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

IllmaticDelta

Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
28,881
Reputation
9,501
Daps
81,307
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.

You have understand the USAmerican concept of race. There are/were indeed "white looking Afromericans".





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.

"Black" in the USA means

"Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as 'Black, African Am.' or provide written entries such as Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian."[16]

and to add to that

"
And so, why do few if any White Americans display a strongly African appearance (have a high melanin index) despite having detectable African admixture? Because those Americans who “look Black” are assigned involuntarily to the Black endogamous group, whatever their genetic admixture. The scatter diagrams of the two endogamous U.S. groups are not symmetrical because the selection process acts only upon the White group. As revealed in court records, discussed elsewhere, a person of mixed ancestry who “looks European” (like Dr. Shriver or his maternal grandfather) in practice has the option of either adopting a White self-identity, thus joining the White endogamous group or a Black self-identity, thus joining the other group. But a person of mixed ancestry who “looks African” lacks such a choice. U.S. society assigns such a person to membership in the Black endogamous group, like it or not.25

In conclusion, U.S. society has unwittingly applied selection pressure to the color line. The only American families accepted into the White endogamous group have been those whose African admixture just happened not to include the half-dozen alleles for dark skin (or the other physical traits associated with “race”). Since those particular alleles were sifted out of the portion of the White population that originated in biracial families, the relative percentage of the remaining, invisible, African alleles in this population cannot affect skin color. That skin-color does not vary with African genetic admixture among American Whites, despite their measureably recent African admixture, demonstrates and confirms that physical appearance has been an important endogamous group membership criterion throughout U.S. history. It has resulted in genetic selection of the White U.S. population for a European “racial” appearance, regardless of their underlying continent-of-ancestry admixture ratio."





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.

It's explained why in the article

"It seems that Dr. Shriver’s maternal grandfather moved from Pennsylvania to Iowa, then to California, leaving behind in the process most of his ties with his relatives.23 Dr. Shriver, it turns out, (see photograph above) is one of the 74 million White Americans with significant recent African genetic admixture.In a coincidentally similar fashion, Dr. Rick Kittles, Shriver’s collaborator from Howard University in Washington, discovered that he carries the FY-null genetic marker at genome position 1q23.2. This marker is found in 998 out of every thousand Europeans but found in only one out of thousand Africans. Many of Dr. Kittles’s other ancestry-informative markers tell the same unexpected story. Dr. Kittles (see photograph above) is one of the many Black Americans with strong European genetic admixture. And yet, and there is no other way to say this, Dr. Shriver “looks White” and Dr. Kittles definitely “looks Black. Why is there such a discrepancy between measured genetic admixture and physical appearance?There is an immediate answer to this question, and a deeper answer. The immediate answer is that many different invisible genes identify continent of ancestry. As of the summer of 2004, the private DNA lab DNAPrint Genomics, Inc. uses up to 175 single nucleotide polymorphisms (markers) in order to analyze a client’s ancestral continents of origin.24 On the other hand only a handful of genes encode for the few superficial, externally visible features (skin color, hair curliness, etc.) that Americans see as “racially” significant. Parental genes are randomly recombined with each passing generation. It can happen, through sheer chance, that an individual (like Dr. Shriver) can inherit many invisible African DNA markers, but few or none of the handful of alleles that encode for “racial” appearance. Alternatively, a person (like Dr. Kittles) can inherit those few alleles that encode for visible “racial” appearance but otherwise inherit the invisible but ancestrally informative European admixture markers"
 

GreatestLaker

#FirePelinka
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
22,160
Reputation
985
Daps
44,235
Anyway, the one chick who called me out admitted to being a mixed Latino, which Trinidadians aren't. She also didn't call anyone out with her blatant misrepresentations and lies about Trinidadians either. Trinidadians don't look like fukking Iranians at all. Even the Hindis don't look like that. bytch was on some other c00n shyt.
Why are you so fukking dumb? :what:

This idiot isn't Caribbean, period. Dumbass said this a few months ago.


First of all, contrary to ignorant belief, Carribean is not interchangeable with "West Indian". West Indian people are strictly from Trinidad.

Second, the assertion Carribean blacks are not "black" but African Americans "are black" defies logic.

Did I stutter? Jamaica is not the West Indies nor is it referred to as such by Carribean people. When people say the West Indies, they talk about Trinidad, not Jamaica or Barbados or Cuba.

:mindblown:
 

IllmaticDelta

Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
28,881
Reputation
9,501
Daps
81,307
"Your friend's sisters' family.." Sounds like a convoluted lie but I digress, anecdotes don't prove anything.




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.

There are slavery era ads with descriptions of Igbo being "yellowish" in complexion.
 

Biscayne

Ocean air
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
33,712
Reputation
5,524
Daps
102,067
Reppin
Cruisin’
Many Blacks with varying skin tones, don't even have that high of "other" racial admixtures in their DNA. Of course someone the complexion of Rachel Dolezal clearly has Euro ancestry. But once you start getting down into people with say, Charles Barkley's complexion, and facial features, then the guessing game gets a little trickier. There are tribes, and sub-groups of Africans that share the exact same physical makeup as each other, and don't vary in complexions at all. But they're just tribes, and sub-groups of the larger Sub Saharan African racial base, which include various groups with varying skin tones and facial features. Obviously if you see Mariah Carey in the Bushes of Sub Saharan Africa, than she'll be easy to separate as one who isn't 100% Negro. But to think every African must resemble Alex Wek to be considered 100% Black/Negroid is innaccurate.
 

Bawon Samedi

Good bye Coli
Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
42,413
Reputation
18,635
Daps
166,508
Reppin
Good bye Coli(2014-2020)
In that 2nd video, her Af-Am accent came out in full force. That's one way to distinguish between a biracial and a multigenerationally mixed AA. The former often lack black accents, but not always.

Hair texture is also a big deal. In America, biracials with nappy hair (as opposed to loose curls) are often assumed to be multigenerationally mixed or light-skinned AAs (a lot of people don't know J. Cole is biracial, for example). You have to have curly or wavy hair in order for people to question your ''race''.

This girl appears to be lighter than both of her parents. Certainly not the norm, but it's not unheard of. I would estimate her mother to be about 50 % Euro genetically (not culturally) and her dad to be 20-25% Euro. With that background, it's possible to produce predominantly Euro offspring, which might be the case here. She looks less white in the second video though.

:troll:
 

godkiller

"We are the Fury"
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
26,151
Reputation
-4,700
Daps
35,651
Reppin
NULL
Many Blacks with varying skin tones, don't even have that high of "other" racial admixtures in their DNA. Of course someone the complexion of Rachel Dolezal clearly has Euro ancestry. But once you start getting down into people with say, Charles Barkley's complexion, and facial features, then the guessing game gets a little trickier. There are tribes, and sub-groups of Africans that share the exact same physical makeup as each other, and don't vary in complexions at all. But they're just tribes, and sub-groups of the larger Sub Saharan African racial base, which include various groups with varying skin tones and facial features. Obviously if you see Mariah Carey in the Bushes of Sub Saharan Africa, than she'll be easy to separate as one who isn't 100% Negro. But to think every African must resemble Alex Wek to be considered 100% Black/Negroid is innaccurate.

That blacks naturally and normally vary between dark to brown skin is not what's in contention. Posters have contested here that blacks naturally have all manners of skin tones, including Mariah Carey's. This is what you are arguing against. Blacks having "larger lips, curlier hair, darker skin" than other groups is not the same as saying "African must resemble Alex Wek". It is not an all-or-nothing proposition. I just want to make that clear.
 
Last edited:

IllmaticDelta

Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
28,881
Reputation
9,501
Daps
81,307
It's your job to provide evidence for your claim, not mine. If they're so easy to find, you should have no trouble finding them.

:whoo:

jlorYoT.jpg


uvASZsa.jpg


yE3Px8O.jpg
 

godkiller

"We are the Fury"
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
26,151
Reputation
-4,700
Daps
35,651
Reppin
NULL
Why are you so fukking dumb? :what:

This idiot isn't Caribbean, period. Dumbass said this a few months ago.






:mindblown:

I stick 100% what I said a few months ago and know 100% what I'm talking about. You're an American from LA so it's not like you know anything about what I'm talking about anyway. You're arguing from a base of ignorance in the first place. Carry on. :mjlol:
 
Top