White Supremacist Is 14 percent Sub-Saharan African
- Thread starter yung_dood
- Start date
Sub-Saharan African are Negroids which are black ppl.
Your opinion is irrelevant, you are not entitled to your own reason and fact. Your comment has racist undertones as well.
I believe the term Sub-Saharan means south of the Sahara desert so it puts him alot farther south than he wants to be.
REAL???
That would really surprise a lot of scholars who study the very small population of South Africans who huddled around the coast of South Africa about 50,000 years ago, more common referred to today as the San people or those who study the Australopithecus africanus or Homo egaster who date back to ~3 million years and ~2 million years respectfully. All others groups stem from them.
Sub-Saharan African does not mean Arab, Berber, etc. What do you mean by "real African"?
I was speaking in terms of historical POV. In antiquity Africa was synonymous with Semitic peoples.
What do such percentages matter, would seem to be the point OT. The prime stupidity of even considering such nonsense comes from fundamentalist Bible believers who must account for all those different 'races' the Bible didn't mention, springing from the loins of Adam and Eve.
But then they have so much other rap to account for first, don't they.
But then they have so much other rap to account for first, don't they.
no Most Black Africans speak the niger-congo languages. semitics(branch of the Afro Asiatic) are in Ethiopia and North Africa
I'm not referring to Semitic languages, I'm talking about the racialization of the term. Ethiopian and North Africans are Negroids.no Most Black Africans speak the niger-congo languages. semitics(branch of the Afro Asiatic) are in Ethiopia and North Africa
We could say that SOME negroids are Semitic at least.
Black people who are descendants of slaves, especially those living outside of Africa, know they have white blood in them in most cases. Black people did not create the social construction of race, they were forced to abide by it, and it is different in every society. Someone like Malcolm X would be considered "white" in some Africa societies. My point is that race is not a biological term.
Well at least we have made our way from antiquity to the last century...progress I guess.
Uh, yeah, it is. There are genetic markers, and some drugs work better in different races. The term is common among zoologists, but we tend to think of H. sapiens as somehow different. We aren't. Within our species, there are some inherent traits in each group which confer a survival advantage in different environmental conditions. That's pretty well the zoological definition of a race. Lighter skin, as an example, is an adaptation to lower light levels, allowing for easier vitamin D synthesis. The problem comes in when racists try to find more than necessary, and place value judgements on each group. There is no good evidence that abilities like intelligence are any different. Philippe Rushton claimed to have found some, but his work has been thoroughly discredited.
Actually the term "race" is no longer a scientific term, especially now that we are in the era of understanding genetics.
The proper term has always been sub-species, but now that we can look at groups genetically, we know that the inter group variation amongst a race is greater than the intra-group variation between races, making the terms scientifically useless and simply subject to heavy subjective abuse.
The proper term now for looking at groups inside the human species is "populations" and they don't really correspond to traditional races. Take for example the population with the mutation that allows for milk to be easily digested. It makes a perfect example.
If you are interested in the subject you might want to look at Tattersal's book "Race." He is a top notch scientist but the book is very accessible.
