The Study of Racialism Discussion of U.S. Racialism Please read The Rules before posting.    FAQ   Search     Register     Log in  ' Broad Whiteness Narrow Blackness? Goto page Previous  1, 2          The Study of Racialism Forum Index -> Molecular Anthropology and Genetics Author Message SweetCocoa New User Joined: 17 Jan 2008 {Posts: 19 } Posted: Sat 19 Jan 2008 06:33    Post subject: Quote: In america and outside there is a very narrow definition of what an African is supposed to look like. Whereas a European can range from light to dark, full lips to thin, curly almost kinky hair to board straight, jet black to almost white blond hair. Which is why in the past there was some confusion on what to classify Northern and Eastern Africans. Which is also why 'Europeans' try to consider Egyptians as whites. All you have to do is look at the sculptures and artwork of the ancient egyptians. The person your responding to from what I see is not dealing with mixed people but racial descriptors. This is exactly what I have been saying. Thank you. I will say no more. Back to top Salsassin SuperWizard Joined: 04 Apr 2005 {Posts: 3515 } Posted: Sat 19 Jan 2008 15:50    Post subject: gemini072 wrote: In america and outside there is a very narrow definition of what an African is supposed to look like. Whereas a European can range from light to dark, full lips to thin, curly almost kinky hair to board straight, jet black to almost white blond hair. Which is why in the past there was some confusion on what to classify Northern and Eastern Africans. Which is also why 'Europeans' try to consider Egyptians as whites. All you have to do is look at the sculptures and artwork of the ancient egyptians. The person your responding to from what I see is not dealing with mixed people but racial descriptors. How so? for many people African is just another word for Black and many Black people are heavily mixed. Back to top gemini072 Moderator Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 2942 } Posted: Sat 19 Jan 2008 18:00    Post subject: Salsassin wrote: gemini072 wrote: In america and outside there is a very narrow definition of what an African is supposed to look like. Whereas a European can range from light to dark, full lips to thin, curly almost kinky hair to board straight, jet black to almost white blond hair. Which is why in the past there was some confusion on what to classify Northern and Eastern Africans. Which is also why 'Europeans' try to consider Egyptians as whites. All you have to do is look at the sculptures and artwork of the ancient egyptians. The person your responding to from what I see is not dealing with mixed people but racial descriptors. How so? for many people African is just another word for Black and many Black people are heavily mixed. I thinking of the origins of the terms Negro Caucasian. And from there many people today still have their idea of what an 'African' is supposed to look like. Which in turn becomes a 'Black' or 'black-African' because if they don't look like the Negroid then they are different. I took a drawing the human figure class in school and we had a book to by which was also on the shelves in books stores as well:Atlas of Human Anatomy for the Artist by Stephen Rogers Peck This was 1992 when I was taking this college course. The glossary p270 Negro, 236,238,241,248 Negroid, 236,238 hair, 160, 236 Structure of hair is designated as fine or course, and as lank, wavy, curly, or woolly... Woolly hair belongs exclusively to Negroid people. heel, 78 n.2 lip eversion, 170 Eversion of the lips, especially of the lower lips, especially of the lower lip, is a typical Negroid trait. In developing the lip forms, it may prove helpful to work outward from the midline: first the tubercle of the upper lip, then away from the corners of the mouth. I'm going to post the rest of this in a new topic as well as cut this topic and pull it to Molecular Studies. An African(Ethiopian) can't have features resembling causasians 'whites' they can't have reddish brown skin or brown skin it has to be very dark brown black other than that they are not African(black-African) Egyptians Egyptians have one of the oldest civilizations in the world. Only whites could have done this not the blacks. A lot of the racial designations and labels seems to have been used to help recolor history this way. We had a discussion about the Time Magazine article on King Tut and how they made him look a way that is more acceptable to what they believe King Tut 'wasn't' yet all I have to do is look at his burial tomb and see they man was obviously... I shudder to use the term on him but for lack of words "Negroid" Queen Tiye 1391 B.C.E - 1353 B.C.E. Back to top Salsassin SuperWizard Joined: 04 Apr 2005 {Posts: 3515 } Posted: Sat 19 Jan 2008 20:19    Post subject: [quote="gemini072] We had a discussion about the Time Magazine article on King Tut and how they made him look a way that is more acceptable to what they believe King Tut 'wasn't' yet all I have to do is look at his burial tomb and see they man was obviously... I shudder to use the term on him but for lack of words "Negroid" Queen Tiye 1391 B.C.E - 1353 B.C.E. [/quote] While I agree with your comments on racialism and the whole foolishness of Egyptians you fall in to the same trap. shudering or not when you assume the "Negroidness" of Tut. He could have looked like an Indian, or many other peoples. He obvioulsy was brwn skinned, bt non of his depictions give him a "race". The best reconstruction so far was that of the American team that did it blind at the bottom and the features are ambiguous. Not a " race". http://www.guardians.net/hawass/Press_Release_05-05_Tut_Reconstruction.htm Back to top gemini072 Moderator Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 2942 } Posted: Sun 20 Jan 2008 00:58    Post subject: Salsassin wrote: [quote="gemini072] We had a discussion about the Time Magazine article on King Tut and how they made him look a way that is more acceptable to what they believe King Tut 'wasn't' yet all I have to do is look at his burial tomb and see they man was obviously... I shudder to use the term on him but for lack of words "Negroid" Queen Tiye 1391 B.C.E - 1353 B.C.E. While I agree with your comments on racialism and the whole foolishness of Egyptians you fall in to the same trap. shudering or not when you assume the "Negroidness" of Tut. He could have looked like an Indian, or many other peoples. He obvioulsy was brwn skinned, bt non of his depictions give him a "race". The best reconstruction so far was that of the American team that did it blind at the bottom and the features are ambiguous. Not a " race". http://www.guardians.net/hawass/Press_Release_05-05_Tut_Reconstruction.htm[/quote] No, I'm not labelling him a 'Negro' I saying his features especially the nose and the lips are the same found on people we consider 'black'. I just trying to find word descriptors. Back to top Salsassin SuperWizard Joined: 04 Apr 2005 {Posts: 3515 } Posted: Sun 20 Jan 2008 13:06    Post subject: gemini072 wrote: No, I'm not labelling him a 'Negro' I'm saying his features especially the nose and the lips are the same found on people we consider 'black'. I'm just trying to find word descriptors. Who is "we"? I know plenty of non black populations that have those same features of many of his statues. I would probably have given him darker skin and given him darker eyes like the statue. ButI always point out the reconstruction of the American team that was done without knowledge of the subject. It still has this generalized shape. My best bet is he looked somewhere in the spectrum of these two types: Last edited by Salsassin on Tue 05 Feb 2008 18:35; edited 1 time in total Back to top G-Man Moderator Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 2992 } Posted: Fri 01 Feb 2008 23:35    Post subject: sagascend wrote: gemini072 wrote: SweetCocoa wrote: Salsassin wrote: Just wanted to mention that it would not be Black stigma with Angwlina Jolie and Benjamin Bratt. It wouldbe Native stigma if anything My point is no one is vehemently denying their whiteness just because they happen to look a little less white than average. The reason being that there is no stigma attached to whiteness. I hear what your saying, but I don't believe Benjamin Bratt identifies as white. But if he did identify as a White man, would his phenotype "disqualify" him? Probably not. All depends on where he lived in the U.S. I doubt if most people would see him as white here in the U.S. Back to top Bischoff Mentor Joined: 20 Jan 2008 {Posts: 395 } Posted: Sun 03 Feb 2008 09:33    Post subject: I have seen the U.S government classify some people who are even darker than Benjamin Bratt as White. Back to top gemini072 Moderator Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 2942 } Posted: Tue 05 Feb 2008 18:01    Post subject: Salsassin wrote: gemini072 wrote: No, I'm not labelling him a 'Negro' I'm saying his features especially the nose and the lips are the same found on people we consider 'black'. I'm just trying to find word descriptors. Who is "we"? I know plenty of non black populations that have those same features of many of his statues. I would probably have given him darker skin and given him darker eyes like the statue. ButI always point out the reconstruction of the American team that was done without knowledge of the subject. It still has this generalized shape. My best bet is he looked somewhere in the spectrum of these two types: dude Back to top Salsassin SuperWizard Joined: 04 Apr 2005 {Posts: 3515 } Posted: Tue 05 Feb 2008 18:35    Post subject: LOL edit yours with this Back to top Antoinette New User Joined: 24 Jan 2008 {Posts: 27 } Posted: Sat 09 Feb 2008 00:36    Post subject: gemini072 wrote: No, I'm not labelling him a 'Negro' I'm saying his features especially the nose and the lips are the same found on people we consider 'black'. I'm just trying to find word descriptors. I agree. Certain features are often assigned to one racial group even though those same features are not unique to that group because they can occur in other racial groups as well. West African North African(White in the U.S. but thats another issue) Central African East African Non African (Andamanese) Back to top gemini072 Moderator Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 2942 } Posted: Sat 09 Feb 2008 03:49    Post subject: Salsassin wrote: LOL edit yours with this I'll stick with the image left by the people who knew & saw what he looked like. That image you show looks nothing like his burial mask Back to top ImBack Suspended Joined: 28 Jun 2006 {Posts: 630 } Posted: Sat 09 Feb 2008 04:14    Post subject: If you look at the computer generated faces I uploaded you can see a good example of broad-whitness, narrow-blackness. Back to top Bischoff Mentor Joined: 20 Jan 2008 {Posts: 395 } Posted: Tue 19 Feb 2008 22:57    Post subject: Which type do you all think is more common in the world, people's who definition of White is broad and who's definition of Black is narrow or people who's definition of Black is broad and who's definition of White is narrow ? Back to top Salsassin SuperWizard Joined: 04 Apr 2005 {Posts: 3515 } Posted: Wed 20 Feb 2008 08:31    Post subject: gemini072 wrote: Salsassin wrote: LOL edit yours with this I'll stick with the image left by the people who knew & saw what he looked like. That image you show looks nothing like his burial mask A generic formula used in many masks. That one doesn't look like the bust either. You seem to forget that by this time the reactionary forces against Akhenaten and his movement, including realism in art were in full force. Back to top Grasshoppa Mentor Joined: 07 Oct 2007 {Posts: 248 } Location: United States Posted: Mon 14 Jul 2008 07:14    Post subject: I was actually thinking about this...But imo it's not exactly that "whiteness" has been broadened, but I've noticed that many folks who claim to know about the "races of mankind" always attribute certain features to definitive European admixture. Now I understand that many times it could be the case, but I believe that perhaps as many times that it is not the case. I also think this is assumed of many attractive (by the mainstream's standards) women of African descent. However this could be because the mainstream's standards are a little Eurocentric in the first place....So, many of the Afro descendents in the media probably do in fact have visible Euro ancestry (as do many AAs). But I still believe that some Euro looking features are precisely that: Euro looking...Similarly to Angelina Jolie's "african looking" lips. Back to top fwsweet Administrator Joined: 26 Nov 2004 {Posts: 5380 } Location: Palm Coast, FL Posted: Mon 14 Jul 2008 12:52    Post subject: Grasshoppa wrote: I've noticed that many folks who claim to know about the "races of mankind" always ... I would be deeply suspicious of anyone who "claims to know about the races of mankind." I have found that are they unable to define the concept objectively. (See "2. Define the Question Objectively " in Introduction to Science-As-Process.) Worse yet, such individuals strongly disagree with each other as to how many "races" there are, much less who is of which "race." On the other hand, there are people who can legitimately claim expertise in the many different folkloric interpretations of "race" that are delineated by U.S. laws and customs. Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         The Study of Racialism Forum Index -> Molecular Anthropology and Genetics All times are GMT Goto page Previous  1, 2 Page 2 of 2 Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group