Where in Africa does Africa start?

[Cameo]

sayadon said:

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.

The construct of a Mediterranean Caucasoid and Black Negroid Africa is a European construct indeed, since Africans never saw nor defined themselves by these terms. Of course there are differences, even within the so-called regions themselves there are differences, but focusing on differences and ignoring and or downplaying interactions is more than wrong. The inetion of the paper wasn't about Pan-Africanism and bonds between the two in a political manner, but in medieval times there certain was a close relationship between the Islamic Sudanic kingdoms of the Sahel and the Islamic kingdoms in the coastal North. At different periods things shifted and changed.

[Cameo]

caucasoidintifada said:

rigaud said:

Look I am not contradicting myself and my statement that I made no equation of black=Africa was a response to the accusation that I did. I don't believe in the western racialist constructs of "Black Negroid" Africa and "White Mediterranean Caucasoid" North Africa", you know, the traditional racialist constructs that are applied to Africa in a divisive way. Take it or leave or interpret it anyway you see fit, but I'm not about argue over some insignificant small thing.

The original North African Inhabitants were Berbers. Why do you want to deny the INDIGENOUS BERBER component?
BTW Typical ORIGINAL Berber is dark curly hair olive complected not like sub saharab.

What do you mean "original"? LOL, there were many different physical types in North Africa, but thats beisdes the point because what they looked like is of no importance here and hold no relevance in studying the interactions and culture of the people.

[Cameo]

No one area in Africa was ever composed of some one monolithic "discrete" type only, man read some sources on the physical diversity of human populations. The populations of North Africa today, even the ones who are darker with "tropical African" affinities, are largely continuous with those from long ago.

[Cameo]

caucasoidintifada said:

rigaud said:

No one area in Africa was ever composed of some one monolithic "discrete" type only, man read some sources on the physical diversity of human populations. The populations of North Africa today, even the ones who are darker with "tropical African" affinities, are largely continuous with those from long ago.

That is because of intermixture between different groups. This does not mean there are not indigenous groups and phenotypes in different regions.

BS, the presence of all those phenotypes is documented in the fossil record and mixture isn't the explanation, although undoubtely there was some mixture. But using mixture alone as a explanation is ludicrous. Bootom line, there was no one discrete phenotype inhabiting North Africa.

[Cameo]

caucasoidintifada said:

Then explain the Berber language and its indigenousness to North Africa? Different phenotypes if not explained by evolution can be explained by intermixing. You just want to take the BERBER component out of North Africa. You want to legitimize non berber ethnic groups in their FALSE SENSE OF INDIGENOUSNESS. Only a pure Berber is someone INDIGENOUS to North Africa.

What does the Berber langauge have to do with anything? Lanugae doesn't equate to so-called "race". Siwa people are Berbers as are Tuaregs, linguistically speaking. They don't fit your stereotypical appearance of what a "true Berber" is supposed to look like. There is no one "true North African" physical type. In none of my posts did I ever say Berbers aren't indigenous to North Africa, amadis, stop building up strawman arguments. North Africa was occupied long before the rise of "Berber" languages, lol.

[Cameo]

caucasoidintifada said:

The Berbers of the Atlas mountains have been the most isolated from intermixture. They are therefore the purest of the Berbers. The singer Hakim I believe is testiment to the indigenousness of Berbers to all of North Africa including Egypt.

No Berbers are pure anything and posting one picture doesn't prove anything. Atlas Mountain Berbers maybe very isolated but they are by no means a proxy for a "pure" Berber, just check the fossil evidence and see for yourself. The same goes for Egypt which I'm not discussing.

[sayadon]

rigaud said:

ayndostoy said:

I edited my post:

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.

Before I made an error. I typed "If you disagree that phenotypes aren't a legitimate way to break up people into zones..."

May God have mercy on my soul.

Moving on...

Look I am not contradicting myself and my statement that I made no equation of black=Africa was a response to the accusation that I did. I don't believe in the western racialist constructs of "Black Negroid" Africa and "White Mediterranean Caucasoid" North Africa", you know, the traditional racialist constructs that are applied to Africa in a divisive way. Take it or leave or interpret it anyway you see fit, but I'm not about argue over some insignificant small thing.

Look, I think what you're saying makes sense sort of. But the point you're missing (the point most people have been telling you) is that this construct has already been abandoned. Most people with any kind of interest in the region do see a clear distinction between North Africa and SSA, but they also see the contact zones and validate them (or overvalidate them). Most people are familiar with contact zones in the Saharan Sahel and the Swahili coast, and even street people know that the horn is definitely a bridge zone. The new popular construct is not between Negro Africa and Mediterranean Africa but between a "Middle Easternoid" Africa and a Black Africa with very significant contact zones along the Sahel, middle Sudan, and the horn. Would you agree that this is fair?

And BTW, this is by no means limited to Africa. Most people recognize an equally srtong distinction between Mesoamerica and Anglo North America with the Southwest US as a bridge zone. In Asia you have subcontinental (desi), Iranian, and East (mainly Chinese sphere of influence. The contact zones and interrelationships are even more complex than Africa, but we all realize the distinctions. Even Europe itself still has a sharp line distinguishing East and West, North and South, etc.. Even though again the transitions are smoother than Africa.

[Mike the Jedi]

What it boils down to, Charlie (and others following the thread), is this:

People are interested in their ancestors. They are interested in what their ancestors did, what their ancestors' impact on the world was (the glory and legacy of their ancestors' civilization), and in many cases: what their ancestors looked like. For the types of folks attracted to race boards like this one, you're going to get a lot of people especially interested in the last. But it's not just race boards where one sees this, but other places discussing all number of ethnic issues, etc. The reasons for this are unknown to me, but I do think that this behavior, this quasi-ancestor worship, is universal to humans.

In any case, at least on the most rudimentary level, it does not seem to be unnatural in my opinion for one to pay respect or homage to one's ancestors or to hold a special place for them in one's heart... simply because without them we would not, genetically speaking, exist. At least as we are today. The ancestors led the way to the people of the future, or our present. We're a link in a long chain of different individuals. It seems inevitable that we are all descended of great philosphers, warriors, kings, etc. And tyrants as well. Regardless of whether the rationale behind wanting to identify with the ancestors, the race, or the Volk is justified or not, the fact is people do it all the time. You included, Bertrand.

How can this basic human condition be denied? From an egalitarian point of view, it may not be very flattering-- it may be primitive, it may not even make much sense, but it's just the way people think; it's the way it is.

At the end of the day, I simply find it amusing that you (Charlie) think your being black has nothing to do with your very special interest in the Dark Continent. You say that you are black American, culturally distinct from Africa. So if that's true, why the special interest in that continent? Do you really think this interest is random? Does that mean that Dienekes' interest in ancient Greeks is random, too? Or Zemelmete's interest in the genesis of Uralic peoples? Or Crimson's in the contributions of the ancient Sicilians? You don't think these peoples' ancestry has anything to do with their special interests? There's no inborn desire to connect with or understand far-off ancestors? I think we all know better. Otherwise people would not be so interested in participating in genetic tests to determine their lineage. Nor would the responses in threads like this take the predictable turn they've taken, if it weren't for some sort of collective racial pride in or indentification with the ancestors:
www.biodiversityforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=1931

Notice that most of the posters in that thread identify with the civilizations of their genetic forebears. How can you deny that you yourself are not privy to this phenomenon? Just look at your signature for god's sake. A black woman's pregnant belly with an outline of the African continent overlayed on the flesh, symbolizing the Motherland (which in the case of Aframs would would really have been littoral West and Central Africa but I digress). Not very subtle. With a sig like that, Charlie, you're really not doing much to convince me my opinion on this matter is unfounded.

[Mike the Jedi]

One more thing: Black Americans looking to identify with the Old World are especially interesting. I know they are not representative of EVERYONE, but honestly, go to African American messageboards on black identity and history, and I guarantee you that you're going to find plenty of people with names like "Osiris" or "KhemetQueen" or people with ankhs or Egyptian eyes in their avatars, etc. Not that there's anything wrong with liking Egypt or having a fascination with it, but reading through their posts, one can see that these people are not just interested in Egypt on an "I like it because I do" basis, they identify with it because they think it was a civilization made by blacks who looked just like them, not taking into account the difference between the more arid-featured and the more tropical-featured types.

I'm not saying the latter did not exist in Egypt, but based on the Egyptians' depiction of themselves, how could one possibly think it was dominant or even very important? Maybe in the formative period, but after that? Let's just assume for the moment that these are not Caucasoids but Aethiopoids (you'd never be able to tell the difference anyway):




Compare with the broad-featured, more infantile-faced type of littoral West Africa:




The messageboard types I mentioned earlier simply don't seem to care about the distinction. To put it the form of an analogy: a humid black trying to racially identify with an arid black would be like a Mediterranean trying to racially identify with a Nordic. Indeed, they may both be white, but they're still visibly different. And if the Med tries to prove the worth of his type by identifying with a completely different white type altogether, they're not making much of a point, are they?

Anyway, I think we see these "KhemetQueen" and "Pharaoh Darnell" people identifying with Egypt more than with West and Central African littoral civilizations because:
1.) Egypt was definitely impressive, and had a very long and influential history.
2.) It was and still is respected by most whites (everyone, really, but the white appreciation for Egypt makes the idea of it being black all the sweeter to the reactionaries).
3.) It is well-known among ordinary people. The Kingdoms of Ashanti or Ibo, for example, are not.

Of course, the fascination with the race of the Egyptians would not be as debated if it weren't for the colonial mentality: "Negroes are inferior because they never created civilizations and therefore were practically begging to be guided into enlightenment (read: exploited) by us more capable whites." The part about Negroes never creating a civilization is important, because it is at the root of the black backlash against the old Eurocentric (and specifically Nordicist) worldview. The quest is one of phenotypic validation. And nothing is more tempting than Egypt. The reason for that is because Egypt influenced the Western World, unlike the Kingdom of Benin, for instance.

The problem is Egyptians didn't look like coastal WA's and so the struggle for black thinkers to prove their race's worth in that little river land is fruitless IMO. By the way, I'm not talking about you, Charlie, but about the Aframs who do actually think that Egypt is a good place to try to prove that. What I like about you is that you never gave yourself a name like "Bertrandkhamen" or something like that. lol... I think you're serious about your black American heritage and wouldn't trade it for the world, but I still think you have an attachment to Africa that is born out of more than just a passing interest. Sorry for the rambling and ridiculously long dissertation. And for getting so far off-topic, but knowing your history, I can't help but think threads like this are a provocation so I can't help but argue. Must be the Greek in me.

[praetorian]

Hell, I have seen bonafide "white" egyptians (Cleopatra) depicted as black in things such as Tv Series (Xena) and video games (Civilization). Never saw any Nordic ones. So Afrocentrist believes are more widely accepted than Kemp's work, lol.

[tyrannos]

Cleopatra was Greek in fact anyway,which makes that even more ironic and funny.



The Ancient Egyptians are Mediterranean in race..there was maybe only 3-5% Negroid admixture in them in those days,though today it *may* be slightly higher pending.

Professor C. Loring Brace :

<<The likelihood of that either the Giza or Naqada configuration could occur in West Africa, the Congo, or points south is vanishingly small, around 0.000 and 0.001. Whatever else one can or cannot say about the Egyptians, it is clear that their craniofacial morphology has nothing whatsoever in common with sub-Saharan Africans. Our data then, provides no support for the claim that there was a "strong Negroid element in Predynastic Egypt>>

More from Brace:

"There is the very real possibility, for example,
that the darker skin pigmentation visible in the
people of the Upper Nile is not caused by the mixing
of a population that come from somewhere else."
(Brace et al., 1993, p. 20)

"As our data show, the people of the Horn of Africa
are craniofacially less distinct from a spectrum of
samples marginally including South Asia and running
all the way from the Middle East to northwest Europe
than they are to any group in sub-Saharan Africa."
(Brace et al., 1993, p. 19)


--------------------------------------------------------
There's also a whole page dedicated to refuting the Negro myths...

www.geocities.com/enbp/?200724

Quote:
Numerous mummies with hair still attached to the skulls show that straight, wavy, or lightly curled hair types were common in ancient Egypt. For example, in a study (Titlbachova and Titlbach, 1977) involving detailed microscopic investigation of hair samples taken from several ancient Egyptian mummies, most were determined to have been naturally straight, wavy, or gently curled, with a roundish cross-section typical of modern Eurasian and North African peoples. Only a minority showed evidence of structural characteristics traditionally called "Negroid"; even in these the "Negroid" elements were weakly manifested.

[praetorian]

Yes, I know that Cleopatra was of Greek origin. As you say, that makes it even more funny. Btw, Nordicist believes do have crept up in Hollywood, but only when it comes to Ancient Romans and Greeks, many times portraied as nordish looking.

[Mike the Jedi]

Heh... if they can get away with it, Hollywood seems to only be aware of two racial types: Nords and tropical black Africans. I guess they think they're the only two worth exposure in movies set in antiquity. I can't believe they cast Roxana to play a Bactrian. That's like casting Yoko Ono in the role of Queen Elizabeth. Doesn't make sense, but they don't really care.

[Cameo]

Mike I hate to say it but you're beating up on strawman arguments, no one has stated that Ancient Egyptians looked like West Africans so why even go there and compare AE art to West African art? Some AEs would have looked like AA blacks, who look different from West African blacks. This thread is turning into a lame straw attack on "Afrocentrism" beating on exaggerated positions and weak arguments. to AAs black is black, there is no distinction made between west African and East African black, a black person is a black person. An AA has no more right to "identify" with West and Central Africa and or AE, but I really hate it that no one would have no problem if we did identify with West or central Africa but vehemently oppose Egypt. Its as if people are saying "you little American Negroes are confined to this place only". Its because Egypt was great[though to *ME* not the greatest] that people are opposing AAs mentioning Egypt. Its someone wants to call themselves Kemet or "Black Osirius" so damn what? They're not identifying as AE. We call ourselves Jamal, Malik and Ahmed also, are we identifying with Arabs too? We call ourselves names that are British, French and Spanish, are we trying to identify as those too? hell no , we call ourselves AAs, blacks, Black American, so please quit building up lame arguments and strawmen to knock down.

The Ancient Egyptians are Mediterranean in race..there was maybe only 3-5% Negroid admixture in them in those days,though today it *may* be slightly higher pending.

This is BS, AEs were not Medits, they were just Africans who's look is continuous with other Nile Valley populations and last time I checked, the Nile valley wasn't populated and settled by "Medits", another erroneous Eurocentric racialist construct. You have no "3-5%" evidence to back any of your claims.

[TURTURRO!LMAOAO!]

Do you think the Sinai peninsula was guarded by angels with fire-swords to no let arabs/medits into Africa or something like that?