There seems to be no world map of Black people on the Internet, so I made one. Click on the map above to enlarge.
Key:
- dark brown: 75% to 100% Black
- medium brown: 50% to 74% Black
- light brown: 25% to 49% Black
- grey: 0% to 24% Black
Note: If a country or state is grey, it does not mean there are no Black people there. It just means they make up less than a fourth of the people. There are plenty of places like that, like California.
In making such a map, of course, everything turns on what the word “Black” means:
Definition: For this map, I consider someone Black if:
- In a survey or government census, they say they are Black or part Black.
- If their mitochondrial DNA belongs to haplogroup L, the same as Mitochondrial Eve’s. (Everyone else has a history, at least on their mother’s side, of having left Africa over 25,000 years ago.)
If you fit either the social definition (#1) or the genetic one (#2), you are considered Black on the map.
I use this definition because it makes such a map doable while also being roughly in line with what “Black” means in the US, the main way the word is used on this blog.
The definition is hardly perfect. For example, social Black can mean different things in different countries. Just ask Zoe Saldana. And while genetic Black might seem more “objective”, using it alone would exclude 30% of Black Americans while including like 1% of White Americans (maybe more because of passing).
I used #1 where possible, mainly in the Americas and South Africa. I used #2 everywhere else. Northern Africa turns on #2. For countries where I could not find a number that fit either definition, I used a value that made the map look reasonable.
In short: Use the map only to get a rough idea. It is a work in progress, not the gospel truth.
Some remarks on different regions:
Africa:
- Left blank because I am not sure: Oman and the small islands near Africa.
- Guessed at: Libya, Western Sahara, Mauretania, Chad, Eritrea, Djibouti and Madagascar. They might be a bit off, but I doubt they are far off. I am least sure about Madagascar.
- Counted as Black: Coloureds in South Africa.
Americas:
- Left blank because I am not sure: Aruba.
- Guessed at: Martinique and St Kitts & Nevis. I made them dark brown since that is what the nearby islands are.
- Counted as Black: Mulattoes, garifunas, zambos, pardos, etc. Note that the Amazon region may be overstated since there pardo can mean a mix of White and Native with no Black.
- Not counted as Black: Those who put down more than one race on the US census. The US census figures generally do not list biracial Blacks separately. The only place where that could make a difference, though, is Washington, DC. It might be medium brown instead of light brown.
Europe:
Europe on my map is all grey because no single country was more than 25% Black. But Europe is not as lily White as it imagines. The map above makes brown the regions between 0.5% and 25%, showing the percentage of people with provably recent Black ancestry (haplogroup L). “Recent” means like in the last 6,000 years.
– Abagond, 2015, 2018.
Update (March 2nd 2018): Changed the blue-scale maps to brown.
Sources: The latest figures from the Wikipedia, the CIA Factbook, the US Census (2014), a cool map based on the CIA Factbook, the Wikipedia page on haplogroup L (2015), and a map on Mathilda’s Anthroplogy Blog (2008).
See also:
- The map of White people
- Africa: the last 13,000 years
- Race in:
- How Black was Ancient Egypt?
- How Black are Jews? – based on Priya Moorjani’s study. She uses a genetic definition that gives pretty much the same numbers as mine.
- DNA ancestry tests and Black Americans
- mitochondrial DNA
- Afro-Latinos
- The term “sub-Saharan Africa”
- The term “black”
Surprised you looked at Mathilda’s blog!
LikeLike
What’s her blog?
LikeLike
@Tay
It’s Matilda’s Anthropology Blog, linked to in this post.
LikeLike
what about the us
http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_common_race.html
LikeLike
@ ^V8
In the U.S. Blacks are far below 1/4 of the population.
LikeLike
So about the people from Melanesia and the Solomon Islands and even some unique individuals through out the Pacific and in South and South East Asia. I guess in the America they would be considered ‘Black’ but not in Abagond’s Book.
LikeLike
Abagond,
In your world map, is Africa’s physical land area unrepresented in terms of its overall size relative to the rest of the continents?
LikeLike
*under represented
LikeLike
v8 thanks for the map. So, that’s where New York state is and you guys have a state called Maine. Most Black people are in the South.
LikeLike
Ok so the us is off-the world map due to the average, but it sounds like a new abagond rule bi-racial is no longer black? I cant keep up with that all, its a lot of ‘multi-ethnic’ on the us map. I am reminded of oregon, seattle, idaho, upstate ny, kentucky, being rather lily white.
LikeLike
@ v8driver
On the map, biracial people who are part Black are counted as Black. The only exception is Washington, DC.
DC is 49% monoracial Black. There might be enough biracial Blacks to put it over the 50% mark, making it medium blue instead of light blue. Once I find the numbers on biracial Blacks in DC, that exception will go away. US census figures generally do not list the biracial Black numbers, so it will take some digging.
LikeLike
I am totally intrigued by that shaded area in the middle of Balkans. Black people in the Ottoman army, perhaps?
LikeLike
@ Kiwi
LMAO. Thanks. Please tell me if I missed any.
LikeLike
@ Mira
Ottoman most likely. An outside chance it is Roman.
LikeLike
Roman would be an interesting possibility. How did you compile this data/where did you find it?
It would be interesting to see if it’s mostly male (as expected) or perhaps female genetic line. If female, I’d say Romans might be better candidates (though even for those I’d expect more male line).
I actually wanted to do one of those genetic tests but all I could learn is my mother mother’s side of the family. My dad died and I don’t have brothers so I can’t learn anything about the male line.
LikeLike
@ Mira
It would have to be female: we are talking about mitochondrial DNA. This sort of thing most often takes place when an empire rules parts of both Africa and Europe.
LikeLike
Then I’d say Romans are better candidates. I don’t think Ottomans would bring their women nor that they would mix with locals. I don’t know, but it’s fascinating in any case. Then again, 6000 years is a long period, and Balkans is known for excessive mixing. That being said, it’s more Asian than African – there are not many possibilities for African admixture unless it’s one of the two possibilities we mentioned. I am trying to think of another one.
LikeLike
What is the point of this exercise? Why do you think it is important to identify people by their perceived color and why do you think it is of value to identify what percentage of these people use the Internet in different areas?
To me this seems like a very colonising thing to do.
LikeLike
Maryland (not colored in the maps) is over 30% black, higher than both South Carolina and Alabama and on par with Georgia and Louisiana, and is growing much faster, as a percentage, than any of the other traditional “black belt” states. I would not be surprised if it even surpassed Mississippi in a couple decades to become the blackest US state percentagewise.
Yeah, DC @49% black would probably be over half if all the mixed racial blacks were counted. In the 1970s, it surpassed 72%, maybe could have been dark blue for several years.
LikeLike
@ Jefe
Huh? Maryland is coloured in the maps
LikeLike
@ huka
Huh? Where did I say anything about Internet usage?
LikeLike
@ huka
I made the map because:
1. I wanted to get a picture of the African diaspora.
2. I wanted to get some kind of handle on the line, if any, between “sub-Saharan Africa” and the rest of Africa. That issue comes out in all kinds of ways, especially when talking to White racists about history.
3. I made a map of White people so I was curious to see one of Black people.
LikeLike
@Abagond,
Sorry about that. It wasn’t showing up as coloured on my screen, but after reopening it in a separate tab and enlarging it, it did now appear coloured. Apologies.
LikeLike
Prior to so-called Mongoloid expansion Southeast Asia was Black (so-called Negrito Aboriginals).
Prior to the so-called European-Caucasoid expansion South Asia and Australia were Black (so-called Australian Aboriginals)
Prior to the so-called Polynesian expansion the Pacific islands were Black (so-called Melanesians).
At one time the entire Earth was populated by dark-skinned peoples.
LikeLike
@ Kiwi
Thanks!
I agree. The term “Asian” as a race in the sense that it has in the US is completely artificial:
LikeLike
@ Kiwi
Ideas about race in the US are warped by, among other things:
1. Most people come from the extreme ends of other continents.
2. Racism keeps people apart, making the “races” seem like an unchangeable fact of nature. If it were not for racism, the US would have turned beige long ago.
LikeLike
@ Kiwi
The Asian map would be interesting!
LikeLike
@ Kiwi
I do not see how that happened, but you are right. Thank you!
LikeLike
@ Michael Cooper
The strange thing about the Negritos, Melanesians and so on, is that they are more distantly related to Blacks, as defined in the post, than anyone else. That is because they left Africa first. The reason they look so alike is because most of them remained in the tropics.
LikeLike
I have read in many different sources (in fact, just read in another source this past weekend) that migrants from India to the USA in the 1700s got classified as “black” and “slave”, including some Indian/white Eurasians. This indicates (along with the Melanesians and Australians) how “black” gets assigned to people who are not of recent African origin. It might also explain how some Asian ancestry got mixed into the US black population, even back in the 1700s.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
I was informed that the so-called Negritos left Africa millenniums before the last glacier period (11,000-20,000 years ago), whereas the so-called Melanesians left Africa 3,500 years ago. It is noted by linguists that the languages of so-called Melanesians (Fijians, ni-Vanuatu, Kanaks, etc.) are fundamentally African. I totally agree with you that the tropics allowed both groups – so-called Negritos and Melanesians – to retain their so-called Negroid phenotype.
LikeLike
@Michael Cooper
Is there a certain form of language that we can call “fundamentally African”?
LikeLike
I read an article which said that the Fijians claim they came from the religion of Tanzania in Africa long ago but scientists say they’re South East Asian. I can’t corroborate it as I don’t know any Fijians but that’s interesting. If true, I wonder how that tradition arose.
Anyway, I know the map is based on the proportion of the population that is black but it results in a somewhat misleading picture. There are about 12 million Americans who identify as black (right?). That’s more than the entire populations of Cuba – the most populous Carribean island at 11+ milion people, Haiti, The Dominican Republic, or Jamaica. The map, at a glance, makes it seem as if there are hardly any black people in America when there are more than there are in each of the Caribbean islands individually. There are also more black Americans than the entire population of The Gambia near Senegal. In fact, only ~23 out of the almost 60 African countries have more than 12 million people therefore they can’t have more black people.
It’s not really a complaint, just an observation (Who am I kidding, I’m a bit miffed to see AAs essentially erased on a map of the African Diaspora :P). It’s a consequence of coloring criteria based on proportion and the disparity between a country with 300+ million people and countries with less than 12 million. More populous countries with many black people but where they constitute a smaller proportion of the population have their black presence erased while smaller countries with numerically fewer people get colored. Heck, there are more Black British than the entire populations of some of the colored countries. That’s unfortunate from a visual standpoint even if it follows naturally from the methodology used.
I like the map but I think it could give a more comprehensive picture, at a glance, of where people of recent African descent are scattered. Perhaps shades of another color (green?) could be used to represent (raw) numerical categories for populous countries with black minorities below the proportional coloring threshold. No color for under 1 million, a darker green for 1-5M and darker yet for 5-10+M. Or a threshold number could be picked and only one shade (or stripes/dots) used to represent it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wrt to Cuba, I should say it is the most populous country in the Caribbean islands. The countries of Haiti (~10M) and the Dominican Republic (~10M) share the island of Hispaniola making it the most populous island by a large margin.
LikeLike
Your maps are fine – they give a general idea of where most Blacks live.
Even Detroit/Flint would be just a dot on the map.
While California has over 2 mil. the percentage is still pretty low (there are twice as many Asians as Blacks). The state’s major cities are less than 10% Black.
LikeLike
@ Origin
More populous countries with many black people but where they constitute a smaller proportion of the population have their black presence erased while smaller countries with numerically fewer people get colored. Heck, there are more Black British than the entire populations of some of the colored countries. That’s unfortunate from a visual standpoint even if it follows naturally from the methodology used.
I like the map but I think it could give a more comprehensive picture, at a glance, of where people of recent African descent are scattered.
An alternative methodology would be to color the countries according to the absolute number of Blacks they had (and not according to their relative numbers).
Guess what:
– Nigeria would come in the first place…
– … and Brasil would come second (before even all African countries except Nigeria!)
LikeLike
@munubantu
Yes. It’s very interesting that Brazil has more people of recent African descent than any other country except Nigeria. That implies that Portuguese is almost the most commonly spoken language among black people (Angola and Mozambique in Africa are also Portuguese official). It’s probably eclipsed only by English, assuming that the majority of Nigerians speak it alongside the languages of their ethnic groups. I think that says a ton about the impact of the slave trade and colonialism.
LikeLike
@ Origin
Right, the map gives you no idea of the relative sizes of the different Black populations. The best way to handle that graphically is to size the countries according to how many Black people each has. That would be an interesting map too.
As has been pointed out, Nigeria would be the largest with Brazil second. The US would only be half the size of Brazil. South Africa would be smaller still.
LikeLike
@ Origin
I’m half-Fijian (maternally), half-African American (paternally). Because I’m Black and proudly Black, I circle African-American or Black on anything pertaining to race or ethnicity. But keep in my mind that Fijians are phenotypically Black too. My mother and maternal relatives have medium to dark-brown skin and ‘buiniga’ (frizzy) hair texture. They’re often mistaken for African-Americans. There are plenty of Fijians in California, but the numbers of Fijians don’t match that of Tongans and Samoans. Indigenous Fijians (so-called Melanesians) can trace their African lineage back to a Tanzanian “tribe” called Fipa. Interestingly, many Fipa and Fijian words are similar: “Mai” (water in the Fipa language) and “Wai” (water in the Fijian language); “Kuli” (Fipa for “dog”) and “Koli” (Fijian for “dog”); “Yaasa” (Fipa for “hunt”) and vakasasaa (Fijian for “hunt”); “Wane” (Fipa for “man”) and “tagane” (for “man”); “Kuru” (Fipa for “village”) and “koro” (Fijian for “village”).
@ jefe
“Is there a certain form of language that we can call ‘fundamentally African’?”
I can’t really say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. However, many leading linguists and historians on the languages of Oceania would probably say yes. Jane Resture, a beautiful Samoan woman and one of Oceania’s best historians said: “Present research indicates that human occupation of Oceania – those vast reaches of the Pacific encompassing Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia – began on New Guinea (West Papua and New Papua Guinea). The first settlers brought with them a language that was fundamentally African. They then moved along the Melanesian Archipelago from West Papua and New Guinea to the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, New Caledonia [Kanaky], and eventually to Fiji. During this time, the language evolved and became fragmented until it developed into the present-day language of Melanesia.” http://www.janeresture.com/melhome/index.htm (scroll down to “Origins”)
Ms. Resture also said: “The migration, thousands of years later, of the ancestors of the present-day Polynesians out of Asia, brought with it languages and dialects that were essentially Asian in origin and which developed into the present-day languages of Polynesia.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
@abagond
Yeah, other maps could be made that would also be interesting.
@Michael Cooper
Thank you so much for chiming in. I’m glad to hear directly from someone of Fijian heritage rather than simply reading about it secondhand. (BTW, I just noticed I’d typed “religion of Tanzania” instead of “region” oops) It’s interesting so see that linguistic links survived.
LikeLike
@ Origin
Vinaka gane (thank you, brother) for being receptive and understanding to Fijian history. But I must thank every Dau Ni Talanoa (oral historian) in Fijian villages for keeping our African history alive.
LikeLike
I agree with Kiwi and Michael Cooper. India definitely has its large share of blacks, and places like Fiji, Vanuatu and Papa New GUINEA should be classified as majority black. Also the Andaman Islands, etc.
I have no idea why Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea are in medium blue. They definitely have over 90% black populations each. As does Mauritania.
Also, limiting “blackness” to haplogroup L misses that M and N are also prevalent all over Africa, including in very remote locations untouched by outside admixture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why is Ethiopia and Sudan medium blue: 50% to 74% Black? its more than 90% black
LikeLiked by 3 people
@ Aja
They are “more than 90% black” based on what?
LikeLike
@Abagond
In Ethiopia, for example, the 2007 national census says the following 6 ethnic groups account for 80% of the population: Oromo, Amhara, Somali, Tigray, Sidamo, Gurage
Unless one considers these ethnic groups as non-black, then Ethiopia’s population is more than 74% black.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@resw77
Ethiopia was based on mitochondrial DNA. Many Ethiopians, though not most, have mitochondrial DNA that comes from outside Africa. You find the same thing if you look at the history and languages of Ethiopia. The Amhara and Tigray, for example, speak Semitic languages that are believed to have come from Arabia.
LikeLike
What the hell, why would you seperate horn of Africans? Djobuti is mostly Somali, and besides that all horn of Africans cluster together genetically (Afro Asatic speaking ones like Amhara, Somalis, TIgray, Oromo, etc, etc).
LikeLike
What the hell, why would you seperate horn of Africans? Djobuti is mostly Somali, and besides that all horn of Africans cluster together genetically (Afro Asatic speaking ones like Amhara, Somalis, TIgray, Oromo, etc, etc).
Add to the above, the semitic speaking horners have minimal south Arabian admixture, it’s really miniscule (it came with the language shift, previously they were cushtic speakers).The non “African” genetics of all horners, whether Semitic speaking, or Cushitic speaking is largely shared and pre historic (pre dating Arabs or any modern west asian group) The semitic speaking east Africans like Amhara and TIgray are overall 50% west Eurasians, while Somalis are 40% west Eurasian. It’s believed that in pre history (think stone age, or the neolithic era) there was a mixture between genetically middle eastern pastrolist and a unique group of ancient east Africans that don’t exist in a pure form anymore. The admixture is super old and I don’t consider horn of Africans “mixed” because of that.
Please read this blog post, it’s very good and talks about the above in way more detail with evidence.
http://anthromadness.blogspot.com/2015/07/horn-africans-mixture-between-east.html
But yea, my main point is not about race itself, but rather making genetic distinctions based on language family and what not, the cushitic speaking horners (somalis, Oromos) and Semitic speaking horners (Amhara and Tigray) share large portions of ancestry with each other (both African and non African), the latter having a bit more (10%) due to probably when they shifted their language to Semitic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The semitic speaking horners have minimal south Arabian admixture, it’s really miniscule (it came with the language shift, previously they were cushtic speakers).The non “African” genetics of all horners, whether Semitic speaking, or Cushitic speaking is largely shared and pre historic (pre dating Arabs or any modern west asian group) The semitic speaking east Africans like Amhara and TIgray are overall 50% west Eurasians, while Somalis are 40% west Eurasian. It’s believed that in pre history (think stone age, or the neolithic era) there was a mixture between genetically middle eastern pastrolist and a unique group of ancient east Africans that don’t exist in a pure form anymore. The admixture is super old and because of that I don’t consider horn of Africans “mixed” because of that.
Please read this blog post, it’s very good and talks about the above in more detail
http://anthromadness.blogspot.com/2015/07/horn-africans-mixture-between-east.html
Main point is there is very little difference between the semetic speakers and cushitic speakers genetically.
LikeLike
The number of Blacks and Mulattoes in Brazil are actually not that higher than the US. Those figures are actually counting all mixed people and non-Whites as Black. The pardo group stands for mixed and includes Mestizos, Gypsies and Eurasians. More than half of those counted as Black are actually Mestizo or Castizo and look like Jessica Alba and Taylor Lautner. The Northern region or North-West (Amazon basin area) that appears as dark in the map is actually mostly Castizo, Caboclo and Indigenous with a White minority.
Brazil has 89 million European descendants; 10 million Levantine Arabs, mostly Christian Lebanese; 162 thousand Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews and 800 thousand Anusim, descendants of colonial Dutch and Portuguese Crypto Jews or Marranos.
800 thousand Roma people or Gypsies; 400 thousand Eurasians, mostly Ainoko or hafu, meaning Japanese and European. 2.3 million East Asians and 30 thousand South Asians and East Indians. Most Asians are Japanese. Brazil has 1.8 million Japanese people, 300 thousand Chinese, 50 thousand Taiwanese and 150 thousand Koreans.
Caboclo people are people whose genes span from 70% to 90% European (mostly colonial Portuguese, Dutch, French and Spanish) with the rest being Native blood admixture. In Spanish they use the word Castizo. Brazil has 43 million Caboclos or Castizos/Mestizos. The number of Indigenous people who live in reservations is 500 thousand. 160 thousand people speak speak Indigenous languages. Brazil has 42 million Mulattos and 13 million Blacks. According to DNA research people who identify as Mulatto or Black and White mix have a range of 62 to 80% European DNA markers (colonial Portuguese, Dutch and French) with the other markers being Sub-Saharan African blood assimilation.
Argentina and Uruguay have small Mulatto populations. Peru has a Black minority and Colombia, Venezuela, Suriname and Guyana have a considerable Black and Mulatto population. In French Guiana, Suriname and Guyana there are the Maroon people, formerly called Bush Negroes. Peru also has East Asians and Colombia and Venezuela also received European and Arab immigration. They also have Jewish minorities. Most Jews in South America live in Argentina and Brazil. Peru and Venezuela have large Chinese populations.
LikeLike
@ Alan Schlickmann
Can you give me some sources for that?
LikeLike
Alan Schlickmann does have a point. I updated the post to say:
LikeLike
thanks for this map but you missed northern territory australia 36% black. melanesia (papua, fiji etc) and some islands in asia (andaman etc)
LikeLike
@ joel
An excellent point!
I left them off because they generally belong to haplogroup M (not of immediate African ancestry) and because by “identify as Black” I meant seeing one’s self as being of immediate African descent.
But the Oxford dictionary, which I try to follow, defines Black people as:
LikeLike
Update: Changed the blue-scale maps to brown.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
What? Albania is not listed as a “Black” country. LOL!
Especially after countless protests from Albanians about their country being excluded from the map of White People.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Afrofem
Maybe I should make it light brown just to troll Albania 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Abagond
hearty chuckle
LikeLike
You have forgot Ethiopian people are not real black.
Amhara and tigringa they are semetic they call Habesha.Eritrea and Ethiopia they are both aren’t real black.
LikeLike
Define “real black”?
“Se·mit·ic
səˈmidik/
adjective
adjective: Semitic
Which version of Semitic did you have in mind, 1 or 2? Can’t be two because that would make Ethiopians Arabs or Jews.
The definition of Ethiop, the word you get Ethiopian from is:
“Ethiop (plural Ethiops) (archaic) A native or inhabitant of Ethiopia. (archaic) Any black-skinned person.”
Do yourself a favor next time and learn the meaning of the words you use. I’m embarrassed for you, since your ignorance prevents you from being so. The name Ethiopia derived, from the Greek form, aithiopia, from the two words aitho, “I burn”, and ops, “face”. It would hence mean the colored man’s land — the land of the scorched faces.
Ethiopian are, by definition, black.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How are haplogroups determinants of race? Are we talking frequency, age or both?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Seems wrong that’s australia he grey even if Black Aboriginal Peoples are minoritized on their own land by white settler society.
LikeLike
North africa should not be there unless you think this people are black :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Africa#/media/File:Beduin_women.jpg , the descend from immigrants via the historical trans-Saharan trade or, after the Arab invasions of North Africa in the 7th century, from slaves from the Arab slave trade in North Africa dont represent more than 10% of the population , and many of them are not even citizens they immigrants , check this map it more acurate : http://chartsbin.com/view/40674
LikeLike
how can i remove a coment and put another ?
LikeLike
Dude I’m sorry but I have to tell you the South America map is not accurate at all. I’m brazilian and I’ve studied about the demographics of this country and the surrounding areas for quite a long time. Well let’s start by saying the Paraná state has no more than 24% black people in it, thus it shouldn’t be marked as light brown. The states of São Paulo, Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro are definetely medium brown, while the entire northeast region is dark brown. The norwest region doesn’t have many black or whites, people there are mostly indigenous or miscigenated with whites, like many other countries in south america. Regarding to other countries, you have Colombia as dark brown for sure, and Equador, Bolivia, Peru, Suriname and Venezuela as middle brown. I can’t give you the source from these infos because they’re based on my life experiences, plus most of the census are self reported which means unreliable data. Don’t worry and trust me, I’m white.
LikeLike
I’m confused why you put Somalia as black but not Ethiopia they are genetically related and Djibouti has Somalis there too so it would make more sense to put them in the same category
LikeLike
@ x
I only accept comments written in English.
I laid out my definition of “Black” in the post. You have a different one, so of course your map would be different, including Andaman Islanders and such.
LikeLike
There are lots of people who have mtDNA L but are not black.
For example, Marthinus Wessel Pretorius, Boer leader, had mtDNA L4b2b, but it is ridiculous to say he was a black man. He was slightly less than 4% black by blood. does that a black man make?
He built his own house, compiled a constitution, and was said to be a great blacksmith. Do those sound like black guy things to you?
No one would ever call Martin Luther King a White man, even though he had a White Y-chromosome. So why assign all members of mtDNA L to the black race?
Look at a picture of MW Pretorius…he looks pure White, in a Verwoerdian sense of the word. If you didn’t know who he was, you could easily mistake him for some French Romantic composer.
If we’re going by mtDNA, then Obama is White, BTW
I’m still surprised that someone who is half-White had such hatred for the White race. Does he hate the lightish skin (by black standards) he sees when he looks in the mirror?
LikeLike
[…] Map of Black People […]
LikeLike