Historical Argument That Was In the Wrong Forum

WTF is "black" anyway. I hate that term. Is Maori black? Are Mayans black? What about native Americans like Cree? Are they black?
Olmecs are basically Mayans. Their beliefs and culture impacted mesoamerican people like Mayans and Aztec people. Are Aztec black?

 

i mean, in anthropology, black solely means people of subsaharan african descent.

 

WTF does it mean being "black " without being African? Does he mean being directly descendant from African people like Haiti and Jamaican people? Even that doesn't make sense with Olmec people as back then people had no means to travel from Africa to America.

 

well if there’s ancestry in SSA i assume that qualifies as black

i think henri thinks that anyone with dark skin qualifies as black though, but i have dark skin and i know i’m not black, and i sure as heck know i can’t say the n word.

 

Haitians and Jamaican people could consider themselves as African descent because their ancestors DID came from Africa... ( although I heard nowdays they consider themselves as Caribean ) That is NOT the case with Olmec. All Henri has is a picture with ZERO background info.

 

I don't know about Maori people, Mayans are more black than the Nahualt people.
Popol Vuh speak about that.

I just found this Cacaxtla Pyramid, you can go there and pay 200 pesos to listening what I'm saying here for free hehe.

And I was the only visitor in the day I was there, I really think Civilization can help make a BOOM in Cacaxtla, this pyramid was just discovered 1975 and I guess I'm the first one who pay atention to natives history. Because, how it is possible a historian nerd forum and Just I know about they?

 

You silly guy. The Cree are white amerindians. Or white red? So pink people? Wait, aren't the pink people the white people? This is getting confusing!

Can we use lighter / darker color skin instead, and leave "black" for sub-saharian african origin, "white" for european origin, "amerindian" for native american... and just say that some Olmec might have been amerindians with a darker color skin.

Most ethnicities are a continuum, and it is rare when there is a "hard" border between races (I really hate that word). Just let's take the Kazakh people, you can't really tell if they are asian, middle eastern or white. It is kind all of that in the same time. Even if we say they are in fact turkic people, we just push the question. Where is the border between turkic, asian, middle eastern or white? There is none.
Of course, there is some hard border. For example, the Sahara is a huge border that leave the black people one way and the north african the other. If the Sahara was hospitable, the people living there will share both north african and black physical traints. And of course: the amerindians themselves. But those borders between race are an illusion: we do differentiate white european from north african, and now, when we don't between asian (mongolian and filipinos are nothing alike).

 

I'm very happy to have someone who understand me.
Black is a color, African may be black, but that don't mean there is Black people who don't have African heritage.

I guess this is the point, human race is so diverse and beautifull. I just want to celebrate all!
And I really miss black people, but I also want more from everybody!

 

black may be a color, but at the end of the day, it is a term used to define the race of people originally from sub-saharan africa. So while the Olmecs may have been darker skinned, they were still Native Americans and not ‘black’

(also if you couldn’t tell, the guy you replied to was being sarcastic for the part you thought he was agreeing with you)

 

I don’t think Mayans see themselves as same people as Zulus in South Africa... defining race based on colour is so meaningless. Just admit that "blacks" don't exist but rather people basied on culture exist. It is more important to lable people based on cuture than colour anyway.

 

here’s the thing: Black as a color and black as a race are different things. Conflating then is why a large amount of americans think black is a slur and prefer ‘African-American’, even if said black person isn’t African-American.

Black as a race means people of subsaharan african descent. period. Saying ppl like the mayans or olmecs or papuans are black just bcs they have dark skin is colorist, borderline racist and extremely problematic. On the other side of it, pretending black as a race doesn’t exist is equally problematic because it limits societies abilities to correct injustices done against them.

Race is a social construct, but it’s one that we’ve forced to be not ignored. So let’s be clear: race is a function of geographical origin, not of skin color. Skin color is just why race became a historically notable social construct

 

I'm afraid you lost me here.

Unfortunately, I know very little about Mesoamerican religious beliefs, but I do have some questions.
1) Why do you associate the figure on the left with Yaqui from the Popol Vuh? The Popol Vuh was first written down in the 16th century, and per Wikipedia the Cacaxtla site was abandoned by 1000 AD. That is a long period of time for beliefs to evolve and change. What evidence is there that the inhabitants of Cacaxtla had the same beliefs as recorded in the Popol Vuh? That is, would the inhabitants of Cacaxtla have understood the figure on the left to be Yaqui?
2) Why do you associate the inhabitants of Cacaxtla with the Olmec head carvers? Again per Wikipedia, Cacaxtla was primarily inhabited from 650-900 AD, but the society of the Olmec head carvers head carvers seems to have fallen apart around 400 BC. That's an almost 1000 year gap between the Olmecs and Cacaxtla. The Wikipedia article notes that a Spaniard, Diego Camargo, said in the 16th century Cacaxtla was inhabited by the Olmec-Xicalanca people (unfortunately, the article on the Olmec-Xicalanca is in Spanish only and my Spanish is not good enough to read it). Like with the Popol Vuh, that is almost 500 years after Cacaxtla was generally considered abandoned. What sources did Camargo have to make that statement? Or, what archaeological evidence has emerged that links Cacaxtla with the Olmec head carvers?

 

Henri just admit that your view on race is so warped and wrong.

 

Didn't you say that your family is originally from the Indian Subcontinent, which honestly has some of the darkest skin colors in the world? I think that would qualify you as Caucasian according to his chart, ironically.

 

Speaking of India... Henri like most nations with huge lands and population. India has A LOT of different races. There are stereotypical "brown" Indians but there also are "white" Indians. You can't place all indians in a same group.

 

yeah i’m of Indian descent. According to him I’d be white. So yeah, his view of race is really problematic.

 

... but enlightenment is European one... and these nations have suffered too much on courption/dictatorship to have any "enlightment" period. Do you even know their history?

 

The ancient Caledonians reportedly painted themselves blue. Were they a Blue civilisation?

 

Maybe they sang the blues?

 

All nations who born after Enlightment have some degree of Enlightment inlfuence.

I don't think so.
I don't know that much about European history, but in India, some Gods are blue because they don't have color.

Blue is kind of a very special color to many culture.