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.
So far only physical characteristics only have been mentioned. I could tell an African from a black American immediately from their totally different attitude toward me, a white.
Oprah was suspected to have Upper Guinea ancestry, and some Cameroons. No Igbo. She is also 10% Native American.
Oprah has those stereotypical black "negroid" features like the vast majority of African-Americans, and lacks any visible admixture. She has very broad facial features with prominent wide cheekbones, a very flat nasal bridge, and a protruding upper and lower jaw area. I never mentioned anything about the size her lips, so I don't know why you even bring that up. Remember, you claimed that the "typical" Nigerian has a round face to differentiate them from African-Americans. Are you gonna tell me me Oprah has a long face now?
Quote:
Some one can be black and show some evidence of non African ancestry, which is too vague to determine what it is, but obvious enough to know that it exists. I offer Denzil Washington who fits a profile of large numbers of AAs. He is not what most people (aside from Latin Americans that is) will considered "mixed". Yet he is clearly not 100% African.
Denzel Washington just looks black to me. He likely has some minor admixture since the majority of African-Americans have some European ancestry, so that's simply a logical assumption. That doesn't change the fact that there are many people in Africa that can look just as vaguely "mixed" as he does, purely due to the natural variation in phenotypes of native Africans.
For example, Denzel Washington doesn't really look any more "mixed" than this Nigerian actor next to him. Let me guess, he must have some European ancestry too.
Quote:
You show a golden brown "Nigerian" woman, who if she were American folks like you would be screaming that she isn't black, and its only "racist" AAs who despise their European ancestry would call her black. In Africa she would be derisively called some local name for "white". She is clearly of mixed ancestry.
It seems "folks like you" lack reading comprehension, and have a habit of using straw-man arguments. When did I ever claim that African-Americans hate their European ancestry, or accuse anyone of being a "racist"? That's a strong accusation there. The word "racist" has become very cheap. I think certain people have overused that word to the point that it has lost all power and meaning.
Quote:
How she is so, we can debate as there are many routes to this. She might be a descendant of the Afro European population which began to emerge in Africa in the 17th century, often acting as middle men between Africans and European traders. Or she could be a product of a more recent interracial arrangement (marriage or out of wedlock), usually between an African male and a European. But she will not be fully Nigerian, and she might even be too light to be a "black" Mauritanian. I expect anytime now you will show Sade as evidence of how Nigerians look!
I would never use Sade as an example of how Nigerians look like, since she's only half Nigerian. That would be completely dishonest on my part. Just like using some one who is only half African-American to represent how they look like is dishnoest. So why do you bring up people like Alicia Keys, who has an Irish/Italian mother, to represent African-americans? I gather the percentage of African-Americans who look like Alicia Keys is very small, probably less than 1%.
Quote:
1. AAs don't trace most of their ancestry to Nigeria. So why would they look Nigerian, and not like people from the Senegambia/Guinea/Liberian regions where the largest group came from, or like Congo/Angola, where the second largest numbers arrived?
2. If we assume that the average AA is a random mix of African ethnic groups in proportion to the representation of that group AAs are no more Nigerian than they are European. You claim that a 20% ancestry has no impact on how some one looks.......so why would the 20% Nigerian ancestry dominate the remaining 60% from Upper Guinea or Congo/Angola.
3. Given that peoples from varying parts of Africa look different, even assuming no European ancestry (AAs have an average 20% based on the African Ancestry DNA project) this will suggest that blacks from the Americas will not typically look like peoples from specific African regions, given that they represent a mix if African ancestries. The combinations possible in the Americas will rarely occur in Africa as there are very few situations where massive numbers of peoples from the Congo basin had contact with peoples from Upper Guinea, as occurred in the USA.
Bottom line is that AAs, while being of majority African descent in most instances, do not fit into an African group.
Nobody claimed that African-Americans look more like Nigerians than the people from the Senegambia/Guinea/Liberian regions? I'd say they can generally fit in most Sub-Saharan African countries without a problem, and that includes Nigeria. The point is African-Americans are predominately black in appearance, and very few of them have any really noticeable or significant non-African admixture. The majority of African-Americans can pass almost anywhere throught-out the Niger-Congo region. They're black Africans plain and simple, that's where 80% to 90% of their ancestry comes from.
They're not a "random mix" of different ethnic groups. They're a clear mix of some West and Central African peoples, all of which have their own diversity, yet can also phenotypically overlap with each other. Remember, we're still talking about the same race. We're not comparing some Eskimo people with Saudi Arabians here. We're talking about black folks looking like other black folks
So far only physical characteristics only have been mentioned. I could tell an African from a black American immediately from their totally different attitude toward me, a white.
I dont know what you are implying here, but you must admit that a black man who has suffered from racism, and who is treated as if he was a foreigner, despite having 250 years presence in the USA will be much less trusting of you than an immigrant from a majority black nation, where he has had next to no exposure to whites.
2 minutes of reading US history should be enough to inform any one that black Americans have little reason to trust their white fellow countrymen.
You really enjoy highlighting how British West Indians are low performing. And are you trying to say that West Indians in North America were rich prior relocation?! That's ridiculous...
I can tell the difference sometimes between a Afro-Caribbean person and a Africa some facial features of Africans "stand out" and the way they behave is different compared to Afro-Caribbean.
Well it is a fact that Caribbean British blacks after three generations of presence in the UK fare worse than do FIRST generation US based Caribbean blacks. Indeed the average household incomes of Caribbean born people in the USA are around 85% of white Americans, which is actually quite good for a group which is foreign born, and black.
Two reasons for this. The first is that the USA is more accommodating of immigrants than is the UK, so foreign born people can move further ahead than they can in Europe, based on their talents and education.
Secondly, there has been much more of an urban migration to the USA than to the UK, and a significant brand drain. West Indians migarted to the UK mainly to work in jobs that the locals didnt want, in factories, hospitals and in the transportation system. A much broader mix of Caribbean people have headed to the USA.
The second issue is that if you can tell a Caribbean British blacks from an African, why is it so hard for you to distinguish an AA for an African. African Americans, on average, are more mixed than blacks from the Anglophone Caribbean, especially those from the rural lower rungs, who dominated that migration in the 1950s.
In addition Caribbean blacks maintain far more African mannerisms and characteristics than is the case for American blacks. Indeed Africans in the USA have few problems with Caribbean blacks. Their issues are more likely to be with AAs.
Nobody claimed that African-Americans look more like Nigerians than the people from the Senegambia/Guinea/Liberian regions? I'd say they can generally fit in most Sub-Saharan African countries without a problem, and that includes Nigeria. The point is African-Americans are predominately black in appearance, and very few of them have any really noticeable or significant non-African admixture. The majority of African-Americans can pass almost anywhere throught-out the Niger-Congo region. They're black Africans plain and simple, that's where 80% to 90% of their ancestry comes from.
They're not a "random mix" of different ethnic groups. They're a clear mix of some West and Central African peoples, all of which have their own diversity, yet can also phenotypically overlap with each other. Remember, we're still talking about the same race. We're not comparing some Eskimo people with Saudi Arabians here. We're talking about black folks looking like other black folks
I wonder why no comments about you about the two video linkis that I posted, which showed random groups of Nigerians. Not people who you carefully select to make your pointm exposing yourself to the fact that you dont know their individual ancestries, so really cant claim that they are even 100% sub Saharan origin. Do you know that Ejiofor falls into that? You dont. But if you see a whole group of Nigerians then the sample size should be enough to remove the likelihood that an individual might have some ancient mixed ancestry.
But you dont comment, because even YOU can see that these people dont look African American, and indeed fit into the most African extremities of Anglophone Caribbean blacks.
Your whole thesis was about how AAs can fit right into a room full of Nigerians and no one will notice the difference, if they keep quiet. You didnt say "African". You said "Nigerian". And if we look at people whose origins correspond to today's Senegal, Gambia, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Ghana, Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Cameroon, Congo, and Angola that is a broad mix of people.
Yes to your eyes they look a like. To my eyes they dont. To an African, you lumping them together will be as ridiculous as claiming that Sicilians and Swedes look alike.
So if some one looks "black" or "negroid" then to you they cant be distinguished from African.
Indeed the difference between Ejiofor and Washington is obvious. The first time I saw Ejiofor acting, when he was portraying a British black (so could have been from any number of Caribbean or African ancestries) I just knew he was most likely Nigerian in origin. Note that in the UK the Caribbean derived and African populations are roughly equal in size.
Were I Nigerian I would have been able to guess which branch of the Igbo nation he is from, or whether he is from one of the "lesser" ethnic groups that also live in Igbo dominated regions.
Denzil to me has a classical black American face. If I thought about it I would think, probably not from Mississippi or Alabama. He is from Mount Vernon which has a large Jamaican population. Denzil doesnt look like a "yardie". Maybe because his whole persona is black American, and that impacts who he looks. He tried to act as a Jamaican many years ago in a movie. It didnt work out. He might have more look acting as a Trini.
You ignore the fact that African American populationshave been separated from African populations for over 250 years, and so have evolved in different directions.
1. The obvious 20-30% average European admixture. Not enough to make some one look white, but clearly enough to ensure that they dont look African, even if very negroid looking. The African DNA test project estimates Africanb ancestry at 80%. That BTW is the HIGHEST estimate among several others. I view this as the nost reliable as it probably adjusts most for the fact that middle class AAs are usually more mixed than others, and are most likely to conduct DNA Ancestry tests, and so sites like 23andme and others are skewed.
2. AAs reflect an admixture of Upper Guinea (40%) with Angola/Congo and the Bight of Biafra (mainly SE Nigeria, but also include Cameroon). These are very different geographically isolated communities, so would have evolved a different "look". So combinations will create some one who doesnt look like any of the core groups.
3. 250 years is long enough for some slight adjustments to climate to impact how people look.
Indeed, even though we dress alike, and have 100% of the same ancestry, any Caribbean person returning home will report how quickly those who live there can detect those of us who visit. Especially if we are living in colder climates. They have Vitamin D in their skins 24/7. Even in summer the sun's rays arent enough to do that, so they claim we look different. I am talking about changes that have occurred over a mere 10 years. So imagine 250.
My own father walked right passed me once when he was visiting me in NYC. I waited to see if he would realize that he saw me. He did, but claimed that I looked different because my skin and hair had changed, and he explained the reasons for that. He is a doctor.
4. Dietary differences also impact how people look, as it impacts their body build. Africans eat very differently from AAs.
5. The mannerisms that people have determine also how they look, because they will determine their facial expressions and their body language. Given that AAs are only minimally "African" in this regardk, they will stand out.
I notice that you didnt respond to the two video links which I posted. One was Yoruba and the other Igbo. You look for select people who might fit into that over lap with AAs, and probably are "westernized", so have less "African" mannerisms. Ejiofor is British. I feel sure that on visits to the Igbo areas of Nigeria they spot him very quickly.
Well it is a fact that Caribbean British blacks after three generations of presence in the UK fare worse than do FIRST generation US based Caribbean blacks. Indeed the average household incomes of Caribbean born people in the USA are around 85% of white Americans, which is actually quite good for a group which is foreign born, and black.
Two reasons for this. The first is that the USA is more accommodating of immigrants than is the UK, so foreign born people can move further ahead than they can in Europe, based on their talents and education.
Secondly, there has been much more of an urban migration to the USA than to the UK, and a significant brand drain. West Indians migarted to the UK mainly to work in jobs that the locals didnt want, in factories, hospitals and in the transportation system. A much broader mix of Caribbean people have headed to the USA.
The second issue is that if you can tell a Caribbean British blacks from an African, why is it so hard for you to distinguish an AA for an African. African Americans, on average, are more mixed than blacks from the Anglophone Caribbean, especially those from the rural lower rungs, who dominated that migration in the 1950s.
In addition Caribbean blacks maintain far more African mannerisms and characteristics than is the case for American blacks. Indeed Africans in the USA have few problems with Caribbean blacks. Their issues are more likely to be with AAs.
Ok being a Afro-Caribbean male living in the UK I'm getting fed up of your suppose facts about WI in the UK compared to the USA.Show me statistics to back up your claims.
How on Earth is the US more accommodating to immigrants than the UK when they portray Latin Americans so badly.
I can tell a Caribbean black from a African because I've lived amongst these two groups all my life however there's still an overlap on occasions.
Ok being a Afro-Caribbean male living in the UK I'm getting fed up of your suppose facts about WI in the UK compared to the USA.Show me statistics to back up your claims.
How on Earth is the US more accommodating to immigrants than the UK when they portray Latin Americans so badly.
I can tell a Caribbean black from a African because I've lived amongst these two groups all my life however there's still an overlap on occasions.
Afro Caribbean poverty rate in London 30%. SOURCE: poverty.org based on 2001 census
Jamaican poverty rate in NYC 13%. SOURCE: Socio Demographic profile of the Foreign born in NYC, based on 2010 census.
The labor force participation among Jamaican males in London was around 65%, and in NYC around 75%.
I will add that poverty rates among Jamaicans nationwide will be even lower as Caribbean migrants to NYC are on average less educated than those living in other parts of the USA.
Jamaican households earn 85% of non Hispanic white American households. Bajans do even better. Don't have comparable numbers for the UK, but.......
Please note that in both the USA and the UK unemployment rates and poverty levels were higher in 2010 than in 2000. Yet statistics for US based Caribbean blacks were more favorable in 2010 than for their UK counterparts in the UK.
Note the following.
1. People of Caribbean descent who are in the labor force in the UK are overwhelmingly people who were either born in the UK, or who arrived as children, meaning that their socialization was British. They cannot be described as an immigrant group. Few will be in the recent immigrant pool where they will be seen as "foreign" by employers, with "sketchy" credentials.
A high % of US based Caribbean blacks have been living in the USA for less than 10 years. many will be still in the stage of downward mobility with US employers not recognizing their foreign credentials and work experience.
2. There is more racial segregation in the USA, meaning that UK Caribbean people should have more access to white social networks for employment and job referrals than their counterparts in the USA. Both societies are white dominated so the closer one is integrating the greater should be the prospects for employment and upward mobility, as the greater is the access to job information, and to potential job sponsors and mentors.
3. There is more income inequality in the USA, as well as greater disparities between salaries in the public vs. private sector. So an immigrant group, and one disproportionately located in the social services sector (where Caribbean people tend to be in both countries) should suffer more income disadvantage in the USA.
4. One can argue that white Americans are more driven and work obsessed than their UK counterparts, and so will have higher incomes. So the pool of low performing white individuals will be smaller in the USA, pulling up average white household earnings.
5. Statistics for US born Caribbean blacks are hidden within the African American statistics. To the extent that the children of immigrants do better than their parents, those statistics are reflected in the British statistics, but not in the US numbers.
Yet despite these disadvantages that US based Caribbean immigrants have they outperform their UK counterparts. One cannot say culture, because they come from the same source populations. The difference is that the USA offers more opportunities to its immigrants than does the UK. This will also explain why there is more of a brain drain to the USA than to the UK.
I invite you to compare US based Hispanics with your Muslim populations. We are very aware of the intense hostility that Muslims faced in the 70s-90s when they were "Paki bashed". I guess a generation alienated by this treatment now refuses to integrate.
Gaby Sidibe is half Senegalese herself. but I agree with the others though...
Gabrielle Union is NOT African looking. Don't know where you get that from. We can debate about Oprah, but to me she comes across like a black American woman. She stood out in Barbados, when she was interviewing Rihanna. She has that American build, maybe from what Americans eat.
The reality is that a black person from the Americas can be 100% African in ancestry, but will still not look like any specific African group because they are a diverse composition of several.
Oprah is a very negroid woman, who doesn't show any visible European ancestry (apparently she has none, but is 10% Native American). She apparently has diverse origins in Africa, apparently even extending into Zambia, which is some what unusual. Some of her ancestors evidently had a long walk to get to the Angola coast.
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.
