Just cause someone is very dark doesn't mean they are not mixed. Again, those people have facial features similar to that of Arabs. The only thing they share with black people is the dark skin tone. If skin color was the deciding factor for blackness then we might as well call all them dark skinned indians in New Delhi black people then.
you gon call this dark skinned Indian a Black woman with straight-curly hair huh?
Even the west Africans with 4A/4B hair didnt just get that hair out of thin air. That hair texture resulted from the countries being infiltrated by non-black muslims many years ago who ended up sleeping with the black women there. Now the majority of the features were obviously bred out, but the hair texture is evidence of the past minor cross-breeding. Them Nigerians didnt just become Muslim, that influence came from somewhere.
To show this, compare the hair texture of west Africans and those in Southern African countries who have very little cross-breeding with non-blacks. You will see the striking difference in their hair texture and facial features.
Now back to my point: Those dark-skinned Egyptians may have some black in them, but they are obviously heavily mixed with Arab genes. I cant co-sign calling them black at all.
Ask yourself this: why do Americans today who consider themselves black look vastly different from the black people in Africa even though their ancestors originally came from Africa. The cross-breeding that happened during slavery introduced cac and native indian genes that forever changed that gene pool of black people over there. Thats why you got all these "mullatos" "light-brights" and "curly haired goddesses" nowadays. Their slave ancestors do not share those features with them.
I really don't get why most of you sweep this mix-breeding under the rug like it never happened, both in America, North and East Africa. Its pretty evident
But let coli members tell it with their " my cousin is 'full black' straight hair like a cac" rhetoric