Mauritania is not a black African country. It's an African country. It's social hierarchy is one of Yemini Arab invention but there on the spot in Africa.
Hassaniya the language of Mauritania is a dialect of Yemini Arabic used by the Banu Hassan who conquered the land. It's infused with Zenaga Tamazight and is unintelligible to Yemini Arabs back in Yemen.
Let's be serious. The definition of "black Africa" makes the term no more than an euphemism for "negro Africa" It's a word to divide Africa into colour and culture dichotomies.
Like Hamite black Africa(n) is a term to be jettisoned from the vocabulary of progressive Africana students and scholars, In my opinion.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The word 'Moor' is derived from the Greek word Maure meaning black. Hence it is the root word for the name of the modern country of Mauritania, which is a black African country. Moor was used by the Spanish and other Europeans during Medieval times to describe the black North African Muslims. The lighter skinned Berber and Arabs were called Saracen. Moor was eventually adopted by many North Africans regardless of color due to the prestige it carried due to powerful Moorish dynasties such as the Almoravids.
This issue was discussed all too many times before. I suggest you look in the archives.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Black Africa is one of the stupidest Euro concepts still parading around as an objective descriptor.
Why isn't there a yellow Asia?
Why isn't there an Arab Asia?
What other Africas are there to go along with black Africa?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
KEITA ON BLACK AFRICA
from: Further Studies of Crania From Ancient Northern Africa AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 87:245-254 (1992)
There is a plethora of terms which are inadequate and confusing, and two of them -- “Mediterranean” and “Black Africa” -- are examined briefly. Ancient Egyptian history and human biological variability have frequently been viewed in the context of these terms. Addressing “race concepts” is unavoidable.
Hiernaux (1975) has accounted for variation in Africa using a nonracial approach; he does not specifically address the northern Nile Valley in great detail, but his concepts, based on microevolutionary principles (adaptation, drift, selection), are applicable in this region in the light of recent archaeological data. For example, in living and fossil tropical Africans, narrow faces and noses (versus broad “Negro” ones) do not usually indicate European or Near Eastern migration or “Europoid“ (Caucasian) genes, called Hamitic as once taught, but represent indigenous variation, either connoting a hot-dry climatic adaptation or resulting from drift. Hiernaux calls this morphology “Elongated African.” Some of the neolithic Saharans of tropical African affinity who emigrated to the Nile Valley might be an example.
The view that “elongated” characteristics are indigenous and equally tropical African (“Black) for specific archaeological series and peoples is supported by Gabel (1966, Hiernaux (1975), and Rightmire (1975a,b). The range of variation, “Broad” (stereotypical “Negro”) to Elongated, can be subsumed within a single unit designated Africoid, thereby acknowledging the wider affinities and multiple tropical microadaptive strategies, as well as drift.
“Black African,” biologically speaking, has been frequently restricted to the extreme “Negro” morphotype, as though this were a biological unit, and below a certain latitude; this would be analogous to “White European” being restricted to the “Nordic” or “East Baltic” phenotype above a certain latitude. Modern biology, ancient Saharan art and remains, classical European writers and artifacts, and ancient Maghrebian and Nile Valley remains and archaeology make problematic the boundaries of a “Black African” entity in terms of geography, culture, or biological characteristics in the ancient period (see reviews in Snowden, 1970; Hiernaux, 1975; Keita, 1990).
“Subsaharan” is not a terminological improvement, since “Blacks” were not confined below any particular latitude. For example, there is morphological continuity of Negroid traits from the later Paleolithic through early dynastic periods in southern Egypt/Nubia. Moreover, as Snowden (1970) notes, “Blacks” were described in ancient Carthage and on the southern slopes of the Atlas mountains, all at the latitude of northern Egypt.
. . . .
The practice of making only the Broad (extreme “Negro”) phenotype the only “real” tropical African, and regarding only this phenotype in Egyptian art as evidence of “the Black (read African) (e.g., Vercoutter,1976), would be analogous to searching for “Nordic” or “East Baltic” phenotypes in realistic Greek statuary as evidence of the “True White,” and implying the other Greeks to be non-Europeans. Ripley (1923) long ago dismissed the idea that only the Nordic was the “real white” (“Homo europaeus’y . This kind of paradigm and the “Mediterranean Race” concept as applied in Africa is inconsistent with modern population biology and African archaeology, and is a relict from a previous era.
quote: It is beyond the scope of this present effort to fully examine the history of, and difficulties with, these and other such concepts and terms, and the terminology of older work is retained here, with reservations.
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
Tell that to all americans and other diaspora "blacks", recent or not, who base their whole identity on this colour. They have utterly accepted it, infact even defending it as their precious little thing.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Black Americans are of a case where they for nearly all their generations were very ashamed of being called black or African. Much to their credit they abandoned terminolgy like colored, race man, negro, and took pride in blackness and Africanity.
However they need to realize black is after all just a color and denotes no land, culture, nor language and thus cannot serve as an identity label.
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
quote:alTakruri: However they need to realize black is after all just a color and denotes no land, culture, nor language and thus cannot serve as an identity label.
True, i agree.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Yom: Yonis is 100% Black African (not African American).
quote:Africa: I don't think he identifies as such, !
quote:Yom: Trust me, he does identify as a Black African.
Your turn, Yonis.....
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
I've already stated before that i see myself as a Somali then African and that's it. My parents don't identify as "black", and neither do i, and for sure my children won't either, and their children will hopefully not do that too.
Why would anyone want to base their identity on a colour? Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Thanks for clarifying.
Posted by X-Ras (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: Tell that to all americans and other diaspora "blacks", recent or not, who base their whole identity on this colour. They have utterly accepted it, infact even defending it as their precious little thing.
Yonis, thats a whole different matter. To be "black" in America simply means to be a person of African descent and doesn't correspond to a phenotype. Most of us use Afro-American in addition to African-American.
Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Black Africa is one of the stupidest Euro concepts still parading around as an objective descriptor.
Why isn't there a yellow Asia?
Why isn't there an Arab Asia?
What other Africas are there to go along with black Africa?
I agree. I take it the term is synonomous with sub saharan africa(although sub saharan africa can actually be used to simply specify a geographic area). Both terms nonetheless, carry their share of subtle bias(although one conceals it a tad bit better) Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ There are a few things wrong with the general premise of this thread, which places anthropology [scientific objective] and ethnicity [subjective identity constructs] under the same grab bag and then imagines to objectively assess them both.
This is a mistake for a number of reasons.
But for now, I will just answer a question....
quote:Why isn't there an Arab Asia?
Because most of Asia isn't Arab and the Arabs could never get away with such a transgressive claim.
The closest relation to this claim *in Asia* is the "Jewish" state, of Israel.
Jew is no more or less a valid -identity- than African, Black or any combination of the above, and it's a mistake to try to tell anyone else what *their* identity ought to be, or to imagine that one's own identity is somehow objectively superior in conception.
But back to the Arabs.
They can't claim and Arab Asia..... but that does not stop them from claiming and "Arab world", most of which happens to be in Africa and much of it, *non* Arab.
The Arab World (Arabic: العالم العربي; Transliteration: al-`alam al-`arabi) stretches from the Atlantic Ocean in the west to the Arabian/Persian Gulf in the east, and from the Mediterranean Sea in the north to Central Africa and the Indian Ocean in the south. It consists of 23 countries with a combined population of some 325 million people spanning two continents.
How come there is and Arab world, and a Jewish state?
My rule of thumb is -> Never try to tell anyone else what their identity 'should' be.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:How come there is and Arab world?
Answer: The Arab League's main goal is to unify politically the "Arab" populations so defined.
linguistic and political denotation inherent in the term "Arab" is generally dominant over genealogical considerations.
Thus, individuals with *little or no direct ancestry from the Arabian peninsula (e.g., Black Africans, Berbers) could be considered "Arabs"* by virtue of their mother tongue Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
Why can't they claim an Arab Asia, as in the the part of Asia that is Arab?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ A claim is only as good as your ability to get others to acknowledge it.
You can do this by many means. Brainwashing via religous conversion is one method.
Outright violence is another.
Try claiming Israel as a part of the Arab world... and see how far you get, before you are "corrected" by the United States Military among others.
Ask "Arab-World"_leader, Sadaam, if you don't take the meaning. Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
But they would by claiming the countries in Asia where Arabs live. Well, there are minorities in some of those countries, yes. Like Kurds, Turkics, Assyrian, who wouldn't want the area they live in to be labeled Arab Asia. But then, Arabs never cared about them, lol.
Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
The term itself encompasses a population who simply share the same language, basically rendering the attempt the exact same as the arab world.
To be more specific, an arab world within the bounds of asia...considering the diversity of arabs it would be a gross equivalent of the absurd term "black africa".
Then again, the middle east might as well represent the area at which "arabs" are predominant. Names are simply names afterall, and can fulfill a purpose without ever implying it in text.
I guess the essential point of the thread is making note of the flaws imposing an identity, or , possesses. You only see this in Africa, as al takuri pointed out. Terms like east asia in no way give the impression of a land of yellow people, black africa gives to Africa, for example.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Arab World: The term itself encompasses a population who simply share the same language
Lol. What nonsense.
The term Arab World is a politically charged, imperialistic *claim*, by Arabs over the lands and peoples they conquered. This ideology is known formally as Arabisation. Arab identity and language, in much of the Arab world, is contrived upon and enforced by violence.
It is not simply a post-facto reference to 'places where people happen to speak Arabic'. [tell another one. ]
quote:Terms like east asia in no way give the impression of a land of yellow people
This is specious analogy. A specious analogy occurs when two things are compared which appear to be superficially similar to make a point, in this case, about how they are treated differently.
When in fact the two things are very much unlike one another to begin with, rendering false the expectation that they should be regarded in the same manner.
'Yellow' people does not exist anywhere as and ethnonym, whereas Black is the most frquent color ethnonym used to describe peoples...in many languages, and in many cultures quite independant from one another.
Meanwhile color in general carries no *distinction* as a politically constructed identity. Identity is just as political whether you use color as and identity construct or not.
As for "East Asian", most Asians don't discribe themselves as "East" Asians, but rather just as "Asians".
Meanwhile peoples of SouthWest Asia, dont' describe themselves as Asians *at all*, but rather Arabs, Indians, Muslim, Iranians, and Jews.
So how is East Asia fundamentally "better" as and identity construct than Black African?
Far *West Asians*, would based on geography actually equate to white Europeans who seldom ever refer to themselves as *west* asians.
So I can't imagine having *less* of a point than you appear to.
Can you explain *your point* again?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:rasol wrote: The term Arab World is a politically charged, imperialistic *claim*, by Arabs over the lands and peoples they conquered. This ideology is known formally as Arabisation. Arab identity and language, in much of the Arab world, is contrived upon and enforced by violence.
It is not simply a post-facto reference to 'places where people speak Arabic'.
^ I guess one has to have patience to wade thru apolgia/fibs with detailed explanation of the obvious, in order to get discussants to address the truth.
Arabization is the *transformation* of an area into one that is a part of the Arab culture. It can also mean the replacement or displacement of a native population with Arabs.
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes: But they would by claiming the countries in Asia where Arabs live. Well, there are minorities in some of those countries, yes. Like Kurds, Turkics, Assyrian, who wouldn't want the area they live in to be labeled Arab Asia. But then, Arabs never cared about them, lol.
^ Exactly.
Take a good look at this map again....
Notice how Palestine is -not- a part of the 'Arab World'? North Africa is the "Arab World". Palestine is not.
What does this teach you?
Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
quote:Lol. What nonsense.
The term Arab World is a politically charged, imperialistic *claim*, by Arabs over the lands and peoples they conquered. This ideology is known formally as Arabisation. Arab identity and language, in much of the Arab world, is contrived upon and enforced by violence.
It is not simply a post-facto reference to 'places where people speak Arabic'.
I was reffering to the term "arab".
quote:This is specious analogy. A specious analogy occurs when two things are compared which appear to be superficially similar to make a point, in this case, about how they are treated differently.
When in fact the two things are very much unlike one another.
I see.
quote:'Yellow' people does not exist anywhere as and ethnonym
It exists as a reference to people of east asian descent(or rather oriental peoples). "Black" loosely refers to people of african descent, yellow does the exact same, despite its rarity in the vocab of people. In fact, i didn't use "black" to denote ethnicity, but rather pigmentation.
legitimacy was of my least concern, akin to how people will use words that don't exists in the dictionary(that doesn't necessarily mean that its meaning is unknown).
quote: whereas Black is the most frquent color ethnonym used to describe peoples...in many languages, and in many cultures quite independant from one another.
If black can be used as an ethnonym, what exempts yellow from that potential(this particular question has nothing to do with the subject matter btw)?
quote:Meanwhile color in general carries no distinction as a politically constructed identity.
Exactly why "black africa" is an absurd term.
quote:, most Asians don't discribe themselves as "East" Asians, but rather just as "Asians".
Yup, the same can also be said for black africans, who call themselves "african" rather than black african or sub saharan african.
quote:And peoples of SouthWest Asia, dont' describe themselves as Asians at all, but rather Arabs, Indians, Afghans, Jews.
Meanwhile far West Asians actually call themsevles *Europeans* [Europe is Westernmost Asia], or whites, but almost never West Asians.
Indeed, which is why i remain firm on my ultimate point that a name should only denote geographic location rather than identity. There are numerous ethnic groups within "black africa" that don't need such an oversimplification of a word.
quote:So I can't imagine having *less* of a point than you appear to.
Ignoring the superficial details regarding yellow as a nonexistant term, my point should be well understood...Regions/areas of a continent that imply a certain identity have no place, unless you plan on ignoring its aloof nature as a designation of location. My analogy was meant to reinforce my "point", therefore its independent of an anlogy. With that said, i fail to see why an analogy of mistakes irrelevant to the subject matter, renders it incoherent.
Although i was vaguely aware of your points before i typed the analogy, the least of my concern was to aknowledge its superficial flaws and discard the whole analogy altogether(as long as the analogy's intent is understood. <--- The context at which the analogy derives from should alone gurantee the point i was attempting to make.
The details, of course don't change the fact that black africa directly implies the people of origin inhabiting the area as dark skinned, wherelese east asia perfectly fulfills its intent with no inherent flaw...There's a reason why "yellow asia" doesn't exist. That same reason can be applied to why "black africa" shouldn't.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:It exists as a reference to people of east asian descent(or rather oriental peoples).
lol. It is extremely rare to the point of being anecdotal.
If you disagree can you provide a list of nations that list 'yellow' as and ethnicity on their census?
Also, your substitution of 'oriental' is amusing given that many Asians find that term offensive.
Your analogy is utterly ridiculous, and you know it.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:rasol writes: Meanwhile color in general carries no distinction as a politically constructed identity.
quote:nur: Exactly why "black africa" is an absurd term.
You miscomprehend as usual.
Color is not distinct from any other form of identity. All identity contructs are subjective and ultimately political. Black Africa is not demonstratively any more absurd than any other term.
Now address what was actually said, rather than what you wish were said.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Most Asians don't discribe themselves as "East" Asians, but rather just as "Asians".
quote:nur: Yup, the same can also be said for black africans, who call themselves "african" rather than black african or sub saharan african.
Hence East Asian is not demonstrated to be a qualitatively distinct/superior identity construct to Black African, which is what you were trying to imply.
This is why I stated that your contrast of East Asian [good] to Black African [bad] - is nonsensical and makes no point.
You still have not made any point.
Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
quote:It is extremely rare to the point of being anecdotal.
How so? Provided it is anecdotal, that doesn't negate the fact that it exists as a reference to people of east asian descent(as said above). I even aknoledged the word as being of used rather rarely, however that's probably due to the fact that its an awkward term(not to mention asian despite its broad characteristic seems preferable).
With that logic, the term "black" might as well carry the same attitude as a person's race is distinguished via casual observation of skin color.
quote:if you disagree can you provide a list of nations that list 'yellow' as and ethnicity on their census?
You say that the term yellow is a ridiculous term which has no real merit as a classification scheme, correct? It is absolutely unnecessary for me to provide a census that has the category "yellow" when there are somewhat more reasonable methods of proving its existence as a reference to east asians:
Defenition of "yellow" that should be of note: a. designating or pertaining to an Oriental person or Oriental peoples.
^ I am in now way argueing for its legitimacy as as a word worthy of being in a census(not even remotely so).
quote:Also, your substitution of 'oriental' is amusing given that many Asians find that term offensive.
And? The wording has meaning, which is what counts after all. The word was never created for the intent of being offensive, as opposed to other words.
quote:Your analogy is utterly ridiculous, and you know it. [/QB]
Due to what? Failing to adhere to irrelevent details, that in now way change its essential purpose?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Your analogy is utterly ridiculous, and you know it.
quote:Due to what? Failing to adhere to irrelevant details
No. Failure to grasp detail that would lend credence to and otherwise specious analogy.
Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
quote:You miscomprehend as usual.
What "usual" occurence are you speaking of? I rarely frequent the forum, for such a statements to even have any remote foundation.
In other words...Misinterpreting text once, doesn't make it a "usual" occurence.
quote:Color is not distinct from any other form of identity.
It clearly is, by the simple fact that a black man obviously implies an appearance along the lines of dark skin, whereelse a person of asian descent has absolutely no hint of phenotype dawned upon.
quote:black Africa is not demonstratively any more absurd than any other term.
What other "term" are you speaking of?
quote:Hence East Asian is not demonstrated to be a qualitatively distinct/superior identity construct to Black African, which is what you were trying to imply.
see former posts.
quote:This is why I stated that your contrast of East Asian [good] to Black African [bad] - is nonsensical and makes no point.
You still have not made any point.
It wasn't a contrast to East asians and black africans, but rather a contrast to the name used to denote the particular area that those popoulations inhabit.
Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
quote:Apparently not for Asians who refuse to be called *East* Asians.
See post below.
quote:But do tell us what this -intent- is, as you imagine it?
It denotes a geographic location...what other intent could it possibly have?
quote:No. Failure to grasp detail that would lend credence to and otherwise specious analogy.
For whom? The extreme minority that took notice of the seemingly small mistake? Are you asking for the point i'm making, or for an analogy that gives credence to my point...?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Color is not distinct from any other form of identity. All identity contructs are subjective and ultimately political
quote:It clearly is, by the simple fact that a black man obviously implies an appearance along the lines of dark skin
Black is phenotype. Phenotype is political and subjective.
quote: whereeas person of asian descent has absolutely no hint of phenotype dawned upon.
Asian is geography, which is political and subjective.
Your bizzare position is *apparently*(?) that phenotype is invalid as and identity reference but geography is somehow valid.
But since both are subjective and political you have failed to explain how so.
So yes your argument is still ridiculous.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Nur: The extreme minority that took notice of the seemingly small mistake
Don't underestimate the rest of the forum, just because I called you on your mistake doesn't mean i'm the only one to notice.
quote:Rasol: if you disagree can you provide a list of nations that list 'yellow' as and ethnicity on their census?
quote:Nur: You say that the term yellow is a ridiculous term which has no real merit as a classification scheme, correct?
No. I didn't say that.
However, I did say your argument is ridiculous.
It's a big difference. One of those pesky details you tend to ignore while making nonsensical arguments.
Now. Reread my question, which simply asks you to establish the relevance of your argument... and then provide the requested answer.
It's simple. If you can't do so [and you haven't] your argument is based on specious analogy and so....ridiculous.
Understand?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:nur: East Asin denotes a geographic location...
Is it and ethnicity then as you earlier implied or not?
What is the basis in geography from separating EAst Asia from Asia?
Note the relevance, as most Asians do not make such a separation in their self identity and so do not consider themselves East Asian.
You said that East Asian fullfills its function perfectly, but if you mean it only serves a geographic function and not as and ethnonym, then pray tell.....what is your basis for comparing it to Black African to begin with?
Specifically explain why East Asian is a perfect "ethnic" term?
And then explain why so many Asians reject it, in all its [according to you] perfection?
Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QB] [QUOTE]Color is not distinct from any other form of identity.
quote:It clearly is, by the simple fact that a black man obviously implies an appearance along the lines of dark skin
quote:Color is phenotype. Phenotype is political and subjective.
How does the said fact, change daily interpretation of the term "black" as a reference to skin color? It implies dark skin because it is interpreted as dark skin the minute it enters the ear of an individual. Once again, It's subjectivity doesn't change that.
quote:Asian is geography, which is political and subjective.
Of couse it is, however as i said before an asian man, has no hint of phenotype dawned upon him, let alone the point you make that it's subjective one. It's the actual term my statements question, not necessarily the meaning/subjectivity the said term carries by defention.
quote:Your position is effectively6 that phenotype is invalid as an identity reference but geography is somehow valid.
Incorrect, my position is actually the complete opposite...
quote:But since both are subjective and political you have failed to explain how so.
see above.
quote:So yes your argument is still ridiculous.
As far as i'm concerned, my "arguement" remains nitpicked rather than questioned, as you apprently misinterpreted my previous statements.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Rasol: Color is phenotype. Phenotype is political and subjective. Asia is geography which is political and subjective.
quote:Nur: How does the said fact, change daily interpretation of the term "black" as a reference to skin color?
Why would it need to?
Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
quote:However, I did say your argument is ridiculous.
As witnessed by the numerous times i've seen it in your posts...
quote:It's a big difference. One of those pesky details you tend to ignore while making nonsensical arguments.
How exactly does a "specious analogy" make my arguement nonsensical all of a sudden..? Is my analogy supposed to add "credence" or solidify my arguement to the point where it is no longer nonsensical? You've obviously begun to exagerate the implications of a "pesky detail".
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:rasol Asian is geography, which is political and subjective.
quote:nur: Of couse it is, however as i said before an asian man, has no hint of phenotype dawned upon him
rasol: Asia is not a reference to phenotype, it is a reference to Geography.
quote:nur: let alone the point you make that it's subjective one.
Gosh, you don't seem to understand even a single sentence. The point is that geographic reference is as subjective and political as phenotypic reference. If you disagree then explain why?
At least show some signs of comprehension and address the point properly.
quote: It's the actual term my statements question, not necessarily the meaning/subjectivity the said term carries by defention.
This is simply gibberish, meanwhile my question goes unanswered.
quote:Incorrect, my position is actually the complete opposite...
Opposite of what? Coherence? Then yes, we agree.
Meanwhile, unanswered questions -
quote:
* What makes East Asia a perfect ethnic reference?
* If East Asia is not and -ethnic- construct, then what is the basis for comparing it to Black African?
* What is the -purely geographic- basis for separating East Asia from Asia?
* If the term is so perfect, why do so many Asians then reject the term -East- Asian?
* Specifically how is East Asian as a geography any less political or subjective than Black African?
* If it is not less poltical, or less subjective, then how can it be perfect while Black African is [bad]?
Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
quote:Why would it need to?
It doesn't, and will not, which is precisely why it's irrelevant to the prior statement you originally adressed.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ More incoherence from you.,
Here is the question for the last time....
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Rasol: Color is phenotype. Phenotype is political and subjective. Asia is geography which is political and subjective.
Why is geography superior to phenotype as and ethnic identity construct?
Maybe you refuse to answer this question, because you really have no idea?
The question goes out to anyone, since Nur can't answer it.
Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
quote:Asia is not a reference to phenotype, it is a reference to Geography.
As you specified before Rasol, i'm as well reffering to east asians when i say "asian man". I thought we had that established.
quote:let alone the point you make that it's subjective one.[QUOTE]Gosh, you don't seem to understand even single sentence. The point is that geographic reference is as a subjective and political as phenotypic reference.
See above.
quote:This is simply gibberish, meanwhile my question goes unanswered.
It's gibberish, because you took it out of its proper context.
quote:Opposite of what? Coherence? Then yes, we agree.
Wrong, you know full and well what i mean, and as a result your questions have no real relevancy to my true *arguement*. They're ultimately trivial questions that exists for the purpose of digressing from the subject manner.
*
quote:What makes East Asia a perfect ethnic reference?
Never even implied such.
*
quote:If East Asia is not and -ethnic- construct, then what is the basis for comparing it to Black African?
There is no real basis, which is why "black africa" is a flawed term. I'm not speaking of the term black african, but the actual name used to denote an the area that is apparently inhabited by blacks. I clarified this quite a while ago.
*
quote:What is the basis for separating East Asia from Asia?
The same basis for separating southern europe from northern europe. It obviously doesn't do so in a manner that integrates race into geographic boundaries.
*
quote:If the term is so perfecxt, why do so many Asians then reject the term -East- Asian?
It's perfect as a reference to geographic location(as in east of asia). Nothing else...i don't even recall saying something that would imply such..
*
quote:Specifically how is East Asian as a poltical geography any less political or subjective than Black African?
No one's argueing over the subjectivity of the said terms. Also, what exactly do you mean by less political?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:rasol:What makes East Asia a perfect ethnic reference?
quote:nur:Never even implied such.
^ tsk tsk, at your small fib - you did state the term was perfect, and compared it to Black African, which *is* and ethnic reference,but if you want to backtrack, then fine, it leads to....
quote:If East Asia is not and -ethnic- construct, then what is the basis for comparing it to Black African?
quote:There is no real basis
If you admit there is no basis for analogy then you admit the analogy is specious, and never should have been made, which means you have no point and we are back where we started.
Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
quote:Here is the question for the last time....
quote:Color is phenotype. Phenotype is political and subjective. Asia is geography which is political and subjective.
Sorry, i had no idea your assertion was an actual question.
quote:Why is geography superior to phenotype as and ethnic identity construct?
When did i say that? Are you aware that I'm strictly speaking in terms of geography...In no way did i ever bring ethnicity into the equation. In fact, please quote where i've said such statements and i'll be more than happy to clarify.
quote:Maybe you refuse to answer this question, because you really have no idea?
No, but because i didn't know it was a question.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: rasol: What is the basis for separating East Asia from Asia?
quote:nur:The same basis for separating southern europe from northern europe
Which is?
quote:It's perfect as a reference to geographic location(as in east of asia).
Yet you can't explain the basis of it's distinction from Asia. Where does East Asia begin, and why, according to whom?
quote:Nur: It obviously doesn't do so in a manner that integrates race into geographic boundaries.
lol. Sure. Nordic Aryan vs. Southern Medit European racialists can attest to this I suppose. And what is the basis of the separation between so called Europe which is really West Asia, and Asia if not ethnic?
quote:nur: In no way did i ever bring ethnicity into the equation.
Now that is a flat out lie. You did this when you attempted to analogise Black to Yellow as comparable ethnic constructs. Remember? Bad arguments do tend to suffer from amnesia.
quote:rasol: Specifically how is East Asian as a poltical geography any less political or subjective than Black African?
quote:nur: No one's argueing over the subjectivity of the said terms.
translation: You admit that East Asia is every bit as political and subjective as Black Africa.
This leaves us with the final question in the list which you chose not to answer.
quote: rasol: If it is not less poltical, or less subjective, then how can it be perfect [your words] while Black African is [bad]?
??? ^ Take your time. It appears I have to ask every question 3 times in order to get you to address them...but I'm a patient man. Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
quote:^ tsk tsk, at your small fib - you did state the term was perfect, and compared it to the Black African, which is and ethnic reference,but if you want to backtrack, then fine, it leads to....
Quote me, i'd love to clarify.
quote:If you admit there is no basis for analogy then you admit the analogy is specious, and never should have been made, which means you have no point and we are back where we started.
You took my statement out of context again.
quote:translation: You admit that East Asia is every bit as political and subjective as Black Africa.
This leaves us with the final question in the list which you chose not to answer:
"noone's argueing such" as in it's irrelevant.
quote:If it is not less poltical, or less subjective, then how can it be perfect [your words] while Black African is [bad]?
What do you mean by "less political". See post above.
quote:??? ^ Take your time. It appears I have to ask every question 3 times in order to get you to address them...but I'm a patient man.
See post above, it takes 3 times as much clarifying(although that seems to have made no distinguishable progress).
quote:lol. Sure. Nordic Aryan vs. Southern Medit European racialists can attest to this I suppose.
One's located up north, the other south. Need i say more?
quote:And what is the basis of the separation between so called Europe which is really West Asia, and Asis if not ethnic?
See post above, it's ridiculously obvious. If it's not based on location what else is it based on?
quote:Now that is a flat out lie. You did this when you attempted to analogise Black to Yellow as comparable ethnic constructs. Remember? Bad arguments do tend to suffer from amnesia.
What relevant conclusion can you derive such, besides the fact that i lied? In no way does that put geography in a superior position to indicate race.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:If you admit there is no basis for analogy then you admit the analogy is specious, and never should have been made, which means you have no point and we are back where we started.
quote: You took my statement out of context again.
Or you are backtracking because your statements are incoherent.
If not feel free to re-contextualise them.
No one's stopping you.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:translation: You admit that East Asia is every bit as political and subjective as Black Africa.
quote:"noone's argueing such"
This has been my position from the start.
If you are not arguing with it then you concede it, and the conversation is over.
All you've done by way of disputation is wriggle and writhe like a hooked worm.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
^ More incoherence from you.,
Here is the question for the last time....
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Rasol: Color is phenotype. Phenotype is political and subjective. Asia is geography which is political and subjective.
Why is geography superior to phenotype as and ethnic identity construct?
Maybe you refuse to answer this question, because you really have no idea?
The question goes out to anyone, since Nur can't answer it.
Neither geography or phenotypic labels has primacy in ethnic identification...well, because "ethnic" identification are by and large 'identifiers' used by a society, and cultures vary from society to society. This makes ethnic 'identifiers' subjective social constructs.
Phenotype is biological. It can be assessed objectively in a biological sense, but can also be described subjectively by diverse people across the globe, according to their respective socio-cultural constructs.
Geographical designations can also be assessed objectively in a geographic sense, but names of continents and regions have also been known to be subjective political constructs as opposed to geographical reality. Case in point, the artificial separation of Europe from the rest of Asian continent and regional appellation of "Middle East" which is not a reference to an actual continent.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Correct.
Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
quote:This has been my position from the start.
There was more to that statement.
quote:If not feel free to re-contextualise them.
No one's stopping you.
You can easily do that by simply reading past the comma, rather than the statement that while placed in the wrong context, adheres to your statements.
quote:All you've done by way of disputation is wriggle and writhe like a hooked worm.
Dispute what? We've totally gone off topic from the originial arguement(i.e. my assertion). In fact, i clarified prior to this digressing frenzy that your questions are aimed at the wrong viewpoints due to your misinterpretation.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
Question:
How many people here, who find "black Africans" offensive, will agree with the term "tropical Africans"?
Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
^Though there are no discrepencies here with "black african", to comment on tropical african: mo problem here.
In fact I find it highly accurate.
Same with indigenous african.
I don't care to what extant you hear yellow asian, and I've heard "of white european descent" - these clarify where any doubt may have been.
As long as it's used to clarify - used as purely descriptive - and not to imply that blacks are some how alien to a geography they are not, or otherwise falsely than there's no problem.
And hence^, I don't feel it always necissary to add 'black' to african at all and if a persone opts that an entity/group/person were not, and they were, then you can clarify.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
I agree with the general idea of simply referring to 'indigenous' Africans as "Africans", but I can also understand why "black Africans" would keep cropping up in both ancient north African and north African/sub-Saharan African 'dichotomy' discourse.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
@rasol:
"Notice how Palestine is -not- a part of the 'Arab World'? North Africa is the "Arab World". Palestine is not.
What does this teach you?"
That arabs got their ass kicked?
Not that there aren't parts of Asia were Arabs are the (vast) majority, which could very well be labeled as "Arab Asia". But, this matters little anyway.
Regarding black Africa, what % of Africa isn't black? The coastal areas of the North, no? That's basically it. There's another meaning for black Africa though, the fact that most of its interior was unknown, back then in the 19th century, hence it's blackness/darkness.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
TO MA,
And how do you classify the settler European populations in Southern Africa? I believe that there are still some 5 million in South Africa. And in Namibia and Zimbabawe there are noticeble European settlers there too. And add to those numbers the transplanted South Asian slaves/indentured populations in South Africa and Kenya.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes: @rasol:
"Notice how Palestine is -not- a part of the 'Arab World'? North Africa is the "Arab World". Palestine is not.
What does this teach you?"
quote:Miquel: That arabs got their ass kicked?
And, following that logic, who got 'kicked' in North Africa - aka the Arab world? The Berber? The Blacks? That's who.
Hence there is and Arab world, which subsumes the Berber world, and the Black world.
These conversations usually stay stuck at a naive level [Nur], because there is seldom anything more than a child's understanding of the political and polemic forces that drive peoples conceptions of the world - which they *falsely* imagine makes some kind of 'objective sense', beyound having been dictated to them to serve the interests of forces more powerful, and sometimes move clever [sadly] than they are.
Here is the real question that this thread should have been predicated on, but which I knew from the start would never be intelligenty addressed:
Is there a Black world?
Or are Blacks still essentially a diaspora people [even in Africa] who live in - The Westeren World, the Arab World, or even - now - the Magrebian Berber world?
In the above world conceptions at the end of day, they are still Blacks, and often marginalised and discriminated against as such.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: TO MA,
And how do you classify the settler European populations in Southern Africa?
It was precisely the attempt of these people to remove Southern Africa from Black Africa and declare it to be a part of 'the western world'.
The west is conceptualised in the following way -
It has nothing whatsover to do with geography.
It is all the land, territory, and 'people' that the white peoples of Europe control.
The west's interest in "Black AFrica" therefore is purely one of containment and constriction.
For the Apartheid supporters in the West, South Africa, was as Western as United States or Australia and for the same reason.
Black Africa was constricted to the 'bantu-stans', or 'reservations' [the concept was modeled on the systematic decimation of the Native Americans].
For the AFrican National Congress, Southern Africa, all of it, is a part of Black Africa - which is what the concept of the Black Majority however gently asserted, is ultimately pedicated on.
It is a conception that implicitly acknowledges the reality of the Black World, and moreover seeks its betterment.
In this conception of Black Africa - there was *no* ws.t Africa.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:How many people here, who find "black Africans" offensive, will agree with the term "tropical Africans"?
Tropical African is anthropology.
Black African is ethnicity.
The two terms do not serve the same function and never will.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
lamin how do I classify those people? In what way? If they are Africans? Yes, they are. I already said that black people born in Europe is as European as myself. Europe, Africa, etc are merely geographic terms. Are they native to Africa? Yes, they were born there. The same with black people in Europe.
Now, using the black man in Europe. Had he been born in Portugal, would he be *an ethnic* Portuguese? My answer is mostly no. Neither he, nor the remaining ethnic Portuguese would see the situation that way.
Consequently, a "White/European" South African isn't of the same ethnicity of the "Blacks". Unless, they all believe in a "South African" ethnic group which doesn't take race into acount. Defining an ethnic group isn't easy either. Are people in the USA simply part of the ethnic group "American"? But what about African-Americans, Italian-Americans, etc. These designations seem to imply that such group doesn't exist or is divided. Who knows? I don't. Since I am neither an American nor a South African I can't comment on it really. Only about Portuguese I'm afraid.
@rasol:
Yes, the Arab world is in conflict with the Berber world. And the black too since black Arabs tend to identify as Arabs and not Black, or not?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Yes, the Arab world is in conflict with the Berber world. And the black too
^ Arab world, Berber world, "black too" (?)
You reveal more than you know by the way in which you wrote that.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
I'm sorry, I don't follow you. Yes, the black (world) too (is in conflict with the Arab world). Did I wrote it wrong or what? Explain if you don't mind. Black world would be the part of the world were most people identify themselves as black. Since afaik, that place would be at least in part located in Africa, then yes those two worlds are in conflict. Like in Sudan, the country. But then, I'm not even sure how many people, in Africa or otherwise, see themselves as "Black". But again, since I not an Arab nor Black, nor African, or an expert I can't really know. What I said is my impression of the world. Take it as you want.
And don't forget the rest of my sentence.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Yes, the black (world) too (is in conflict with the Arab world). Did I wrote it wrong or what?
Evidently -you- think so, since you decided to re-write it. lol.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
I didn't rewrite anything, my original post is still there. Frankly I still don't get your point. If you have something to say to me then, by all means, say it. And now my knownledge of english fails me. In Portuguese there's a word "subentender" which translating literaly means "subunderstanding". Now, I didn't have to write those things, which I latter put in brackets for your benefit, because it's "subentendido/subunderstood" what I was talking about. One person does not has to put everything laid out in the open when talking or writing. Simply because most people can "subentender/subunderstand" what the other means. This is achieved by context and simple gramaticaly knownledge. Strangely enough, you see to lack both? At least in this case. Perhaps English isn't your first language either, or simply my English failed me in more than one way. But as I said, if that is it then tell me, and stop doing whatever you're trying to do.
Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
^You mean like *mis-understood*?
Or that someone here has a lack of understanding?
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
No, it's not misunderstanding. I guess implied is the closest word for it. As in, not having to explain everything point for point because people will get the point anyway. Better yet, not having to write all the words in phrase, because people will understand it's meaning. This is what "subentender" means. Seems I was wrong though. Better start writing everything, so as not to cause more irrelevant discussions.
Well, rasol seems to have a lack of understanding of what I was saying in that post. In another thread another poster also had some problems. But really, it could be my english or even my capacity to express my self in general. Not to worry though, whenever that happens and if prompted I will endeavour to explain it better. I just wish people wouldn't jump to conclusions, just like rasol did back there. A conclusion which he still hasn't revealed by the way. I do wonder what he thinks I meant back there..
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
It's not your fault, rasol loves nitpicking, trust me he understood.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Your question was what percentage of Africa isn't black. You answered by saying that the only people that fit that designation are, as you put it "the coastal areas of North Africa".
I responded by pointing out that there are "non-black" populations in Southern Africa--especially in South Africa. Whether they are African or not was not part of my query.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
Oh, right lamin, sorry about that. I failed to make the connection. My point there was mostly to say that non-black africa is such a small part of it, that one shouldn't even bother with the distinction Yes, true, I forgot about Whites in South Africa. But even there, they are the minority, I don't think their presence would turn that part of Africa into a non-black area. Of course, are there towns or regions where they are the majority? That would make those areas part of non-black Africa.
But really lamin, personaly I don't divide Africa into black, non-black/white whatever. It's all Africa to me. At best I will divide it by cultural lines or geographical lines. The ones that matters, at least to me. In South Africa whites seems to share their culture at least with the coloreds, creating a Afrikaner culture. I suppose many blacks are also part of this culture while others are more Zulu, Xhosa, etc.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: It's not your fault, rasol loves nitpicking
Incorrect.
I dislike nitpicking.
I also dislike sloppy thinking, which excuses itself by whining about 'nitpicking'.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Frankly I still don't get your point.
I also dislike having to dumb things down but you since you force me to.....
Why do you write Arab world, Berber world.... but not Black world?
I already know why so the question is really about whether you understand your own mentality.
Also when you replied you rewrote to include Black world. Why the change?
I understand why you rewrote as well.
Do you?
If so, can you admit it?
I doubt it.
The next post by you will qualify as denial.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
Finally, you're starting to speak. Still, not saying all you want.
If you already know. Then please tell, what's my own mentality?
What do you want me to admit exactly? Plase, tell me.
I can't deny of confirm something which hasn't been declared, so how can my post be denial?
Confront me then, with the knowledge you claim to posess about my psyche. Either do that, or don't bother to post.
I'll answer your question, even though you don't answer mine. Why did I wrote it that way? Don't really know. (seems you do, lol) I was in a hurry (when am I not, lol), and the Berber-Arab conflict was the main subject in my mind, for multiple reasons. Then I decided to add the black side of the issue kinda of hastely it seems. To tie with what you were saying. No more, no less.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Why did I wrote it that way? Don't really know.
I want you to think about it for a couple of days, and if you still can't answer the question about why you write what you write, [which is rather sad] then I will do it for you. After all, you should be less interested in my answer, and more interested of being sure of what you are saying, and why you say it.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
I think I have done all the thinking I am going to do. I gave what it seemed to be my impression of the event. Of the thought process that went in my mind. But you disagree and are of course entitled to do so. Actually, I am not that interested in being sure since I am not being evaluated here (not for something that matters for my life) nor do I pretend being teaching anyone, in which case I also would have to be sure. At least ideally, lol. If fact, I have many doubts and I am aware of my limitations. The only certainty I really have is that I'm going to die someday.
Can't you give your answer now? I would apreciate it. Being sad or not is irrelevant. You made a comment and haven't explained what you meant. Of course, you don't have to, but as I said, I would be thankfull if you were to do so.
In essence, what do I reveal?
"You reveal more than you know by the way in which you wrote that"
Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
quote:Neither geography or phenotypic labels has primacy in ethnic identification
Indeed, which is why i said the following in one of the first few posts of this thread:
a name (i.e. geographic terms btw) should only denote geographic location, rather than identity.
quote: but names of continents and regions have also been known to be subjective political constructs as opposed to geographical reality.
This was definitely another underlying factor that caused disagreement, however i was speaking in a strictly political sense(meaning any technicalities regarding actual tectonic locations would be best ignored, due to overall irrelevancy to the actual subject at hand).
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:How many people here, who find "black Africans" offensive, will agree with the term "tropical Africans"?
Tropical African is anthropology.
Black African is ethnicity.
The two terms do not serve the same function and never will.
Now of course, this doesn't really answer the question at hand.
At any rate...
To be specific, 'tropical African' contextualizes Africans in geographical terms, while 'black African' contextualizes Africans in color terms.
Going by possible contextualizations...
Context 1: "Black" as a euphemism for considerable skin pigmentation, as an adaptive response to UV radiations in the tropics, would make "tropical Africans" and "Black Africans" mutually inclusive, not exclusive. Here, "Black Africans" would simply be an allusion to considerably pigmented Africans with recent ancestry in the tropics of Africa.
In the above context, 'black Africans' would just be a subset of the worldwide grouping, meeting the same specifications in their respective habitats.
Context 2: "Black" as ethnic construct; this would go beyond the shallow issue of skin color, but allude to ancestral kinship(s) tying the said people of a single nationality to a specific region(s), where people are known to be generally dark skinned.
In the context above, the use of the term would largely be 'localized', as being part of the variety of such human groupings used by society in a single nation. In a country like say, South Africa for example, 'black Africans' would be used to discern these indigenous Africans from the 'white setter' populatons...just like the discrete human 'races' in the U.S. are used to typify people into discrete groups. Or else take the "Red" and "black" dichotomy in social human groupings, as that exemplified in Kemet.
However subtle the differences between the two contexts above might appear, there is one nonetheless.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by nur23_you55ouf:
quote:Neither geography or phenotypic labels has primacy in ethnic identification
Indeed, which is why i said the following in one of the first few posts of this thread:
a name (i.e. geographic terms btw) should only denote geographic location, rather than identity.
But your post seems to be restricting the use of 'geographical' terms as an ethnic identifier. If not so, please clarify.
My take: My point was that, societies could well choose to use geographical, color, phenotypic or even linguistic terms to subjectively name ethnic groups, as a way of dividing people in society into discernable groups, so as to fulfill jingoistic ends and/or presumably demographic purposes in official publications of statistics corresponding to respective 'sections' of the socially segmented society. None of the above terminology have any primacy in the already 'subjective' issue of ethnic identification; ethnic constructs are subjective, precisely because they vary from place to place and culture to culture, and could take form in the number of aforementioned ways, and above all, they are not expected to meet the methodological approach of science, which addresses any given falsifiable thesis. The rule of scientific conduct is standard anywhere, as it pertains to poving or disproving a thesis and hence forth, arriving at the most logical conclusion.
quote:nur23_you55ouf
quote: but names of continents and regions have also been known to be subjective political constructs as opposed to geographical reality.
This was definitely another underlying factor that caused disagreement, however i was speaking in a strictly political sense(meaning any technicalities regarding actual tectonic locations would be best ignored, due to overall irrelevancy to the actual subject at hand).
Political designations devoid of scientific merit are just as subjective as color designation of an ethnic group.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:To be specific, 'tropical African' contextualizes Africans in geographical terms,
"Tropical" is and anthropological term refering to morphological adaptation to tropical climates.
Tropical morphology includes the folowing:
1) dark skin,]
2) elongation and attenuation of the limbs.
3) steatopygia.
4) Broad and low nasal passage.
5) Curly hair.
These features concord with 'tropical' in the sense that tropical references 'climate'... not geography.
Moreover as climate varies and adaptation is also a varient, tropical features are by no means uniformly found in a given population, area or even a given climate zone.
South African Khoisan may be tropical in terms of steatopygia, but they are not in terms of limb ratio.
Some North East Africans are ultra tropical in terms of skin color and limb ratio, but have no tropical characteristics for nasal form and so on.
Black is only a reference to dark skin color, and a common ethnonym based upon this.
Tropical is not and ethnonym at all.
It never has been for the reasons just given.
It never will be either for the same reasons.
So tropical is not a replacement word for Black. re:
quote:How many people here, who find "black Africans" offensive, will agree with the term "tropical Africans"?
quote:Now of course, this doesn't really answer the question at hand.
Of course, that is and answer to your question, unless by asking -how many(?)-, you actually want a number for and answer?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:To be specific, 'tropical African' contextualizes Africans in geographical terms,
"Tropical" is and anthropological term refering to morphological adaptation to tropical climates.
Tropical morphology includes the folowing:
1) dark skin,]
2) elongation and attenuation of the limbs.
3) steatopygia.
4) Broad and low nasal passage.
5) Curly hair.
These features concord with 'tropical' in the sense that tropical references 'climate'... not geography.
And how does that falsify the notion that 'tropical Africa' is a geographic term? What do the tropics of Cancer or Capricorn, and the equator designate, if not correspondence with geography?
quote:rasol:
Moreover as climate varies and adaptation is also a varient, tropical features are by no means uniformly found in a given population.
Who said otherwise? Citation.
quote:rasol:
South African Khoisan may be tropical in terms of steatopygia, but they are not in terms of limb ratio.
Unless you can establish its relevance to my question, this is just a red herring.
quote:rasol:
Some North East Africans are ultra tropical in terms of skin color and limb ratio, but have no tropical characteristics for nasal form and so on.
See above.
quote:rasol:
Black is only a reference to dark skin color, and a common ethnonym based upon this.
Try telling this to "black Americans" or even other societies where 'black Africans' used 'red', 'wheat color', 'black' or what have you with respect to the other.
quote:rasol:
Tropical is not and ethnonym at all.
Who said it was?
quote:rasol It never has been for the reasons just given.
It never will be either for the same reasons.
So tropical is not a replacement word for Black. re:
Now that you've addressed things that the my question hasn't asked, it wouldn't hurt now to answer what the question does ask.
quote:
quote:How many people here, who find "black Africans" offensive, will agree with the term "tropical Africans"?
quote:Now of course, this doesn't really answer the question at hand.
Of course, that is and answer to your question, unless by asking -how many(?)-, you actually want a number for and answer?
I don't see your answer to this...
How many people here,
*who find "black Africans" offensive.
*will agree with the term "tropical Africans"?
...other than going off on a tangent with a bunch of red herrings.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Where Africans themselves apply a red/black or white/black internal dichotomy to themselves I have no problem.
My problem is with the media, academicians, etc., constantly using the term black Africa while having jettisoned yellow and yellow/brown in terms of Asian descriptors. Just as they've never coined Arab Asia to describe the Arabian Peninsula.
Black Africa is no more or less than the current euphemism to replace Negro Africa and is used synonymously for sub-Saharan Africa.
And although forum members can find black Africans all over the continent and adjacent isles, know for sure outside ES AE&E forum black Africa(n) refers only to sub-Sahara negroes though sub-Sahara is objective geography and includes the Horn, the Horn populations are thought to include black non-negroes.
Asia is just as colour divided as Africa if not more so yet it regions and peoples aren't labeled with colour descriptors. Why is that? So-called SW Asia should be red Asia, south Asia should be black Asia, SE Asia should be yellowbrown Asia, East Asia should be yellow Asia (maybe even yellowwhite Asia as should central and north Asia) and West Asia should be white Asia. But, we hardly see the media using even these compass descriptors in application to Asia.
The idea behind black Africa is to keep the mind focused on colour issues and matters and that tropical/inner Africans real attribute unlike any other people in the world is their colour.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
One thing this thread has solidly done is reveal the doublespeak on this forum in regards to black as an ethnicity term.
While on the one hand taking pains to define black as only a colour designation and pointing out blacks in India, SE Asia, Austalia, and Pacifica, yet the concept of a black world excludes all of them and only devolves to black Africans.
So no there is no berber or arab vs black world since no berber or arab are involved with New Guinea or Fiji or ...
Yes there is a berber world based on geographic origins and language.
Yes there is a arab world based on language, religion, and culture.
Yes there is a black world but it for sure isn't limited to inner Africans at home or in diaspora. Some other world than black world must be coined for them.
If placing black world in battle against berber and/or arab world is what defines it then a good portion of Africa is out the picture (southeast Atlantic shores of Africa don't interact with either berber or arab worlds.
What is black world or more precisely what part(s) of the black world were meant when that term was broached in this thread?
Black world, going by the forum's meaning always given out when pressed (black is color), is only delineated by relative skin colour. And indeed there is no language black, there is no cuntry black, there is no culture black. Without some cultural signifier of unity no "world" is possible where there is no commonality based on something intrinsically valuable and mass appealing.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
"And indeed there is no language black, there is no cuntry black, there is no culture black"
Indeed. I ask you, since it appears many of you are black. How many blacks do really identify as blacks and not as their particular group? In essence, is "black" an important self-denomination?
I have noticed, that for some reason, blacks (and whites) in the USA pay much more attention to this. I would assume it's because they have lost their culture, many of them don't know their roots, and the only thing that remains for them is the skin color. (though why don't they simply call themselves Americans is beyond me). Btw, I do think that African-American is an ethnic group, with its culture and even its language but not all blacks are African-Americans and even some African-Americans are not black when looking at their skin color. What ties them together would the common origin in the many african peoples who where brought to America, as slaves no less. So a Nigerian would move now to America, would not be part of these African-American ethnicity.
Am I correct to assume this?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Only those stripped of all ancestral language, faith, name, culture, consciousness, primarly identify themselves by colour.
Nigerian-Americans do not have the Middle Passage history or combined European, "Native "American," etc., geneaology of the ones now calling themselves Black Americans.
The same holds true for all other free will migrants from Africa with their cultural heritage wholely intact, kept up, and still practiced.
No Euro settler colonizers are African in any sense of the word, imho, unless that like the lançados they have "gone native" (in which case by the 3rd generation they have lost most of anything European about themselves).
But Indians who have lived in Africa for generations, but brought black skin with them from India, and revere certain holy sites in "Cusha Dwipa" I would allow them some auxillary African status (despite the protest east coast Africans would make to my doing so).
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
"No Euro settler colonizers are African in any sense of the word"
They are in on sense. Geographically. Those who were born there of course.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Yes like a German Shepherd born in the Emerald Isle is an Irish Setter.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
No. German shepherd is a breed of dog. A phenotype of dog if you want. Phenotypes might have geographical terms in them, but that doesn't mean they can only be from there and that if they are born someplace else they will change.
I don't know how's your stance towards Human phenotypes. Certain anthropologists have created various terms to define human variation. They aren't perfect but they get the point.
I myself would be a so called Mediterranid phenotype. Named as such because it's characteristic and common around the Mediterranean Sea. Still not everybody around the Mediterranean Sea is Mediterranid and not all Mediterranids live only around the Med Sea.
If I was born in Africa, I would be (geographically) an African. Period. Wether you like it or not. It's irrelevant. And I would still be Mediterranean and not transformed into whatever phenotype would be common in the area I was born.
The same with the dog. A german sheppard in Ireland would be an irish (geographically) german sheppard.
That was a bad comparison.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Gobbledeegook -- there is no Irish German Sheppard and if there were it'd be an Irish Setter German Sheppard mix breed.
Population genetics bears out my analogy making it an excellent comparison since dog breeds are the exact in-species diffentiators akin to human populations especially so recognized by old school geo-physical anthropology.
Your Coonian anthropology is woefully outdated. There's no such thing as a Mediterranid. You have little in common with a Libyan or Lebanese or Greek in the way of DNA, cuisine or other culture less lone phenotype.
Whether you like it or not, if you were born in Africa unless you're genetically Afican you still could never ever wever be African, just at best a citizen of the particular African country where born.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
Had I been born in Africa I would not be genetically African true, but I would be geographically African.
Regarding the Mediterranid, it was only an example, I am aware of the its limitations. Still, I have a certain phenotype, which I have seen in many other parts of the world, therefore not being confined to Iberia. Call it whatever you want. Doesn't change anything.
Btw, Genes and Phenotype don't have to match.
And a german sheppard born in Ireland would be Irish. If asked about it's place of origin one would say Ireland, no? If I had been born in Africa, is someone asked me where I was from, I would say Africa. (well most likely I would have said a town or a country, since Africa is a bit vague, but you get the point)
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
German Shepherds originate from the need of Germans in Germany for a sheep dog with capacities of loyalty to their owners coupled with guidance and protection of their owner's sheep.
But enough of this "philosophical" shatter chitter chatter.
Scientifically, no one without recent African Hg's and Ht's is African, period. Ipso facto.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
Yes, and a person born in Africa, is an African geographically. Period. Ipso facto.
Wow.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
No, at best, as I indicated above, maybe a citizen of the particular nation where born.
Population genetics is geographic origin based scientific knowledge. A geographic African is one who's DNA markers are of continental African derivation.
Your private definition is worthless as far as for our serious endeavors on this forum (which I admit has veered dangerously close to becoming a mere chat list especially since your advent here).
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
Oh..such a pity.
What's the point of having all that knowledge if:
1) You won't transmit it. 2) Won't get "chalenged" from time to time?
Ok.
African:
Of or relating to Africa or its peoples, languages, or cultures. n. 1. A native or inhabitant of Africa. 2. A person of African descent.
Native:
1. Existing in or belonging to one by nature; innate: native ability. 2. Being such by birth or origin: a native Scot. 3. Being one's own because of the place or circumstances of one's birth: our native land. 4. Originating, growing, or produced in a certain place or region; indigenous: a plant native to Asia. 5. a. Being a member of the original inhabitants of a particular place. b. Of, belonging to, or characteristic of such inhabitants: native dress; the native diet of Polynesia. 6. Occurring in nature pure or uncombined with other substances: native copper. 7. Natural; unaffected: native beauty. 8. Archaic Closely related, as by birth or race. 9. Biochemistry Of or relating to the naturally occurring conformation of a macromolecule, such as a protein.
n. 1. a. One born in or connected with a place by birth: a native of Scotland now living in the United States. b. One of the original inhabitants or lifelong residents of a place. 2. An animal or plant that originated in a particular place or region.
So:
(native)2.Being such by birth or origin + (african)1. A native or inhabitant of Africa.= A person born in Africa is an African.
It's not a private definition. It's wortheless for your work. But then, is this your work? LMAO.
This merely a forum. A tourism forum no less. On which people discuss issues regarding Egypt. This particular sub-forum is for Ancient Egypt and Egyptology.
Yes, debating what African means is out of its original intent, and so are 50% of the stuff here.
Have a good day sir. Also, removing the stick located in a certain place of your body might be usefull.
Many thanks.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
And removing the dick plunging in and out a certain place of your face may allow you to articulate with clear enunciation after you spit out what it shot there.
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes: Also, removing the stick located in a certain place of your body might be usefull.
Now refocusing on the addressed issue, the very definitions you provide shoot down the veriest inkling of what you champion. Demagogery won't work here. Dis ain'tcher Dodona, the dodo is an extinct species here. And should any resurrect, well, they squawk but they just don't fly.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
Ok.
I fail to see, how does that adresses what I just said.
Furthermore, that sounds like a serious offense...Banning?
I was merely implying that you are too stiff. Which you are. Implying afterwards that I am some sort of cocksucker and that this is the cause of my aleged lack of clear enunciation skills is going too far I think.
Anyway, go on..with your work. Don't let me disturb you.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
You were forewarned!
You get what you give, in spades from this spade. Civil discourse begets civil discourse Coarse implications gender coarser ones.
Comport yourself accordingly.
Carrying on little to no work today just cavorting about the pool with rum cigar music and company all which allow me free time to involve myself in the not very deep chit chat of my favorite group of cyber associates.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
If my behaviour is out of line, the mods are free to warn me or ban me. Until then, I'll behave the same way I have until now.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:I don't see your answer to this...
How many people here,
*who find "black Africans" offensive.
*will agree with the term "tropical Africans"?
...other than going off on a tangent with a bunch of red herrings.
Taken literally, the question is obtuse. But if you want a silly answer to a silly question:
'how many',?
the answer is 1.
Now what?
I treated the question as if it were intelligent.
As if you were asking if tropical african, is a suitable substitute term for Black African.
This is and interesting question rather than and obtuse one.
The answer to this question is no.
But you're right, if you did not mean to ask and intelligent question but rather and obtuse one, then this is indeed a red herring.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
@rasol:
"You reveal more than you know by the way in which you wrote that"
I'm still waiting for you to say what do I reveal.
Thanks.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:I don't see your answer to this...
How many people here,
*who find "black Africans" offensive.
*will agree with the term "tropical Africans"?
...other than going off on a tangent with a bunch of red herrings.
Taken literally, the question is obtuse.
Taken literally,...because you are too dense to understand it.
It is like someone asking for an answer to 2+2, and you coming up with an answer of 'elephant' for it; just utter intellectual depravity.
quote:rasol:
But if you want a silly answer
I knew that you could be counted on that...to a question which would otherwise be a no-brainer to even someone who has never been to school, much less literate.
quote:rasol:
'how many',?
the answer is 1.
Ah, your classic sub-intelligent signature of cutting 'complete' comments into just one or two word pieces, as the 'maximum' load of words that can penetrate your skull at a time.
So let me see if I can help you out, rasol:
Rasol's answer to: "How many people here, who find "black Africans" offensive, will agree with the term "tropical Africans?"
is "1". So the only two words that you can understand from the question at hand, is 'how many', for which you came to the conclusion "1". Does this mean that you're this "1" who finds 'black African offensive', or you just randomly spat out '1', because it was the single random thing that mindlessly popped up?
quote:rasol:
Now what?
So now, try your very best to read the questions above as "completely" as you can, bypassing your maximum mental capacity of aborbing just one or two words out of an entire question. Let's see where that takes you first.
quote:rasol:
I treated the question as if it were intelligent.
And I treated you as if you were capable of being trained to read a full sentence and complete question, rather than just absorbing just one or two words out of them.
quote:rasol:
As if you were asking if tropical african, is a suitable substitute term for Black African.
Now, follow me rasol carefully, and I know this can be a monumental task for you:
Carefully read...
"How many people here, who find "black Africans" offensive, will agree with the term "tropical Africans?"
Please wear those huge goggles, if it will help:
Were you on Pluto, when you were supposed to be educated on the idea that, while 'black African' can simply be used as a euphemism [albeit a subjective term] for dark skinned Africans who bear considerable skin pigmentation as a response to intense UV radiation levels of the tropics, it is also known to be used as an ethnic identifier in certain societies...while tropical Africans [Saharo-tropical Africans] would be in reference to Africans who are indigenous to or have recent ancestry in the tropics of Africa? The latter [tropical Africans] is 'objective' terminology used in bio-anthropology, whereas the former [black Africans] isn't. So of course, they can't be substituted with respect to the other, in that regard. However, outside of the science, they can.
Tropical Africans are inclusive of what is called 'black African', whereby 'black' is merely alluding to skin shade. Other groups who are still called 'black' in sub-tropical Africa and supra-tropical Africa, are so because of relatively recent ancestry in the tropics and have not ventured considerably away from the tropics, either sub-wise or supra-wise.
As localized socio-ethnic identifier in certain societies, it still alludes to dark skin at the most basic level, but more meaning is attached to this than just the issue of skin description. Here common recent ancestry to a single region(s), usually perceived to be where the ancestry emanates from dark skin peoples [of the tropics], is used to provide additional meaning to the socio-ethnic identifier, that transcends the mere issue of skin description.
quote:rasol:
This is and interesting question rather than and obtuse one.
The answer to this question is no.
For a person who proclaims to identify something obtuse when he sees one, you sure can't see through the obtuseness of your incapacity to differentiate the most basic elements of grammar, i.e. between 'an' & 'and', just like in the following, amongst many thousands of such examples in your posts over the years:
This is and interesting question rather than and obtuse one
Don't tell me that public money is used your country to fund such sorry English work.
Anyway, go on...
quote:rasol:
this is indeed a red herring.
From the only two words that you've managed to decipher from an entire question, I must say that you haven't done a bad job of assuring us that your severe intellectual deficit was able to allow you to at least draw up a red herring for an answer. Indeed, I figured so.
But hey, you can try again, and see if you will make some progress in addressing the specifics of the question, by deciphering more than one or two words from it. Good luck.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
What other groups in Africa called/call themselves black like the AE did?
Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Duper Solver:
[...]as the 'maximum' load of words that can penetrate your skull at a time.[...]
Please wear those huge goggles, if it will help[...]
ROFLMAO!^, but to the point of this post...
alTakruri, I find that it remains up to us to refrain from marginalizing 'black' africans.
However, I am beggining to sway towards your side again, as I think it may indeed be more strategic to just use african, and marginalize Arabs, and others in Africa as it's more logical.
And who made the law saying "tropical african" can NEVER make the flynch from an *anthropological* **TERM** to an ethny? ...After all, it's no less legit that 'black' african.
Posted by R U 2 religious (Member # 4547) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: I've already stated before that i see myself as a Somali then African and that's it. My parents don't identify as "black", and neither do i, and for sure my children won't either, and their children will hopefully not do that too.
Why would anyone want to base their identity on a colour?
So with this being said ... why is it ok for Moors to have a name, culture or even nation based off of the color 'black'. but is it not ok for African Americans to identify themselves as black?
Km.t means 'black' or 'black people' but when African Americans identify themselves as such ... you wonder why our identity is based on a color?
As you know African American come from a wide range of African cultures, and it is because of this that calling ourselves 'black' is a suitable termology. We had to create a culture here in the United States which is actually identified as the 'African American culture' or 'The Black Culture'.
Here in America, it doesn't matter which culture of Africa you came from during the slave trade we were all referred to as one .. in a attempt to make us forget our culture[s]. They were successful in their attempts so many cultures had to come together and be one people just to survive. The identity as 'Negro' was given to us which as you know mean black, but the word had such a negative vibe to it that we decided to be addressed as African American or either black.
In reality you don't hear on a regular black folks calling themself 'Black American's' because we don't use that term. We say African American's because their were many nations, villages, cutltures, in AFRICA that were removed from their land; having to learn how to communitate with each other in a peaceful manner ... and because of the problem of not knowning where we come from and having mixed with each other so much ... our culture[s] are based on our African heritage[s] ... such as music [drum-beats], dance, even the way we worship in churches and other places ... it African at its root. European churches are totally different from African American church [we dance as we danced in Africa during ceromonies and worship as we didn't in ceremonies] - These thing we brought with us and these things we didn't let go of ... thus African American[s] became something like a pan-African union ... having to communicate with old waring villages ... but find peace amongst each other. Words like African American is what united these deferent cultures in American and the word 'Black' has done the same.
We as in African American/Black Americans are a culture ... a cultures that is the combination of many cultures. We are a nation within a nation ... not in the legal sense of the word but in the cultural sense of the word.
Why such a problem with a people whom chooses to indentify themselves as 'Black'? We are not the first do it and we may not be the last but black & African Americans is our identity and it is the identity of choice.
Have we done something wrong Yonis?
Peacefull question ...
Peace!~
Posted by R U 2 religious (Member # 4547) on :
Here in America we don't look at Africa as Black Africa ... Black Africa is like a redundant term to many of us who have never been their or have done research on Africa like most of us should have. Yes there are invaders on the land but that doesn't take away from the original state of Africa and what it was to us.
When the term is used here in front of learned African American's it is swiftly reject!
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Morgan Freeman is black American. Dare call him African American.
The Middle Passage descendents do not all have a single identifier they all agree to be known by.
Some want to revert to using colored because they feel they interacted more kindly to each other as a community and had more financial enterprises back when they were colored without the negative dictionary connotations of the English word "black."
Posted by R U 2 religious (Member # 4547) on :
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes: Oh..such a pity.
What's the point of having all that knowledge if:
1) You won't transmit it. 2) Won't get "chalenged" from time to time?
Ok.
African:
Of or relating to Africa or its peoples, languages, or cultures. n. 1. A native or inhabitant of Africa. 2. A person of African descent.
Native:
1. Existing in or belonging to one by nature; innate: native ability. 2. Being such by birth or origin: a native Scot. 3. Being one's own because of the place or circumstances of one's birth: our native land. 4. Originating, growing, or produced in a certain place or region; indigenous: a plant native to Asia. 5. a. Being a member of the original inhabitants of a particular place. b. Of, belonging to, or characteristic of such inhabitants: native dress; the native diet of Polynesia. 6. Occurring in nature pure or uncombined with other substances: native copper. 7. Natural; unaffected: native beauty. 8. Archaic Closely related, as by birth or race. 9. Biochemistry Of or relating to the naturally occurring conformation of a macromolecule, such as a protein.
n. 1. a. One born in or connected with a place by birth: a native of Scotland now living in the United States. b. One of the original inhabitants or lifelong residents of a place. 2. An animal or plant that originated in a particular place or region.
So:
(native)2.Being such by birth or origin + (african)1. A native or inhabitant of Africa.= A person born in Africa is an African.
It's not a private definition. It's wortheless for your work. But then, is this your work? LMAO.
This merely a forum. A tourism forum no less. On which people discuss issues regarding Egypt. This particular sub-forum is for Ancient Egypt and Egyptology.
Yes, debating what African means is out of its original intent, and so are 50% of the stuff here.
Have a good day sir. Also, removing the stick located in a certain place of your body might be usefull.
Many thanks.
So then basically if I break into your house and hold you hostage with me and my wife and have a child in your house ... does that make your house my birth childs house as well?
actually let ask this while I'm asking questions.
If I kidnap you and your wife from your house and you have a baby in the house that I took you to ... does that mean your house is no longer your but that house of birth becomes yours? Or better yet do you get to call both houses your homes because you've had a baby in the house?..
We know it still belong to those who were taken from the house by why is it yours now? If I am the kidnapper and I take you to my house, does make my house become yours as well?
I saw this movie stars house and we just happen to be friends so if I get my wife pregant again, I will make sure she has a baby at his house and then argue him up and down about his house being my babies house and mine because my baby was born there ...
Thanks for the info ... I didn't know that we could do that!
Thank you for your swift response.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Willing Thinker {What Box}:
alTakruri, I find that it remains up to us to refrain from marginalizing 'black' africans.
However, I am beggining to sway towards your side again, as I think it may indeed be more strategic to just use african, and marginalize Arabs, and others in Africa as it's more logical.
And who made the law saying "tropical african" can NEVER make the flynch from an *anthropological* **TERM** to an ethny? ...After all, it's no less legit that 'black' african.
Recap: I agree with the general idea of simply referring to 'indigenous' Africans as "Africans", but I can also understand why "black Africans" would keep cropping up in both ancient north African and north African/sub-Saharan African 'dichotomy' discourse.
^One perspective, and a personal one at that, but here's another:
It must be advocated that the terms “Negro” and “Black African” be dropped from the biological lexicon in favor of “Saharo-tropical variant,” which subsumes the range of morphologies of great time depth found in Africa. - Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships, S.O.Y. Keita.
So, when we say 'black Africans', we are really talking about people with recent 'tropical African ancestry', which can be verified by way of TMRCA lineages, morphological traits and even phenotype like 'dark skin'.
"Black African" is little more than just reference to skin, it is referencing the 'entirety' of an individual [but with emphasis to skin color], which has the same effect as 'Tropical African'. Different words used as an adjective, but achieve the same ends, which is reference to 'indigenous Africans' who normally happen to be of some dark skin shade, but who also come in a variety of morphologies and skin gradient. In fact, 'Saharo-tropical African' as a bio-anthropological term, far more accounts for the variety in indigenous Africans, than does the term "Black African" in of itself.
Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Morgan Freeman is black American. Dare call him African American.
The Middle Passage descendents do not all have a single identifier they all agree to be known by.
Some want to revert to using colored because they feel they interacted more kindly to each other as a community and had more financial enterprises back when they were colored without the negative dictionary connotations of the English word "black."
Also
Alot of young Americans simply use black. Alot of us simply use black. The youth, I mean.
Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
Every statement you've posted on what to use I agree on.
quote:Supercar:
Different words used as an adjective, but achieve the same ends, which is reference to 'indigenous Africans' who normally happen to be of some dark skin shade, but who also come in a variety of morphologies and skin gradient. In fact, 'Saharo-tropical African' as a bio-anthropological term, far more accounts for the variety in indigenous Africans, than does the term "Black African" in of itself.
Good point there^
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Another inane argument over the meaning and usage of the label 'black'.
Notice you never hear such arguments or complaints about the label 'white'!
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:And who made the law saying "tropical african" can NEVER make the flynch from an *anthropological* **TERM** to an ethny?
It's not a law.
I simply explained to you *why* 'tropical' African is not and ethnic term.
Evidently this makes some angry, but the fact is, there is no ethnic group known as tropical African now, there never has been historically.
Whether it can function as and ethnic term may be a hypothetical question.... but that it *doesn't* is just a straight fact.
quote:Djehuti writes: Another inane argument over the meaning and usage of the label 'black'.
Notice you never hear such arguments or complaints about the label 'white'!
You are right.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:It must be advocated that the terms “Negro” and “Black African” be dropped from the biological lexicon in favor of “Saharo-tropical variant.
...which leads back to my 1st reply to this thread....
quote:There are a few things wrong with the general premise of this thread, which places anthropology [scientific objective] and ethnicity [subjective identity constructs] under the same grab bag and then imagines to objectively assess them.
^ If you try to base ethnicy on objective biological measurement....you WILL FAIL, and worse, you will end up repeating the very error that led to typological races and all its attendant hypocrisies, to begin with, which is rooted in the fallacy that social constructs and be objectified and validated scientifically.
Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
^^Good observation Djehuti, I agree.
quote:rasol:
Tropical African is anthropology.
Black African is ethnicity.
The two terms do not serve the same function and never will.
Guess I misunderstood you.
EDIT:
quote: There are a few things wrong with the general premise of this thread, which places anthropology [scientific objective] and ethnicity [subjective identity constructs] under the same grab bag and then imagines to objectively assess them.
^^correctomundo
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Can you expand for me on your below statements. I don't at all understand what they're meaning.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Another inane argument over the meaning and usage of the label 'black'.
Notice you never hear such arguments or complaints about the label 'white'!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Maybe I will get some juice here.
Not sure this is the right place to post this. I could of done this in the Moor thread, or the Race of the Egyptian thread. Hope to get some feedback. - - -
Looking through the CIA country statistics website I came across some interesting/misguided information. I was trying to get a breakdown of the different ethnics group in countries in North Africa. Based on the info provided I am trying to understand what is an “Egyptian” compared to an Arab. This forum states that the “Arabs” are a minority in North Africa and mainly occupy the coastal reagins of North Africa and indigenous Black Africans are the majority. Where is there proof of this. Here is what the CIA sites states.
Egypt – Egyptian 98%, Berber, Nubian, Bedouin, and Beja 1%, Algeria – Arab-Berber 99%, European less than 1% Libya – Berber and Arab 97%, other 3% (includes Greeks, Egyptians, etc Morrocco – Arab-Berber 99.1%, W. Sahara - Arab, Berber 100% Tunisia - Arab 98%, European 1% Mauritania – mixed Moor/black 40%, Moor 30%, black 30%
Wher can I get some "objective" info on the breakdown? Thanks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Black African is not an ethnicity. There is no self-named people black African. There is no language calling itself black African. There is no system of spirituality invoked as black African.
Black African is a useless term designed to keep African peoples focused on colour. For most non African people they only thing they notice about inner Africans is their colour.
There are many ethnies, languages, cultures, belief systems in Africa, all much more important to the peoples of Africa then the fact that their skin is on average the darkest on earth (though other peoples with similar complexions aren't saddled and ridden with their blackness to the point that's all that matters about them).
Physical characteristics do not define ethnicity. Colour and phenotype have nothing to do with ethnicity.
Black African is not an ethnicity, it is an unneccessary colour qualifier on people from a specific geographic region such as we never see so blanketly and constantly applied to any other set of peoples in their geographic region of nativity and habitation.
Black African is no more than an update on the term Negro Race and is used as such by the world at large. To use black African without further qualification is to support the concept of race.
quote: Black African is ethnicity.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Black African is not an ethnicity.
I didnt' say it was. And all of your comments that follow are actually strawman which depend upon 'twisting' what you actually quoted which was this...
quote:Black African is ethnicity.
All of the rest of your remarks are either based on refuting the idea that Black African is a -singlular- ethnicty which was never said, as opposed to and ethnic reference, which is what was said, and moreover is implicitly acknolwedged in your post.
Thus:
quote:Black African is a useless term designed to keep African peoples focused on colour. For most non African people they only thing they notice about inner Africans is their colour.
You likely won't admit it, but the above comment does 3 things.
1) Admits Black African is and ethnic term.
2) Admits the term is common.
3) Explains precisely why the term is common. It almost constitute a Freudian slip in fact.
The rest your post is dedicated to rationalising why you -do not like- this term.
Your opinions on this distinct issue are perfectly valid, as I said...I never try to tell anyone else why they should or should not call themselves African, Black, Jewish, African American, Black Jew...or whatever.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:For most non African people they only thing they notice about inner Africans is their colour.
This not only explains why Black is historically a common ethnic term, it also explains why tropical - in my opinion- will never be.
Tropical is also not necessarily and accurate reference to entire morphologies biologically either.
For example - it isn't clear why South African Khosian would be regarded as tropicAL.
They don't live in the tropics, and their skeletal limb ratios - which are the primary basis for the anthropological label -tropical-, are -non tropical-.
Whether their skin color is deemed tropical is also questionable as a 'scientific' matter.
They are however Black Africans, which is a superfical and political ethnic label, just *like all other* ethnic labels. Black African is and ethnic label, tropical is not. It never will be.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Of course it is. Just like what you write rationalizes what you prefer and promote.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ... your post is dedicated to rationalising why you -do not like- this term.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
This may've been missed while editing the post it appears in above so here it is again but please go back and read it as imbedded in the earlier post.
Physical characteristics do not define ethnicity. Colour and phenotype have nothing to do with ethnicity.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I don't use tropical African.
To distinguish the two major broad collectives of people in Africa I use coastal African and inner African.
Coastal Africans adjoin the Mediterranean littoral of Africa and have substantial infusion from north Mediterranean peoples beginning in the late neolithic.
Inner Africans are those who are inland from the Mediterranean littoral clear to Cape Agulhas and consequently have much lesser if any infusion from people along the Mediterranean's shores and where they do have such infusion it was neither intense nor did it begin in the late stone age.
While I do understand tropical African refers to tropically adapted Africans I don't use the term due to possibility of literalists interpreting it to mean only those between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. For those literalists many inner Africans such as those in most of Namibia and Botswana, a bit of Mozambique, and all of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland would be left out. Likewise the Saharans of Algeria and Libya, most of Egypt lies outside the tropics too.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Tropical is also not necessarily and accurate reference to entire morphologies biologically either.
For example - it isn't clear why South African Khosian would be regarded as tropicAL.
They don't live in the tropics, and their skeletal limb ratios - which are the primary basis for the anthropological label -tropical-, are -non tropical-.
Whether their skin color is deemed tropical is also questionable as a 'scientific' matter.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Of course it is. Just like what you write rationalizes what you prefer and promote.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ... your post is dedicated to rationalising why you -do not like- this term.
Actually I don't disagree with this, since i've said all along that ethnicity is only social rationale. Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
This not only explains why Black is historically a common ethnic term, it also explains why tropical - in my opinion- will never be.
The rationale often proferred here, as noted in the parent thread, is the use of 'Black African' as a supposed reference to skin color, which in essence, is attempting to say that this term is being used towards biological ends, not 'racial' [aka "ethnic reference"]. It is in this context, that 'tropical African' was proferred.
Tropical African is even more biologically correct than 'black African' will ever be.
quote:rasol:
Tropical is also not necessarily and accurate reference to entire morphologies biologically either.
For example - it isn't clear why South African Khosian would be regarded as tropicaL.
They don't live in the tropics, and their skeletal limb ratios - which are the primary basis for the anthropological label -tropical-, are -non tropical-.
Whether their skin color is deemed tropical is also questionable as a 'scientific' matter.
What is so unique about the Khoisan's body plan?
Tropical Africans don't have one set of 'body plan', granted that certain body plans, like the so-called 'elongated' type, are frequently found here than elsewhere.
quote:rasol:
They are however Black Africans, which is a superfical and political ethnic label, just *like all other* ethnic labels.
Well, why are they then called 'Black Africans', if it is not ultimately because of their recent ancestry from tropical Africa, and that their dark skin hue is a throwback to ancestry in that region?
Much of ancient Egypt lay outside of the tropics, just as the modern nation does today. Should we then say that they weren't akin to tropical Africans, because they moved from the tropics and settled in the supra-tropical environment? What about those "black peoples" who no longer live in the tropics, like say Blacks of the Americas; does their general morphology cease being subsumed by the Tropical African continuum?
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Al Takruri, Here is the deal, you take the Black(in Black African) and we native African take back African(in African American). Hint: it is true that the majority of Africans define themselves as belonging to ethnic groups then as Africans...but the term Black is found in many languages to define Black Africans from other groups who are not as dark because of some non African ancestry or because they are non Africans who are not as dark...so it is part of the African landscape and here to stay...Yom is aware of that, Rasol as well and myself included...let's take back African from African American...and please refrain from delving in your fantasies, you can't impose your point of view to a whole group people who can't care less about your wishes...You have a problem with Black Africans...Even AE defined themselves as Black with respect to lighter folks. It's possible that it has no scientific meaning but it's a social and sometime political reality...but definitely other social aspect are more important like your ethnic background or even your geographical background than the color of your skin in an African context...
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: Al Takruri, Here is the deal, you take the Black(in Black African) and we native African take back African(in African American). Hint: it is true that the majority of Africans define themselves as belonging to ethnic groups then as Africans...but the term Black is found in many languages to define Black Africans from other groups who are not as dark because of some non African ancestry or because they are non Africans who are not as dark...so it is part of the African landscape and here to stay...Yom is aware of that, Rasol as well and myself included...let's take back African from African American...and please refrain from delving in your fantasies, you can't impose your point of view to a whole group people who can't care less about your wishes...You have a problem with Black Africans...Even AE defined themselves as Black with respect to lighter folks. It's possible that it has no scientific meaning but it's a social and sometime political reality...but definitely other social aspect are more important like your ethnic background or even your geographical background than the color of your skin in an African context...
I agree Blacks in America should be called Afro-Americans, instead of African-American.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
quote:Originally posted by R U 2 religious: So then basically if I break into your house and hold you hostage with me and my wife and have a child in your house ... does that make your house my birth childs house as well?
actually let ask this while I'm asking questions.
If I kidnap you and your wife from your house and you have a baby in the house that I took you to ... does that mean your house is no longer your but that house of birth becomes yours? Or better yet do you get to call both houses your homes because you've had a baby in the house?..
We know it still belong to those who were taken from the house by why is it yours now? If I am the kidnapper and I take you to my house, does make my house become yours as well?
I saw this movie stars house and we just happen to be friends so if I get my wife pregant again, I will make sure she has a baby at his house and then argue him up and down about his house being my babies house and mine because my baby was born there ...
Thanks for the info ... I didn't know that we could do that!
Thank you for your swift response. [/QB]
Are you comparing houses with continents? Your example makes no sense since I am not talking about onwership, but simply place of birth. Being born into someplace doest note make that place "yours". Correct if I am wrong, but you are basically saying that "White" people born in Africa do not have a claim to the land or that they do not posess it. Well, that may be so. That wasn't my point. But they are still Africans. Again, geographically speaking. The place of birth of your son would be my house, and the fact that the house wasn't yours wouldn't change that.
Btw, if you ask me, ownership is simply based on force. Either your personal one or the state's/ community's. In a lawless environment you can simply walk over to my house, kill me, and take the house for yourself. Or I can shoot you first and keep my house. In a state/community were laws/rules exist the situation will be resolved acording to those very same laws/rules. So yes, Europeans who conquered land in Africa, and forced their will there owned the land (or made and enforced the rules regarding ownership) for all intents and purposed until "natives" rised up and took it back, the same way Black Moors owned the land in Iberia (or made and enforced the rules regarding ownership), until some of my ancestors decided to take it back. Now to take back something, it means it isn't your at the momment. Such discussions usually get very emotional (It's my land, the land of my ancestors, blablabla) but in the real world this matters little. And no, I am not an advocate of conquest and colonization, since myself I wouldn't like to be conquered and colonized, and I am glad that more and more an International system of laws is being created (the UN).
This is off-topic anyway. So in short, anyone born in Africa is an African, though they don't have any claim to he land there, unless laws/rules say so, or they have the force to make it so.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
In case you hadn't noticed, I'm the one who put up the proofs of the AE defining the populations of the Nile Valley as the BLACK COMMUNITY. And if you for a moment imagine me to be other than an African black you're as silly as that rotten tomato avatar of yours looks.
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: Al Takruri, Here is the deal, you take the Black(in Black African) and we native African take back African(in African American). Hint: it is true that the majority of Africans define themselves as belonging to ethnic groups then as Africans...but the term Black is found in many languages to define Black Africans from other groups who are not as dark because of some non African ancestry or because they are non Africans who are not as dark...so it is part of the African landscape and here to stay...Yom is aware of that, Rasol as well and myself included...let's take back African from African American...and please refrain from delving in your fantasies, you can't impose your point of view to a whole group people who can't care less about your wishes...You have a problem with Black Africans...Even AE defined themselves as Black with respect to lighter folks. It's possible that it has no scientific meaning but it's a social and sometime political reality...but definitely other social aspect are more important like your ethnic background or even your geographical background than the color of your skin in an African context...
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
To MA,
If the issue of "race" is to be normalised biologically they way science does it with all flora and fauna then clearly someone of European extraction born in Africa could not be classified as "African" in much the same way that a Polar Bear born in a zoo in Nigeria would not be a "Tropical Bear". Same for "African Elephant" versus "Asian Elephant" or "African Gray Parrot" vs. other sub-species.
Or think of "North American Brown Bear" and "Polar Bear" or terms like "Artic Fox" and "Artic Tern".
The point is that there is a population cluster with phenotypical traits developed on the tropical/sub-tropical terrain of Africa over millenia. To use technical language we can call those populations "Homo Sapiens Africanus". Europeans whereever born woould be "Home Sapiens Europaeus", etc.
The goal is to be as scientific as much as possible by using the same methodology that biologists of the world's flora and fauna do. So, Burmese python is just that--a Burmese python, wherever found.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
We went through that in the 70s. Arfican American means Americans of African decent.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: Al Takruri, Here is the deal, you take the Black(in Black African) and we native African take back African(in African American). Hint: it is true that the majority of Africans define themselves as belonging to ethnic groups then as Africans...but the term Black is found in many languages to define Black Africans from other groups who are not as dark because of some non African ancestry or because they are non Africans who are not as dark...so it is part of the African landscape and here to stay...Yom is aware of that, Rasol as well and myself included...let's take back African from African American...and please refrain from delving in your fantasies, you can't impose your point of view to a whole group people who can't care less about your wishes...You have a problem with Black Africans...Even AE defined themselves as Black with respect to lighter folks. It's possible that it has no scientific meaning but it's a social and sometime political reality...but definitely other social aspect are more important like your ethnic background or even your geographical background than the color of your skin in an African context...
I agree Blacks in America should be called Afro-Americans, instead of African-American.
Posted by R U 2 religious (Member # 4547) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: Al Takruri, Here is the deal, you take the Black(in Black African) and we native African take back African(in African American). Hint: it is true that the majority of Africans define themselves as belonging to ethnic groups then as Africans...but the term Black is found in many languages to define Black Africans from other groups who are not as dark because of some non African ancestry or because they are non Africans who are not as dark...so it is part of the African landscape and here to stay...Yom is aware of that, Rasol as well and myself included...let's take back African from African American...and please refrain from delving in your fantasies, you can't impose your point of view to a whole group people who can't care less about your wishes...You have a problem with Black Africans...Even AE defined themselves as Black with respect to lighter folks. It's possible that it has no scientific meaning but it's a social and sometime political reality...but definitely other social aspect are more important like your ethnic background or even your geographical background than the color of your skin in an African context...
I pretty much know this comment was geared toward me. An African is born African (in the broader sense), African Americans mtdna and Y-dna proves this. This is our link to the continent. If you can prove that we are not genetically related as in mordern relations to Africans then I to will agree that we need to drop the name African American
Personally I think your ignorant ... why is it ok for a kenyan to move to America have kids and they kids are identified as Kenyan Americans? Is it because they know where they came from in Africa? If the parent loose their memory ... does that mean they are to label themselves as Americans?
For generations those parent will remind their kids that they are in fact Kenyans or Ghanan, Malian, Gabonese, etc ... who just so happen to live in America. We were forced to forget, tho we cannot claim any place in particular, but what genetics show is that we are of West African, Central West African and some South-east African decent. This cannot be changed and genetics make sure of this.
Now ... prove to me through genetics that we are not of African decent and I will shut up about this African American thing ... otherwise shut the .... up!
P.S. I've learned a lot on this forum within the last 3 years, but I'm a more casual writer ... please do not for one moment think because I'm not as direct as rasol, Al T, Supercar, or any of the other great writers on this forum that I will not be able to handle my own technically ... so if you would like to debate this topic then I will debate it.
I just simply bring a different style to this forum ... we don't need ten rasols, Supercars, alTakruri or Djehuti[s] ... In other words ... bring it if this is what you want!
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Believe it or not, that's exactly how the earliest anthropologists went about labeling their races. None of this "kittens born in an oven are bisquits."
quote:Originally posted by lamin: The point is that there is a population cluster with phenotypical traits developed on the tropical/sub-tropical terrain of Africa over millenia. To use technical language we can call those populations "Homo Sapiens Africanus". Europeans whereever born woould be "Home Sapiens Europaeus", etc.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: To MA,
If the issue of "race" is to be normalised biologically they way science does it with all flora and fauna then clearly someone of European extraction born in Africa could not be classified as "African" in much the same way that a Polar Bear born in a zoo in Nigeria would not be a "Tropical Bear". Same for "African Elephant" versus "Asian Elephant" or "African Gray Parrot" vs. other sub-species.
Or think of "North American Brown Bear" and "Polar Bear" or terms like "Artic Fox" and "Artic Tern".
The point is that there is a population cluster with phenotypical traits developed on the tropical/sub-tropical terrain of Africa over millenia. To use technical language we can call those populations "Homo Sapiens Africanus". Europeans whereever born woould be "Home Sapiens Europaeus", etc.
The goal is to be as scientific as much as possible by using the same methodology that biologists of the world's flora and fauna do. So, Burmese python is just that--a Burmese python, wherever found.
"Races" in humans cannot be normalized scientifically, which is why it is pseudo scientific. Overall genetic variation across humans of different geographical backgrounds is only ~ .01%.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
I guess today the more enlightened would say "populations" instead of "races". But to properly understand humans as a part of biological nature one has to apply the same methodology and principles that are applied in the classification and genomic understanding of the world's flora and fauna.
The very interesting thing about homo sapiens though is that, unlike other animals, he/she is not "niche-specific". Culture or "learned behaviour" is what determines everything about humans especailly where decision-making is involved.
Example: a Mike Tyson clone could easily have been raised to be King of England--accent, diet, posture, tastes and all.
Thus although interaction with specific environments have produced easily identifiable human populations, all that amounts to is surface phenotype including its dynamic articulation. Yet even this would apply to only small percentages of thse populations in question.
Simple experiment: just sit on any park bench of any large university in North America or Europe and guess the geographical region of origin of students as they stroll by. Taxonmically all will be easily fittable into some long extant population of Africa, Asia, Europe, pre-Columbian America and Australasia.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
RUT 2 Religious
But note that those African countries you name are mere Euro-generated artificialities of very recent vintage. It's the ethnicity that's more durable--and even then, they have been subject to new changing modes of identification over the last several thousand yaars as people migrated to different parts of Africa. A recent migratory trend would be the so-called Bantu expansion.
Posted by PrincessJin (Member # 13954) on :
Europeans use so many simple tactics to divide and conquer Africans and their descendents and they just continue to fall into the traps. Africa has more resources than any other continent. If Africa were to unite it would be the main world power.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
But were you at liberty to inquire, trust me, you might just find you missed your guess.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Simple experiment: just sit on any park bench of any large university in North America or Europe and guess the geographical region of origin of students as they stroll by. Taxonmically all will be easily fittable into some long extant population of Africa, Asia, Europe, pre-Columbian America and Australasia.
Posted by R U 2 religious (Member # 4547) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: RUT 2 Religious
But note that those African countries you name are mere Euro-generated artificialities of very recent vintage. It's the ethnicity that's more durable--and even then, they have been subject to new changing modes of identification over the last several thousand yaars as people migrated to different parts of Africa. A recent migratory trend would be the so-called Bantu expansion.
I totally agree with what this statement. Africa is trying to dis-associate African American from Africans as though we don't have the same dna running through us.
I'm asking him to rpove that AA's are not genetically related to CA's.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Where are we going here, a guy who I'm not sure if he has any drop of African blood is writing:
quote:alTakruri:Like Hamite black Africa(n) is a term to be jettisoned from the vocabulary of progressive Africana students and scholars, In my opinion.
That's an insult for a Black Native African, and Rasol, Yom and other native African posters agree with me. It is understandable that some in the Horn of Africa, Sudan and Mauritania or Chad are confused due to often fabricated genealogies for religious and cultural reasons, but I can guarantee the majority of Africans view themselves as Black no doubt, it is the same in other parts of the world. alTakruri remind me of the Arabized Nazi of Mauritania and Sudan and some other horners who have created some genealogies that don't reflect their genetic makeup, and I forgot the Afrikaaner: They have one goal in common the cultural, social and complete destruction of Black Africa(n). It didn't work and alTakruri you won't succeed either.
[Redacted to remove insult. Consider this an unofficial warning, Africa - Henu]
[ 16. August 2007, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: Henu ]
Posted by R U 2 religious (Member # 4547) on :
I can gaurantee you that I have Africa blood ... sir ... It seems as though your running now ...
I pose no threat to you because as far you should be concerned I don't write technical ... thus you should be able run through me like water ... lol.
I definitely have African blood but this is about the name AA ... I asked you if you can prove to me that African American are not genetically connected to Africans then I will forever remove the name African American from my vocabulary ...
A European is a European in America regardless of his position in this country ... regardless how long he has been here ... they call themselves Americans but they also recognize that they are Europeans ... For this reason is why they are trying to make Egypt European ... So that they can have connection.
If they still recognize that they are European then why is it wrong for an African ... genetically misplaced ... not to call himself and African who is an American based on geography?
I've traced my heritage back to the slave ships and have full documentation on my great great great great great great great grandfather who made it here ... from the Senegal ... Now what?
There is no mistake about the fact of my African Heritage ...
Now debate or shut the .... UP!!! If you can't prove that African Americans don't deserve the name AA then you shouldn't promote your bias b/s no more ...
You are not to be taken serious ...
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
African-Americans are merely displaced West and Central Africans and any suggestion to the contrary is nothing more than socio-politically based poppycock, fueled by self-hatred.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: Al Takruri, Here is the deal, you take the Black(in Black African) and we native African take back African(in African American). Hint: it is true that the majority of Africans define themselves as belonging to ethnic groups then as Africans...but the term Black is found in many languages to define Black Africans from other groups who are not as dark because of some non African ancestry or because they are non Africans who are not as dark...so it is part of the African landscape and here to stay...Yom is aware of that, Rasol as well and myself included...let's take back African from African American...and please refrain from delving in your fantasies, you can't impose your point of view to a whole group people who can't care less about your wishes...You have a problem with Black Africans...Even AE defined themselves as Black with respect to lighter folks. It's possible that it has no scientific meaning but it's a social and sometime political reality...but definitely other social aspect are more important like your ethnic background or even your geographical background than the color of your skin in an African context...
I agree Blacks in America should be called Afro-Americans, instead of African-American.
So what does the "Afro" suggest? Last time I checked, that was a hair style. The other definition alludes to the African origin of who or what it is being applied to. African-Americans have enough identity issues as it is, so let's just stick to what we know and what's apparent instead of changing identities every thirty years (Negro, colored, black, African-American, Afro-American, New Afrikan). I'd think that would be more responsible.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
So what does the "Afro" suggest? Last time I checked, that was a hair style. The other definition alludes to the African origin of who or what it is being applied to. African-Americans have enough identity issues as it is, so let's just stick to what we know and what's apparent instead of changing identities every thirty years (Negro, colored, black, AFRO-AMERICAN, then African-American , New Afrikan). I'd think that would be more responsible.
Posted by R U 2 religious (Member # 4547) on :
AFRICA ... Your a done deal ... you ran from a person who writings doesn't seem technical enough to handle his own ...
You are nothing for anyone to worry about!
Bye Bye ... ignore list has become my top priority for you.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
To NotAfricaI, yeeso wamnde haabe.
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: Where are we going here, a guy who I'm not sure if he has any drop of African blood is writing:
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: To MA,
If the issue of "race" is to be normalised biologically they way science does it with all flora and fauna then clearly someone of European extraction born in Africa could not be classified as "African" in much the same way that a Polar Bear born in a zoo in Nigeria would not be a "Tropical Bear". Same for "African Elephant" versus "Asian Elephant" or "African Gray Parrot" vs. other sub-species.
Or think of "North American Brown Bear" and "Polar Bear" or terms like "Artic Fox" and "Artic Tern".
The point is that there is a population cluster with phenotypical traits developed on the tropical/sub-tropical terrain of Africa over millenia. To use technical language we can call those populations "Homo Sapiens Africanus". Europeans whereever born woould be "Home Sapiens Europaeus", etc.
The goal is to be as scientific as much as possible by using the same methodology that biologists of the world's flora and fauna do. So, Burmese python is just that--a Burmese python, wherever found.
Yes lamin, of course, I was merely speaking geographically. Biologically the answer will be different.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
To all posters, all of my posts were directed to anti-Black African alTakruri, I believe the only one who noticed his anti-Black African is Rasol...it's easier for a native Black African to discern those people, they want us to disappear and some still live in Africa: Afrikaaner, Arabized Mauritanians and Sudanese...alTakruri is their brothers...
Posted by El-Ah (Member # 10156) on :
Africa I:
You have issues you need to work out, but it is not my place to tell you what you need to do or not. What it boils down to is dedication to studies. You are the only one on this forum that denies your fellow African brothers, diasporic Africans; their right to claim what is particularly theirs.
It appears that you are an adesultory student of Euro-centric fables which renunciates the very act of gesticulation. To the abnegation; vacillating is ineluctable!
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
You're a fraud. You're no African you're a white Euro-American merely spoofing an African identity. Being uneducated you can do little more than post ad hominems about me. You do not even begin to understand what I write less lone hope to critically analyse it.
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: To all posters, all of my posts were directed to anti-Black African alTakruri, I believe the only one who noticed his anti-Black African is Rasol...it's easier for a native Black African to discern those people, they want us to disappear and some still live in Africa: Afrikaaner, Arabized Mauritanians and Sudanese...alTakruri is their brothers...
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:You do not even begin to understand what I write less lone hope to critically analyse it.
There is nothing to understand, a racist psyche is just that:racist, to my fellow African Americans please read his posts again, you'll understand that he's no friend of Black African...we are all Africans(including AA), but if someone is with Al then you must have some issues...read the posts...please...he's a racist...another poster mentioned that earlier...
quote:Al Takruri:alTakruri:Like Hamite black Africa(n) is a term to be jettisoned from the vocabulary of progressive Africana students and scholars, In my opinion.
Always this obsession with destroying Black Africans...
Posted by El-Ah (Member # 10156) on :
alTakruri:
You are far to perspicacious to reply to such and vacuous idiosyncratic person as this. I am not as knowledgeable as most Anthropologist on this colloquium but, responding to such a fatuous arcane; it devalorizes your savvy!
I speak in fraternization.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
Why should people care about the black label? Or any other colour or physical label?
I can't speak from the point of view of a "black man" but as "white man", I feel no special attachement to them. Most of the people who tried to conquer my country or my ancestors were white anyway, and I would much faster identify with a black person who was similar to me psychologically, than a white one who was different. On other hand, I do feel a special atachment based on culture, so I feel close to Portuguese, Iberians, Latins...Europeans, etc, but only as far as our culture is similar. Again, I would probably bond faster with a Brazilian or a Cape Verdian of any race than White Bosnian or something.
Going to Africa, why should Hausa feel close to a Zulu? A Masai to a Ibo? And so? Only because they are "black"? It doesn't make much sense.
So I agree with alTakruri and I perceive no racism comming from him, more like realism.
And when it comes to diasporans, who have lost their identity, then they should use the one of the country where they are now. There's a problem here though. The majority may no accept it. Then resorting to the black label as mean of creating union is logical, like what happened with African-Americans, many who simply call themselves black. Many whites wouldn't let them become "real Americans", same thing with other europans of non-wasp origin (italian americans, irish americans, etc) I just hope that rift will disapear someday.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
You are correct. I shall desist.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ah: alTakruri:
You are far to perspicacious to reply to such and vacuous idiosyncratic person as this. I am not as knowledgeable as most Anthropologist on this colloquium but, responding to such a fatuous arcane; it devalorizes your savvy!
I speak in fraternization.
Posted by Henu (Member # 13490) on :
Watch it with the insults, AFRICA I and alTakruri.
Posted by R U 2 religious (Member # 4547) on :
Miguel Antunes wrote:
quote:And when it comes to diasporans, who have lost their identity, then they should use the one of the country where they are now.
Using a country is like using a tool ... it is only good as long as the tool is usable, but when that tool dulls, or become dangerous with jagged edges, then the tool is only good to itself an not the user of the tool.
Miguel Antunes ... I understand where you are coming from but what happens when the tool that you believe in so much is used to hurt one of its components? I've seen tools that got caught in its own cycle just to destroy another piece so that it can work for a few more minutes ..
It doesn't save the tool because the tool still breaks but at a later day which makes it un-repairable.
In 1982 A.D .. Jerry Cooney boxed Larry Holmes in America for the championship heavyweight boxing title ... His corner said "Beat that bastard, do it for America. ... America is depending on you" ...
He showed on national tv that Africans living in America r not considered Americans because we weren't invited her but came as servants ...
Miguel Antunes, you are consider an American despite being conteniental or not ... If you've never been here you will be excepted faster then an African or African American ... Thus I feel you but you don't feel me.
Peace!~
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
TO MA,
But the biological is usually conflayed with the geographical because it is the geography in the final analysis that determines the biological. Think of the flora and fauna of places like New Zealand and Australia, or the Galapagos where Darwin witnessed "evolution by natural[geographic]selection" first hand.
On Indentity
Note that the Portugese have recently evolved a separate identity from that of Spaniards despite the fact that there was originally no distinction. From what I have observed no group or person is without and identity even when such identities have changed rapidly over time.
An interesting example of identity is that of the Jewish people--i.e. those of European origin: historically they have been nationals of many countries, speaking only the languages of those countries[and Yiddish, a Germanic language of East European origin] and knowing nothing of Hebrew. Yet the Jewish identity always trumped the other identities both for themselves and their co-nationals. As long as they believed they were Jews and went through a few rituals when young but always cognizant of Jewish ritual days such as Passover and so on.
The point about identity is that it is most effective when the group or individual is in charge of it and calls all the shots about how such identities should be established and evolve.
The problem with Africa and its inhabitants is that in the last 1,500 years the identities of Africans have been shaped by forces external to its groups--that have led to divided even schozoid personalities that have been and are being exploited by others for material and psychological advantage.
Posted by R U 2 religious (Member # 4547) on :
P.S ... just so others will know if you don't ... I don't have anything to hide ... I'm the same person as El-Ah ... I was just on a different computer logging into a name that I haven't used for over a year (I haven't used that computer for a year as well)! It is the same network, I just haven't used that computer for the internet!
I have two names and they are RU2religious & El-Ah. I just so happen to articulate my points in a more adroit palaver[ish] fashion ... as El-Ah.
Its fun but to people like Africa I, who responds without thinking about the repercussions or who thinks their personal perspicacity is above others usually drown when faced with opposition that will test the very essence of their perspicuity.
Once again, we only need one Djehuti, rasol, Supercar, alTakruri, Doug M, Scorpion_King and so forth ... its nice to have someone who speaks with a question based format. Peace!~
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
@R U 2 religious:
Yes, I see. That's why I said there were exceptions and gave the example of African Americans. So I do understand where you are comming from.
@lamin:
I woulnd't call 900 years recent...=P (though it's true, even after Portugal was created, a feeling of Hispanicity remained for quite sometime)
"The point about identity is that it is most effective when the group or individual is in charge of it and calls all the shots about how such identities should be established and evolve."
Exactly. Though from my point of view, most of Africa's problems in this regard (or any others really) are due to the Colonialism which started after the Conference of Berlim. Carving up Africa with no regard for its ethnic groups then half-heartedly trying to Europeanize the natives had very bad effects which are still strongly felt today. The new states must either create a new identity, or simply disapear and give way to nation/ethnic states. Let's see what the future holds.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Case close: Al Takruri agreed not to touch native African subjects he doesn't understand. I would ask the moderator to closed this provocative thread toward native Africans...
[Watch your comments, AFRICA I - just because it's not insulting, doesn't mean that it's not instigating - Henu]
[ 17. August 2007, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Henu ]
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:What is so unique about the Khoisan's body plan?
I didn't ascribe Khoisan a body plan or say that is was unique.
I stated that South African Khoisan do not have tropical limb ratios...probably because they do not live in the tropics, and are descendant to some degree from peoples who have lived outside the tropics for and astoundingly long time. [southeast African coast where some of the earliest ancestor of South Africans lived has a climate more like Southern Europe or Magreb, than tropical Africa or the sahara]
They aren't tropical Africans.
quote: Tropical Africans don't have one set of 'body plan',
This statement is actually a contadiction.
'Tropical' is by definition 'a single set' of body plans, placed into a 'single set' deemed tropical. You can list the features of this set, as I did earlier in this thread.
The issue isn't that tropical isn't a single set -> it is.
The issue is that 'people' don't necessarily have one set of characteristics that can be deemed tropical or non tropical.
It's critical to understand that the term tropical originates in skeletal anthropology as a specific reference to heat dissipating functionality of long tapering limbs and short torsos.
The South African Khoisan do not typically have this feature [East African Khoisan may - the issue is not -Khoisan- as ethnic group, but rather adaptation to tropical environs]
South African Khoisan have arguably lived outside of the tropics for longer than Northern Eurasians, and some of their physical features, including lighter coloration of the skin compared with tropical Africans [including tropical Khoisan] and also distinct limb ratios reflect that.
I am puzzled as to why you wish to label them tropical Africans, other than for the arbitrary and inaccurate point of giving them some label that is shared with - well - tropical Africans, ie - African who live in the tropics.
Ok, i'm not really puzzled.
It goes back to the futility of trying to turn and anthropology term into and ethnic label, or vice versa.
This thread will never recover from that error, established in the parent post, and which turned it into a predictable quagmire, imho.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:What is so unique about the Khoisan's body plan?
I didn't ascribe Khoisan a body plan or say that is was unique.
I stated that South African Khoisan do not have tropical limb ratios...probably because they do not live in the tropics, and are descendant to some degree from peoples who have lived outside the tropics for and astoundingly long time.
That's what doesn't make sense, and which is what the question you are replying to is trying to get to the bottom of. If you don't "ascribe Khoisan a body plan or say that it was unique", then what is your point about it being "non-tropical", as though it has some sort of unique characteristics that are not to be found amongst tropical Africans? Your comment makes it seem that tropical Africans are supposed to have another set of body plan, that is distinct from Khoisan 'body plan', when in reality, tropical Africans come in a wide range of body sizes, including limb-ratios.
"Tropical African" here, specifically "Saharo-Tropical African", is used in biological terms, denoting indigenous biological characteristics subsumed in these regions, as anybody who can read Keita's piece would understand it to be. Khoisans need not continue to live in the tropics to be deemed part of this biological continuum.
quote:rasol:
[southeast African coast where some of the earliest ancestor of South Africans lived has a climate more like Southern Europe or Magreb, than tropical Africa or the sahara]
They aren't tropical Africans.
If they aren't part of the tropical African continuum, then why do you assume that they are 'black Africans', any more than you assume southern Europeans and Maghrebians "blacks"?
quote:rasol:
quote: Tropical Africans don't have one set of 'body plan',
This statement is actually a contadiction.
'Tropical' is by definition 'a single set' of body plans, placed into a 'single set' deemed tropical.
Keita uses the term "Tropical African", particularly "Saharo-tropical African" as I have just cited, and subsumes all indigenous 'biological' characteristics, including morphology , that emanate from these regions. Wherein Keita's piece, for instance, did you ever come to that conclusion, that 'tropical African' implies a "single set" deemed "tropical"? Tropical Africans come in a wide range of sizes, and phenotypic details.
quote:rasol:
You can list the features of this set, as I did earlier in this thread.
By all means, please list this "single set", and demonstrate how the limb ratios therein are somehow supposed to be distinct from the "Khoisan limb ratios".
quote:rasol:
The issue isn't that tropical isn't a single set -> it is.
That is the issue. Reference above, and see what you need to do.
quote:rasol:
The issue is that 'people' don't necessarily have one set of characteristics that can be deemed tropical or non tropical.
"Black skin" is certainly a tropical characteristic, just as the supposed 'elongated body plan'. In tropical Africa alone, hair thickness is demonstrated to range from tightly curled hair to wavy types. Cranio-morphometric patterns in the region are again quite diverse. Yet "black" doesn't begin to give us a real sense of variation in the levels of melanin grandients observed across tropical Africa, and the so-called 'elongated body plan' certainly isn't the only 'body plan' exhibited by tropical Africans, which is all the more reason I'd like to examine the 'single set' that you proscribe to as 'tropical'.
quote:rasol:
It's critical to understand that the term tropical originates in skeletal anthropology as a specific reference to heat dissipating functionality of long tapering limbs and short torsos.
It is critical to understand that that this isn't the only context that 'tropical' has been used in physical anthropology. It has been used in craniometrics, and indeed, with respect to lineages, as Keita's papers attest to. *Anybody* who proclaims to come away from reading Keita's work, and only understand 'tropical African' to imply a single type of 'body plan', must have not been taking proper reading lessons.
quote:rasol:
The South African Khoisan do not typically have this feature [East African Khoisan may - the issue is not -Khoisan- as ethnic group, but rather adaptation to tropical environs]
What single body plan does tropical Africans supposedly have, and how is the Khoisan body plan supposed to stand out from that observed in this region? If you can establish that the body plans of other tropical Africans, besides the so-called 'elongated body plan' that you single out as 'tropical', aren't indigenous to the tropics, I will be glad to examine your authoritative sources.
quote:rasol:
South African Khoisan have arguably lived outside of the tropics for longer than Northern Eurasians, and some of their physical features, including lighter coloration of the skin compared with tropical Africans [including tropical Khoisan] and also distinct limb ratios reflect that.
Again, please demonstrate how Khoisan 'limb ratios' stand out from the range subsumed in Saharo-tropical Africa. The same with skin shade; demonstrate that Khoisan pigmentation is out of this range.
quote:rasol:
I am puzzled as to why you wish to label them tropical Africans, other than for the arbitrary and inaccurate point of giving them some label that is shared with - well - tropical Africans, ie - African who live in the tropics.
I can only assume you are puzzled, because you don't understand what Keita means by 'Saharo-tropical African' or 'tropical African' continuum, in which case, if so, then that would be your personal problem.
quote:rasol:
Ok, i'm not really puzzled.
One minute you are confused, and the next minute you aren't; which is it, rasol? Sounds like a confused personality.
quote:rasol:
It goes back to the futility of trying to turn and anthropology term into and ethnic label, or vice versa.
Tropical African, as used by Keita and *yourself*, is biological. Nobody is turning an ethnic term into an anthropological term here as a 'new event'; so you are really tackling a strawman here. The issue is the often proferred usage of 'black Africans' here, presumably not in a 'racial context', but merely alluding to the idea of dark skin, as an adaptive response to UV radiation. It is in this context, I reiterate, that 'Tropical African', or better yet 'Saharo-Tropical African', was used as a viable alternative, if not even more so.
quote:rasol:
This thread will never recover from that error, established in the parent post, and which turned it into a predictable quagmire, imho.
Haven't seen anything in the parent topic, which argues for turning 'black African' into ethnic or what not; I do however, understand from the intro-thread, that 'black African' seems to be something of an exception, with regards to 'color descriptor' in African studies discourse, whereas people of other continents are rarely designated so. The author of the thread makes his case for this, and so, I suggest you take that up with him.
I have not suggested turning a bio-anthropological term into an 'ethnic term'; however, in that 'black African' is passed off as a biological term, I am suggesting 'Saharo-tropical African', or else simply 'tropical African', as an alternative. I hope you now understand the difference between your charge of turning a biological term into an 'ethnic label', and that of advocating the usage of 'tropical African' as an alternative, whereby 'black African' is not presented as an 'ethnic label', but as a supposed biological term, alluding to dark skin.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:If they aren't part of the tropical African continuum
^ Continuum only requires relatedness to....every human being is part of the tropical African 'continuum', whether they are ethnically African or morphologically tropical or not, so the above sentense makes no sense.
quote: then why do you assume that they are 'black Africans',
Because they do, and they don't care about 'tropical african continuum' which is completely irrelevant.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- rasol: I stated that South African Khoisan do not have tropical limb ratios...probably because they do not live in the tropics, and are descendant to some degree from peoples who have lived outside the tropics for and astoundingly long time. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mystery solver: That's what doesn't make sense --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What? That the South African Khoisan don't have tropical limb ratios? That they are descendant from people who lived outside the tropics?
Those are the two facts cited above,and it isn't clear which one you are taking issue with, or how.
Maybe it's not meant to be clear?
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and which is what the question you are replying to is trying to get to the bottom of. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^ I don't know what this refers to. I don't think I'm supposed to by the way it's phrased.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you don't "ascribe Khoisan a body plan or say that it was unique", --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never did. You're choosing not to listen carefully to what I said, which results in asking faux questions which have already been answered.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- then what is your point about it being "non-tropical", --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point was as exact and clear as your determination to ignore it.
'South African' Khoisan have lived outside the tropics for millenia, have physically adapted to non tropical conditions, in ways that make them distinct from tropically adapted peoples.
They are no more tropical in many ways than coastal north Africans are.
And this makes perfect sense, as coastal South Africa is no more tropical than coastal North Africa. So it's wrong to pretend 'tropical' is some sort accurate biological description.
Anyway, I have concluded, by the nature of your reply that you understood every word of the above, but need to argue over it, to defend a fetishisation of the term 'tropical'.
When that happens, I just move on to the next thread....
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:rasol:
quote:mystery solver:
That's what doesn't make sense
What? That the South African Khoisan don't have tropical limb ratios? That they are descendant from people who lived outside the tropics?
Those are the two facts cited above,and it isn't clear which one you are taking issue with, or how.
Maybe it's not meant to be clear?…
quote: and which is what the question you are replying to is trying to get to the bottom of.
^ I don't know what this refers to. I don't think I'm supposed to by the way it's phrased.
…because you don’t know how to read complete comments it seems. If you aren’t busy ‘selectively’ breaking them down to segments, so that you can dodge them, perhaps then you’d be presenting answers, instead of questions underlying your confusion.
quote:rasol:
quote: If you don't "ascribe Khoisan a body plan or say that it was unique",
I never did. You're choosing not to listen carefully to what I said, which results in asking faux questions which have already been answered.
I have listened to what you said, and it implies to me what I deduced in the questions you evaded with incoherent selective reading and non-sequitur question-format responses, which are replete with nothing but your whining about being confused by something that shouldn't be. If it doesn’t have any implications, then of course, you had no point to make to begin with. If you can read the said questions carefully, rather than breaking them into pieces to provide non-sequitur questions as answers, I guarantee you, you’ll either have answers accordingly, or else won't have any. I suspect that the latter is at work here.
quote:rasol:
quote: then what is your point about it being "non-tropical",
The point was as exact and clear as your determination to ignore it.
Which again was…, and to which my follow up questions were answered where, i.e. without your classic non-sequitur and evasive questions for answers?
quote:rasol:
'South African' Khoisan have lived outside the tropics for millenia, have physically adapted to non tropical conditions, in ways that make them distinct from tropically adapted peoples.
You mentioned the Khoisan body plan and limb ratios earlier, and now, you’re trying to tell me you had no point in bringing them up?
quote:rasol:
They are no more tropical in many ways than coastal north Africans are.
I know this seems to be a very complex question for you, but I’ll take the liberty of asking it several times anyway: in what way does the ‘Khoisan body plan’ and 'limb ratios' stand out from those of tropical Africans, which are the items you’ve used to say that they are not ‘tropical’?
quote:rasol:
And this makes perfect sense, as coastal South Africa is no more tropical than coastal North Africa. So it's wrong to pretend 'tropical' is some sort accurate biological description.
Tropical African makes perfect sense as a biological term. If it didn’t make sense as a biological term, why then would Keita have used it as such; who has refuted its use in that regard, and when? And why have *you* used it in biological terms? This is the second time I’m asking you this, but I suspect, we'll get more breaking down of these very comments into ‘pieces’ you’d like to focus on, to hopefully fool yourself into thinking that you’ve succeeded in distracting the gullible ones from your lack of answers.
quote:rasol:
Anyway, I have concluded, by the nature of your reply that you understood every word of the above, but need to argue over it, to defend a fetishisation of the term 'tropical'.
I’ve concluded you’ve understood my questions, and know how damaging your answers to them would do to your so-called rationalization that “Khoisans are black”, and yet they cannot be part of the Saharo-tropical African biological continuum.
quote:rasol:
When that happens, I just move on to the next thread....
There is a term for what you’re doing here, rasol; it’s called a copout. Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
Overlooked these insertions in what appears to have been edited into the post I was replying to above, after my reply...
quote:rasol:
quote: If they aren't part of the tropical African continuum
^ Continuum only requires relatedness to....every human being is part of the tropical African 'continuum', whether they are ethnically African or morphologically tropical or not, so the above sentense makes no sense.
Of course it makes perfect sense; it doesn’t cease to, just because you’ve stopped understanding what it is involved at hand. Khoisans are still very much part of the tropical African continuum, as attested to by their TMRCA lineages. Not every human being shares the most recent common ancestor(s) with Africans.
quote:rasol:
quote: then why do you assume that they are 'black Africans',
Because they do, and they don't care about 'tropical african continuum' which is completely irrelevant.
If you can establish that Khoisans have always called themselves “black Africans”, as opposed to a response to a label that settler Europeans imposed on them, I’ll be glad to examine the basis for it.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:If you can establish that Khoisans have always called themselves “black Africans”, as opposed to a response to a label that settler Europeans imposed on them, I’ll be glad to examine the basis for it
Who asked you to examine anything?
Who is going to to stop being Black and become 'tropical' because of your issues?
Your psychological need to establish a fake ethnic label called tropical africans is your waste of time and your problem, not ours.
So you *examine that.*
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Mystery: What's your opinion about this exchange where it is said that Khoisan don't tropically adapted body? link I'm just curious because you didn't object to Thought's comment in 2004 although you were part of the discussion. AFRICA I The Black African
Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
AFRICA, stop putting words in my mouth. You know I don't agree with your views. Support your views with evidence not your false assumptions about what other posters think.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:If you can establish that Khoisans have always called themselves “black Africans”, as opposed to a response to a label that settler Europeans imposed on them, I’ll be glad to examine the basis for it
Who asked you to examine anything?
Nobody asks me to do anything. It was a request to produce substantiation accordingly. You either have the answer or you don't. It seems that you don't, and that's all there is to it.
quote:rasol:
Who is going to to stop being Black and become 'tropical' because of your issues?
Who suggested otherwise, other than you chasing whatever fragile straws you feel that you can cling onto? Has nothing to do with anything I've said. I suggest you take some strong coffee, liven yourself, and then engage yourself with the discussion at hand.
quote:rasol:
Your psychological need to establish a fake ethnic label called tropical africans is your waste of time and your problem, not ours.
Citation is in order. [Insults redacted - Henu]
quote:rasol:
So you *examine that.*
You bet; your nonsensical response has been examined above. What remains, is your acceptance and not 'denial' of it as such. [Insults redacted - Henu]
Mystery Solver, please avoid insults and otherwise instigating comments in your responses - Henu
[ 17. August 2007, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Henu ]
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:Yom:AFRICA, stop putting words in my mouth. You know I don't agree with your views. Support your views with evidence not your false assumptions about what other posters think.
As requested:
quote:Yom:Yonis is 100% Black African (not African American).
The Black African.
Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
^^That has nothing to do with what's at hand:
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
Here is the deal, you take the Black(in Black African) and we native African take back African(in African American). Hint: it is true that the majority of Africans define themselves as belonging to ethnic groups then as Africans...but the term Black is found in many languages to define Black Africans from other groups who are not as dark because of some non African ancestry or because they are non Africans who are not as dark...so it is part of the African landscape and here to stay...Yom is aware of that, Rasol as well and myself included...let's take back African from African American...and please refrain from delving in your fantasies, you can't impose your point of view to a whole group people who can't care less about your wishes...You have a problem with Black Africans...Even AE defined themselves as Black with respect to lighter folks. It's possible that it has no scientific meaning but it's a social and sometime political reality...but definitely other social aspect are more important like your ethnic background or even your geographical background than the color of your skin in an African context...
That's what I object to. Variations in color aren't due to admixture and/or non-Africanness. Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:That's what I object to. Variations in color aren't due to admixture and/or non-Africanness.
There is higher diversity in skin complexion among Africans than any human groups on earth...What I meant is that there is a certain limit in the skin complexion where you can tell if someone is mixed or not aka mulatto...simple observation...and those people are not called Black among Africans, but something else: either white or something else...
Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:That's what I object to. Variations in color aren't due to admixture and/or non-Africanness.
There is higher diversity in skin complexion among Africans than any human groups on earth...What I meant is that there is a certain limit in the skin complexion where you can tell if someone is mixed or not aka mulatto...simple observation...and those people are not called Black among Africans, but something else: either white or something else...
What you implied was that all African groups that use "black" for other darker African groups are either of non-African origin or have non-African influence. Most Africans are nowhere near as dark as the Nilotes that border Ethiopia, so it's no wonder that they are classified differently in Ethiopia.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:What you implied was that all African groups that use "black" for other darker African groups are either of non-African origin or have non-African influence.
Nope, read my post again I didn't say that...many of my relatives are quite light but they view themselves as Black...what I meant is that Africans define themselves as Black with respect to Arabs, mixed Africans they encounter or Europeans. There are specific terms that define Black in many African languages even AE defined themselves as Black(I don't know about Semitic Ethiopians or Cushitic speakers, you tell me) to describe their human phenotype with respect to non Black people(meaning who have obvious foreign ancestry or are non African)...my relatives are light, medium light or dark to very dark, but all have an African pigmentation...but they all view themselves as Black African. For example in Kenya and Tanzania (Swahili speakers who live with many non Africans: Arabs, European...) someone with some form of foreign admixture would be called if I remember: Arabu or something of the equivalent of mix-mix. Conclusion: You didn't understand my previous post..
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:Mystery: What's your opinion about this exchange where it is said that Khoisan don't tropically adapted body?
link I'm just curious because you didn't object to Thought's comment in 2004 although you were part of the discussion. AFRICA I The Black African
I hope you are still around and not banned Supercar...your insults are incontrollable..
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
For any poster here who doubt that Black Africans do exist and are aware of their identity(it's native and not imported), I had many leucoderm friends from the Maghreb, even to this day Arab and Berbers mingle with Black Africans in social settings...same thing with Arab Sudanese(they are all Africans anyway)...BUT:
Grim New Turn Likely to Harden Darfur Conflict(New York Times) By LYDIA POLGREEN Published: October 23, 2006
ON THE CHAD-SUDAN BORDER, Oct. 20 — Haroun Abdullah Kabir stepped from one bloodied corpse to another on the parched, rocky battlefield. He searched the soldiers’ decomposing faces for an aquiline nose, fair complexion or fine, straight hair: telltale Arab features.
An unidentified Sudanese soldier, left, and Nireen Mina, a rebel, both victims of a battle on Oct. 7, were treated last week in the Darfur region. More Photos »
Instead Mr. Kabir, a field commander of the Darfur rebels fighting the Arab-dominated Sudanese government, found among the Sudanese soldiers his men had felled only the dark-skinned faces of southern Sudanese and Darfurians. He looked away in disgust.
“You see, they send black men to kill black men,” he said. “We are waiting for them to send Arabs for a real fight.”
Jeune Afrique l’Intelligent, Nos. 2266, 2270, 2273–76, JuneAugust 2004, Paris
During its colonial rule, France enlisted West Africans to fight on its behalf in regiments called the Tirailleurs Sénégalais. One of the battlefields was the Maghreb, the Arabic word for the region comprising Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia. The French did not create racial enmity in the region—Moroccan dynasties brought subSaharan Africans north as soldiers and slaves centuries earlier—but they exploited and exacerbated it for their own ends. Today, as fresh waves of migrants make their way to the region, old patterns of mistrust are reemerging.
Thousands of subSaharan Africans fleeing poverty and political strife have arrived in the Maghreb in recent years. This influx has garnered much attention in local media, but what receives less attention is Maghrebi hostility toward the new arrivals and the patterns of discrimination toward darkskinned Maghrebis upon which it builds. Last summer, the Parisbased magazine Jeune Afrique l’Intelligent launched a fivepart series titled “Are Maghrebis Racist?” to provoke debate about this taboo subject. The magazine itself is no stranger to controversy. It was founded in Tunisia in 1960 and associated with the nationalist and panAfrican projects of that period. The magazine once critiqued Moroccan regimes, but it is now criticized by independent Maghrebi media for being too close to the state.
Maghrebi racism is highly controversial because it contradicts national ideologies of tolerance, as well as constitutional and religious doctrines of equality. The testimonials that make up the bulk of the series focus on this hypocrisy. Staff writer Cherif Ouazani...
And Zanzibar
Zanzibar Independence: Declaration that misfired
2007-01-16 10:01:30 By Keregero Keregero
The independence of Zanzibar and the ensuing revolution were not an accidental occurrence. The people needed to govern themselves; they wanted to be free to determine their own destiny without the interference of any other sovereignty.
The 1963 Independence Conference was therefore convened. The conference involving both the government and opposition sides was held at Lancaster House in London from 20th to 24th September, 1963 to deliberate on the issue. It was agreed that Zanzibar should become fully independent on 10th December, 1963.
The proceedings were under the chairmanship of the British Secretary of State and the ideas that came about were adopted. One of the most significant changes was that the Sultan would be declared the Head of State of Zanzibar (British government, 1963).
On 10th December, 1963 the British government declared the Independence of Zanzibar and handed sovereignty to the Sultan, hence cementing Arab domination of the islands.
That is how the efforts towards true independence for the African majority by constitutional means came crashing to a halt shortly after it had been declared.
But the British colonialists left behind a political mess and a complete failure to deliver justice of which they surely could not boast about.
Disgruntled with what had happened alternative ways had to be sought by the victimised African majority and the final solution was to come through the 1964 revolution.
Although they had traded along the Coast for centuries, the Arabs were among the latter settlers in Zanzibar when it already had a substantial population.
It therefore defies logic even to contemplate that Zanzibar could possibly grow to an authentic Arab state.
It is evident that the colonial desire to develop Zanzibar as an Arab state lacked any historical, ethnographic or linguistic support. It was merely an expedient political decision forced upon Africans so that they could be effectively kept forever under Arab subjugation.
The justification underlying the revolution, that is the bold decision of the courageous Zanzibar African youths to organise and carry out the revolution of 1964 was a precursor to centuries of oppression, subordination and humiliation of Africans by foreign rulers.
In other words the revolution was a byproduct of polycentric considerations which included the slave master sentiments.
Africans had continued to suffer from the most dehumanising slave/master relationship to which they were subjected to in the 18th and 19th centuries in the form of slavery.
They continued to suffer from residual effects even after the abolition of the slave trade.
These experiences entrenched themselves in Zanzibar during the whole period of struggle for independence, reaching the level of racial injustice.
Another reason that caused the revolution was the long and rather deep- rooted desire by Arab rulers and the British colonialists to make Zanzibar an Arab state.
As a matter of fact a British colonialist Ingram had described Zanzibar ``an Arab state`` as far back as 1926.
Sir Alan Pim had also claimed that Zanzibar was ��an Arab state both in origin and constitution,`` whereas Sir Vincent Glendley had visualised Zanzibar as ``an Arab Sultanate``.
The colonial desire to develop Zanzibar as an Arab state was therefore a pure fantasy that lacked any logical support from historical, geographical, linguistic and racial perspectives.
Zanzibar was for Zanzibaris, the only people who had African origins and not the Arabs or any other foreigners.
Segregation of the Africans in Zanzibar especially in access to social services was another factor that compounded further the already lop-sided relationship which finally blew up into a revolution.
There was tangible discrimination in the delivery of education, medical treatment, housing and water services, only to mention but a few.
For instance, exorbitant medical fees charged in hospitals could only be afforded by the rich Indian merchants and Arab landlords.
Different grades for medical services rendered were introduced, with the African natives assuming the last grade.
But segregation was also felt in the social associations formed along lines of racial bigotry.
However, such attitude could not continue further as a wind of political change for independence was blowing across the continent of Africa and Zanzibar was no exception to this tide of historical necessity.
It is no wonder that in the prevailing circumstances, the people of Zanzibar were fed up and could not in any possible peaceful means whatsoever, resolve the political crisis except through the barrel of the gun.
And, that is exactly what happened at the zero hour on the material day. The revolution remains to be the sole historical milestone and an impregnable guiding spirit that serves to explain in no terms of incertitude, Zanzibar`s present and future development.
After Independence, the revolution and the formation of the Union what next for Zanzibar?
Zanzibar should now forge ahead with invigorated dedication. Much as it opposed racial bigotry and attendant isolationist tendencies in the past it must not let them loosely creep in again.
With a dedicated and strong political leadership that Zanzibar enjoys at the moment, I harbour no doubt at all in my mind that great progress will be made in the interest of the people of Zanzibar and Tanzania in general.
The British colonialist administration is long gone and the Sultanate hegemony long toppled.
The bitter historical record should now be transformed into an avenue of meaningful progress and development.
Long live Zanzibar as she proudly marks her 43rd independence anniversary amidst remarkable achievements and progress made despite the attendant challenges and shortcomings encountered.
* SOURCE: Guardian
Keep in mind that Black African Zanzibari were Muslims but they knew that Arab and Europeans had a common interest: the oppression of Black Africans. The same thing happened in Mauritania were the leucoderms (Arabized and Europeans) united against Black Africans...same story in Sudan...Arabs and Europeans slept in the same bed for along time while plotting against Black Africans... Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:If you can establish that Khoisans have always called themselves “black Africans”, as opposed to a response to a label that settler Europeans imposed on them, I’ll be glad to examine the basis for it
Who asked you to examine anything?
Nobody asks me to do anything. It was a request to produce substantiation accordingly. You either have the answer or you don't. It seems that you don't, and that's all there is to it.
quote:rasol:
Who is going to to stop being Black and become 'tropical' because of your issues?
Who suggested otherwise, other than you chasing whatever fragile straws you feel that you can cling onto? Has nothing to do with anything I've said. I suggest you take some strong coffee, liven yourself, and then engage yourself with the discussion at hand.
quote:rasol:
Your psychological need to establish a fake ethnic label called tropical africans is your waste of time and your problem, not ours.
Citation is in order. [Insults redacted - Henu]
quote:rasol:
So you *examine that.*
You bet; your nonsensical response has been examined above. What remains, is your acceptance and not 'denial' of it as such. [Insults redacted - Henu]
Mystery Solver, please avoid insults and otherwise instigating comments in your responses - Henu
Not a single language in the post, that didn't match that of the person I was replying to. What you simply did, was to delete requests made of the said poster, and passed them off as 'insults'. Just inexperienced and prejudiced moderation at work.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:Mystery: What's your opinion about this exchange where it is said that Khoisan don't tropically adapted body?
link I'm just curious because you didn't object to Thought's comment in 2004 although you were part of the discussion. AFRICA I The Black African
Is it an evasion....
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:Mystery: What's your opinion about this exchange where it is said that Khoisan don't tropically adapted body?
link I'm just curious because you didn't object to Thought's comment in 2004 although you were part of the discussion. AFRICA I The Black African
Is it an evasion....
Africa, first of all, in terms of your earlier reply, I can certainly understand why you thumb your nose at virtually toothless warnings of biased moderators to your flame baits, as you have done more than once in this thread alone, and yet have the audacity to speak about legitimate posts deleted by a prejudiced moderator.
Now to your post. Of course it makes just about little sense as you usually do. What am I supposed to be evading, if you just drop a link without the relevant citations?
I've noticed that the two posters here who have thrown strawmen at me, never provide citations. I reckon that it is because deception is at hand. Now of course, I'd refer to such deception as a 'lie', but then Henu the moderator might just come in and delete that post, and call it an insult [while outright gratuitous profanity attacks are regarded as being normal and courteous, as suggested by the repetitive requested actions against them that have thus far gone unheeded in other occasions]. Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote: Thought2 Member
Posts: 432 Registered: May 2004 posted 16 November 2004 12:48 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Thought2 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Thought: Linking dark skin to tropical limb ratio perhaps?
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 16 November 2004).]
Thought Writes:
Yes. And it is of note that Khosians are NOT tropically adapted in terms of limb ratios!
no excited reaction from supercar unlike in this thread you said nothing, why this change of heart...tell us...please...
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote: Thought2 Member
Posts: 432 Registered: May 2004 posted 16 November 2004 12:48 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Thought2 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Thought: Linking dark skin to tropical limb ratio perhaps?
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 16 November 2004).]
Thought Writes:
Yes. And it is of note that Khosians are NOT tropically adapted in terms of limb ratios!
no excited reaction from supercar unlike in this thread you said nothing, why this change of heart...tell us...please...
That's more like it. Producing the relevant citation with links, so that people can get a deeper feel for what is involved.
Having said that, I find it funny that you proclaim that I have a change of heart, while saying that I had no response. If I didn't respond, then how are you supposed to know if there has been a change of heart? And change of heart from what specific issue into what?
I will tell you this though...
At the time, in case you didn't notice it, I was focused on some other issue at hand with a specific poster therein, that many others too seemed to have been preoccupied with at the time. This would be that "Orionix" personality. So, Thought's comment wasn't exactly on my priority list at the time.
The situation is different today, aside from the fact that the topics that you are comparing couldn't be more distinct, because it was my post this time around, that somebody decided to pick on and raised some issues therein, upon which I responded accordingly. Amongst these issues, was the notion that Khoisans aren't tropically adapted when it comes to limb ratios. My legitimate response to this, was whether there was supposed to be a definitive set of limb ratios indigenous to tropical Africa. And of course, that question was greeted with a bunch of evasive emotional banter.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Now it's clear...now show us that Southern African San speakers are tropically adapted with scientific sources...please...
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
Now it's clear...now show us that Southern African San speakers are tropically adapted with scientific sources...please...
Depends on what you've cited me on as being specifically tropically adapted. Citation...please...
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote: Your comment makes it seem that tropical Africans are supposed to have another set of body plan, that is distinct from Khoisan 'body plan', when in reality, tropical Africans come in a wide range of body sizes, including limb-ratios.
"Tropical African" here, specifically "Saharo-Tropical African", is used in biological terms, denoting indigenous biological characteristics subsumed in these regions, as anybody who can read Keita's piece would understand it to be. Khoisans need not continue to live in the tropics to be deemed part of this biological continuum.
What is the limb-ratios range and body size of tropically adapted African, and where do Khoisans from Southern Africa fit in...I'm here to learn...do you have any scientific material?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote: Your comment makes it seem that tropical Africans are supposed to have another set of body plan, that is distinct from Khoisan 'body plan', when in reality, tropical Africans come in a wide range of body sizes, including limb-ratios.
"Tropical African" here, specifically "Saharo-Tropical African", is used in biological terms, denoting indigenous biological characteristics subsumed in these regions, as anybody who can read Keita's piece would understand it to be. Khoisans need not continue to live in the tropics to be deemed part of this biological continuum.
What is the limb-ratios range and body size of tropically adapted African, and where do Khoisans from Southern Africa fit in...I'm here to learn...do you have any scientific material?
Okay, so you've cited me on the idea of Khoisans being part of the Saharo-tropical African biological continuum; what you haven't cited me on, is any mention of specific tropically adapted trait. I'm here to learn and teach...do you have citations for your charge?
As another counter request, please provide scientific material on what makes Khoisan limb ratios stand out from those indigenous to the tropics.
quote:Africa:
hat is the limb-ratios range and body size of tropically adapted African,...
You've been shown this Hiernaux piece time and again, but it it seems that you never learn from it...
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Alright so let's continue my learning: Where can we find the limb ratios in the attached document?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: Alright so let's continue my learning: Where can we find the limb ratios in the attached document?
Same question here, since it is you who spearheaded the issue of limb ratios in our discourse, the burden is on you to produce what you feel is confined to tropical Africa, and that which is supposed to make Khoisans uniquely stand out, presumably as an adaptive response to the 'sub-tropics'. Go ahead, and produce the scientific documentation that you've been evading to produce, by asking questions that have no bearings on anything I've said.
I've done my part and provided you with a by-now familiar bio-anthropological piece, detailing body sizes. You do the math from there, with respect to average limb ratios. You don't have a problem with mathematics, do you?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
By the way, in the Hiernaux piece, the Khoisans are noted for relative prevalence of steatopygia. Do you think that this is a sub-tropically adapted trait?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
What can tell us about the environment to which Khoisan peppercorn hair is an adaptive response to?
While you are at it, can you tell us about Khoisan lineages, how they don't seem to be typical of those that originate and directly descend from tropical Africa? In other words, new sets of distinctive phylogenetic lines delineated from preexisting tropical African macro-haplogroups like say Hg A, Hg B, Hg E and so forth.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:I've done my part and provided you with a by-now familiar bio-anthropological piece, detailing body sizes. You do the math from their, with respect to average limb ratios. You don't have a problem with mathematics, do you?
Let me expose publicly your dishonesty or your genus in mathematics: here is a human limb ratio analysis: intermembral ratio=arm length×100/leg. Now explain to me how I can do that analysis from the document you provided...please let me know?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:I've done my part and provided you with a by-now familiar bio-anthropological piece, detailing body sizes. You do the math from their, with respect to average limb ratios. You don't have a problem with mathematics, do you?
Let me expose publicly your dishonesty or your genus in mathematics: here is a human limb ratio analysis: intermembral ratio=arm length×100/leg. Now explain to me how I can do that analysis from the document you provided...please let me know?
You are right. You are useless in generating little common sense even in issues that you generally bring up. People with intermediate body sizes generally come with intermediate limb proportions, in view with their torso size. Those who come with the tall so-called "elongated body plan' come with relatively elongated limb proportions, somewhat relatively long for their torso size. Dwarfs or Pygmies on the other hand, usually have short limb proportions, relatively short in view with their torso size, not to mention the 'head' in some occasions. When I say do the math, this is the sort I meant by it, by way of common-sensical deduction, which you've made it apparent that you are incapable of doing.
Where are your answers to *anything* I've requested you to produce? None that's what. You're full of hot air. If you were a balloon, you'd be floating by now.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
Oh yeah, Africa, what do you make of the idea that the so-called Bushmen reside in the Kalahari desert which extends into tropical Africa?
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
intermembral ratio=arm length×100/leg. They never told you to be more rigorous in Science:"common-sensical deduction", I hope that's the your only option in Scientific analysis, because you won't go too far without hardcore data in Science...that's floppy Science and you know that you are being dishonest...anyway let's go past your dishonesty and ask Rasol to corroborate his position regarding the Sans from Southern Africa with the following: Modern human, early modern human and Neanderthal limb proportions A.M.W. Porter * Redcrest, Heath Rise, Camberley, Surrey, UK
*Correspondence to A.M.W. Porter, Redcrest, Heath Rise, Camberley, Surrey GU15 2ER, UK
Keywords limb abbreviation; brachial index; crural index; thermoregulation; Neanderthal; humans; early modern humans
Mystery, Let's continue my learning, Europeans are intermediate, does it mean they are shorter than the Sans on average?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
intermembral ratio=arm length×100/leg. They never told you to be more rigorous in Science:"common-sensical deduction", I hope that's the your only option in Scientific analysis, because you won't go too far without hardcore data in Science...that's floppy Science and you know that you are being dishonest...anyway let's go past your dishonesty
What's dishonest, is your bringing up limb ratios to make a point, and you're asking me to prove it for you. I provided body sizes in the Hiernaux piece, since you mentioned them, and therein a wide range of body sizes have been shown in groups that live in tropical Africa. Given this, my friend, the burden is on you to reveal to us, what you find so exceptional about the Khoisan "limb ratios". Your issue, your burden.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
You didn't bring the data I was requesting, just come up with hardcore data and you will be taken more seriously: limb ratio range among tropical Africans which include San speakers from Southern Africa...now Rasol, how the above study supports your claim that San-speaking people from Southern Africa are not tropically adapted... P.S:You publicly ignored the following question: "Mystery, Let's continue my learning, Europeans are intermediate, does it mean they are shorter than the Sans on average?" another proof of your dishonesty.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
You didn't bring the data I was requesting, just come up with hardcore data and you will be taken more seriously: limb ratio range among tropical Africans which include San speakers from Southern Africa
*You didn't produce the necessary citation that necessitates that I bring that data that you're trying to get me to produce for your lazy self, since it is you who professed that Khoisan "limb ratio" is supposed to somehow help you make a case.
*You simply flaunt "Khoisan limb ratios aren't tropically adapted" as though you have a point to make, parroting people who are equally pointless in bringing it up.
Yes, I know what is at stake in terms of limb ratios, and can deduce from common sense what the various stature implicate, but I would have to actually do measurements to produce "hard data", which in any case, is not my obligation to produce, but squarely your own, as I have just noted.
*In that you brought it up supposedly to make a point, Africa, wouldn't any normal human being deduce that you produce the requested evidence and make a point, instead of pointlessly mentioning it, and pointlessly asking me to substantiate it for a yet to be determined point that you're hoping to make?
*You didn't bring data for the multitude of questions and requests you were asked to address?
*Even though you brought up the issue of body size, when confronted with scientific publication on wide ranging body sizes in tropical Africa, you failed to address it to make your point in bringing it up, yet again.
[Insult redacted - Henu]
quote:Africa:
P.S:You publicly ignored the following question: "Mystery, Let's continue my learning, Europeans are intermediate, does it mean they are shorter than the Sans on average?" another proof of your dishonesty.
I'm hereby not ignoring your so called question, by asking you that, since you brought it up, then you must have a point. Well, produce the data for the question you are asking.
[Insult redacted - Henu]
1)You proclaimed that I ignored your thoughtless question, which of course has nothing to do with anything said by anyone else save for your own weirdo self, and then you go onto say it is somehow dishonesty. Tell me how your assumptive question, reflects on my honesty.
2)Africa, do you have a single point to make in this entire exchange. I have not come across any, other than your super weird efforts of spamming the thread with flame baits.
[ 18. August 2007, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: Henu ]
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
please provide the following:
quote:limb ratio range among tropical Africans which include San speakers from Southern Africa
By the way that's my last post where you are the subject among others...don't waste your time reacting to my posts if you can't provide hardcore data...
[Insults redacted - Henu]
[ 18. August 2007, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Henu ]
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Africa edits:
don't waste your time reacting to my posts if you can't provide hardcore data...
That would be dependent on your avoidance at any cost, from asking strawman and red herrings in question format, with regards to peusdo-points that you bring up without material, but hope for the gullible one turn your non-existent point into some actual point, that you're pretending to be making.
[Insults redacted - Henu]
[ 18. August 2007, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: Henu ]
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
If anyone is interested I would like to invite anyone who reads this thread to provide the following scientific data:
quote:limb ratio range among tropical Africans which include San speakers
I know that some people have access to Scientific Anthropology Journals...please provide your input...bring some raw data...I don't know Rasol or Mystery Solver...let's put science where it deserve to be...Rasol and Mystery Solver don't exist in front of Science...Anyone who can bring the juice above...you are welcome...let's be scientists...
Posted by Henu (Member # 13490) on :
AFRICA I and Mystery Solver, this is each your first official warning. Do not continue to post insults and instigate other members. If another member does so, ignore him/her and/or that part of his post, and notify me (PM or "Report Post"). That poster will be dealt with. Do not respond in kind.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Henu:
AFRICA I and Mystery Solver, this is each your first official warning. Do not continue to post insults and instigate other members. If another member does so, ignore him/her and/or that part of his post, and notify me (PM or "Report Post"). That poster will be dealt with. Do not respond in kind.
Produce the citations of wherein I instigate other members. You never bother reading the exchanges to discern who starts these things, and only when I retaliate you complain. When I ask you to take action, before I react, you don't do so, and now you're telling me that the offender will be dealt with. Fine then; you had better believe it. I won't waste anytime when I come across the offender, expecting you to take the necessary action without delay!
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:You're a fake African
It's not the first time you are saying that...although none of my countrymen know that...I know West African history: are you European or African? I mean the Moor Muslim spread from Senegal up to Portugal and Spain...are you guys from West Africa real Africans? Here is your brother, that's why I'm confused about Muslims from East Africa and West Africa...you don't know where they come from European? Arabs? You don't know...The only people in Somalia who I think are Africans originally are the Hawiye, maybe the Dir(Issa and Gadabursi) but the Darod and Issaq, they have to prove it since they claim Arab ancestors.... Mr. Haďdara is a descendant of the Kati family, a prominent Muslim family in Toledo, Spain. One of his ancestors fled religious persecution in the 15th century and settled in what is now Mali, bringing his formidable library with him. The Kati family intermarried into the Songhai imperial family, and the habit Mr. Haďdara's ancestors had of doodling notes in the margins of their manuscripts has left an abundance of historical information: births and deaths in the imperial family, the weather, drafts of imperial letters, herbal cures, records of slaves, and salt and gold traded.
Posted by Henu (Member # 13490) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Henu:
AFRICA I and Mystery Solver, this is each your first official warning. Do not continue to post insults and instigate other members. If another member does so, ignore him/her and/or that part of his post, and notify me (PM or "Report Post"). That poster will be dealt with. Do not respond in kind.
Produce the citations of wherein I instigate other members. You never bother reading the exchanges to discern who starts these things, and only when I retaliate you complain. When I ask you to take action, before I react, you don't do so, and now you're telling me that the offender will be dealt with. Fine then; you had better believe it. I won't waste anytime when I come across the offender, expecting you to take the necessary action without delay!
It's impossible now, the insults have been deleted. I didn't say you instigated, AFRICA I did. You did, however, respond to his insults with insults, even after being warned. Please just ignore them and report them in the future.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:You're a fake African
It's not the first time you are saying that...although none of my countrymen know that...I know West African history: are you European or African? I mean the Moor Muslim spread from Senegal up to Portugal and Spain...are you guys from West Africa real Africans? Here is your brother, that's why I'm confused about Muslims from East Africa and West Africa...you don't know where they come from European? Arabs? You don't know...
Alright then moderator Henu, what action do you intend to take, as apparently this personality doesn't take you seriously?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
You heard from the moderator. I see an offense report it, and so I await the action.
[ 18. August 2007, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: Henu ]
Posted by Henu (Member # 13490) on :
Post deleted. AFRICA I, consider this your second official warning. One more and you will be banned. It would be in your best interest to either return to polite debate or not participate until you can.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Alright...
Posted by Neith-Athena (Member # 10040) on :
Why not just use "indigenous" African? Leucoderms are not indigenous to Africa. Or "Native African," just as "Native American" is used for Indians in the Americas? "Black Africa" does give the impression that Blacks are a special interest group even on their own native land, that there is something alien or abnormal about being Black to the point that skin pigmentation is the only salient quality of Africans, and deletes the history of migrations and colonization that brought Eurasians from the Neolithic to the present time into North Africa. It also allows the unthinking, brainwashed majority of humanity to keep on thinking that the civilizations of North Africa, including Egypt, were created by Eurasians.
The problem with "indigenous African" for example, is that if you are a Berber with a Eurasian phenotype, you might automatically be thought an alien to the continent, when in fact your ancestors have been on the continent for many generations, being the product of miscegenation between the Black North African indigenes and the Mediterranean Sea Peoples. But that is not as bad as seeing all Blacks in North Africa as the descendants of enslaved inner Africans.
But "Black African" and "sub-Saharan Africa" (the latter unless a strictly geographic denotation) do have to be done away with. Blackness has to be normalized and not seen as a badge of shame, of utter alienness to the European norm created by imperialism. Equally annoying is when someone says he/she has travelled to Africa or volunteered in Africa without naming countries. They do not do the same for Asia, Latin America, much less Europe. It is like Africa (segregated in their minds from North Africa, which equals the Middle East to them) is one undifferentiated mass of blackness, squalor, AIDS, tribalism, famine, corrupt governments, etc.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: For any poster here who doubt that Black Africans do exist and are aware of their identity(it's native and not imported), I had many leucoderm friends from the Maghreb, even to this day Arab and Berbers mingle with Black Africans in social settings...same thing with Arab Sudanese(they are all Africans anyway)...BUT:
Grim New Turn Likely to Harden Darfur Conflict(New York Times) By LYDIA POLGREEN Published: October 23, 2006
ON THE CHAD-SUDAN BORDER, Oct. 20 — Haroun Abdullah Kabir stepped from one bloodied corpse to another on the parched, rocky battlefield. He searched the soldiers’ decomposing faces for an aquiline nose, fair complexion or fine, straight hair: telltale Arab features.
An unidentified Sudanese soldier, left, and Nireen Mina, a rebel, both victims of a battle on Oct. 7, were treated last week in the Darfur region. More Photos »
Instead Mr. Kabir, a field commander of the Darfur rebels fighting the Arab-dominated Sudanese government, found among the Sudanese soldiers his men had felled only the dark-skinned faces of southern Sudanese and Darfurians. He looked away in disgust.
“You see, they send black men to kill black men,” he said. “We are waiting for them to send Arabs for a real fight.”
The question I have is: Were these Sudanese soldiers from the south or 'Darfurian'?? Remember, that the vast majority of Sudanese so-called 'Arabs' have little to no Arab ancestry at all.
Jeune Afrique l’Intelligent, Nos. 2266, 2270, 2273–76, JuneAugust 2004, Paris
During its colonial rule, France enlisted West Africans to fight on its behalf in regiments called the Tirailleurs Sénégalais. One of the battlefields was the Maghreb, the Arabic word for the region comprising Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia. The French did not create racial enmity in the region—Moroccan dynasties brought subSaharan Africans north as soldiers and slaves centuries earlier—but they exploited and exacerbated it for their own ends. Today, as fresh waves of migrants make their way to the region, old patterns of mistrust are reemerging.
Thousands of subSaharan Africans fleeing poverty and political strife have arrived in the Maghreb in recent years. This influx has garnered much attention in local media, but what receives less attention is Maghrebi hostility toward the new arrivals and the patterns of discrimination toward darkskinned Maghrebis upon which it builds. Last summer, the Parisbased magazine Jeune Afrique l’Intelligent launched a fivepart series titled “Are Maghrebis Racist?” to provoke debate about this taboo subject. The magazine itself is no stranger to controversy. It was founded in Tunisia in 1960 and associated with the nationalist and panAfrican projects of that period. The magazine once critiqued Moroccan regimes, but it is now criticized by independent Maghrebi media for being too close to the state.
Maghrebi racism is highly controversial because it contradicts national ideologies of tolerance, as well as constitutional and religious doctrines of equality. The testimonials that make up the bulk of the series focus on this hypocrisy. Staff writer Cherif Ouazani...
The independence of Zanzibar and the ensuing revolution were not an accidental occurrence. The people needed to govern themselves; they wanted to be free to determine their own destiny without the interference of any other sovereignty.
The 1963 Independence Conference was therefore convened. The conference involving both the government and opposition sides was held at Lancaster House in London from 20th to 24th September, 1963 to deliberate on the issue. It was agreed that Zanzibar should become fully independent on 10th December, 1963.
The proceedings were under the chairmanship of the British Secretary of State and the ideas that came about were adopted. One of the most significant changes was that the Sultan would be declared the Head of State of Zanzibar (British government, 1963).
On 10th December, 1963 the British government declared the Independence of Zanzibar and handed sovereignty to the Sultan, hence cementing Arab domination of the islands.
That is how the efforts towards true independence for the African majority by constitutional means came crashing to a halt shortly after it had been declared.
But the British colonialists left behind a political mess and a complete failure to deliver justice of which they surely could not boast about.
Disgruntled with what had happened alternative ways had to be sought by the victimised African majority and the final solution was to come through the 1964 revolution.
Although they had traded along the Coast for centuries, the Arabs were among the latter settlers in Zanzibar when it already had a substantial population.
It therefore defies logic even to contemplate that Zanzibar could possibly grow to an authentic Arab state.
It is evident that the colonial desire to develop Zanzibar as an Arab state lacked any historical, ethnographic or linguistic support. It was merely an expedient political decision forced upon Africans so that they could be effectively kept forever under Arab subjugation.
The justification underlying the revolution, that is the bold decision of the courageous Zanzibar African youths to organise and carry out the revolution of 1964 was a precursor to centuries of oppression, subordination and humiliation of Africans by foreign rulers.
In other words the revolution was a byproduct of polycentric considerations which included the slave master sentiments.
Africans had continued to suffer from the most dehumanising slave/master relationship to which they were subjected to in the 18th and 19th centuries in the form of slavery.
They continued to suffer from residual effects even after the abolition of the slave trade.
These experiences entrenched themselves in Zanzibar during the whole period of struggle for independence, reaching the level of racial injustice.
Another reason that caused the revolution was the long and rather deep- rooted desire by Arab rulers and the British colonialists to make Zanzibar an Arab state.
As a matter of fact a British colonialist Ingram had described Zanzibar ``an Arab state`` as far back as 1926.
Sir Alan Pim had also claimed that Zanzibar was ��an Arab state both in origin and constitution,`` whereas Sir Vincent Glendley had visualised Zanzibar as ``an Arab Sultanate``.
The colonial desire to develop Zanzibar as an Arab state was therefore a pure fantasy that lacked any logical support from historical, geographical, linguistic and racial perspectives.
Zanzibar was for Zanzibaris, the only people who had African origins and not the Arabs or any other foreigners.
Segregation of the Africans in Zanzibar especially in access to social services was another factor that compounded further the already lop-sided relationship which finally blew up into a revolution.
There was tangible discrimination in the delivery of education, medical treatment, housing and water services, only to mention but a few.
For instance, exorbitant medical fees charged in hospitals could only be afforded by the rich Indian merchants and Arab landlords.
Different grades for medical services rendered were introduced, with the African natives assuming the last grade.
But segregation was also felt in the social associations formed along lines of racial bigotry.
However, such attitude could not continue further as a wind of political change for independence was blowing across the continent of Africa and Zanzibar was no exception to this tide of historical necessity.
It is no wonder that in the prevailing circumstances, the people of Zanzibar were fed up and could not in any possible peaceful means whatsoever, resolve the political crisis except through the barrel of the gun.
And, that is exactly what happened at the zero hour on the material day. The revolution remains to be the sole historical milestone and an impregnable guiding spirit that serves to explain in no terms of incertitude, Zanzibar`s present and future development.
After Independence, the revolution and the formation of the Union what next for Zanzibar?
Zanzibar should now forge ahead with invigorated dedication. Much as it opposed racial bigotry and attendant isolationist tendencies in the past it must not let them loosely creep in again.
With a dedicated and strong political leadership that Zanzibar enjoys at the moment, I harbour no doubt at all in my mind that great progress will be made in the interest of the people of Zanzibar and Tanzania in general.
The British colonialist administration is long gone and the Sultanate hegemony long toppled.
The bitter historical record should now be transformed into an avenue of meaningful progress and development.
Long live Zanzibar as she proudly marks her 43rd independence anniversary amidst remarkable achievements and progress made despite the attendant challenges and shortcomings encountered.
* SOURCE: Guardian
[quote]Keep in mind that Black African Zanzibari were Muslims but they knew that Arab and Europeans had a common interest: the oppression of Black Africans. The same thing happened in Mauritania were the leucoderms (Arabized and Europeans) united against Black Africans...same story in Sudan...Arabs and Europeans slept in the same bed for along time while plotting against Black Africans...
Of course, when two groups share the same interest (in this case, supremacy over blacks) then it would be natural to get in the bed together, so to speak. Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Neth-Athena wrote:
quote:...the history of migrations and colonization that brought Eurasians from the Neolithic to the present time into North Africa
Could you possibly elaborate on this--bearing in mind the specific meaning of the term "Eurasian"? Maybe we can also learn--in terms of numbers--the significance of such migrations.
Re What to call the people of Africa
Why not be economical and consistent in the whole matter. For example, South Asians and East Asians differ significantly in terms of phenotype yet when described colour terms and eye shape terms are never brought up. Why not just speak in terms of regions--when it comes to Africa--West Africa, East Africa, Southern Africa and North Africa. Talk of "sub-Saharan" Africa is sheer racism--because as you wrote it is just euphemistic racist code for all the world's ills--maximally exaggerated for racist effect.
But to be more accurate one can use the same techniques as animal and plan biologists: an African would simply be a member of the human species whose phenotype offers evidence of being shaped by the environments of Africa. A significant phenotypical marker of such would be "hair form"--of which the African variety seems unique to Africa--coupled with a pigmentation range from very dark(Sudan) to yellow(some of the populations of North and Southern Africa).
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Correction above: "animal and plant biologists".
Posted by Neith-Athena (Member # 10040) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Neth-Athena wrote:
quote:...the history of migrations and colonization that brought Eurasians from the Neolithic to the present time into North Africa
Could you possibly elaborate on this--bearing in mind the specific meaning of the term "Eurasian"? Maybe we can also learn--in terms of numbers--the significance of such migrations.
Re What to call the people of Africa
Why not be economical and consistent in the whole matter. For example, South Asians and East Asians differ significantly in terms of phenotype yet when described colour terms and eye shape terms are never brought up. Why not just speak in terms of regions--when it comes to Africa--West Africa, East Africa, Southern Africa and North Africa. Talk of "sub-Saharan" Africa is sheer racism--because as you wrote it is just euphemistic racist code for all the world's ills--maximally exaggerated for racist effect.
But to be more accurate one can use the same techniques as animal and plan biologists: an African would simply be a member of the human species whose phenotype offers evidence of being shaped by the environments of Africa. A significant phenotypical marker of such would be "hair form"--of which the African variety seems unique to Africa--coupled with a pigmentation range from very dark(Sudan) to yellow(some of the populations of North and Southern Africa).
I am no expert but from what I have understood by browsing through this forum during the Neolithic Sea Peoples went to the African coast and mixed with the local (Black - should go sans saying) population. Am I wrong? If so, please correct me.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
The movement of peoples throughout the world within the time periods that it takes for new genomic muatations to arise has been traced by the signatures left by haplotypes. In the case there is little evidence that Eurasian or West Asian haplotypes entered North Africa in any significant way before 1000 BC. After 1,000 BC Persians, Greeks, Romans, Turks then assorted Europeans entered North Africa which did transform the genomic profile of that period. but nothing as far back as the Neolithic as you claim.
Check out the movements of R, I, J, and E3 hapotypes plus the Ls and U6 into North Africa over time to confirm or disconfirm my point.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
This indigenous White Africa issue really belongs in a new thread or one of the nmerous old ancient "Libyan" or modern North Africa threads.
Creamy colored "Libyans" appear before 1000 BCE in 18th Dynasty tomb paintings. These paintings are roughly contemporaneous to Sea Peoples migrations thus whatever lightened this particular sub-population of ancient "Libyans" seemingly happened before the Sea Peoples advent.
Minoan art leads me to presuppose regular back and forth contact between Libya and the Aegean. But it was further west where the ancient "Libyan" Meshwesh (whose ethnonym ends in "esh" as did the ethnonyms of select Sea Peoples) lived.
Archaeology of Tunis yields evidence of trade with Tyrrhenian populations. Were women one of the items? Then there's this so-called "Beaker" culture/tradition that was supposedly south European to start with. Iirc, with the Beaker industry a more selfish and militant outlook presents itself in coastal North Africa. Maybe some lightening came onboard with the Beakers?
Population geneticist's reports oalone would have one conclude the lightening is a result of demic movements in wake of Islam. If the slave trade is what lightened coastal North Africa, that leaves us to surmise some genetic mutation as responsible for dynastic Egypt era "whites" in North Africa.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: ...Archaeology of Tunis yields evidence of trade with Tyrrhenian populations. Were women one of the items? Thenthere's this so-called "Beaker" culture/tradition that was supposedly south European to start with. Iirc, with the Beaker industry a more selfish and militant outlook presents itself in coastal North Africa. Maybe some lightening came onboard with the Beakers?...
LOL Takruri, what is it with you and ancient African men 'attaining' white women?? Are you fascinated by the prospec of "Jungle Fever"? LOL Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
What is it with you trivializing my take on how littoral North Africans' coffee got creamed? That's the issue here the seeming anomally of indigenous "white" Africans long before geneticists say any kind of white people got there in numbers enough to lighten up the original dark complexions. And unless extra-African males had a different temperment than they do today -- since North African language, custom, attire, etc., doesn't reflect much of anything non-African as extra-African dominant males would have imposed -- the overwhelmingly unbalanced bulk of the miscegenation was African males on extra-African females.
Nothing to do with this stupid pop culture concept Jungle Fever.
I never said squat about African men -- an indiscriminate all encompassing generality ensnaring the entire continents' male population -- attaining white women and I really don't appreciate you misrepresenting my proposal and twisting it into something I can't recognize as my authorship in the least.
My proposal is specific to a scenario on the Mediterranean coast of Africa and something those specific groups of men have been doing from the stone age to today whether as ancient "Libyans", Phoenician colonials, Greek colonials, Roman colonials, Byzantine colonials, Arab colonials, or as free men of whatever era of their history.
I'm sorry dawg but it nuh funny (though it was kinda "cutesy" the first time you said it many moons ago).
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Modern human, early modern human and Neanderthal limb proportions A.M.W. Porter * Redcrest, Heath Rise, Camberley, Surrey, UK
*Correspondence to A.M.W. Porter, Redcrest, Heath Rise, Camberley, Surrey GU15 2ER, UK
Keywords limb abbreviation; brachial index; crural index; thermoregulation; Neanderthal; humans; early modern humans
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: ...Archaeology of Tunis yields evidence of trade with Tyrrhenian populations. Were women one of the items? Thenthere's this so-called "Beaker" culture/tradition that was supposedly south European to start with. Iirc, with the Beaker industry a more selfish and militant outlook presents itself in coastal North Africa. Maybe some lightening came onboard with the Beakers?...
LOL Takruri, what is it with you and ancient African men 'attaining' white women?? Are you fascinated by the prospec of "Jungle Fever"? LOL
Why does the black side of the equation have to be the males? Why not white men and black women?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
^Because of the simple fact that contemporary North Africans are overwhelmingly of indigenous African TMRCA PN2 lineages, which tells us that the original proto-Tamazight groups who migrated into coastal North Africa from the African interior, were dark skin people, and not pale skinned people. There is no such thing as indigenous tropical African white people.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ In other words, the male lineages are African whereas the female lineages are European.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Rasol, How does your previous post that declares the following: Southern African San-speaking people are not tropically adapted, agree with the following extract?
Modern human, early modern human and Neanderthal limb proportions A.M.W. Porter * Redcrest, Heath Rise, Camberley, Surrey, UK
*Correspondence to A.M.W. Porter, Redcrest, Heath Rise, Camberley, Surrey GU15 2ER, UK
Keywords limb abbreviation; brachial index; crural index; thermoregulation; Neanderthal; humans; early modern humans
^What page number is this in the cited link, that details what is involved here. For instance, what is the "Upper portion" supposed to mean here?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Upper portion refers to the upper portion of the chart shown on page 450.
This has been posted on ES before awhile back.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
Okay, they are referring to the "upper portion of the temperate range of variation". Now, it makes relatively more sense, in terms of how it is supposed to be relevant with respect to what Africa highlighted in his citation. That side, I don't see anything that particularly stands out in the Khoisan body build from that contained in the tropical African continuum, where body sizes and body plans are concerned. But then again, your post was not meant to address this.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Thanks Rasol, we all here to learn, I have the following question: on page 448, in the Table 19.2 Brachial and Crural Indices are shown for populations living in different climates...How can we interpret that table with respect to Koisan speaking people? Is the Brachial Index more important than the Crural Index in bio-anthropology?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:That side, I don't see anything that particularly stands out in the Khoisan body build from that contained in the tropical African continuum,
Tropical African continuum is a buzzword, not a morphology.
You can say that Greeks and Swedes and Chinese are a part of the "tropical African continuum" if you like.
Why not -> Greeks have olive skin tones, and sickle cell, Swedes have intermediate limb ratios, [in between eskimo and africans] Chinese have San-like Eyefolds.
You are still trying to turn a morphology into and ethnicity, which then forces you to *fake* the definition of the morphology. [
SA KhoiSan migrated outside the tropics thousands of years ago, and their morphology reflects that reality.
Calling them tropical *anyway* contradicts this reality for political purposes, which makes it a fake - wished-for-ethnicity, posing as a morphology.
I've already explained why this is a complete waste of time.
But, it's your time to waste, so....
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
All right let's got back to facts...Please check the page I mentioned and please give it a scientific answer...unlike other posters I just care about science not about semantic...
Posted by Tyrann0saurus (Member # 3735) on :
So Khoisan people are NOT tropically-adapted? I would think that, since the portion of southern Africa currently occupied by these people has a subtropical climate like Egypt and the northern Sahara (as opposed to truly temperate like the northern USA), that they would retain tropical limb proportions.
Rather strange that Ancient Egyptians had tropical limb ratios, but not Khoisan, considering that they live at similar distances from the Equator.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Rather strange that Ancient Egyptians had tropical limb ratios, but not Khoisan, considering that they live at similar distances from the Equator.
It's not strange at all. Some choose to not understand the geography of Africa, the climate or the history of it's population origins and movements.
Now, I've already answered the questions about the origins of Southern Africans as pertains to climate in this thread.
Go back and read earlier posts.
I refuse to repeat the same basic facts over and over again for lazy people who won't read. Laziness and ignoring what was already said is the ultimate form of rudeness in civil discourse.
Posted by dan5678 (Member # 13968) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Try claiming Israel as a part of the Arab world... and see how far you get, before you are "corrected" by the United States Military among others.
LOL! True. Not to mention the first doing the correction would the Israel themselves. LOL! Also aren't half of the Jews living in Israel today post WWII European and American Jews?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:That side, I don't see anything that particularly stands out in the Khoisan body build from that contained in the tropical African continuum,
Tropical African continuum is a buzzword, not a morphology.
Tropical African is a bio-anthropological term for Africans who are indigenous to the tropics.
quote:rasol:
You can say that Greeks and Swedes and Chinese are a part of the "tropical African continuum" if you like.
These people have non-African TMRCAs and have developed traits that are not necessarily a product of the tropical environment. And so, it is not the question of one picking and choosing, but more to the point of what is scientifically valid to say so.
quote:rasol:
Why not -> Greeks have olive skin tones, and sickle cell, Swedes have intermediate limb ratios, [in between eskimo and africans] Chinese have San-like Eyefolds.
Just told you why, like a dozen times now.
quote:rasol:
You are still trying to turn a morphology into and ethnicity, which then forces you to *fake* the definition of the morphology.
For the nth time, 'tropical African' is reference to biological continuum of Africans. You proclaimed to have read Keita's work, and yet, it seems that you still cannot comprehend this concept. You've charged me with trying to make a bio-anthropological term into an ethnic term several times now without success, because each time you've done it, you were asked to produce the citation. I'd ask you to do so again, but I know, it won't be done...because it is plainly a lie.
quote:rasol:
SA KhoiSan migrated outside the tropics thousands of years ago, and their morphology reflects that reality.
Well then, it shouldn't be as hard as it seems for more than several posts now, to demonstrate what it is about the Khoisan body plan and size that is supposed to stand out from the tropical African range.
quote:rasol:
Calling them tropical *anyway* contradicts this reality for political purposes, which makes it a fake - wished-for-ethnicity, posing as a morphology.
I gave you several biological points, which you have still to address. Instead, you simply don't respond, because somehow you feel that it allows you to make empty claims like this.
quote:rasol:
I've already explained why this is a complete waste of time.
But, it's your time to waste, so...
My time is well spent,....demonstrating that you are trying to make something out of nothing, about Khoisans being "not tropically adapted".
Posted by Tyrann0saurus (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver Well then, it shouldn't be as hard as it seems for more than several posts now, to demonstrate what it is about the Khoisan body plan and size that is supposed to stand out from the tropical African range.
quote:From rasol's original post Intererstingly the Khoisan brachial indices are *not* positioned in the Upper portion but seem to follow the -temperate- line quite closely.
Quite plainly, the above says that the limb ratio data clearly show that Khoisan, as long-time residents of the subtropics, have limb ratios typical of temperate, not tropical, propulations, unlike tropical Africans. All you're doing is challenging to prove a statement when he already gave you the proof.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver
Well then, it shouldn't be as hard as it seems for more than several posts now, to demonstrate what it is about the Khoisan **body plan** and **size** that is **supposed to stand out from the tropical African range**.
quote:From rasol's original post
Intererstingly the Khoisan brachial indices are *not* positioned in the Upper portion but seem to follow the -temperate- line quite closely.
Quite plainly, the above says that the limb ratio data clearly show that Khoisan, as long-time residents of the subtropics, have limb ratios typical of temperate, not tropical, propulations, unlike tropical Africans.
Quite plainly, the link shows only populations living in the temperate latitudes, and quite plainly, the link also specifically says this:
Interestingly, the Khoisan brachial indices are not positioned in the upper portion of the temperate range of variation but seem to follow the temperate regression line quite closely.
^and now compare that with what rasol is cited on:
Intererstingly the Khoisan brachial indices are *not* positioned in the Upper portion but seem to follow the -temperate- line quite closely.
Since you've plainly read the link by yourself, and not just taking in stuff like a programmed robot, please tell me specifically what this link says about the specific contemporary tropical Africans studied and compared with the Khoisans, and how the Khoisan limb ratios are supposedly unique from the values in the African tropics. Thanks.
quote:tyranno: All you're doing is challenging to prove a statement when he already gave you the proof.
And all you're doing, is not making sense, and not being able to read in the first place.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:Thanks Rasol, we all here to learn, I have the following question: on page 448, in the Table 19.2 Brachial and Crural Indices are shown for populations living in different climates...How can we interpret that table with respect to Koisan speaking people? Is the Brachial Index more important than the Crural Index in bio-anthropology?
Please Rasol, I would like to have an answer regarding the above comment.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Rasol, I'm seriously interested to know your opinion on the questions I posted earlier...I hope you have enough time to answer...
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Up
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
I have no idea of how to gauge the relative 'importance of Brachial index, vs. Crual Index, vs Nasal Index, vs any other kind of index in bioanthopology.
Nor do I know of anywhere to find a list telling us why one should be more important than the other.
Important how? Why? To whom?
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Apparently Crural Index is as important as Brachial Index in anthropology in the study of human skelettons and the following data included in this message indicated that Khoisan speaking crural index is more similar to Europeans rather than to other Africans, we can conclude that based on crural and brachial indices, Khoisan speaking people are not tropically adapted:
The body form is measured by numerous indices such as the crural and brachial indices which are measurments of the limb lengths. The crural and brachial index quantizes Allen's rule. The crural index is defined as "the length of the tibia/ the length of the femur". One can multipy by 100 if he wants but it doesn't matter. Bergman's rule is measured by the robusticity of the bones. This is because a being with greater body mass needs more robust bones to support the extra weight. So, when looking for differences between modern and Neanderthal we need to look at these types of measures.
Here is how these rules apply to the Lagar Velho child. When we examine various populations, fossil and modern, we find a range of values for the brachial, crural and robusticity indices. Unfortunately the Lagar Velho child's radius is incomplete so the brachial index can't be studied. Here is the data presented by Stringer and Gamble (once again I want to use STringer's data so that the skeptic's data is in play). This data is taken from a chart on page 92 of Stringer and Gamble.
crural index Tibia/Femur length modern peoples 79% in Lapps 86% in Black African groups crural Mean annual temp C index Lapps 79% .25 modern Inuit 81.5% 4 average Neanderthal 79% Belgium 82.5 10 S.African white 83.2 8.5 Yugoslav 83.75 8.4 American white 82.6 9.8 Kalahari Bushman83.4 18 New Mexico Indian 84.6 14 S.African black 86.4 17 Arizona Indian 85.5 18 Melanesian 84.8 23 Pygmy 85.1 24.2
Egyptian 84.9 26.1 American Black 85.25 26 ~ Chris Stringer and Clive Gamble, In Search of the Neanderthals, (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1993), p.92
One sees at once that the subtropical peoples have a higher crural index than those living in cold climates. This amazingly even applies to the pygmies. Shortness is not at issue here. Body form is. P.S.:It's clear that the height is not an issue in measure the adaption to subtropical climate as someone suggested in an early post...Body form is
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
Apparently Crural Index is as important as Brachial Index in anthropology in the study of human skelettons and the following data included in this message indicated that Khoisan speaking crural index is more similar to Europeans rather than to other Africans, we can conclude that based on crural and brachial indices, Khoisan speaking people are not tropically adapted:
According what source, and according what study gauging the full range of measurements across Saharo-tropical Africa, supra-troprical and sub-tropical Africa, because it ain't certainly based on what you just posted:
The body form is measured by numerous indices such as the crural and brachial indices which are measurments of the limb lengths. The crural and brachial index quantizes Allen's rule. The crural index is defined as "the length of the tibia/ the length of the femur". One can multipy by 100 if he wants but it doesn't matter. Bergman's rule is measured by the robusticity of the bones. This is because a being with greater body mass needs more robust bones to support the extra weight. So, when looking for differences between modern and Neanderthal we need to look at these types of measures.
Here is how these rules apply to the Lagar Velho child. When we examine various populations, fossil and modern, we find a range of values for the brachial, crural and robusticity indices. Unfortunately the Lagar Velho child's radius is incomplete so the brachial index can't be studied. Here is the data presented by Stringer and Gamble (once again I want to use STringer's data so that the skeptic's data is in play). This data is taken from a chart on page 92 of Stringer and Gamble.
crural index Tibia/Femur length modern peoples 79% in Lapps 86% in Black African groups crural Mean annual temp C index Lapps 79% .25 modern Inuit 81.5% 4 average Neanderthal 79% Belgium 82.5 10 S.African white 83.2 8.5 Yugoslav 83.75 8.4 American white 82.6 9.8 Kalahari Bushman83.4 18 New Mexico Indian 84.6 14 S.African black 86.4 17 Arizona Indian 85.5 18 Melanesian 84.8 23 Pygmy 85.1 24.2
Egyptian 84.9 26.1 American Black 85.25 26 ~ Chris Stringer and Clive Gamble, In Search of the Neanderthals, (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1993), p.92
One sees at once that the subtropical peoples have a higher crural index than those living in cold climates. This amazingly even applies to the pygmies. Shortness is not at issue here. Body form is.
^Also, where is the link to this source, detailing the methods and subjects of the samples, and the areas studied?
In the meantime, here are some outstanding questions you chose to dodge:
*In the Hiernaux piece, the Khoisans are noted for relative prevalence of steatopygia. Do you think that this is a sub-tropically adapted trait?
*What can tell us about the environment to which Khoisan peppercorn hair is an adaptive response to?
*Is the Khoisan dark skin a remnant feature of their tropical African origin, or is it adaptation of the sub-tropics? If so, citations backed with links, and according to what set of unique determining lineages that are known to be only in subtropical regions?
*While you are at it, can you tell us about Khoisan lineages, how they don't seem to be typical of those that originate and directly descend from tropical Africa? In other words, new sets of distinctive phylogenetic lines delineated from preexisting tropical African macro-haplogroups like say Hg A, Hg B, Hg E and so forth.
Shoot for answers...and good luck.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:we can conclude that based on crural and brachial indices, Khoisan speaking people are not tropically adapted:
What part of my sentence you don't understand?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:we can conclude that based on crural and brachial indices, Khoisan speaking people are not tropically adapted:
What part of my sentence you don't understand?
What part of my response don't you understand?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
One sees at once that the subtropical peoples have a higher crural index than those living in cold climates. This amazingly even applies to the pygmies. Shortness is not at issue here. Body form is.[/i] P.S.:It's clear that the height is not an issue in measure the adaption to subtropical climate as someone suggested in an early post...Body form is...
This is also misleading, because as one can clearly see, the so-called "super-tropical body plan", as in the slender build type, clearly height is a discernable trend, where slenderness usually goes hand in hand with increase in height. Even your own source, which you refuse to link to for obvious reasons, as you do with all your almost exclusively plagiarized documentations, notes this:
What is meant by this is that in hot countries there is a selective pressure in favor of body shapes that allow heat to be removed. The classic heat tolerant body form is that of the Watusi, a tall skinny people. Such body forms have a high surface area/body mass ratio.
...and the piece goes onto say:
Contrary to the anatomically modern peoples, Neanderthals were short and squat. This is widely beleived to have been due to the millennia of living in cold,glaciate Europe Neanderthals were also hyper robust. This means that their bones were exceptionally thick compared with anatomically modern peoples. I want to use Stringer's words to illustrate what I think is a bit of a double standard in anthropology.
And this...
Bergman's rule is that body weights of an animals will tend to be greater in colder climates. And Allen's rule is that their limb proportions will be shorter. These rules have a wide application across many species. Thus Stringer accepts the climate-induced selection pressure that created the Neanderthal physique. How do we measure body form?
*Africa, do you imagine that shorter limb proportions translate into tall people?
*If Khoisans aren't tropically adapted to any extent, then why the traits I mentioned earlier in the questions, that you simply refuse to answer for obvious reasons?
*Your citation speaks of "Black African groups", and then points out 'pygmy' and 'Kalahari Bushman" separately, along with Egyptians; do we have to then take this to mean, that these folks are supposed to be not 'black'?
*What are we told about the full range of crural and brachial indices studied across Saharo-tropical Africa?
Please get back to us on the answers to these, and then, there will be questions awaiting you.
And oh, almost forgot to post the link that Africa refused to post, for his source:
quote:we can conclude that based on crural and brachial indices, Khoisan speaking people are not tropically adapted:
What part of my sentence you don't understand?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I understand what Mystery said, but I don't understand you, AFRICA.
Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
Indeed, it's stupid.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: the overwhelmingly unbalanced bulk of the miscegenation was African males on extra-African females.
Nothing to do with this stupid pop culture concept Jungle Fever.
I think someone didn't get the genious put into prior alTakruri jokes aimed at trolls, which was basically messing with thier heads about the oh-so-dreaded
threat of mescegination with the black males lol.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ So where is the threat of miscegenation with the black female?
Posted by Maahes (Member # 8482) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Mauritania is not a black African country. It's an African country. It's social hierarchy is one of Yemini Arab invention but there on the spot in Africa.
Hassaniya the language of Mauritania is a dialect of Yemini Arabic used by the Banu Hassan who conquered the land. It's infused with Zenaga Tamazight and is unintelligible to Yemini Arabs back in Yemen.
Let's be serious. The definition of "black Africa" makes the term no more than an euphemism for "negro Africa" It's a word to divide Africa into colour and culture dichotomies.
Like Hamite black Africa(n) is a term to be jettisoned from the vocabulary of progressive Africana students and scholars, In my opinion.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The word 'Moor' is derived from the Greek word Maure meaning black. Hence it is the root word for the name of the modern country of Mauritania, which is a black African country. Moor was used by the Spanish and other Europeans during Medieval times to describe the black North African Muslims. The lighter skinned Berber and Arabs were called Saracen. Moor was eventually adopted by many North Africans regardless of color due to the prestige it carried due to powerful Moorish dynasties such as the Almoravids.
This issue was discussed all too many times before. I suggest you look in the archives.
Well said - then. I suppose instigating makes one potentially look brighter. Why bother? Once a smart one always a smart one =unless one takes to playing the part of the diseased skeptic.
Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
No Maahes, skeptic, does not describe him. Some people just like to put things in perspective ... when it comes to certain things they notice... and don't like.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Correct. Takruri's point is that the indigenous peoples of Africa are black but the indigenous people of Europe are white. So why is there a 'black Africa' but not a 'white Europe'??
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and for Africa to be color labeled and not Europe or Asia is a sign of racial bias indeed.
Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
Yup, indeed it is bad that black in Africa being turned into something limited to you-know-where (sub-sahara).
That's like if the same marginalization were to happen to Europeans, especially Rome or Greece.
So many things could be flipped around, lol.
Example:
"Those weren't Grecians, those were white Grecians; they weren't true Grecians."
or
"Everyone knows greeks weren't pure white Europeans, but were South European Negrids and Mediterranean Negroes, though no doubt there was some white presence."
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
]
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
ROFLMAO!^, but to the point of this post...![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Notice you never hear such arguments or complaints about the label 'white'!
