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 10-28-2015, 01:49 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,483 posts, read 10,478,335 times
Reputation: 5401

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR View Post
I was shocked when I was told that in the USA Egyptians are legally white. After I did my research on this, it turns out to be true. Even the US Census includes them in the white category.

Read the blue box on the second page: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/b...c2010br-05.pdf

I guess this means that King Tut and all those other pharoahs are white after all. Not that this matters outside the US. However, since the controversy on 'what are the Egyptians' started and is sustained mainly by some people from the USA, then the definition used in the US becomes relevant.
Try telling that to this girl.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Z2VZpX2RLh...0/IMG_1779.JPG
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-28-2015, 07:08 PM
 
56,737 posts, read 81,038,544 times
Reputation: 12549
Or this guy: Egyptian Immigrant Wants to be Reclassified as Black | TIME.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2015, 07:12 PM
 
56,737 posts, read 81,038,544 times
Reputation: 12549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandpointian View Post
Just because John Doe claims Northern Africa does not make it so nor does it imply that all Europeans make such a claim.

We can either chose to elevate the discourse and use empirical evidence and logic as our guidance force or we can devolve into old racial claims that have no basis in anything other than fantasy of those desperate on both sides who seek to hold on to their fantastic claims.

I was not privy to Europeans claims on North Africa. I am sure given the extensive Mediterranean trade net work that the cities that hugged the Mediterranean rim had plenty of mixing. There, one sees so much mixing over which I am sure has been pretty common for the past 2000 years. As to the civilization, we have plenty of evidence of Roman influence, but I am sure there was lots of interesting things going on before and after. Both sets of facts undermine simple claims to anything.

When one looks closely at the faceless Moroccan and Algerian runners, one can note almost immediately how much they are African and Arab descendants (and sometimes European as well).

Finally, I think the complication of stuff means one must go at these things one factor at a time. If someone of note was pushing a Eurocentric narrative, I would listen to his entire position before judging him and his arguments. This I would follow with due diligence in order to poke holes in his arguments.

I do not think it serves much purpose to launch into other arguments at the same time. It is a sure way to end conversations and push us further away from each other. At the same time, if those anti-Africans are likely to launch into specious arguments, then of course they should be roundly criticized. One at a time allows us to sink are teeth into the arguments and supporting data.

When instead people launch into arguments, they must have some relevance to the actual debate at hand. If not even the good content gets lost in mudslinging. At least that is what I value. When I watch young adults and pundits argue race today, I find the approach to debate enraging, depressing and almost entirely ignorant and glib. Science is dispassionate and careful. If all were to adopt such mannerisms, we would not always through the baby out with the bath water.

S.
Well, if you look at encyclopedias over the years and articles like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race you will see the same geographic claims.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2015, 08:11 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,483 posts, read 10,478,335 times
Reputation: 5401
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod View Post
The US census is used to make the White population look bigger than it really is. It's not surprising giving the fact that Blacks were once considered 3/5th of a person in America's past.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2015, 08:42 PM
 
Location: Poshawa, Ontario
2,986 posts, read 3,325,250 times
Reputation: 5622
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR View Post
I was shocked when I was told that in the USA Egyptians are legally white.
"Legally white"? LOL. What does that even mean?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2015, 08:47 PM
Status: "Thinking of the future..." (set 2 days ago)
 
5,236 posts, read 8,045,547 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
The US census is used to make the White population look bigger than it really is. It's not surprising giving the fact that Blacks were once considered 3/5th of a person in America's past.
I think the US Census makes most groups appear bigger than they really are with Hispanics being an exception (maybe the only exception?) due to its peculiarity as an ethnic label and not racial. If we look at the other categories, in all of them mixed people are used to greatly bolster their numbers.

Most people that fit in the 'Native American' label are actually mixed people, a significant percentage is actually overwhelmingly white.

The 'black' label is known for having a huge influx of black/white mixed people (some estimates claim that more than a third of 'blacks' in reality are admixed enough to look mixed.) In this last category it also skews other type of data/information, such as the 'findings' that African American on average are between 15% and 25% white. If they were to segment each group properly, I think the actual white blood in the black population falls considerably while the average among the mixed population would probably rise under the assumption that the mixed element accounts for the bulk of the white blood in 'black Americans.'

The same happens with 'Native Hawaiians' because most are highly admixed and some people even claim that due to pervasive mixture there is no such thing as a 'Native Hawaiian' because the last true Hawaiian died a long time ago. What now exist are part-Hawaiian people.

In any case, I do see your point but considering that its common knowledge that the mixed population in the US is grossly undercounted because they are used to bolster the population of the 'traditionally recognized groups,' it greatly weakens your argument, IMO.

The other 'blow' to your argument are the genetic findings, which clearly show that the average person that is counted as white in the census and are legally seen as white are overwhelmingly unmixed. The influx of mixed elements doesn't do much to prop up the white population, but I think the same can't be said about the legally recognized non-white population groups due to what I already said.

To put it simply, in the USA there is much more (by a huge margin) white blood in the non-white categories than there is non-white blood in the white category. It goes without saying that the 'traditionally recognized' non-white groups are considerably bolstered by the incursion of highly mixed people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2015, 08:55 PM
Status: "Thinking of the future..." (set 2 days ago)
 
5,236 posts, read 8,045,547 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin View Post
"Legally white"? LOL. What does that even mean?
It means that they as white as black/white biracials are black.

I think the black group would be hurt much more if the non-black people were to be taken out of the group and given their own mixed label as oppose to the almost negligible effect that taking the Egyptians out of the white group would have on the size of the white population.

Egyptians are what, less than 1% of all 'whites?'

Biracials are what, about 30% or perhaps more of 'blacks?'

'Whites' are what, 60% to 70% of the total US population?

'Blacks' are what, about 17% of the US population?

What would those last percentages look like of the legally white (Egyptians) and the legally blacks (biracials) were to be pulled out of each respective group?

The other part of the issue here is that many people here are using the legal definition used in the US to consider someone black, but now want to ignore the US legal definition of who is white (Egyptians)...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2015, 11:35 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,483 posts, read 10,478,335 times
Reputation: 5401
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR View Post
I think the US Census makes most groups appear bigger than they really are with Hispanics being an exception (maybe the only exception?) due to its peculiarity as an ethnic label and not racial. If we look at the other categories, in all of them mixed people are used to greatly bolster their numbers.

Most people that fit in the 'Native American' label are actually mixed people, a significant percentage is actually overwhelmingly white.

The 'black' label is known for having a huge influx of black/white mixed people (some estimates claim that more than a third of 'blacks' in reality are admixed enough to look mixed.) In this last category it also skews other type of data/information, such as the 'findings' that African American on average are between 15% and 25% white. If they were to segment each group properly, I think the actual white blood in the black population falls considerably while the average among the mixed population would probably rise under the assumption that the mixed element accounts for the bulk of the white blood in 'black Americans.'

The same happens with 'Native Hawaiians' because most are highly admixed and some people even claim that due to pervasive mixture there is no such thing as a 'Native Hawaiian' because the last true Hawaiian died a long time ago. What now exist are part-Hawaiian people.

In any case, I do see your point but considering that its common knowledge that the mixed population in the US is grossly undercounted because they are used to bolster the population of the 'traditionally recognized groups,' it greatly weakens your argument, IMO.

The other 'blow' to your argument are the genetic findings, which clearly show that the average person that is counted as white in the census and are legally seen as white are overwhelmingly unmixed. The influx of mixed elements doesn't do much to prop up the white population, but I think the same can't be said about the legally recognized non-white population groups due to what I already said.

To put it simply, in the USA there is much more (by a huge margin) white blood in the non-white categories than there is non-white blood in the white category. It goes without saying that the 'traditionally recognized' non-white groups are considerably bolstered by the incursion of highly mixed people.
It's not a blow to my argument. What I'm referring to is lumping all of these groups from North Africa and the Middle east as White is clearly misleading. My other point is that the US census isn't the end all and be all of everything. It has serious flaws and a clearly unfair bias for White Americans.

- On a side note, a White American is much less likely to acknowledge non-White ancestry than vice versa.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2015, 02:01 AM
 
931 posts, read 614,849 times
Reputation: 1488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin View Post
Are you saying this looks black to you???





So... You think that the Egyptians were too daft to not only tell white from black, but also too inept be able to render an artistic image of themselves that came close to representing what they actually looked like?

Nice stretch.

Anubis is jackel headed god, he is not a human. Anubis was depicted in black, a color that symbolized both rebirth and the discoloration of the corpse after embalming
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2015, 05:49 PM
 
Location: Reading PA
174 posts, read 204,633 times
Reputation: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by scobby View Post
Tutankhamun was not black: antiquities chief - IOL SciTech | IOL.co.za

Egyptian antiquities chief declared that Tutankhamun was not black ,what's the truth ?
What does it matter?? He was, but, a boy king!
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
Similar Threads
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