Were Egyptians black or white?

[Tacitusitis]

Just one example of how "broad phenotypes" are not determinative of Blackness; Rihanna passes (in America) as Latina despite having a fairly Afro nose (in fact I think she is half Afro-Barbadian). A culture of Rihannas* could easily produce the statues Mentuhotep posted.

*terrifying thought, I know

 

[onedreamer]

I used the line "for the love of God" as an exclamatory statement that emphasizes what I wanted to say and please be convinced of what I'm trying to say. I never referred to God as a physical being or his appearance, please don't pick out phrases out of context since it causes misunderstandings.

As a Muslim, I don't believe at all that God/Allah has any form conceivable by man and thus our notions of appearance/race/qualities do not apply to Allah the merciful, the compassionate, and the sultan of hearts.

Perfect! Now you only need to learn the sense of humor.

 

[Dachs]

Perfect! Now you only need to learn the sense of humor.

He dressed up as fake-bin Ladin, I think he's got one, sport.

 

[Mentuhotep23]

Probably something we can all agree on

The Egyptians had SOME features that we today call "Negroid" like having the space between their eyes be narrower than the base of the nose however they also saw/imagined ethnic distinctions between themselves and other Africans.

They also saw ethnic distinctions between themselves and Asiatics. But in some depictions showed similarities such as the image I showed of an Egyptian Pharaoh slaying Nubians, some of which had the same skintone as him. That's why their art should not be taken as an absolute depiction of reality.

Well the only way I could make sense of the question was "If an Ancient Egyptian were teleported to America today would he be seen as white or black?" IMHO he could/would pass out of the "Black" category just like many olive or brown skinned people with vaguely Euro/Asiatic features.

It's not very fair but that's the way race is culturally set up (lol, anyway "passing" is far from the least fair thing about social construction of race).

If we're going to talk about hypothetically teleporting Ancient Egyptians from their original setting to America we need to determine what the Ancient Egyptians actually looked like. Did they have "olive" skin and "Euro/Asiatic" features as you suggest? What is the evidence for this? If we look at Keita's research it indicates that they actually looked like modern Nilotic and Horn African groups and that the best representatives of the Ancient Egyptians can be found in the Southern portion of the country (Upper Egypt).


Refer back to these emails on statuary and cranial affinities:

So if the statuary and crania suggest that the Ancient Egyptians looked like indigenous Africans such as Northeast Nilotic (ex. Dinka and Lotuko), Horn (ex. Somali and Oromo) and Northwest Africans (ex. Haratin and Tuareg) then they actually looked like African or Africoid people and not Euro/Asiatic.



People like this:

These people would unquestionably be considered Black in America today. Immigrants to America from those named ethnic groups today are considered to be Black.

Just one example of how "broad phenotypes" are not determinative of Blackness; Rihanna passes (in America) as Latina despite having a fairly Afro nose (in fact I think she is half Afro-Barbadian). A culture of Rihannas* could easily produce the statues Mentuhotep posted.

*terrifying thought, I know

There's no concept of passing for Latina in America. "Passing" is generally used in America for someone who could be considered White as the standard of Whiteness in America is based on the concept of racial purity (social perception bases Whiteness on aesthetics and known ancestry so if you look aesthetically "White" and people don't know your ancestry you can "pass"). Rihanna's mother is Afro-Guyanese and her father is of Barbadian and Irish descent. In America where Blackness is defined by hypodescent ("One Drop Rule") she would be and is considered to be Black as are her parents.

But just to be clear my point of posting those statues was to point out that someone with broad facial features would not look out of place if they were teleported to Ancient Egypt. Some Ancient Egyptians did infact have broad ("Negroid") facial features including a wide nose and thick lips.

In terms of skin color it has been suggested by Keita that the typical Upper Egyptian to Nubian color would have been the model in most of the country (so medium to dark brown). The Mekota study I cited has demonstrated empirically that Ancient Egyptians had such skintones.

I don't stress the classification of Black anymore because it is arbitrary. Biological and social definitions of race differ and social definitions can vary depending on region and person so categories like Black and White aren't really useful. IMO a picture is worth 1000 words.

 

[GamezRule]

I believe Halle Berry is also considered black.

 

[Mentuhotep23]

I believe Halle Berry is also considered black.

Indeed she is and identifies strongly as such even though her mother is considered to be White and she was not raised by her African-American father. Some people with "mixed" ancestry like Tiger Woods do not identify exclusively with the African side but many do because society pressures you to. It's not simply about your ancestry and aesthetics but the way people treat you. You can suffer anti-Black discrimination and be accepted in a positive light by the African-American community even if you are only partially of African descent. The truth is that hypodescent/The One Drop Rule is racist in origin. The concept was created by White Americans in order to define who was considered to be a slave (if your mother was a slave you were a slave) and later such rules of descent were strongly emphasized to keep the White "bloodline" pure. Anti-Miscegenation laws were put in place and these rules of descent (Purity vs. Hypodescent) became ingrained into the American mentality regarding race and identity. Many Americans don't know the history but they are indoctrinated into the way of thinking. Eventually African-Americans embraced the idea as a form of kingship.

But on the flip side and this is important to this discussion, Westerners created a double standard when it came to who was considered to be Black in Africa. They distorted the African historical record in order to justify slavery and promote the myth of Black inferiority (rooted in the idea that Black Africans were intellectually inferior and incapable of building civilization). They created the concept of the "True Negro" whereby any African with the broadest of features was regarded as the only authentic African and everyone else in Africa was considered to be of hybrid origin usually regarded as mixed with mythical wandering Caucasoids who were attributed for any civilization or advanced society in Africa (these wandering Caucasoids became known as Hamites and the school of though called the Hamitic Hypothesis). This idea got so ridiculous that even tribes such as the Zulu, revered for their bravery in battle were considered to be descended from these Hamites even though they had broad features.

Both ideas are equally racist and have led to a double standard on the concept of Blackness creating alot of confusion.

As it regards Egypt some 19th Century scholars recognized its African bio-cultural roots but many others took a Eurocentric approach claiming the Ancient Egyptians to be ancestral to Europe denying even modern Egyptians their history all so they could promote the myth of Black inferiority (they did this with other civilizations in Africa as well not just Ancient Egypt). When people of African descent both in the USA and elsewhere were afforded academic opportunities they looked at the historical record of Africa and tried to correct the distortions. This is how the school of though known as Afrocentrism got started. At its root it was therapeutic although some scholars went in pseudohistorical directions (claiming anyone significant in history was Black and that anyone who disagreed was involved in a vast racist conspiracy etc.).

As the field of Biological Anthropology matured people began to look at some of the racist concepts of the past that became standard in the field especially regarding Africa and abandon these old ideas in favor of more academically honest and scientifically accurate ones. The research of Shomarka Keita is the closet we've gotten to the truth on the subject. Keita basically proposed an evolutionary model whereby Ancient Egyptians should be regarded as biologically indigenous to the continent and closely related to more Southerly Africans and over the centuries due to immigration from Europe and the Near East Egyptians gained biological affinities with other people from outside Africa as well. That's what the evidence indicates.

 

[Mentuhotep23]

I ranted a bit in my last post but just to simplify this for everyone I want to be clear that the relevance of this discussion to people like me is to correct the African historical record. I do not wish to emphasize the distancing of modern Egyptians from their ancestral and cultural heritage nor claim Ancient Egypt as being a part of some greater African heritage that only people of African descent can be proud of.

People can admire any civilization and culture that they want. Every civilization on Earth is a human accomplishment we can all admire. But try to understand that there have been a lot of distortions of African history that were motivated by the racist views of certain people including prominent scholars and those ideas are being eradicated today in the name of historical truth.

 

[MKGLouisville]

I am not referring to genetic relations, I was referring to ethnic-social relations.

Both implications are false.

Ancient Egyptians as a culture and perhaps as a ethnic group are only related to or have ties with people in modern day Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Libya, and to a lesser degree the middle east.

Which I agree with to a certain extent regarding these modern populations.

However Ancient Egyptian culture has absolutely nothing in common with those of Southern or Western Africa since there was no way to actually have physical contacts between these peoples.

This would be true is we were to follow an assumption that there was never any transcontinental African migration, and that each distinct type of African stayed in their own neat little corner of the continent. Hopefully you know that this assumption is highly false as evidence of the most extensive genetic study of African populations to date;

Something that you're not mentioning however is that the ancient Sahara was the primarily population source for the Nile Valley. The cultures of the Sahara are directly ancestoral to Kemet;

"a critical factor in the rise of social complexity and the subsequent emergence of the Egyptian state in Upper Egypt (Hoffman 1979; Hassan 1988). If so, Egypt owes a major debt to those early pastoral groups in the Sahara; they may have provided Egypt with many of those features that still distinguish it from its neighbors to the east."
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17, 97-123 (1998), "Nabta Playa and Its Role in Northeastern African Prehistory," Fred Wendorf and Romuald Schild.

"Over the last two decades, numerous contemporary (Khartoum Neolithic) sites and cemeteries have been excavated in the Central Sudan.. The most striking point to emerge is the overall similarity of early neolithic developments inhabitation, exchange, material culture and mortuary customs in the Khartoum region to those underway at the same time in the Egyptian Nile Valley, far to the north." (Wengrow, David (2003) "Landscapes of Knowledge, Idioms of Power: The African Foundations of Ancient Egyptian Civilization Reconsidered," in Ancient Egypt in Africa, David O'Connor and Andrew Reid, eds. Ancient Egypt in Africa. London: University College London Press, 2003, pp. 119-137)

These ancient Saharans were a mixture of Afro Asiactic, Nilo Saharan, and yes even Niger Kordofanian speaking Africans. When desertification began to take hold of the Sahara, these Saharans migrated not only towards the Nile, but also into Western and Central Africa. Sugguesting that their is no possible way that their can be commonalities between these different Africans is beyond absurd and goes against nature;


Link to video.

• Specific central African tool designs found at the well known Naqada, Badari and Fayum archaeological sites in Egypt (de Heinzelin 1962, Arkell and Ucko, 1956 et al). Shaw (1976) states that "the early cultures of Merimde, the Fayum, Badari Naqada I and II are essentially African and early African social customs and religious beliefs were the root and foundation of the ancient Egyptian way of life."
  
• Pottery evidence first seen in the Saharan Highlands then spreading to the Nile Valley (Flight 1973).
• Art motifs of Saharan rock paintings showing similarities to those in pharaonic art. A number of scholars suggest that these earlier artistic styles influenced later pharaonic art via Saharans leaving drier areas and moving into the Nile Valley taking their art styles with them (Mori 1964, Blanc 1964, et al)
  
• Earlier pioneering mummification outside Egypt. The oldest mummy in Africa is of a black Saharan child (Donadoni 1964, Blanc 1964) Frankfort (1956) suggests that it is thus possible to understand the pharaonic worldview by reference to the religious beliefs of these earlier African precursors.
  
• Several cultural practices of Egypt show strong similarities to an African totemic clan base. Childe (1969, 1978), Aldred (1978) and Strouhal (1971) demonstrate linkages with several African practices such as divine kingship and the king as divine rainmaker.
  
• Physical similarities of the early Nile valley populations with that of tropical Africans. Such connections are demonstrated in the work of numerous scholars such as Thompson and Randall Mclver 1905, Falkenburger 1947, and Strouhal 1971. The distance diagrams of Mukherjee, Rao and Trevor (1955) place the ancient Badarians genetically near 'black' tribes such as the Ashanti and the Taita.
  
• Serological (blood) evidence of genetic linkages. Paoli 1972 for example found a significant resemblance between ABO frequencies of dynastic Egyptians and the northern Haratin who are held to be the probable descendants of the original Saharans (Hiernaux, 1975).
  
• Language similarities which include several hundred roots ascribable to African elements (UNESCO 1974)
  
• Ancient Egyptian origin stories ascribing origins of the gods and their ancestors to African locations to the south and west of Egypt (Davidson 1959, White 1970).
• quote: "It may be noted that the ancient Egyptians themselves appear to have been convinced that their place of origin was African rather than Asian. They made continued reference to the land of Punt as their homeland." --(White, Jon Manchip.,
• Ancient Egypt: Its Culture and History (Dover Publications; New Ed edition, June 1, 1970), p. 141.
  
• Advanced state building and political unity in Nubia, including writing, administrative apparatus and insignia some 300 years before dynastic Egypt, and the long demonstrated interchange between Nubia and Egypt (Williams 1980)
  
• Newer studies (Wendorf 2001, Wilkinson 1999, et al.) confirm these older analyses. Excavations from Nabta Playa, located about 100km west of Abu Simbel for example, suggest that the Neolithic inhabitants of the region were migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa, based on cultural similarities and social complexity which is thought to be reflective of Egypt's Old Kingdom
  
• Other scholars (Wilkinson 1999) present similar material and cultural evidence- including similarities between predynastic Egypt and traditional African cattle-culture, typical of Southern Sudanese and East African pastoralists of today, and various cultural and artistic data such as iconography on rock art found in both Egypt and in the Sudan.

Yes, Ancient Egyptians are Africans but Africans are not one homogeneous entity (looking at genetic studies could tell you that much

But the early formation state of Egypt, is was a hetergeneous mixture of African populations;

"the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. They included peoples from the Afroasiastic linguistic group and the second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan (Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et al. 1982). Thus the earliest domestic cattle may have come to Egypt from these southern neighbors, circa 6000 B.C., and not from the Middle East.148] Pottery, another significant advance in material cultural may also have followed this pattern, initiatied "as early as 9000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharans and Afrasians who lived to the south of Egypt. Soon thereafter, pots spread to Egyptian sites, almost 2,000 years before the first pottery was made in the Middle East."(Christopher Ehret, "Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture," in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 25-27)

 

[MKGLouisville]

It's funny how the people who claim to be introducing science into history ignore something rather basic for all scientists (and historians), i.e. correlation does not imply causation.

sure just ignore where the arrow point you and navigate your own way through the maze of unfounded theories and baseless claims. I'm going to follow the trail.

What matters is this nonsense use of genetic markers to support migrationism that you find all over history these days.

Y Chromosome are used to help track and assess historic migrations.

The simple common-sense lack of any connection between genetics and language is all anyone needs to blow the notion of connecting this sub-Saharan language with some kind of "Negroid" marker and connecting both to the development of an Egyptian state and society.

First you had a problem with the reliance of linuguistic evidence for this question. Now you have a problem with genetic evidence that runs parllel with the linguistic evidence. If I'm not mistaken you are also the same poster who mentioned that skeletal analysis (which also ran parallel with those other two practices) was also suspect (it might not have been you). SMH I guess all I'm left with is the cultural aspect of why the ancient Egyptians came from inner Africa.

 

[Dachs]

Y Chromosome are used to help track and assess historic migrations.

I understand that. The practice is fundamentally flawed. You refuse to address any of the substantive reasons why the practice is flawed, and instead either ignore me or act condescending, and repost the same damn articles and maps you've posted before, as if they disprove my attack on their assumptions. From your track record of dealing with people who disagree with you in the World History forum, I can see you're never going to actually talk about the problems with genetic migration tracking, and instead we'll get more of the same; I'm just in it for the postcount at this point.

First you had a problem with the reliance of linuguistic evidence for this question. Now you have a problem with genetic evidence that runs parllel with the linguistic evidence. If I'm not mistaken you are also the same poster who mentioned that skeletal analysis (which also ran parallel with those other two practices) was also suspect (it might not have been you). SMH I guess all I'm left with is the cultural aspect of why the ancient Egyptians came from inner Africa.

Nah. I have a problem with connecting linguistics and genetics as though the language you speak has any impact on the color of your skin, or vice versa. I have a problem with attempting to use genetic markers to show most migratory trends entirely independent of the lack of a necessary connection between genetics and language. I also have a problem with most use of linguistics to indicate migratory activity, mostly because the whole exercise can plausibly lead in so many different directions from a single data point that coming to almost any sort of conclusion in many cases is intellectually dishonest. Neither of the latter two things is really the issue here, though.

I doubt I was the person to comment on skeletal structure there, although I might have been, because I'm generally fairly suspicious of it when it does come up in other archaeological contexts with which I'm more familiar. Bad archaeological practices - and bad historical ones - die hard.

 

[Quackers]

Just out of curiousity, is this incredibly handsome guy black? He's obviously brown-skinned... Would you go so far as to call him white?

looks like a insanely happy or stoned swede to me

 

[Mentuhotep23]

Examinations of his mummy have proven that (the roots of) his hair were originally naturally red (although I think it may have been gray by the time he died). The fact that many kings of his dynasty had names involving the god Set and that Redheads were considered sacred to Set (who had become the chief deity of lower Egypt again in Hyksos times and was still quite important in the 19th dynasty, but would soon be demonized) makes it seem likely that red hair was common in that dynasty. Those who shaved their heads often died their scalps or what little hair was left red, and the wigs were likely often red. Someone with naturally red hair was probably much more likely to let his natural hair show.

The examination you are referring to is likely the one lead by Professor P. F. Ceccaldi in 1985. You see this citation on a lot of Nordicist and White Supremacist webpages asserting that Ramses II must have been White because he was a red-head. According to an article written by Karl Earlson the team that conducted the examination detected red pigments at the root of the hair and concluded that he must have been a natural red-head (his hair was white at the time of death).

Ramses II's hair was dyed red with henna. The thing is that archeologists have noted that hair tends to change color after burial and that red-yellow phaeomelanin pigments are more stable to environmental conditions than the black-brown eumelanin. This can make it difficult to determine the natural hair color of mummies.

http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/field/hair.html

The answer to the question of Ramses II's hair color seems to have been answered conclusively however via DNA analysis. A study published in 2000 which conducted genetic tests on several royal mummies including Ramses II concluded that he had naturally black hair, black eyes and brown skin.

Results of formal tests of the Egyptian government
No. 58 From 25 / 4 at 1 / 5 / 2000

SOME GENETIC FEATURES OF ANCIENT EGYPTIANS

As part of research conducted by the Cairo University in collaboration
with the Higher Council of Antiquities, it has been possible to achieve the
anthropological characteristics of the Pharaohs.

According to preliminary indications, we reached a number of traits of the
Pharaohs. It was possible to identify genes for size, color and eye color and
hair of the king in the Pharaonic era in which samples were collected. They
were placed on mummies in sarcophagi. A group of researchers has been
able to separate those genes that have proven that the ancient Egyptians
were not taller as previously thought. Their size was rather average, with
the exception of Ramses II, whose analysis of genes has proven to be cut.

It has also been demonstrated that his skin was brown and his hair was black,
not red. The color red has been found on his mummy is due to a dye (probably henna).
His eyes were black with a slight tinge of brown.

Amenhotep III was short of stature, the color of his skin was a light brown.
His eyes and his hair was black dark. These features show that the kings were
related. All the kings at that time had a common origin in the family tree of the
royal family. It is possible to determine a precise dates and times in the future.
This research will confirm certain anthropological traits that have been studied
before on the Pharaonic mummies. This will give preliminary indications about
the traits, diseases and characteristics of the Pharaohs.

© Egypt State Information Service 2005, all rights reserved

 

[Cynovolans]

The examination you are referring to is likely the one lead by Professor P. F. Ceccaldi in 1985. You see this citation on a lot of Nordicist and White Supremacist webpages asserting that Ramses II must have been White because he was a red-head. According to an article written by Karl Earlson the team that conducted the examination detected red pigments at the root of the hair and concluded that he must have been a natural red-head (his hair was white at the time of death).

Ramses II's hair was dyed red with henna. The thing is that archeologists have noted that hair tends to change color after burial and that red-yellow phaeomelanin pigments are more stable to environmental conditions than the black-brown eumelanin. This can make it difficult to determine the natural hair color of mummies.

http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/field/hair.html

The answer to the question of Ramses II's hair color seems to have been answered conclusively however via DNA analysis. A study published in 2000 which conducted genetic tests on several royal mummies including Ramses II concluded that he had naturally black hair, black eyes and brown skin.

I would like to see a source for this study because the Council of Antiquities has stated that they do not plan on doing any genetic studies of Ramesside era mummies until after the 18th dynasty study was finished, and that study was only finished a year ago.

 

[Mentuhotep23]

I would like to see a source for this study because the Council of Antiquities has stated that they do not plan on doing any genetic studies of Ramesside era mummies until after the 18th dynasty study was finished, and that study was only finished a year ago.

The article was posted on the following website but has since been taken down:

http://www.sis.gov.eg/public/letter/fhtml/ftext058.htm

It was copied to the webpage Africamaat. The original text was written in French and it seems that you can only find the text now as a cache:


Source

 

[Tacitusitis]

Wow, lot of substantive replies. I'd like to make the point that there's a distinction between being dark-skinned and being "Black." Dark-skinned is a rather large category that comprises plenty of other races like Indian.

Indicators of "Blackness" for Americans go beyond skin color, there are also other things like prognathous jaw and wide, flat nose.

I hope we agree that the American perception of Black facial features is stereotyped from the particular ethnicities of enslaved West Africans and not AT ALL representative of the racial diversity of Africa which has just as wide an array of ethnicities as the other continents.

However, the American perception is what's at issue here - we all agree that the Egyptians were Africans and dark-brown-skinned, the question is were they "Black," a label that only exists in the context of the phenomenon of "African Americans."

This Somali woman, Waris Dirie (who is a model like Iman) has dark skin yet more "Caucasoid" looking facial features. She doesn't look very Black to me.

Barack Obama, aside from being half white, also doesn't look particularly like the American stereotype of Black facial features.

If you recall, there was at one point a debate about whether Obama was "black enough" to win black votes - pretty silly and dumb, but it was based on him being of "African" heritage (i.e. East African) rather than "African-American" (i.e. West African ex-slave).

Anyway, compare 'Bama and Waris Dirie with some famous Black people with West African slave ancestry who do conform to that facial-structure stereotype.

This is the American image of "Blackness."



Now let's look at the Egyptians.

First, the Sphinx undoubtedly has a protruding jaw: that is, the entire face below the nose protrudes past the vertical line of the forehead.

But the ancient Egyptians throughout their art did not depict THEMSELVES with prognathous, protruding jaws. Go back and look at all the pictures in this thread.

The artist makes a distinction between Nubian (#2) and Egyptian (#4) - aside from skin tone, the main distinguishing features are jawline, lips, and hair.

More ancient Egyptians:

The Egyptians saw their own distinguishing ethnic features as being - large straight triangular nose; large, widely spaced almond eyes; full "downturned" lips; slightly-reddish dark brown colored skin.

When you think about it, these features are vaguely Asiatic. Take away the skin tone:

and you have something that almost looks a little Korean. Here is Korean pop-star Rain:

Anyway, here is what is absent from Egyptian self-depictions: No prognathous jaw. No flattened nose. No full "upturned" lip (lol, see any picture of Jay-Z if you don't understand the lip type I mean). Those features of modern African Americans are totally missing in Ancient Egyptians.

Here are some modern Egyptians.

Gee, accounting for the fact that they have been ruled by Arabs for thousands of years, they look pretty "Egyptian."

Let's see some more modern faces. Here's what people from Sudan generally look like:

Not a match. Modern day Ethiopians are much closer.

Triangular noses, wide-set almond-shaped eyes, reddish-brown skin, downturned lips? All there.

Finally, looking at Somali faces (remember Waris Dirie and Iman as well):

The Egyptian art certainly looks more like modern Egyptians than modern Somalis. Somalis have much narrower faces and their noses are more thin than triangular.

So to sum up:

The ancient Egyptians:
Ethnically African? hell yeah
American "Black"? hell no
Modern African ethnicity that matches best? Probably Egyptian or Ethiopian imo

So Iman was not the best choice to play an Egyptian, but hey, better than Yul Brynner.

 

[Cynovolans]

The article was posted on the following website but has since been taken down:

http://www.sis.gov.eg/public/letter/fhtml/ftext058.htm

It was copied to the webpage Africamaat. The original text was written in French and it seems that you can only find the text now as a cache:


Source

Considering the article has never been cited by anyone, there isn't even an author of the study, the only information on it is an afrocentric website, and the Council of Egyptian Antiquities just recently changed their opinion on genetic studies, I'm going to bet my money on it being a fake.

 

[Mentuhotep23]

Tacitusitis,

I believe you entertained the question of whether or not the Ancient Egyptians would be considered to be "Black" in an American social context. We know the populations that the Ancient Egyptians were most biologically similar to. Among them would be the Somali. So are the women you mentioned considered to be Black in America?


The answer is yes:

Americans do not prescribe to the "True Negro" concept when it comes to Blackness.

Blackness is generally associated with dark-skinned Africans regardless of their facial features. That is why ethnic groups from all over Africa are regarded as Black when they assimilate into American culture. Also Blackness is not unique to America. As a social concept it was enforced on all dark-skinned African ethnic groups during the colonization of the continent. Consider the social significance that Blackness had in Apartheid South Africa. In fact there are also dark-skinned non-African people who identify as Black and were regarded as such by Europeans such as Dravidians, Melanasians and Australian Aborigines.

Again I think it is best not to over-emphasize labels like Black and White in this discussion because they are arbitrary. Social definitions and Biological definitions of race differ and social definitions of race vary from region to region and even person to person.

By the way Obama's "Black" credentials were not questioned because of his Kenyan ancestry. Not by the Black community. It was questioned because he had been raised by White Grandparents and had a very Multicultural background including attending Ivy league schools. People questioned whether he really had endured the "Black experience". But notice how fiercely Black Americans rallied behind him when it was clear that he had a chance of winning. It didn't matter that he was Biracial or didn't have a drop of "slave blood". He was recognized as kin.

Considering the article has never been cited by anyone, there isn't even an author of the study, the only information on it is an afrocentric website, and the Council of Egyptian Antiquities just recently changed their opinion on genetic studies, I'm going to bet my money on it being a fake.

Honestly I thought it was suspect myself. I will look into it.....

 

[Tacitusitis]

well if you think - or if you think the American culture thinks - that Dravidian Indians are "Black" then we are not on the same page.

Also not all African immigrants integrate into the American concept of Blackness. Somalis are Somalis in the American eye - again, because of the ethnic differences with the West Africans who comprise the majority of the ex-slave ancestry.

Like I said it's not too reasonable, but then again it's the same way with how in the American view, all Jews are ethnically like Jon Stewart, Woody Allen, etc. Somewhat true of the majority of American Jews, not true AT ALL of the Jewish diaspora around the world - but a Jew who has African or Middle Eastern background is liable to be mistaken for Arab.

By the way Obama's "Black" credentials were not questioned because of his Kenyan ancestry. Not by the Black community. It was questioned because he had been raised by White Grandparents and had a very Multicultural background including attending Ivy league schools. People questioned whether he really had endured the "Black experience". But notice how fiercely Black Americans rallied behind him when it was clear that he had a chance of winning. It didn't matter that he was Biracial or didn't have a drop of "slave blood". He was recognized as kin.

Yeah like I said, it was a silly debate. I might be remembering it wrong but I think it started because of some comment Cornel West made?

 

[emzie]

Stratego is an amazing amazing troll. I wish he'd come back.

 

[Mentuhotep23]

well if you think - or if you think the American culture thinks - that Dravidian Indians are "Black" then we are not on the same page.

I've had people of Dravidian descent such as a man from Trinidad that I used to work with tell me that he is Black.

One of my other co-workers who is African-American said that he considered him to be Black. He was dark brown-skinned with straight hair and narrow features.

As for what the average American would think of a Dravidian, I don't think the average American even knows who Dravidians are. Americans are not very familiar with Indian culture.

The point is that such definitions are quite arbitrary. Definitions of Black and White in America differ from those in Brazil, South Africa or various Caribbean countries.

Yeah like I said, it was a silly debate. I might be remembering it wrong but I think it started because of some comment Cornel West made?

I don't know what triggered it I just remember it being a popular topic during the 2008 campaign.