|
|
Post by anansi on Mar 19, 2014 1:01:05 GMT -5
Knock it off Azur this is heading into off topic banter your post have been deleted.
|
|
|
|
Post by snakepit on May 1, 2014 21:40:27 GMT -5
I think this picture right here speaks to the trut of African reality as versus the Eurocentric notion of what Africa is. A Eurocentric would view would come in, divide these women according to skin tones and facial structures. Far right and far left would be clustered together. Front center would stand alone and back center would be classified as "intermediary". The fact is despite the variance in appearances, these people are all of the same ethnic group. They are blood relatives. This is exactly the same reality that we see in the Afro American communities in USA , the Caribbean and Latin America. We see it in our families every day, yet when we think of North Africa, for some reason, the brain switch turns off and we start following the Eurocentric idea of who is and who isn't a real African and what a "real African is supposed to look like. Why? This notion of what a real African looks like was created by Europeans who were proponents of the Eugenics movement. Their idea that there were superior and inferior races, them being the superior of course. They wanted to believe that they were the highest evolved people on the planet and so had to prove that they were as distant from the savage African as possible. Therefore, when they saw Africans who had similar facial structures to them, similar nose shapes, lip shapes, and skin colors close to theirs, this was unacceptable. The "True Negro", was the physical type as different from the European as possible. All other Africans were the result of mixing, or were whites who migrated to Africa. This is where this garbage came from and unfortunately, for some reason, far too many of us are eating it up like it was an all you can eat buffet! Africans are a physically diverse people. Diasporan Africans are a physically diverse people. North Africans do have non African admixture, they just do, okay! Diasporan Africans also have non African admixture and if it weren't for the fact that laws preventing intermarriage were passed in the US, there would be an even higher percentage of mixture. We wouldn't look as West African as we do today, but would that mean we were no longer people of the African diaspora? NO! Afro Mexicans:    If we have no problem embracing these people as part of the African family with pride, why is it that so many of us have such a big problem accepting North Africans as part of the African family?  This girl is Mexican. She has Native American and African ancestry. We can get all excited about her being part of the African family. But put her in a kaftan and put a head scarf on her and you're going to have people calling her a Vandal, or an Arab invader, or a Turk, or a European slave child. Why? North Africans look the way they do for a variety of reasons,just as we look the way we do for a variety of reasons. Why can't we just accept each other as is and call it a day? We are all part of the extended African family and the reality of this family does not conform to the expectations of the European colonialist view of how the world works! Those are not African. They are mixed. You can't get around that. I do not subscribe to this simp'ish "one-drop" crap that as long as you have some African blood in you, you're an African. You might have som African HERITAGE, but that's it. I don't claim mixed hybrids as being one of my own. Especially when their phenotypical features differ GREATLY from historical accounts. There are no accounts of light-skinned indigenous peoples anywhere in Africa. Historical accounts of African peoples have been very CONSISTENT, and there's a ton of peoples in this thread who simply do not fit. |
|
|
|
Post by snakepit on May 1, 2014 21:46:08 GMT -5
Really? It should be pretty obvious to anybody that people of Slavic descent look radically different from an Anglo-Saxon. And also, the Visigoths aren't the only "white" ethnic group to settle in North Africa either. The Alans (or Alani) were white-asian pastoralist tribe who settled in North Africa with the Vandals in the 5th century. The Byzantines also landed in North Africa in the 6th century. These people were Germanic tribes coming from Asia moving westwards into Europe and then into North Africa.  The largest group of whites who call themselves Berbers/Amazigh or indigenous to NA are the Kabyles. How can people seriously suggest that people looking like this:  are somehow indigenous to NA, when there are still people looking like this:  living in the same general area? This doesn't make any sense from a scientific viewpoint at all. Everybody knows that you need melanin to protect yourself from the harmful effects of the sun. We already know that the white invaders of Israel & South Africa suffer from one of the highest rates of melanoma on planet earth today, so they obviously can't be indigenous to their respective countries, which they inhabit.  Tamanrassetites of Algiers. Take Khoisan peoples from south Africa (region, not the country) , they are said to be the oldest group of people still in existence to this day, with the biggest/greatest genetic diversity of all human beings, yet, you don't see any pale-skinned, straight-haired, blonde Khoisan's around. Ever.  A good picture to demonstrate the diversity in skin hues. (I'm Namibian myself, and I haven't seen a lighter skinned San-person to this day) It should be obvious that Kabyles/"Berbers" such as this ![]()    are quadroon/octoroon (or perhaps even more than that) offspring of the original black inhabitants of North Africa & the white people who invaded/settled NA during the course of time. There's not a snowballs chance in hell that these pale-skinned people would survive the MASSIVE uv-radiation in those areas of the world without some kind of environmental protection (i.e more advanced techniques in making clothing etc.) . Pale-skinned peoples even get sunburned during the winter in arctic climates, so suggesting that these people somehow originated in Africa is nothing short of preposterous. It goes completely against nature. you show a picture of gingers and pass it off as the entire population such good representation in your pictures you are doing you are doing the byzantines they were just romans and they just stick to their cities they did not go into the desert and the mountains the vandals wipe out the alans before they even set feet in north africa and they just go and take the roman cities then they all die they get kicked out you speak of white invaders of israel but israel is product of that invasion and it was jews not the whites the jews are swarthier than the palestinians do not pretend to support them you hate them as much just like you hate the berbers according to your theory that getting sunburn means you are not indigenous then i guess that pretty much all the people are not indigenous because everyone can get a sunburn here is the climate of kabylia which you say is same generally as those family (who are actually from the darfur not libya???)        ah yes same as the desert that family you put picture live in those pale people there must be burning up (because people there just sit around in the sun all day i mean that is what everyone does right? they try and avoid the shade and do the work in the middle of the day when the sun is its hottest that is what they do in namibia i assume as well and only could a black people think people like lounes matoub are pale skinned i guess if george zimmerman of peru is pale skinned then matoub is as well) what are those blacks in america anyway? they are supposed to be 50 to 25 percent white they still look black to me those half ones like obama should be 25 percent black only then modern berbers according to you must need to be 99% vandal to lose their black looks but it still does not explain why berbers look like neither a aryan prince or a child aryan prince and nubian princess (or is it other way around?) your theory also has a whole in it my friend since the vandals came in and then all the berbers became white that makes the moors that came after white vandals too? cant have that can we? or did the vandals then suddenly make the berbers white after the moors did their thing? hiding around in a cave somewhere waiting for the perfect time to make them white? I've never been sunburned in my entire life, so I have no idea what you're talking about. People work ALL-DAY-LONG where I come from, you don't stop just because it's 35 degrees C outside and the sun is shining. That's the whole reason why Africans have dark-brown skin. This is our environment, and to function properly, you have to be protected. It's that simple. And the statement you made about Blacks in America is just bs. I know several people who aren't mixed at all (Dna test.) . It's not like EVERY enslaved female were raped, and for those who have admixture (but still look African) probably don't have more than 5-15% european admixture, tops. There are no white Africans, period. |
|
|
|
Post by azrur on May 1, 2014 22:35:22 GMT -5
maybe you just dont notice it would it not be hard to tell? i have never been sunburn either i like to go play soccer i never get sunburn though just get darker i know others who do not either i will take your word for those several people but entire population? i would say there is europe mixture isnt there? did not the slavers used to breed the irish slave and the african slave? i am not arguing over whites in africa or not but i say is the mountains where they live a same place as the desert you and the other guy can argue over whites in africa i ask though what do you call a white? a white they are the europeans i would say you will not find many berbers looking like a european maybe one of those sicilian ones but others not so much but you include the arab and turks? turks they originally mongols then they went to anatolia and married their slaves or went back to their mongol land now they have their former anatolian slaves speaking garbled mongol if you look at the turk pictures they paint of themselves they have small squinted eye but if you look at a turk in turkey they have wide eye
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 28, 2014 5:09:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 28, 2014 5:11:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 28, 2014 5:12:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 28, 2014 5:14:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 28, 2014 5:16:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by anastasiaescrava on Jun 28, 2014 14:40:33 GMT -5
djoser-xyyman -what criteria do you look for when selecting pics?
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 28, 2014 19:00:37 GMT -5
As I said many times. Unlike some Afro-Centrics I believe Berbers are indigenous Africans. Reading through Sergi's work, understanding Geography and knowing the relationship between AE and the Libyans(West of te Nile), Berbers are although African has a long lasting feud with the AEians. That said, geography contends that indigenous Tunisans are light skin although pure Africans. I have looked at quite a few images of said Berbers. One morpological feature seems to transcend the ethnic group. The high and wide cheek bone, Short forehead, full lips(not thin). They remnd me a lot of Australians and San but "softer." Like these sistas. They all have the same said facial features irregardless of skin shade. djoser-xyyman -what criteria do you look for when selecting pics?  |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 28, 2014 19:09:40 GMT -5
This is not a Berber. Irregardless of skin tone. She and the kid do NOT have typical Berber features. They have long forehead, narrow cheek bone, thin lips. They are probably Turk or European imposters. |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 28, 2014 19:17:32 GMT -5
Keep in mind Berber is a language Group. Berber~Amazigh=indigenous North Africans west of the Nile. Sergi gave a clear discreption of the indigenous population of North AFrica. She is probabky related to Geliltu(sp?) per Sergi  |
|
|
|
Post by anastasiaescrava on Jun 28, 2014 19:23:46 GMT -5
As I said many times. Unlike some Afro-Centrics I believe Berbers are indigenous Africans. Reading through Sergi's work, understanding Geography and knowing the relationship between AE and the Libyans(West of te Nile), Berbers are although African has a long lasting feud with the AEians. That said, geography contends that indigenous Tunisans are light skin although pure Africans. I have looked at quite a few images of said Berbers. One morpological feature seems to transcend the ethnic group. The high and wide cheek bone, Short forehead, full lips(not thin). They remnd me a lot of Australians and San but "softer." Like these sistas. They all have the same said facial features irregardless of skin shade. djoser-xyyman -what criteria do you look for when selecting pics? I think a lot accept berbers as indigenous, but modern day ones are too mixed to be considered "African" |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 29, 2014 6:12:20 GMT -5
On admixture. Looking at the world cup. I was puzzled by the features of Ronaldo of Portugal. Knowing geographic location of Portugal with respect to Africa. I wondered about his background was it Berber? i decided to investigate. He has some of these features I spoke about. short forehead and wide cheekbone. I found out his line is Madeira, an islnad off the coast of Africa/Europe. Apparently he is admixed Berber. So yes there is admixture. But certain features still remain ad can be seen. That woman and child above has lost all or never had Berber features. As I said , the share the short forehead and wide cheekbone as Australian. Apparently it is an archaic morphological feature.   |
|
