race

Fri May 18th 2018 by abagond

What do these people have in common?

Believe it or not, I have never done a post on race:

Race (1774- ) divides humans into some three to seven breeds based on physical features like hair, eyes, nose, and, especially, skin colour.

For example:

Blacks in the US, circa 1998.

In 1985 in the US the main races were:

Whites – those who look like they are of pure European blood;
Blacks – those who look part African;
Asians – those who look like they are from East Asia or South Asia;
Indians – those who come from the Americas (Amerindians).

Coloureds in South Africa.

In 1985 in South Africa the races were:

Whites – of more or less pure European blood;
Blacks – of more or less pure African blood;
Coloured – mixed race;
Indians – those who came from South Asia.

Indians in South Africa.

Racism is the belief that some races are better than others. Not because of their power or money or religion or some other accident of history, but because of inborn qualities. Stuff like skin colour is seen as being more than skin deep. It is seen as a sign of inner qualities like intelligence, moral character, even human worth. Blacks, for example, are not just dark-skinned, but are seen as being naturally more violent, less intelligent, and less hard-working than Whites. They were just born that way. Racists believe that such differences is what leads to inequality.

Anti-racism is the belief that inequality is mainly caused by racist people and racist policies, not by any apparent racial differences (which are themselves often largely created by racist policies).

Scientific racism is racism supported by science. It was all the rage in the late 1800s and early 1900s, from Darwin to Hitler.

Map of blood type B.

Stuff to keep in mind:

Race is not a fact of nature. Or so says science since the 1970s. There are no White genes or Black genes – just genes that flow throughout the human species largely independent of race, like genes for blood type (pictured above). Even genes for skin colour are more determined by latitude than by race. And they have no known effect on completely unrelated stuff like intelligence.
Race is a social construct. It was made up by Europeans to excuse their own crimes, like slavery, genocide and colonialism. English-speaking Whites did not call themselves Whites till the 1600s. And their stereotypes about Black people arose after they had enslaved them on a large scale. People in the US would have become Tan long ago if racism did not keep apart Blacks and Whites.
Racial prejudice is not part of human nature. It is learned. The Us and Them feeling seems to be part of human nature, and racism takes advantage of that. But racism itself was rare before 1400. It was unknown to the Ancient Greeks, for example.
Race is not the same thing as ethnicity. Ethnic groups, like Arabs, Jews and Latinos, share a common culture, not a common set of physical features. Most Jews, for example, do not have a “Jewish nose”, nor is it a requirement to be counted as Jewish. But note that in English “ethnicity” and “ethnic” are often used as a nice way of saying “race” and “racial”.

Time magazine, April 10th 1972. Where the top image comes from.

– Abagond, 2018.

Update (May 24th): This post originally had this picture of “Blacks in the US”, showing Beyonce and Rihanna, which was causing some to miss my point:

See also:

576

Posted in stuff | 162 Comments

162 Responses

on Sat May 19th 2018 at 23:55:57 circusboy9010

Once again bigoted abagond gets it all horribly wrong

LikeLike
on Sun May 20th 2018 at 00:24:54 dorisjean23

I think recently that Mother Nature is giving the “race” pot a good stir.

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Sun May 20th 2018 at 00:57:17 Allen Shaw

@ Abagond

You got your toe in the pond, now keep it up! Do a DNA study of who is intelligent and so forth.

What was the intellectual level of Europeans coming to this nation from 1880 until 1965. Remember all of those farmers who made this country great. Do not forget all of the industrial laborers.

Are you surprised at the separation today?

Or:

Start talking about the things that are similar! Be positive about togetherness.

****** This is 2018 do we really need this negative conversation?

LikeLike
on Sun May 20th 2018 at 01:31:53 Solitaire

@ Allen Shaw

I don’t know. What was the intellectual level of Europeans coming to the U.S. circa 1880 – 1965?

LikeLike
on Sun May 20th 2018 at 08:16:33 gro jo

Where are the black skin Indians and the Ethiopian Jews? Why do the blacks depicted pass the “brown paper bag test”?

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Sun May 20th 2018 at 19:49:04 Mary Burrell

Why was the term Indians” used in the US racial identity? I thought that the word “ Indian” was a pejorative and the correct word would be Native Americans or First Nations?

LikeLike
on Sun May 20th 2018 at 20:48:17 Michael Cooper

The system of white supremacy determines race, ethnicity, etc. According to the 1929 U.S. census, Mexican-Americans were considered “white”. Throughout the 1930s (a decade of affirmative action for white Americans) Mexican-Americans were no longer considered “white” until a decade later. East Indian-Americans were considered Caucasoid (by race) but not white (by ethnicity), which excluded them in receiving “white benefits.” A person can have the phenotype of black Africans or African-Americans but if he or she is from countries where great ancient civilizations lie in ruins like Mesopotamia, Indus Valley, Kemet (Ancient Egypt), and even Kush (Nubia) then, of course, in the system of white supremacy the dark-skinned individual would be classified as white. In the system of white supremacy, whites have ALWAYS linked the aforementioned civilizations to whiteness. In America, many modern-day Egyptians and Ethiopians are told to check the box that says ‘white’ or at the very least ‘other’.

LikeLike
on Sun May 20th 2018 at 22:33:46 Solitaire

@ Mary Burrell

I assumed it was because Abagond was talking about 1985, the terms most commonly used then.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Sun May 20th 2018 at 23:00:01 abagond

@ Mary

I used Indian to make the comparison with South Africa more direct.

I do not think Indian is derogatory – it the term that Native Americans mainly use. Just like how most African Americans call themselves Black.

In general, though, I try to avoid the words “Indian” and “America” because they are ambiguous and are used in a way that favours the North American land claims of Whites over Natives.

Imagine if Whites invaded China and called themselves “Asians” while naming the native people of China “Brazilians”. It is like that to me.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Sun May 20th 2018 at 23:45:57 abagond

@ gro jo

I wanted to show how racial categories overlap to show how arbitrary they are.

Some of the South Africans shown, both Coloured and Indian, could pass for Black in the US. While the US Blacks shown would probably not be counted as Black in South Africa if they were nobodies.

I do show a Jewish person that looks Black. I did that on purpose.

I was not interested in showing dark-skinned Blacks because when people think about race they think about the clear-cut extreme cases.

LikeLike
on Mon May 21st 2018 at 04:02:35 gro jo

“I was not interested in showing dark-skinned Blacks because when people think about race they think about the clear-cut extreme cases.”
A serious error on your part. As Michael Cooper’s comment indicates, the ‘racial’ categories used by the US government are so arbitrary that you have to be devoid of a sense of humor to give them credence. It would have been much more instructive to have shown the full range for Black Americans which runs the gamut from Wesley Snipes to Walter F. White.

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Mon May 21st 2018 at 14:42:41 Open Minded Observer

@circusboy9010
“Once again bigoted abagond gets it all horribly wrong”
Did he?

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Mon May 21st 2018 at 20:11:11 Obeahwoman (@Obeah_woman)

Meghan Markle isn’t black.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Tue May 22nd 2018 at 02:43:32 Jamal e Brooks

Epic Fail.MOST BLACKS IN THE US have unambiguous west african appearance and dont look ike rihanna(not a black american, but Caribbean by the way) or beyonce).

Most of the people who are black in america would be consider black in south africa, I live in a predominantly black community in georgia and last summer when I went to cape town most of the blacks there looked almost indistinguishable from the ones I left back in GA.
I think self hate and delusion doesn’t allow us to reckon with that fact.

LikeLike
on Tue May 22nd 2018 at 04:14:48 sharinalr

Jamal e Brooks

It’s sad you think Ga constitutes you knowing what MOST BLACKS IN THE US look like. Rihanna looks similar to most of my family members on my mom’s side and that is further down in generation. The older generation resemble the picture Coloureds in south Africa. I’m in SC and you will be surprised how ambiguous features get with blacks in the south. However, a lot of those features aren’t black exclusive or white exclusive from along the coast.

Self-hate and delusion is black people believing that their is a universal black look. Bigotry is why we still believe that certain features are white and certain features are black.

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Tue May 22nd 2018 at 07:23:23 jamal e brooks

sharinalr

you are mentioning the examples of YOUR FAMILY, not of the average black folk in america, which most certainly is NOT AMBIGUOUS looking.I repeat MOST(not every single one)black americans are west african in looks, and not mixed.

I’m in SC and you will be surprised how ambiguous features get with blacks in the south.

yeah sure,and are those ambiguous looking people the majority of black folk or a tiny proportion? GTFOH.

Self-hate and delusion is black people believing that their is a universal black look. Bigotry is why we still believe that certain features are white and certain features are black.

Not to offend you but that is a foolish statement.I am talking about the average look of my people not whether certain traits are black or white.black americans are not a Mongrel people as Obama said, and btw he isnt one of us either. the fact that abagond didn’t even put kelly rowland ,a woman that more closely resembles the complexion of most black women and instead chose rihanna who’snot even a black american , tells a lot.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Tue May 22nd 2018 at 12:31:02 abagond

@ jamal e brooks

Black Americans are one of the most racially mixed group of people in the world. Maybe they seem black as night to you, but I doubt people in Ghana or Nigeria would agree.

And sure, there are tons of Black Americans who look just like people in West Africa, but there are plenty who do not.

As to Rihanna, in the US she is counted as Black and so it is not wrong to use her as an example of what the US considers to be Black.

I did not use Kelly Rowland (or Wesley Snipes) because the point I was trying to make is how racial categories overlap and are arbitrary. So I showed overlapping cases.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Tue May 22nd 2018 at 13:00:51 jamal e brooks

1-Black Americans are one of the most racially mixed group of people in the world.
That’s a myth.The reality is that we are 80-90% African, and thats the average,which counts the light-skinned minorty as black, if you drop them the african percentage will certainly be higher.
We are pretty homogeneous.Puerto Rican or Brazilians best fit that Label

2-Maybe they seem black as night to you, but I doubt people in Ghana or Nigeria would agree.
I have been to south africa and the people there saw me as black, and most blacks who go to africa are seen as black by africans so that’s a lie. tariq nasheed went to africa too and nobody thought that he was anything other than black so thats also a mindless delusional talking point.most africans see black americans as black, the just dont recognise thelight-skinned ones and neither most of the world and maybe we shouldn’t either.

3-I did not use Kelly Rowland (or Wesley Snipes) because the point I was trying to make is how racial categories overlap and are arbitrary. So I showed overlapping cases.

The problem is that most of us look like them and not like the racial ambiguities that you put out there.sure, some dont, but the typical look is african nonetheless, think about it there are a minority white mexicans, however, is the typical look of mexicans white?Stop the self-hate.

As for rihanna, she and others like her(j-cole,obama, kamala harris) are not descendants of slaves(DOS) and hence shouldn’t be putout there, put a more accurate representation of black american DOS.

LikeLike
on Tue May 22nd 2018 at 13:20:20 sharinalr

jamal e brooks

If I wanted to play a game I could also mention you are mentioning your example of GA (which I doubt you have been all over) which is limited and refutes your own claim of most, but I won’t. What I will say is I mention my family as an example, but don’t assume that example is all i speak of especially when I stated “from along the coast”. With that being said the black American look no different from Rihanna or beyonce in features and this is especially true in the South. As most people in the southern states have a heavy mixture. It is very common to see mixed racial make up from several generations here.

“yeah sure,and are those ambiguous looking people the majority of black folk or a tiny proportion? GTFOH.”—Maybe you should GTFOH and meet more people. Individuals who are not from the south assume with all the racial bigotry that this place is not as mixed as it is. It is heavily mixed and a lot of the newer generations got that way from being decedents of mulattoes and other heavily mixed racial groups. For example, a lot of whites look more native american than actual white.

“Not to offend you but that is a foolish statement.”—In order to be offended you would first need to not produce a foolish statement of your own. What you are talking about is the average stereotypical idea of a black person. Most black people were indoctrinated with the idea of what it means or looks like to be black and sold that idea while labeling blacks not of that standard as “Mongrel”. I’m not talking about obvious black parent and white parent mix such as Obama, but Rihanna’s grandmother was white and her mix make up is typical of most blacks whether recent as a grandmother or further down. I have several Nigerian friends as of late and oddly many of them don’t look like a supposedly typical back person is suppose to. With Africa being so diverse there are so many different looks and features they have and none of it is this universal black. White people made that rule. Black people need to stop following it.

LikeLiked by 3 people
on Tue May 22nd 2018 at 15:16:56 blakksage

“Slave women were forced to comply with sexual advances by their masters on a very regular basis. Consequences of resistance often came in the form of physical beatings; thus, an enormous number of slaves became concubines for these men. The following passages sketch the nature of the master-slave relations, and their consequences:”

“The slave husband also had little control over master-female slave sexual relations. Although a conjugal bond existed, the slave wife could still be used to fulfill the master’s desires. We can obviously relate with the helpless hostility slave husbands must have felt in such a situation. Sometimes the relations would become so striking that the husband would release his anger on the master in the form of violence.”

https://www.bowdoin.edu/~prael/projects/gsonnen/page4.html

@Jamal,

When I was growing up in SC, it was pretty common for me to see some very dark-skinned, brown-skinned and quite a few of my friends were very light-skinned even though in many instances, both of their parents were of a darker hue than their off-springs.

Therefore, for you to say: “MOST BLACKS IN THE US have unambiguous west african appearance,” and yet, intentionally fail to clarify your point as to what an “unambiguous west African” appearance is or to give a depiction of said appearance is not only foolish, but it is also a self-defeating as well.

Additionally, the vast majority of slave women were forced against their will of course to be unwilling concubines as well. Again, for you to make such a statement, absent of the frequency of the horror of rape during the days of slavery is to say without a shadow of doubt that you are in fact, ahistorical.

We all know the history behind Thomas Jefferson and a teenager by the name of Sally Hemings. Here is a 2016 picture of the descendants of that relationship. They don’t look like an “unambiguous west african” family to me. Do they appear to be West African to you??

Personally, and on average, they are very much Rihanna’s and Beyonce’s skin tone. And one other thing, you cannot place the results of genetics into a box, in order to suit your personal narrative.

LikeLiked by 3 people
on Tue May 22nd 2018 at 16:22:31 Solitaire

@ jamal

“the just dont recognise thelight-skinned ones and neither most of the world and maybe we shouldn’t either.”

So are you saying that light-skinned people in the U.S. should be categorized as a separate race, like the Coloureds of South Africa?

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Tue May 22nd 2018 at 17:07:01 Origin

jamal e brooks
“As for rihanna, she and others like her(j-cole,obama, kamala harris) are not descendants of slaves(DOS) and hence shouldn’t be putout there, put a more accurate representation of black american DOS”

Don’t understand this part.

1)Are you implying that being a descendant of slaves is necessary to be considered black? What about Africans who weren’t slaves? It’s interesting because I once saw a video which implied that many Africans didn’t realky think of slavery and didn’t feel particularly connected to descendants of those taken to the New World. So probably it works both ways.

2)North America was not unique in having African slaves. Many slaves were taken to Brazil and the Caribbean islands (Cuba, Jamaica, Haiti/DR, Barbados) to work on plantations. Rihanna, being Barbadian, likely has some ancestors who were in the [sugar]canefields.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Tue May 22nd 2018 at 22:48:58 Jamal e Brooks

1-the vast majority of slave women were forced against their will of course to be unwilling concubines as well.
That’s a lie, the reality is that probably few black women were concubines of white men(most of them did not have slaves btw) and even fewer had children with them, check out Dr. Tommy curry of Texas A&M he calls out that myth on the fact that the evidence of supposed rape of black women is anecdotal and not based on records imho it has been really exaggerated btw.

2-North America was not unique in having African slaves. Many slaves were taken to Brazil and the Caribbean islands (Cuba, Jamaica, Haiti/DR, Barbados) to work on plantations. Rihanna, being Barbadian, likely has some ancestors who were in the [sugar]canefields.

Yes, but unlike in america people there were able to mix freely, whereas american blacks couldn’t until 1967 and even a few generations after there were strong taboos against interracial marriage in America(as late as 1990 most Whites were against Interracial marriage for one member of their Family), so that will make a person like rihanna different from most of us.admit it.

3-So are you saying that light-skinned people in the U.S. should be categorized as a separate race, like the Coloureds of South Africa?

I’m not saying it, already you are seeing this development and is going to happen whether you want it or not.The census already checks for multiracial, the word biracial is becoming commonplace and america, as Gerald Horne and Eduardo Bonilla Silva argue is mutating into a Brazilian system.

4-Rihanna’s grandmother was white
Gotcha, Most blacks do’t have White Grandmothers.I rest my case.

LikeLike
on Tue May 22nd 2018 at 23:09:40 Afrofem

@ Jamal e Brooks

“…the evidence of supposed rape of black women is anecdotal and not based on records…”

Anecdotal? The evidence of what you call “supposed rape” is written on the faces, hair, lips, eyes and (various) skin tones of of over 70 percent of Americans of African descent. If you were a person of African descent, you would know that. It would be part of your history and education.

I have to admit, “the based on records” comment is hilarious! Whose records? What group of rapists (or their descendants) bother to keep records of their crimes?

Gotcha!

LikeLiked by 6 people
on Wed May 23rd 2018 at 01:49:50 Origin

@jamal
Interesting viewpoint re blackness. It is definitely defined differently in different places.

However the experience of African slavery also existed in the rest of the hemisphere.

In fact, slavery was abolished in Cuba in 1886, and Brazi in 1888, decades after it ended in the US.

(Ironically Britain ended slavery in its territories in 1833. America, which revolted for freedom in 1776, kept it going until 1865 after the civil war)

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Wed May 23rd 2018 at 01:59:26 blakksage

“the evidence of supposed rape of black women is anecdotal and not based on records imho it has been really exaggerated btw.” – Jamal

Comedian much!

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Wed May 23rd 2018 at 02:58:37 Solitaire

@ Jamal

But the multiracial category on the U.S. census form is something people choose, not something that is assigned to them.

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Wed May 23rd 2018 at 12:41:24 sharinalr

Jamal,

“Gotcha, Most blacks do’t have White Grandmothers.I rest my case.—I hope you aren’t because it really only proves you are further in the dark than necessary and considering your case is most you shouldn’t just rest on rihanna’s situation alone. You don’t need a white grandmother to end up with ambiguous features. Most blacks with ambiguous features don’t even have a white grandmother in the recent gene mix.

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Thu May 24th 2018 at 02:07:10 abagond

@ Origin

“(Ironically Britain ended slavery in its territories in 1833. America, which revolted for freedom in 1776, kept it going until 1865 after the civil war)”

Freedom? Whose freedom?

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Thu May 24th 2018 at 02:39:12 abagond

@ jamal

“the just dont recognise thelight-skinned ones and neither most of the world and maybe we shouldn’t either.”

You are pretty much making the same point I tried to make with the Rihanna pictures: that race is arbitrary, that “Black” does not mean the same thing everywhere.

LikeLike
on Thu May 24th 2018 at 03:25:42 abagond

Update: I replaced the picture of Beyonce and Rihanna with one of Destiny’s Child circa 1998, Kelly Rowland and all.

LikeLike
on Thu May 24th 2018 at 07:27:48 Allen Shaw

@ Solitaire You would find that no one cared about their intellectual level. They were serfs and peasants in Europe. The only requirement was they did not have a disease and they were from Europe. There is no reason to believe that level has increased since most of them went to the farms and ranches of the middle west and west.

What is the average intellectual level today in the US?

LikeLike
on Thu May 24th 2018 at 07:39:07 Allen Shaw

@ Michael Cooper According to my reading people from north Africa and the Mediterranean Area are considered to be Semitic not black. It does not seem to be a race thing. That includes Ethiopia.
1. relating to or denoting a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family.
2. relating to the peoples who speak the Semitic languages, especially Hebrew and Arabic.

LikeLike
on Thu May 24th 2018 at 08:06:14 Allen Shaw

@ gro jo

“As Michael Cooper’s comment indicates, the ‘racial’ categories used by the US government are so arbitrary that you have to be devoid of a sense of humor to give them credence”

I wonder if the US government has any rules about race. They ask you to define your race. Could you tell me where the rules are that establish race in the US. I believe we are still using the old “rules”. Why is a light skinned person called black? If a child has a white mother and a black father why is the child black?

The “one drop rule” never was successfully used.

Could it be that a black is afraid to say he is “other” for fear of retaliation from blacks?

*Sub-Saharan African entries are classified as Black or African American with the exception of Sudanese and Cape Verdean because of their complex, historical heritage. North African entries are classified as White, as OMB defines White as a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

@ Abagond How about an article showing the actual rules?

LikeLike
on Thu May 24th 2018 at 15:12:18 gro jo

Ask yourself why a ‘white guy’ like Walter Francis White, former head of the NAACP, was accepted as ‘black’ in the United States and a ‘black guy’ like Mostafa Hefny classified as ‘white’ because he is from Egypt.

“Could it be that a black is afraid to say he is “other” for fear of retaliation from blacks?”

You. are. funny. How the hell would other blacks know what your black decided to call himself when he filled out the census form?

“…North African entries are classified as White, as OMB defines White as a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.”

And you believe that a magic barrier exists between North and South Africa?

Abagond is trying to have his cake and eat it in this post. African-Americans range from James Brown black to Mariah Carey ‘white’. They are one people because of a common history, not because they share a common physical trait. Several races could be derived based on the differences within the African-American people, just as they have been based on the physical differences between the peoples you’d run into traveling from Nigeria to Norway. Race is a cultural reality. Agonizing over color is a waste of time, but avoiding doing so would put this blog out of business.

LikeLike
on Fri May 25th 2018 at 09:52:18 Jamal e Brooks

1-African-Americans range from James Brown black to Mariah Carey ‘white’.
Myth.Mariah carey and others like her(multi-racials with white parents)do not share our history, also mariah careys dad was not from america but himself mixed from latin america, so she’s not one of us.Most of our people don’t look mixed let alone white.Time to end the delusional self-hatred.

2.1-the ‘racial’ categories used by the US government are so arbitrary that you have to be devoid of a sense of humor to give them credence”

2.2-You are pretty much making the same point I tried to make with the Rihanna pictures: that race is arbitrary, that “Black” does not mean the same thing everywhere.

There is a misunderstanding in the fact that the arbitrariness lies with how mixed people get classified, but the more full-blooded(or full-blooded looking) are not arbitrarily assorted.What do I mean? the mixed people can be classified ,white,black or mixed depending on the country, say paula patton or Meghan Markle might be white in the Caribbean,mixed in britain and black in america.but for the more full-blooded people or near it(most of us), we are black or white the world over, for example a person like Taylor SwiFt will be White in the Dominican Republic, In Britain and In America and a person like Kelly Rowland will be black in all those places.In short a woman like Taylor will neVer be classified black anywhere and a woman like kelly will not be white anywhere.Only with mixed people there is arbitrariness.

3-Why is a light skinned person called black? If a child has a white mother and a black father why is the child black?

The “one drop rule” never was successfully used.

Could it be that a black is afraid to say he is “other” for fear of retaliation from blacks?

Exactly, also a share of self-hatred.many of us still don’t like our african looks and are in denial. Thank God new generations are waking up and moving on To self love.

LikeLike
on Fri May 25th 2018 at 12:23:07 Allen Shaw

@ gro jo

Read Jamal e Brooks!

I am not able to comment on self hate; however I have live through total segregation in the south Alabama, North Carolina, Louisiana and Texas to racial mixture in Ohio. Other than the reference I quoted I have not found anything other then opinions quoted by a few people on this site about what make a person “black”.

Race is an imaginary separation of people that started out as ethnics and whites found it convenient to make people of color different. People spread out all over southern Europe, India and Asia are dark skinned so it is not color that counts.

Once again, Why is a white mothers child with a black father or a black mothers child with a white father black? Should the person be called “not totally white”.
Does that mean that somehow white is superior?

Are we just still living in the past when slaves in the Americas were black?

They just brain washed people into believing they were different. What does DNA say about race?

Perhaps we should work towards a goal of having race struck off the census? It serves no purpose when there are so many mixed blooded individuals living in the US and probably all of the Americas. It just helps prejudiced white deny jobs to blacks.

In the medical field I have read that doctors need to know what race a person is, I believe that is not true because they do not ask if there is a mixture. Blacks have lived in the US from 1621 (400 years) or before if you count the Spanish period. Very few Africans have been brought to this nation since 1808 (one boat 1860) Both of my Great Grand parents (one on each side) were white “Who Cares?

“And you believe that a magic barrier exists between North and South Africa?”

The desert was a large barrier!

Yes people north of the Sahara Desert have been inter mixed with the Middle East people for thousands of years (See the Middeterranian Sea and coast lines) and are now almost totally without the “black”. That is not magic that is called sex.

Both of the following are represented in North Africa. Also all of the other nations with coast lines on the Mediterranean Sea.

“The Visigoths invaded Italy under Alaric I and sacked Rome in 410. After the Visigoths sacked Rome, they began settling down, first in southern Gaul and eventually in Spain and Portugal, where they founded the Visigothic Kingdom and maintained a presence from the 5th to the 8th centuries AD.”

“The Vandals were a large East Germanic tribe or group of tribes that first appear in history inhabiting present-day southern Poland. Some later moved in large numbers, including most notably the group which successively established kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula and then North Africa in the 5th century.”

https://www.google.com/search?q=map+of+the+mediterranean&client=firefox-b-1&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=JJFtM9xsEWKFrM%253A%252CVKtjkxoLgbCtgM%252C_&usg=__HJMUpNyPwi8Eriik3ubhl4zCycU%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzmrCz66DbAhVP7FMKHe12AlgQ9QEIKzAA#imgrc=JJFtM9xsEWKFrM:

LikeLike
on Fri May 25th 2018 at 12:27:11 sharinalr

@Gro Jo

“Agonizing over color is a waste of time”–Exactly my thoughts.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Fri May 25th 2018 at 12:38:14 sharinalr

Allen Shaw

“Race is an imaginary separation of people that started out as ethnics and whites found it convenient to make people of color different. People spread out all over southern Europe, India and Asia are dark skinned so it is not color that counts.”—-I rarely agree with you on certain aspect, but must say I agree. Skin color varies just like features, so it often makes you wonder what “white” or “black” features many people are still holding on to in order to prove they are of some pure race.

LikeLike
on Fri May 25th 2018 at 13:01:22 Jamal e Brooks

1-Read Jamal e Brooks!
bro, what does that even mean?you can make a point without trying to insult your fellow debaters.People here get real defensive when one puts forward arguments that contradict their pre-existing beliefs.You, I assume are a smart person, hence you can see that my arguments come from an informed person, even if you disagree with my points, try to stick to the arguments and less to attacks against me, which may create the perception that you have no logical counter to my claims.

2-People spread out all over southern Europe, India and Asia are dark skinned so it is not color that counts.

Yeah right, The groups you’ve just mentioned are dark-skinned when compared to Northern Europeans.are they dark skinned(especially North Indians) in relation to sub-saharan Africans?Those groups resemble more one to the other than they resemble us.Admit it.

3-Perhaps we should work towards a goal of having race struck off the census? It serves no purpose when there are so many mixed blooded individuals living in the US and probably all of the Americas. It just helps prejudiced white deny jobs to blacks.

Two things,first,unlike in Brazil, The PROPORTION of mixed people in America Still small(That’s changing of course and will have political and social ramifications especially surprising for those of our people stuck in the One-Drop Rule).The second is that maybe we should redirect Our forces to become a group that mainly employs itself rather than depending on whites, which has obviously not worked for us, but for that we’ll need different leadership than we have now, of course.

LikeLike
on Fri May 25th 2018 at 13:54:07 Open Minded Observer

@Gro Jo

“They are one people because of a common history, not because they share a common physical trait. ”

That may well be, but (and Abagond can correct me if I’m wrong) I think that’s what he called “ethnicity” in the post and he defined it differently than “race”.

Racism does tend to mix and match both concepts. Racism leverages the belief that there are inherent physical differences based on skin color; an example would be the belief that Black people are naturally better at sports. It also leverages culture or shared historical experiences in stereotypes like the belief that Black people make better potato salad.

I firmly believe we cannot be “colorblind” because the impact of those shared historical experiences is real. We should also be culturally aware and embrace diversity of culture (Except when that culture is also includes racism as part of its foundation).

However, I don’t understand how anyone can defend the continued belief in a biological definition of race, as defined by physical characteristics that are common among homo sapiens based on skin tone. I challenge anyone that thinks it’s real to develop a classification system that lists specific features that are present in every member of each race. This idea that race is biological but it can also be defined differently based on where you live is ridiculous. If race is biological, then race must be consistently definable… and it isn’t. It’s defined differently in different geographies because the racism needs also differ.

People can certainly group themselves based on shared culture, history, ancestry, ethnicity, and whatever else, but race either needs to be redefined to sever the link from biology or we (humans) simply cannot be classified into races.

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Fri May 25th 2018 at 14:14:21 sharinalr

Jamal

“you can make a point without trying to insult your fellow debaters.People here get real defensive when one puts forward arguments that contradict their pre-existing beliefs.You, I assume are a smart person, hence you can see that my arguments come from an informed person, even if you disagree with my points, try to stick to the arguments and less to attacks against me, which may create the perception that you have no logical counter to my claims.”—You should avoid projecting your own behavior onto an individual that did no such thing. If him stating “Read Jamal e Brooks!” is an insult then you really need to read your other comments. Emotional claims aren’t logical ones bro!

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Fri May 25th 2018 at 14:39:06 Afrofem

@ Allen Shaw

The “one drop rule” never was successfully used.

https://abagond.wordpress.com/2018/05/18/race/comment-page-1/#comment-398474

This comment is contradicted by this later comment:

Why is a white mothers child with a black father or a black mothers child with a white father black? Should the person be called “not totally white”.

https://abagond.wordpress.com/2018/05/18/race/comment-page-1/#comment-398615

In the second comment, the (wildly) successful use of the “one drop rule” is displayed. Any public knowledge of a person’s African ancestry under the US race system labels a person Black, no matter how many Europeans, Native Americans, Asians or other are “in the woodpile” (gene pool). That has been true for centuries now.

LikeLiked by 3 people
on Fri May 25th 2018 at 14:42:04 Afrofem

@ Open Minded Observer

“If race is biological, then race must be consistently definable… and it isn’t. It’s defined differently in different geographies because the racism needs also differ.”

Well said.

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Fri May 25th 2018 at 14:43:34 sharinalr

Open Minded Observer

In my own experience I have found that once people get past skin color then they look for other features to confirm your blackness or whiteness. I have experienced this several times despite being dark brown in skin tone. So while skin is the initial response to categorization, they eventually seek out the features as if to confirm. However, people ignore other groups who share similar skin tones yet are not “black”.

LikeLike
on Fri May 25th 2018 at 15:19:39 Open Minded Observer

@sharinalr

Absolutely! The ridiculous thing is that the feature set differs from person to person. For example, if a person is using a set of 10 features as a racial confirmation checklist, they seem happy if only a few are checked off in their mind. Whereas a completely different few might be used as confirmation for the next person they encounter. In other words, the presence of any additional characteristics seems to matter and the absence of many (even most) doesn’t seem to phase their classification. Then, once they’ve decided on a race, they start ignoring cultural and personality traits and things that don’t fit their mold while seizing on the traits that do.

LikeLiked by 3 people
on Fri May 25th 2018 at 15:53:18 Solitaire

@ Allen Shaw

I agree with your statements about the intelligence of white immigrants, but I’m not sure how that ties in with Abagond’s post on race.

What point are you trying to make?

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Fri May 25th 2018 at 16:11:25 Solitaire

@ Jamal

*”Mariah carey and others like her(multi-racials with white parents)do not share our history . . . . There is a misunderstanding in the fact that the arbitrariness lies with how mixed people get classified, but the more full-blooded(or full-blooded looking) are not arbitrarily assorted.”

Because of the phenomenon of transracial adoption, there are many full-blooded Asians in the U.S. who are culturally white.

There is a parallel trend in recent years of white families adopting black children. Most probably those children, no matter how full-blooded they are, will grow up white culturally, just as much as a mixed kid like Obama.

If someone who is “more full-blooded(or full-blooded looking)” still does “not share our history,” where would you sort them? Do they go in the black box due to looks or the mixed box due to culture?

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Fri May 25th 2018 at 16:23:49 gro jo

“Racism does tend to mix and match both concepts. ” Correct. People like Jamal who get hung up on the color thing miss that point.

“2-People spread out all over southern Europe, India and Asia are dark skinned so it is not color that counts.

Yeah right, The groups you’ve just mentioned are dark-skinned when compared to Northern Europeans.are they dark skinned(especially North Indians) in relation to sub-saharan Africans?Those groups resemble more one to the other than they resemble us.Admit it.”
Some Indians from the southern part of that subcontinent are as black as the blackest black. Fact.

Nothing useful in creating as many races as human diversity can support. I’ll take my cue from the greatest revolutionary the Americas ever produced. 213 years ago he resolved the ‘race’ dilemma with the following formulation: “Article 14: All meaning of color among the children of one and the same family, of whom the chief magistrate is the father, being necessarily to cease, the Haytians shall henceforth be known by the generic appellation of blacks.”
Jean-Jacques Dessalines’s 1805 constitution declared no matter how white you were, as long as you took up Haitian citizenship you were “black” i.e. equal to all other citizens. 213 years later and the world still hasn’t caught up to this radical thinker!

LikeLiked by 3 people
on Fri May 25th 2018 at 23:34:42 Jamal e Brooks

1-If someone who is “more full-blooded(or full-blooded looking)” still does “not share our history,” where would you sort them? Do they go in the black box due to looks or the mixed box due to culture?

They are blacks racially but not DOS ethnically, just like when you see japanese and koreans, they are asians racially, but culturally dissimilar.

2-Some Indians from the southern part of that subcontinent are as black as the blackest black. Fact.
I spoke more of the northern indians, and even if south indians are very dark,they do not have the same traits of africans by and large.

3-In my own experience I have found that once people get past skin color then they look for other features to confirm your blackness or whiteness. I have experienced this several times despite being dark brown in skin tone. So while skin is the initial response to categorization, they eventually seek out the features as if to confirm. However, people ignore other groups who share similar skin tones yet are not “black”.

exactly what i argued and have noticed.Is not color alone also other features also come into play.

4-You should avoid projecting your own behavior onto an individual that did no such thing. If him stating “Read Jamal e Brooks!” is an insult then you really need to read your other comments. Emotional claims aren’t logical ones bro!

You are the one, it seems, that might using projecton. I called him out because i noticed by reading the comment sections in this site that generally when others argue things not in line with pre-existing beliefs, SOME PEOPLE do not analyze them but attribute ignorance to the other debater(hence read jamal sentence).Notice that he did not counter any of my points and neither did you.Notice that I never have made any comment on the knowledge level of anyone here, I stick to the debate and the arguments put forward.If you may give me another interpretation of his comment that is valid I will very much agree to change my opinion.

LikeLike
on Sat May 26th 2018 at 00:46:36 gro jo

“I spoke more of the northern indians, and even if south indians are very dark,they do not have the same traits of africans by and large.”
Right, I forgot that you are under the delusion that all sub-Saharan Africans look alike. the Hutus, Tutsis and others will be surprised by your ‘brilliant’ discovery.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Sat May 26th 2018 at 00:48:10 sharinalr

Jamal,

“exactly what i argued and have noticed.Is not color alone also other features also come into play”—Except that isn’t what you have been saying. Maybe you are not aware, but your whole issue has focused repeatedly on skin color. Oddly ignoring that those features are not white or black exclusive. Not to mention you stated above “I am talking about the average look of my people not whether certain traits are black or white”.However, you miss the fact that those features have been categorized as white or black based on a race categorization that is unrealistic considering many people have said features as a result of mixtures. For example, your average black nose is one seen in whites in certain regions or this average black jaw line etc.

“You are the one, it seems, that might using projecton.”—How can I project when I wasn’t claiming someone was doing something they were not? I quote people for these occasions. Your calling him out for what other people do? How sway. Ignorance means not being well aware and he didn’t counter your points because A) It is hard to counter an opinion and that is basically your whole argument and B) he typically argues like that. Using an explanation mark after a name isn’t an attack on your knowledge or intelligence and if you were not able to realize that then no amount of your own quotes or his is going to change that. If I wrote BOOM! should the word boom now be offended because I have insulted it? I repeat “If him stating “Read Jamal e Brooks!” is an insult then you really need to read your other comments.” By your own logic this “Not to offend you but that is a foolish statement.” or “Epic Fail” are insults. Ummm…No.

I don’t care to change your mind or opinions because I don’t get paid to fix your delusions.

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Sat May 26th 2018 at 02:37:12 Solitaire

@ Jamal

“They are blacks racially but not DOS ethnically, just like when you see japanese and koreans, they are asians racially, but culturally dissimilar.”

So wait, you are including them in the black race because of their appearance, but you wouldn’t include someone who is mixed even if they were raised by the black DOS side of their family (or by adoptive parents who were black and DOS, which happened a lot prior to the ’70s), someone who has stronger cultural ties to a black identity or ethnicity than the other group?

“Notice that I never have made any comment on the knowledge level of anyone here”

You have said stuff like “that’s a lie” which is very close to calling the person a liar.

FWIW, I thought Allen Shaw was telling Gro Jo to read your comments, meaning he agreed with them.

Maybe Allen can clarify things whenever he comes back.

LikeLike
on Sat May 26th 2018 at 02:38:31 Solitaire

“I don’t care to change your mind or opinions because I don’t get paid to fix your delusions.”

Oh yes, Sharina is back!!!

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Sat May 26th 2018 at 03:40:37 Afrofem

@ Solitaire

Oh yeah. At full strength!

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Sat May 26th 2018 at 03:52:54 Afrofem

@ Jamal e Brooks

“…i noticed by reading the comment sections in this site that generally when others argue things not in line with pre-existing beliefs, SOME PEOPLE do not analyze them but attribute ignorance to the other debater..”

Not necessarily. Ignorance is attributed to commenters who make statements they can’t back up with facts (links or other attribution) or a well thought out argument/opinion that reflects reality.

Presenting weak or illogical arguments leaves a commenter open to challenge. Countering that challenge with spurious comments about “pre-existing beliefs” on the part of others is a cheap deflection.

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Sat May 26th 2018 at 06:03:05 Jamal e Brooks

1-Presenting weak or illogical arguments leaves a commenter open to challenge. Countering that challenge with spurious comments about “pre-existing beliefs” on the part of others is a cheap deflection.

exactly what I argued, weak according to whose criteria? When have you shown the lack of logic in my points? are you REALLY analyzing my points before assuming ignorance or are you just deciding that because they don’t fit your model of the world the must be wrong? When have you proven my points wrong?NONE OF YOU have actually engaged in the debate based on the Ideas that I putted forward.

2- Ignorance is attributed to commenters who make statements they can’t back up with facts (links or other attribution) or a well thought out argument/opinion that reflects reality.

btw, You have yet to provide me with links to you theses and agian when have you shown my arguments to be out of touch with reality? my arguments are out of touch with YOUR IDEOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS that is sure, but if you really observe them, they can indeed match reality.

3-I don’t care to change your mind or opinions because I don’t get paid to fix your delusions.”

see, my desire is to have a debate in which of course the debaters examine each other’s points and both LEARN from one another, your desire, with all respect, seems to reaffirm your previous beliefs. by what logic and criteria can you say that my arguments are “delusions”?.

4-You have said stuff like “that’s a lie” which is very close to calling the person a liar.

when I said that something is a lie or a myth, you would notice that I mean the ARGUMENTS , meaning urban lie or myth.I don’t mean to disrespect any of you. btw I believe I deserve also attacks based on my arguments.

5-FWIW, I thought Allen Shaw was telling Gro Jo to read your comments, meaning he agreed with them.

I also thought that was a possiblity and if that’s the case I was wrong in how I judged allen’s comment and made a mistake in interpretation, you know being human.
6-So wait, you are including them in the black race because of their appearance, but you wouldn’t include someone who is mixed even if they were raised by the black DOS side of their family (or by adoptive parents who were black and DOS, which happened a lot prior to the ’70s), someone who has stronger cultural ties to a black identity or ethnicity than the other group?

easy to solve, divide them racially and ethnically.Another black person with another culture is black racially and ethnically other.a mixed or light skinned person of american is culturally similar but a racial other(like we are to white people we share a lot of their culture but are a racial other).also take in mind that arguably many light skinned people in america are not even from our culture, like the creoles of Louisiana.The major reason for this confusion is that we have not dare defining ourselves and have kind of allowed whites to throw anybody with african ancestry into our corner as opposed to demarcate ourselves by history and culture like all other peoples do,

LikeLike
on Sat May 26th 2018 at 06:52:05 Solitaire

@ Jamal E. Brooks

You wrote earlier:

“black americans are not a Mongrel people”

But genetic studies do not support that statement. And science had also shown that white Americans are a mongrel people. Almost everyone whose family has been in the U.S. more than a couple generations is mixed, whether they know it or not.

Do you disagree with the main premise of Abagond’s post — that race is a social construct, unsupported by modern science?

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Sat May 26th 2018 at 06:57:11 Solitaire

@ Jamal E. Brooks

“The major reason for this confusion is that we have not dare defining ourselves”

Do individuals have a right to define themselves? Or do the decisions get made by some overarching authority?

LikeLiked by 3 people
on Sat May 26th 2018 at 07:35:03 dorisjean23

Abagond, you done got it going again. Thank you for another inspiring think-tank.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Sat May 26th 2018 at 09:26:53 Jamal e Brooks

1-But genetic studies do not support that statement. And science had also shown that white Americans are a mongrel people.

-Depends on what type of “mongrel”.If you mean as mostly a mixed of west and central african groups with a little bit of non-sub saharan african ancesry, yes we are mongrels, but if you mean mongrel as obama did, as a group of people with a genetic makeup made up of multiple groups from different continents, no, we are on average 80-90% african for example(whites are on average over 95% european origin), which means that we are overwhelmingly african and have PROPORTIONALLY LITTLE non african descend, and even that is not entirely accurate given that as light skinned people get categorized a separate entity with time, the average african in us will become greater.

2-Do you disagree with the main premise of Abagond’s post — that race is a social construct, unsupported by modern science?

That I never disagree with, I only with the notion that is ARBITRARY for all elements involved.My main premise is that if one pays attention, only the mixed people are arbitrarily classified, that while race IS INDEED a social construct, its not random so, most of the people, classified as Black or White are classified so the world over and only the mixed peoples position varies from country to country.Also I disagree with the notion that most of us or even a significant amount of us looks ambiguous or mixed.because that notion not only is incorrect but also feeds colorism.

3-Do individuals have a right to define themselves? Or do the decisions get made by some overarching authority?

Individuals maybe not, but the group(an overarching authority) can indeed, and we black americans as a group have not gone far enough in order to define ourselves(outside of the renaming as African-Americans, which was I believe a positive step).I think is because we are afraid of the fact that as we redefine we’ll have to exclude some people and many of us might be sensitive about it. But I think the decision will anyway be made for us.

LikeLike
on Sat May 26th 2018 at 10:03:59 v8driver

Sorry, DOS?

LikeLike
on Sat May 26th 2018 at 10:52:03 Jamal e Brooks

Descendant of Slaves(DOS) people of african descend whose ancestry goes back centuries in america, as opposed to new comers like nigerians,ghanaians or other people of african descend.

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Sat May 26th 2018 at 14:12:46 Mary Burrell

Sharina is back😀

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Sat May 26th 2018 at 15:20:38 sharinalr

Jamal,
That can’t be your desire because you really aren’t presenting a debate. Allow me to point somethings out for you.

You presented your own preconceived opinion in which you have asked others to refute. One in which you want people to provide proof that you can’t even present. One that scientifically has already been proven to be inaccurate, but instead you prefer people to give you “links”. This is a burden of proof fallacy and it really isn’t your only fallacy.
You project your idea of my previous beliefs, because you really have no idea what my previous beliefs are or were. You only have an idea of what I present at this moment, but I digress, you have not examined anyone’s put but have called them liars and told them to GTFOH. All while claiming that your opinion is that rape was rare during slavery.
Lastly, you are basing your argument solely on skin color and when you are refuted you switch to something else. For example, Indians were used as a counter to other groups who have the same skin color as blacks. You immediately attempt to claim you were talking about Northern Indians as if the others were any less Indian. Then go on to mention features, which you originally claim you weren’t even talking about.

As to your delusions, See above. However, the definition will suffice as well “an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.” You basically have contradicted yourself without any input and when confronted about said conflicting statements you immediately attempt to address something else but not your contradictions. All the while claiming your limited exposure is an uncomfortable fact for black people, when in reality the truth is uncomfortable for you. Pseudoscience is still pseudoscience even when the person spewing it is “black”. When you can tell what features past skin color are actually black then we can talk. Not some “Average black features’ response. I want detail.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Sat May 26th 2018 at 15:22:17 sharinalr

Afrofem, Mary, and Solitaire

ROFL Thanks.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Sat May 26th 2018 at 15:27:29 sharinalr

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/delusion

LikeLike
on Sat May 26th 2018 at 19:12:09 blakksage

“The concept of race has historically signified the division of humanity into a small number of groups based upon five criteria: (1) Races reflect some type of biological foundation, be it Aristotelian essences or modern genes; (2) This biological foundation generates discrete racial groupings, such that all and only all members of one race share a set of biological characteristics that are not shared by members of other races; (3) This biological foundation is inherited from generation to generation, allowing observers to identify an individual’s race through her ancestry or genealogy; (4) Genealogical investigation should identify each race’s geographic origin, typically in Africa, Europe, Asia, or North and South America; and (5) This inherited racial biological foundation manifests itself primarily in physical phenotypes, such as skin color, eye shape, hair texture, and bone structure, and perhaps also behavioral phenotypes, such as intelligence or delinquency.”

“Racial naturalism signifies the old, biological conception of race, which depicts races as bearing “biobehavioral essences: underlying natural (and perhaps genetic) properties that (1) are heritable, biological features, (2) are shared by all and only the members of a race, and (3) explain behavioral, characterological, and cultural predispositions of individual persons and racial groups.” (2006)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/

Geopolitical – a study of the influence of such factors as geography, economics, and demography on the politics and especially the foreign policy of a state 2 : a governmental policy guided by geopolitics. | https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/geopolitics

Sociopolitical – used to describe the differences between groups of people relating to their political beliefs, social class, etc.: sociopolitical pressures \ https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/sociopolitical

At bottom, and in my honest opinion, race is in fact a biological fact, not a flimsy, social construct that tends to bend to the whims of sociopolitical and geopolitical pressures. Race is indeed static, not dynamic. Race is absolutely definable, not un-definable.

Without a doubt and ultimately, context is everything when referring to race. And it seems to me, this is what’s sorely absent with the arguments here. Personally, I do not believe that a “social construct” of race exist because it’s an impossible feat. On the other hand, and within context, I believe in a geopolitical or sociopolitical construct of race is very much real, even the abundance of folly that comes with it.

To me, one of the most famously foolish, socio-political examples of race in this manmade context is the “one drop rule.”

Here, let me allow a real Confederate to speak on the foolishness of the “One Drop Rule:” In 1895 in South Carolina during discussion, George D. Tillman said,

“It is a scientific fact that there is not one full-blooded Caucasian on the floor of this convention. Every member has in him a certain mixture of… colored blood…It would be a cruel injustice and the source of endless litigation, of scandal, horror, feud, and bloodshed to undertake to annul or forbid marriage for a remote, perhaps obsolete trace of Negro blood. The doors would be open to scandal, malice, and greed.”[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

A mere “social construct” of race does not determine the color of your eyes, the size of your penis; your height or whether or not you have a wide, flat nose or a thin nose that is usually of the Florentine phenotype or the inordinately fleshy nostrils of the illegal occupiers of the people currently within the State of Israel.

For argument’s sake let’s say an illusionary Middle Eastern country gets involved in determining the citizenry’s race through categorization of skin tone and other immutable, physical characteristics. To me, this is either a geopolitical or sociopolitical construction of race.

In a totally different corollary, this manmade process regarding race has nothing to do with the biological or biblical construct or the idea of race as it is contemporarily defined today.

Therefore, I am somewhat perplexed, when some would say that race is a mere “social construct.” No its’ not. To categorize race geo-politically and or socio-politically but yet, to speak of it or refer to race at the same time with biological underpinnings is overwhelmingly insufficient, foolery and seems to be causing so much confusion here when it clearly shouldn’t!

As we all should know by now, no matter where you are in this world, the status quo, through the accumulation of power, get their agendas push through and eventually upon the people through established, political/governmental mechanisms with indirect racial motives removed from the immediate forefront. However, behind closed doors, the direct intentions and motives are revealed and much more calculating. In most instances, it is usually more pinpointed towards more discriminatory practices targeting the darker races of people as their primary goal. That is, …. to further strip them even of their dignity and or humanity.

Race based laws are pushed through political processes that are beneficial to the powers that be to begin with, not the people, especially and even more detrimental to the ones usually with darker skin. Hence, Brazil, the Empire of United States most notably, with Egypt; quite a few South American and so-called Middle Eastern countries trailing not very far behind.

Hell, … the biological idea of race is even mentioned in the Bible. Ecclesiasticus 26:20-21 20When thou hast gotten a fruitful possession through all the field, sow it with thine own seed, trusting in the goodness of thy stock. 21So thy race which thou leavest shall be magnified, having the confidence of their good descent.

Again, it bears repeating: CONTEXT MEANS EVERYTHING when dealing with race!

LikeLike
on Sat May 26th 2018 at 21:37:00 Jamal e Brooks

sharinalr
you tend to miss the points that I raised and have not address them in spite of my urging you to give me your input..Btw, my two main points of contention with abagond’s post are:

1-Race is a social construct but is NOT ARBITRARY as abagond claims,given that, with the exception of the mixed people, whose categorization can indeed change from society to society, Most of the people classified as white or black would be classified so around the world.

2-Most black Americans do not look mixed or ambiguous as his post made it seem originally and given point 1 putting mixed people only, kind of defeats his argument, given that those people are indeed the ONLY people who get reclassified according to country.

Now, you have not given me your input as to those two points, all of you have dance around addressing them.Can we have a debate around them?

LikeLike
on Sun May 27th 2018 at 03:09:36 Solitaire

https://www.vox.com/2014/12/15/7382941/race-research-social-science

LikeLike
on Sun May 27th 2018 at 06:23:57 Solitaire

@ Jamal

“Individuals maybe not, but the group(an overarching authority) can indeed, and we black americans as a group have not gone far enough in order to define ourselves”

If you were to draw up guidelines for determining which people are African Americans and which are mixed race, what criteria would you use?

LikeLike
on Sun May 27th 2018 at 06:53:41 Afrofem

@Jamal e Brooks

…my arguments are out of touch with YOUR IDEOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS that is sure, but if you really observe them, they can indeed match reality.

So far, all I have observed of your “arguments” are that they are riddled with fallacies such as: begging the question, moving goalposts, deflections and red herrings among others.

You have presented opinions that have no factual basis:

“…the reality is that probably few black women were concubines of white men(most of them did not have slaves btw) and even fewer had children with them, check out Dr. Tommy curry of Texas A&M he calls out that myth on the fact that the evidence of supposed rape of black women is anecdotal and not based on records imho it has been really exaggerated btw.”

“The reality is that we are 80-90% African, and thats the average,which counts the light-skinned minorty as black, if you drop them the african percentage will certainly be higher.

You have misrepresented the work of a scholar whom you were too lazy to link to or quote to back up your comments.

In this case, the work of Professor Tommy Curry. Curry of Texas A&M is certainly provocative. There are positions he holds that I don’t agree with at all. For instance, in his latest book, The Man-Not, Curry sees Black males as a victims, oppressed by their sex.

On other subjects he can be quite discerning. In a recent Atlanta Black Star article, Professor Curry rejects the common assumption that White bigotry and racism is tied to ignorance or stupidity:

“Texas A&M scholar Dr. Tommy Curry repudiates the totality of this idea. He finds “it untenable and apologetic to endow white people with virtue and almost a childlike innocence” when evaluating their racist tendencies. Counter-racist logic compels him to reject the fairytale that says: “Even when white people do seemingly deliberate acts against [Black people,] even those acts where they directly benefit from it are done out of ignorance.” Curry submits that this misconception sustains a ludicrous belief of white people “willing to learn and to correct their behavior if just the right Black person came along and taught them what to do.”

http://atlantablackstar.com/2015/06/03/white-ignorance-lame-excuse-racism/

When pressed for facts, you double down on previous fallacies:

…if you mean mongrel as obama did, as a group of people with a genetic makeup made up of multiple groups from different continents, no, we are on average 80-90% african for example(whites are on average over 95% european origin), which means that we are overwhelmingly african and have PROPORTIONALLY LITTLE non african descend…”

I agree with Sharinalr when she wrote:

“Pseudoscience is still pseudoscience even when the person spewing it is “black”. When you can tell what features past skin color are actually black then we can talk. Not some “Average black features’ response. I want detail.”

Jamal e Brooks, I want details, too. Are you willing to back up your assertions with facts or will you continue to spew pseudoscience?

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Sun May 27th 2018 at 11:07:40 Jamal e Brooks

1-You have presented opinions that have no factual basis:

“The reality is that we are 80-90% African, and thats the average,which counts the light-skinned minorty as black, if you drop them the african percentage will certainly be higher.

see,you have just made the claim that myarguments have no factual basis, buthavent proven them wrongeither making argumentsthatlac factual basis.

“According to their calculations, the ancestors of the average African-American today were 82.1 percent African, 16.7 percent European and 1.2 percent Native American.”

“SELF-IDENTIFIED African-Americans turn out to derive, on average, about 80 percent of their genetic ancestry from enslaved Africans brought to America between the 16th and 19th centuries”

http://blackdemographics.com/geography/african-american-dna/

“What they discovered contradicts some of the previous studies on the subject where it was thought that Blacks were about 30% white. They conclude that the average Black American is 17-18% white. But this is an average and it depends on the location. ”

Oprah’s dna is interesting,she s a typical blac american woman and yet has ZERO european ancestry.

https://blogs.ancestry.com/cm/the-surprising-facts-oprah-winfrey-learned-about-her-dna/

as for Tommy curry he did say in an interview with COWS that the claim of black female rape was based on ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE.and when one sees our loos and genetic mix its obvious these claims are overblown.

LikeLike
on Sun May 27th 2018 at 11:14:28 Jamal e Brooks

1-When pressed for facts, you double down on previous fallacies:

…if you mean mongrel as obama did, as a group of people with a genetic makeup made up of multiple groups from different continents, no, we are on average 80-90% african for example(whites are on average over 95% european origin), which means that we are overwhelmingly african and have PROPORTIONALLY LITTLE non african descend…”

No, I double down on Facts, Whites have very little non european dna on average.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/they-considered-themselves-white-but-dna-tests-told-a-more-complex-story/2018/02/06/16215d1a-e181-11e7-8679-a9728984779c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3e70e4731eb5

While little data exists comparing people’s perceptions with the reality of their ethnic makeup, a 2014 study of 23andMe customers found that around 5,200, or roughly 3.5 percent, of 148,789 self-identified European Americans had 1 percent or more African ancestry

LikeLike
on Sun May 27th 2018 at 15:12:02 sharinalr

Jamal,

“you tend to miss the points that I raised and have not address them in spite of my urging you to give me your input.”—-You didn’t urge me for input. Your response to me was “yeah sure,and are those ambiguous looking people the majority of black folk or a tiny proportion? GTFOH.” And “Not to offend you but that is a foolish statement.” So quote where you urged me for input? 😊

“Btw, my two main points of contention with abagond’s post are:”—False again. Your issue with abagond was “Epic Fail.MOST BLACKS IN THE US have unambiguous west african appearance and dont look ike rihanna(not a black american, but Caribbean by the way) or beyonce).” Cue Kelly Rowland.

“Race is a social construct but is NOT ARBITRARY as abagond claims, given that, with the exception of the mixed people, whose categorization can indeed change from society to society, Most of the people classified as white or black would be classified so around the world.”—Your premise of this argument was based on skin color alone. Need I quote?

“Most black Americans do not look mixed or ambiguous as his post made it seem originally and given point 1 putting mixed people only, kind of defeats his argument, given that those people are indeed the ONLY people who get reclassified according to country.”—-Most do. You can’t make a claim of most based on your experience in one state and decided this opinion is true. You view mixed as black and white mixers of close proximity when reality said mixtures go several generations to product those ambiguous features. This is just a whole lot of blah to ignore that you really don’t have a clue what features are actually black and what are actually white beyond white indoctrinated ideas.

“Now, you have not given me your input as to those two points, all of you have dance around addressing them. Can we have a debate around them?”—We actually did debate them and refute them in which you can see my first response as proof that you danced around them and did not address them not others.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Sun May 27th 2018 at 16:06:16 sharinalr

Jamal,

“The reality is that we are 80-90% African, and that’s the average, which counts the light-skinned minority as black, if you drop them the African percentage will certainly be higher.”—If you look at this quote he is speaking of light skinned individuals and not necessarily mixed (granted we are all mixed). As Blakksage mentioned earlier, an individual can be light-skinned with parents of darker hue. So basically, this goes back to a skin color argument which has little or no factual basis. He himself has no visual breakdown of African DNA % that is separated based on skin color alone. While you could scream features that issue now again becomes which features are supposed to be black or white.

These are nicely missed quotes from your article.

“In the new study, Dr. Gravel and his colleagues analyzed the DNA of 3,726 African-Americans who participated in three separate medical studies.”—Actually a small drop in the hat compared to the amount of African Americans in the united states.

“The scientists were intrigued to find that European Americans who live in the South now are more closely related to African-Americans in the North or West than to present-day African-Americans in the South.”—So this poses the question again about black or white features as skin color does not seem to be a factor or hold as much weight regarding relation.

The whole article basically speculates black migration out of the south with only a 1 percent variation in European genetics in those in the AA in the north. Regardless of percent of mixtures genetics allows for certain features to be present at any point in time. Where in the article does it contradict this reality? Where in said article does it say what nose is a black nose or what is a white nose etc. The issue you fail to realize is Africa is and has always been diverse and you can’t really pinpoint an African look. The only thing new to the playing field is white skin which isn’t old in the world of evolution.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

As to Oprah she has a Native American mix, so she is still mixed despite it not being white. But…

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2522-inside-shady-world-dna-testing-companies.html

If I am not mistaken they add percentages to make it equal 100%.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Sun May 27th 2018 at 16:17:49 Afrofem

@ Jamal e Brooks

“…you have just made the claim that my arguments have no factual basis, but haven’t proven them wrong either…”

Congratulations, you actually did some research and linking to sources. Do you have a link to the COWS program where Professor Curry made his [erroneous]
statement? He is highly intelligent, but a loose cannon who brings a lot of unnecessary grief to himself.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Sun May 27th 2018 at 17:03:08 gro jo

“At bottom, and in my honest opinion, race is in fact a biological fact, not a flimsy, social construct that tends to bend to the whims of sociopolitical and geopolitical pressures. Race is indeed static, not dynamic. Race is absolutely definable, not un-definable.”
Really? If race was as “static” as you claim, what in hell was George D. Tillman babbling on about in your quote?
As for the claim that inherited ‘sub-Saharan African” features such as flat noses, etc.are traits common to all “sub-Saharan Africans”, well, Ethiopians and a number of other “sub-Saharan Africans” don’t fit that stereotype. Yes, Ethiopia,Sudan and Mauritania are all south of the Sahara! Sudanese and Ethiopians were the first Africans to be described as blacks by non-Africans. A big deal is made of “mix race people, that happens when said mix race person is lighter skinned than blacks. When they are black like police chief Reuben Greenberg, son of a Russian Jewish immigrant father and an African-American mother, or Sandra Laing, nobody agonizes over their ‘race’. Skin color results from the interactions of many genes, so chance plays a role in how dark or light you turn out to be.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Sun May 27th 2018 at 17:32:26 Solitaire

@ Jamal

“Race is absolutely definable, not un-definable.”

Then please define it. What are the static, immutable qualities that determine someone’s race?

LikeLike
on Sun May 27th 2018 at 17:39:56 Jamal e Brooks

why my commentsare not getting posted?

LikeLike
on Sun May 27th 2018 at 19:05:53 Solitaire

@ Jamal

If you use a lot of links in one comment — or if you link to anything at YouTube — your comments get automatically put in moderation until Abagond has a chance to look at them.

Or you might be using certain words that will land your comment in auto-moderation.

Have you read the comment policy?

LikeLike
on Sun May 27th 2018 at 19:18:54 blakksage

@Solitaire wrote and incorrectly attributed the below listed comment to Jamal, when in fact, it was written and posted by me:

@Jamal
“Race is absolutely definable, not un-definable.”

Then please define it. What are the static, immutable qualities that determine someone’s race?

Once again, you are placing your lack of comprehension skills on display. Your race is determined by biological qualities, not manmade, geopolitical locations. Even further, the answer is right in your face and still, you are incapable of deciphering what it is you’re actually reading.

Here we go; I’ll allow Stanford University’s definition of race to edify you with your elementary question:

“This inherited racial biological foundation manifests itself primarily in physical phenotypes, such as skin color, eye shape, hair texture, and bone structure, and perhaps also behavioral phenotypes, such as intelligence or delinquency.”

“Racial naturalism signifies the old, biological conception of race, which depicts races as bearing “biobehavioral essences: underlying natural (and perhaps genetic) properties that (1) are heritable, biological features, (2) are shared by all and only the members of a race, and (3) explain behavioral, characterological, and cultural predispositions of individual persons and racial groups.” (2006)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/

LikeLike
on Sun May 27th 2018 at 19:54:07 Solitaire

@ blakksage

Sorry about the misattribution of your statement.

“This inherited racial biological foundation manifests itself primarily in physical phenotypes, such as skin color, eye shape, hair texture, and bone structure, and perhaps also behavioral phenotypes, such as intelligence or delinquency.”

This doesn’t answer my question; it’s too vague. What are the immutable physical and behavioral phenotypes that are found in only one race and none other?

Also, you need to examine your own reading comprehension. What you linked to is not “Stanford University’s definition of race.” It is an essay by one individual at Stanford, and the essay explores the various ways race has been defined in different historical periods. The section you quoted is the definition he uses at the very beginning of the essay, which he states not as an absolute truth but as a starting point for what has historically been understood as the concept of race.

The very next paragraph says:

“This historical concept of race has faced substantial scientific and philosophical challenge, with some important thinkers denying both the logical coherence of the concept and the very existence of races. Others defend the concept of race, albeit with substantial changes to the foundations of racial identity, which they depict as either socially constructed or, if biologically grounded, neither discrete nor essentialist, as the historical concept would have it.

“Both in the past and today, determining the boundaries of discrete races has proven to be most vexing and has led to great variations in the number of human races believed to be in existence. Thus, some thinkers categorized humans into only four distinct races (typically white or Caucasian, black or African, yellow or Asian, and red or Native American), and downplayed any biological or phenotypical distinctions within racial groups (such as those between Scandavians and Spaniards within the white or Caucasian race). Other thinkers classified humans into many more racial categories, for instance arguing that those humans “indigenous” to Europe could be distinguished into discrete Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean races.

The ambiguities and confusion associated with determining the boundaries of racial categories have over time provoked a widespread scholarly consensus that discrete or essentialist races are socially constructed, not biologically real. However, significant scholarly debate persists regarding whether reproductive isolation, either during human evolution or through modern practices barring miscegenation, may have generated sufficient genetic isolation as to justify using the term race to signify the existence of non-discrete human groups that share not only physical phenotypes but also clusters of genetic material. In addition, scholarly debate exists concerning the formation and character of socially constructed, discrete racial categories. For instance, some scholars suggest that race is inconceivable without racialized social hierarchies, while others argue that egalitarian race relations are possible. Finally, substantial controversy surrounds the moral status of racial identity and solidarity and the justice and legitimacy of policies or institutions aimed at undermining racial inequality.”

What the author is doing here is providing an overview of different scholarly attitudes about race and describing various approaches to the concept of race. He isn’t making a case for one particular definition, as you have misrepresented him as doing.

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Sun May 27th 2018 at 22:32:43 Jamal e Brooks

1-Most do.

Most blacks in the US don’t look mixed, and I’ve observed this during my multiple trips around the country but check out these pics of MULTITUDES across the country of us so that you get to know:

http://www.nationnews.com/IMG/990/59990/south-carolina-protest2509-450×303.jpg?1437283666

https://images.csmonitor.com/csm/2016/07/994389_1_Chicago_standard.jpg?alias=standard_600x400

https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/styles/flexslider_full/public/sierra/articles/big/Queen%20Quet%202.jpg?itok=UG9eFdHq

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/men-loiter-on-the-street-in-the-west-woodlawn-neighborhood-and-the-picture-id525520466

https://i.huffpost.com/gen/2896244/thumbs/o-BALTIMORE-PROTEST-900.jpg?7

Those multitudes are the Real Faces of Black america and there you rarely see a beyonce or rihanna type of ambiguity,Most of of do no t look mixed.PERIOD.
2-—Actually a small drop in the hat compared to the amount of African Americans in the united states.

what are you talking about?3,726 is indeed by many research samples quite a good number, that’s by the way the point of inferential statistics to infer from a sample of the population trends that can be attributed to the mean average and mode of that population.Also I showed other studies that corroborate the findings.

check out this page that helps calculate sample sizes appropriate for surveys and type in the numbers of blacks in america(around 45 million) and then see the result?

3-Solitaire
@ Jamal

“Race is absolutely definable, not un-definable.”

Then please define it. What are the static, immutable qualities that determine someone’s race?

It seems that you mistook me(like my misreading mistake earlier), I DID NOT make that comment, actually it was blakksage.so please go ask him/her.

LikeLike
on Sun May 27th 2018 at 22:34:58 Jamal e Brooks

1-More pictures of My people:

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5537b782/turbine/bal-freddie-grays-family-attends-baltimore-protest-20150422

http://www.latimes.com/resizer/CGXNjv4hJgkh2XbAPcWRSRdG9Ww=/1200×0/www.trbimg.com/img-55ab3a0b/turbine/la-na-south-carolina-protest-20150718

The Real Faces of Black america unlike the mixed people picture we get in white media.

2–the last time i check i actually made the point about that traits of mixed people, and never based my critique on skin color alone ,notice that the words I used were MIXED and AMBIGUOUS.

” “Epic Fail.MOST BLACKS IN THE US have unambiguous west african appearance and dont look ike rihanna(not a black american, but Caribbean by the way) or beyonce).” Cue Kelly Rowland.”
and

““Most black Americans do not look mixed or ambiguous as his post made it seem originally and given point 1 putting mixed people only, kind of defeats his argument, given that those people are indeed the ONLY people who get reclassified according to country.”

Thats why again give point 1 abagond showing only mixed people, kinda defeats his argument given that most blacks dont look mixed and ONLY the mixed or ambiguous looking are the ones who get reclassified from country to country.

LikeLike
on Sun May 27th 2018 at 22:52:06 Jamal e Brooks

it seems that i cannot post the page of the sample size calculator, but go to checkmatket.com and write “Sample size calculator”

LikeLike
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 00:28:26 gro jo

Nice pictures Jamal, now prove that the people they depict are not mixed, i.e. don’t have at least one or several white great grandparents. You can’t, pictures don’t tell the whole story. It’s not only the “AMBIGUOUS” or “white” looking who may be “mixed”. The fact that you fixate on them tells me you swallowed the propaganda about ‘purity’ hook, line, and sinker. Compare and contrast Reuben Greenberg (https://alchetron.com/Reuben-Greenberg) with Rashida Jones (https://www.self.com/story/rashida-jones-fit), both are the children of African-Americans and East European Jews.

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 00:41:37 blakksage

@Solitaire, I’ll get back with you shortly. I’m busy at the moment.

LikeLike
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 01:06:00 Jamal e Brooks

1-gro jo
Nice pictures Jamal, now prove that the people they depict are not mixed, i.e. don’t have at least one or several white great grandparents.

That is irrelevant given that my argument was about the LOOKS, and i said that most of us DO NOT LOOK MIXED or ambiguous.

2-The fact that you fixate on them tells me you swallowed the propaganda about ‘purity’ hook, line, and sinker.

what propaganda? are you serious? if there is indeed any propaganda is the one that says ” we come in all shades “we all look mixed”.Black americans as a group in spite of their looks have historically chosen to highlight and exaggerate their relatively tiny amount of european or native ancestry than to celebrate their african majority ancestry.

3-Compare and contrast Reuben Greenberg (https://alchetron.com/Reuben-Greenberg) with Rashida Jones (https://www.self.com/story/rashida-jones-fit), both are the children of African-Americans and East European Jews.

the greenberg man could be a one in a millionth time chance, stop using EXCEPTIONS to try to discredit GENERAL RULES, we all know how mixed people tend to look,it seems desperate.

LikeLike
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 03:01:23 gro jo

“the greenberg man could be a one in a millionth time chance, stop using EXCEPTIONS to try to discredit GENERAL RULES, we all know how mixed people tend to look,it seems desperate.”
ROFL, and I’m the desperate one? Most mixed people don’t look like Ms. Jones either.
“That is irrelevant given that my argument was about the LOOKS, and i said that most of us DO NOT LOOK MIXED or ambiguous.”
According to you looks follow essence, Blacks don’t look mixed because they aren’t mixed so my argument is very relevant. You deny that most mixed Blacks might look like Mr. Greenberg, based on what facts? Have you done a study on the matter?
You come here pretending to be an ‘expert’, fine, now show us your ‘expertise’ not with nonsense like “…we all know how…” blah,blah.
My stance on this question is: “gro jo

Where are the black skin Indians and the Ethiopian Jews? Why do the blacks depicted pass the “brown paper bag test”?…Abagond is trying to have his cake and eat it in this post. African-Americans range from James Brown black to Mariah Carey ‘white’. They are one people because of a common history, not because they share a common physical trait.””

LikeLike
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 04:16:44 Solitaire

@ Jamal

“It seems that you mistook me(like my misreading mistake earlier), I DID NOT make that comment, actually it was blakksage.so please go ask him/her.”

I already did that, a couple hours prior to your posting the above comment. I apologize for the mistake, but there’s no reason to yell.

LikeLike
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 04:53:24 Helen

IMHO:

I think Dr. Curry may have been misunderstood. Many African women were raped even before they got on a boat bound for this country as slaves. Some were already pregnant by white captors as well as black captors. During the rape, pillage and plunder of many African villages, males were also accosted and raped. Yes, ‘some slaves’ became concubines for any number of reasons; i.e., food, less labor, clothing, family, etc. Since chattel slavery in America was very complicated and sometimes focuses on the rape of black female slaves, chattel slavery does not always include the victimization and rape of black ‘male’ slaves; or, for that matter, the victimization of the black male period.

In old census records from about 1850 or so, the label mulatto was used. Prior to 1865, there were slave schedules, or inventories, wherein slaves were listed under the names of their owners – chattel slavery. The classifications used were names of owners, age, sex, color (for black slaves, racial classifications were mulatto or black), the number manumitted, skill set, health. Sometimes, slaves thought to be over 100 years of age were listed by their first name.

The label mulatto was very much recognized along with quadroon and octoroon, which affected freedom, social standing, inheritance laws, rights and miscegenation laws, especially after 1865. Anybody with ‘any’ amount of African blood was considered black – the one drop rule. Interracial marriage laws and Plecker’s Racial Integrity Act, both in Virginia, were overturned by the Supreme Court as late as 1967 according to Wikipedia.

Mulatto | Define Mulatto at Dictionary.com
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mulatto

1590s, “offspring of a European and a black African,” from Spanish or Portuguese mulato “of mixed breed,” literally “young mule,” from mulo “mule,” from Latin mulus (fem. mula) “mule” (see mule (n.1)); possibly in reference to hybrid origin of mules.

DNA findings. Many so-called descendants of slaves (DOS) may not ‘look white’ but have as much as 45 to 50 percent European DNA. In fact, there are very few DOS who are 100 percent African. In other words, slavery created a whole new race of people, many of whom can rightfully claim they are European rather than black through their DNA. The pictures that were posted, many of those black people could have as much as 45 percent, or more, of European DNA even though they may ‘typically look black.’

As for intellect, chattel slavery was about ownership of property. It does not look good for the property to be smarter than the owners — Thomas Fuller; Tom Wiggins; George Washington Carver; Elijah McCoy, Harriet Ann Jacobs …

Check out Willie Lynch. Some say that was a hoax. But, there is so much truth lying within those words, it is very painful.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 05:06:58 sharinalr

Jamal

“Most blacks in the US don’t look mixed, and I’ve observed this during my multiple trips around the country but check out these pics of MULTITUDES across the country of us so that you get to know”—Yet you have yet to tell me what is a black look beyond skin color. I honestly doubt you have. You were confronted multiple times on your limited experience of Ga and not once did you mention these other places until now. Do not attempt to beef up your credibility with a false claim. Furthermore, these pictures are not really supporting your claim. I could equally pull pictures to support my claim, but it would not tell me what a majority of anything looks like. Many of those features depicted in those photos I have seen in whites, Natives, and even some Asians. Sad part is in many of the pictures you are showing I see a lot of ambiguous features. So again what are typical or average black features or white features or Asian features etc.? I want detail and not pictures. If you don’t know then say you don’t know but presenting fluff does not help your cause or debate or whatever.

“Those multitudes are the Real Faces of Black america and there you rarely see a beyonce or rihanna type of ambiguity,Most of of do no t look mixed.PERIOD.”—Those are also staged protest photos which only depict a small amount of individuals. Try again. As to Beyoncé and Rihanna your only real harp is their skin color and again get past that and the features of both are basically what can be seen in the majority of African Americans.

“what are you talking about?3,726 is indeed by many research samples quite a good number.”—You don’t get it do you? Sample sizes are used to infer something. Based on his sample he is basically saying it represents black Americans when in reality it represents the average amount of people in his 3,726 sample. Some of them may have actually presented a higher range in that sample, but most were about 16 percent. It all depends on his sample and as of that study you don’t really know the diversity of this sample.

“the last time i check i actually made the point about that traits of mixed people, and never based my critique on skin color alone, notice that the words I used were MIXED and AMBIGUOUS.”—Allow me to quote you again….”I am talking about the average look of my people not whether certain traits are black or white.” If you are claiming here to not talk about features, then the only thing you could be talking about is skin color. You harped on Kelly Rowland because of her dark skin because some of her features are indeed ambiguous. So, either your argument changes based on what you think you can prove or you have no real idea what you are talking about. I don’t care if you mention mixed or ambiguous, because I said above I was not talking about mixes with clear black and white parents. Which neither Beyoncé or Rihanna have, but they do have mixtures like most black Americans and you can’t say that is a lie seeing as your DNA link proves that there are some mixtures even though the percentages can greatly range depending on the individual.

“Thats why again give point 1 abagond showing only mixed people, kinda defeats his argument given that most blacks dont look mixed and ONLY the mixed or ambiguous looking are the ones who get reclassified from country to country.”—Not really most blacks are multicultural and look it, but in the USA they typically don’t look past skin color to see the other features. That is reality. Another reality is features are all in perception and this article illustrates it amazingly.

http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2007/11/26/mixedrace-but-homogeneous-appe/

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 05:09:49 Afrofem

@ Jamal e Brooks

If Abagond erred by primarily showing images of light skinned African descent people in this post and declaring them Black, you are erring by showing images of dark skinned African descent people as your representative samples of true Black folk.

Perhaps you live in some mono-hued portion of Georgia where all of the Black people are dark skinned. I grew up in the South on the banks of the Mississippi River. My community was made up of people who identified as Black who ranged from pale skinned, blue-eyed blondes to people as dark as the Dinka of Southern Sudan—————-and every shade of beige and brown in between.

My own extended family has the same profile, both historically and in the current generations.

It doesn’t matter what degree or percentage of admixture from other phenotype groups modern African Americans/Black folk show or declare, the centuries old “one drop rule” is still very potent. It is still imposed by the White Power Structure on self-identified Black people and bi/multiracial people alike, whether they like it or not.

I find all of this blood quantum haggling tedious and irrelevant. To me, a simple test for not Black is being able to sit in a Starbucks (or any retail outlet) waiting to meet someone without the police being called on you for modern day vagrancy or “trespassing”. If you are Black, the staff will hassle you and the police will show up.

Blackness is not about skin color, features or genetic markers from Africa. Blackness in America is about an arbitrary caste system devised during slavery to identify, control and contain human property. That system in its current form is just as powerful now as it was in 1818 or 1918.

The terminology has changed over the centuries, but the system remains intact.

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 05:18:32 Afrofem

@ Helen

Thank you for the additional information re: Dr. Curry. He is a complex figure. I will have to read more about his work.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 08:26:56 Jamal e Brooks

1-Many so-called descendants of slaves (DOS) may not ‘look white’ but have as much as 45 to 50 percent European DNA.
yes, SOME do, but the AVERAGE is 80%. african, read the data I putted a few comments back.
2-In fact, there are very few DOS who are 100 percent African. In other words, slavery created a whole new race of people,

Being 80-90% african means we are an african people genetically and not so much of a “new race”, btw there are populations in africa that are more mixed in africa than african americans so even some africans back there are mixed, so slavery did not create a new race.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/east-africans-may-have-up-to-a-quarter-of-asian-and-european-dna-says-report-a6686826.html

3-In other words, slavery created a whole new race of people, many of whom can rightfully claim they are European rather than black through their DNA.

yes, the mixed people that I argued can indeed be reclassified from society to society but most of us don’t look that way and don’ t have half of our DNA originated from europe just 10-17%.

4-The pictures that were posted, many of those black people could have as much as 45 percent, or more, of European DNA even though they may ‘typically look black.’

It could be, but is VERY unlikely given our appearance and our average genetic makeup.

5-Those are also staged protest photos which only depict a small amount of individuals. Try again. As to Beyoncé and Rihanna your only real harp is their skin color and again get past that and the features of both are basically what can be seen in the majority of African Americans.

those photos are not staged are about events of our community like protest after freddy grays murder, unlike the pictures of mainstream media or the google image search for african americans, they show who we actually are. btw these pictures are from around the country and also have hundreds of people, and more importantly are random, so if we were mostly ambiguous looking given the random, geographically disparate nature as well as size of crowds of these pics it would show.

6-It doesn’t matter what degree or percentage of admixture from other phenotype groups modern African Americans/Black folk show or declare, the centuries old “one drop rule” is still very potent. It is still imposed by the White Power Structure on self-identified Black people and bi/multiracial people alike, whether they like it or not.

But that’s changing, and as we more to a brazil-like system I warn that the white power structure has indeed begun to change its relation to the mixed people, in 2040 or 2050 is possible that the may not be seen as black bu, like all around the world, as a separate group.The one drop rule is not that very potent.

Most mixed people don’t look like Ms. Jones either.

OHH INTERESTING!!, SO you knew how mixed people tend to look (or not)after all,what a surprise!.So do not, please use extremes or exceptions to try to discredit general rules.

8-I already did that, a couple hours prior to your posting the above comment. I apologize for the mistake, but there’s no reason to yell.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/yell

According to the cambidge dictionary YELLING:to shout something or make a loud noise, usually when you are angry, in pain, or excited:

I thin thats kinda physically impossible to do through writing :D.you are projecting on me lady/sir.

LikeLike
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 09:35:23 Solitaire

@ Jamal

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_caps#Association_with_shouting

“Capitalizing whole words gives the impression that you’re shouting”

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 11:07:57 gro jo

“OHH INTERESTING!!, SO you knew how mixed people tend to look (or not)after all,what a surprise!.So do not, please use extremes or exceptions to try to discredit general rules.”
ROFL, of course I do. They range from Mr. Greenberg to Ms. Jones with every variation in between. You are the one trying to argue for some ‘unique’ ‘ambiguous’ look, not me.

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 14:29:41 sharinalr

Jamal,

You are getting desperate. You state, “don’ t have half of our DNA originated from europe just 10-17%.” Even your sources refute that. They claim 16.9% and up.

“those photos are not staged are about events of our community like protest after freddy grays murder, unlike the pictures of mainstream media or the google image search for african americans, they show who we actually are. btw these pictures are from around the country and also have hundreds of people, and more importantly are random, so if we were mostly ambiguous looking given the random, geographically disparate nature as well as size of crowds of these pics it would show.”—You might want to familiarize yourself with definition to avoid more bs. Staged means “contrived for a desired impression or the scene of any action” among others. I highly doubt any of those photos where taken at random. Please stop lying, because A) your link address says the pictures are from Chicago and SC and B) you have no clue where any of those picture locations are from. Not to mention a majority of African Americans did not protest. The ambiguous features do show in those photos. The issue is you are convinced they are black features with no clear idea what a pure black feature is. If you can’t separate a black vs white vs Asian vs native features, then you basically sink your own argument. If you think a bunch of pictures illustrate the magnitude of millions of people you are once again delusional.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 15:44:59 Jamal e Brooks

1-” “don’ t have half of our DNA originated from europe just 10-17%.” Even your sources refute that. They claim 16.9% and up.

no,my sources show 20% and down.One even quotes:”They conclude that the average Black American is 17-18% white.”

Also when did I was wrong to point out that as a people we don ‘t have half of our genes coming out of europe?

2-I highly doubt any of those photos where taken at random.

OK, prove it.Its up to you to show that they are contrived, since you are making the claim.

3-Not to mention a majority of African Americans did not protest.

Silly statement, when has ever the majority of black people, or any people for that matter ever joined a protest?Even in the civil rights movement most black people didn’t protest..Also many of those photos are not from protests, are from a wide array of events.

LikeLike
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 15:48:22 blakksage

On Dec. 3rd, 2017 I responded to jefe and wrote this under Abagond’s “Get Out” post:

Nonetheless, I still believe that it’s a mental health issue to a certain extent for someone wanting to inhabit the space of another person or supplant another group of people because one oppressed group of people or person believe that it’s better to be in the space of another group people who are still reeling from slavery, psyche ache and many other intergenerational ills.

To me, the equivalent would be me, as a so-called African American desperately wanting to be a subject of the “Untouchables” of India because I incorrectly calculated or failed to properly consider how unbeneficial or troublesome that would be to my detriment.

@@@@

A few posts later, @Solitaire chimed in and intentionally took my post out of context and misquoted me by CLAIMING that I wrote this (liar):
“because I incorrectly calculated or failed to properly consider how unbeneficial or troublesome that would be to my detriment.”(@Solitaire intentionally misquoting blakksage)

I then replied by posting the following statement:

@Solitaire, whom do think you’re playing with and why are you intentionally misquoting me or taking my point out of context? That’s not what I wrote, stupid sh%t! Oh .. my bad, it’s white people’s nature to do petty things like this.

@@@@

Fast forward to May 26, 2017 under Abagond’s “Race” post, I wrote the following post below with an attached link:

“This inherited racial biological foundation manifests itself primarily in physical phenotypes, such as skin color, eye shape, hair texture, and bone structure, and perhaps also behavioral phenotypes, such as intelligence or delinquency.”

“Racial naturalism signifies the old, biological conception of race, which depicts races as bearing “biobehavioral essences: underlying natural (and perhaps genetic) properties that (1) are heritable, biological features, (2) are shared by all and only the members of a race, and (3) explain behavioral, characterological, and cultural predispositions of individual persons and racial groups.” (2006)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/

Again, just as @Solitaire did on Dec. 3rd, 2017, intentionally misquoted or rather mis-referenced me by CLAIMING that I posted the following from Stanford University website regarding “race” (liar x 2):

“Both in the past and today, determining the boundaries of discrete races has proven to be most vexing and has led to great variations in the number of human races believed to be in existence. Thus, some thinkers categorized humans into only four distinct races (typically white or Caucasian, black or African, yellow or Asian, and red or Native American), and downplayed any biological or phenotypical distinctions within racial groups (such as those between Scandavians and Spaniards within the white or Caucasian race). (@Solitaire CLAIMING that I posted this segment of the referenced essay from Stanford University’s website regarding race).

LIAR much! @Solitaire, you are the most deceitful person that I’ve ever encountered on any blog. Here you are engaging in doing more stupid SH@T, just as you did back in December of last year. I highly implore you should seek professional help in an attempt to quell your propensity to LIE, … seriously!

Clearly, my two posted paragraphs from Stanford University’s website were to succinctly extrapolate that race is in fact biological, definable, immutable and static all at once.

And not as you put: “What the author is doing here is providing an overview of different scholarly attitudes about race and describing various approaches to the concept of race.” (LOL)

I DO NOT CARE about “the approaches to race.” My point was to show that race is biological and nothing more. The subject of “race” really isn’t a complex idea at all. This is exactly why I carefully chose those two paragraphs from Stanford University’s website regarding race because without a doubt, it proves my point. And the reason why I also bowed out of this conversation some time ago, it is because the entire argument, not the post itself, was skewed towards giving credence to the notion that “race” is a complex “social construct.” To me, this is sheer stupidity!

As I’ve posted up thread, and at bottom, race to me is biological first and foremost as it is written in the Bible. On a secondary level, race then becomes either a manmade geopolitical or socio-political construct to suit the needs of waffling politics. If you choose to believe otherwise, that’s fine with me and I see no problem with you having your own belief(s), … by just don’t attempt to push your nonsense on to me by LIEING.

But what I will not do is to post something and then intentionally attribute the comment to someone when I know for certain that the individual in question, did not write or post what I’m referring to, as you have done regarding yours truly for the second time.

Oh, .. I’m sorry, it takes character to do this sort of thing and obviously, you don’t have an ounce of it.

@Solitaire wrote: “Also, you need to examine your own reading comprehension. What you linked to is not “Stanford University’s definition of race.” It is an essay by one individual at Stanford.”

This comment clearly shows that you do not know anything about how scholarly written articles come about. To edify you, scholarly written articles may be written by one or more individuals. However, prior to these articles being published, it’s placed through what is referred to as a “peer review” system. This process is designed to have other professors from the same field of study to comb through the article in question prior to publishing, to find faults and bring it to the attention of the author(s) so as to avoid bringing shame upon or damaging the author(s) career and reputation and in the same vein so as not to blemish the university’s legacy as well.

So, being that these articles are ”peer reviewed,” and/or written or reviewed by a team of individuals, I personally believe it’s perfectly fine to say that scholarly written articles are done so by a team, and in this case, Stanford University as I stated above. Now there!

You don’t have to agree with me but you should at least STOP LIEING!

@Solitaire wrote; “This doesn’t answer my question; it’s too vague. What are the immutable physical and behavioral phenotypes that are found in only one race and none other?” (LOL)

Lawdy, lawdy have mercy! Is it possible for an individual of Chinese descent to somehow mute or get rid of his slanted eyes, absent some type of cosmetic interruption? No! Is it possible for a so-called African America to mute or get rid of his wide, flat nose (in most instances) without cosmetic involvement? No! Is it possible for a so-called descendant of Esau, or contemporary Caucasian teenager to mute or instantaneously get rid of his/her freckles? No! Is it possible for a Samoan wrestler to mute or alter their physical stature (in most instances and usually of being heavy set) in one day? No!

@Solitaire, can you mute your WHITENESS without utilizing some type of manmade product in a bottle, that mimic the behavior of melanin, which is produced much more in abundance and naturally by black and brown people?

(I’m not making a mockery of any of the cultures listed here but only in hope of providing assistance to blogger Solitaire so that she may understand my comment above).

The answer is a resounding NO to all of these questions. Therefore, these physical characteristics are immutable without some type of extraneous force coming into play.

I’m done with you, so, have a nice day and I’d really appreciate it if you’d STOP intentionally misquoting, lieing and/or taking my posts out of context!

@@@@

Most experts believe psychopaths and sociopaths share a similar set of traits. People like this have a poor inner sense of right and wrong. They also can’t seem to understand or share another person’s feelings. But there are some differences, too.

Do They Have a Conscience?
A key difference between a psychopath and a sociopath is whether he has a conscience, the little voice inside that lets us know when we’re doing something wrong, says L. Michael Tompkins, EdD. He’s a psychologist at the Sacramento County Mental Health Treatment Center.

A psychopath doesn’t have a conscience. If he lies to you so he can steal your money, he won’t feel any moral qualms, though he may pretend to. He may observe others and then act the way they do so he’s not “found out,” Tompkins says.

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference#1

LikeLike
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 15:57:34 Jamal e Brooks

More pictures of my people, in the struggle always For those who love to deny their existence:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2016/09/20160903_162515.jpg&w=480

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/men-loiter-on-the-street-in-the-washington-park-neighborhood-and-the-picture-id525519730
http://www.trbimg.com/img-55f23f66/turbine/ct-south-side-trauma-deserts-20140802

LikeLike
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 16:26:46 Afrofem

@ Jamal e Brooks

“…as we more to a brazil-like system I warn that the white power structure has indeed begun to change its relation to the mixed people, in 2040 or 2050 is possible that the may not be seen as black bu, like all around the world, as a separate group.

I agree that the White Power Structure in the USA is shifting to a way of dealing with bi/multiracial people that separates them from Black people. They want to nullify the “one drop” rule so that it is easier to oppress both groups differently. The bi/multiracial people might become yet another hostile wedge group between Black and White people. In that way, they will weaken solidarity with Black people and act like Asians, Arabs and Latinx do in the present day toward Black people. Very ugly, indeed.

However, in modern Brazil a different way of looking at Blackness and African descent is emerging. In 2011, The Guardian newspaper (UK) in wrote about increasing numbers of Brazilians declaring themselves Black, Mixed Race or Indigenous [instead of White] on the national census. The article notes:

“…results from the 2010 census, released on Wednesday, show that 97 million Brazilians, or 50.7% of the population, now define themselves as black or mixed race, compared with 91 million or 47.7% who label themselves white.

The proportion of Brazilians declaring themselves white was down from 53.7% in 2000, when Brazil’s last census was held.

But the proportion of people declaring themselves black or mixed race has risen from 44.7% to 50.7%, making African-Brazilians the official majority for the first time.

“Among the hypotheses to explain this trend, one could highlight the valorisation of identity among Afro-descendants,” Brazil’s census board, the IBGE, said in its report.”

This was part of a comment on the Marielle Franco post:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/marielle-franco/#comment-393377

So the oppression game continues. The White Power Structure moves the pieces around on the board and some of the oppressed believe they are winning———for a while. Meanwhile in Brazil, they are very aware of the game and are opting for solidarity as their next move.

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 16:31:00 Afrofem

@ Jamal e Brooks

Really? More photos. I agree with Sharinalr, you are getting desperate. Have you run out of arguments?

We already know what we, our families and our communities look like. LOL.

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 16:41:37 sharinalr

@Jamal e Brooks

“no,my sources show 20% and down.”—So how does that contradict what I said here “They claim 16.9% and up” 16.9% is way higher than that 10% range you now want to push and allow me to do the honor of quoting your source.
“The scientists were able to pinpoint stretches of DNA in the subjects that originated on different continents. According to their calculations, the ancestors of the average African-American today were 82.1 percent African, 16.7 percent European and 1.2 percent Native American.”

Made in this comment: https://abagond.wordpress.com/2018/05/18/race/comment-page-1/#comment-398935

If you are claiming any other source it is odd how they all seem to contradict themselves and that goes back to a dependence on sample. Sad reality is your own words are refuting your own claims.

“Also when did I was wrong to point out that as a people we don ‘t have half of our genes coming out of europe?”—Correct this sentence as I have no idea what you are asking or if it is even based on what I said or more of your blah.
“OK, prove it.Its up to you to show that they are contrived, since you are making the claim.”—ROFL pitiful. I am not making the claim they are contrived. I made the claim they were staged, so please do me a favor and check that dictionary so we can avoid these types of mishaps. You can push this fallacy if you want, but hey you will still have to explain how magically cameras are there.

“Silly statement, when has ever the majority of black people, or any people for that matter ever joined a protest?Even in the civil rights movement most black people didn’t protest..Also many of those photos are not from protests, are from a wide array of events.”—It is funny how those FACTS become silly statements to you. The point is that you are using a minority in photos to claim the majority and this basically proves me point further while nicely refuting yours.

Your pictures aren’t proving your point. I truly hope you realize that instead of wasting time posting picture after picture of carefully selected individuals designed to only serve what you naively believe proves your point. You basically are rounding up pictures of a minimal representative of the black community at certain events. Oddly you are starting to select those that blur or hide features and of those that are clear you fail to notice the ambiguous features. All in all failing to vocalize or type which features are supposed to be black, white, Asian, native American and so forth.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 16:57:52 Mary Burrell

Reading all the comments the diverse comments on the subject of race, in my opinion this is quite a complex subject. I am perusing a book from my personal library Race In North America, Origin And Evolution Of A Worldview by Audrey Smedley and Brian D. Smedley. Here is just a sample that have captured my attention in regard to the subject of race

Stressing the cultural nature of race requires excising the empirical reality of biophysical variation from our cognitive perspective. In other words, it is useful to ignore actual phenotypic or biological differences if we want to understand how the ideology of race functions in American society. Yet clearly physical variations had something to do with the origin and persistence of Race categorization.

Perhaps the best way of expressing this connection is to state that race originated as the imposition of an arbitrary value system on the facts of biological (phenotypic) variations in the human species. It was the cultural invention of arbitrary meanings applied to what appeared to be natural divisions.

The meanings had social value, but no intrinsic relationship to the biological diversity itself. Race was a reality created in the human mind, not a reflection of objective truths. It was fabricated as an existential reality out of a combination of recognizable physical differences and some incontrovertible social facts: the conquest of indigenous peoples, their domination and exploitation, and the importation of a vulnerable and controllable population from Africa to service the insatiable greed of European entrepreneurs.

The physical differences were a major tool by which the dominant whites constructed and maintained social barriers and economic inequalities; that is, they consciously sought to create social stratification based on these visible differences. (cf. Banton 1967, 1977, 1988). Theodore Allen’s study (1997) of the invention of the “white “ race provides indisputable evidence of the deliberate way in which colonial plantation leaders manipulated the social system in this manner. Taken from On The Relationship Between Biology And Race. Page 20, Race In North America, Origin And Evolution Of A Worldview
Audrey Smedley and Brian D. Smedley.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 17:06:14 Jamal e Brooks

1-Afrofem
In 2011, The Guardian newspaper (UK) in wrote about increasing numbers of Brazilians declaring themselves Black, Mixed Race or Indigenous [instead of White] on the national census

I agree with you analysis,but when in comes to increased consciousness of the mixed brazilians my brazlian buddy has repeatedly told me that is cosmetics, and the pardos(mixed people) only claim blackness when dealing with .affirmative action programs and other set-asides, that btw, the black people has fought for, damn, it seems that even the whites now are fraudulently claiming black ancestry to take over affirmative action

https://blackwomenofbrazil.co/2018/03/12/members-of-affirmative-action-judgment-committee-at-university-quit-after-dean-declares-that-anyone-with-a-black-grandparent-is-eligible-for-quotas/

https://blackwomenofbrazil.co/2016/05/13/due-to-the-phenomenon-of-white-students-declaring-themselves-black-coletivo-negrada-launches-campaign-against-fraud-in-racial-quotas/

Thats an excelent page from black brazilians and I think is an african american who created it.Please check it out.That might be our future.

2-If you are claiming any other source it is odd how they all seem to contradict themselves and that goes back to a dependence on sample. Sad reality is your own words are refuting your own claims.

actually they don’t contradict themselves, is the range of results overlaps so that means they actually agree we are less than 20% non african(so claiming 17% actually is accurate)

3-It is funny how those FACTS become silly statements to you. The point is that you are using a minority in photos to claim the majority and this basically proves me point further while nicely refuting yours.

They are silly because since when there is a picture of the majority of african americans, can you really photograph 40 million people at the same time?or even 20 million for that matter?By showing random aggregation(hundreds) of our people in different settings across the country one gets a picture of who we are physically.

4-You basically are rounding up pictures of a minimal representative of the black community at certain events.

everyone reading that will notice that you are making an unfounded claim, why don’t you go and prove everybody that you are not just claiming stuff out of thin air?

LikeLike
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 17:14:46 Jamal e Brooks

1-We already know what we, our families and our communities look like. LOL.

.I’m doing it on purpose, as I said there’s some denial as to how we look in some circles, especially those who dont understand that the one-drop rule may be on its way out . btw Maybe you do know, but some, it seems, don’t

LikeLike
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 17:27:19 Mary Burrell

In The chapter Race and Ethnicity: Biology and Culture: On occasion we have all used certain physical attributes of individuals as clues to their nationality or geographic origins, such as, for example, in the identification of East Indians or Asians. But physical characteristics do not automatically proclaim the cultural background.

Some Middle Easterners have been mistaken for Puerto Rican and vise versa. Some Arab have been mistaken for black Americans, and so have many peoples from the tropical islands of the South Pacific. Biophysical traits should never be used as part of the definition of ethnicity. Every American should understand this explicitly, since there are millions of physically varying people, all sharing “American culture” (ethnicity), who know little or nothing about the cultural features of their ancestors, who may have arrived here from almost anywhere.

Taken From: Race In North America, Origin And Evolution Of A Worldview
Audrey Smedley and Brian D. Smedley

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 19:04:47 Afrofem

@ Mary Burrell

Thank you for posting excerpts from the Smedley’s work.

An injection of cool, clear facts in an overheated vein of opinions.

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 19:18:19 Afrofem

@

“…the pardos(mixed people) only claim blackness when dealing with .affirmative action programs and other set-asides, that btw, the black people has fought for, damn, it seems that even the whites now are fraudulently claiming black ancestry to take over affirmative action”

Something similar happened in this country during the 1990s, when Italians were claiming Black grandmothers, etc. Par for the course.

However, I think something deeper is going on. A generation ago, someone who looked like Marielle Franco would have strenuously denied African heritage and hidden behind one of Brazil’s many bi/multiracial classifications.

Yet, in the current moment Franco and others who look like her are going beyond rhetoric and false claims to fully embrace their African heritage. In Franco’s case she was willing to risk her life to fight for the rights of Black Brazilians. Putting your life on the line is very different from posing as Black for benefits.

https://abagond.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/marielle-franco/

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 19:19:21 Afrofem

The comment above was directed at Jamal e Brooks.

LikeLike
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 21:18:44 sharinalr

Jamal,

See how you set yourself up.

“actually they don’t contradict themselves, is the range of results overlaps so that means they actually agree we are less than 20% non african(so claiming 17% actually is accurate)”—Actually they do and your statement here is either claiming your sources are lying or you are. The source I quoted did not present a range. In fact, it flat out said it was a 16.7% of European DNA. Your other sources Stated a 17 to 18 percent of white DNA. None of them give the same percentage which makes it contradictory. Get it now?

“They are silly because since when there is a picture of the majority of african americans, can you really photograph 40 million people at the same time?or even 20 million for that matter?By showing random aggregation(hundreds) of our people in different settings across the country one gets a picture of who we are physically.”—Yet those aren’t pictures of majority African Americans and you know it. I could count the individuals in those photos (Don’t add up to hundreds) and they amount to a drop in the hat of African Americans. If you are going to claim what the majority looks like, then you sure as sh** better be able to photograph the majority of those 20 to 40 million people. No. One gets to engage in confirmation bias not the picture.

“everyone reading that will notice that you are making an unfounded claim, why don’t you go and prove everybody that you are not just claiming stuff out of thin air?”—Yet it is not an unfounded claim. See above as to why. Pulling things out of thin air is your rodeo.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 21:21:54 sharinalr

@Mary Burrell

That sounds like a really good read. I may need to check it out.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 21:25:40 Mary Burrell

@Sharina: Yes, it is good it was one on Abagond’s suggested book list a couple of years ago. I have had it for a while. I had to go through my book shelves especially with this Abagond post on race.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 21:26:36 Solitaire

@ Blakksage

“@Solitaire CLAIMING that I posted this segment of the referenced essay from Stanford University’s website regarding race).”

I did no such thing.

I wrote:

The section you quoted is the definition he uses at the very beginning of the essay, which he states not as an absolute truth but as a starting point for what has historically been understood as the concept of race.

The very next paragraph says: …
“Both in the past and today, determining the boundaries of discrete races has proven to be most vexing and has led to great variations in the number of human races believed to be in existence. Thus, some thinkers categorized humans into only four distinct races (typically white or Caucasian, black or African, yellow or Asian, and red or Native American), and downplayed any biological or phenotypical distinctions within racial groups (such as those between Scandavians and Spaniards within the white or Caucasian race).”

“The very next paragraph” clearly means “the text in your source that followed the section that you, Blakksage, posted but which aforesaid following text you chose not to include in your quote.”

You most certainly did not quote that section of text from the Stanford website, because it contradicted your argument about the essential and immutable quality of race. I was not claiming you posted it; I was pointing out that you didn’t do so.

I know what peer review is. That doesn’t change the fact that the section you posted was not being put forth by the author as the essential definition of race. Did you read the entire piece?

Why do you think the author says: “This inherited racial biological foundation manifests . . . perhaps also [in] behavioral phenotypes, such as intelligence or delinquency.”

If race is static and unchangeable, why is the author using the qualifier “perhaps also” about behavioral phenotypes? If race is definable and static, the author should be able to state definitively whether or not behavioral phenotypes are part of race.

The reason for the qualifier, of course, is that the author is discussing the historical concept of race and noting that sometimes behavioral phenotypes have been considered part of the definition of race.

“Is it possible for an individual of Chinese descent to somehow mute or get rid of his slanted eyes, absent some type of cosmetic interruption?”

What about Asians who don’t have slanted eyes? Are they now a separate race? What about white people like Bjork who have slanted eyes? Most of the San have the epicanthic eyefold — are they now Chinese instead of African?

“Therefore, these physical characteristics are immutable without some type of extraneous force coming into play.”

But they are not limited to one race. Some Asian and Native American peoples have that broad nose, some have that pale skin, some have freckles. Some Africans have freckles and thin high noses; some have much paler skin than others. Some white people have slanted eyes, broad noses, no freckles, brown skin, brown eyes, curly hair.

“I’d really appreciate it if you’d STOP intentionally misquoting, lieing and/or taking my posts out of context!”

I have never intentionally done any such thing. I have accidentally misquoted you on occasion, for which I apologize.

LikeLike
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 22:25:09 Afrofem

@ Solitaire

“What about Asians who don’t have slanted eyes? Are they now a separate race? What about white people like Bjork who have slanted eyes? Most of the San have the epicanthic eyefold — are they now Chinese instead of African?”

Great points. Your points highlight the arbitrary nature of racial classifications of various human features such as skin color and eye shape/color, etc.

People in power create and maintain these classifications to divide and rule.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 22:49:13 Jamal e Brooks

1-However, I think something deeper is going on. A generation ago, someone who looked like Marielle Franco would have strenuously denied African heritage and hidden behind one of Brazil’s many bi/multiracial classifications.

et, in the current moment Franco and others who look like her are going beyond rhetoric and false claims to fully embrace their African heritage. In Franco’s case she was willing to risk her life to fight for the rights of Black Brazilians. Putting your life on the line is very different from posing as Black for benefits.

It could be, but I will be very wary,given that in our history its not the first time a mixed defender rises to fight for the black masses but it never translates into real unity. It would be very good to know how the average pardo really feels.

2-Some Middle Easterners have been mistaken for Puerto Rican and vise versa.

that might be because some puerto ricans descend from middle easterners.lol

3-Some Arab have been mistaken for black Americans
yes Afro-Arabs in MENA.

4-American culture” (ethnicity)

What is that btw, nobody seems to be able to define it.BTW, while culture is related to ethnicity,it is not the same as it, for example, the different peoples in the British isles(English,Welsh,Scots and Northern Irish) have arguably a common culture but they belong to different ethnicities.

LikeLike
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 23:07:14 Solitaire

@ Afrofem

I think the example of Bjork got stuck in my head from the Scienceblogs article Sharina posted upthread — excellent article by the way. So I should give her a nod of recognition.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 23:12:15 Solitaire

@ Jamal

Can you explain why a full-blooded Pacific Islander would be mistaken at different times for black, white, hispanic, and indigenous American? The very same person?

I know more than one Pacific Islander who this has happened to.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 23:40:37 Afrofem

@ Jamal e Brooks

I understand your feelings of wariness re: some bi/multiracial folks.

What struck me about the Guardian article was the rejection of White/European identity among growing sectors of the Brazilian population. Publicly declaring yourself Black, Indigenous or bi/multiracial to cash in on benefits is quite a different matter from privately checking a box on a census form.

The fact that decreasing numbers of Brazilians are going the extra mile to claim a European identity is still significant. I think it signals a shift in consciousness among sectors of the population. Whether that shift lasts only another decade or is permanent remains to be seen.

Perhaps that shift in consciousness is a factor in the intense backlash against non-European Brazilians that has been going on over the past five years.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Mon May 28th 2018 at 23:44:33 sharinalr

@Solitaire and Afrofem

That article was pretty good and it was found on whim actually. Gives much to think about in regard to how we view and understand race.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Tue May 29th 2018 at 00:03:58 Mary Burrell

Ethnic and Racial Identities:

During the first century of Africans importation into North America, the idea of human races as scientific truth had not yet been invented. As poor, unfree, largely non Christian, captive workers lacking a government at home or diplomatic representatives in North America, Africans were subject to the sort of humiliating treatment earned the name racism.

But in the early seventeenth century, African slaves were not distinguished legally from bound workers of other ethnicities in North America. Enslavement for life evolved over a period of some forty years in mid seventeenth century Virginia, the heartland of the British North American slave economy.

Americans differentiated African people from Native Americans and people from Europe, and they knew Africans as especially vulnerable workers. However, hereditary slavery for life arose only in the second half of the seventeenth century. The idea of biologically determined races came later.

A product of the eighteenth century scientific Enlightenment, the notion that human beings could be categorized into discrete “races” quickly gained currency in British North America, where it served economic ends. By the time of the American Revolution, North Americans were commonly separated into three “races” : “Indians,” “Negroes,” and “whites.” By the eighteenth century, “Indians” did not count legally in the thirteen colonies.

Before the era of the American Revolution complex schemes of racial categorization reflected the varieties of three-way mixing. By about 1800, however, the very complexity of descent in the Western Hemisphere doomed such schemes to disuse. In Latin America and the Carribean a three-tiered racial hierarchy divided the populations into black, brown, and white.

British North Americans usually lumped people into two categories—white and non white, reflecting assumptions about freedom and slavery. Along with this biracial fiction went the convention that identified as “Negroes” all people with any degree of African ancestry. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,
“Negro” meant not only someone of African ancestry, but someone degraded and enslaved. “Negro—usually spelled with a small n—was a term of reproach,

Which African Americans adopted in the early twentieth century much as they adopted the term “black “in the latter part of the twentieth century. The act of naming oneself “Negro” or “black “ recast what had been bad words in the white supremacist lexicon into badges of racial pride.

With a calculated, racist carelessness, nonwhites were considered Negro, although many had Indian and European ancestors came to be called the “one-drop rule,” This convention meant that “one drop” of “black blood” made a person a Negro, whatever his or her degree of ethnic/racial mixture, class, culture, legal status, or appearance.

Many African Americans have Indian and European ancestors. But historians have not yet quantified the degree to which the increase in the “black “ population included increases in the Indian and white population as well.

Racialized reasoning permitted the creation of the notion of “racial purity,” “miscegenation,” and “race mixing.” According to these concepts, white people were pure,” that is lacking even distant Indian or African ancestors. “Miscegenation “ and “race mixing” meant people of different “races “ having sex or marrying.

These ideas were based on the assumption that an individual could be catagorized according to just one “race.” Race was thought to remain permanent and unchanged, even when populations moved and encountered new peoples and even in the face of proof to the contrary over the space of just two generations.

Two eighteenth-century Americans embody the mixed nature of diasporic people of African descent: Jean Baptiste Point du Sable (ca.1745-1818) and Elizabeth Hemmings (1735-1807). Du Sable was born in Haiti of a French father and an enslaved mother of African descent. He was educated in France and spoke English and Spanish as well as his native French. Du Sable worked with his father, a sea captain, before moving to the then French-controlled interior North American mainland.

In Peoria he married a Potawatomi Indian named Kittihawa. Du Sable founded Chicago as a permanent trading post in 1779. Elizabeth Hemmings of Virginia belonged to John Wayles; Wayles fathered both Thomas Jefferson’s legal wife and Sally Hemmings, Jefferson’s long time partner and the mother of several of his children. In 1990s DNA evidence bore out the Hemmings family’s claim of descent from the third president of the United States.

LikeLike
on Tue May 29th 2018 at 00:10:04 Mary Burrell

The post Ethnic and Racial Identites is from Nell Irvin Painter’s book Creating Black Americans, African-American History And It’s Meanings, 1619 To The Present, Page 38; A Diasporic People 1630

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Tue May 29th 2018 at 00:12:52 Mary Burrell

Nell Irvin Painter Creating Black Americans was another Abagond suggested book. That I have enjoyed.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Tue May 29th 2018 at 02:24:24 Mary Burrell

Because of phenotypic differences in a heterogeneous society can become muddled and confused (human mating habits not being thoroughly subject to coercion), and because the realities of true cultural similarities and differences sometimes penetrate its consciousness, a society predicated on race categories has to construct another fiction.

This is the phenomenon of “racial essence,” which is seen as the ultimate determinant of racial character and identity. The belief that an African American, for example, who appears phenotypically “white” (think ex congressman Harold Ford or TV newscaster Soledad O’Brian) carries the racial essence of his or her black ancestors maintains the illusion of difference, distinctiveness, and innateness even without visible physical signs.

Race and Ethnicity: Biology and Culture
Race In North America, Origin And Evolution Of Worldview
Audrey Smedley and Brian D. Smedley

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Tue May 29th 2018 at 04:13:37 Jamal e Brooks

1-The fact that decreasing numbers of Brazilians are going the extra mile to claim a European identity is still significant. I think it signals a shift in consciousness among sectors of the population. Whether that shift lasts only another decade or is permanent remains to be seen.

exactly, Time can only tell, sometimes what seems like the harbinger of positive change is actually deceitful,like the promise of middle eastern democracy after the arab spring or the hope of a “post-racial society after the election of Barrack H.Obama.”

2- If you are going to claim what the majority looks like, then you sure as sh** better be able to photograph the majority of those 20 to 40 million people.

Now, calm down and lets, take the focus off of black folk and think this for a sec.We all have an idea of how the average German or the Typical japanese looks like, isn’t it? now do our ideas come because we saw a picture of the roughly 80 million germans or roughly 130 million japanese? clearly not(no such document exists).It comes from viewing pictures/images of hundreds of them at a time(some times less) across their countries in different settings.The same is true for any other people.so If you take time to analyse, your requests comes across as irrational.and outside the comment section of an internet blog in a face to face debate you would have already been laughed out of the room for asking it.

3-Solitaire
@ Jamal

Can you explain why a full-blooded Pacific Islander would be mistaken at different times for black, white, hispanic, and indigenous American? The very same person?

with all;due respect, that’s a bizarre request,why would I explain that?, I’ve never mentioned anything about Pacific Islanders in this debate.Perhaps, you are confusing me with the commenter blakksage who made comments on the biological nature of race.I, made no such claim,my arguments have not been on the nature of race(biological vs social construct).

LikeLike
on Tue May 29th 2018 at 04:24:24 Solitaire

@ Jamal

“with all;due respect, that’s a bizarre request,why would I explain that?, I’ve never mentioned anything about Pacific Islanders in this debate.Perhaps, you are confusing me with the commenter blakksage who made comments on the biological nature of race.I, made no such claim,my arguments have not been on the nature of race(biological vs social construct).”

Nope, I’m not confusing you with anyone. You had a blithe explanation for why a Puerto Rican might be confused with a Middle Easterner, an example Mary Burrell quoted. So I’m asking this as a follow-up.

If race is real, why do people guess wrong so often with full-blooded Pacific Islanders?

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Tue May 29th 2018 at 11:27:48 sharinalr

Jamal,

“Now, calm down and lets, take the focus off of black folk and think this for a sec”—I have been calm. You on the other hand might have chosen to take such advice several posts up. Emotions tend to have people making flimsy arguments that don’t hold. IE your claims.
“We all have an idea of how the average German or the Typical japanese looks like, isn’t it?”—Not really. We all have been indoctrinate with an idea of what the typical German or Japanese individual is supposed to look like based on years of pseudoscience. Amazing what you realize when you really get out in the world and meet people.

“ now do our ideas come because we saw a picture of the roughly 80 million germans or roughly 130 million japanese? clearly not(no such document exists).”—Neither and see statements above. Further, pictures were only an added bonus to the lie that was already being pushed and it was based on a flawed carefully staged set of pictures to support their idea or lie about what a majority looks like. Kinda what you just did.
“It comes from viewing pictures/images of hundreds of them at a time(some times less) across their countries in different settings.”—False and see above. They likely didn’t even view hundreds and more likely not past skin color, but whatever.

“If you take time to analyse, your requests comes across as irrational.and outside the comment section of an internet blog in a face to face debate you would have already been laughed out of the room for asking it.”—That is in and of itself false. The article I presented above is similar to my same argument and has been one circling the science community for a while and let’s be honest….Only irrational people make claims using pictures as proof with no real analyzation of reality dear. But alas, you can’t help but project your inadequacy on anyone who sees past your bs. 😊

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Tue May 29th 2018 at 11:54:30 sharinalr

Mary,

“A product of the eighteenth century scientific Enlightenment, the notion that human beings could be categorized into discrete “races” quickly gained currency in British North America, where it served economic ends. By the time of the American Revolution, North Americans were commonly separated into three “races” : “Indians,” “Negroes,” and “whites.” By the eighteenth century, “Indians” did not count legally in the thirteen colonies.”—This insert actually brought to mind something Jefe said once on a thread. Natives were labeled “negro” or “colored” at one time.

“What the English meant by the term “negro” when they first began to use it is not clear. Certainly, it was not then synonymous with slave as a great many persons so classified were free, both in England and in Virginia. Did it mean an African, a “black” person, or any darkskinned individual? Today the term is not widely· employed in Britain, although the word “black” is used to refer to people of various skin colors from all of South Asia, the Middle East, the West Indies, and Africa. Most Native Americans, if living in Britain today, would be regarded as being “black,” especially if their ancestry were not known.

An example from the West Indies is especially illuminating. In 1764 William Young was sent to St. Vincent as a part of the British occupation of that island. Living on St. Vincent were about 3,000 “Black Charaibs, or free negroes,” about one hundred “Red Charaibs or Indians,” and some 4,000 French and their slaves, according to Young. The British found it difficult to control the Caribs and wars were fought with them in 1771-1772 and again during 1795-1796. During the latter crisis Young wrote an extremely anti-Carib tract designed to prove that the Caribs should be removed from St. Vincent; they were eventually defeated and some 5,000 were shipped to an island near the coast of Honduras. Young was anxious to prove that the so-called “Black” Caribs were not true aborigines but were in fact “N egro colonists, Free Negroes, or 13 Negro usurpers.” This was important to him because he wanted to show they had no bonafide land-rights or aboriginal title. For our purposes, the interesting point admitted by Young is that the so-called “Blacks” or “N egroes” were occasionally of”tawney and mixed complexion” because of American ancestry and that their customs, personal names, and language were those of the native Caribs. Still further, Young admitted that they had repeatedly intermarried with American women. He consistently refers to them as “Negroes,” nonetheless. “

I believe this is before pseudoscience came into play and then the only factors appeared to be skin color. I don’t think facial features was an issue until pseudoscience.

https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1261&context=ees

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Tue May 29th 2018 at 15:08:43 Mary Burrell

@Sharina: Thanks for the link and adding to my learning.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Wed May 30th 2018 at 22:03:37 Jamal e Brooks

1-Nope, I’m not confusing you with anyone. You had a blithe explanation for why a Puerto Rican might be confused with a Middle Easterner, an example Mary Burrell quoted. So I’m asking this as a follow-up.

Oh I see.You are taking issue with my response to this statement
-“Some Middle Easterners have been mistaken for Puerto Rican and vise versa”.
I was indeed giving a funny but not incorrect response to what is a very vague and superficial assertion we all now that:
1)Puerto Ricans are not a race of their own
2)Some puerto ricans are descendents of middle easterners.

Hence, given the very vague nature of the claim above is not at all unreasonable to think that a plausible reason for a puerto rican to be confused with a middle easterner is that that given individual or even a group of them has ancestors coming from the middle-east.The author never specified a person or a particular group of puerto Ricans.

The same is true with this statement
“Some Arab have been mistaken for black Americans”
That might well be because there are black arabs indeed in places like saudi arabia like this gentleman for example.

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

On the other hand these other guy is more likely to be confused with a white american

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimr_al-Nimr

See, the statements of the author are much too vague, that they seem to come from a person that is not altogether well informed. That’s why I gave a “blithe explanation” to a VERY superficial statement.

PD: your follow up question didn;t make any sense, you should have better asked me directly:D

LikeLike
on Wed May 30th 2018 at 23:18:31 Afrofem

@ Jamal e Brooks

Now that you are done with your tap dance around Solitaire’s question:

“If race is real, why do people guess wrong so often with full-blooded Pacific Islanders?”

Are you ready to give an answer or will you retreat into more specious reasoning like:

☛ “Middle Eastern ancestry produces Puerto Ricans who look Middle Eastern…” (talk about circular logic).

☛ Comments about the “vague nature of the claim”.

☛ The statement was “superficial”, etc.

The comments and questions made about certain groups of people with vastly different histories and separated by thousands of miles have similar facial features, hair texture and skin tones are quite valid. They speak to the arbitrary nature of racial classifications.

There are many groups that fall into that “beige middle”. Some because they are recently blended people like the Puerto Ricans or MENA Arabs. Other groups like the Nepalese or Polynesians formed thousands of years ago as distinct groups that still share a common appearance with each other.

So do you have an opinion, or are you still in “try to baffle them with BS” mode?

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Thu May 31st 2018 at 02:22:33 Solitaire

@ Jamal

“See, the statements of the author are much too vague, that they seem to come from a person that is not altogether well informed.”

Mary Burrell was quoting directly from the book Race In North America: Origin And Evolution Of A Worldview by Audrey Smedley and Brian D. Smedley.

Audrey Smedley is “an American social anthropologist and Professor Emeritus at Virginia Commonwealth University in anthropology and African-American studies.” She “received her B.A. and M.A. in history and anthropology from the University of Michigan, and a PhD in Social Anthropology from the University of Manchester in the UK, based on field research in northern Nigeria.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audrey_Smedley

Brian D. Smedley “holds an undergraduate degree from Harvard University and a PhD in psychology from UCLA.” He is a “researcher known for his work on health equity,” the “co-founder and executive director of the National Collaborative for Health Equity,” and “formerly the vice president and director of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies’ Health Policy Institute.”

https://sph.unc.edu/mhp/brian-smedley-phd/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_D._Smedley

I suppose you are more well-informed than these highly credentialed and accomplished authors?

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Thu May 31st 2018 at 05:21:06 Jamal e Brooks

1-The comments and questions made about certain groups of people with vastly different histories and separated by thousands of miles have similar facial features, hair texture and skin tones are quite valid. They speak to the arbitrary nature of racial classifications.

There are many groups that fall into that “beige middle”. Some because they are recently blended people like the Puerto Ricans or MENA Arabs. Other groups like the Nepalese or Polynesians formed thousands of years ago as distinct groups that still share a common appearance with each other.

The problem with your argument is that some of those groups are not really unrelated, as argued before there has been migrations from the middle-east into the americas since the 19th and 20th centuries(hence a puerto rican can resemble a middle-easterner) and also there has been migrations from the middle east into southasia and back(hence a middle easterner can look like a nepalese) throughout the last millenium. People’s have not remain static.There are chinese communities spread through southeast asia, jewish communities spread in europe and the americas and Persian communities in south asia.If the author had taken that into account then she wouldn’t have made those really vague statements because anybody with a grasp on that knowledge can reason that these migration patterns might be a reason why people in some areas can resemble people in other areas.

LikeLike
on Thu May 31st 2018 at 05:50:53 Solitaire

@ Jamal

“If the author had taken that into account then she wouldn’t have made those really vague statements because anybody with a grasp on that knowledge can reason that these migration patterns might be a reason why people in some areas can resemble people in other areas.”

I said “full-blooded Pacific Islanders,” not mixed race.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Thu May 31st 2018 at 06:01:17 Afrofem

@ Jamal e Brooks

You are still tip-toeing around the question.

If you don’t know the answer, perhaps you should ‘fess up.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Thu May 31st 2018 at 07:08:51 Jamal e Brooks

You are still tip-toeing around the question.

If you don’t know the answer, perhaps you should ‘fess up.

The problem is that question was a poor followup to my response based on the fact that historical patterns of migration can explain why different geographic areas might have phenotypically similar populations.

It was also a badly framed question, because there are many different types of pacific Islanders,so which are they taling about, the african looking papuans?or the native american looking maori?or the groups that are obviously mixed in between?.Those peoples are different and have also very different origins but solitaire talked like if they were a single group with one single look.Ithoughtyou’d have noticed it by now.

LikeLike
on Thu May 31st 2018 at 07:28:53 Solitaire

@ Jamal

“It was also a badly framed question, because there are many different types of pacific Islanders,so which are they taling about, the african looking papuans?or the native american looking maori?or the groups that are obviously mixed in between?.Those peoples are different and have also very different origins but solitaire talked like if they were a single group with one single look.Ithoughtyou’d have noticed it by now.”

I said one person was mistaken for all those different races, so it doesn’t matter which type of Pacific Islander. If I said one of the individuals was Maori, presumably you would respond that Maoris look like Native Americans. But that doesn’t explain why that very same Maori has also been mistaken for white and for black.

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Thu May 31st 2018 at 13:45:52 Open Minded Observer

I’ve seen lots of discussion about ancestral geography, several comments along the lines of, “it’s obvious, just look at them” and even several photos that supposedly illustrate just how clearly defined “Black” and yet I can spot similar features in all of the people in those photos. The only constant seems to be skin tone.

Look, I get it. Heritage, culture, ancestry and all those shared similar lived experiences provide a source of identity. That’s great. It’s just not race. The fallacy of race, the anecdotal association of additional traits with skin tone, manifested as a means for justifying racism and oppression. If you disagree, then do the research. Scholars, historians and scientists have spent years researching this stuff and the origins and history of race are well documented. As is the genetic science. Do people with a common genetic ancestry have a high percentage of DNA that can be traced back to a common geography? Yes. Does that mean that those people constitute a distinct genetic race? No, because the same similarities are not present in 100% of subjects and all of those similarities are present in subjects that get categorized into other races.

There are certainly ties that bind us and if people don’t like any of the other labels used, like ethnicity, tribe, culture, nationality, religion, etc… then maybe we need to redefine “race” to strip away the biological component. But, when it comes to that idea of rooting race in biology, I said it before:

I don’t understand how anyone can defend the continued belief in a biological definition of race, as defined by physical characteristics that are common among homo sapiens based on skin tone. I challenge anyone that thinks it’s real to develop a classification system that lists specific features that are present in every member of each race.

…and I haven’t seen anyone respond with even 1 characteristic that can be added to skin tone which is both exclusive to one race and present in 100% of people categorized into that race.

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Thu May 31st 2018 at 14:15:32 Afrofem

@ Jamal e Brooks

“…because there are many different types of pacific Islanders,so which are they taling about, the african looking papuans?or the native american looking maori?or the groups that are obviously mixed in between?.Those peoples are different…”

Actually, it was a very simple question. The answer may have been complex, but the question was not.

Pacific Islanders, no matter their phenotype share common ancestry and DNA. That includes the “african looking papuans”.

According to The Smithsonian:

“…researchers suggest that the first Homo sapiens began leaving Africa between 51,000 and 72,000 years ago. And the ancestors of Indigenous Australians were the first group to split off from that migration. While the ancestors of European and Asian people diverged about 42,000 years ago, the precursors to today’s Indigenous Australians and Papuans diverged 58,000 years ago to head east, George Dvorsky reports for Gizmodo.

[…]

These humans eventually made their way to an ancient supercontinent, which was eventually split into Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea by rising tides. While that isolated them genetically from the rest of the world, their culture was strong and vibrant enough to develop new languages and traditions as they made their way across the continent….

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/dna-tests-suggest-aboriginal-australians-have-oldest-society-planet-180960569/

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Thu May 31st 2018 at 14:35:09 Jamal eBrooks

1-The answer may have been complex, but the question was not.

What was the answer according to you then?

LikeLike
on Thu May 31st 2018 at 16:06:37 Afrofem

The answer was asked of you, Jamal e Brooks.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Thu May 31st 2018 at 16:21:20 Jamal e Brooks

you claimed the “answer” is complex for a simple question, which means that you either know the answer or you are bluffing.I tend to think the latter because as I told you that was a poorly structured follow up question.Now if you know the “answer” then I’most sincerely loved to know it,so please enlighten me.

LikeLike
on Thu May 31st 2018 at 22:41:01 Afrofem

@ Open Minded Observer

“…I haven’t seen anyone respond with even 1 characteristic that can be added to skin tone which is both exclusive to one race and present in 100% of people categorized into that race.”

You likely never will since race is an arbitrary social construct designed to support people in power. You certainly won’t find that one characteristic in modern American populations of people described as “Black” or “White”.

LikeLiked by 3 people
on Fri Jun 1st 2018 at 00:13:12 sharinalr

@Jamal

“It was also a badly framed question, because there are many different types of pacific Islanders,so which are they taling about, the african looking papuans?or the native american looking maori?or the groups that are obviously mixed in between?.Those peoples are different and have also very different origins but solitaire talked like if they were a single group with one single look.Ithoughtyou’d have noticed it by now.”—similar can be said for African Americans but you had no issue attempting to argue that the majority had basically the same features. Oddly I didn’t take it not once that she did make it seem like a single group. She clarified sufficiently.

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Fri Jun 1st 2018 at 01:57:09 abagond

“but solitaire talked like if they were a single group with one single look”

Said by the person who wants us to think the most genetically diverse people on the planet all look alike.

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Fri Jun 1st 2018 at 05:51:03 Jamal e Brooks

1-abagond
“but solitaire talked like if they were a single group with one single look”

Said by the person who wants us to think the most genetically diverse people on the planet all look alike.

but african americans are a SINGLE ethnic group, unlike pacific islanders that are very different nations, by your logic light skinned african americans wouldn’t be a minority of the black americans as I argued but a whole other ethnicithy and we are not the most ethically diverse group of the planet check out above the percentages of our genetic makeup please.goingbackto the pacific Islanders, just because the American census groups them as one,doesn’t mean they are one people:

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

Papuan people are the various indigenous peoples of New Guinea and neighbouring islands, speakers of the Papuan languages. They are often distinguished ethnically and linguistically from Austronesians(ie,maoris), speakers of a language family introduced into New Guinea about 3,000 years ago.

2-—similar can be said for African Americans but you had no issue attempting to argue that the majority had basically the same features.

same as in 1, are light skinned-DOS and brown/Dark skinned different ethinicities or a whole other “race” like the papuans are to the maoris? or as I said just a minority within the DOS?The majority of us have a west african features and there is a mixed minority that white media always highlights.also not counting foreign mixed people(Rihanna)

The funny think is that you both probably thought you were making a clever statement by pointing this .lol .you both need to think the deeper logic behind your arguments before making them.:D

LikeLike
on Fri Jun 1st 2018 at 06:21:02 Solitaire

@ Jamal

“goingbackto the pacific Islanders, just because the American census groups them as one,doesn’t mean they are one people:”

Fine, let me narrow it down for you. Everyone that I’m talking about was Austronesian (Polynesian or Malay).

“we are not the most ethically diverse group of the planet”

Africans are the most genetically diverse people on the planet. Modern science has proven it.

LikeLiked by 2 people
on Fri Jun 1st 2018 at 10:54:10 sharinalr

@Jamal

“The funny think is that you both probably thought you were making a clever statement by pointing this”—No. Clever statements was when I quoted you making illogical arguments. This is more of icing on the cake.

“same as in 1, are light skinned-DOS and brown/Dark skinned different ethinicities or a whole other “race” like the papuans are to the maoris?”—But according to your logic and that of the census they aren’t a whole other “race”. They would be an ethnicity. Light skinned and dark skinned are not two different ethnicity dear. This rings back to your skin color “illogic” which was debunk how many posts up now?

“The majority of us have a west African features and there is a mixed minority that white media always highlights.also not counting foreign mixed people(Rihanna)”–Yet you can’t even describe west African features. You have been asked this several times and only produced pictures of people who each have different and ambiguous features. Not to mention delusional believing that the select few equal majority. With all that in mind you should be the last to speak on deeper logic, especially when you didn’t catch the deeper logic behind my statement. ROFL.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Fri Jun 1st 2018 at 12:58:42 Jamal e Brooks

1-sharinalr
@Jamal

But according to your logic and that of the census they aren’t a whole other “race”. They would be an ethnicity.

If by they you mean pacific islanders(PIs), then NO,papuans and maoris are NOT the same ethnicity,unlike all african americans which is why I claimed that it was a mistake for YOU to make the statement

“similar can be said for African Americans but you had no issue attempting to argue that the majority had basically the same features.”

you were saying that african americans who are indeed a unified ethnic group(same customes,language, history, share a similar ancestry etc) can be compared to PIs who are NOT an ethnic group(they do not have the same histories, languages, customs nor necessarily share similar ancestries etc).PI’s just like hispanics and asian americans are artificial constructs of the Census, not real ethnic groups like us.but you were alluding as to if they were.

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

“Light skinned and dark skinned are not two different ethnicity dear”.

please READ BETTER what I said.You seemed to not have noticed the sarcastic nature of the question I posed, and it was obvious.so “ROFL”.

2-Africans are the most genetically diverse people on the planet. Modern science has proven it.

That might be true about ALL africans but we are talking about african americans here.hence your stament is innaccurate.

LikeLike
on Fri Jun 1st 2018 at 13:13:50 Jamal e Brooks

comparing PIs and black americans-DOS would mean that both the mixed among us and the more typical woulld have different histories, would speak different languages eat other foods ,sing other music etc.Also it would mean that mixed blacks would have on average asian looks.

In short the comparison that sharina made was stupid because we are a people and they aren’t, hence they dont share the same ancestry and hence lack a similar look and we DO..

so again “ROFL”( think I will start posting this moreoften if this commentsection continues).

LikeLike
on Fri Jun 1st 2018 at 13:50:30 sharinalr

Jamal,

“If by they you mean pacific islanders(PIs), then NO,papuans and maoris are NOT the same ethnicity,unlike all african americans which is why I claimed that it was a mistake for YOU to make the statement”—No, dear you made the mistake. This is your question to me “a whole other “race” like the papuans are to the maoris?” In which my reply clearly answered. Race and ethnicity are not one in the same Even with your quotation marks. African Americans are not necessarily the same ethnicity either. They can be common in being American, but religion, language, and other factors make the distinct in their own right. You should understand that the term African American encompasses more than skin color or slave history. Deeper logic remember.

“you were saying that african americans who are indeed a unified ethnic group(same customes,language, history, share a similar ancestry etc)”—Full stop here because I never said that. You said that.

“can be compared to PIs who are NOT an ethnic group(they do not have the same histories, languages, customs nor necessarily share similar ancestries etc).”—Again no and this is where you need to look up ethnic group vs race. However, here is your own words “It was also a badly framed question, because there are many different types of pacific Islanders.” and there are many different types of African Americans dear. See the logic or are you going to play the confusion game?

“PI’s just like hispanics and asian americans are artificial constructs of the Census, not real ethnic groups like us.but you were alluding as to if they were.”- Hispanics would be considered an ethnic group according to the census, but Asian Americans would be a race.

“please READ BETTER what I said.You seemed to not have noticed the sarcastic nature of the question I posed, and it was obvious.so “ROFL”.”—You weren’t being sarcastic as you made a similar statement in a comment above to Afrofem I believe. You could try not asking something if you don’t want the answer to or that makes you look less delusional. 😉

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Fri Jun 1st 2018 at 14:08:44 sharinalr

@Jamal

In short the comparison that sharina made was stupid because we are a people and they aren’t, hence they dont share the same ancestry and hence lack a similar look and we DO.”—Actually it wasn’t. You just didn’t get and think grandstanding is going to bypass that fact. You spend several post making a similar (do look up this word) argument for African Americans, yet have basically ran around the world to avoid answering solitaire’s question.

“would mean that both the mixed among us and the more typical woulld have different histories, would speak different languages eat other foods ,sing other music etc.Also it would mean that mixed blacks would have on average asian looks”—Actually no. You don’t need to adhere to a strict checklist to be different or diverse. There are African Americans who have different histories, but are still African American.

This is why your argument fails. You falsely believe that African American must have some type of slave history to be African American, speak English, same music, food, etc. You are sticking to your own definition of an African American to include and exclude which is false when matched with real world. As with PI, whether you separated them this way or that way they are still PI. You are basically restricting the conversation to certain criteria to avoid the fact that the basis of your logic is flawed.

Lastly, posting a link of the definition of ethnic group does not indicate your understanding of the difference between an ethnic group vs race.

but Asian Americans correction Asian.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Fri Jun 1st 2018 at 14:19:17 Solitaire

@ Jamal

“PIs who are NOT an ethnic group(they do not have the same histories, languages, customs nor necessarily share similar ancestries etc).PI’s just like hispanics and asian americans are artificial constructs of the Census, not real ethnic groups like us.”

How odd then that Austronesians speak closely related languages and share many cultural similarities, including body art and architecture.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austronesian_peoples

LikeLiked by 1 person
on Fri Jun 1st 2018 at 17:05:28 Solitaire

If I understand this graphic correctly, it would seem that, on average, black people from the Caribbean actually have a greater percentage of West African genetic heritage than do African Americans:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Admixture_triangle_plot.svg

LikeLike
on Fri Jun 1st 2018 at 17:07:12 Solitaire

Let me see if I can get it to show. The link above includes information about the source of the data.

LikeLike
on Fri Jun 1st 2018 at 22:01:18 Jamal e Brooks

1- African Americans are not necessarily the same ethnicity either
hum ¡,Interesting, why don’t you elaborate on that.
btw before you said that:
“Light skinned and dark skinned are not two different ethnicity dear”.

Now you say:

“You should understand that the term African American encompasses more than skin color or slave history.”(which will mean we are not one ethnicity)

so what is it then for you? are we One people or are many peoples .

2-there are many different types of African Americans dear. See the logic or are you going to play the confusion game?

No, you do not understand, you were comparing apples to oranges when comparing PI’s to black americans-DOS, since the former are many ethnic groups and the latter are just one(at least as i understand it).

3-Hispanics would be considered an ethnic group according to the census, but Asian Americans would be a race.

wrong, hispanics are not an ethnic group, think about it, Argentinians Bolivians and Mexicans have ZERO ethnic affiliations, the only thing that they have in common is language (and they speak it differently).and also they once belonged to the spanish empire. An analogy would be to consider the french and the haitians malians and french-canadians one ethnicity because they speak french and belonged to the french empire.

Asian americans are Not a racial group since in it they group peoples as different as pakistanis (caucasians) with vietnamese(mongoloids)

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

Both of those groupings are artificial categories created by US domestic policy.

4-This is why your argument fails. You falsely believe that African American must have some type of slave history to be African American, speak English, same music, food, etc

unfortunately, that’s what defines an ethnic group, bonds of common history, shared ancestry and language and culture.

5-How odd then that Austronesians speak closely related languages and share many cultural similarities, including body art and architecture.

yes, austronesians, but you were alluding to pacific islanders if I recall,which are a broader group that doesn’t share the same ethnicity

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Islander

“Ethnolinguistically, those Pacific islanders who reside in Oceania are divided into two different ethnic classifications.

1)Austronesian language peoples
2)Papuan language peoples

LikeLike
on Fri Jun 1st 2018 at 22:24:21 Jamal e Brooks

1- it would seem that, on average, black people from the Caribbean actually have a greater percentage of West African genetic heritage than do African Americans:

It could well be as you think.Take also into account that unlike in america they may not include the mixed people into the same category as other blacks but in a separate one, and hence the average black person there would score a higher percentage of west-african,like i imagine could happen in the US if mixed people went by another classification.

LikeLike
on Fri Jun 1st 2018 at 22:38:56 sharinalr

Jamal e Brooks

“so what is it then for you? are we One people or are many peoples .”—Read the statement very slowly because they don’t contradict each other and you wasted a response. Just because a person has light skin does not mean they are a whole different ethnicity. Not all African Americans came here as slaves, but they are not any less African American.

“No, you do not understand, you were comparing apples to oranges when comparing PI’s to black americans-DOS, since the former are many ethnic groups and the latter are just one(at least as i understand it).”—False again. Here is a link to the census which actually defines who all is considered African American. https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf

“wrong, hispanics are not an ethnic group, think about it, Argentinians Bolivians and Mexicans have ZERO ethnic affiliations, the only thing that they have in common is language (and they speak it differently).and also they once belonged to the spanish empire. An analogy would be to consider the french and the haitians malians and french-canadians one ethnicity because they speak french and belonged to the french empire.”—You are wrong again. As per the link “Hispanic Americans are the second fastest-growing ethnic group by percentage growth in the United States after Asian Americans.[22]Hispanic/Latinos overall are the second-largest ethnic group in the United States, after non-Hispanic whites (a group which, like Hispanics and Latinos, is composed of dozens of sub-groups of differing national origin).”

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

“Asian americans are Not a racial group since in it they group peoples as different as pakistanis (caucasians) with vietnamese(mongoloids)”—Which is why I made a correction here “but Asian Americans correction Asian” Do you need a link to said correction?

“unfortunately, that’s what defines an ethnic group, bonds of common history, shared ancestry and language and culture.”—Common, but not the same. Quoting your link above “similarities such as common ancestry, language, history, society, culture or nation. Ethnicity is usually an inherited status based on the society in which one lives.” Meaning the individual can meet all factors or some of the factors and still be part of said ethnic group.

LikeLike
on Fri Jun 1st 2018 at 23:05:10 Jamal e Brooks

The “dozens of sub-groups of differing national origin” are the ethnicities.:
.Whites are not an ethnic group but Italian-american is
.Hispanics are not an ethnic group, but cuban-american is
.Asian americans are not an ethnic group,but chinese-american is.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethnic-group

american politics have mis-defined everything.thats why one cannot take the census definitions seriously to determine ethnicity it seems that those idiots have never look into a dictionary.lol

African-americans on the other hand are one group and lately new black groups have arrived in america like jamaican-americans,ngierian-americans trinidarians etc but while they are “racially” black, they aren’t ethnically african -american.Thats maybe where our misunderstanding comes from.

LikeLike
on Sat Jun 2nd 2018 at 01:53:36 sharinalr

Jamal e Brooks

“The “dozens of sub-groups of differing national origin” are the ethnicities.:”—That is great, but that is also not what your very source stated. It states, “An ethnic group, or an ethnicity, is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities such as common ancestry, language, history, society, culture or nation” This is the source you were happy to present here:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2018/05/18/race/comment-page-1/#comment-399864

So now is your source a lie? Sorry to say, but your Britannica source basically says the same thing as the other quoted.
“please READ BETTER what I said.You seemed to not have noticed the sarcastic nature of the question I posed, and it was obvious.so “ROFL”.”—Again… “You weren’t being sarcastic as you made a similar statement in a comment above to Afrofem I believe.”

“american politics have mis-defined everything.thats why one cannot take the census definitions seriously to determine ethnicity it seems that those idiots have never look into a dictionary.”—I agree, but you also can’t take your definition of it either because you are attempting to apply it to your benefit just as the American census does.

“African-americans on the other hand are one group and lately new black groups have arrived in america like jamaican-americans,ngierian-americans trinidarians etc but while they are “racially” black, they aren’t ethnically african -american. Thats maybe where our misunderstanding comes from.”—False. African Americans have never been one group and Jamaicans and other groups are not just arriving. Free blacks were always a thing too. No the misunderstanding likely begins with your unawareness of the complex history of AA outside of being told they were slaves.

LikeLiked by 1 person