the Western, or African, division of the Black races is confined to the intertropical spaces of the Dark Continent.

As to the Eastern division of the Black races, the same narrowing tendency in its boundaries may be observed. It was formerly supposed that the south of India for as far as the twentieth parallel north was dominated by Black peoples, whereas we now know that only the extreme part of that great peninsula was touched by the true Blacks in their distribution eastward. In like manner the Indonesian islands were formerly assigned to the Blacks, whereas subsequent inquiry has shown that the Malays have their ethnic relationships with the Brown races of Southeastern Asia. Only Australia and the Papuan parts of New Guinea, with certain associated points of land belonging to Melanesia, remain as the true seats of the Black distribution eastward.

There are thus seen to be in a general way only two principal branches of the Black race, namely, the Western, or Nigritian, branch distributed through equatorial and Southern Africa ; and the Eastern, or Australian, branch, distributed in Australia, Papua, and the smaller islands of Melanesia. The limits of the race, as a whole, are thus narrowed, both latitudinally and longi- tudinally, especially the former. The uttermost eastern dispersion of the Black division of mankind reaches as far as the Fiji islands, under the iSoth meridian of Greenwich, while the Western departure goes out as far as Cape Verde, about longitude 17 degrees W. The northern barrier of the race reaches geographically the Sahara, in Africa, about the 20th parallel, and the southernmost point of the distribution is in Tasmania, in 42 degrees South.

The next general observation relative to the emplacement of the Black race is the comparative unimportance of the countries occupied thereby. Of these, the greatest potency is doubtlessly in Equatorial Africa. That part of the world, however, has thus far remained unclaimed by civilization, although Northern and Northeastern Africa have been the seats of some of the oldest, most famous, and most important, as well as the most highly civilized, nations of the ancient world.

After Africa, Australia is by far the most important of the countries having an original population of Blacks. While it would not be proper to depreciate Australia as a seat of civilization, it must nevertheless be admitted that a large part of that island-continent is un- reclaimable, and that the whole of it is so greatly divided by broad oceans from the continental parts of the world as to place the country at a great disadvantage in the competition for preeminence.

As to New Guinea, the island is neither large enough nor well enough emplaced to give it a great importance in the general survey of the earth's habitable parts. It will thus be .seen that, on the whole, the geographical areas held originally, and in most part to the present time, by the Black races are the least consequential of the countries of the earth.

Our next general observation relates to the race itself, and its comparative rank in the general category of mankind. The Black division of human kind holds by far the lowest level of any of our species. Its emergence from the total obscurity of unrecorded paganism and merely animal stages of progress has been so slight as scarcely to mark a stage in the forward march. Beyond this the other races have gone forth on vast excursions to enlightenment and power. They have passed te borders of the physical and material, and have entered the intellectual life. They have organized powerful communities, nations, states, kingdoms, and dominions, and have made the thing which, for lack of better name, we call history.

This the Blacks have never done. It is a melancholy fact that they have no history. True, this may be said in almost equal degree of many of those other peoples whom we designate as aborigines. Aye, more; it is doubtlessly true, or was true, at some former period of all the aborigines of the earth, and therefore true of the human race itself.

<snip>

Still another general observation respecting the Black race, as such, has reference to its antiquity; that is, to the relative position which it occupies in the general scheme of mankind. More simply, the question stands thus : Is the Black division of the human race older or younger than the other branches of the human family? Strangely enough, arguments seemingly valid may be discovered on both sides of this question. Historically and ethnologically it would appear that the Black race is the oldest division of the human family. In former parts of the present work we have held to this contention, showing that the native seat of the human race was in that part of the world from which the Blacks have evidently proceeded. From that situation all the other races are far off; that is, the Ruddy and the Brown races have seemingly made their way to great distances from that center out of which only the whole human family could have arisen. This is seemingly a Black origin rather than any other. It would thus appear that the other races have arisen from a Black stem, have branched therefrom; have differentiated from an older stock of darker and still darker hue down to the complexion of blackness.

The reasoning would be that the lighter and still lighter color of the different races is the result of the remotest development ethnologically, chronologically, and geographically. Such reasoning would point clearly to the conclusion that the Black race was the first of humanity to rise out of merely animal conditions; the first to receive the rudiments of reason, and of those instincts and sentiments that are above the horizon of the beasts ; the first to stand in a situation toward which the uplifted prehensile hand of the chimpanzee was stretched forth to grasp the heel of a true humanity.

---

quote:

---

an empowering picture book about a South Asian girl who recognizes the beauty of her own brown skin as she finds and collects beautiful brown things during a walk in the woods - by an award-winning South Asian author!

---

Brown Is Beautiful: A Poem of Self-Love


 

---

Posted by Shebitku (Member # 23742) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Well, some Africans also want to abandon the outdated term black

And I write about what I want as long as it does not break the rules. If you do not like it you can ignore this thread since you do not "give two fucks" anyway, as you put it.

You sound like a racist, talking about my "race of people".

quote:

---

This article argues that the use of the terms ‘black’ and ‘white’ as human categories, together with the symbolic use of these terms, help to sustain the perception of Africans as inferior, because their categorical use was accompanied by a long-standing set of conceptual relationships that used the terms symbolically to connote a range of bad and good traits, respectively. This set of associations creates an underlying semantic system that normalised the assumed superiority of those labelled white and the assumed inferiority of those labelled black. The use of this dichotomy as a human categorising device cannot be separated from its symbolic use. It is therefore incumbent on egalitarians to abandon either the symbolic or the categorical use of the dichotomy. I argue that abandoning the categorical use is the preferable option because the negative symbolism of the term ‘black’ is deeply embedded in the English language and in Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Whining over white supremacy does not make the world better. Better do something creative instead, like write a book or something.

Very few humans have black skin, most have brown skin, and yes the whites invented the system and called some peoples black, but at least in scientific circles they are gradually abandoning it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopetryx:

Well, some Africans also want to abandon the outdated term black

And I write about what I want as long as it does not break the rules. If you do not like it you can ignore this thread since you do not "give two fucks" anyway, as you put it.You sound like a racist, talking about my "race of people".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx

People can call themselves what they want,

---

quote:

---

but they ought to stop trying to label other peoples and involve them in their simplified views of race.

---

quote:

---

Or as one Egyptian girl said: "leave your outdated race labels in USA"

---

quote:

---

you know grouping people based on skin
color only exists in America and this
needs to stop or this needs to be in
America Keep It in America but don't
bring it to us

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

why does the US Census still have black on it? And who created that classification? Not to mention why to Latin Americans still have "racial" classifications based on skin color like "Negro"? All of that starts with Europeans not Africans

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
the scientific reality that tropically adapted people around the world have similar skin tones. That is a scientific fact.

---

quote:

---

Topic:

Black and Indian, two different things

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Then why does the US Census still have black on it? And who created that classification? Not to mention why to Latin Americans still have "racial" classifications based on skin color like "Negro"? All of that starts with Europeans not Africans and has nothing to do with the scientific reality that tropically adapted people around the world have similar skin tones. That is a scientific fact. We aren't talking about social systems of racial classification, self identity or anything else. This is simply a discussion of the facts of biology that you keep running away from. Populations in Central America, Africa, the Pacific, India, South East Asia, and so forth have similar skin complexions because of being in a tropical environment. That is all that is being said. You keep running away from that for some reason invoking things nobody ever said. Just like people in Northern environments around the world also have similar complexions as in white or very light skin. And it is environment that gives these populations similar skin tones and features nothing else. Culture, language and identity has nothing to do with it.

---

quote:

---

In Sunday school one morning, a new child asked me why my skin was so dark. I told her it was because I am a black person. She looked at me for a minute and said nothing else to me for the rest of the hour. When her mother, picked her up, she said to her mother “Mommy, that grownup doesn’t know her colors. She doesn’t know that her skin is brown not black.” Simple but actually true. Had me really think about race and how I identified myself based on other’s definitions. I am a BROWN American who is part of the Human Race. I don’t deny my heritage, whatever that may be (not all brown people will have a Roots moment). From this point on, I will make an effort to avoid checking Black or African-American for my race and simply check other. If given the option, I’ll even write Brown Human and dare someone to correct me because I really do know my colors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Even children can see the difference between black and brown

quote:

---

In Sunday school one morning, a new child asked me why my skin was so dark. I told her it was because I am a black person. She looked at me for a minute and said nothing else to me for the rest of the hour. When her mother, picked her up, she said to her mother “Mommy, that grownup doesn’t know her colors. She doesn’t know that her skin is brown not black.” Simple but actually true. Had me really think about race and how I identified myself based on other’s definitions. I am a BROWN American who is part of the Human Race. I don’t deny my heritage, whatever that may be (not all brown people will have a Roots moment). From this point on, I will make an effort to avoid checking Black or African-American for my race and simply check other. If given the option, I’ll even write Brown Human and dare someone to correct me because I really do know my colors.

---

My skin is BROWN not black

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Then why does the US Census still have black on it? And who created that classification? Not to mention why to Latin Americans still have "racial" classifications based on skin color like "Negro"? All of that starts with Europeans not Africans and has nothing to do with the scientific reality that tropically adapted people around the world have similar skin tones. That is a scientific fact. We aren't talking about social systems of racial classification, self identity or anything else. This is simply a discussion of the facts of biology that you keep running away from. Populations in Central America, Africa, the Pacific, India, South East Asia, and so forth have similar skin complexions because of being in a tropical environment. That is all that is being said. You keep running away from that for some reason invoking things nobody ever said. Just like people in Northern environments around the world also have similar complexions as in white or very light skin. And it is environment that gives these populations similar skin tones and features nothing else. Culture, language and identity has nothing to do with it.

---

The biological fact is that few people are actually black, most of those who you call black are in reality brown, that is a fact. The rest is politics and outdated labels. And those labels are unfortunately still used by both "white" and "black" people in some countries, like USA. But politics does not turn brown into black, it just shows that people are brainwashed and have a hard time to liberate themselves from simplified categories.

But as I said, in anthropology and other sciences these categories are gradually abandoned.

---

Again, what does any of that have to do with the fact that people from India have similar skin tones to Africans due to being in a tropical/sub tropical environment? This is the point being made and the reason why an Indian can pass as black, because they have similar skin tones and features. This isn't about self identity because the concept of race is about skin color and nothing else. That is the history of the race concept in the Americas and that didn't come from "black" people.

Skin color is real and people all over the world have similar skin tones because of similar adaptation to various environmental conditions. Black skin is not unique to Africa is the point. Yet these racialists are obsessed with separating African skin color from other populations which is not scientific at all.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Skin color is real, but most Indians or Africans have different shades of brown not black. If people can not see the difference between black and brown they are either brainwashed or color blind.

Very few people have black skin, different shades of brown is most common. To call brown black is just politics.

Or do you call this color black??



Do these two have same color?


 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Otherwise though, I agree that there are a lot of shenanigans going on to separate people because of different skin tones but also based on hair type, eye color, facial traits and other differences. And of course also by factors like culture and religion, and other non biological factors.



Two men with brown skin, but out of political reasons one is called black, the other brown (many times the man to the left is referred to as an Arab and not as a skin color).
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
KING without any words we can tell the difference between brown and black

This conspiracy theory you made up that white people invented the word brown for nefarious purpose is pure silliness.

When the transatlantic slave trade started the Portuguese and Spanish were transporting slaves out of Africa, these Africans did not call themselves black people or "African"
They identified themselves by whatever tribes they came from

The Spanish and Portuguese didn't care about that they lumped then altogether and called then "Negroes" meaning black in Spanish
Later the English and Americans kept using this Spanish word all the way up to the 60s.

Later in the 60s, some African Americans started calling themselves the English word "black" in preference over the Spanish word "Negro" but it would take a while for "Negro" to become obsolete

__________________________________

Etymology

black (adj.)

Old English blæc "absolutely dark, absorbing all light, of the color of soot or coal," from Proto-Germanic *blakaz "burned" (source also of Old Norse blakkr "dark," Old High German blah "black," Swedish bläck "ink," Dutch blaken "to burn"), from PIE *bhleg- "to burn, gleam, shine, flash" (source also of Greek phlegein "to burn, scorch," Latin flagrare "to blaze, glow, burn"), from root *bhel- (1) "to shine, flash, burn." The usual Old English word for "black" was sweart (see swart).

The same root produced Middle English blake "pale," from Old English blac "bright, shining, glittering, pale;" the connecting notions being, perhaps, "fire" (bright) and "burned" (dark), or perhaps "absence of color." According to OED, in Middle English "it is often doubtful whether blac, blak, blake, means 'black, dark,' or 'pale, colourless, wan, livid' "; and the surname Blake can mean either "one of pale complexion" or "one of dark complexion."

Black was used of dark-skinned people in Old English. Of coffee with nothing added, attested by 1796. The meaning "fierce, terrible, wicked" is from late 14c.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/black

_____________________________________________

So the word "black" has English and German roots
and it only goes back several hundred of years.
It is not ancient

So if you want to find an ancient African word for black instead of black which is an English word
I recommend you do so


>>> The earliest form of English is called Old English or Anglo-Saxon(c. AD 550–1066)

black is an English word
and is not ancient, so forget it KING , you're done, cooked

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Skin color is real, but most Indians or Africans have different shades of brown not black. If people can not see the difference between black and brown they are either brainwashed or color blind.

Very few people have black skin, different shades of brown is most common. To call brown black is just politics.

Or do you call this color black??



Do these two have same color?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

Lioness every religion and ethnicity has word for Black. You wrote alot but made no sense. we have from the Holy Bible "I AM BLACK AND BEAUTIFUL" what you said is a lie about Black not being an ancient word Black is found inside every vocabulary and was there from the beginning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

Lioness every religion and ethnicity has word for Black. You wrote alot but made no sense. we have from the Holy Bible "I AM BLACK AND BEAUTIFUL" what you said is a lie about Black not being an ancient word Black is found inside every vocabulary and was there from the beginning.

---

Black is not an ancient word, stop the nonsense

The bible was not originally written in English,
look into it

---

quote:

---

The word, kmt (in today"s written form"Kemet, Kemit, Khemit, Kamit, or Khamit)--in the Ancient Egyptian language is translated to mean " black, " "land of the blacks," or "the black land." Khem (also, Chem) is the Egyptian word for black.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
You can try to change the topic to Egypt

but you don't know what language the bible was originally written in

or specific words of that language

So don't tell me about English words
English words are not ancient

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
Lioness why are you not listening? I said Black is an Ancient Word and that brown is not.

I Did not say its english.

---

Black is not an ancient word

It's an English word

It does not come from the Middle East or Africa, stop the nonsense

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

Lioness, KM means Black

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

Lioness, KM means Black

---

Black is not an ancient word

It's an English word

The earliest form of English is 550 AD to –1066 AD,
hundreds of years after the bible was written

The word black does not come from the Middle East or Africa, stop the nonsense

---

Lioness, KM means Black thats the egyptian word for Black.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


King, how would you classify this man?
 

---

Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
 
That could be a tan.
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


King, how would you classify this man?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
what color is his skin in the photo?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb] what color is his skin in the photo?

---

Could be Black

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb] what color is his skin in the photo?

---

Could be Black

---

Is that a question? I'm asking you what color his skin is in the picture

---

Stop playing games, You lioness denied that Black is Ancient.

I showed you that KM.t=Black. What are you doing on the forum promoting brown a white man term meant to separate Black from its accomplishment, when egypt=KM.t=Black???
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


King, what color is this man's skin in this photo?

"could be" is not an answer
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


King, what color is this man's skin in this photo?

"could be" is not an answer

---

quote:

---

I glorify Agni, Uṣas, the sun, the earth, the great brown horse of Varuṇa, who is mindful of his adorers; may they put far away from us iniquities.”

---

quote:

---

For Indra and for Visnu poured, Soma hath flowed into the jar:
May Vayu find it rich in sweets.
4. These Somas swift and brown of hue, in stream of solemn sacrifice
Have flowed through twisted obstacles,
5. Performing every noble work, active, augmenting Indra's strength,
Driving away the godless ones.

---

quote:

---

6. Whom, bright with native splendour, crushed between the pair of pressing stones
The wavy Friend whom Indra loves-the twice-five sisters dip and bathe,
7. Him with the fleece they purify, brown, golden-hued, beloved of all,
Who with exhilarating juice goes forth to all the Deities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Then why does the US Census still have black on it? And who created that classification? Not to mention why to Latin Americans still have "racial" classifications based on skin color like "Negro"? All of that starts with Europeans not Africans and has nothing to do with the scientific reality that tropically adapted people around the world have similar skin tones. That is a scientific fact. We aren't talking about social systems of racial classification, self identity or anything else. This is simply a discussion of the facts of biology that you keep running away from. Populations in Central America, Africa, the Pacific, India, South East Asia, and so forth have similar skin complexions because of being in a tropical environment. That is all that is being said. You keep running away from that for some reason invoking things nobody ever said. Just like people in Northern environments around the world also have similar complexions as in white or very light skin. And it is environment that gives these populations similar skin tones and features nothing else. Culture, language and identity has nothing to do with it.

---

The biological fact is that few people are actually black, most of those who you call black are in reality brown, that is a fact. The rest is politics and outdated labels. And those labels are unfortunately still used by both "white" and "black" people in some countries, like USA. But politics does not turn brown into black, it just shows that people are brainwashed and have a hard time to liberate themselves from simplified categories.

But as I said, in anthropology and other sciences these categories are gradually abandoned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


King, what color is this man's skin in this photo?

"could be" is not an answer

---

He is Black...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Again, who created the system of race in the Americas and forced Africans and other groups to fit into it? Africans did not come to the Americas calling themselves Negroes or blacks. Just like Europeans didn't historically call themselves whites. The system of race in the Americas is based on skin color which comes from Europeans as a way to elevate themselves over other groups. And it is all based on outward appearance, which is nothing but racialist thinking which again came from Europeans. Therefore, given that India exists in a tropical environment similar to Africa, it is not shocking or surprising that Indians can have the same skin color and similar features to Africans.

This isn't about words, self identity or anything else as opposed to the reality of biology and environmental adaptation. Africans aren't the only populations with black skin on earth. And there are other populations in similar latitudes that have similar features outside of Africa. This is a fact and it isn't something new or unknown and that will be true no matter what words you decide to use. Just like racism based on outward appearance will still exist no matter what words you use. Because it is still primarily based on skin color. So yes, if an Indian person happens to have features that are very similar to African Americans they will be seen as black, meaning African American.

---

You start to sound as repetitive as a defunct gramophone record. Biological fact is that most people who are called black actually has some kind of brown skin tone. The rest is just political clap trap. And it is irrelevant who created that kind of terminology. You can deny it all you want and whine over Europeans, but the fact is most so called "black people" are brown, and the old racial categories are gradually getting abandoned, especially in scientific literature.

I am happy that I do not live in America where so many people think in simplified categories of black and white, and where race is considered more important than anything else.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Terminology is funny, most people would call this cat brown:



But this man is called black, at least in USA


 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Here is one Egyptologist from Egypt, Dr Fayza Haikal, who reacts to the race obsession and skin color obsession she met among African American students:

quote:

---

but i personally i lectured and different either at ... where i had african-american students or in africa itself i lectured in africa itself ...
other places and the this obsession of race and obsession is not a strong word i think if i had a stronger i would use it but i don't know it so the this obsession of race ... are egyptians ancient egyptians white or black and i always answered there like me you can decide for yourself as i am bright white or black it doesn't matter the majority is like me of course there are people who are darker and there are people who are lighter according to the the latitude in egypt where they are
and uh the problem is that they are so obsessed by this idea of what color they are that they do not want to understand the culture the country itself of ancient egypt and the history of ancient egypt and so on it bothers them to i mean they are always have the screen in front of them which makes that they do not study egyptology ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Again, who created the system of race in the Americas and forced Africans and other groups to fit into it? Africans did not come to the Americas calling themselves Negroes or blacks. Just like Europeans didn't historically call themselves whites. The system of race in the Americas is based on skin color which comes from Europeans as a way to elevate themselves over other groups. And it is all based on outward appearance, which is nothing but racialist thinking which again came from Europeans. Therefore, given that India exists in a tropical environment similar to Africa, it is not shocking or surprising that Indians can have the same skin color and similar features to Africans.

This isn't about words, self identity or anything else as opposed to the reality of biology and environmental adaptation. Africans aren't the only populations with black skin on earth. And there are other populations in similar latitudes that have similar features outside of Africa. This is a fact and it isn't something new or unknown and that will be true no matter what words you decide to use. Just like racism based on outward appearance will still exist no matter what words you use. Because it is still primarily based on skin color. So yes, if an Indian person happens to have features that are very similar to African Americans they will be seen as black, meaning African American.

---

You start to sound as repetitive as a defunct gramophone record.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Biological fact is that most people who are called black actually has some kind of brown skin tone. The rest is just political clap trap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

And it is irrelevant who created that kind of terminology. You can deny it all you want and whine over Europeans, but the fact is most so called "black people" are brown, and the old racial categories are gradually getting abandoned, especially in scientific literature.

I am happy that I do not live in America where so many people think in simplified categories of black and white, and where race is considered more important than anything else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Here is one Egyptologist from Egypt, Dr Fayza Haikal, who reacts to the race obsession and skin color obsession she met among African American students:

quote:

---

but i personally i lectured and different either at ... where i had african-american students or in africa itself i lectured in africa itself ...
other places and the this obsession of race and obsession is not a strong word i think if i had a stronger i would use it but i don't know it so the this obsession of race ... are egyptians ancient egyptians white or black and i always answered there like me you can decide for yourself as i am bright white or black it doesn't matter the majority is like me of course there are people who are darker and there are people who are lighter according to the the latitude in egypt where they are
and uh the problem is that they are so obsessed by this idea of what color they are that they do not want to understand the culture the country itself of ancient egypt and the history of ancient egypt and so on it bothers them to i mean they are always have the screen in front of them which makes that they do not study egyptology ...

---

Anxieties about Race in Egyptology and Egyptomania

Dr Fayza Haikal

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Well if Europeans created the racial categories of Black and white, why do you uphold them? Would you not want to get away from them? You sound a bit brainwashed. If you do not like the racial system why do you still use its terminology?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
And some Black Americans actually more or less want to forse these categories on other people, putting their nose into others history. Egyptians did not ask for foreigners defining who their ancestors where. Native Americans do not like when nutty whites and blacks trying to claim their cultures and claiming their ancestors were Israelites, Welsh or Black Africans. Seems like many are tired of all these American shenanigans.

---

Can you show or prove where any black person forced this indian guy to try and pass themselves off as black? Otherwise you are spouting racist nonsense because it is irrelevant to the point being discussed. Not to mention ignores the colorism in india where black skin is seen as not beautiful. Please take that racist nonsense to stormfront somewhere.

How is this proof of black people forcing their identity on anybody else:


This person himself has been on a crusade against black people in the form of Affirmative Action, which is why he pulled this stunt. But somehow he is not being called out as a fraud and a racist as he should be. All of it is anti black propaganda and this is no different.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-dMC9FAQCY

He knew he could pass as black because he knows he has similar skin color to black people. All of this is deliberate deception and yet he get celebrated when he is a fraud. If he was so proud of himself and his abilities as an Indian, he should have just stood on that and he would have been just fine. But no, he has to make it seem like Indians are being oppressed and discriminated against by black people in university admissions, when they aren't. As if the history of discrimination in America is about black people forcing themselves on whites and Asians in the United States......
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
That Indian guy ought to answer your questions why he did it. Maybe he just use a system who premiered African Americans before his people when it came to studies.

At least most Indians do not try to force their racial perceptions on other people, like some Americans like to do.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
This thread isn't about that at all it is about how an Indian person could pass as "black" in the United States.... Which means being perceived by white people as black.

---

quote:

---

posted by Doug M
This thread is not about me upholding anything. You are trolling and not sticking to the topic of the thread and I am getting tired of you derailing these topics to introduce these talking points that are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Stick to the point of the thread instead of promoting anti black propaganda.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Since we were talking about Indians before one can just mention that ancient Indians had words for brown, and even different shades of brown. Here is just a couple of examples from Rigveda, ancient texts with their roots about 1500 - 1000 BC.

quote:

---

I glorify Agni, Uṣas, the sun, the earth, the great brown horse of Varuṇa, who is mindful of his adorers; may they put far away from us iniquities.”

---

quote:

---

For Indra and for Visnu poured, Soma hath flowed into the jar:
May Vayu find it rich in sweets.
4. These Somas swift and brown of hue, in stream of solemn sacrifice
Have flowed through twisted obstacles,
5. Performing every noble work, active, augmenting Indra's strength,
Driving away the godless ones.

---

quote:

---

6. Whom, bright with native splendour, crushed between the pair of pressing stones
The wavy Friend whom Indra loves-the twice-five sisters dip and bathe,
7. Him with the fleece they purify, brown, golden-hued, beloved of all,
Who with exhilarating juice goes forth to all the Deities.

---

So Indians have a long tradition of using the word brown in descriptions of different things.

So it makes sense that some of them also describe themselves as brown.

---

quote:

---

How did brown get its name ?
Brown - Wikipedia
The term is from Old English brún , in origin for any dusky or dark shade of color. The first recorded use of brown as a color name in English was in 1000ad . The Common Germanic adjectives *brûnoz and *brûnâ meant both dark colors and a glistening or shining quality, whence burnish.

---

quote:

---

What color is inside ancient history

Ancient Pigments - Our Colorful Past
Vermillion (Cinnabar) ...
Egyptian Blue. ...
Saffron. ...
Chinese or Han Purple. ...
Cochineal Red. ...
Ochre or Hematite. ...
Royal Purple. ...
Maya Blue.

---

quote:

---

What are the Colours in Vedas?
Meaning of Different Colours in Hinduism | Sanskriti ...
Meaning of Different Colours in Hinduism
RED : Red indicates both sensuality and purity. ...
SAFFRON : The most sacred colour for the Hindu is saffron. ...
GREEN : Green is a festive colour. ...
YELLOW : Yellow is the colours of knowledge and learning. ...
WHITE : ...
BLUE BLUE: ...
Three Gunas, Three Colours, Three Goddesses.

---

quote:

---

All creation is made up of the three Gunas. These three qualities that comprise and provide a balance to the natural world are symbolized by the colours, white, red and black . Sattva, harmony and purity, is symbolized by white; rajas, energy and passion, is symbolized by red; and tamas, inertia and ignorance, is depicted by black.

---

quote:

---

When I resolve "I will not play with them, I will remain behind when my friends depart",
and the brown dice, thrown on the board, have rattled, like a fond girl I seek the place of meeting.

---

quote:

---

Sad is the gambler when he sees a woman, another man's wife, and his well-ordered dwelling.
He yokes the brown horses in the early morning, and in the evening he sinks down beside [his] fire, a beggar

---

quote:

---

Make me your friend: show us some little mercy. Do not forcibly bewitch us with magic power.
Let your wrath [and] emnity now come to rest. Let the brown [dice] now snare some other captive.

---

quote:

---

Ye, ever-youthful Ones, again remembered Tugra, according to your ancient manner:
With horses brown of hue that flew with swift wings ye brought back Bhujyu from the sea of billows.

---

quote:

---

All creation is made up of the three Gunas. These three qualities that comprise and provide a balance to the natural world are symbolized by the colours, white, red and black . Sattva, harmony and purity, is symbolized by white; rajas, energy and passion, is symbolized by red; and tamas, inertia and ignorance, is depicted by black .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
I am reading Rigveda itself, I do not need the sanskrit magazine.

There are several brown shades with their own names in Rigveda, words for dark-brown, reddish-brown and yellow-brown just to mention some.

You have not read the original texts so you would not know.

Stop your ignorant babble and leave the thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
King tried to bring up the bible earlier. He doesn't even know the original language the Old or New Testament was written in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

what color is this cup?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
That cup is Black

---

@Thereal
King might be right
would you personally refer to this cup as black?
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


King, we have 6 squares here
which ones do you consider to be black?
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


King, we have 6 squares here
which ones do you consider to be black?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


King, we have 6 squares here
which ones do you consider to be black?

---

Type 3456

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


King, we have 6 squares here
which ones do you consider to be black?

---

Type 3456

---

how would you describe 1 and 2 ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


King, we have 6 squares here
which ones do you consider to be black?

---

Type 3456

---

how would you describe 1 and 2 ?

---

as white

---

Now we just need Doug to verify it
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
About pretending

In this video Dr Umar Johnson challenges the African American Pretendians, people who pretend (or maybe even believe) that they are the true Native Americans. The difference is that an Asian Indian can possibly benefit from pretending he is an African American (like in the OP), while the Pretendians probably can not benefit much from pretending being Native. The risk is big that they just worsen their situation.

quote:

---

... when your kids go to the black history program tell them to stand up and tell all their white classmates and white teachers "I'm not from Africa I was already here I am a Native American" and then the white folks are going to say "which reservation are you associated with" and you're going to say North Philly, South Central, Baltimore, DC, Atlanta [laughter]
Lord have mercy, hello and happy I can't take it brother

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
That Indian guy ought to answer your questions why he did it. Maybe he just use a system who premiered African Americans before his people when it came to studies.

At least most Indians do not try to force their racial perceptions on other people, like some Americans like to do.

---

OK, but did African Americans create the system of racial segregation and discrimination in America? Because according to this idiot, it is all African Americans fault that he couldn't get into University, when the fact is if African Americans hadn't fought for civil rights, people like him wouldn't be able to come here in the first place. The point is they are attacking black people as the problem while denying and downplaying the racist history of this country. It is anti black propaganda no more and no less. Because there was no "fight to get into college with lower test scores" during the Civil Rights movement. It was a fight for basic human rights in all aspects of society, politics, economics and education. So to sit here and claim that black people just wanted something for nothing is attacking black people and treating them as the problem.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


For those who say "black" pertains only to skin color and the skin color black includes a range of browns

Then he was not faking being black
 

---

Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
 
Yes,Vjay was faking being of African descent.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Thereal, need your reply on that cup, a few posts back
 

---

Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
 
The cup is brown, depending on context, brown may not be used to describe literal complexion.

These are excerpt from Al-Jahiz and the various threads it spawned.

The Zanj say: The Prophet (p.b.u.h.) said: I was send to the red and the black. And
everybody knows that the Zanj, Abyssinians and Nubians or surely not white or red but
definitely black. We know that Allah, the Most Powerful and Exalted, sent His Prophet (to the people), all of them: Arabs and non-Arabs (ajam) alike. And if he (Muhammad) said: I was sent to the ruddy (Al-ahmar) and the dark-skinned (al-aswad), then in his view we are neither ruddy
nor light-skinned (bid); so he was sent to us. Indeed, his use of the dark-skinned refers
to us, as the people (of our community) are in one of these categories (i.e. either ruddy
or dark-skinned). Therefore, if the Arabs are ruddy, then they belong to the Byzantines
(Rum), Slaves (Saqaliba), Persians and Khurasanis. But if they belong to the dark-skinned
peoples, then they are a sub-category of our stock. So they are called
medium-complexioned and brownish-black (sumr sud) when they are classified with us, as
the Arabs use the masculine gender to refer to a group consisting of females and males
and if the Prophet – may Allah be pleased with him – knew that the Zanj, Ethiopians and
Nubians were not ruddy or light-skinned, rather dark-skinned, and that Allah Most High
sent him to the dark-skinned and the ruddy, then surely he made us and the Arabs equals.
Hence, we are the only dark-skinned people. If the appellation dark-skinned applies to
us, then we are the pure Sudan, and the Arabs only resemble us. Therefore we are the
first people to whom he was missioned. Thus the appellation of the Arabs is predicated on
ours, since we alone are designated dark-skinned, and they are not so designated unless
they are part of us.


The Zanj say: Black delights the eye. When the eyes hurt a common prescription is sitting in the dark with a rag over the eyes. Good eyesight is the most precious thing for a person.

b]They say: The blacks are more numerous than the whites. The whites at most consist of the people of Persia, Jibal, and Khurasan, the Greeks, Slavs, Franks, and Avars, and some few others, not very numerous; the blacks include the Zanj, Ethiopians, the people of Fazzan, the Berbers, the Copts, and Nubians, the people of Zaghawa, Marw, Sind and India, Qamar and Dabila, China, and Masin, the islands in the seas between China and Africa are full of blacks, such as Ceylon, Kalah, Amal, Zabij, and their islands, as far as India, China, Kabul, and those shores.

b]They say; Al-Ishtiyan the blind man used to say; There are more blacks than whites, more rocks than mud, more sand than soil, more saltwater than sweet water.

They say; The Arabs belong with us and not with the whites, because their color is nearer to ours.

The Indians are more bronzed than the Arabs, and they belong to the blacks. For the Prophet, God bless and save him, said; I was sent to the red and the black, and everyone knows that the Arabs are not red, as we already have stated above. He said; This advantage belongs to us and to the Arabs, as against the whites, if the Arabs want it. If they do not want it, then the advantage is ours alone against all the rest.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


King, what color is this?
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


King, what color is this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
why are you calling it Blackable Grey

why not just black ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
grey is mixed with Black and white

---

what colors are mixed to produce this color?
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
grey is mixed with Black and white

---

what colors are mixed to produce this color?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
grey is mixed with Black and white

---

what colors are mixed to produce this color?

---

Red and Yellow

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
grey is mixed with Black and white

---

what colors are mixed to produce this color?

---

Red and Yellow

---

what is the resulting mixed color called?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
grey is mixed with Black and white

---

what colors are mixed to produce this color?

---

Red and Yellow

---

what is the resulting mixed color called?

---

Pumpkin

---

So a person of this color would be called pumpkin
O.k. I can see that, pumpkin people

You got me again, another win
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Humans come in a lot of shapes and colors. To try to reduce the human phenotypic diversity to just Black and White is just simple minded.


 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


KING how would you describe this man?
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Humans come in a lot of shapes and colors. To try to reduce the human phenotypic diversity to just Black and White is just simple minded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Humans come in a lot of shapes and colors. To try to reduce the human phenotypic diversity to just Black and White is just simple minded.

---

Oddly enough this images contradicts your point about Indians and Africans being different looking as if you look closely, the girl second from the right is of Indian descent and in between two girls of African descent. Showing that black skin and features in India are similar to those in Africa, making it quite easy for some Indians to pass as being of African descent. But somehow you just cant understand that.

---

The indian girl and the girl to th right has not really the same features.

Btw which color has the fourth girl from the right? Or the fifth one? Are they black, or something else?



Where do you draw the line?
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
The indian girl and the girl to th right has not really the same features.

Btw which color has the fourth girl from the right? Or the fifth one? Are they black, or something else?



Where do you draw the line?

---

quote:

---

The point is the skin tone of the girl of Indian descent is placed among people of African descent.

---

quote:

---

There is nothing complex about this. You are trying hard to make it seem like you don't understand the point that some people from India could easily pass as African Americans with no issue.

---

quote:

---

I am not saying all of them or even most of them, but India is very diverse just like Africa is diverse and among different groups of Indians and Africans there is an overlap in features in addition to skin tone. Obviously if this Indian gentlement who "passed as black" had such different features, he wouldn't have been able to get away with it, because it is a case of fraud. So either his features are close enough to allow him to pass as African American or those University administrators who didn't catch him were in on it. OR even more importantly to go against your point, the whites who allowed him to get away with this fraud only cared about skin color and nothing else, which literally what "black" indicates in general. Somehow all of this gets ignored by you along with all of the people on campus that knew him and either knew he was a fraud or didn't know and didn't see him as not being African American. None of this has anything to do with black people BTW, because this isn't an issue of African Americans trying to pass as Indian to get something they couldn't get otherwise. But again, the point here is you keep trying hard to make it seem like this is a black issue when it isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Blacks are not limited to Africa. You know that

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_of_Tibet#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_135-KB-12-030,_Tibetexpedition,_Tibetische_Hirtenjungen.jpg

---

 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
I think when the word black is used to describe people it awakes different associations among different people. For some black means an African or African American. For others it means everyone who is darker than a certain skin tone (which can vary a lot). It is a very loose concept which really does not say much.

Like these two. For some people both are black, but for others only Will Smith is considered black because he descends from Africa (and has curly hair).


 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

quote:

---

The point is the skin tone of the girl of Indian descent is placed among people of African descent.

---

Well then I am among Japanese and Chinese people since I have the skin tone of some of them. Still most people do not lump us together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

That is besides the point, there are Asian people who could be taken for Europeans too. A common skin tone does not say people are related, culturally and genetically. Seems like you promoting some kind of skin tone mysticism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Well, in USA both "white" AND "black" people often think in simplified terms of skin tone, race and similar. Seems they get it with their mothers milk. It seems so ingrained that many seem to have difficulties thinking outside that box. Why otherwise is the net full of Americans, many of them African Americans, but also others, who try to explain to all kinds of peoples that those peoples ancestors were "black" (or sometimes "white"), or that they are just invaders who displaced some mystical black (or white) race who are supposed to have lived there before. Such thoughts seems mostly arise among people who are brainwashed into a simplistic, racial black and white thinking from their childhood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Black can have different meanings for different people. For some it means all people who are darker than some certain skin tone. For others it means people from Africa (or descended from Africa) with dark skin and nappy hair. Since there is no good definition, the black and white labels are useless in a scientific context.
Easy to get lost if you only see two colors.

---

quote:

---

The moment Davuluri was crowned Miss America in 2014, Twitter and various headlines began fixating on her skin tone. So many of us were incredulous that a woman of Indian descent with actual brown skin had been deemed a beauty queen — not because Davuluri wasn’t stunning, but because the only South Asian women the world celebrates in this way are remarkably pasty. I’m not mincing words when I say that Indian movie stars do not reflect the vast and sumptuous spectrum of brown skin tones found in India.

---

quote:

---

This isn't about you and how you look among Japanese people. It is about an Indian man who knew that due to his skin color, he could pass as black.

---

quote:

---

That is Because "black" is a description of skin color and that was always the purpose of it as a label and black skin is not limited to Africa.

---

quote:

---

The cause of black skin in Africa is the same as it is in India and everywhere else, adaptation to tropical environments. There is no confusion about this in science and there is no confusion about what black skin means.

And there is no confusion about Indians having similar skin tones and sometimes features to Africans. Again, this whole article proves that, yet here you are trying to deny reality in order to promote confusion of your own making. There is no confusion about this in reality. The image of skin colors you posted shows there is no confusion. You just don't like facts. Skin color is diverse and black skin is not unique to Africa and that is based on science and this isn't some confusing issue that people cant understand, except you.

---

quote:

---

How is it beside the point when the entire thread is about one Indian man who looked at himself and decided that his skin color would make it easy to pass himself off as black? He knew that his skin color would allow him to do this and it actually worked, which shows again, that this is an issue of skin color. You are the only one who is confused about this.

---

quote:

---

Skin color was always used as a means of segregating Europeans from other groups that they subjugated and it just so happened that Africa was the nearest place with a population of people with black skin. It doesn't change the fact that skin color is an easy way to segregate society along "racial" lines. And it also doesn't mean that black skin is unique to Africa. Everybody understands that this is how Europeans have operated all over the planet, including in India, but you are sitting here acting like you don't know this history. It is about skin color with Europeans putting white skin from Europe above all others. And it is they who tried to turn their ideas about human skin color into a scientific model of human evolution. Nobody is confused about this history. And this is why an Indian person could pass themselves off as an African American.

---

quote:

---

People use these terms every day and arent confused about it at all. Again, if what you are trying to say was true, an Indian in America would not have been able to pass themselves off as black. It is about skin color and certain tones of skin color are called black and NOBODY is confused about it. Just like Europeans weren't confused about it when they used skin color as the basis for their concepts of race and racism.

---

quote:

---

And beyond that, India is very diverse and all Indians don't look like black skinned Europeans. Some look very much like Africans. Not to mention that colorism is rampant in todays India, primarily as a result of European and other Eurasian invasions. So again, nobody is confused about this except you. Case in point, the first Miss America of Indian descent has been trying to raise an awareness of colorism in India and she isn't that dark.

---

Colorism and racism indeed exists, but nothing gets better by continuing using outdated terms, and simplified concepts. Words like "negro" and simillar are already gradually disappearing, so the concepts of black and white will perhaps also go the same way. At least in intellectual discussions.

Which colors of these do you include in "black". Which are white? And what do you call the ones that does not fit into any of these categories?



Why is will Smith called black but not the Bedouin? Both have brown skin. Or do you call both black?


 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

This isn't about you and how you look among Japanese people. It is about an Indian man who knew that due to his skin color, he could pass as black. Because "black" is a description of skin color and that was always the purpose of it as a label and black skin is not limited to Africa....

How is it beside the point when the entire thread is about one Indian man who looked at himself and decided that his skin color would make it easy to pass himself off as black?...


People use these terms every day and arent confused about it at all. Again, if what you are trying to say was true, an Indian in America would not have been able to pass themselves off as black. It is about skin color and certain tones of skin color are called black and NOBODY is confused about it....

---

Doug says here "nobody here is confused about it"
but he is clearly very confused or does not know how to present his own point of view in a way that is not completely contradictory and confusing to whoever is reading it



According to Doug this is a black man
who faked being of African descent

This is what Doug should be saying to represent his own point of view but people don't know how to be consistent in their own analysis and not contradict themselves, if not trying to intentionally be evasive or gaslight.

But instead Doug repeatedly speaks of him as "passing" for black >
"(he) knew that due to his skin color, he could pass as black."

So please get unconfused and mixing up your own definitions. According to your own definition he is a black man who faked being an African American he did not try to pass for black because he is black

This is despite the man himself saying he faked being black.

According to you he is black despite claiming not to be and the only thing he faked is being African American

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
the entire thread is about one Indian man who looked at himself and decided that his skin color would make it easy to pass himself off as black?...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Yes so what? Many Americans can hardly find their own country on a map, let alone see the difference between different peoples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Black and white are social constructions which simplifies a great diversity of skin colors and phenotypes . It should be avoided in serious anthropological discussions since it is misleading and inexact

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

In the infantilized American society some people can obviously not handle more variety than two colors, white and black. But the truth is there is a variety of skin tones, and to reduce them to black and white is to reduce the true diversity of human phenotypes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Yes in a society where people only see two colors and obviously have a hard time to see the difference between different peoples it obviously worked.

But the point was not only that he pretended to belong to another group in society, the point is that he was treated differently when people thought he was an African American instead of an Indian. So skin color was not the only cause that he was treated differently, instead it shows that also people with similar skin color can be treated differently depending of what ethnicity a person belong to. So skin color alone was not the issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Well at least where I live we try to get away from segregating people by skin color. People here are not classified due to race or skin color in censuses, birth certificates or official papers. The only thing which is noted is if you are a citizen or not. Nationality (if you are a foreigner) is also noted for statistical purposes. Ofcourse we also have racist people here who discriminate because of skin color but also because of religion, clothes, ethnicity and other things. But still we are not so much into the black and white thing as Americans.

I do not say that skin color does not exist, or matters for some people. but to continue using outdated labels instead of maybe try to abadon them is just stubborness.

Especially when people try to impose their simplified world view on others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

In old times people used the term "negro", and there was no confusion about that either. Actually it was many times more precise than the all encompassing label "black" since it mostly meant Africans or people of African descent. Still it is not used much today.

To just talk about black people does not really mean anything more than a dark skin. It does not say how dark, and it says even less about etnicity, race or anything else. Actually it is even more fuzzy than the word "white" which for most people mean Europeans, and sometimes middle Easterners. Most people do not call Japanese and Chinese white even if they too have light skin. Once they were called "yellow", but that is rather rare now, and hardly accepted by themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

As for using the word black, I see that you yourself have not even defined what you mean by it. You just lump together all sorts of people who happen to have a somewhat darker shade of brown. That just add to the confusion.

Not to mention in the history of European racial ideologies there have been many terms used to segregate populations based on physical characteristics, such as red race, brown race, yellow race and so forth. None of that changes the underlying racism and promotion of white supremacy which you seem to be intent on pretending doesn't exist.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
[QB]
But what is said here on ES does of course not really matter in the real world. The important is that in scientific literature labels start to change and simplified terms emanating from a colonial world view are gradually abandoned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Colorism and racism indeed exists, but nothing gets better by continuing using outdated terms, and simplified concepts. Words like "negro" and simillar are already gradually disappearing, so the concepts of black and white will perhaps also go the same way. At least in intellectual discussions.

Which colors of these do you include in "black". Which are white? And what do you call the ones that does not fit into any of these categories?



Why is will Smith called black but not the Bedouin? Both have brown skin. Or do you call both black?

---

quote:

---

The point is Europeans created racism to promote themselves over other groups based on skin color. It was never scientific. That is the whole point. Yet somehow you come here to his forum and play dumb like you didn't know that in order to "blame" black people for this so-called confusion. That is my point. An Indian person deliberately commits fraud to access university and somehow it is black peoples fault. All you seem to know how to do is blame black people for everything even when they had nothing to do with it.

---

quote:

---

skin color is a fact of human biology and not "race" and you sitting here saying that skin color is not part of science is nonsense. Just because you cant accept the skin color of certain ancient populations as being "black" doesn't make that analysis and scientific study of ancient phenotype any less valid because you don't like it. The scientific fact is that humans adapted to tropical environments have black skin. It is a fact of science and you can see it today all over the planet. This isn't a "race" issue. The problem is Europeans and their racial ideologies trying somehow to categorize populations based on their phenotypes, which was never something that came from Africans. But somehow you are determined to pretend that it is.

---

quote:

---

The issue of race in America was not about the reality of humans coming in multiple shades, it is the reality of Europeans being racist and wanting to segregate and subjugate black Africans of any complexion in order to maintain European racial "purity". Again, you keep trying to play dumb when you know this and then try and blame it on black skin when people have been using such terms for Africans and other populations even in India since before European colonization. There is no confusion about this. And ultimately the whole point of this thread shows that the racism of American society is what enabled this Indian person to pass as black. And that is purely from Europeans and their obsession over skin color and not something that came from anybody else, contrary to you trying to argue it is something that came from black people.

---

quote:

---

Skin color was the issue. You seem to be desperate to pretend that the whole history of racism in America was not based on skin color. The fact that Indians with black skin get treated differently than people of African descent is part of racism and the history of divide and conquer. It doesn't mean racism isn't based on skin color, it means that the ideas of race as defined by Europeans are contradictory, hypocritical and scientifically invalid. That pseudo science of race was something Europeans created where they lumped all different populations around the word into different categories based on Europeans racial ideologies. But you keep playing dumb about this and acting like this hasn't been something we have been discussing on this forum for years. Because according to you, this is an issue that starts with black people, when there is no history of Africans going around the world imposing skin color ideologies on anybody.

---

quote:

---

The fact is injustice exists on earth and part of that injustice is the practice of racism and that is how Europeans have expanded their control over most of the planet. This isn't "new" history and a big part of that is keeping Africans on the very bottom both because of their skin color and because of being Africans.

---

quote:

---

Again, nobody is confused about this. You are the one who has a problem with these words because you are in denial of the fact that historically black skin is a dominant skin color, especially the farther back you go in time. And as for the term "Negro" it literally means "black" in Spanish. And the Spanish have a system called "casta" where they have many "racial" terms for all kinds of variations in skin color and mixture. That doesn't make them and their system any less racist. You seem to be trying so hard to deny racism from Europeans and then blame black people for using the term black as the cause of all these problems but not the white people who actually created this system of racial injustice, primarily by pretending to be stupid.

---

quote:

---

Again we are talking about a system of racism based on skin color and here you are talking some foolishness about the meaning of words,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Blacks are not limited to Africa. You know that

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_of_Tibet#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_135-KB-12-030,_Tibetexpedition,_Tibetische_Hirtenjungen.jpg

---

---

I love these people who called whoever they want black, says it's purely a skin color, yet refuse to refer to a cut off point on a chart

They purposely want it to be subjective and unquantified
and then throw in words like "science" and "biological fact" as gaslighting
 

---

Posted by Shebitku (Member # 23742) on :
 
Anyone, how would you describe this Hue?


 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:
Out of curiosity…

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
God made all humans Black, White, red, yellow.

---

Since you are appealing to the Christian God here, may I ask where the Bible states this? Some people interpret the sons of Noah as the ancestors of people with different skin colors (i.e. Ham as the ancestor of dark-skinned peoples, Japheth as the ancestor of light-skinned peoples, and Shem as the ancestor of those with medium tones), but I don't think the Book of Genesis actually describes the three sons' appearances. And who in your view are the red and yellow people of the world?

---

Your right that the Holy Bible only states 2 colors and they are Black and White.

quote:

---

Numbers 12:10

When the cloud lifted from above the tent, Miriam’s skin was leprous —it became as white as snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had a defiling skin disease,

---

https://biblehub.com/numbers/12-10.htm

quote:

---

Song of Solomon 1:5 “ I am black and beautiful , You daughters of Jerusalem, Like the tents of Kedar, Like the curtains of Solomon.

---

https://biblehub.com/songs/1-5.htm


The Holy Bible does not go into detail about the colors of the world except for Black and white.

---

quote:

---

Genesis 25:25

And the first came out red , all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shebitku:
Anyone, how would you describe this Hue?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Yes Europeans created racism but it seems that some African Americans uphold it by using the same old labels as the Europeans used.

Most East Asians abandoned the label yellow, since it was considered racist and outdated. But when concerning brown people the old "black" stereotypes obviously still lives on, especially in USA

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Indeed skin color is a fact, but it is also a fact that there exist more skin colors than only two. It is a meaningless simplification to try to reduce human diversity to a simple color binary system. It does not fit real intellectual discussions and it is also gets gradually abandoned in anthropological literature and discurse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

From the beginning all humans lived in the tropics but it is not so anymore, some people moved out of the tropical zone and adapted to new environments which created a diversity of phenotypical traits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

It is funny then that a terminology which was created to separate people and opress certain people still are used by some of those opressed, upholding the divide, and even try to propagate that such terminology shall be used for other peoples. Maybe some people want to abandon such segreting use of language instead of conserving it. Some people want to develop new views, not cling on to old concepts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Fact is that people divide each other not only by skin color but by religion, culture, ethnicity and other factors. Skin color is just one part, which seem to dominate in USA. In the actual case also other factors were taken in consideration, not only skin color. Indians and African Americans are considered two different peoples, two separate ethnicities with different cultures. Even if two peoples have same skin color they can be treated differently because other factors, like historical and cultural. People are not only judged by skin color.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Where I live for example a person can be seen as different just by wearing certain clothes (like a hijab) even if that person has same or similar skin color. We see the world in more nuances than many brainwashed Americans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Yes blame it all on Europeans as if the world was not full of injustice and oppression also before Europeans became a factor of power. You sound brainwashed and full of victim mentality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

I just say that at least in USA so called black people in some sense contribute to their own alienation by defining themselves with a term that was created to opress them. It does not seems so constructive. Maybe it is time to take some steps forward. And worst are those fools who hang on the net claiming everyone was black, from Egyptians to Greeks and Olmecs. Such behaviour just gives African Americans a bad reputation and alienates them further from other peoples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Like this obsessive fool who claims that Berbers and modern Egyptians all are fakes and hardly belong in Africa at all.

KEMET QUEEN: HER IDENTITY CRISIS

Queen Kemet(itsnourry) most be returned to home and expelled from Africa

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
So what are you doing to change racism, more than sitting here on ES and whine over it? That will not change anything.

---

I just challenged you on this thread you created trying to spew some propaganda about black people being somehow responsible for this Indian person committing fraud.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The people who allowed this Indian person to pass as black didn't do it because of any words he wrote, but because of how he looked.


this thread is about an Indian person in America passing themselves off as black and committing fraud.

It is about an Indian in the United States passing themselves off as black and how this has everything to do with skin color. Somehow you just keep trying to run from that and/or blame this obsession with skin color on black people like they created racism. That is my point

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


KING how would you describe this man?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
So so are ashy people black or not black?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
So so are ashy people black or not black?

---

Depends on color, ashy can look pimpled with pale ashes

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
So so are ashy people black or not black?

---

Depends on color, ashy can look pimpled with pale ashes

---

Is the man in the picture above walking, black or not?

---

Yes he could pass as a light skinned Black person
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
So so are ashy people black or not black?

---

Depends on color, ashy can look pimpled with pale ashes

---

Is the man in the picture above walking, black or not?

---

Yes he could pass as a light skinned Black person

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The people who allowed this Indian person to pass as black didn't do it because of any words he wrote, but because of how he looked.


this thread is about an Indian person in America passing themselves off as black and committing fraud.

It is about an Indian in the United States passing themselves off as black and how this has everything to do with skin color. Somehow you just keep trying to run from that and/or blame this obsession with skin color on black people like they created racism. That is my point

---

Archeopteryx, I think you should stop arguing with Doug he agrees with you, this Indian man is not black, he's just trying to pass as black.

He wants you address the wrongness of trying to pass as black when you are not black

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The people who allowed this Indian person to pass as black didn't do it because of any words he wrote, but because of how he looked.


this thread is about an Indian person in America passing themselves off as black and committing fraud.

It is about an Indian in the United States passing themselves off as black and how this has everything to do with skin color. Somehow you just keep trying to run from that and/or blame this obsession with skin color on black people like they created racism. That is my point

---

Archeopteryx, I think you should stop arguing with Doug he agrees with you, this Indian man is not black, he's just trying to pass as black.

He wants you address the wrongness of trying to pass as black when you are not black

---

At the same time the problem in society is not only about skin color. If it was, he would have been treated in a similar way regardless if he was an Indian or African American. But now he was treated differently when he posed as a person with same skin color as himself, but with another cultural and ethnic background, and with another history in the US. So to regard it as ONLY skin color is to simplify matters.

The divides in society goes deeper than only skin color.

So he was maybe wrong, but he only took advantage of a system which discriminates people, even if they happen to have the same skin color.

I had a ready made answer for Doug, but it is rather meaningless to argue. It does not lead anywhere. We obviously have different views.

---

You didn't answer anything for me because you missed th eobivous point that black people did not create this system. So trying to pin this on black people is the problem. I never said racism made sense or was logical, what I have been challenging you on is your attempt to blame this on black people. And also I am challenging your attempt to deny that that black skin color in Africa isn't similar to populations in India and other parts of the world to begin with as "black skin". That in itself doesn't justify racism in the US, but shows the fact that the core of it is based on skin color as the most obvious outward indicator that can be used to segregate Europeans from Africans. Because historically Indians were blocked from coming to America in the first place so the odds of a "black" person being of Indian descent when this racial system was put in place was pretty low. Also recall that in the era when America was established, the Dutch and British East and West India companies were at their height and both of them subjugated and enslaved Indians in India and promoted skin color based hierarchies in India and Asia. And fundamentally the problem here is you trying to put "logic" into a discussion of racism and colorism when there is no "logic" or "science" behind it, as a way to again attack black people for using the word black. Again, the whole issue here with this guy trying to "pass" as black is to blame black people for him not getting into University, as if black people put the racist system in place. Not only that, if you ask me this whole stunt was supported by whites because I don't see how this guy would actually pass as African American. These Asians have been used by whites to attack black people for racism while promoting Asians in their place, like they have done around the world. And Indians have a long history of siding with whites over blacks in various colonies around the world, including Uganda, South Africa, Kenya and the Caribbean.

Why Indians fought to be White in America

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZWhSbbsMvM
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Yes, noone denies that racism is unfair, just as oppression in general. Prejudice and racism can be based on different parameters like skin color, but also religion and ethnicity as the case with the Jews in Europe who often had similar skin tones as the Europeans but still were persecuted through centuries, and where the culmination of the persecutions took place during WWII.

Afican Americans are of course free to use the word black about themselves but in many debates they try to impose that word on peoples who, may have dark skin but still do not identify as black, which seems rather ethnocentric or shall we call it colorcentric. The word is a word sprung out of oppression and it is also a word which diminish the diversity among humans. If African Americans want to call themselves with an outdated term is their problem but they (and others too) ought to abstain from using it for people who identify themselves in other ways.

It reminds me of an incident I saw on TV, a young woman from the Dominican Republic was sitting and talking with some African Americans. She said "Many Americans think I'm black (by this she meant African American)". Then she was mastered by several of those present who said "but you are black". She said she did not identify as black but as Dominican, but they insisted she was black. It didn't seem like they really understood each other. For her, the identity as a Dominican was the most important, for the others the skin color was the most important and with which they identified themselves, and also identified her.

So maybe the word black should be reserved only for those who identify as black, and avoided for people who don't identify that way. Because after all, black is a leftover colonial term that doesn't even represent what most people look like (except for a few who are almost literally black).

I do not defend Indians they also have their own biases like colorism, an outdated caste system, religious conflicts and also they took over the role as colonial power on for example the Andaman islands where they since the independence from the Brits continued to swamp those islands making the original inhabitants (Onge, Great Andamanese, Jarawas and Sentinelese) a small minority among hundreds of thousands Indians.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Yes, noone denies that racism is unfair, just as oppression in general. Prejudice and racism can be based on different parameters like skin color, but also religion and ethnicity as the case with the Jews in Europe who often had similar skin tones as the Europeans but still were persecuted through centuries, and where the culmination of the persecutions took place during WWII.

Afican Americans are of course free to use the word black about themselves but in many debates they try to impose that word on peoples who, may have dark skin but still do not identify as black, which seems rather ethnocentric or shall we call it colorcentric. The word is a word sprung out of oppression and it is also a word which diminish the diversity among humans. If African Americans want to call themselves with an outdated term is their problem but they (and others too) ought to abstain from using it for people who identify themselves in other ways.

It reminds me of an incident I saw on TV, a young woman from the Dominican Republic was sitting and talking with some African Americans. She said "Many Americans think I'm black (by this she meant African American)". Then she was mastered by several of those present who said "but you are black". She said she did not identify as black but as Dominican, but they insisted she was black. It didn't seem like they really understood each other. For her, the identity as a Dominican was the most important, for the others the skin color was the most important and with which they identified themselves, and also identified her.

So maybe the word black should be reserved only for those who identify as black, and avoided for people who don't identify that way. Because after all, black is a leftover colonial term that doesn't even represent what most people look like (except for a few who are almost literally black).

I do not defend Indians they also have their own biases like colorism, an outdated caste system, religious conflicts and also they took over the role as colonial power on for example the Andaman islands where they since the independence from the Brits continued to swamp those islands making the original inhabitants (Onge, Great Andamanese, Jarawas and Sentinelese) a small minority among hundreds of thousands Indians.

---

quote:

---

The reason why this isn't about religion or anything else is because the obvious difference between European settlers and African slaves is skin color. So religion had nothing to do with it as the Africans were stripped of their languages, culture and religious practices.

---

quote:

---

And this system started with the Spanish and Portuguese which is why the word for black used in America was Negro. But you refuse to admit that the system of skin color based racism did not come from black people in order to promote this lie that black people using the word black are spreading racism.

---

quote:

---

That is a lie and simply you trying to promote historical falsehoods in order to slander black people and blame them for things they had nothing to do with. That is all you do on these threads, which is low key passive aggressive attacks on black people.

---

quote:

---

According to you colorism starts with black people and nobody else. This s the nonsense I am talking about. So if there is anybody promoting colorism in America or in the study of history, it is black peoples fault, yet the whole entire history of Europeans using skin color to segregate populations into "races" for different treatment is somehow ignored by you.

---

quote:

---

And this is why you created this thread, to claim that this Indian person didn't get into University somehow because of black people promoting racism.

---

quote:

---

So please don't sit up here and pretend you didn't know this so you can argue that somehow it is a problem that came from black people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
hat was not my point, my point was that oppression and even racism is not always a matter of skin color, it varies in different parts of the world and in different time periods. Sometimes ethnicity, culture, religion and social caste are the bases of oppression other times it can be skin color or other factors. Many times these factors are interwoven. As usual you see the world trough a simplified filter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

I did not say that the system originated with black people, but still black people use terminology from that old system

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Once again your paranoia shines trough. You can just not accept any criticism against the behaviour or thought processes of any African Americans. In your mind they seem beyond all criticism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
We know that white people started to segregate people through color, but in TODAYS world some African American continue the colonialist thinking and terminology, and also show colonialist tendencies when they try to tell for example Egyptians or Native Americans who their ancestors were.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
The purpose was to show that in the American system even people with the same skin color can be treated differently because of what ethnicity they are perceived to belong to. I did not say that African Americans invented the system. But it shows that there is several layers of divisiveness in the American society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Black people are also to blame for promoting old racist terminology, and some of them also behave in a racist and colonialist way against other groups. You pretend like African Americans are only victims, as if they have no agency of their own.

---

quote:

---

Here we go playing dumb again, because the literal words "black" and "white" are used on most job applications and college applications and is the basis for this Indian person passing "black".

---

quote:

---

But again, you keep using this thread to not address the facts of historic racism but to somehow blame black people and more specifically attack the word black. And you keep attacking the word black because you know full well what it means and so does everybody else, but you like playing dumb about it. Literally black in reference to skin color does literally apply to people like those from India with tropically adapted skin tones. And that is fundamentally relevant to this thread that you opened, but you want to pretend that different populations cant have the same skin tones described with the same words. And this is why you object to the word black, when everybody knows exactly what it means and you continue to play dumb, including playing dumb about racism in the USA.

---

quote:

---

There is no paranoia on my part on calling you out for blaming black people as if their usage of the word black as somehow the basis for racism. When literally the word black for people with tropically adapted skin tones has been used in India and Asia and Africa for thousands of years. The problem with you is you don't want to accept the history of black skin in human populations around the world. But instead of addressing the facts of skin color, such as the skin color of this Indian person allowing him to pass as African American, ie black, you would rather attack black people for the usage of the word black. As if all the problems with racism in the world and colorism starts with black people and their usage of these terms. Yet you avoid the fact that in India itself colorism is still rampant and black skin not seen as desirable among some in India, especially in Bollywood. But according to you this is all about the word black being used by African Americans as if anybody is confused about it and ultimately what it means in reference to skin color. Again, the only one pretending to be confused about it is you.

---

quote:

---

In TODAYS world, African Americans are not responsible for the history of race and racism on the part of white Europeans. There is no if, ands or buts about it. You continue to try and use this threads and others to blame black people as if Africans jumped off the boats from Africa forcing Europeans to call them blacks when they did not. And now you sit here and pretend that the word black is not a common term in English across all English colonies to refer to people with black skin in general language. All of this is you denying facts in order to promote propaganda against black people and to blame them for the problem and not the white Europeans that created it. And more specifically you are obsessed with African Americans using the word black to identify with ancient populations in and outside Africa based on skin color. Yet at the same time you have a whole thread you created showing a person from outside Africa doing just that, but you dont blame them and you don't address the facts of why they were even able to do it and get away with it due to having similar skin tones. No, your obsession is in trying to isolate African Americans so they cannot speak the truth on the history of humans and the presence of black skin among many populations in ancient times which is why you are attacking them for using the word black. All of this leads to you whining about black people using the word black as if somehow this is a problem when it isn't.

---

quote:

---

There is only one history of racism in the United States and it is based on skin color. The primary slave population in America came from Africa and therefore were the only "black people" in the country. And that is why "black" is used as a reference to African slaves and not specifically people from India. However, obviously there are and have always been black people in India and this case literally shows how they also have black skin. But Indians were never enslaved in the United States and the word black was not intended primarily to be used as a reference to them. At best, the word black in that context simply means person of African descent. That does not change the validity of the word black as a reference to skin color nor does it change the fact that black skin does not only exist in Africa, as this case blatantly shows. And obviously the Indian person who executed this fraud did it knowing these facts and that is the part you never seem to get, but you continue to try and blame black people for both his actions and the actions of the United States in the creation of racism.

---

There are also other divides in USA, divides according to class and ethnicity. Several other minorities have at different occasions met discrimination and racism, even if their skin color has been rather similar to the light skinned majority population.

Very few people have black skin. You must be color blind, or just brainwashed into an infantile way to see on human diversity.

You talk about black skin, it only exists among rather few peoples in the world.

Which of all these nuances are black?

quote:

---

They are not and you simply are promoting anti black propaganda in trying to blame them for racism and colorism. Again, the American government codifies the words black and white through the categories on the US census. And both of those terms are the basis for their usage in terms of demographics in the United States, which includes any kind of application or questionnaire used by institutions. Which means that this Indian person checked the box "black" on his application to this University. Somehow you are trying to take all of that and blame it on black people, which I what I keep calling you out on because you keep doing it. What black people actually did in the 1960s was reject the use of the word "negro", which is Spanish for black, as a reference to African populations in the United States. But again, that does not change the point that this word and words like it have been used by Europeans and others in reference to Africans for thousands of years. Not to mention Africans and other populations outside of Africa have also been using terms like it for thousands of years in reference to black skin. And the only reason black people use it as a source of pride is specifically because 1) they were stripped of their language and history tied to specific African ethnic groups 2) to promote pride among African Americans for having black skin and not being inferior because of it. But you pretend to be dumb and not know this. And to sit up here and try and attack black people for the usage of the word black, specifically in the context of the history of racism in the United States is nothing but anti black propaganda.

---

Of course there are African Americans who behave in a racist way, both online and in real life. To deny that is to put ones head in the sand and pretend that all African Americans are saints.

The fact that US government codifies words like Black and White is no argument for using these simplified terms, and even try to use them concerning people in other countries, or to people who do not use simple color labels to identify themselves.

These terms are not used in all countries where they try to see more nuances than in the sometimes rather infantile American culture.

Sometimes I really wonder if you ever been outside USA.

You seem to think I dislike African Americans, but I do not, I do not dislike normal African Americans, I mostly dislike the fools online who goes on and on about how black this or that ancient culture was, or that this or that population are not the original population in this or that place, instead those places were inhabited by some mysterious "black" race which often are not to bee seen anymore. In the process they do not hesitate to insult other peoples. But I never see you call out such behaviour. And I have not seen you calling out anti white or anti Native behaviour here on ES either. You just complain and whine when someone criticizes the behaviour of some African Americans. Seems very one sided.

Queen Kemet(itsnourry) most be returned to home and expelled from Africa!

Racism against Nubians and Egyptians called INVADERS in their own land
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 



Brazil Census 2022

Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics
(Government agency)

The IBGE surveys the color or race of the Brazilian population based on self-declaration.
According to data from the National Household Sample Survey - Continuous PNAD 2022,

42.8% of Brazilians declared themselves as white,

45.3% as brown

10.6% as black.

Mixed-race/Pardo-Brazilians
Main article: Pardo Brazilians
The Pardos can be a mixture of Europeans, Levantine, Crypto-Jews or Anusim, Africans, Amerindians, Roma and Asians. Brazil does not have a category for multiracial people, but a Pardo (brown) one, which may include caboclos, mulatos, cafuzos (local ethnonyms for people of noticeable mixed European and Amerindian, African and European, and Amerindian and African descent, i.e., mestizos, mulattoes and zambos, respectively), the multiracial result of their intermixing (despite most of European and African Brazilians possessing some degree of race-mixing, since brownness in Brazil is a matter of phenotype) and assimilated, westernized indigenous people.[74][75]

The Pardos make up 43.13% or 82.3 million people of Brazil's population. Multiracial Brazilians live in the entire territory of Brazil. Although, according to DNA resources, most Brazilians possess some degree of mixed-race ancestry, less than 45% of the country's population classified themselves as being part of this group due to phenotype.[76]

The caboclo or mestiço population, those whose ancestry is Native and European, revolves around 43 million people or 21% of the population. Genetic studies conducted by the geneticist Sergio D.J. Pena of the Federal University of Minas Gerais have shown that the caboclo population is made of individuals whose DNA ranges from 70% to 90% European (mostly Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, French or Italian 1500s to 1700s male settlers) with the remaining percentage spanning different Indigenous markers.

Similar DNA tests showed that people self-classified as mulatto or European and African mix, span from 62% to 83% European (mostly descendants of Portuguese, Dutch and French settlers during the colonial period in the Northeast). The pardo category in Brazil also includes 800 thousand Roma people, most of them coming from Portugal but also different countries in Eastern Europe and the Baltics. Eurasians can also be classified as pardo. The majority of them consisting of Ainoko or Hafu, individuals of Japanese and European ancestry.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Many countries seem to have some system of classifying people, some like USA, Brazil, South Africa and Cuba still go by color/race, which is a rather superficial way to classify people. Some go by ethnicity, language and nationality. Some go by religion.

It is interesting that most of the old colonial powers (except the United Kingdom) seem to have abandoned it. So the countries that are said to have invented racism are among those who abandoned the system of racial classification.

Many of these countries colonies have also abandoned classifying people by race, but many still classify through ethnicity and sometimes language.

India do not register by race either, even if caste, colorism and religious divides still exist there.

So it seems that the habit of registering people by skin color is in decline. Maybe it will one day go away completely.

quote:

---

France
France has not counted individuals by race or ethnicity since at least 1978, when a law was passed that prevented individuals from being enumerated by these categories without their consent or a state committee waiver. The reasons for this are that many French people consider asking people about race and ethnicity to be a contradiction of their principle of equality and equal treatment for all French people. Also, there is a desire to avoid repeating what Vichy France did in regards to its Jewish population and to prevent the National Front from getting more popularity. Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his administration supported and proposed counting French people by race and ethnicity. Due to criticism, however, this proposal was never implemented, and as of 2013 former French President Francois Hollande opposes enumerating people by race and ethnicity.

---

quote:

---

Portugal
Census in Portugal do not include a question regarding individuals ethnic or racial background. A question of this kind was recommended to be included for the first time for the 2021 census ("Censos 2021"),which sparked some controversy. The question was ultimately not included, although a question about religion was included. A questionnaire regarding ethnicity was planned by the Instituto Nacional de Estatística for late 2021.

---

Egypt who is the talking point in many threads do not register by race or ethnicity.

Race and ethnicity in censuses
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Why are you guys still arguing about this?? I thought it was made clear that Indians like Mindy Kaling and her brother would also be called 'black' or rather kalu in their ancestral country of India. In America the only reason they call themselves "brown" because 'black' is typically reserved for those of African descent yet their complexions are no different from say Nigerians.

These labels ARE completely arbitrary and are based solely on relation to others. I think it was in 1812 that U.S. laws began implementing the labels 'white' and 'black' starting in Virginia because of the fact that there were black peoples, most but not all of whom were slaves, and had to be distinguished from the white slaves that also existed at the time.

In Europe there was no label of "white" for the same obvious reason why there was no label of "black" in Africa. The label of one depended on the other. The label of "brown" is used today as a 'medium' between these two extremes, but even that fails to convey what a person's complexion truly looks like as the example of the Kaling siblings.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Yes, and labels also vary over time. As in Sweden where I live. In the viking age dark skinned people were called "blamadr" (blue men), or "svartur" (black). Then labels like "Moor" or "Morian" started to get used. In the 17th century the word "neger" (Negro) started to get used. Interestingly enough free Africans living in Sweden often were called "morian" in the 18th and early 19th centuries centuries, while slaves in the colony Saint-Barthélemy were called "negroes".

Roma peoples were sometimes called "black", sometimes "dark"

Today "Negro" are nearly not used anymore. Some use black, but also brown and dark skinned are used. Or more more commonly ethnicity names like Afro-Swede, African, African American, Somali and so on. An old word is "black head" which can be anyone with black hair.

When a person looks angry we sometimes call it "mörk" (dark).

As you say it is no real consistency in the name use.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ It was Tukuler who informed me that sometime around the 18th century a pope at that time (I forgot who) not only banned slavery, especially on blacks who converted to Catholicism under the Spanish, Portuguese, and French empires, but he also decreed that the label "negro" should only be used to describe black objects not people and the latter should be called "Moro". Of course, unfortunately, not everybody abided by that concession of courtesy.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
^^^In the future they will maybe use numerical color codes instead: "Look at that man, he must be a number 653519"

In the skin care and make up world they use a lot of names for different skin tones, like mahogany, olive, porcelain, ivory, chocolate and so on.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
'black' is typically reserved for those of African descent....

The label of "brown".... fails to convey what a person's complexion truly looks like as the example of the Kaling siblings.

---

Kaling siblings

what do you mean brown fails to convey what a person's complexion truly looks like?


 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Yes I understand that it is so in USA. Luckily most of the worlds population does not live in USA. Hopefully you keep it there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
It is rather typical American arrogance trying to impose their terminology on other people and other peoples history, and there are people from other countries protesting about it. But such protests some Americans can not comprehend since they do not understand other cultures.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

The problem with you is that you think that brown skin is black and that all brown skinned people are the same. Have you ever been outside USA and seen some of the both phenotypic and also cultural diversity that exists out there? Maybe you ought to go out travel some, so you can get away from your simplified USA world view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

No one says that racism only depends on African Americans using certain words, but it contributes to the division on people based on the most superficial of all criteria. Dividing people into black and white upholds the divide, and also it fails to acknowledge human diversity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

]In todays world some African Americans behave as racist as many European Americans or Europeans. I have whitnessed it both online and i real life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

There are also other divides in USA, divides according to class and ethnicity. Several other minorities have at different occasions met discrimination and racism, even if their skin color has been rather similar to the light skinned majority population.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Very few people have black skin. You must be color blind, or just brainwashed into an infantile way to see on human diversity.

You talk about black skin, it only exists among rather few peoples in the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Which of all these nuances are black?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Of course there are African Americans who behave in a racist way, both online and in real life. To deny that is to put ones head in the sand and pretend that all African Americans are saints.

The fact that US government codifies words like Black and White is no argument for using these simplified terms, and even try to use them concerning people in other countries, or to people who do not use simple color labels to identify themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

These terms are not used in all countries where they try to see more nuances than in the sometimes rather infantile American culture.

Sometimes I really wonder if you ever been outside USA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

You seem to think I dislike African Americans, but I do not, I do not dislike normal African Americans, I mostly dislike the fools online who goes on and on about how black this or that ancient culture was, or that this or that population are not the original population in this or that place, instead those places were inhabited by some mysterious "black" race which often are not to bee seen anymore. In the process they do not hesitate to insult other peoples. But I never see you call out such behaviour. And I have not seen you calling out anti white or anti Native behaviour here on ES either. You just complain and whine when someone criticizes the behaviour of some African Americans. Seems very one sided.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Queen Kemet(itsnourry) most be returned to home and expelled from Africa!

Racism against Nubians and Egyptians called INVADERS in their own land

---

quote:

---

Yet the point again is YOU created this thread specifically talking about the United States and how an Indian person passed themselves off as black. And you keep trying to spin the history of racism based on skin color in the United States(not to mention elsewhere), into somehow being black peoples fault. Yet you continue to act like you don't understand why I am calling you out on this when you specifically created this thread specifically to talk about the USA. Now you want to claim that you don't live in the USA and don't want to discuss something in a thread you created to focus on "race" in the United States. All because I called you out on your nonsense.

---

quote:

---

Again, YOU created this thread to somehow or someway blame black people for the issue of an Indian person passing themselves off as black and you want to claim this is about arrogance? It is about race based on skin color which is the fact of historic racism in the colonized world. You keep denying this and trying to pretend this is something that came from black people when it isn't. The facts of the article you posted shows this clearly but you refuse to acknowledge this came from Europeans and instead continue to act like this is a problem that came from black people. Again, if this guy was able to pass as black after checking the box for black on the university application, it was mostly due to white Europeans going along with his fraudulent actions, primarily based on skin color. Again, the point being that black skin has always been a description of skin colors for tropically adapted people, which includes both Indians, Africans and others. The fact that you object to this is the problem because you want to pretend that somehow skin color in different parts of the world have different "characteristics" when in reality they don't. Tropically adapted people all over the world have very similar features, including skin color for the same reasons, which is due to environmental adaptation. The issue is you acting like this isn't scientific fact and somehow simply an issue of racial labels promoting confusion when that is not the case. But you are deliberately doing this to attack black people using the word black because you want to pretend that black skin outside of Africa is different from black skin in Africa and therefore not something that African Americans should not discuss as part of the history of European colonization and racial hierarchies.

---

quote:

---

Again, YOU created this thread to discuss how and why an Indian person could pass as black in the USA and then proceed to whine and complain about black people as if THEY created the problem, when the reality is they did not. You still continue to deny the fact that racism was based on skin color in most colonial societies and when this very article shows the fact that everybody, from the white European admission officials, to the Indian person themselves all were using skin color as the basis of this identification as "black" based on the University application. What I am saying is you made this thread and introduced the article in order to downplay the ultimate meaning of it in order to twist the facts into something to use in attacking black people. Just like the whole point of this Indian guy even trying to pass as black in the first place was to try and blame black people for him not getting into University. All of it is explicitly designed as anti black propaganda and nothing else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
I sometimes compare with other countries which do not have such a simplified system to label people. Seems time for USA to maybe try to find a better system.

And as long as blacks go along with the system and try to impose it on other groups, they are not innocent to the confusion either.

I do not say that Black people invented racism, but some have adopted racist American values and use them as a weapon on other peoples. There are enough many such people on the net, harassing Egyptians, Native Americans and others. One can not entirely blame that on white people, some African Americans also perpetuate their own kind of racism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
as long as blacks go along with the system...

I do not say that Black people invented racism, but some...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

Tukuler is correct. The only ones making an issue about the label 'black' are negrophobes like Antalas. Notice nobody questions the label of 'white'. Yet people with chocolate dark complexions are no longer black but 'brown'.

By that judgment then these Nigerian women below are 'brown' as well.

---

If the same colors had been on something else than people, the colors of these women would have been seen as brown. Black is more of a social construct or political designation than purely descriptive (except a few peoples who are more or less black in color).

Literally speaking they are brown, even if they are called Black

If seen only as colors one can see it here



And the label Black can be problematic also to some people who are called black by others but do not want to be called that themselves.

quote:

---

This article argues that the use of the terms ‘black’ and ‘white’ as human categories, together with the symbolic use of these terms, help to sustain the perception of Africans as inferior, because their categorical use was accompanied by a long-standing set of conceptual relationships that used the terms symbolically to connote a range of bad and good traits, respectively. This set of associations creates an underlying semantic system that normalised the assumed superiority of those labelled white and the assumed inferiority of those labelled black. The use of this dichotomy as a human categorising device cannot be separated from its symbolic use. It is therefore incumbent on egalitarians to abandon either the symbolic or the categorical use of the dichotomy. I argue that abandoning the categorical use is the preferable option because the negative symbolism of the term ‘black’ is deeply embedded in the English language and in Christianity.

---

Tsri, Kwesi, 2015: Africans are not black: why the use of the term ‘black’ for Africans should be abandoned
African Identities

Article

But in the end it is maybe up to the individual how he/she identifies, as a color, or as an ethnicity, nationality or in another way.

When it regards labelling ancient peoples, the debate will probably continue since they can not choose what they are called.

---

It's as I said before, Color labels like 'black' and 'white' are what are known as hyperbolic labels that is exaggerations of what the true color is. Thus 'black' people are not truly black in color the same way 'white' people are not truly white. Both labels are ones of contrast indeed opposites and so are interdependent on each other. As such 'black' identity is based on 'white' identity and so forth.

How many people are aware that during Apartheid South Africa, Indians were just as much discriminated as the native Bantu?? Even Mohandas Ghandi was not allowed to ride in the train cart reserved for whites and when asked why, the train worker told him "because you're black".

How many Indians have been called "black", even though they're not African. Even dark-skinned Indians in the subcontinent are discriminated against by their lighter-skinned fellows and are called "kalu", meaning 'black'.

If these Veddahs (Sri-Lankan Aboriginals) came to America they would claim "brown" status too if they realized "black" was reserved for people of African descent.




Yet there are Africans just as dark who don't want the "black" label because they view it as demeaning and one reserved for those black American descendants of slaves!
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Yes, the use of the word black and which contexts it is used in varies. And some dislike to be called black even if they often are labeled that way by others as the conversation I talked about earlier where a Dominican woman talked with some African Americans and said that "Here in USA many think that I am black". Then some of the AA:s told her "But you ARE black", but she said "No, I am not black, I am a Dominican".

Interestingly enough about Indians in South Africa: they did not always go well together with the dark skinned ("black") African population. Even Gandhi expressed negative opinions about Africans while he lived there. The systems of discrimination in South Africa was also rather sinister with some called "black", others "colored". And the Japanese was called white, or even "honorary white".

Also South Africa had laws to hinder interracial relationships and marriages, which USA also had (in some states until 1967).

Still today there are people in both South Africa and USA who frown on the thought of marrying a person of another race. Also here in Europe there exist such people.

Seems cats are less discriminating


 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

quote:

---

Yet the point again is YOU created this thread specifically talking about the United States and how an Indian person passed themselves off as black. And you keep trying to spin the history of racism based on skin color in the United States(not to mention elsewhere), into somehow being black peoples fault. Yet you continue to act like you don't understand why I am calling you out on this when you specifically created this thread specifically to talk about the USA. Now you want to claim that you don't live in the USA and don't want to discuss something in a thread you created to focus on "race" in the United States. All because I called you out on your nonsense.

---

Yes I created the thread showing how flawed the American perceptions of race and color are in general. The point is also that everyone seems to accept these racial divisions and labels and continue perpetuing them, both "black" and "white" people. Also many Americans seem to propagate for them to be used in other parts of the world, or for people in ancient times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Luckily it is not so bad where I live. Even the old colonial powers in Europe (except the Brits) are turning away from officially register people by race or skin color. Maybe USA will follow suit also, 100 years from now or so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Well, Black people are not innocent, they also use those labels. Just look at all those who want to black paint every ancient civilisation, from the Olmecs to ancient China. These people are a nuisance on social media, and you can hardly blame "white" people for their behaviour.

---

quote:

---

Senator Harry Reid apologized for his comment, made before the 2008 election, that Barack Obama could win in part because he was a "light skinned" African-American with "no Negro dialect." Reid, who is resisting calls for his resignation, described the gaffe as a "poor choice of words." When did the word Negro become socially unacceptable?

It started its decline in 1966 and was totally uncouth by the mid-1980s. The turning point came when Stokely Carmichael coined the phrase black power at a 1966 rally in Mississippi. Until then, Negro was how most black Americans described themselves. But in Carmichael's speeches and in his landmark 1967 book, Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America, he persuasively argued that the term implied black inferiority. Among black activists, Negro soon became shorthand for a member of the establishment. Prominent black publications like Ebony switched from Negro to black at the end of the decade, and the masses soon followed. According to a 1968 Newsweek poll, more than two-thirds of black Americans still preferred Negro, but black had become the majority preference by 1974. Both the Associated Press and the New York Times abandoned Negro in the 1970s, and by the mid-1980s, even the most hidebound institutions, like the U.S. Supreme Court, had largely stopped using Negro.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Whites invented these systems, but many blacks play along. If they want to get away from these hierarchies they should not try to apply them on other people who many times identify in other ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

I sometimes compare with other countries which do not have such a simplified system to label people. Seems time for USA to maybe try to find a better system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

And as long as blacks go along with the system and try to impose it on other groups, they are not innocent to the confusion either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

I do not say that Black people invented racism, but some have adopted racist American values and use them as a weapon on other peoples. There are enough many such people on the net, harassing Egyptians, Native Americans and others. One can not entirely blame that on white people, some African Americans also perpetuate their own kind of racism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Again, I never hear you whine over threads here on ES which are clearly anti white, where people are called cave men, nazis and similar. And also, have you ever protested against a thread which want to claim ancient Americans as Africans, or Olmecs as Mande or similar? You just whine when someone criticizes African Americans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

I saw you came whining in my Afrocentrism thread too, but I did not swallow that bait and instead ignored your post.

This thread I created just shows the arbitrariness of the American way of viewing color and race, where a dark skinned man can pretend to be another dark skinned man, but one (the Indian) is called brown, while the other (the African American) is called black. It just shows that skin color is only a part of the problem, there are also other divisions in the American society.

I do not only blame black people, but they are also complicit in upholding the divisions in society.

---

quote:

---

Most of my friends were supportive, although for the longest time they saw it as a fraternity joke, that is until I got wait-listed at the Washington University School of Medicine. A few, including my girlfriend, disapproved. It made no difference to me because I was a man on a mission. She and I eventually broke up.

What I wasn’t prepared for was the startling change in the way people treated the “black” me. People became suspicious, even hostile. Walking to class one morning, a lone female student ran into a snowy field to avoid me.

One evening I was driving my shiny red Toyota 4Runner truck slightly under the speed limit. A cop pulled me over and seemed irritated, bluntly asking how I could afford such an expensive car.

One morning I went to the grocery store I’d frequented for three years to buy some junk food to tamp down a hellacious frat-party hangover. I made my purchase and headed to the door when suddenly their security guard stepped in my way and accused me of shoplifting. I protested so he threw me to the floor and rifled through my bag.

Nothing remotely like this had ever happened when I was just another Indian doctor’s son. Walking in a black man’s shoes dimmed much of the youthful enthusiasm I’d had about my deception.

And it certainly wasn’t a cake walk being a black applicant. I had to pass through a long and arduous admissions process that was typical for a medical-school applicant. But in the end I achieved my goal.

I got into the St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Once in med school, I relaxed a bit because it was easy to blend in. With 150 students, nobody ever asked me any questions about my race, probably because medical school was just too hectic.

After two years and a lot of soul searching I realized I just wasn’t cut out to be a doctor. I dropped out of medical school for many reasons, but not being black was not one of them.

Even if I never became a doctor, at least my sister did: on television.

---

quote:

---

The claim was part of a publicity campaign for a forthcoming book, Almost Black, in which Chokal-Ingam says he will use his experience to attack the validity of affirmative action. The centerpiece of this campaign is an image that suggests that Chokal-Ingam applied to med school twice: once as an Indian-American named Vijay (rejected), and once as a black applicant named Jojo (accepted).

Nearly every media outlet that wrote about the stunt prominently featured the graphic, yet very few addressed whether Chokal-Ingam had applied twice, and some erroneously concluded that he had.

But Chokal-Ingam told BuzzFeed News he only applied to med school once, and only as a black applicant. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also confirmed that they did not have an application on file with Chokal-Ingham's real first name.

"Unfortunately, you're right," Chokal-Ingham told BuzzFeed News when asked if he had only applied under one identity. "I am one person, I'm not two people, so I can't actually apply twice."

Chokal-Ingam said he did not believe the image was misleading, because the rest of the material on his website shows that he only applied once.

It would have likely been impossible for Chokal-Ingham to apply twice under two different identities, as the image suggests. Both the AAMC, which handles the centralized med school application, and individual med schools verify the identities of applicants at several steps in the process, according to AAMC officials and med school admissions officers interviewed by BuzzFeed News. AAMC also investigates any discrepancies it finds in separate applications from the same person.

Chokal-Ingam says that, as a junior in college, he came to believe he was unlikely to get into med school unless he took advantage of affirmative action by posing as a black man. So he shaved his head, trimmed his eyebrows, and identified as black in his MCAT exam and his school applications. He applied to more than 20 schools and was rejected by all but one, St. Louis University School of Medicine.

In Chokal-Ingam's view, the fact that he got into St. Louis and received interviews at other schools is proof that he got into med school because of his purported race. But the fact that he only applied once means this was an experiment without a control: There is no way of knowing whether Chokal-Ingam would have been rejected had he applied without falsifying his race.

There is some statistical evidence suggesting discrimination against Asian-American applicants to elite schools. At the same time, black students have always been greatly underrepresented in med schools. Just over 6% of medical school enrollees are black, according to the latest data from AAMC.

---

quote:

---

You created this thread again as a passive aggressive attack on black people by trying to claim that is the African Americans who created racism based on skin color in the United States and everywhere else. And this is why I am calling you out on it because you keep trying to play dumb about the history of conquest, theft, oppression and slavery as part of European colonial expansion and how skin color is important to maintaining European domination.

---

quote:

---

And here you are again trying so hard to blame black people for racism of Europeans acting like you don't know that the only reason African Americans used the word "black" is because it is a better term than "Negro". And the only reason they used "black" is because they didn't want to use "African" because their African identity had been stripped from them by Europeans during slavery. And they were forced to identify as "Negro" because Europeans used their skin color as a marker of slave status which goes back to the Spanish and Portuguese racial caste systems. But of course you keep skipping over all of that knowing full well that Africans in Africa don't simply identify as "black" as opposed to the ethnic group they belong to or language they speak. But you keep trying to spout this nonsense that somehow that Africans coming off the slave ships were demanding to be called "Negro" or "black" when they weren't. You keep saying it and you keep being wrong and this is why I keep calling you out on it.

---

quote:

---

Yes, there is no true difference between "negro" and "black" as they both mean the same thing, but the point was for African Americans to define themselves as opposed to being defined by others. But changing labels is not changing the system itself and the discrimination against people based on skin color which is the core problem. And you keep trying to avoid that in order to focus on the semantics of words so you an pretend it is a problem with black people using the word black and not racism itself.

---

quote:

---

Racism was enforced by violence in all cases, by Europeans, but according to you it is black people who are the problem, not the Europeans that created all these atrocities to maintain this system based on skin color.

---

quote:

---

YOU created this thread to whine about the word "black" and "black people" not me. So you need to ask yourself why you are so obsessed with "black" people and what they think to the point of trying to argue that racism is their fault and not those of your native Europe.

---