Where in Africa does Africa start?

[Fred]

Of course it may have originated in Africa, but its greater diversity there is no evidence.

[Cameo]

I'm going to ignore Droop's post about Nubians looking more like bin Laden than gary Coleman and coming from the Near East, its totally ridiculous and there's no evidence for it. Its not even worth the argument. As for Afro-Asiatic languages, the consensus is that it did originate in Africa, but I think someplac in the southeast Sahara rather than the Horn. It would be amazing that it would originate in Asia and spread into Africa. Look at Chadic for example, it some 200 different laguages under its branch and they don't sound alike either, they high divergent. Cushitic has even deeper branches that are high divergent, this is what author's are talking about when they the language family is more diverse. Semitic languages are not highly divergent.

[Cameo]

Mike, no one is writing off anything and I don't believe in any racialist models and zones in Africa. the point is that those constructs are Eurocentric constructions created to separate and take North Africa out of Africa and make it "Middle Eastern" or European, which cannot be done. And no you cannot divide Africa into zones based on "phenotype", since there have been many migrations and population shifts and movements over the centuries and the skeletal and genetic evidence goes against this.

[praetorian]

Hum, never saw Nubians like that. Isn't that black guy up there a Nubian? And AE did have a strong connection to the land south of the border. Actually they look more like Aethiopids most of the times. Some look Med and otbers Black. Afro-Asiatic seems to have appeared in the Horn, so no invading caucasoids spreading the language scenario.
Ancient Egypt was a mixed society if you ask me. Just like today. This also explains their intermediate look, in their depictions, when compared to Berbers and Semites on on side and Nubians on the other. They are in the middle.

[oldpretan]

drooperdoo said:

But, then again, we're still in an era where we pretend that Europe is a separate continent, even though it's stuck to Asia--and not just a little bit.

Droop, it's a question of plate tectonics, where the euro plates butt against the asian mountains develop - Urals Caucasus etc. Similarly why is India described as a sub-continent, it hit Asia so hard it threw up the Himalayas, that's surely an impact of continental magnitude.

[Cameo]

If people would leave racialist thinking out of their thinking when it comes to studying peoples and their history, there would be less confusion and controversy.

[Cameo]

People totally missed the point of the paper and instead are attacking me, a seriousl sign that the paper is telling the truth. I never said Africa=black but you guys want to waste your time building up silly rebuttals to arguments I never made, so be it.

[drooperdoo]

Cameo,
I can only speak for myself when I say this, but: I wasn't personally attacking YOU. In fact, I didn't have you in mind at all when I was making my comments. I was complaining about other people and pseudo-intellectuals who go about spouting stupidities.

Seriously, though--none of that was directed at you.

Honest!

(It was a digression, as you yourself pointed out.)

[Anodyne]

rigaud said:

Mike, no one is writing off anything and I don't believe in any racialist models and zones in Africa. the point is that those constructs are Eurocentric constructions created to separate and take North Africa out of Africa and make it "Middle Eastern" or European, which cannot be done. And no you cannot divide Africa into zones based on "phenotype", since there have been many migrations and population shifts and movements over the centuries and the skeletal and genetic evidence goes against this.

As always you contradict yourself. How can we take "north AFRICA" out of Africa? If we use teh geographical term north Africa we still accept it's part of Africa, obviosuly. Regardless of any Negroid admixture, north Africans are closer to European Caucasoids because they are Caucasoids. No one has ever said they are Europeans, but rather that they consist of mainly Caucasoid groups. Any admixture from the Arab slave trade, or some long ago admixture, that even pops among Europeans, doesn't negate race.

mike said:

Africa starts at Gaza. End of story.

Of course the Sahara is an intermediate "racial" zone. Just look at the Tuareg. All this interregional genetic stuff is nothing new to any of us, so you really need to get over yourself.

Yes, that's what I gathered from reading the paper.

rigaud said:

People totally missed the point of the paper and instead are attacking me, a seriousl sign that the paper is telling the truth. I never said Africa=black but you guys want to waste your time building up silly rebuttals to arguments I never made, so be it.

If you never said "Africa equals black" then what are you saying? Consider the following.

rigaud said:

I guess this paper effectively drives another stake in the heart of those who wish to divide Africa up into zones based on the racialist models of "Negroid" and Medit K-zoid Africa.

If you agree that not all of Africa is black then what is the other part? If you make a distinction, which you do by saying not all Africa is black, then what you're doing is creating zones. Zones that are based on phenotype, considering skin color is part of a person's phenotype.

Remember you said this:

"And no you cannot divide Africa into zones based on "phenotype","

But yet you make a distinction based on skin color.

[Cameo]

drooperdoo said:

Cameo,
I can only speak for myself when I say this, but: I wasn't personally attacking YOU. In fact, I didn't have you in mind at all when I was making my comments. I was complaining about other people and pseudo-intellectuals who go about spouting stupidities.

Seriously, though--none of that was directed at you.

Honest!

(It was a digression, as you yourself pointed out.)

Its all good, I was just making it kown that racialist constructs like "Mediterranean Caucasoid North Africa", "Black Negrid Africa" Nordic North Europe" "Mediterranean South Europe", Arabid this Meditreannid" that, Ethiopioid this, paleonegrid that, are all worthless bankrupt approaches to studying peoples from a biological, anthropological and historical point of view. They are not need to understand anything about history and culture and are bankrupt as biological terms, its only when they're use that we have problems, distortions and controversy.

[Cameo]

ayndostoy said:

rigaud said:

Mike, no one is writing off anything and I don't believe in any racialist models and zones in Africa. the point is that those constructs are Eurocentric constructions created to separate and take North Africa out of Africa and make it "Middle Eastern" or European, which cannot be done. And no you cannot divide Africa into zones based on "phenotype", since there have been many migrations and population shifts and movements over the centuries and the skeletal and genetic evidence goes against this.

As always you contradict yourself. How can we take "north AFRICA" out of Africa? If we use teh geographical term north Africa we still accept it's part of Africa, obviosuly. Regardless of any Negroid admixture, north Africans are closer to European Caucasoids because they are Caucasoids. No one has ever said they are Europeans, but rather that they consist of mainly Caucasoid groups. Any admixture from the Arab slave trade, or some long ago admixture, that even pops among Europeans, doesn't negate race.

You're barking up the wrong tree once again with the injection of race because "racialist" constructs are irrelevant to my point. Dividing an entire continet up based upon phenotype and ignoring ecerything else is stupid thats my point. What people look like brings no light to understanding culture and interactions between peoples. I don't believe in terms like caucasoid and Negroid and neither do the majority on physical anthropologists. If you read the paper you would understand that neither I nor the author of the papers intent was to equate Africa=Negroid, Caucasoid or any so called arbitrary construct dealing with race.

If you never said "Africa equals black" then what are you saying? Consider the following.



If you agree that not all of Africa is black then what is the other part? If you make a distinction, which you do by saying not all Africa is black, then what you're doing is creating zones. Zones that are based on phenotype, considering skin color is part of a person's phenotype.

I never equated Africa=black, its dumb that you take my words out of context and build up lame strawmen to knock down for the sake of arguing. There are no "racial zones" in Africa, that is clearly a Eurocentrist racialist construct.

[whateva]

Cameo:

Are you saying that you can celebrate Africa based on being yourself from Africa despite the fact that you know the people of Egypt weren't black phenotypically?

Cause that i can somewhat understand though it's kind of weird.

If however you're saying ancient Egyptians were like black americans today and for that reason claiming it then on the other hand I think that's very wrong.

[Anodyne]

rigaud said:

ayndostoy said:

As always you contradict yourself. How can we take "north AFRICA" out of Africa? If we use the geographical term north Africa we still accept it's part of Africa, obviosuly. Regardless of any Negroid admixture, north Africans are closer to European Caucasoids because they are Caucasoids. No one has ever said they are Europeans, but rather that they consist of mainly Caucasoid groups. Any admixture from the Arab slave trade, or some long ago admixture, that even pops among Europeans, doesn't negate race.

You're barking up the wrong tree once again with the injection of race because "racialist" constructs are irrelevant to my point.

The author of the paper uses the term race in his title and so it is relevant.

Dividing an entire continet up based upon phenotype and ignoring ecerything else is stupid thats my point. What people look like brings no light to understanding culture and interactions between peoples.

No one here has equated phenotype, or genetics, with culture.

I don't believe in terms like caucasoid and Negroid and neither do the majority on physical anthropologists.

The author is a soicologist. Sociologists are the joke of academia. They were first to push that "race doesn't exist." And everyone else must follow along because if they don't then they are deemed racist. I'm sure you're aware of the PC environment at academia. Regardless of political correctness run amuck fear doesn't trump truth. Although truth will stop you from getting grants. They have to use terms like "Sub Saharan African" because they're too afraid to say Negroid. It's stupid because they inadvertently admit to the existance of races without using racial categories, but geographical categories instead.

If you read the paper you would understand that neither I nor the author of the papers intent was to equate Africa=Negroid, Caucasoid or any so called arbitrary construct dealing with race

I didn't say you, or the author, were trying to equate Africa with Negroid. I don't know where you got that from. What I did point out is your contradictions. You say Negroid is an "arbitrary construct," and you attack the use of phenotype. Yet, you make a distinction in your post based on phenotype!

If you never said "Africa equals black" then what are you saying? Consider the following.

If you agree that not all of Africa is black then what is the other part? If you make a distinction, which you do by saying not all Africa is black, then what you're doing is creating zones. Zones that are based on phenotype, considering skin color is part of a person's phenotype.

I never equated Africa=black, its dumb that you take my words out of context and build up lame strawmen to knock down for the sake of arguing.

I never said you did. READ what I posted:

If you agree that not all of Africa is black then what is the other part? If you make a distinction, which you do by saying not all Africa is black, then what you're doing is creating zones. Zones that are based on phenotype, considering skin color is part of a person's phenotype.[/quote]

You contradict yourself. If you say that pheontypes are not a legitimate way to break up people into zones, and then say, you don't equate black with Africa, then that means you agree that there are groups that are not black living in Africa, and therefore you must be accepting of "zones" where people's skin color differs.

There are no "racial zones" in Africa, that is clearly a Eurocentrist racialist construct.

Well, then Berter and Atlantis can be considered African- American if they decide to move here. I'm sure black Americans will be accepting.

[Mike the Jedi]

Charlie uses Hiernaux's system of black African classification. What's funny is that Hiernaux's system aligns pretty damn well with the other pologs. He just uses different, more politically correct sounding terms. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I think that terms like Kafrid and Paleonegrid are pretty dumb and outdated-sounding myself, but at least I recognize the types they stand for.

Hiernaux vs. Eickstedt
Khoisan = Khoisanid
Pygmy/Pygmoid = Bambutid
Elongated Africans & Nilotes = Aethiopoids & Nilotids
West Sudan & Guinea Rain Forest = Sudanid (and northern Paleonegrid?)
Bantu = Paleonegrid & Kafrid

Some of them are kind of fuzzy, but you get the picture.

[sayadon]

Since I have an insight into how Africans themselves see this issue, let me just say that the division of Africa into North and SSA is not a "European construct" to the people of the continent. I am not commenting on whether this is good, but most North Africans I know wouldn't identify with the heartland of Africa in any way, shape, or form (and it has nothing to do with skin color or race). Nor do SSA have any positive illusions about common bonds with North Africa, in fact North Africans who travel anywhere South of Sudan invariably face abuse (and vice versa unfortunately).

The only period in which there was a sense of trans-regional African unity was in the 50's and 60's when most countries were gaining their independence.

As to contact zones, of course they exist, and of course they provide a bridge between the two regions, but that doesn't mean the two regions aren't distinct.