Term Negro Identifies Black Civilizations

[clydewin98]

al~Takruri in a recent post noted that:

White it is true white academicians
and educators no longer use negro
they hold on to Caucasian even
though they now posit their
kind originated in Africa
(not the Caucasus) before
the negroes BaNtus etc.

A search of PLOS' peer reviewed
scientific anthro-genetic articles
site:plos.org caucasian
yields over 5000 instances of the
white/Euro scientific community's
embrace of Caucasian as racial
label for Euro-Levant-Arab-Arabian
-IndoPak and other non Far East Asian
Eurasians.



Read more: egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1850/painting?page=1#ixzz3ObpoTVeN


I have returned to the use of the term Negro to identify the Black race because it is an inclusive term , used over time by anthropologists and laymen since the 15th Century to identify the Black nationalities and ethnic groups Europeans discovered while they explored the world. When I began research into the history of ancient Blacks I found information based on the identifier “Negro”. Diop never stopped using the term Negro to identify Black people.

As noted by al~Takruri European researchers continue to refer to themselves as Caucasian. European researchers refer to Blacks as Sub-Saharan Africans, in their research. Use of Sub-Saharan African , appears to be a neutral term. But in reality its use is to diminish the reality of the Black nationality in ancient history.

At the same time this is being done, Europeans have begun to claim there is no relationship between the ancient Blacks, formerly called Negroes, that live or lived in the Americas and Eurasia. A good example, is the people in Oceania. Today researchers claim these Blacks lack any relationship to Africans, even though people in Fiji claim they came from Africa, and the place names in the region are of West African origin, like the languages.

As a result, if you use Sub-Saharan African to identify Blacks you fail to account for the other Blacks who live in Eurasia and the Americas. You lose these Blacks because the term Sub-Saharan African to identify Blacks, implies that the Blacks outside Africa, exist today as remnants of the Europeans Slave Trade, when Blacks had been Eurasia and the Americas thousands of years before the Atlantic Slave trade.

The use of the term Sub-Saharan African for the Black nationality, is meant to limit the history of Blacks in World History. Using the term Negro to describe Blacks, is a scientific term that describe and unifies Black people within and throughout World History. I use the term Negro, to make sure we know and can research the long and great history of Black People.

[amunratheultimate]

Black, Negro, African, Sub-Saharan African those are all synonyms for me. I used them all depending on the context.

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

Jan 12, 2015 8:13:11 GMT -5 clydewin98 said:

al~Takruri in a recent post noted that:

White it is true white academicians
and educators no longer use negro
they hold on to Caucasian even
though they now posit their
kind originated in Africa
(not the Caucasus) before
the negroes BaNtus etc.

A search of PLOS' peer reviewed
scientific anthro-genetic articles
site:plos.org caucasian
yields over 5000 instances of the
white/Euro scientific community's
embrace of Caucasian as racial
label for Euro-Levant-Arab-Arabian
-IndoPak and other non Far East Asian
Eurasians.



Read more: egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1850/painting?page=1#ixzz3ObpoTVeN


I have returned to the use of the term Negro to identify the Black race because it is an inclusive term , used over time by anthropologists and laymen since the 15th Century to identify the Black nationalities and ethnic groups Europeans discovered while they explored the world. When I began research into the history of ancient Blacks I found information based on the identifier “Negro”. Diop never stopped using the term Negro to identify Black people.

As noted by al~Takruri European researchers continue to refer to themselves as Caucasian. European researchers refer to Blacks as Sub-Saharan Africans, in their research. Use of Sub-Saharan African , appears to be a neutral term. But in reality its use is to diminish the reality of the Black nationality in ancient history.

At the same time this is being done, Europeans have begun to claim there is no relationship between the ancient Blacks, formerly called Negroes, that live or lived in the Americas and Eurasia. A good example, is the people in Oceania. Today researchers claim these Blacks lack any relationship to Africans, even though people in Fiji claim they came from Africa, and the place names in the region are of West African origin, like the languages.

As a result, if you use Sub-Saharan African to identify Blacks you fail to account for the other Blacks who live in Eurasia and the Americas. You lose these Blacks because the term Sub-Saharan African to identify Blacks, implies that the Blacks outside Africa, exist today as remnants of the Europeans Slave Trade, when Blacks had been Eurasia and the Americas thousands of years before the Atlantic Slave trade.

The use of the term Sub-Saharan African for the Black nationality, is meant to limit the history of Blacks in World History. Using the term Negro to describe Blacks, is a scientific term that describe and unifies Black people within and throughout World History. I use the term Negro, to make sure we know and can research the long and great history of Black People.

I hope all will examine the history
and usage of the word negro in the
English language. It does not simply
mean black as it's never used as an
abjective. No such thing as a negro
colored car, horse, suit, paint, etc.

The word is insidious still most have
caught on and discarded that rubbish.

It's 2015 and the negro's laid
to rest by majority popular use
of black, the English language
word. Anybody's free to employ
negro though they then sound a tad
antiquarian.

I neither like or use sub-Saharan
Africa(n) nor Black Africa(n). I
recognize an inner Africa(ns) not
directly in contact with east and
north Mediterranean unlike what I
recognize as coastal Africa(ns).

Haven't said it in a while yet my
stance remains that the Black World
includes all lands where the Indian
Ocean laps a shore. I see that now,
like me, you include the Abo with
blacks.

Having read the 9th century Zanj opinion
on who are the blacks, as recorded by
al~Jahiz, I have stuck to it ever since
and more or less ignored the Americas
to focus only on the Eastern Hemisphere.

however

There are black Western Hemisphere indigenees.
California first comes to mind. Local Iroquois
and related nations (eg Lenape) of what's now
New England and the East Coast (the Northeast
Woodlands). I see them in Brazil's Rainforest
folk and some few others of Central and South
America. Nor should the Caribbean folk like the
Carib and Arawak(?) miss my list.

[zarahan]

Yeah, I would tend to agree. Except for background and legacy
purposes, I don;t see the term of much value. It too much plays
into the hands of those who want to create a stereotypical, narrow
category, against which they can juxtapose or oppose everything else.
The classic "true negro" fallacy is one of the central examples
that they are still using. CLyde says " Use of Sub-Saharan African ,
appears to be a neutral term. But in reality its use is to diminish t
he reality of the Black nationality in ancient history."

The same can be said of using the term "negro" - it is playing into
Eurocentric hands and as Takur says- is not even an accurate term.
I don;t like Black African or sub-Saharan African either. African
is the best GENERAL choice, which covers the whole continent not just the
reputed "negro" parts, or the supposed "black" parts. For local areas, specific
names of specific groups can be used.

CLyde also says:
" used over time by anthropologists and laymen since the 15th Century to identify the Black nationalities and ethnic groups Europeans discovered while they explored the world."

^^But this is inaccurate, and only the case with SOME writings. Most others since the
19th century use the term "negro" in the sense of a narrow stereotypical category. All
else not meeting the strawman stereotypical category can then be assigned someplace
else. The effect is to de-Africanize Africa and its peoples, and split them up into
artificial little checkboxes. This "splitism" is a primary tactic of Eurocentrism,
and white supremacy.


Takuri says:
I hope all will examine the history
and usage of the word negro in the
English language. It does not simply
mean black as it's never used as an
abjective. No such thing as a negro
colored car, horse, suit, paint, etc.

The word is insidious still most have
caught on and discarded that rubbish.


^Amen to that.

[nebsen]

Jan 17, 2015 17:51:54 GMT -5 zarahan said:

Yeah, I would tend to agree. Except for background and legacy
purposes, I don;t see the term of much value. It too much plays
into the hands of those who want to create a stereotypical, narrow
category, against which they can juxtapose or oppose everything else.
The classic "true negro" fallacy is one of the central examples
that they are still using. CLyde says " Use of Sub-Saharan African ,
appears to be a neutral term. But in reality its use is to diminish t
he reality of the Black nationality in ancient history."

The same can be said of using the term "negro" - it is playing into
Eurocentric hands and as Takur says- is not even an accurate term.
I don;t like Black African or sub-Saharan African either. African
is the best GENERAL choice, which covers the whole continent not just the
reputed "negro" parts, or the supposed "black" parts. For local areas, specific
names of specific groups can be used.

CLyde also says:
" used over time by anthropologists and laymen since the 15th Century to identify the Black nationalities and ethnic groups Europeans discovered while they explored the world."

^^But this is inaccurate, and only the case with SOME writings. Most others since the
19th century use the term "negro" in the sense of a narrow stereotypical category. All
else not meeting the strawman stereotypical category can then be assigned someplace
else. The effect is to de-Africanize Africa and its peoples, and split them up into
artificial little checkboxes. This "splitism" is a primary tactic of Eurocentrism,
and white supremacy.


Takuri says:
I hope all will examine the history
and usage of the word negro in the
English language. It does not simply
mean black as it's never used as an
abjective. No such thing as a negro
colored car, horse, suit, paint, etc.

The word is insidious still most have
caught on and discarded that rubbish.


^Amen to that.

I agree with the above statements; but I have noticed in the last five or so years, the word" Negro" seems to be in fashion among some Black scholars & commentators. I began to notice its' usage with Tavis Smiley, & Cornal West. Even some writers of the Root.com use the term Negro now. I thought is it that many still object to the term" African American" & some even reject the term" Black, " ? So now to play it safe, & to give homage to the "Civil Rights" era, the term" Negro" is the alternative term , thus giving others permission to use it.

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

Jan 17, 2015 19:35:59 GMT -5 nebsen said:

... in the last five or so years, the word" Negro" seems to be in fashion among some Black scholars

In my book, the word is hack not scholar.

[nebsen]

Jan 17, 2015 19:49:38 GMT -5 Tukuler al~Takruri said:

Jan 17, 2015 19:35:59 GMT -5 nebsen said:

... in the last five or so years, the word" Negro" seems to be in fashion among some Black scholars

In my book, the word is hack not scholar.

So you would consider Cornel West A hack ? Just asking .

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

Jan 17, 2015 20:21:12 GMT -5 nebsen said:

Jan 17, 2015 19:49:38 GMT -5 Tukuler al~Takruri said:

In my book, the word is hack not scholar.

So you would consider Cornel West A hack ? Just asking .

In a positive sense?

House negro and Rent a negro
doesn't sound like West is
investing himself in the word

[nebsen]

Jan 17, 2015 21:01:31 GMT -5 Tukuler al~Takruri said:

Jan 17, 2015 20:21:12 GMT -5 nebsen said:

So you would consider Cornel West A hack ? Just asking .

In a positive sense?

House negro and Rent a negro
doesn't sound like West is
investing himself in the word

So you are saying No.

[zarahan]

Nebsen, dO you remember the quote these media figures used, and in what sense
they are using it? I sometimes hear good natured jokes, like "negro please" and so on,
or sometimes more negative- "them negroes don;t know what's going on."

As far as the science side, for legacy and historical purposes the word
has to be used to discuss older writings, but in a lot of these writings
well into the 1990s they were using 'negro' to push forward the
distorted "true negro" model. Malcolm X often used the word scornfully-
often saying "so-called Negroes".



In the video clip below,(linking for the new readers) Malcolm scornfully chastises those
who use the word negro. I don't think playful joking between fellow blacks though
who know each other, and know the context is a bad thing necessarily. It has
its place in comedy, but when people are advocating using it in a serious manner
then problems arise. Using it these days as Clyde advocates is a backward step
that plays into the hands of white opponents. On the web today, the racist "biodiversity"
crowd uses it as a negative sneer word. Don;t see what good comes of us using
it carelessly.

I have seen a site called "rent a negro" and it is funny- an ironic spoof site.
WHite people can sign up to "rent a negro" for their parties, or get-togethers
and so can boast about how they into "diversity", or how some of dey best frens
is black. That's light-hearted comedic irony- that many black folk would get
and take in good fun, along with some whites no doubt.


A search of PLOS' peer reviewed
scientific anthro-genetic articles
site:plos.org caucasian
yields over 5000 instances of the
white/Euro scientific community's
embrace of Caucasian as racial
label for Euro-Levant-Arab-Arabian
-IndoPak and other non Far East Asian
Eurasians.

If this is true as Takur says I think they are playing a double
game. They know use of the word negro may invite extra scrutiny,
so they avoid it. But use of the word "Caucasian" is a signal that
they are playing the same game- one one side the narrow "sub-Saharan"
stereotype, on the other, the broad, inclusive "Caucasian" category
to which much else can be allocated. Same replay of the "true negro"
tactic only they can disguise it better and appear more "sensitive"
to blacks and "neutral." Some may be doing it unconsciously though-
not saying its all malicious- its just the mindset and assumptions
they have and start out with. Some may not mean anything harmful, but..

[nebsen]

Jan 20, 2015 18:54:34 GMT -5 zarahan said:

Nebsen, dO you remember the quote these media figures used, and in what sense
they are using it? I sometimes hear good natured jokes, like "negro please" and so on,
or sometimes more negative- "them negroes don;t know what's going on."

As you know Tavis Smiley has a NPR radio show(1hour) that airs where I'm located on Fridays . He did this radio broadcast with Dr. West until early last year when Dr. West left for reasons that is not clear to me , maybe to write his latest book. So I have been listening for a long time ; he uses " Negro" in a very conversational way, not all the time, but often. In fact listening to him this past Friday he used the term. I had a lady friend that used to say Tavis sounded" Country " to her, so maybe this is part of his informal speak. I have a feeling that he & West( although West uses it less) know the usage of the term is" retro " but maybe for him, that's the point.








As far as the science side, for legacy and historical purposes the word
has to be used to discuss older writings, but in a lot of these writings
well into the 1990s they were using 'negro' to push forward the
distorted "true negro" model. Malcolm X often used the word scornfully-
often saying "so-called Negroes".



In the video clip below,(linking for the new readers) Malcolm scornfully chastises those
who use the word negro. I don't think playful joking between fellow blacks though
who know each other, and know the context is a bad thing necessarily. It has
its place in comedy, but when people are advocating using it in a serious manner
then problems arise. Using it these days as Clyde advocates is a backward step
that plays into the hands of white opponents. On the web today, the racist "biodiversity"
crowd uses it as a negative sneer word. Don;t see what good comes of us using
it carelessly.

I have seen a site called "rent a negro" and it is funny- an ironic spoof site.
WHite people can sign up to "rent a negro" for their parties, or get-togethers
and so can boast about how they into "diversity", or how some of dey best frens
is black. That's light-hearted comedic irony- that many black folk would get
and take in good fun, along with some whites no doubt.


A search of PLOS' peer reviewed
scientific anthro-genetic articles
site:plos.org caucasian
yields over 5000 instances of the
white/Euro scientific community's
embrace of Caucasian as racial
label for Euro-Levant-Arab-Arabian
-IndoPak and other non Far East Asian
Eurasians.

If this is true as Takur says I think they are playing a double
game. They know use of the word negro may invite extra scrutiny,
so they avoid it. But use of the word "Caucasian" is a signal that
they are playing the same game- one one side the narrow "sub-Saharan"
stereotype, on the other, the broad, inclusive "Caucasian" category
to which much else can be allocated. Same replay of the "true negro"
tactic only they can disguise it better and appear more "sensitive"
to blacks and "neutral." Some may be doing it unconsciously though-
not saying its all malicious- its just the mindset and assumptions
they have and start out with. Some may not mean anything harmful, but..