Black people

Kenyan male

The term black people is used to refer to many different groups. Similar phrases were common in the past, and exist in many other languages as well. Of course, this is a somewhat strange term since no people are truly colored black. Also, there is no uniformly accepted description of a "black person." There are many different definitions of what the word "black" means when it is used to describe people. These definitions are based on a variety of factors, such as racial, socio-political, lexical, and biological principles.

The concept of "black" people has been traced to the ancient Greeks and Romans who labelled dark skinned peoples from North East Africa as "Kushite", "Nubian", and "Ethiopian". ^[1] The label Black received something like its present meaning during The Enlightenment when anthropologists of that era defined five human races: Yellows (East Asians), Reds (American Indians), Whites (Caucasians), Browns (Australoids), and Blacks (Africans).^[2]

Historical background

The role of the Bible in defining black people

Not everyone agrees that the ancient world was as color blind as Professor Frank M. Snowden, Jr suggests and some use Biblical scriptures as evidence of racism in antiquity. According to some historians, the tale in Genesis 9 in which Noah cursed the descendants of his son Ham with servitude was a seminal moment in defining black people, as the story was passed on through generations of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic scholars. According to columnist Felicia R. Lee, "Ham came to be widely portrayed as black; blackness, servitude and the idea of racial hierarchy became inextricably linked." Historians believe that by the 19th century, the belief that blacks were descended from Ham was used by southern United States Christians to justify slavery. ^[3] According to Benjamin Braude, a professor of history at Boston College, "in 18th- and 19th century Euro-America, Genesis 9:18-27 became the curse of Ham, a foundation myth for collective degradation, conventionally trotted out as God's reason for condemning generations of dark-skinned peoples from Africa to slavery."^[3] A 1929 Jehovah’s Witnesses publication stated "The curse which Noah pronounced upon Canaan was the origin of the black race."^[4]

On the other hand, author David M. Goldenberg contends that the Bible is not a racist document. According to Goldenberg, such anti-black interpretations came from post-biblical writers of antiquity like Philo and Origen who equated blackness with darkness of the soul. ^[5] While scholars continue to debate how blacks were portrayed in the Bible, many people believe that the tradition of dividing human kind into three major races: Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid (now also commonly called black, white, and Asian), is partly rooted in tales of Noah's three sons repopulating the Earth after the Deluge and giving rise to three separate races.^[6]

The role of Ethiopians in defining ancient black identity

Although Carleton S. Coon argued that Ethiopians resemble Caucasoids more than Negroids^[7] the term Ethiopian was originally synonymous with black, and they are widely considered black today.

Snowden claims that terms like "Kushite", "Nubian", and "Ethiopian" were ancient synonyms for terms like "colored", "black", or "Negro." He also argues that Ethiopians were the founders of religion and greatly influenced many of the customs of Egyptians who, he argues, were descendants of the Ethiopians. "The experiences of Africans who reached the alien shores of Greece and Italy constituted an important chapter in the history of classical antiquity," he claims. Drawing on evidence from terra cotta figures, paintings, and sources like Herodotus and Pliny the Elder, Snowden contradicts modern assumptions that Greco-Romans viewed Africans with racial contempt. According to Snowden, many Africans worked in the Roman Empire as musicians, artisans, scholars, and generals and also slaves, but Snowden argues that they were noted as much for their virtue as for their complexion, which the Greeks described as a 'burnt face' (from which the Greek name Ethiopian was derived).^[1]

Although Ethiopians were the group by which the black race was originally defined and although Ethiopians have long been considered black because of their Negroid skin and hair type, the genetic history of the population currently found in Ethiopia has recently been called into question. A 2001 study of population genetic structure of variable drug response stated: 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a 'Black' cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. Only 24% of the Ethiopians are placed in the cluster with the Bantu and most of the Afro-Caribbeans; however 21% of the Afro-Caribbeans are placed in a cluster with the West Eurasians (presumably reflecting genetic exchange with Europeans). The study concludes Our implementation of STRUCTURE is primarily meant to show that familiar ethnic labels are not accurate guides to genetic structure. We have not attempted to provide a definitive description of human population structure.^[8] Other scientists claim that Ethiopians are intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians.^[9] A different way to interpret these sorts of results is to think of human genetic structure as distributed clinally rather than in discreted populations.^[10] In 1962, Carleton Coon argued that their craniofacial features resemble those of Caucasoids.^[7] In addition, biologist R. Scacchi wrote (Human Biology 75.2 (2003) 293-300): recent phylogenetic analysis based on classical protein polymorphism (Tartaglia et al. 1996) and Y-chromosome sequence variation (Underhill et al. 2000) showed that Ethiopians appear to be distinct from Africans and more closely associated with populations of the Mediterranean basin. It should be noted that "variable drug response" is just one of the countless genetic traits.

However the cause of Ethiopians' alleged genetic and physical resemblance to both Negroids and Caucasoids (terms not usually used by scientists today) may only partly be explained by admixture. Scientists believe that modern humans originated in Africa, and that all non-Africans carry a later mutation. That mutation occurred in or near to what is today known as Ethiopia.^[11] The researches of Spencer Wells and others show the presence of the marker associated with that mutation, called M130, in present-day populations found on the Arabian peninsula and, following the coastline of the ocean, all the way along to two distant termini, one in Australia and the other in South America. ^[12] A second wave of migration carried humans in a more northernly series of inland paths with branchings identified with other mutations and their markers. ^[13]

According to Owen 'Alik Shahadah, recent attempts to redefine Ethiopians as something other than black is Eurocentric:

"Traditionally Europeans in their historical attempts to exclude Africa from civilization have hit upon an obstacle when Ethiopia exists. To solve this apparent contradiction the argument moves to, 'it was introduced from another people.' At no point in time can Africans be allowed to be seen to have fostered anything, which Europe labels as artefacts of civilization. So either the invisible border comes into play and civilisations are assigned to North Africa ('non-Black') or alternatively, gifts given to Africans from external non-African sources.^[14]

Others argue that the type of prejudice Shahadah describes is a relatively recent phenomenon. Christian Delacampagne's L'Invention du racisme: Antiquité et Moyen-Age (1983), describes the origins of racism, and claims that most specialists agree with Snowden's view that neither the Greeks nor the Romans attached a special stigma to dark skin.^[1] In any case, the flexibility with which the same individual may be assigned to categories with different names is clear.

Age of Enlightenment: science defines the black race

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach came up with the five color distribution of human races: White, Black, Yellow, Red, and Brown

Many argue that racism did not always exist, and that its origins can be traced to the Age of Enlightenment which gave rise to biological classifications and the theory of evolution.^[15]

The concept of “black” as a metaphor for race was first used at the end of the 17th century when a French doctor named Francois Bernier divided up humanity based on facial appearance and body type. He proposed four categories: Europeans, Far Easterners, Lapps, and finally blacks who he described as having wooly hair, thick lips, and very white teeth.^[16] The first major scientific model was created in 18th century when Carolus Linnaeus recognized four main races: "Europeanus", which he labeled the white race; "Asiatic", which he labeled the yellow race; "Americanus", which he labeled the red race; and "Africanus", which he labeled the black race.^[17] According to Linnaeus, the black male could be defined by his skin tone, face structure, and curly hair. Linnaeus believed blacks were cunning, passive, inattentive, and ruled by impulse. To Linnaeus, black females were apparently shameless, because "they lactate profusely".^[18] Linnaeus' protege, anthropology founder Johann Blumenbach completed his mentor's color coded race model by adding the brown race, which he called "Malay" for Polynesisians and Melanesians of Pacific Islands, and for aborigines of Australia.^[2] According to Dinesh D'Souza, "Blumenbach's classification had a lasting influence in part because his categories neatly broke down into the familiar colors: white, black, yellow, red, and brown."^[16] Gradually the "yellow" and "red" races got lumped together, and the brown race ignored because of its small population, yielding just three races commonly known as Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid^[19]. The last term is derived from Negro which is a Spanish adjective for black.^[20] Some anthropologists added the brown race back in as an Australoid category (which includes aboriginal peoples of Australia along with various peoples of southeast and south Asia, especially Melanesia and the Malay Archipelago)^[21], and viewed it as separate from Negroids (often lumping Australoids in with Caucasoids) despite the fact that their skin is also dark.^[22] By the 1970s the term black replaced Negro in the United States^[23] Debate continues to exist over whether the term black should be capitalized or not as are other ethnic labels like Hispanic. Responding to the issue, Norm Goldstein, stylebook editor for the Associated Press stated "African-Americans, Hispanics, Arabs, and similar descriptions are considered nationalities (or dual nationalities), while 'black' and 'white' are the more commonly used terms for the Negroid and Caucasian races."[1]

Late 20th century: Blacks as the original race

Charles Darwin was perhaps the first to publicly speculate that Africa was the cradle of human kind. Because apes are very similar to humans and live in Africa, he believed that this was probably where humans evolved. However biblical views were still dominant at the start of the enlightenment. Blumenbach believed that humans were originally white, having populated the world after the Biblical flood from Mount Ararat (at the modern Turkey/Iran border).^[2]

In the post-Darwin era, Carleton Coon postulated in his Multiregional hypothesis that people living in different regions of the world evolved into anatomically modern humans (AMH) independently. He hypothesised that Caucasoids evolved before other human populations (and were therefore the most advanced AMH). In this hypothesis Caucasoid people would be seen as the first AMHs.

Forensic reconstruction of an African skeleton dated at 160,000 years ago, these are the oldest Homo sapiens remains ever discovered

Recent evidence has made the Multiregional hypothesis increasingly obsolete, the dominant modern hypothesis is the Recent single-origin hypothesis which postulates that all modern humans are descended from a small African population that existed about 200,000 years ago, in this model all humans fully evolved into Homo sapiens recently, and represent a very recent and genetically similar species. In this model the first AMHs may well have been black people because they likely evolved in the same African environment that produced the black race as we know it today. Be that as it may, by definition all modern humans are equally related to original AMHs.^[24] The academic Steve Olson argues that since all modern humans lived in Africa until 60,000 years ago, there simply hasn't been enough time for important genetic differences to evolve, and that all living races are exceedingly similar.^[25] "We're all Africans under the skin" says geneticist Spencer Wells^[26]

I do not believe that we should dignify this man and his ideas in public debate. His claims must be denounced, his methodology discredited, his grant revoked and his position terminated at this university. This is not science.^[28]

"I, the Black Man, am the original man, the first man to walk this vast and imponderable earth. I, the black man, am an African, the exotic, single, quintesence of a universal blackness...the first truly human being the world has ever known."^[16]

Some scientists speculate that black people lost their dark skin colour because the selective pressure in temperate regions was for subcutaneous vitamin D production rather than protection from strong sunlight. Consumers of primarily vegetarian diets found insufficient dietary sources of vitamin D in Northern climates, which were therefore unavailable for colonization until a mutation developed that limited skin pigmentation and thereby promoted vitamin D synthesis.^[29]

Interpreting such findings, in 1993, black nationalists stated "white people are genetic mutations of black people. Only black women can claim all the genetic material necessary to create other races"^[16]. Elijah Muhammad of the Nation of Islam echoes such themes: "The original man, Allah, is none other than the black man. The black man is the first and last, maker and owner of the universe. From him came all brown, yellow, red, and white people."^[16]

Current definitions

Because of the ancient, international, and often controversial history of labeling some human beings by the color black, defining who is black is not as easy it seems. Here are some recent attempts:

Socio-political definitions

• The U.S. census says a black is 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 Negro," or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.^[30]

• South Africa's Black Economic Empowerment Charter stated: "'Black people', 'black persons', or 'blacks' are generic terms which mean Africans, Coloureds and Indians who are South African citizens by birth or who have obtained citizenship prior 27 April 1994. This term does not include juristic persons or any form of enterprise other than a sole proprietor.^{[31] [verification needed]} However during apartheid, Blacks were defined by the pencil test, in which a pencil was speared through one's hair, and if it failed to slip out, one was categorized as black.^[32]

• According to psychologist Arthur Jensen, "American blacks are socially defined simply as persons who have some degree of sub-Saharan African ancestry and who identify themselves (or, in the case of children, are defined by their parents) as black or African-American"^[33]

• According to activist Nirmala Rajasingam "I think the idea of a Black identity, was inspired by the Civil Rights movement in the US. Unfortunately, now Black is identified with people of African origin only, but it didn’t used to be that way. It was used as a political term of people of color uniting to fight racism".^[34]

• According to Frank W. Sweet, the most controversial answer to the question "who is black?" is "whoever looks black." He writes that although most who use the label rationalize it in terms of physical appearance, there is little objective consistency in this regard, and that different cultures can assign the same individual to opposite "races": North Americans, Haitians, Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Barbadians, Jamaicans, and Trinidadians all have different subconscious and automatic perceptions of just what features define who belongs to which "racial" label.^[35]

• "In this country [the United States], if you are not quite white, then you are black," said Jose Neinstein, a native white Brazilian and executive director of the Brazilian-American Cultural Institute in Washington. But in Brazil, he added, "If you are not quite black, then you are white." ^[36]

• According to America's one drop rule, a black is any person with any known African ancestry.^[37]

• According to Professor R Bhopal a black is "A person with African ancestral origins, who self identifies, or is identified, as Black, African or Afro-Caribbean (see, African and Afro-Caribbean). The word is capitalised to signify its specific use in this way. In some circumstances the word Black signifies all non-white minority populations, and in this use serves political purposes. While this term was widely supported in the late 20th century there are signs that such support is diminishing."^[38]

Lexical definitions

• Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the term ‘black’ with regard to race as follows: "a person belonging to a dark-skinned race or one stemming in part from such a race; esp. Negro.^[20]

• YourDictionary.com defines "black" with regard to race as "Of or belonging to a racial group having brown to black skin, especially one of African origin: the Black population of South Africa.^[39]

• Dictionary.com and thefreedictionary.com defines "Black person" as "a person with dark skin who comes from Africa (or whose ancestors came from Africa) [syn: Black, Black person, blackamoor, Negro, Negroid]^[40][41]"

• Dictionary.com defines "Black" as pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. ^[42]

Biological definitions

To those who define black genetically, the Sahara desert divided the human gene pool into blacks and non-blacks.

Further information: genetic views on race

There is no universally accepted biological definition of race. Some biologists claim that race is a biologically quantifiable phenomenon, while others argue that race is biologically meaningless.^[9][10] Nevertheless attempts have been made to define black people genetically.

• According to Michael Levin "Ordinary speakers acquainted with the out-of-Africa scenario are most charitably construed as intending 'Negroid' to denote individuals whose ancestors 15 to 5000 generations ago (with Harris & Hey, 1999, counting a generation as 20 years) were sub-Saharan African...Hybrid populations with multiple lines of descent are to be characterized in just those terms: as of multiple descent. Thus, American Negroids are individuals most of whose ancestors from 15 to 5000 generations ago were sub- Saharan African. Specifying 'most' more precisely in a way that captures ordinary usage may not be possible. '> 50%' seems too low a threshold; my sense is that ordinary attributions of race begin to stabilize at 75%.^[43] University of Western Ontario professor J. Phillipe Rushton states "a Negroid is someone whose ancestors, between 4,000 and (to accommodate recent migrations) 20 generations ago, were born in sub-Saharan Africa.^[19]

• Sally Satel of the Policy Review stated “The entities we call ‘racial groups’ essentially represent individuals united by a common descent — a huge extended family, as evolutionary biologists like to say. Blacks, for example, are a racial group defined by their possessing some degree of recent African ancestry (recent because, after all, everyone of us is out of Africa, the origin of Homo sapiens).^[19]

• Page 42 of the abridged version of "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" states: "In both everyday life and evolutionary biology, a 'Black' is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa^[44]

Other viewpoints

Many people feel that being black is too complex an issue to be adequately captured by any of the standard definitions:

• Lewis R. Gordon (Director of the Institute for the Study of Race and Social Thought at Temple University) says "Not all people who are designated African in the contemporary world are also considered black anywhere. And similarly, not all people who are considered in most places to be black are considered African anywhere. There are non-black Africans who are descended from more than a millennia of people living on the African continent, and there are indigenous Pacific peoples and peoples of India whose consciousness and life are marked by a black identity".^[45]
• Psychiatrist Ikechukwu Obialo Azuonye says "being dark skinned is a widespread phenomenon which does not define any specific group of human beings. The tendency to reserve the designation black to sub-Saharan Africans and people of their extraction is manifestly misinformed".^[46]
• Cultural writer and filmmaker Owen 'Alik Shahadah adds "the notion of some invisible border, which divides the North of African from the South, is rooted in racism, which in part assumes that a little sand is an obstacle for African people. This barrier of sand hence confines/confined Africans to the bottom of this make-believe location, which exist neither politically or physically". Shahadah argues that the term sub-Saharan Africa is a product of European imperialism, "Sub-Saharan Africa is a byword for primitive African: a place, which has escaped advancement. Hence, we see statements like 'no written languages exist in Sub-Saharan Africa.' 'Egypt is not a Sub-Saharan African civilization.'^[14]
• Activist Nirmala Rajasingam also considers most standard definitions of black too narrow: "It was a failure because it divided the Black community into its constituent parts.. into Jamaican or Punjabi or Sri Lankan Tamil and so on, rather than build up Black unity.. But you know, there are young Asians who would like to call themselves Black, but the African youth will say 'You are not Black, you are Asian. We are Black'. Similarly, there are young Asians who will say 'We are not Black, we are Asian.'. So it has all become diluted and depoliticized."^[34]
• Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop also feels that the standard conceptions of black people fall short, stating: "There are two well-defined Black races: one has a black skin and woolly hair; the other also has black skin, often exceptionally black, with straight hair, aquiline nose, thin lips, an acute cheekbone angle. We find a prototype of this race in India: the Dravidian. It is also known that certain Nubians likewise belong to the same Negro type...Thus, it is inexact, anti-scientific, to do anthropological research, encounter a Dravidian type, and then conclude that the Negro type is absent."^[47]

Criticism

There are objections to the standard definitions of black people, as well as criticism of the term itself. Owen 'Alik Shahadah says "as a political term it was fiery and trendy but never was it an official racial classification of peoples who have a 120,000 year old history. Indians are from India, Chinese from China. There is no country called Blackia or Blackistan. Hence, the ancestry-nationality model is more respectful and accurate: African-American, African-British, African-Brazilian, and African-Caribbean." 'Alik Shahadah also objects that "in addition, because it is a term placed on us, we have no bases for its control, and hence they are able to say; 'Ancient Egyptians weren't black.' Black has no meaning; except the meaning they place on it, if and when they chose."^[14]

Capitalization

There is some controversy, as will be seen if one traces the history of this article, as to whether the word "black" should be capitalized when referring to a racial group (e.g., using the paragraph immediately above this one, "There are objections to the standard definitions of black people" versus "There are objections to the standard definitions of Black people"). Section 8.43 of the Chicago Manual of Style calls for the use of lowercase letters when referring to race by color (hence, "black people," "white people," etc.). Some scholars feel that such terms denote a special significance, especially the term "black," and thus elect to capitalize. (See, for example, footnote 9 at [2].) Undoubtedly there are strong arguments on each side of the issue. This article reflects the Chicago Manual of Style's usage (except, of course, in quotations) under the theory that doing so is the most politically neutral viewpoint because it reflects adherence to a well-respected stylebook.

Gallery

Oprah Winfrey is black by all definitions of the term. According to genetic tests done by PBS' African Lives, she is 89% Sub-Saharan, 8% Native American, 3% East Asian.[48] which means that most of her ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa. On average, African-Americans have about an 83% African ancestry.[49]	Barack Obama self-identifies as black and could identify as black or multi-racial by many definitions, some definitions would dispute his right to identify as black because only half of his ancestors are from sub-Saharan Africa.	Although "Ethiopian" was once a synonym for "Negro". The anthropologist Carleton S. Coon classified them as a "related Mediterranean type, mixed in varying degrees with negroes" [50]. Although such views are controversial, a 2001 Oxford population genetic structure of variable drug response study claimed the Ethiopians fall outside their black "genetic cluster". It should be noted that "variable drug response" is just one of the countless genetic traits.	Aeta comes from a word for "black" in Tagalog. Many dictionary, census, and biological definitions for black people indicate an African ancestry is a prerequisite. This is an exclusive concept and excludes many people that self identify as black, or who are considered black by more inclusive definitions, but who have no recent African ancestry. Afrocentric scholars argue that all dark-skinned people are Africoid. However, they are part of Blumenbach's "brown race."
In some cases, according to Cavalli-Sforza's allele frequency data, some Blasians are almost as genetically distant from some blacks as some whites are. Genetic distance here is used in a two dimensional sense, as Cavalli-Sforza's allele frequency data is based on a two axis coordinate plane. [51] Cavali-Sforza argues that biogeographic variation is gradual and that "race" is an arbitrary concept. [citation needed]	Tiger Woods coined the term Cablinasian to describe his ethnicity. He could self-identify as black, Asian, Native American, white, or multi-racial, some definitions would claim that he is not black because only a quarter of his ancestors are from sub-Saharan Africa instead of most.	Black Irish are not black people; however, John Beddoe, the founder and president of the British Anthropological Institute, developed in his book "The Races of Man" (1862) an "Index of Nigressence" from which he argued that the Irish had craniofacial features close to Cro-Magnon man and thus had links with the "Africinoid" races.[52] Many dictionaries also define black as a synonym for swarthy, from which the Black Irish got their name.[citation needed]	As a child, Michael Jackson fit Dictionary.com's definition of a black person because he was a dark skinned person whose ancestors come from Africa. As an adult he is no longer dark skinned and thus does not meet the first part of Dictionary.com's definition, however he is still black according to census and biological definitions.
Nelson Mandella is the only living black person to have ranked among A&E's 100 most influential people of the last 1000 years	Indigenous Australians Aboriginal people are sometimes described as black in Australia. Indigenous Australians would not be Black using official census definitions.	Some scholars created controversy by claiming that ancient Egyptians, like King Tutankhamen, were black.	Warren Harding may have had black ancestory,[53] making him the first "black president" by some definitions.

See also

• African-American
• Afro-Latin American
• Colored
• Human genetic variation
• Mulatto
• Negrito
• Negro
• Négritude
• Negroid
• Human genetic history

References

Categories

Find

Find