U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [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)
 
 
Old 01-10-2012, 04:41 PM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
23,709 posts, read 21,137,121 times
Reputation: 9217

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geography Freak View Post
Yes, silly. Have you been to deep Senegal? Many women there are as tall as me, and I'm not exactly small, and there is not such a thing as overweight people.
I also don't quite understand what height has to do with anything.
Plus, in traditional African society, the higher you look in the hierarchy, the fatter people are, especially royals. Especially women are basically expected to be a bit obese, it is considered positive in Africa.

I am not saying that the differences are huge, but I am sure there are slight physical differences between AA's and West Africans because of the slavery period and the way people were treated, not just because of mixing in America.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-10-2012, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Kūkiʻo, HI & Manhattan Beach, CA
2,624 posts, read 6,583,588 times
Reputation: 2407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
In my view African-Americans are not really diverse, especially not in terms of looks (apart from the mixing of course).
Even in West Africa different ethnicity or nationality does not mean people look much different. There are broad "looks regions", but each of them comprises various ethnic and linguistic groups. Compared to Somalis or Sudanese the Igbo and Yoruba for instance are very hard to tell apart if you ignore language and dress code. Even the Haussa are quite similar to the Yoruba if you ignore religion, language and dress code.
However, that's an underlying assumption and bias, despite evidence to the contrary. If one looks at something like the prevalence of certain blood types or mitochondrial DNA within a West African ethnic or tribal group, it becomes apparent that there is more that differentiates them besides language, religion, and "dress code."

Using that "broad looks regions" line of reasoning, one could say that European Americans, Asian Americans, American Indians, Pacific Islanders, etc. are not really diverse as well. Unfortunately, Swedes are different from Greeks, Japanese are different from Hmong, Hopi are different from Oneida, and Papua New Guineans are different from Samoans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
Sure, there are various aspects of athleticism, but still, I don't think the black dominance in several sports is coincidence or the result of more practice or doping or whatever. Didn't they do research on the sprinter Bolt?
Interestingly Africans are not equally good at sports, the exception being marathon runners from the East African highlands.
Unfortunately, that's a faulty line of reasoning and Usain Bolt is Jamaican, not African American. If one looks at the winners of the New York City marathon over the past 40 years, most of the winners came from places other than the "East African highlands."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
I do think it has to do with pc and I find it a bit naive to think that the slavery era with all its crimes had not lead to a black population that is different from their African homelands. The inhumane transport for instance was like artificial selection and millions did not survive their journey to the new world. Those who made it despite the extremely inhumane conditions on those ships obviously were better equipped to deal with extreme physical conditions than the average African.
Of course, the African American population is different from the population of the places where some of their ancestors originated from. And, the Africans that survived the journey on slave ships might have been a little hardier and luckier than those that perished along the way. However, all African Americans are not descended from slaves and ignoring the impact of generations of subsequent history and other variables that don't support a particular conjecture is silly.

I wonder what's worse -- being "politically correct" or being a proponent of "scientific racism?"
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2012, 05:16 PM
 
Location: American Expat
2,189 posts, read 4,971,217 times
Reputation: 1891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonah K View Post
I wonder what's worse -- being "politically correct" or being a proponent of "scientific racism?"
Now quit that crap already. He based it on the fact that they were supposed to work and it's reasonable to assume that this was a factor they went by. And of course the black population here is different. There are enough black Americans who do have white or whatever ancestors, which you do not have in Africa. There is much more genetic diversity here and no question that this does set black Americans apart. You make yourself look utterly stupid by repeating this. Instead, you should have commented on the specific claims he made such as "more athletic" and what not, which you kind of started doing. Which does sound funny and it's probably not true, imo. And you also pointed out there were differences, so you would have to accuse yourself of the same thing.
Not that it even matters because that's not even what the OP's question was.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2012, 05:50 PM
 
3 posts, read 23,765 times
Reputation: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeapple View Post
Yeah, it's probably a regional thing. Not to mention, "black" Africans vary a lot themselves.

I think studies show the average black American is around 20% European. Don't quote me on that . I'm not sure "how much of a mix" is necessary to influence physical appearance either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post

As for European ancestry of African-Americans, it's true that on AVERAGE there is a significant European admixture (20%) and the vast majority of African-Americans have some European ancestry, but there is a large variation on just how much from one family to another.
I remember reading a study that 80% of black Americans have admixture and the rest of the 20% of black Americans have no admixture at all. Out of the 80% of admixtured black Americans some do not have euro admixture, but have Native American and/or East Asian admixture.

On a documentary called African American Lives a guy by the name TD Jakes according to the DNA test they gave him, his result was that he is 100% pure sub Saharan African blood so no admixture at all. In the same documentary Oprah Whitfrey and Mae Jameson had zero European admixture, but both of the ladys have small percentagess of Native American and East Asian mixture.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2012, 05:55 PM
 
19,254 posts, read 15,953,917 times
Reputation: 8340
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Most African-Americans are of West African descent, so get a lot of features from the various groups of West Africa (who also had a bit of admixture with Berber/Arabic populations through trans-Saharan trade). So, of course, African-Americans and West Africans look quite alike. We basically have to keep in mind that Africa is a huge continent with a lot of diverse groups, so saying just "Africa" by itself is kind of ridiculous.
When I think of "West Africa," I think of Cote D'Ivoire for some reason, and they don't look like AAs to me. I watched other clips with Africans from different countries, and it became obvious to me that AAs remind me the most of Nigerians; definitely a connection there.


Quote:
As for European ancestry of African-Americans, it's true that on AVERAGE there is a significant European admixture (20%) and the vast majority of African-Americans have some European ancestry, but there is a large variation on just how much from one family to another.
African genes are so dominant, that these 20% don't mean much, particularly that it varies ( even less that is) from family to family as you've said.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2012, 05:58 PM
 
Location: Kūkiʻo, HI & Manhattan Beach, CA
2,624 posts, read 6,583,588 times
Reputation: 2407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glucorious View Post
Not that it even matters because that's not even what the OP's question was.
Hmm, the OP's question involved regional differences in skin color as it relates to Africans and African Americans. The caliber of the responses is going to range from "scientific racism" to "political correctness" simply from the very nature of the original question. Some folks used anecdotal and other evidence to support their opinions, others pointed out exceptions and questioned certain lines of reasoning. Unfortunately, folks here might not all be on the same page when it comes to understanding the definitions of "political correctness" and "scientific racism." Let's see what transpires and refrain from unnecessary "name-calling" and personal attacks...it might prove educational.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 12:58 AM
 
Location: Midwest
2,953 posts, read 4,682,244 times
Reputation: 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glucorious View Post
Now quit that crap already. He based it on the fact that they were supposed to work and it's reasonable to assume that this was a factor they went by. And of course the black population here is different. There are enough black Americans who do have white or whatever ancestors, which you do not have in Africa. There is much more genetic diversity here and no question that this does set black Americans apart. You make yourself look utterly stupid by repeating this. Instead, you should have commented on the specific claims he made such as "more athletic" and what not, which you kind of started doing. Which does sound funny and it's probably not true, imo. And you also pointed out there were differences, so you would have to accuse yourself of the same thing.
Not that it even matters because that's not even what the OP's question was.
No, there is a lot of genetic diversity in Africa too. I hear there is MORE diversity over there than here in the US. Imageshack - portraitwp.jpg this lady is nigerian, she lives in west africa. she's not real darkskin. Not all West Africans are the same skin tone
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 08:05 AM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
23,709 posts, read 21,137,121 times
Reputation: 9217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonah K View Post
However, that's an underlying assumption and bias, despite evidence to the contrary. If one looks at something like the prevalence of certain blood types or mitochondrial DNA within a West African ethnic or tribal group, it becomes apparent that there is more that differentiates them besides language, religion, and "dress code."

West Africa is a very old region, populated longer then most other parts of the world. Thus there is a lot of genetic diversity, but then again, because of all the mixing over the tens of thousands of years, and the same environment that does not at all translate into much different looks. And compared to immigrant countries such as the US, West Africa is pretty homogeneous.

Using that "broad looks regions" line of reasoning, one could say that European Americans, Asian Americans, American Indians, Pacific Islanders, etc. are not really diverse as well. Unfortunately, Swedes are different from Greeks, Japanese are different from Hmong, Hopi are different from Oneida, and Papua New Guineans are different from Samoans.

You are comparing Africa to immigrant countries, which by nature are much more diverse than non-immigrant countries, even Europe as a whole is an immigrant continent. Modern humans arrived there relatively recently, and mixed with Neanderthals (black Africans are the only modern humans who never mixed with Neanderthals), so that is a completely different situation. And the geographical distance from Sweden to Greece comes close to the extension of the parts of West Africa where the slaves came from. I did not say at all that people from the Ivory Coast are identical to those in Cameroon.

Unfortunately, that's a faulty line of reasoning and Usain Bolt is Jamaican, not African American. If one looks at the winners of the New York City marathon over the past 40 years, most of the winners came from places other than the "East African highlands."

Jamaican have a very similar history as AA's. They are also the descendants of slaves from the same region. Actually they may be more interesting regarding such comparisons as they are not nearly as mixed as AA's.

Of course, the African American population is different from the population of the places where some of their ancestors originated from. And, the Africans that survived the journey on slave ships might have been a little hardier and luckier than those that perished along the way. However, all African Americans are not descended from slaves and ignoring the impact of generations of subsequent history and other variables that don't support a particular conjecture is silly.

I am not ignoring anything, neither the mixing, nor anything else, nor the Africans who later on migrated to the US voluntarily. Interestingly those later immigrants do not consider themselves as AA's, there are people like that even on this board, Edward I guess is one of them.

I wonder what's worse -- being "politically correct" or being a proponent of "scientific racism?"

There is no scientific racism. Racism means judging and saying X is better than Y. It is not racist to simply describe differences, especially differences that are in no way about qualities crucial to human dignity (I do find it racist if people say Asians have higher IQs than Africans, even if it is said in an objective way, it is just a euphemism for saying X is more stupid than Y. Nor is there any objective data or reasoning to support such views.). I think it is politically correct to deny differences.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nyanna View Post
No, there is a lot of genetic diversity in Africa too. I hear there is MORE diversity over there than here in the US. Imageshack - portraitwp.jpg this lady is nigerian, she lives in west africa. she's not real darkskin. Not all West Africans are the same skin tone
Lighter skin does not mean much, as a) physiognomy is more important and b) there has also been some mixing in West Africa, let's not forget about the colonial era, there was love and rape and what not just like in the Americas. Unlike in the US there has not been much research on the mixing in Africa. But even if there are some lighter-skinned folks there, I assume the mixing is little compared to the US.
Just yesterday there was a short documentary on Nigeria because of the religious clashes and elections there. They interviews various protesters, it was striking how homogeneously dark they all were, there was not one lighter-skinned face in the crowd.
When someone has a clearly different skin color from all the other people in one's region, chances are there was some mixing. Even Europeans have various shades of pigmentation because of the historic migrations and mixing of her peoples. Among any original people (before any mixing) skin color probably varied very little. Those Nordic ancestors for instance were probably all the same type in terms of looks.
Don't get me wrong, though. I am all for mixing I hate racism as in trying to remain pure this or that...

Last edited by Neuling; 01-11-2012 at 08:13 AM..
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Bronx, NY
5,720 posts, read 18,545,753 times
Reputation: 2318
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyanna View Post
No, there is a lot of genetic diversity in Africa too. I hear there is MORE diversity over there than here in the US. Imageshack - portraitwp.jpg this lady is nigerian, she lives in west africa. she's not real darkskin. Not all West Africans are the same skin tone
That lady is mixed. Along with her light skin, her features are refined. Like the posters above me said, mixing did occur in West Africa.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 12:18 PM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
23,709 posts, read 21,137,121 times
Reputation: 9217
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperMario View Post
That lady is mixed. Along with her light skin, her features are refined. Like the posters above me said, mixing did occur in West Africa.
I know how you meant it, but I never liked that word 'fine' in this context because fine and even more so refined implies better or nicer. I don't think white women have finer or refined features compared to black women. I don't know what would be a better adjective, edgier maybe
Rate this post positively 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.


 
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 > World

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top