This girl is 100% Afram but does she look "Black" to you?

[godkiller]

Not all Aframs are that %. Some can be 0% white and others can be 75+% white

What @ScaryBlackMan is saying is that people who are primarily non-black aren't, for all intents and purposes, black. It is obviously absurd to suppose that anybody with 75+% ancestry is black. That's like assuming African Americans are white.

I never mentioned Rachel Dolezal

According to your logic, she could very well be black too. What if she's 5% black? Rachel Dolezal's case really shows how absurd your logic and agenda is. While Rachel can be African American, she can't really be black.

I already explained this pages back

This article's content disproves its title, which implies the article is propaganda bullshyt. The article's graph says that there is a positive correlation (I have found even higher correlations) between African American skin tone and African ancestry (which I have said time and time again), yet the article states that "genetic admixture is not the same as appearance". The graph posits the opposite of the article's title, which is that admixture does indeed code for appearance.

 

[godkiller]

I already explained this pages back

And you're fukking wrong. The majority of dark skins come from dark skin people, not just in the USA but around the world. If one were to eliminate the dark skin people in the USA, there would soon be no dark skin people (and after that no blacks). The incidental dark skin born would be an exception (as a light skin being born to dark skins is an exception now)

 

[UnoVon]

Not all Aframs are that %. Some can be 0% white and others can be 75+% white



Aframs are a group of people where people can range from Don Cheadle to Walter White





I never mentioned Rachel Dolezal




Read

I already explained this pages back

I'm not reading that long ass bullshyt my nikka I just want you to summarize exactly what this thread is about, why you made it and what what you're trying to achieve with it, it shouldn't take more than three sentences to do.

 

[bright black]

feelings being felt up in here...

 

[sportscribe]

Less non-black variation is not besides the point as it implies lighter skin and more potential for phenotypic difference (mixed people differ more than pure race people when it comes to mixed features). Blacks actually don't have any gene for "green eyes", similar to East Asians, and if Africans are pure black, they shouldn't either (same as East Asians). Your family, while an interesting case, does not necessarily represent Africans. You're probably a outlier in this context. You could be ancestrally mixed like East Africans or a migratory Fulani or something which is besides the point.

My friend's sisters*, not my family.

Of course there will be a greater variation in mixed groups. Duh! Also if you are familiar with the Igbo group, then you'll know that even within West African groups you can have varying skin tones across varying populations which does not necessitate any admixture. Within the nuclear family you can have siblings of various shades. Also you should understand that Africans are not monolithic, so this talk of "pure race" and "pure black" is misplaced. You have various groups and clans that have migrated from place to place and have intermixed for centuries.

 

[godkiller]

My friend's sisters*, not my family.

"Your friend's sisters' family.." Sounds like a convoluted lie but I digress, anecdotes don't prove anything.

Also if you are familiar with the Igbo group, then you'll know that even within West African groups you can have varying skin tones across varying populations which does not necessitate any admixture. Within the nuclear family you can have siblings of various shades. Also you should understand that Africans are not monolithic, so this talk of "pure race" and "pure black" is misplaced. You have various groups and clans that have migrated from place to place and have intermixed for centuries.

I have already discussed the Igbo on this forum already. All the early village people pictures I can find of early 1950s Igbo, before they amassed wealth and beforen bleaching became prevalent in their region, show them to be primarily dark and brown skin like their African neighbours. In fact they are all but indistinguishable from other black African groups in their region. Considering this evidence, I reject assertions the Igbo are really of "various" shades. They're primarily the same or similar average skin tone to their neighbours (or were originally as the evidence shows).

And as respects Africans and their ancestry, studies show that the non-mixed Africans are in fact pure black by and large, and don't have much population structure, which implies they are "monolithic" racially (sorry if you thought otherwise). This is also true of East Asians, who also lack population structure and are the same racially. Whether groups migrate or intermix is irrelevant to this fact.

 

[Poitier]

This dude is a massive idiot

nikka using Google image searches to rebuttal the experiences of continental Africans

Claims Shona, Yoruba, Akan, Zulu, Kikuyu, Tutsi, Igbo, Lingala, Xhosa, Luo all being the same phenotypically

What a complete dumbass

 

[godkiller]

This dude is a massive idiot

nikka using Google image searches to rebuttal the experiences of continental Africans

I never said I don't have additional evidence (not that there's anything wrong with the picture investigation). There is genetic evidence on continental Africans which does not support any real phenotypic difference for Igbos. Thus the genetic evidence supports my claim as well. Alternatively, though it's not the most thorough study, the photo investigation shows us a decent sample of the Igbo. If indeed they are light-skinned and naturally come in a host of various shades, that would be evident from the photo study. I mean, I could do the same thing to Germans and ask the question, "Do the Germans have differing hair color?", and find that they do in virtually large sample ever, whether it be now, 50 years ago, 100 year ago etc.

You don't reject the picture investigation because its methodology or validity; you reject it because you're an ideologue and a moron, among other things.

Claims Shona, Yoruba, Akan, Zulu, Kikuyu, Tutsi, Igbo, Lingala, Xhosa, Luo all being the same phenotypically

You are arguing a strawman you made up in your own mind. I was talking about West Africans and their derivatives, not Southern or Northern Africans (or whatever else strawman you want to make up and refute). My original point was not that all Africans (not all Africans are even black or identify as black) look the same phenotypically, but that those in certain regions generally do.

 

[Poitier]

massive idiot!!!!!

 

[Poitier]

massive idiot!!!!!

 

[ImChrissyB]

Let me tell yall this...Everyone thinks that the 'African' is supposed to look the stereotypical way.. Huge nose, huge lips, tightly coiled short hair, very dark skin..This is what years and years of brainwashed media images has created for you smdh..That's the beautiful thing about the black race, we vary in appearance and vastly. We can be as white as snow, as dark as night, have features that are very broad or very fine..have hair that's loose and soft or tight and coily.. We do not look only one way. The people on the continent of Africa look so different from each other it's crazy and yes they are all black. You don't have to be mixed with something else to look that way.. The black race is the oldest race to exist on planet earth, so how can a certain hair type or feature be a 'white feature' if we were here first? Yall got the game mixed up big time. Why do you think a 100% black couple can have kids that look white but whites can't produce black kids? That is a fact. Boy I should start a thread on all the shyt black folks don't know but should know..the lost sheep indeed

 

[3rdWorld]

Dont try and insult my intelligence and heritage with that tom jones cac blowout..

 

[godkiller]

Let me tell yall this...Everyone thinks that the 'African' is supposed to look the stereotypical way.. Huge nose, huge lips, tightly coiled short hair, very dark skin..This is what years and years of brainwashed media images has created for you smdh..That's the beautiful thing about the black race, we vary in appearance and vastly. We can be as white as snow, as dark as night, have features that are very broad or very fine..have hair that's loose and soft or tight and coily.. We do not look only one way. The people on the continent of Africa look so different from each other it's crazy and yes they are all black. You don't have to be mixed with something else to look that way.. The black race is the oldest race to exist on planet earth, so how can a certain hair type or feature be a 'white feature' if we were here first? Yall got the game mixed up big time. Why do you think a 100% black couple can have kids that look white but whites can't produce black kids? That is a fact. Boy I should start a thread on all the shyt black folks don't know but should know..the lost sheep indeed

Though there is phenotypic variation, blacks generally do have stereotypical features including darker skin, more tightly coiled hair, larger lips, bigger nostrils, etc. These are racial features and hold scientific weight. There are even features related to brain morphology, bone weight, etc related to blacks and they too are correlated with blackness . Moreover, blacks don't naturally vary in appearance the way you describe with skin as "white as snow". That is nonsense. Also, blacks can't literally have kids that "look white" (unless albino). More nonsense. But I digress. This is the problem I have with AAs. Many of you are confusing your ethnicity's characteristics with that of the black race's, and then classifying black people by your standards, which are more like Brazilian's than black people's. For the purposes of convenience, identity and American oppression, I am OK with what AAs say. The problem is when AAs literally take their mythology as fact and start projecting onto the black race the fantasies your slavemasters imposed upon you.

 

[K.O.N.Y]

And you're fukking wrong. The majority of dark skins come from dark skin people, not just in the USA but around the world. If one were to eliminate the dark skin people in the USA, there would soon be no dark skin people (and after that no blacks). The incidental dark skin born would be an exception (as a light skin being born to dark skins is an exception now)

fam none of your post make sense. Im reading this shyt like

 

[ImChrissyB]

Though there is phenotypic variation, blacks generally do have stereotypical features including dark skin, tight coiled hair, larger lips, bigger nostrils, etc. Blacks don't naturally vary in appearance the way you describe with skin as "white as snow". That is nonsense. Also, blacks can't literally have kids that "look white". More nonsense. But I digress. This is the problem I have with AAs. Many of you are confusing your group's characteristics with that of the black race's, and then classifying black people by your standards, which are more like Brazil's than black people's.

You must not be black. I have family members with features very very different from my own...Pale skin, green eyes, hell even blond wavy hair..And many other black families would agree. I have a niece that looks nothing like her dark-skinned parents..a white friend came over, saw her and immediately asked, 'is she part white?' it was a very awkward moment that led to her leaving with a very red face.. Also, go to youtube and type in 'african couples have white children' and you'll see that the child is not albino, but actually white..pale skin and loose blond hair and even different features.. I don't bluff