|
Post by gelaye on Jul 24, 2005 11:10:54 GMT -5
I think this is an unfair description as not even the darkest africans (the dinka of sudan) are actually JET BLACK, for example this group of Nigerian women share the same skin colour as millions of indians and are lighter than many sri lankans etc? who and why then thought to call them 'BLACK'? i know this argument is pointless but i just wanted to point out you can get light skinned 'black' africans with skin jjust as light if not light as some asians/amerinds. (without admixture)
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on Jul 24, 2005 11:38:10 GMT -5
How about this child? It is not Nigerian or from the Sudan, but from Senegal in West Africa. Now I doubt that many Sri Lankans are that black. As for you picture of those Nigerian women only one, the lower one is an average, everyday looking Nigerian. The others are atypical. gelaye, you have not been to Nigeria or Sri Lanka, if you had, you wouldn't say what you said or post a picture of atypical Nigerians. I think you have read too much Charlie and seen his carefully selected pictures of lighter skinned West Africans like those mixed Fulbe types from Mali or Senegal. Wodaabe are one of many types of Fulbe. American blacks want to believe that African negroids look exactly like American blacks with narrow noses, nice hair, thin lips... Some more Senegalese. Or this man who is in charge of that American Hausa site Charlie is so fond of. They look pretty damn black to me. I don't call black Africans black because blackness of skin is common to all people who evolved in the humid tropics. I call black Africans negroid. What do you want to call them? I am sure it should be interesting. Outside of the Hausa man which I got from the Hausa language and culture site, an oxymoron, from America. The Senegalese people came from a Senegal site.
|
|
|
Post by gelaye on Jul 24, 2005 12:07:52 GMT -5
that pic of the blue black child isnt an orginal photograph - you can see there has been colour distortion to bring out the blue blackness - but i agree that the majority of africans are very dark brown. im just saying yo uCAN get sri lankans as dark as the hausa man in the picture - i have seen very very dark sri lankans in london and compared them to an african (not caribbean, an AFRICAN) person sitting close by and noticed that their skin colour can match and sometimes be even darker. so how comes they arent called black?
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Jul 24, 2005 12:14:21 GMT -5
You'd have to go to the deepest darkest regions of the Senegal, Congo, or Sudan to find truly blue-black (almost purplish) Africans. They exist, but they aren't in the majority. The best example that comes to mind is of course that of the Nuba and Kordofanians in the Sudan: The Nilotic race is perhaps the darkest of all Negroid races.
|
|
|
Post by gelaye on Jul 24, 2005 12:14:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Jul 24, 2005 12:16:38 GMT -5
Australoids rarely reach jet black, though.
Veddoids, Australian aborigines, Negritos, and Papuan-Melanesians are almost always a dark brownish color.
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on Jul 24, 2005 12:39:51 GMT -5
I resent the implication that I may have tampered with that photograph of the black child. It came from a Senegalese site about Senegal and its people and had numerous photographs by a number of photographers. I doubt the Senegalese would like some photographer to distort the pictures of Senegalese people or allow it to be published on their site. All dark skinned people are called black. It is not exclusive to any race. Australian Aborigines are called black, and few of them are actually black except some from the extreme North like the Tiwi Islanders. Black does not mean black. It is just a name. White in humans does not mean white. Every white White I have seen has been an albino. Mongoloids are not actually yellow. The problem with black for Blacks or negroid people is not the inappropriateness of the color compared with actual skin tones but the actions of Americans who have tried to remove every name used to describe negroids. The usage of sub Saharan is stupid as the Africans south of the Sahara are of different subraces, some like the Sanids are quite different from negroids. Malagasy people are also said to be sub Saharan. There is no Sahara in much of NE Africa. Come on! What the hell are those people in Africa to be called? Dark Browns. Pseudo Melanesians. Western non Pacific Fijians. Woolly haired Aborigines.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jul 24, 2005 12:41:50 GMT -5
Their as black as Europeans are white..dont take color relations to litteratly.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Jul 24, 2005 13:04:39 GMT -5
Why not group populations in "clusters" by genetic distance--- at whatever level of generality--- and use letter designations. Like A, A1, A1a... And forget colors or geographic labels. Wouldn't that clear up a lot of confusion?
|
|
|
Post by gelaye on Jul 24, 2005 13:09:40 GMT -5
lol - sorry didnt mean to spark an argument or anything - but at least i see that calling sub saharans 'black' is the most logical thing to call them lol (unless you call them by geography = eg. SW african, East african etc, rather than their colour but if yo udid that i guess yo uwould have to do it for all 'white' populations too)
(btw about the pic thing - look at the nails, they appear to be glowing right? thats because of the colours being made more vivid - its not a negative thing! i was just saying that its been altered from its regular dull colours)
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Jul 24, 2005 13:15:24 GMT -5
lol - sorry didnt mean to spark an argument or anything - but at least i see that calling sub saharans 'black' is the most logical thing to call them lol (unless you call them by geography = eg. SW african, East african etc, rather than their colour but if yo udid that i guess yo uwould have to do it for all 'white' populations too) There must be better ways to describe population structure.
|
|
|
Post by magneto on Jul 24, 2005 19:05:18 GMT -5
ack. As for you picture of those Nigerian women only one, the lower one is an average, everyday looking Nigerian. The others are atypical whats so atypical about those Nigerians??
|
|
s.f
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by s.f on Jul 24, 2005 20:05:36 GMT -5
blacks are called black for a reason because most black africans are dark ''blackish'' brown but most south asian people are usually light to medium brown(some are really dark i know). most pure black africans are about this color. and most sri lankans are this color.
|
|
|
Post by shango on Jul 24, 2005 21:06:58 GMT -5
How about this child? It is not Nigerian or from the Sudan, but from Senegal in West Africa. Now I doubt that many Sri Lankans are that black. As for you picture of those Nigerian women only one, the lower one is an average, everyday looking Nigerian. The others are atypical. gelaye, you have not been to Nigeria or Sri Lanka, if you had, you wouldn't say what you said or post a picture of atypical Nigerians. I think you have read too much Charlie and seen his carefully selected pictures of lighter skinned West Africans like those mixed Fulbe types from Mali or Senegal. Wodaabe are one of many types of Fulbe. American blacks want to believe that African negroids look exactly like American blacks with narrow noses, nice hair, thin lips... Some more Senegalese. Or this man who is in charge of that American Hausa site Charlie is so fond of. They look pretty damn black to me. I don't call black Africans black because blackness of skin is common to all people who evolved in the humid tropics. I call black Africans negroid. What do you want to call them? I am sure it should be interesting. Outside of the Hausa man which I got from the Hausa language and culture site, an oxymoron, from America. The Senegalese people came from a Senegal site. Ponto, here in NY there are many Senegalese walking around and everyone here knows that they are jet black and very tall. The African Americans are descended from Africans all over the continent, however genetic tests show that most came from the Upper Guinea coast from about Liberia to Senegal. Most of these people are what you would call "Sudanid". There is a difference between the East, West and Southern Africans. It's been written about for the last 1500+ years or more. But, with my understanding of African culture and Black cultures and with the people I have met from all over the world, I say.......Black is anyone from anyone in the world who wants to join in. The East Africans are Black, perhaps not as "negroid" as a West African, but still "Black and African" and no less African than any other. Nigeria is Africa's most populated country with people of various skin types. And African Americans come in all colors and shades with various skull types and heights etc.
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on Jul 24, 2005 22:33:20 GMT -5
Sorry I don't buy what stuff you are trying to peddle. Black Americans are all colors due to admixture with other races. American blacks did not originate from all over Africa. It is the claims of black Americans that black Africans from West Africa are just like them, composed of many phenotypes some light skinned, some dark, some with woolly hair, some with straight hair and so on. That is just fantasy. If you have straight hair and think that is good hair, thank your Amerindian or caucasoid ancestry not some black African who had woolly hair. You Americans should let go the fantasies. gelaye, I am not pleased with you. I repeat, the picture comes from a Senegalese internet site about Senegal. Why would they allow some foreign photographer to show Senegalese people different from reality? It makes no sense. You stick to your dumb sub Saharan and I will stick to Black. Sub Saharan is so 1960s man, Austin Poweresque and twee. The division of humans into races and colors goes back to Bernier, Nouvelle division de la terre par les différents espèces ou races qui l'habite, 1684. There is an axiom, If the thing ain't broke, don't try to fix it.
|
|