U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-28-2013, 07:45 PM
 
363 posts, read 587,269 times
Reputation: 159

Advertisements

B. Sahara is not a border. Most of the major important civilizations in African were in the Sahara, Nubia, Egypt, Nile valley civilizations, niger delta civilizations, kanem bornu, mali, ghana, moors, etc.
C. Arab is an ethnicity not a race but the leading studies out of the university of chicago show that the arabian arabs have on average 35%-50% sub saharan dna. Most of Egypt, Morocco,Algeria, Libya and Tunisia are not even descendent of the 100,000 arabs who entered africa from islamic conquest. But rather a mix up of all the different conquerors from the greeks, romans, persians, nubians, africans, turks etc. Despite Egypt being colonized by the Ottoman Turks for far longer it is quiet strange that no one ever calls it a turkic country but rather arab. But then you have pan arabism where many countries shifted to calling themselves arab regardless of their actual race and this is common throughout the islamic world. Hence why in Africa arab and muslim are often used interchangeably. As well many berbers are blacks so these are not distinct divisions. It'd be like saying Central Europeans are non white because they are central europeans and central europeans have a different culture. The question if North africans who "don;t look black" are black is not really settled. It all depends on what black is. Because genetically, alot of those arabs and north africans are more black than these western hemisphere blacks.

No one really has settled the debate what race these mixed race people are, so how can we say they are not black or they are black?

Why don't we have a sub-volga Europe or a sub danube europe or a sub alpine Europe or sub rubicon (which would actually make alot more sense given the significant barrier the forest of europe where to european civilization). It all has a very racist connotation to it. Sub means below.Why only in Africa is there this sub region, and the sub (latin for below) just happens to be the part full of scary black people. and the opposite of sub is super (ie subhuman vs superhuman). And the implication of all that is the "white berbers" and "white arabs" are superior to those sub human blacks (completely ignoring black berbers and black arabs who inhabit most of the saharan and who form equal populations with the so called non blacks in Morocco and Libya.

Mummar Gaddafi with his black afro hair and dark skin looks black to me as does him somalian looking son who they choped his finger off, but it is all subjective. 2 people can look at the same person and have different conclusion on their race.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-30-2013, 03:39 PM
 
Location: Maryland
18,624 posts, read 16,448,083 times
Reputation: 6348
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaramouchebluez View Post
B. Sahara is not a border. Most of the major important civilizations in African were in the Sahara, Nubia, Egypt, Nile valley civilizations, niger delta civilizations, kanem bornu, mali, ghana, moors, etc.
C. Arab is an ethnicity not a race but the leading studies out of the university of chicago show that the arabian arabs have on average 35%-50% sub saharan dna. Most of Egypt, Morocco,Algeria, Libya and Tunisia are not even descendent of the 100,000 arabs who entered africa from islamic conquest. But rather a mix up of all the different conquerors from the greeks, romans, persians, nubians, africans, turks etc. Despite Egypt being colonized by the Ottoman Turks for far longer it is quiet strange that no one ever calls it a turkic country but rather arab. But then you have pan arabism where many countries shifted to calling themselves arab regardless of their actual race and this is common throughout the islamic world. Hence why in Africa arab and muslim are often used interchangeably. As well many berbers are blacks so these are not distinct divisions. It'd be like saying Central Europeans are non white because they are central europeans and central europeans have a different culture. The question if North africans who "don;t look black" are black is not really settled. It all depends on what black is. Because genetically, alot of those arabs and north africans are more black than these western hemisphere blacks.

No one really has settled the debate what race these mixed race people are, so how can we say they are not black or they are black?

Why don't we have a sub-volga Europe or a sub danube europe or a sub alpine Europe or sub rubicon (which would actually make alot more sense given the significant barrier the forest of europe where to european civilization). It all has a very racist connotation to it. Sub means below.Why only in Africa is there this sub region, and the sub (latin for below) just happens to be the part full of scary black people. and the opposite of sub is super (ie subhuman vs superhuman). And the implication of all that is the "white berbers" and "white arabs" are superior to those sub human blacks (completely ignoring black berbers and black arabs who inhabit most of the saharan and who form equal populations with the so called non blacks in Morocco and Libya.

Mummar Gaddafi with his black afro hair and dark skin looks black to me as does him somalian looking son who they choped his finger off, but it is all subjective. 2 people can look at the same person and have different conclusion on their race.
First off the study you cite is no study it's just found on various questionable blogs with various agendas. Still even if we are to accept the study you cite as fact it contradicts what you are trying to assert.

First we are specifically talking about North Africa not Arabs in general who also reside on the Arabian Peninsula. The 35% African figure for Arabs refers to Arabs on the Arabian Peninsula (ie Yemen). This makes sense since the Arabian Peninsula borders quite a few Black African countries. However North African Arabs have found to have about 10% Black African DNA. This probably entered their DNA not directly from Africans South of the Sahara but through the migration of Arabs of Arabian Peninsula, you know the whole Muslim conquest thing. Stop infusing your agenda into history and just take it for what it is and move on.

Here's the link of the "study".

Palestinian Genes Show Arab, Jewish, European and Black-African Ancestry
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2013, 06:44 PM
 
Location: USA
8,016 posts, read 9,497,158 times
Reputation: 3411
Sudan
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2016, 08:30 AM
 
1 posts, read 676 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Sub means beneath. On maps, which have been oriented for a long time with north at the top, sub-Saharan Africa is below the Sahara. Since it an expression in the English language, it shouldn't surprise anybody that it reflects the point of view of English-speaking people. India is also often called a sub-continent, because it is a significant land mass to the south of a larger continent.

The Sahara is a very effective natural barrier separating the demographic cultures that developed on either side of the desert, just as the eastern and western hemispheres have a pretty conspicuous ocean between them. The people of North Africa have much, much more in common with people across the Mediterranean, than with people across the Sahara, so there is nothing wrong with making a distinction between the cultures and demographics of the regions north and south of the Sahara.

If that is a difficult concept for you to grasp, I suggest you go there and see for yourself. Instead of just reading blogs from people who have their heads in the Politically Correct sand.

Guess what? The people in Sub-Saharan Africa "seem" to be black. The people north of the Sahara don't seem to be. Anyone who'd rather that we call it "Black Africa", just say so, and we'll be happy to comply. It will still mean the same thing, just different words.


The people of North Africa are not indigenous. For example, Sudan belonged to the Sudanese, who are black. The word Sudan is from arabic it means land of the blacks. for They occupy "South Sudan" now. The Kings of Egypt (before they were pharorahs) came through the desert.The Nubians are black too. Whatever..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2016, 11:31 PM
AFP
 
6,898 posts, read 4,249,541 times
Reputation: 5878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amen Ra Squad View Post
North Africans are not indigenous to Africa except for some Berbes but a lot of the indigenous Berbers are not shown on mainstream T.V. Which is why the split between North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa is necessary because North African=foreign and Sub Saharan=indigenous.
There is DNA evidence to support a distinct Maghrebi north African population for more than 12,000 years, possibly 15,000- 20,000 years before present which diverged with middle eastern populations. It sounds like you don't have a clue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2016, 11:54 PM
AFP
 
6,898 posts, read 4,249,541 times
Reputation: 5878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amen Ra Squad View Post
Try me and get embarrassed.
I've already debated you Moorish-American and you're not that good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2016, 03:10 PM
 
2,348 posts, read 954,830 times
Reputation: 1794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy74 View Post
Seems like something Europeans made up to cause division. Why not just say Africa, and leave it at that.
You honestly think Africa was "united" in the first place?

If it wasn't for Europeans, Africans probably wouldn't think they had anything to do with each other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2016, 09:15 PM
 
7,328 posts, read 4,020,541 times
Reputation: 9081
I knew that I should ignore this forum, but every now an then my curiosity gets the best of me....


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tritone View Post
You honestly think Africa was "united" in the first place?

If it wasn't for Europeans, Africans probably wouldn't think they had anything to do with each other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2016, 03:33 PM
 
7,437 posts, read 5,942,608 times
Reputation: 3799
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
Slavery really did a number on you guys. White folks are not omnipresent, really they're not.
Colonialism did a number on Africans too. Outsmarted by the European, who benefitted from slavery which Africans used to weaken each other. Then put under some of the most brutal forms of colonial dependency, which still exists today.


The new colonial masters being the global NGOs, upon which millions of Africans depend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2016, 04:01 PM
 
7,437 posts, read 5,942,608 times
Reputation: 3799
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Your statement clearly says that it ludicrous for a Khoi villager to share the same legacy because of a similar skin complexion and are from the same continent..


What is interesting is that in the 13th century some one living in what is know Ghana would have been more aware of a Moroccan than they would have been with a Khoi.


Despite what some claim here, there was significant cross Sahara trade. In fact the very foundation of the civilizations like that which created Timbuktu, was premised on cross Sahara trade and cultural exchange.


I will challenge any one who claims that there weren't ties between Morocco and peoples who lived IN the Sahara, as well as those who lived below it. The Gnawa peoples of Morocco are evidence of this. There was significant blending among people with origins north of the Sahara, with those who lived in it, or just below it. Mauritanians and Tuaregs being evidence of this.


The Nile also acted as a similar conduit for the movements of peoples and cultures. Regardless as to how the ancient Egyptians were classified, it is beyond debate that the Kush/Nubian civilizations were developed by people who most would classify as "black".


I don't know that there is this clear cut distinction between North Africa and the rest of the continent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top