This is one of many examples why race as a concept is bullshyt
Cacs are more African, genetically, then these people but because their skin is dark….they’re “black”
No offense to them , but we have nothing in common with these people besides evolving near the equator and getting our shyt ran thru by cacs
This is one of many examples why race as a concept is bullshyt
Cacs are more African, genetically, then these people but because their skin is dark….they’re “black”
No offense to them , but we have nothing in common with these people besides evolving near the equator and getting our shyt ran thru by cacs
Cacs mutated genetically to become white relatively recently. About 8K years ago, which is very recent relative to human history. For comparison Abos lefts Africa like 50K years ago.
African = branch(root) of humanity, human lineage, "race" Black = phenotype(tropically adapted ...limb ratio, hair, skin, etc) African American = Africans who are citizens of the U.S. Ethnicity = Group of humans who share common means, ways, history, etc irrespective of "race"
(a person can also be of multiple ethnic groups simultaneously)
There is no "official term" for the ethnic group of Africans who have been in the U.S. prior to it's founding via the trans atlantic. Now there are "official terms" for subgroups like creole, gullah geechee, etc. but not for the entire group.
To be clear this isn't some wild conspiratorial issue against us. It's a rather bland and by the numbers issue. There is no "official term" for the ethnic group because there was never any real need for one(other African peoples were always absorbed into the larger cultural group). Simple as that.
SIDE NOTE: this is actually a problem that people who work with dna have when you read certain papers. Because "African American" is a grab all citizenship term dna samples that use it are not sure who they are dealing with.(This problem is detailed below by Dr. Shomarka Keita in the comments/notes attached to the following academic paper)
The phrase Legacy Afro-North American describes populations and individuals who are known or understood to be descendant of Africans who were brought to the United States via the Middle Passage, i.e. who are a legacy of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. "Legacy African American" could also be used. These phrases exclude Africans, no matter their geographical origin in Africa, who came by other means. This term would have parallels for South America and the Carribbean where there are also legacy populations (Legacy Afro-South Americans or Legacy Afro-Latinos for example).
The legacy status is deemed to have significance because of various known microevolutionary factors and likely epigenetic effects on these populations, which are socially defined differently in each country. (Remote African ancestry is not a factor in social definitions in all of the societies.)
The members of the legacy populations should not be homogenized with recent immigrants, something very important in health studies, irrespective of the definitions of census or bureacratic "race" notions. Another accurate designation for these groups/populations in the new world would include Middle Passage (or middle passage) Americans, with or without other descriptors (eg Middle Passage North Americans or Middle Passage Americans), because "Middle Passage" is restricted to those who came in this manner from tropical Africa. Other African peoples from Algeria to Zimbabwe have come to the US since the end of the great tragedy of the slave trade. They should be designated by their nationality regardless of phenotype and its assumed indicator or origin in the received racial schema and its erroneous basis (e.g.s. Algerian American). Nomenclature should accurately reflect a population or individual if the goal is to embed useful information in the terminology.
Conclusion
Currently we have the official use of "African American" as an umbrella racial term then we have the creation of ambiguity by attempting to use "African American" as an ethnic term beneath the racial umbrella as well. Why? Because While that ethnic group does exist ...there is no official term for it.
(This ambiguity is reflected in academia as well)
This is similar to the whole "White Jamaican" thing. Short of the terms for sub groups like "maroons" and "rastas" there is no term for the total "ethnic body" of African peoples in Jamaica. As a result when people say "Jamaican" they assume "black people" but of course their are East Asian, Indian, etc. populations as well.
Predicted misunderstandings
Assumed question 1: So are you saying that the group who created american music, pushed for the civil rights all non white males enjoy, etc. is not considered their own ethnic group
Answer 1: No ...that's not what i'm saying
What I'm saying is that there was never any need to create a formal title for that group. Why? Because shy of immigrant hubs like NYC/Chicago/etc. there was never any need to distinguish between ethnic groups only "racial" groups. It's only been recently 1960s-70s that there has been a heavy influx of of various "African peoples" forming ethnic enclaves. Prior to this point people from the Caribbean, Africa, etc were "absorbed" fairly quickly.
Assumed question 2: Are you saying that the term "African American" is never used as an ethnic identifier
Answer 2: No ...that's not what i'm saying
The terms "African American" was meant to replace (colored, negro, black,etc) are racial designations. "African American" is a designation of race. With that said, when there is a need to differentiate ethnically between different "African peoples" in the U.S. people use it as an ethnic identifier ...(and I add)there by introducing semantic ambiguity. This country operates on racial designations before ethnic. The only ethnicity the census even tracks is Hispanic.
Assumed question 3: You do know there are numerous academic books/papers that speaks of "African Americans" as an ethnic group right
Answer 3: Yes ...See answer 2
This partly is what promotes that semantic ambiguity I mentioned. It's made even more conflicting because while sloppy ...it works ether way(Race or ethnicity) if i'm writing on the ethnic group it obviously works. If I'm writing on the racial group(in the U.S.) it still works. The sloppiness being that ethnic groups who have nothing to do with the event in question might get lumped in with the rest.
Assumed question 4: Why we gotta be called African Americans but white people don't have to be called European Americans
Answer 4: ! despise that fukk'n statement
We are called "African Americans" because we lobbied the press and government to be called "African Americans". If white folks want to do the same they are more than welcome.
My suggestion
African = branch of human lineage / Race (also "African" on U.S Census)
African American = Ethnicity (Specific "Racial" ethnic group ...similar to "americo liberian" or "maroon") Black = Phenotype (How you look)
(Time stamped for convenience)
"Black tells you what you look like, it doesn't tell you who you are"
- John henrik clarke
"When all is said and done, dogs and slaves are named by their masters; free men name themselves."
- Mr. Richard B. Moore
The Name "Negro," It's Origin and Evil Use
Belonging to ethnic groups ot tribes are a different thing.
Not all Black people are from Africa. Many are from Asia. Even the people of India were clearly once Black. They have been mixed with Persians and a bunch of other junk, but it is clear that they were Black at one point.
Not all White people are from Europe. Some are from Asia, because Russians are White but not from Europe. Not all Asians are from Asia, because Eskimos and Native Americans seem to be descended from Asians.
You people look at race in such simplistic terms. So much so that all you have is 'black' to describe thousands and thousands of years of learning, invention, evolution and development of a species.
Yoooo, coli brehs, let me know, are these people black too so I can assimilate their pain and achievements into my own identity?!
I dunno. Maybe that mentally is just par for the course, a byproduct of being so unsure of one's own heritage, which is only the fault of those who enabled slavery and subjugation based solely on skin tone. I just find these topics tired and think everyone would be better off just being unashamedly themselves as they seek self improvement. Or maybe this alcohol has got me too fukked up.
Why do you need to attack her? That is what I don't understand.
So what if she identifies as Black. She is not hurting anybody and she clearly sees a shared struggle with African Americans. In fact African Americans have brought a lot of different groups, including Africans, under the banner of Black who had previously not thought of themselves as part of a larger united group. If there is anything good that came from slavery it is that Black Americans learned how to unite to move forward. Nothing wrong with other Black people wanting to associate with a group that advanced. Besides that it pisses White people around the World off to realize that Black Americans are emboldening othe Black people. So I am good with that.
Why do you need to attack her? That is what I don't understand.
So what if she identifies as Black. She is not hurting anybody and she clearly sees a shared struggle with African Americans. In fact African Americans have brought a lot of different groups, including Africans, under the banner of Black who had previously not thought of themselves as part of a larger united group. If there is anything good that came from slavery it is that Black Americans learned how to unite to move forward. Nothing wrong with other Black people wanting to associate with a group that advanced. Besides that it pisses White people around the World off to realize that Black Americans are emboldening othe Black people. So I am good with that.
You people look at race in such simplistic terms. So much so that all you have is 'black' to describe thousands and thousands of years of learning, invention, evolution and development of a species.
Yoooo, coli brehs, let me know, are these people black too so I can assimilate their pain and achievements into my own identity?!
I dunno. Maybe that mentally is just par for the course, a byproduct of being so unsure of one's own heritage, which is only the fault of those who enabled slavery and subjugation based solely on skin tone. I just find these topics tired and think everyone would be better off just being unashamedly themselves as they seek self improvement. Or maybe this alcohol has got me too fukked up.
They are going to be treated as black because they have "black" skin, aboriginals and west africans aren't related at all. And this just goes to the point you see @Dafunkdoc_Unlimited constantly hammering on you fools. DNA test an aboriginal, they will be closer to white people than west africans.
The word "black", as it relates to "race", really just means having darker skin and being treated as though you are "black", "black" as it relates to "race" is honestly dumb as hell and "outdated", this topic just proves this.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
