Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 04 May 2006 00:03 Post subject: Clearly Black?
[quote="African_Prince"]..
Hi,
(Sorry I made mistake. Wrong key)
I don`t know what you mean by "clearly Black". It look for me the Khoi-San are not from the same "race" than the Bantu at all.
Quote:
-This "Capoid" woman is clearly Black
It look Asian to me. Reallly
Quote:
-These Khoi-San children are clearly Black
I don't know. Some of them have certain similarities to caucasians and australoids.
It seem to me they are another group, related, of course, but distinct. Actually, would you say an Australian Aborigen or some dark skinned East Indians are "clearly Blacks"? I don't think so.
Posted: Thu 04 May 2006 01:09 Post subject: Re: Clearly Black?
[quote="oevega"]
African_Prince wrote:
..
Hi,
(Sorry I made mistake. Wrong key)
I don`t know what you mean by "clearly Black". It look for me the Khoi-San are not from the same "race" than the Bantu at all.
Quote:
-This "Capoid" woman is clearly Black
It look Asian to me. Reallly
Quote:
-These Khoi-San children are clearly Black
I don't know. Some of them have certain similarities to caucasians and australoids.
It seem to me they are another group, related, of course, but distinct. Actually, would you say an Australian Aborigen or some dark skinned East Indians are "clearly Blacks"? I don't think so.
Regards,
Omar Vega
They don't look anywhere near Caucasian (and I know that doesn't mean 'White' ) . You can't see any similarities they have with Bantu Africans (*rolls eyes*)? They have the exact same complexion and hair texture as me. Their facial features are different but my people aren't homogenous. The Nilotes of Sudan ALSO look different from Bantu Africans but they're not a completely different race from us.
'Capoids' like Ethiopians/Eritreans and Somalis are Black Africans and part of the Black/indiginous sub-saharan African family.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 04 May 2006 02:20 Post subject: Re: Clearly Black?
African_Prince wrote:
They don't look anywhere near Caucasian (and I know that doesn't mean 'White' ) . You can't see any similarities they have with Bantu Africans (*rolls eyes*)?
Hi,
The thing is, they "look different" from the average Nigerian, for example.
It's not the color of skin or hair, but their physical body and facial features what gives them that apparience, I guess.
Quote:
They have the exact same complexion and hair texture as me.
There are lots of people that are not Africans that have that hair and others that are not Africans. Arabs, Southern Europeans, Jews, South Pacific peoples, all of them classified as non-Africans, have curly hair as well. Some are very curly (myself included).
There are also other peoples that are very dark, even some South East Asians. Actually, the darkest person I have seen in my life was not an African of Black of the Americas, but an East Indian. The person was really color Black, not dark brown but straigh black. He has "caucasian" facial features though. And, according to certain "racial scholars" he was really an aryan.
Quote:
Their facial features are different but my people aren't homogenous. The Nilotes of Sudan ALSO look different from Bantu Africans but they're not a completely different race from us.
Africa is not one people or one "race". There are hundreds of different peoples. First there are caucasoid peoples in the North, there are mixed peoples from Egypt to Ethiopia, there are mixed people with Indonesians in Madagascar, there are Nordics and East Indians in South Africa, and there are Koisan and pygmies in certain regions as well. Now, between the Bantu and "Black" people there are lots of genetic diversity, perhaps more than in many other "races". As far as I know Africa is one of the most genetically diverse region in the world.
Quote:
'Capoids' like Ethiopians/Eritreans and Somalis are Black Africans and part of the Black/indiginous sub-saharan African family.
Yes, It might be, but they are genetically quite close to the Arabs across the Red Sea, or to the Egyptians to the North than any other peoples.
Look at the nose of most Etiopians; those long noses with an "sphere" at the end are typical of Arabs, both dark and light skinned. That's not coincidence.
No uniform people exist. Not even Chineses are all alike at all.
African Eve lived about 150 000 years ago in what is now Ethiopia or Tanzania. The Sandawe (Khoi-San group), Burunge, Gorowaa and Datog people of Tanzania have the world's oldest dna.
I know the study you are mentioning. Frank mentioned a more recent study that claims the KhoiSan again though.
Quote:
Many White supremacists like to claim the Khoi-San aren't Black.
They aren't. Nothing to do with White Supremasism. Black is a social construct. SO the olny Blacks were either people labeled as Black by racialists, or later those that adopted the racial concepts as ethnic identities. The KhoiSan never were refered to as Black or Negro. So they never used or adopted the terms for themselves.
Quote:
The White South Africans are the first ones to claim this during apartheid so as to justify their oppression of Bantu speaking Black South Africans (they didn't look at them as indiginous people and claimed they had more of a right to that land then us ).
Both the Bantu and and the Europeans were foreigners to those lands. So any claim over the lands would have been false if not done by KhoiSan whe were the only ones there forever.
Quote:
Many White supremacists also claim the original people were CAUCASIAN or that modern racial phenotypes didn't exist then, this is also false because these were anatomically modern human beings we could reproduce with, were they baldheaded with no skin(phenotype is only skin, hair and features)?
Not sure what your claim is, but phenotype is also craniofacial a dn bodytypes. Muscle, etc. All of this is phenotype. Any claim that ascribes a race to the original humans would be wrong.
Quote:
-This Khoi-San boy of the Kalahari is clearly a Black child
-This "Capoid" woman is clearly Black
-These Khoi-San children are clearly Black
No they are not. In fact, no one would have ever considered them Black in older times. It was not until admixture in the diaspora started creating larger parameters for phenotypes that other peoples in Africa proper were started to be considered as 'Black' as well. There has never been a set rule and the terms have varied by region.
Posted: Fri 05 May 2006 05:04 Post subject: Re: Clearly Black?
Quote:
Hi,
The thing is, they "look different" from the average Nigerian, for example.
It's not the color of skin or hair, but their physical body and facial features what gives them that apparience, I guess.
I look different then Djimon Hounsou or the late John Garang, but we're all Black Africans.
Quote:
There are lots of people that are not Africans that have that hair and others that are not Africans. Arabs, Southern Europeans, Jews, South Pacific peoples, all of them classified as non-Africans, have curly hair as well. Some are very curly (myself included).
There are also other peoples that are very dark, even some South East Asians. Actually, the darkest person I have seen in my life was not an African of Black of the Americas, but an East Indian. The person was really color Black, not dark brown but straigh black. He has "caucasian" facial features though. And, according to certain "racial scholars" he was really an aryan.
Only people of African descent have kinky hair, and that includes the Melanesians and Andamanese Negritos. Some Caucasians have wiry, frizzy hair (the wooly hair syndrome ) but not kinky like mine. There are Black Arabs but I have yet to see a Jew or southern European with kinky hair. It's frustrating that every time people ('liberalized' Westerners) point out "nappy headed Jews, Whites, Italians" etc. I see these people clearly have curly or wavy hair (even when they give me direct pictures )as if we blatantly had different eyes. It's like you are trying to make some shocking controversial statement when you know good and well Blacks are the only people with that hair texture. Black Americans and White people especially try to do this and it's one reason I'd rather have nothing to do with those peoples (or any non-Black Africans ). I'll believe my eyes and common sense over you.
By all means, please post some pictures of these non Black/sub saharan African descended people with kinky hair ( I consider the Andamanese Negritos and Melanesians to be Black )
Other peoples are dark skinned but the point is they are indiginous African people who share the same broad phenotype as me, they are clearly 'Black Africans' by all practical standards. Bantu speaking Black South Africans (after colonialism) have always been agitated by this (claiming the Khoi-San are not Black) as well, I remember reading an article on it.
Quote:
Africa is not one people or one "race". There are hundreds of different peoples. First there are caucasoid peoples in the North, there are mixed peoples from Egypt to Ethiopia, there are mixed people with Indonesians in Madagascar, there are Nordics and East Indians in South Africa, and there are Koisan and pygmies in certain regions as well. Now, between the Bantu and "Black" people there are lots of genetic diversity, perhaps more than in many other "races". As far as I know Africa is one of the most genetically diverse region in the world.
Indiginous sub-saharan Africans are all one broad race. The Berbers and Egyptian Copts of North Africa who are native inspite of being Arabized ( I don't believe the ancient Egyptians were Black because the Egyptian Copts are their purest descendents )are the only people indiginous to the continent who cannot be considered Black and I frankly consider North Africa to be a part of the Middle East politically and culturally.
Quote:
Yes, It might be, but they are genetically quite close to the Arabs across the Red Sea, or to the Egyptians to the North than any other peoples.
Look at the nose of most Etiopians; those long noses with an "sphere" at the end are typical of Arabs, both dark and light skinned. That's not coincidence.
The people of Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia are overwhelmingly of indiginous Cushitic descent inspite of the mixture SOME might have with Middle Easterners/Arabs, it's not responsible for their physicall differences from other Africans. Plus, non-Caucasians have long noses too, remember?
Quote:
No uniform people exist. Not even Chineses are all alike at all.
Correct, but Capoids and Bantu belong to the same race, Berbers and Nilotes do not. It's subjective but I have nothing in common with Berbers , there are differences with the Khoi-San but clear similarities as well.
Last edited by African_Prince on Fri 05 May 2006 05:44; edited 8 times in total
They aren't. Nothing to do with White Supremasism. Black is a social construct. SO the olny Blacks were either people labeled as Black by racialists, or later those that adopted the racial concepts as ethnic identities. The KhoiSan never were refered to as Black or Negro. So they never used or adopted the terms for themselves.
No Africans considered themselves 'Black' before contact with Arabs or Europeans. Guess why. Obviously you can't consider yourself Black if you don't have non-Black people to compare yourselves to. The physical differences between me and an Irishman is not a social construct, the social value we place on these differences are as much a social construct as age, gender or health.
Quote:
Both the Bantu and and the Europeans were foreigners to those lands. So any claim over the lands would have been false if not done by KhoiSan whe were the only ones there forever.
You're right, the Khoi-San are the indiginous peoples of southern and eastern Africa, but with my ideaology (I'm from Zambia) a Nigerian has more right in Zambia then a White Zambian. I'm for African unity.
Quote:
Not sure what your claim is, but phenotype is also craniofacial a dn bodytypes. Muscle, etc. All of this is phenotype. Any claim that ascribes a race to the original humans would be wrong.
Incorrect. You haven't addressed my actual point beyond just saying "you can't" (and when I say phenotype I mean visible physical features), the fact is these were anatomically modern humans we could reproduce with. We didn't 'develop' phenotype later, all homo sapian sapians have a phenotype. These were modern looking human beings and they looked like African people (likely the Khoi-San). Humans haven't evolved since the out of Africa migration, phenotype has only changed to adapt to new environments. The people who stayed in E.Africa wouldn't have to adapt to new environments and the Sandawe of Tanzania as well as the 'Bushmen' of southern Africa (they have a common ancestor that can be traced 35 000 years ago ) are clearly related to these early pre-historic peoples .
-so exactly on what basis can I not ascribe a race to the original homo sapian sapians but I can acribe a race to present day homo sapian sapians when there is no physical or biological difference, we belong to the same human race as the pre-historic East Africans, we could reproduce with them. Were they baldheaded with no skin? I have never heard any scientists/genetecist claims this, only the White Nationalist type (I'm assuming you are if not Black American ), but I know that the physical differences between human populations are skin deep.
Quote:
No they are not. In fact, no one would have ever considered them Black in older times. It was not until admixture in the diaspora started creating larger parameters for phenotypes that other peoples in Africa proper were started to be considered as 'Black' as well. There has never been a set rule and the terms have varied by region.
First off I could care less what non-Africans think because I don't appreciate you trying categorize and define my own Black African people. It's unbelievably frustrating dealing with Whites and Black Americans but will try and keep my rational. No Black Africans identified as 'Black Africans' before contact with Europeans and to a lesser extent with Arabs, but if Bantu can be considered 'Black' then so can 'Khoi-San'. Their African hair marks them as Black people, Black is a racial categorization that includes the indiginous people of sub-saharan Africa. In comparison to a Dutch man or Native American, you can see that the Bantu and 'Capoid' share a broad phenotype and they both look like African people.
First off I could care less what non-Africans think because I don't appreciate you trying categorize and define my own Black African people. It's unbelievably frustrating dealing with Whites and Black Americans but will try and keep my rational. No Black Africans identified as 'Black Africans' before contact with Europeans and to a lesser extent with Arabs, but if Bantu can be considered 'Black' then so can 'Khoi-San'. Their African hair marks them as Black people, Black is a racial categorization that includes the indiginous people of sub-saharan Africa. In comparison to a Dutch man or Native American, you can see that the Bantu and 'Capoid' share a broad phenotype and they both look like African people.
So you're saying black Africans had no racial concept of themselves as black people prior to contact with people significantly different in appearance from themselves like Arabs and Europeans, but race indeed exists and these people are racially black?
Do all peoples of the Horn of Africa for example see themselves as racially black? Does this lend itself to embracing Africans of other ethnicities? According to these links, some Africans make what can be seen as racial distinctions amongst themselves. According Human Rights Blog: http://www.humanrightsblog.org/archives/2006_04.html
“The Ethiopian Army has carried out massacres against the Anuak
since December 2003 that have cost at least 2500 lives. Major oil reserves
have been discovered in Gambella province, Ethiopia, the Anuak homeland. The Ethiopian government is attempting to repopulate the province with settlers from the Ethiopian highlands, who view the Anuak as racially inferior. Genocide Watch has declared a Genocide Alert.”
“The Bantu people's predominant Negroid physical features are distinct from those of the Somali nomads and give them a unique identity. Among the physical features used to differentiate the nomads from the Bantu is hair texture—jareer (kinky hair) for the Bantu people, and jilec (soft hair) for the non-Bantu. People with such features are subjected to a variety of discriminatory practices. They are often excluded from political, economic, and educational advancement. The Bantu, therefore, have had to settle for the lowest and most undignified occupations.”
I look different then Djimon Hounsou or the late John Garang, but we're all Black Africans.
Are you born in Africa? By the way, its called admixture, clinal variation and cultural identification.
Quote:
Only people of African descent have kinky hair, and that includes the Melanesians and Andamanese Negritos. Some Caucasians have wiry, frizzy hair (the wooly hair syndrome ) but not kinky like mine.
Wrong. All hair types, from straight to kinky, originate in Africa. Kinky hair does not identify a race. By the way, the Khoisan do not have the same hair as the Bantu. Their hair is much more tightly curled.
Quote:
There are Black Arabs but I have yet to see a Jew or southern European with kinky hair. It's frustrating that every time people ('liberalized' Westerners) point out "nappy headed Jews, Whites, Italians" etc. I see these people clearly have curly or wavy hair (even when they give me direct pictures )as if we blatantly had different eyes. It's like you are trying to make some shocking controversial statement when you know good and well Blacks are the only people with that hair texture. Black Americans and White people especially try to do this and it's one reason I'd rather have nothing to do with those peoples (or any non-Black Africans ). I'll believe my eyes and common sense over you.
This is not a product of race, but clinal variation.
Quote:
By all means, please post some pictures of these non Black/sub saharan African descended people with kinky hair ( I consider the Andamanese Negritos and Melanesians to be Black )
I'm sure you do. But they are not genetically close. You consioder them Black because if you don;t it throws your whole claim out the door.
Quote:
Other peoples are dark skinned but the point is they are indiginous African people who share the same broad phenotype as me, they are clearly 'Black Africans' by all practical standards. Bantu speaking Black South Africans (after colonialism) have always been agitated by this (claiming the Khoi-San are not Black) as well, I remember reading an article on it.
I am sure they are. No one wants to be labelled a foreigner. But the KHOISAN do not see the Bantu as the same people as them.
Quote:
Indiginous sub-saharan Africans are all one broad race. The Berbers and Egyptian Copts of North Africa who are native inspite of being Arabized ( I don't believe the ancient Egyptians were Black because the Egyptian Copts are their purest descendents )are the only people indiginous to the continent who cannot be considered Black and I frankly consider North Africa to be a part of the Middle East politically and culturally.
Again, clines, there is no division line. It has to do with how much mixture and interaction occured between different peoples. The KhoiSan were pretty isolated. In contrast the Ethiopians which share a common ancestry with the KhoiSan as well as the Sandawe show a lot more admixture with other populations.
Quote:
The people of Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia are overwhelmingly of indiginous Cushitic descent inspite of the mixture SOME might have with Middle Easterners/Arabs, it's not responsible for their physicall differences from other Africans. Plus, non-Caucasians have long noses too, remember?
Actually, they would still be classified as caucasoid. The error is assuming that it did not start in Africa.
Quote:
Correct, but Capoids and Bantu belong to the same race, Berbers and Nilotes do not. It's subjective but I have nothing in common with Berbers , there are differences with the Khoi-San but clear similarities as well.
Sorry, but the Bantu and KhoiSan that have similarites are because of admixture in South Africa and some other regions because of the Bantu Migration, they are still separate peoples.
African_Prince wrote:
No Africans considered themselves 'Black' before contact with Arabs or Europeans. Guess why. Obviously you can't consider yourself Black if you don't have non-Black people to compare yourselves to. The physical differences between me and an Irishman is not a social construct, the social value we place on these differences are as much a social construct as age, gender or health.
Feel free to show me where Africans considered themselves Black before Europeans or Arabs. DIfferences in looks, don't mean assumption of an extreme color for one's self. It usually means labeling the OTHER group with some arbitrary name.
Quote:
You're right, the Khoi-San are the indiginous peoples of southern and eastern Africa, but with my ideaology (I'm from Zambia) a Nigerian has more right in Zambia then a White Zambian. I'm for African unity.
No, you are for a racialized concept of African unity. Or maybe an Ethnic Bantu one.
Quote:
Incorrect. You haven't addressed my actual point beyond just saying "you can't" (and when I say phenotype I mean visible physical features), the fact is these were anatomically modern humans we could reproduce with. We didn't 'develop' phenotype later, all homo sapian sapians have a phenotype. These were modern looking human beings and they looked like African people (likely the Khoi-San). Humans haven't evolved since the out of Africa migration, phenotype has only changed to adapt to new environments. The people who stayed in E.Africa wouldn't have to adapt to new environments and the Sandawe of Tanzania as well as the 'Bushmen' of southern Africa (they have a common ancestor that can be traced 35 000 years ago ) are clearly related to these early pre-historic peoples .
-so exactly on what basis can I not ascribe a race to the original homo sapian sapians but I can acribe a race to present day homo sapian sapians when there is no physical or biological difference, we belong to the same human race as the pre-historic East Africans, we could reproduce with them. Were they baldheaded with no skin? I have never heard any scientists/genetecist claims this, only the White Nationalist type (I'm assuming you are if not Black American ), but I know that the physical differences between human populations are skin deep.
Wrong. In fact the closest, and still not the same looking, would be the Australian Aborigines. They are the closest humans alive to Homo Idaltu anthropometrically. Khoisan may be the oldest population, but that doesn't mean the environment hasn't changed them as well. Just like the bantu etc. That some peoples may be closer because of environment in certain superficial traits does not make a race.
Quote:
First off I could care less what non-Africans think because I don't appreciate you trying categorize and define my own Black African people.
Oh you mean like you are trying to categorize many peoples who may or may not identify as Black? You want self choice, but don't want to give it to others. Claiming a racial affinity. Nice try.
Quote:
It's unbelievably frustrating dealing with Whites and Black Americans but will try and keep my rational. No Black Africans identified as 'Black Africans' before contact with Europeans and to a lesser extent with Arabs, but if Bantu can be considered 'Black' then so can 'Khoi-San'. Their African hair marks them as Black people, Black is a racial categorization that includes the indiginous people of sub-saharan Africa.
Nice try, you are trying to create a race based on subjective markers and ignoring others. I could just as easily use other markers and categorize Ethiopiams as Caucasoid and Khoisan as Mongoloid.
Quote:
In comparison to a Dutch man or Native American, you can see that the Bantu and 'Capoid' share a broad phenotype and they both look like African people.
And I can put a Dutch man next to many East Africans and they will sahere many anthropometric similarities and an Asian, and he will share phenotypes with KhoiSan. THe only part you are right about is that they are African people.
From another discussion
Salsassin wrote:
The problem I have with assumptions of mix based on broad features is the fact that many supposed caucasoid peoples also had a tendency to broad features.
So much for braod faces.
In fact you still see reciprocalities among supposed caucasoid populations of varied color, and even wit people supposedly of other 'races'
Hey, but that is racialism for you. An innacurate science.
First off I could care less what non-Africans think because I don't appreciate you trying categorize and define my own Black African people. It's unbelievably frustrating dealing with Whites and Black Americans but will try and keep my rational. No Black Africans identified as 'Black Africans' before contact with Europeans and to a lesser extent with Arabs, but if Bantu can be considered 'Black' then so can 'Khoi-San'. Their African hair marks them as Black people, Black is a racial categorization that includes the indiginous people of sub-saharan Africa. In comparison to a Dutch man or Native American, you can see that the Bantu and 'Capoid' share a broad phenotype and they both look like African people.
So you're saying black Africans had no racial concept of themselves as black people prior to contact with people significantly different in appearance from themselves like Arabs and Europeans, but race indeed exists and these people are racially black?
Do all peoples of the Horn of Africa for example see themselves as racially black? Does this lend itself to embracing Africans of other ethnicities? According to these links, some Africans make what can be seen as racial distinctions amongst themselves. According Human Rights Blog: http://www.humanrightsblog.org/archives/2006_04.html
“The Ethiopian Army has carried out massacres against the Anuak
since December 2003 that have cost at least 2500 lives. Major oil reserves
have been discovered in Gambella province, Ethiopia, the Anuak homeland. The Ethiopian government is attempting to repopulate the province with settlers from the Ethiopian highlands, who view the Anuak as racially inferior. Genocide Watch has declared a Genocide Alert.”
“The Bantu people's predominant Negroid physical features are distinct from those of the Somali nomads and give them a unique identity. Among the physical features used to differentiate the nomads from the Bantu is hair texture—jareer (kinky hair) for the Bantu people, and jilec (soft hair) for the non-Bantu. People with such features are subjected to a variety of discriminatory practices. They are often excluded from political, economic, and educational advancement. The Bantu, therefore, have had to settle for the lowest and most undignified occupations.”
I am well aware how many Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis view other Black people. I won't deny race is subjective, but as dark skinned African people they are considered Black by practical standards. White supremacists don't see Jews as the same race as them but they clearly share the same phenotype.
Last edited by African_Prince on Fri 05 May 2006 16:31; edited 1 time in total
Are you born in Africa? By the way, its called admixture, clinal variation and cultural identification.
Yes, Zambia. What does cultural identification have to do with me not looking like Djimon Hounsou? We are both Black Africans but don't share the same monolithic look. I'm the same complexion as the San for one.
Quote:
Wrong. All hair types, from straight to kinky, originate in Africa. Kinky hair does not identify a race. By the way, the Khoisan do not have the same hair as the Bantu. Their hair is much more tightly curled.
The Khoi-San do have the same hair texture as the Bantu as anyone with eyes can see. I have a mirror and my hair is the same texture as the girls in the picture, not to mention I see plenty of Bantu children with knotty heads and Khoi-San with the same 'Afro' hairstyle as me. You are correct all hair types originate in Africa, what does that have to do with non-Blacks having kinky hair as you claim?
My hair is no more or less kinky then the gentlemen on the left. Now you are out of your mind.
Quote:
This is not a product of race, but clinal variation.
What's your point? You can call phenotype whatever you want. The fact of the matter remains that only people of African descent have kinky hair and the Khoi-San have kinky hair.
Quote:
I'm sure you do. But they are not genetically close. You consioder them Black because if you don;t it throws your whole claim out the door.
I have read they have more in common genetically with East Asians but their phenotype designates them as Black.
Quote:
I am sure they are. No one wants to be labelled a foreigner. But the KHOISAN do not see the Bantu as the same people as them.
Just like the Hutu did not see the Tutsi as the same people as them (inspite of sharing the same language), those of us who are pro-African unity can clearly see they are Black Africans. I remember a Westernized Khoi-San Black South African writer who wrote an article on Western classifications dividing the Bantu from the Khoi-San in southern Africa
Quote:
Again, clines, there is no division line. It has to do with how much mixture and interaction occured between different peoples. The KhoiSan were pretty isolated. In contrast the Ethiopians which share a common ancestry with the KhoiSan as well as the Sandawe show a lot more admixture with other populations.
What does this have to do with Black Africans being one people and race?
Quote:
Actually, they would still be classified as caucasoid. The error is assuming that it did not start in Africa.
(refer to picture ) Haile Mengistu Mariam was clearly not 'Caucasoid' and the Cushites orginated in southern Ethiopia.
Quote:
Sorry, but the Bantu and KhoiSan that have similarites are because of admixture in South Africa and some other regions because of the Bantu Migration, they are still separate peoples.
That is NOT true. The Khoi-San on reservations are pure through and through. Unfortanatly, Khoi-San men never took Bantu women, some Khoi-San women were assimlated into Bantu cultures (Zulu and Xhosa), both of which have Khoi-San loan words and influence but the genetic studies of the Khoi-San show they have the most in common with the early humans and the most ancient and pure dna.
Quote:
Feel free to show me where Africans considered themselves Black before Europeans or Arabs. DIfferences in looks, don't mean assumption of an extreme color for one's self. It usually means labeling the OTHER group with some arbitrary name.
When did I say Africans considered themselves Black prior to European or Arab contact?
Quote:
No, you are for a racialized concept of African unity. Or maybe an Ethnic Bantu one.
I consider all Black Africans to be my people. I'll accept a light skinned Ethiopian before a dark skinned Black American.
Quote:
Wrong. In fact the closest, and still not the same looking, would be the Australian Aborigines. They are the closest humans alive to Homo Idaltu anthropometrically. Khoisan may be the oldest population, but that doesn't mean the environment hasn't changed them as well. Just like the bantu etc. That some peoples may be closer because of environment in certain superficial traits does not make a race.
We are not homo sapien idaltu , we are the sub-species homo sapien sapien. Scientists, not me, consider the 'Bushmen' to be the oldest living link to the original homo sapien sapiens and the African groups I mentioned have the worlds oldest dna.
Quote:
Oh you mean like you are trying to categorize many peoples who may or may not identify as Black? You want self choice, but don't want to give it to others. Claiming a racial affinity. Nice try.
These are my own African people you are trying to classify and I don't know or care what your agenda is. Anyone with eyes can clearly see the Khoi-San have kinky hair (you really said that, huh? Westerners never cease to surprise me). You have yet to hear a Khoi-San say they are not Black or African.
Quote:
Nice try, you are trying to create a race based on subjective markers and ignoring others. I could just as easily use other markers and categorize Ethiopiams as Caucasoid and Khoisan as Mongoloid.
What markers am I ignoring? Indiginous sub-saharan African people are diverse but one family.
Quote:
And I can put a Dutch man next to many East Africans and they will sahere many anthropometric similarities and an Asian, and he will share phenotypes with KhoiSan. THe only part you are right about is that they are African people.
Overall, the Khoi-San or dark skinned Ethiopians resemble fellow Black Africans then any European or Asian.
Quote:
Hey, but that is racialism for you. An innacurate science.
I'm not interested in your family album. I don't deny race is subjective and skin deep though. Ethnicity is more important to me as I have nothing in common culturally or ethnically with Black Americans.
Yes, Zambia. What does cultural identification have to do with me not looking like Djimon Hounsou? We are both Black Africans but don't share the same monolithic look. I'm the same complexion as the San for one.
You are both Africans, wether your ethnic groups adopted the label of black would determine if you were both Black Africans.
Quote:
The Khoi-San do have the same hair texture as the Bantu as anyone with eyes can see. I have a mirror and my hair is the same texture as the girls in the picture, not to mention I see plenty of Bantu children with knotty heads and Khoi-San with the same 'Afro' hairstyle as me. You are correct all hair types originate in Africa, what does that have to do with non-Blacks having kinky hair as you claim?
Khoisan, with their short frames, yellow-brown skin, "peppercorn" hair, epicanthic eye folds and small arms and feet, are quite distinct from the darker-skinned peoples who constitute the majority of Africa's population. Two distinguishing features of Khoisan women are their elongated labia minora and tendency to steatopygia,[1] features which contributed greatly to the European fascination with the so-called Hottentot Venus. However, the physical differences between Khoisan and other peoples are diminishing due to intermarriage.
They are not the same people. Similar, but not the same.
Quote:
My hair is no more or less kinky then the gentlemen on the left. Now you are out of your mind.
And your point? Admixture. Do you know all your ancestry or that of those people? We are just giving averages.
Quote:
What's your point? You can call phenotype whatever you want. The fact of the matter remains that only people of African descent have kinky hair and the Khoi-San have kinky hair.
The same can be said of people with straight hair. All people are of African descent.
Quote:
I have read they have more in common genetically with East Asians but their phenotype designates them as Black.
Because of your arbitrary choices of phenotypes.
Quote:
Just like the Hutu did not see the Tutsi as the same people as them (inspite of sharing the same language), those of us who are pro-African unity can clearly see they are Black Africans.
Much like the Germans could see the Egyptians were Aryan. Subjective.
Quote:
I remember a Westernized Khoi-San Black South African writer who wrote an article on Western classifications dividing the Bantu from the Khoi-San in southern Africa
A westernized person. Adopting westernized westernized racialization. Hmmmmm what a suprise. And he doesn't speak for the KhoiSan. Give me a KhoiSan leader.
Quote:
What does this have to do with Black Africans being one people and race?
When you can show me where the dividing line between black and non-Black occurs, you may have a point.
Quote:
(refer to picture ) Haile Mengistu Mariam was clearly not 'Caucasoid' and the Cushites orginated in southern Ethiopia.
Racialists have classified Cushites as Caucasian before. Again subjective. Depends on which traits you use to make your arbitrary groups.
Quote:
That is NOT true. The Khoi-San on reservations are pure through and through. Unfortanatly, Khoi-San men never took Bantu women, some Khoi-San women were assimlated into Bantu cultures (Zulu and Xhosa), both of which have Khoi-San loan words and influence but the genetic studies of the Khoi-San show they have the most in common with the early humans and the most ancient and pure dna.
If the bantu had admixture they will look more like KhoiSan. That admixture did occur. ANd you are wring, as admixture has occured in various Khosanid populations.
Quote:
When did I say Africans considered themselves Black prior to European or Arab contact?
Go look at your quote.
Quote:
I consider all Black Africans to be my people. I'll accept a light skinned Ethiopian before a dark skinned Black American.
I'm sure you would, but that doesn't mean geneologically one is closer than the other.
Quote:
We are not homo sapien idaltu , we are the sub-species homo sapien sapien. Scientists, not me, consider the 'Bushmen' to be the oldest living link to the original homo sapien sapiens and the African groups I mentioned have the worlds oldest dna.
Homo Idaltu is the oldest homo sapien found And Bushmen are just the oldest alive.
Quote:
These are my own African people you are trying to classify and I don't know or care what your agenda is. Anyone with eyes can clearly see the Khoi-San have kinky hair (you really said that, huh? Westerners never cease to surprise me). You have yet to hear a Khoi-San say they are not Black or African.
Duh, African is obvious.
Show me where all these groups claim yiou as their people.
Black is a socio-political term. SOme embrace it, and some do not.
In fact some bantu and nilotic people do not see themselves as Black either.
Quote:
What markers am I ignoring? Indiginous sub-saharan African people are diverse but one family.
I can say the same thing for humanity in general.
Quote:
Overall, the Khoi-San or dark skinned Ethiopians resemble fellow Black Africans then any European or Asian.
Not really. Depends on where you select the people to be compared.
Quote:
I'm not interested in your family album. I don't deny race is subjective and skin deep though. Ethnicity is more important to me as I have nothing in common culturally or ethnically with Black Americans.
I am Peruvian of Afrodescent. Not my family album any more than it is yours. All Africans do not share the same ethnicity.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Fri 05 May 2006 18:52 Post subject: Africans
African_Prince wrote:
I apologize but I hope you can understand my frustration. Blue is green now? If the discussion continues, I will refrain from making personal attacks.
Hi,
Blue is not green, but blue and green are only colors. Humans are not cans of paint.
Human genetics is not only about skin color. Koisans and Bantues look different to an outsider inmediately. Is not just the hair. It is the facial features, the body shape, the noses, the eyes, and other factors. Yes, we see the physical differences between the human groups in Africa at once. It is not just a game between "Blacks" and "Whites".
Genetics has shown it as well. Besides, their language and culture are different too.
Sorry, Africa is a diverse continent where live people of several races and ethnicities, like anywhere else in the planet. Everywhere there is diversity: in East Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, India, Europe, Australia, the South Pacific and the New World.
Perhaps African_Prince could specify precisely what physical or genetic feature(s) all sub_Saharan Africans share that makes them similar to each other but different from everyone else. It is not skin tone (since the Khoisan and Ethiopians are much lighter than Australians and Fijians) and it is not craniofacial anthropometry since Ethiopians and Somalis have Caucasoid skulls, while Khoisan have Mongoloid skulls. And it is not hair texture..., etc. So what exactly does African_Prince see that makes sub_Saharan Africans physically or genetically similar to each other but different from everyone else?
I am getting pretty frustrated dealing with non-Africans trying to tell me about my people so I am going to wrap it up and address a few points. I don't know what your agenda is but my point is
1) The Khoi-San, like ALL indiginous sub-saharan African people, are Black Africans
2) the earliest homo sapien sapiens resembled the Khoi-San peoples who are the oldest living link to them
I would take offense to you calling yourself of 'African descent'. I realize you said Afrodescent, but just keep in mind you have nothing to do with my people. You are in no right to tell ME who my people are or aren't, I would die for the Africans of Senegal just like I would the Khoi-San of the Kalahari or the Oromo of Ethiopia.
Quote:
You are both Africans, wether your ethnic groups adopted the label of black would determine if you were both Black Africans.
All Africans after colonialism identify themselves as racially Black (with the exception of some confused Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis). The Bantu and most West Africans belong to the same Niger-Congo language family, btw, and the Bantu originated in eastern Nigeria/western Cameroon 4000 years ago.
Quote:
Khoisan, with their short frames, yellow-brown skin, "peppercorn" hair, epicanthic eye folds and small arms and feet, are quite distinct from the darker-skinned peoples who constitute the majority of Africa's population. Two distinguishing features of Khoisan women are their elongated labia minora and tendency to steatopygia,[1] features which contributed greatly to the European fascination with the so-called Hottentot Venus. However, the physical differences between Khoisan and other peoples are diminishing due to intermarriage.
Khoi-San are the purest people alive, Khoi-San identifying people have not mixed with the Bantu. There may be physical differences but as dark skinned African people, they are Black Africans.
Quote:
They are not the same people. Similar, but not the same.
Africans are one family.
Quote:
And your point? Admixture. Do you know all your ancestry or that of those people? We are just giving averages.
I have a Scottish great grandfather and that's it, my hair is no different then my father who is 'pure' (or my mother and her siblings who aren't for that matter). Do you have eyes? The pictures of the Khoi-San I posted have nappy hair, it's not curly or straight, just uncombed.
Quote:
The same can be said of people with straight hair. All people are of African descent.
Correct, humanity is of African origin but you have nothing to do with us beyond pre-historic migrations. Non-Africans lost their phenotype (non Blacks) or culture (Western Blacks).
Quote:
Because of your arbitrary choices of phenotypes.
I don't deny that it is subjective, but what is your point. Most Papa New Guineans could pass for Africans, most Irish cannot.
Quote:
A westernized person. Adopting westernized westernized racialization. Hmmmmm what a suprise. And he doesn't speak for the KhoiSan. Give me a KhoiSan leader.
Anyone can clearly see the similarities between the Bantu and Khoi-San as dark skinned sub-saharan African people
Quote:
When you can show me where the dividing line between black and non-Black occurs, you may have a point.
I think we have agreed that it is subjective, but the general consensus is that Koreans are not Black so with every 'social construct' are generaly agreed upon 'rules'. The Khoi-San are dark skinned African people with African hair, they qualify as Black Africans.
Race is subjective, you're right. But why do you and White people have more of an authority on African categorizations then me, an African and other Black Africans?
Quote:
Racialists have classified Cushites as Caucasian before. Again subjective. Depends on which traits you use to make your arbitrary groups.
Haile Mengistu Mariam does not have the phenotype of Caucasian people
Quote:
If the bantu had admixture they will look more like KhoiSan. That admixture did occur. ANd you are wring, as admixture has occured in various Khosanid populations.
The Bantu are not generally mixed with the Khoi-San, only the Zulu and Xhosa have Khoi-San influence. You can see it in Nelson Mandela (Xhosa).
Quote:
Go look at your quote.
I'm sure I said Black people would have seen themselves as 'Black' or racially distinct in comparison to non-Black peoples like Arabs or White. Whether they would have placed great social value on it is another matter.
Quote:
I'm sure you would, but that doesn't mean geneologically one is closer than the other.
What business is it of yours who I consider my people?
Quote:
Homo Idaltu is the oldest homo sapien found And Bushmen are just the oldest alive.
And Bushmen are homo sapien sapiens resembling the earliest homo sapien sapiens.
Quote:
Duh, African is obvious.
Quote:
In fact some bantu and nilotic people do not see themselves as Black either.
Coming from an Afro-Latino, huh? I have NEVER even my life heard an African say they were not Black besides some Cushites. My parents raised me to believe I would have to work 3 times harder then White people to succeed in this society as a Black man, I don't have time to write an encylopedia on this, I know my own people.
Quote:
I can say the same thing for humanity in general.
NO. You are NOT my family. I could care less whether you live or die. This is not a personal attack, I simply don't care about Afro-Peruvians. Tell me about Peru, not Black Africans.
Quote:
All Africans do not share the same ethnicity.
All Africans are not the same single ethnic group but all Africans share a common Africanness. Who appointed you the authority on this?
Last edited by African_Prince on Sat 06 May 2006 01:49; edited 5 times in total
Posted: Fri 05 May 2006 21:49 Post subject: Re: Africans
Quote:
Hi,
Blue is not green, but blue and green are only colors. Humans are not cans of paint.
I was referring to Salassins claim that the Khoi-San and Bantu do not share the same hair texture.
Quote:
Human genetics is not only about skin color. Koisans and Bantues look different to an outsider inmediately. Is not just the hair. It is the facial features, the body shape, the noses, the eyes, and other factors. Yes, we see the physical differences between the human groups in Africa at once. It is not just a game between "Blacks" and "Whites".
Genetics has shown it as well. Besides, their language and culture are different too.
Sorry, Africa is a diverse continent where live people of several races and ethnicities, like anywhere else in the planet. Everywhere there is diversity: in East Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, India, Europe, Australia, the South Pacific and the New World.
Sub-saharan Africa is a diverse continent but we share a common Africanness. The Khoi-San are clearly dark skinned African people, even if not as dark as a southern Sudanese. An African is more an authority of African issues then any of you.
I've had enough of this discussion. I've said my peice.
-The Khoi-San are Black Africans, as all indiginous sub-saharan African people are, inspite of our obvious diversity
(they also clearly share the same hair texture us and have not mixed with the Bantu, in reference to Salassins claims )
- The earliest homo sapien sapiens resembled the Khoi-San of southern Africa and Tanzania today, our earliest link to them
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sat 06 May 2006 03:04 Post subject: Khoi-San
African_Prince wrote:
I am getting pretty frustrated dealing with non-Africans trying to tell me about my people so I am going to wrap it up and address a few points. I don't know what your agenda is but my point is
1) The Khoi-San, like ALL indiginous sub-saharan African people, are Black Africans
2) the earliest homo sapien sapiens resembled the Khoi-San peoples who are the oldest living link to them
Hi,
Yes, we understand you consider Khoi-San are YOUR people. I wonder if Khoisans consider you are their people as well.
Quote:
I would take offense to you calling yourself of 'African descent'. I realize you said Afrodescent, but just keep in mind you have nothing to do with my people.
Well, lots of friends in here are descendents of Subsaharian Africans. That's not my case, though.
Quote:
You are in no right to tell ME who my people are or aren't, I would die for the Africans of Senegal just like I would the Khoi-San of the Kalahari or the Oromo of Ethiopia.
Well, many people die for their friends, no matter they are not genetically related. I wonder if the other groups think the same though. Humans everywhere hardly stand each other. I believe Africa is not the exception.
Quote:
All Africans after colonialism identify themselves as racially Black (with the exception of some confused Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis).
Hardly. North Africans consider themselve arabs, and many Egyptians as well. Ethiopians are proud of their civilization and we (outsiders) have always consider NorthWest Africans (Ethiopians and some Somalis) to be mixed peoples of a distinct culture.
Quote:
The Bantu and most West Africans belong to the same Niger-Congo language family, btw, and the Bantu originated in eastern Nigeria/western Cameroon 4000 years ago.
Khoisans speak a "click" language that, as far as I know (I may be wrong) has anything to do with Bantu language.
Quote:
Khoi-San are the purest people alive, Khoi-San identifying people have not mixed with the Bantu. There may be physical differences but as dark skinned African people, they are Black Africans.
Yes. Khoisans are "black" and they are "African" but they are not of the same genetics and culture that other groups.
Quote:
Africans are one family.
In what sense? Europeans are a familty and they were fighting for centuries. And what about Hutus and Tutsies? Moors and Arabs of North Africa are not precisely friends of people of the south (Think Sudan). Ethiopians feel, and know, they are a distinct group. And what about the Malgasy that are half Indonesians. And Afrikaners as well, that reach South Africa before the Bantu? I wonder if Khoisan really fell they belong to a great family of Africa. After all Bantues invaded them.
Quote:
I have a Scottish grandfather and that's it, my hair is no different then my father who is 'pure' (or my mother and her siblings who aren't).
So you are 1/4 European, and, Scottish!! Curious I believed you were a Subasaharian person without a single drop of those abusive and evil people called Europeans.
Quote:
Do you have eyes? The pictures of the Khoi-San I posted have nappy hair, it's not curly or straight, just uncombed.
So, what defines "Africaness" is nappy hair? I never though in that.
Quote:
Correct, humanity is of African origin but you have nothing to do with us beyond pre-historic migrations. Non-Africans lost their phenotype (non Blacks) or culture (Western Blacks).
So, it is a select club, eh? No foreigners allowed.
Quote:
I don't deny that it is subjective, but what is your point. Most Papa New Guineans could pass for Africans, most Irish cannot.
And what about Australian Aborigines and East Indians. Do they pass for Africans as well?
Quote:
Quote:
A westernized person. Adopting westernized westernized racialization. Hmmmmm what a suprise. And he doesn't speak for the KhoiSan. Give me a KhoiSan leader.
Anyone can clearly see the similarities between the Bantu and Khoi-San as dark skinned sub-saharan African people
Do you really believe so? I bet a western can distinguish both group without problem at all. But now, what group of "dark skinned sub-saharan Africans" are you talking about? There are many different people (or races if you wish) south of the Sahara. And same are more distinct between themselves than with "outsiders".
Quote:
I think we have agreed that it is subjective, but the general consensus is that Koreans are not Black so with every 'social construct' are generaly agreed upon 'rules'. The Khoi-San are dark skinned African people with African hair, they qualify as Black Africans.
So, if Khoi-San had straigh hair they would not be "Black Africans" anymore?
Quote:
Race is subjective, you're right. But why do you and White people have more of an authority on African categorizations then me, an African and other Black Africans?
Do you have more authority than a Koi-shan? It would be nice if they could speak by themselves.
Quote:
Haile Mengistu Mariam does not have the phenotype of Caucasian people
Good one. What is the phenotype of Caucasian people? That's a hard one, racists in the west are still discussing who is and who is not.
Quote:
The Bantu are not generally mixed with the Khoi-San, only the Zulu and Xhosa have Khoi-San influence. You can see it in Nelson Mandela (Xhosa).
Yes. Mandela look very Khoi-San to me, quite different from other peoples of Africa.
Quote:
And Bushmen are homo sapien sapiens resembling the earliest homo sapien sapiens.
So, everybody want to be related to bushmen then, to have the lead. To be the "first humans". To fulfill the myth that "everything originated in Africa".
Quote:
NO. You are NOT my family. I could care less whether you live or die. This is not a personal attack, I simply don't care about Afro-Peruvians. Tell me about Peru, not Black Africans.
Very bad manners. Look, I am Latino like "Salsassin". He is white with some african ancestry. I am mestizo (European-Indian) without African ancestry. But I tell you, I do care about Salsassin because he is my "Latino brother" and my fellow human being.
I have always said him. Hey, Blacks in Peru are integrated to society, and their culture is Latino, not African. Cubans are Latinos not Africans. Brazilians are Latinos, not Africans either. I hope he learned the lesson. If Africans don't care about Afro-Peruvians, then why they have to keep on dreamming about their "Mother Africa" myth. Why do they care about Africa at all.
Lord, I am glad we live in Latin America, a place where really exist a common culture and civilization. And where the foreigner is welcome to become one of us.
Quote:
All Africans are not the same single ethnic group but all Africans share a common Africanness. Who appointed you the authority on this?
Do you really think so. Think in Moors, Arabs, Egyptians, Ethiopians, East Indians, Afrikaners and other Europeans. All of them were born in Africa so they are Africans. Do they share the same sense of "Africanness" that you have?
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Sat 06 May 2006 13:41 Post subject: Re: Khoi-San
oevega wrote:
Regardless of skin color, Koisan and Bantu peoples seems two different races to me, as different as East Africans, Hindues and Australian Aborigines.
Different as say Arabs, Berbers, Semites, and Southern Europeans?
oevega wrote:
African_Prince wrote:
..
Hi,
(Sorry I made mistake. Wrong key)
I don`t know what you mean by "clearly Black". It look for me the Khoi-San are not from the same "race" than the Bantu at all.
Quote:
-This "Capoid" woman is clearly Black
It look Asian to me. Reallly
Quote:
-These Khoi-San children are clearly Black
I don't know. Some of them have certain similarities to caucasians and australoids.
It seem to me they are another group, related, of course, but distinct. Actually, would you say an Australian Aborigen or some dark skinned East Indians are "clearly Blacks"? I don't think so.
Joined: 10 Mar 2006 {Posts: 235 } Location: Atlanta
Posted: Sat 06 May 2006 15:59 Post subject:
African_Prince wrote:
G-Man wrote:
African_Prince wrote:
First off I could care less what non-Africans think because I don't appreciate you trying categorize and define my own Black African people. It's unbelievably frustrating dealing with Whites and Black Americans but will try and keep my rational. No Black Africans identified as 'Black Africans' before contact with Europeans and to a lesser extent with Arabs, but if Bantu can be considered 'Black' then so can 'Khoi-San'. Their African hair marks them as Black people, Black is a racial categorization that includes the indiginous people of sub-saharan Africa. In comparison to a Dutch man or Native American, you can see that the Bantu and 'Capoid' share a broad phenotype and they both look like African people.
So you're saying black Africans had no racial concept of themselves as black people prior to contact with people significantly different in appearance from themselves like Arabs and Europeans, but race indeed exists and these people are racially black?
Do all peoples of the Horn of Africa for example see themselves as racially black? Does this lend itself to embracing Africans of other ethnicities? According to these links, some Africans make what can be seen as racial distinctions amongst themselves. According Human Rights Blog: http://www.humanrightsblog.org/archives/2006_04.html
“The Ethiopian Army has carried out massacres against the Anuak
since December 2003 that have cost at least 2500 lives. Major oil reserves
have been discovered in Gambella province, Ethiopia, the Anuak homeland. The Ethiopian government is attempting to repopulate the province with settlers from the Ethiopian highlands, who view the Anuak as racially inferior. Genocide Watch has declared a Genocide Alert.”
“The Bantu people's predominant Negroid physical features are distinct from those of the Somali nomads and give them a unique identity. Among the physical features used to differentiate the nomads from the Bantu is hair texture—jareer (kinky hair) for the Bantu people, and jilec (soft hair) for the non-Bantu. People with such features are subjected to a variety of discriminatory practices. They are often excluded from political, economic, and educational advancement. The Bantu, therefore, have had to settle for the lowest and most undignified occupations.”
I am well aware how many Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis view other Black people. I won't deny race is subjective, but as dark skinned African people they are considered Black by practical standards. White supremacists don't see Jews as the same race as them but they clearly share the same phenotype.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
