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.
I'm kind of having a hard time wording my question lol. I guess what I'm trying to say is that many of the kids in that photo look very dark skinned/look like they would have low levels of admixture, in other words, they look like the West African immigrants I see around Sydney (where I live). Looking at their surnames (being mostly British in origin) they're either of African American heritage or Caribbean heritage, which is hard to ascertain since NYC has large populations of both aforementioned groups.
So in short, what is the likelihood that these dark skinned kids would be of African American heritage, the descendants of slaves brought to US, looking as black as they do? Do a lot of African Americans still look as dark as this?
This alludes to this thread in that it's discussing how racially mixed the average African American is, and I'm curious that despite a prevalence of admixture amongst African Americans, are many of them still as dark skinned as what these kids are?
Probably still doesn't make much sense lol. My question probably seems very blunt, even ignorant, and I apologise in advance if I offend anyone.
Ah I see what you mean. Yeah putting up pictures of such a nature as you did could be seen as offensive, but I see the point you are raising now.
NYC has a lot of Latin Americans of African descent and many have all kinds of surnames.
And, it gets tricky. Remember that looks don't determine the admixture of person is. Mixed race people can be dark too.
Are you Austrailian? I heard there were lots of Jamaicans in Australia (obviously not all Jamaicans are black or of African descent though lol). And I Aldo heard there were many Africans in Australia.
Anyways, African Americans run the gamut in skin color. A darker skinned or brown skinned African American person could have a light white skinned full blooded sibling and that's due to multigenerational admixing over the generations. Also African American (AA) and black do NOT mean the same thing.
Also, remember that not all Caribbean people are black or of African descent. Just saying.
There are many light skinned and white skinned African Americans.
MOST African Americans are multiracially mixed race people. They are a very multiracially mixed race ethnic group of people!
Last edited by MelismaticEchoes; 11-29-2013 at 02:41 PM..
I'm kind of having a hard time wording my question lol. I guess what I'm trying to say is that many of the kids in that photo look very dark skinned/look like they would have low levels of admixture, in other words, they look like the West African immigrants I see around Sydney (where I live). Looking at their surnames (being mostly British in origin) they're either of African American heritage or Caribbean heritage, which is hard to ascertain since NYC has large populations of both aforementioned groups.
So in short, what is the likelihood that these dark skinned kids would be of African American heritage, the descendants of slaves brought to US, looking as black as they do? Do a lot of African Americans still look as dark as this?
This alludes to this thread in that it's discussing how racially mixed the average African American is, and I'm curious that despite a prevalence of admixture amongst African Americans, are many of them still as dark skinned as what these kids are?
Probably still doesn't make much sense lol. My question probably seems very blunt, even ignorant, and I apologise in advance if I offend anyone.
Some of the surnames of those people is Irish and/or Scottish and even Welsh.
I'm kind of having a hard time wording my question lol. I guess what I'm trying to say is that many of the kids in that photo look very dark skinned/look like they would have low levels of admixture, in other words, they look like the West African immigrants I see around Sydney (where I live). Looking at their surnames (being mostly British in origin) they're either of African American heritage or Caribbean heritage, which is hard to ascertain since NYC has large populations of both aforementioned groups.
So in short, what is the likelihood that these dark skinned kids would be of African American heritage, the descendants of slaves brought to US, looking as black as they do? Do a lot of African Americans still look as dark as this?
This alludes to this thread in that it's discussing how racially mixed the average African American is, and I'm curious that despite a prevalence of admixture amongst African Americans, are many of them still as dark skinned as what these kids are?
Probably still doesn't make much sense lol. My question probably seems very blunt, even ignorant, and I apologise in advance if I offend anyone.
Read this. It has interesting figures and breakdowns of mixtures and diversity of the diverse ethnic group known as African American.
Oh but what about those good ol' Dutch and Portuguese speaking and mixed Creole speaking peoples in Guyana? Funny how you overlooked them?
Colorism is global.
Here is the deal. Some societies talk about their colorism issues (Jamaica, Haiti, black Americans, India). Some do not, and try to shut up those within their societies when they do bring it up. Latin America being very guilty of this.
So who do you think is better off? Please do not assume that the many Latins who jump on this site to bash black Americans do not have an agenda of stopping any discussion of colorism in their own societies. Colorism means that opportunities for darker people will be diminished, relative to their lighter compatriots, for no reason other than their physical appearance.
Now why would some one not want to talk about this issue, and try to attempt to reduce its impact? Maybe those who are at the lighter end of the skin color spectrum.
Shows how much you know about Guyana. Our history was different. The only people in Guyana who speak Portuguese are recent Brazilian miners. Many too impoverished to have any opinion which will concern others. I am 56. Never met a Guyanese who spoke Dutch, unless they had ties to Suriname or the Netherlands. And they do so in the same way as a Haitian will speak English or Spanish.
Guyana, unlike most other Caribbean countries, was a company town. Our sugar industry was owned by a British company, and our bauxite, by a Canadian company. Prior to the 50s the top positions were staffed by expats. What that did was that it undermined the social status and the economic clout of the local creole whites. So we never had a powerful white creole group the way that T'dad and Barbados still do.
In fact when these companies were forced to localize, in order to communicate that they were doing so, it was the blacks, Indians and darker mixed people who were promoted, as they were seen as being more "authentically" Guyanese, given that they better represented what the bulk of the population looked like.
So colorism therefore didn't always advantage the lighter skinned people.
Unlike many other Caribbean countries large numbers of the African population had access to education, and used it for upward mobility. This was because a village system was established, based on land purchases by former slaves. and as various Christian denominations attempted to recruit converts they used access to primary school education as a draw.
So Guyana was different from Jamaica (as an example) where the mixed populations were more educated than the black populations. Ironically the skin colorism which was rampant in the colonial period didn't work well in the long run for many mixed people. They got jobs because of their color. Middle class (and middle class ASPIRING blacks) had to focus on getting an education in order to move ahead, so were well positioned to move forward once skin color being less useable as a recruiting tool.
When colonialism ended many of these mixed people fled to Canada and elsewhere, lacking the clout to compete with the larger and, often equally or better educated, emerging black and Indian middle class.
Bottom line is that in contemporary Guyana the issue isn't the normal white=>brown=>black hierarchy. Its a Indian vs African competition for political dominance. Both groups are represented at all levels of the social strata. The mixed population is now as often to be Indian/African, Amerindian/African, Indian/Amerindian, or combinations of all three, than there are of the traditional European/African.
While some light skinned people might think that they are "better" they lack the ability to enforce this. So some silly "mulato" who subscribes to this view is ignored. And they have been for the past 50 years. And indeed just as often there is another silly black person who "wants to put them in their place"...even though they haven't had any advantages in a meaningful way for a long time now.
Here is the deal. Some societies talk about their colorism issues (Jamaica, Haiti, black Americans, India). Some do not, and try to shut up those within their societies when they do bring it up. Latin America being very guilty of this.
So who do you think is better off? Please do not assume that the many Latins who jump on this site to bash black Americans do not have an agenda of stopping any discussion of colorism in their own societies. Colorism means that opportunities for darker people will be diminished, relative to their lighter compatriots, for no reason other than their physical appearance.
Now why would some one not want to talk about this issue, and try to attempt to reduce its impact? Maybe those who are at the lighter end of the skin color spectrum.
Shows how much you know about Guyana. Our history was different. The only people in Guyana who speak Portuguese are recent Brazilian miners. Many too impoverished to have any opinion which will concern others. I am 56. Never met a Guyanese who spoke Dutch, unless they had ties to Suriname or the Netherlands. And they do so in the same way as a Haitian will speak English or Spanish.
Guyana, unlike most other Caribbean countries, was a company town. Our sugar industry was owned by a British company, and our bauxite, by a Canadian company. Prior to the 50s the top positions were staffed by expats. What that did was that it undermined the social status and the economic clout of the local creole whites. So we never had a powerful white creole group the way that T'dad and Barbados still do.
In fact when these companies were forced to localize, in order to communicate that they were doing so, it was the blacks, Indians and darker mixed people who were promoted, as they were seen as being more "authentically" Guyanese, given that they better represented what the bulk of the population looked like.
So colorism therefore didn't always advantage the lighter skinned people.
Unlike many other Caribbean countries large numbers of the African population had access to education, and used it for upward mobility. This was because a village system was established, based on land purchases by former slaves. and as various Christian denominations attempted to recruit converts they used access to primary school education as a draw.
So Guyana was different from Jamaica (as an example) where the mixed populations were more educated than the black populations. Ironically the skin colorism which was rampant in the colonial period didn't work well in the long run for many mixed people. They got jobs because of their color. Middle class (and middle class ASPIRING blacks) had to focus on getting an education in order to move ahead, so were well positioned to move forward once skin color being less useable as a recruiting tool.
When colonialism ended many of these mixed people fled to Canada and elsewhere, lacking the clout to compete with the larger and, often equally or better educated, emerging black and Indian middle class.
Bottom line is that in contemporary Guyana the issue isn't the normal white=>brown=>black hierarchy. Its a Indian vs African competition for political dominance. Both groups are represented at all levels of the social strata. The mixed population is now as often to be Indian/African, Amerindian/African, Indian/Amerindian, or combinations of all three, than there are of the traditional European/African.
While some light skinned people might think that they are "better" they lack the ability to enforce this. So some silly "mulato" who subscribes to this view is ignored. And they have been for the past 50 years. And indeed just as often there is another silly black person who "wants to put them in their place"...even though they haven't had any advantages in a meaningful way for a long time now.
Btw, I'm very anti colorist, anti racist, and anti one droppist and am for equality of all human beings PERIOD!
Btw, I'm very anti colorist, anti racist, and anti one droppist and am for equality of all human beings PERIOD!
So why not spend as much time refuting those Latin Americans who spend more time opining about the racial identity of most of black America, while blacks in their countries remain much more subordinated as a group than elsewhere. If some people feel more comfortable with ODR, despite its origins, who cares. Where I am from Halle Berry is a "red" woman, Who am I to say that she isn't black.
The time I spent in Brazil made me fully aware that it isn't any more racist than the USA is. However in the USA there have always been high levels of discussion about racism and remedies to reduce it.
In Brazil there is a narrative of crushing any such discussion, though the increased affluence of at least part of black America has made these attempts more difficult. When Obama arrived in Brazil they rushed to see him and were disappointed when he was re-routed because of the crowds. They weren't as interested when George Bush went, so ponder why the favelas were so excited about Obama. Especially when Brazil's president spent so much time talking about the common unfortunate heritage of slavery which both the USA and Brazil share.
So really and truly a discussion about why blacks in Latin America have achieved less success as a group when compared to those in the USA, with its history of extreme and legally sanctioned bigotry, is more critical then the endless debates about why people who look like Halle Berry prefer to call themselves "black". Indeed even Soledad O'Brien calls herself black and got into an argument with Jesse Jackson, who disputed her right to do that (he has since changed his mind, so he says). Zoe Saldana allegedly had a similar dispute in the DR when some reporter asked her why she calls herself an AfroLatina and not a mulata.
I'd say they are. With slavery and the mass raping that a lot of slave owners/men did. That's why we're all various shades. I assume my grandmother's gray eyes, my dads blue eyes and my green eyes didnt come from Africa
Yes, you can roughly tell by looks. The Williams' sisters are more African, while Beyonce is clearly part European. Even say Tupac had Caucasoid features (narrower nose) than is typical of West Africans.
Yes, you can roughly tell by looks. The Williams' sisters are more African, while Beyonce is clearly part European. Even say Tupac had Caucasoid features (narrower nose) than is typical of West Africans.
Perhaps he was of Native American descent, which many African American have. I've posted this before and I will post this again. BlackDemographics.com | African American DNA By many accounts, the DNA of African Americans is about 80% African.
Perhaps he was of Native American descent, which many African American have. I've posted this before and I will post this again. BlackDemographics.com | African American DNA By many accounts, the DNA of African Americans is about 80% African.
Actually, the Native American ancestry for African Americans is fairly small. The same goes for White Americans.
Depending on the study, it is said that African Americans average about 19-24% European ancestry/DNA.
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.
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.
