What did the Romans call black people (sub-Saharan)? In classic Latin as well as vulgar latin and slang.
Ancient Romans used the word Aethiops/Aethiopem which was derived from Greek Αἰθίοψ (Aithíops).
But the other answer isn't right when it says that the word Aithiops had no meaning except for the land of "Ethiopia". Instead, the word is a combination created from αἴθω (aíthō, “burn”) + ὤψ (ṓps, “face”).
So the Greco-Roman word for the blacks was basically a "burned face". The name of "Ethiopia" was derived from "burned face". In the Greco-Roman world, "Ethiopia" was believed to include the whole non-Roman Africa. It was the universal word for that vaguely known part of the world.
The idea that old nations didn't recognize races is absolutely preposterous from a historical viewpoint. On the contrary, it's just the last 30 years when it became fashionable for some people to deny races and their importance. This denial has absolutely no precedent in any historical epoch.
The original meaning of Aethiops was purely racial. This is demonstrated by dozens of proverbs and important texts. For example, the Bible's Jeremiah 13:23
si mutare potest Aethiops pellen suam aut pardus…
which is currently translated as
Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or leopard its spots?
That's the modern translation despite the fact that the context makes it very clear that by definition, "Aethiops" was someone defined by having a dark skin. For thousands of years, "whitening the Aethiops" was considered the #1 idiom for "doing an impossible thing". One can't whiten a black because blacks are defined by their not being white.
In my earlier answers on similar questions,
What are some examples of racism in pre-modern literature?
How did people categorize each other in the middle ages, how did racism work?
I expressed the opinion that neither Romans nor Greeks nor Jews (of the time when the Bible was written) had words to designate races. Race is a modern invention. I challenged anyone to find a counterexample. No counterexample was ever shown to me. People were described by their country of origin, religion, ethnicity, but not by race. From the ancient literature we cannot even make a conclusion of the skin color of various personages. Was the Queen of Sheba who visited Solomon black? How about personages of Heliodorus's Aethyopica? Who of them was black?
Besides Scipio Africanus, there was an emperor Gaius Pescennius Niger Iustus, a 100% Italian, of a noble Roman family. Of course in Latin "niger" means "black". But this had nothing to do with race.
EDIT. In his answer, Lubos Motl claims that the word "Ethiopians" in the ancient literature describes a race. This is not so. Nubians are of the same race, they are frequently mentioned in the ancient literature, and there is no word which would mean "Nubians and Ethiopians and other similarly looking people".
Or take Numidians. Can someone tell me of what race and what color were Numidians, so frequently mentioned in the Roman history? In any case, I am quite certain they were never called "Ethiopians":-)
The cites from the Bible given in his answer do not have racial character: they only mean that Ethiopians have dark skin, and this cannot be changed. Which is simply a statement of fact. The Bible has many statements discriminating various peoples, but ALWAYS by language or religion. And never by race, as far as I now.
In the comments, people mention Helens/Romans vs Barbarians. But what does this have to do with race/skin color?? For the Greeks, Barbarians were Persians/Medes, first of all, people of "Arian race". For the Romans, Brits, Germans and Gauls (before Britain and Gaul were conquered) were Barbarians. Is not it clear that "Barbarians" has nothing to do with race?
The fact is that the Greeks and Romans did not have any knowledge of Africa south of the Sahara, so they could not have had any name for its inhabitants.
The First Romans Were Black People Called The Etruscans
They gave us the word “person” and invented a symbol of iron rule later adopted by the fascists. Some even argue it was they who really moulded Roman civilisation.
Yet the Etruscans, whose descendants today live in central Italy, have long been among the great enigmas of antiquity. Their language, which has never properly been deciphered, was unlike any other in classical Italy. Their origins have been hotly debated by scholars for centuries.
Genetic research made public at the weekend appears to put the matter beyond doubt, however. It shows the Etruscans came from the area which is now Turkey – and that the nearest genetic relatives of many of today’s Tuscans and Umbrians are to be found, not in Italy, but around Izmir.
Black people were the first people on earth. And, as historians, researchers and archaeologists prove that, for thousands and hundreds of years, Black people dominated much of Europe, before the European (Caucasians) stock moved in.
Italy, known for being the residence of Rome, was originally inhabited by the Etruscan Blacks.
Legends say they were descendants of refugees from the fallen city of Troy, led by the swarthy (dark-skinned) prince Aeneas after the city fell to the Greeks. Whether this legend is true or not, the pieces of evidence below clearly point that Rome was first owned by Blacks.
The statues and art of the Etruscans revealed them to be Africans – black people. History shows that they were sensual and creative people. The city of Rome was originally known as Ra Ouma which means a ” place protected by Ra “.
This worship of Ra, undoubtedly by the Etruscans, means that they most likely had a spiritual, physical and cultural link to Kemet (kmt), ancient Egypt or Phoenicia. In archeology, findings show that two African peoples, the Sicani, and the Liburni occupied ancient Italy.
The Roman writer Virgil revealed that the Pelasgians, the Kemetians (Black people) who settled in southern Greece, also occupied the Palatine, one of the seven hills of Rome. The Romans later became a ” Latin” people and became a mixed race.
But the African element played a major part in Rome’s history. The Blacks were everything, from charioteers to soldiers, generals, and Emperors. Rome’s famous Oracles were the Sibyls, African prophetesses, who wrote the famous Sibylline Prophecies. These writings were later plagiarized by the Christians. It was the African Sibyls who built the original Vatican, which was a temple to Mami Wata, goddess of the sea.
Undisputable Historical Evidence
Now, before we go further, we must state that many accounts about the origin of Rome that is found on the internet or even in modern books are lies. They are Caucasian versions to usurp the true identity of the Etruscans, who occupied Etruria (ancient Rome, Greece, and parts of Aegean).
The albinos (Caucasians), who were called “the Latins” started to migrate from the Eurasian plains to Italy. They most likely traveled with Hellene’s people into Greece and then moved further into Italy, which was a Black territory.
The contact between the Caucasians and the Black inhabitants of Italy was chaotic, as the Caucasians were violent and invasive.
It is important to note that the first original Black inhabitants were not just limited to Italy (Rome), but stretched to Greece, and the Aegean area. When the threats and violence from the White invaders increased, the Blacks of these areas formed a coalition.
A large number of them packed up their belongings, boarded their ships and moved out of their land. Some of the people stayed back, to defend their lands and deal with the white Etruria.
The Etruscans (Black owners of Rome), had a unique way of building their homes and cities. They built their houses on steep hills, which were surrounded by thick walls. Caucasian-Roman mythology claims that the white Romans built the first walls, but according to factual history and accounts of the Etruscans, the Blacks built the ancient walls of Rome and the Vatican.
The Black Romans — Articles on Black History
Was Septimius Severus the 1st Black man to rule England?
Did you know that Black and Asian people first came to the North East in Roman times? Or that England was once ruled by a Libyan? These and many more historical facts were revealed as part of BBC Black History Month.
Early Black History
Emperor Septimius Severus wasn’t the only Black Roman in Britain. There were other African officers, soldiers … stationed on and around Hadrian’s Wall in the 3rd century.
From the 9th century onwards, there are records of Vikings bringing Moroccans to the region.
There’s a gap in the recording of black presence in the North East of England for nearly 400 years until the start of the 16th century.
Black and Asian presence in the North East of England can be traced back to Septimius Severus, a North African Libyan, who ruled England as Roman Emperor between 193-211 AD.
Severus was unique amongst the Roman emperors as being the first Black citizen to hold the highest office in the empire.
The most celebrated example of an early Black presence in Britain is the case of the Roman military garrison on Hadrian’s Wall in Cumbria.
A 4th century inscription tells us that the Roman auxiliary unit, Numerus Maurorum Aurelianorum, was stationed at Aballava, modern day Burgh-by-Sands.
This unit had been mustered in the Roman province of Mauretania in North Africa, modern Morocco.
septimus-severus The Black Romans
It was recently suggested that African DNA might be found to be present in the local populations near to Hadrian’s Wall.
However, this would not conclusively show that the Black Roman soldiers on the wall intermarried with the local population because of the problem of ‘admixture’.
Admixture is a process whereby the DNA of a population becomes diluted over time and it cannot be shown at what period in time that dilution took place.
During his time in office, Septimius Severus legalised marriage during military service.
There is also evidence that that some Black Romans married, had children, and remained in Britain after their tour of duty.
Skeletons unearthed in a Romano British Cemetery outside York revealed the limb proportions of some of the men suggested that they were Black Africans.
Perhaps they might be considered to be Britain’s first Diaspora people, making Cumbria the birthplace of Black British history?
Havilah and Garden of Eden location
Havilah is mentioned in Genesis 2:10 http://www.biblegateway.com
And a river went out of Eden to water the garden and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold
In addition to the region described in chapter 2 of Genesis two individuals named Havilah are listed in the Table of Nations which lists the descendants of Noah, who are considered eponymous ancestors of nations. They are mentioned in Genesis and Chronicles. One is the son of Cush, the son of Ham the other, a son of Joktan and descendant of Shem.
Another land named Havilah is mentioned in Genesis where it defines the territory inhabited by the Ishmaelites as being “from Havilah to Shur, opposite Egypt in the direction of Assyria” and in Samuel, which states that king Saul attacked the Amalekites who were living there.
18th-Century Black Activists and Missionaries
By the late 1700s, British 18th-century Black activists were campaigning hard against the practice of enslavement in England. They published pamphlets described the horrid brutality and inhumanity of enslavement on plantations. One of the most famous images showed a Black man in chains asking “Am I not a man and a brother?”
Once the British Empire abolished enslavement in 1833, however, Black activists turned their efforts against the practice within Africa. In the colonies, the British were also frustrated that former formerly enslaved people didn’t want to keep working on plantations for very low wages. Soon the British were portraying African men not as brothers, but as lazy idlers or evil traders of enslaved people.
At the same time, missionaries began traveling to Africa to bring the word of God. They expected to have their work cut out for them, but when decades later they still had few converts in many areas, they began saying that African people’s hearts were unreachable, "locked in darkness." These people were different from westerners, said the missionaries, closed off from the saving light of Christianity.
In one standard genealogy of Cleopatra VII, questioned by some scholars, Cleopatra VII's parents are Ptolemy XII and Cleopatra V, both children of Ptolemy IX. Ptolemy XII's mother is Cleopatra IV and Cleopatra V's mother is Cleopatra Selene I, both full sisters of their husband, Ptolemy IX. In this scenario, Cleopatra VII's great-grandparents are Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra III. Those two are full siblings, children of Ptolemy VI of Egypt and Cleopatra II, who are also full siblings—with still more intermarriages of full siblings back to the first Ptolemy. In this scenario, Cleopatra VII has Macedonian Greek heritage, with little contribution from any other heritage for generations. (The numbers are an addition from later scholars, not present in the lifetimes of these rulers, and may obscure some ambiguities in the records.)
In another standard genealogy, Ptolemy XII's mother is a Greek concubine and Cleopatra V's mother is Cleopatra IV, not Cleopatra Selene I. Cleopatra VI's parents are Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra II rather than Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra III.
The ancestry, in other words, is open to interpretation based on how one views the available evidence.
There seems to be no world map of Black people on the Internet, so I made one. Click on the map above to enlarge.
- dark brown: 75% to 100% Black
- medium brown: 50% to 74% Black
- light brown: 25% to 49% Black
- grey: 0% to 24% Black
Note: If a country or state is grey, it does not mean there are no Black people there. It just means they make up less than a fourth of the people. There are plenty of places like that, like California.
In making such a map, of course, everything turns on what the word “Black” means:
Definition: For this map, I consider someone Black if:
- In a survey or government census, they say they are Black or part Black.
- If their mitochondrial DNA belongs to haplogroup L, the same as Mitochondrial Eve’s. (Everyone else has a history, at least on their mother’s side, of having left Africa over 25,000 years ago.)
If you fit either the social definition (#1) or the genetic one (#2), you are considered Black on the map.
I use this definition because it makes such a map doable while also being roughly in line with what “Black” means in the US, the main way the word is used on this blog.
The definition is hardly perfect. For example, social Black can mean different things in different countries. Just ask Zoe Saldana. And while genetic Black might seem more “objective”, using it alone would exclude 30% of Black Americans while including like 1% of White Americans (maybe more because of passing).
I used #1 where possible, mainly in the Americas and South Africa. I used #2 everywhere else. Northern Africa turns on #2. For countries where I could not find a number that fit either definition, I used a value that made the map look reasonable.
In short: Use the map only to get a rough idea. It is a work in progress, not the gospel truth.
Some remarks on different regions:
- Left blank because I am not sure: Oman and the small islands near Africa.
- Guessed at: Libya, Western Sahara, Mauretania, Chad, Eritrea, Djibouti and Madagascar. They might be a bit off, but I doubt they are far off. I am least sure about Madagascar.
- Counted as Black: Coloureds in South Africa.
- Left blank because I am not sure: Aruba.
- Guessed at: Martinique and St Kitts & Nevis. I made them dark brown since that is what the nearby islands are.
- Counted as Black: Mulattoes, garifunas, zambos, pardos, etc. Note that the Amazon region may be overstated since there pardo can mean a mix of White and Native with no Black.
- Not counted as Black: Those who put down more than one race on the US census. The US census figures generally do not list biracial Blacks separately. The only place where that could make a difference, though, is Washington, DC. It might be medium brown instead of light brown.
Europe on my map is all grey because no single country was more than 25% Black. But Europe is not as lily White as it imagines. The map above makes brown the regions between 0.5% and 25%, showing the percentage of people with provably recent Black ancestry (haplogroup L). “Recent” means like in the last 6,000 years.
Update (March 2nd 2018): Changed the blue-scale maps to brown.
Sources: The latest figures from the Wikipedia, the CIA Factbook, the US Census (2014), a cool map based on the CIA Factbook, the Wikipedia page on haplogroup L (2015), and a map on Mathilda’s Anthroplogy Blog (2008).
Share this post:
Surprised you looked at Mathilda’s blog!
It’s Matilda’s Anthropology Blog, linked to in this post.
“If a country or state is grey, it does not mean there are no Black people there. It just means they make up less than a fourth of the people.”
In the U.S. Blacks are far below 1/4 of the population.
So about the people from Melanesia and the Solomon Islands and even some unique individuals through out the Pacific and in South and South East Asia. I guess in the America they would be considered ‘Black’ but not in Abagond’s Book.
In your world map, is Africa’s physical land area unrepresented in terms of its overall size relative to the rest of the continents?
v8 thanks for the map. So, that’s where New York state is and you guys have a state called Maine. Most Black people are in the South.
Ok so the us is off-the world map due to the average, but it sounds like a new abagond rule bi-racial is no longer black? I cant keep up with that all, its a lot of ‘multi-ethnic’ on the us map. I am reminded of oregon, seattle, idaho, upstate ny, kentucky, being rather lily white.
On the map, biracial people who are part Black are counted as Black. The only exception is Washington, DC.
DC is 49% monoracial Black. There might be enough biracial Blacks to put it over the 50% mark, making it medium blue instead of light blue. Once I find the numbers on biracial Blacks in DC, that exception will go away. US census figures generally do not list the biracial Black numbers, so it will take some digging.
I am totally intrigued by that shaded area in the middle of Balkans. Black people in the Ottoman army, perhaps?
LMAO. Thanks. Please tell me if I missed any.
Ottoman most likely. An outside chance it is Roman.
Roman would be an interesting possibility. How did you compile this data/where did you find it?
It would be interesting to see if it’s mostly male (as expected) or perhaps female genetic line. If female, I’d say Romans might be better candidates (though even for those I’d expect more male line).
I actually wanted to do one of those genetic tests but all I could learn is my mother mother’s side of the family. My dad died and I don’t have brothers so I can’t learn anything about the male line.
It would have to be female: we are talking about mitochondrial DNA. This sort of thing most often takes place when an empire rules parts of both Africa and Europe.
Then I’d say Romans are better candidates. I don’t think Ottomans would bring their women nor that they would mix with locals. I don’t know, but it’s fascinating in any case. Then again, 6000 years is a long period, and Balkans is known for excessive mixing. That being said, it’s more Asian than African – there are not many possibilities for African admixture unless it’s one of the two possibilities we mentioned. I am trying to think of another one.
What is the point of this exercise? Why do you think it is important to identify people by their perceived color and why do you think it is of value to identify what percentage of these people use the Internet in different areas?
To me this seems like a very colonising thing to do.
Maryland (not colored in the maps) is over 30% black, higher than both South Carolina and Alabama and on par with Georgia and Louisiana, and is growing much faster, as a percentage, than any of the other traditional “black belt” states. I would not be surprised if it even surpassed Mississippi in a couple decades to become the blackest US state percentagewise.
The only place where that could make a difference, though, is Washington, DC. It might be medium blue instead of light blue.
Yeah, DC @49% black would probably be over half if all the mixed racial blacks were counted. In the 1970s, it surpassed 72%, maybe could have been dark blue for several years.
Huh? Maryland is coloured in the maps
Huh? Where did I say anything about Internet usage?
1. I wanted to get a picture of the African diaspora.
2. I wanted to get some kind of handle on the line, if any, between “sub-Saharan Africa” and the rest of Africa. That issue comes out in all kinds of ways, especially when talking to White racists about history.
3. I made a map of White people so I was curious to see one of Black people.
Sorry about that. It wasn’t showing up as coloured on my screen, but after reopening it in a separate tab and enlarging it, it did now appear coloured. Apologies.
Prior to so-called Mongoloid expansion Southeast Asia was Black (so-called Negrito Aboriginals).
Prior to the so-called European-Caucasoid expansion South Asia and Australia were Black (so-called Australian Aboriginals)
Prior to the so-called Polynesian expansion the Pacific islands were Black (so-called Melanesians).
At one time the entire Earth was populated by dark-skinned peoples.
I agree. The term “Asian” as a race in the sense that it has in the US is completely artificial:
Ideas about race in the US are warped by, among other things:
1. Most people come from the extreme ends of other continents.
2. Racism keeps people apart, making the “races” seem like an unchangeable fact of nature. If it were not for racism, the US would have turned beige long ago.
The Asian map would be interesting!
“Sorry to bug you, but Hong Kong got colored in again.”
I do not see how that happened, but you are right. Thank you!
The strange thing about the Negritos, Melanesians and so on, is that they are more distantly related to Blacks, as defined in the post, than anyone else. That is because they left Africa first. The reason they look so alike is because most of them remained in the tropics.
I have read in many different sources (in fact, just read in another source this past weekend) that migrants from India to the USA in the 1700s got classified as “black” and “slave”, including some Indian/white Eurasians. This indicates (along with the Melanesians and Australians) how “black” gets assigned to people who are not of recent African origin. It might also explain how some Asian ancestry got mixed into the US black population, even back in the 1700s.
I was informed that the so-called Negritos left Africa millenniums before the last glacier period (11,000-20,000 years ago), whereas the so-called Melanesians left Africa 3,500 years ago. It is noted by linguists that the languages of so-called Melanesians (Fijians, ni-Vanuatu, Kanaks, etc.) are fundamentally African. I totally agree with you that the tropics allowed both groups – so-called Negritos and Melanesians – to retain their so-called Negroid phenotype.
It is noted by linguists that the languages of so-called Melanesians (Fijians, ni-Vanuatu, Kanaks, etc.) are fundamentally African.
Is there a certain form of language that we can call “fundamentally African”?
I read an article which said that the Fijians claim they came from the religion of Tanzania in Africa long ago but scientists say they’re South East Asian. I can’t corroborate it as I don’t know any Fijians but that’s interesting. If true, I wonder how that tradition arose.
Anyway, I know the map is based on the proportion of the population that is black but it results in a somewhat misleading picture. There are about 12 million Americans who identify as black (right?). That’s more than the entire populations of Cuba – the most populous Carribean island at 11+ milion people, Haiti, The Dominican Republic, or Jamaica. The map, at a glance, makes it seem as if there are hardly any black people in America when there are more than there are in each of the Caribbean islands individually. There are also more black Americans than the entire population of The Gambia near Senegal. In fact, only
23 out of the almost 60 African countries have more than 12 million people therefore they can’t have more black people.
It’s not really a complaint, just an observation (Who am I kidding, I’m a bit miffed to see AAs essentially erased on a map of the African Diaspora :P). It’s a consequence of coloring criteria based on proportion and the disparity between a country with 300+ million people and countries with less than 12 million. More populous countries with many black people but where they constitute a smaller proportion of the population have their black presence erased while smaller countries with numerically fewer people get colored. Heck, there are more Black British than the entire populations of some of the colored countries. That’s unfortunate from a visual standpoint even if it follows naturally from the methodology used.
I like the map but I think it could give a more comprehensive picture, at a glance, of where people of recent African descent are scattered. Perhaps shades of another color (green?) could be used to represent (raw) numerical categories for populous countries with black minorities below the proportional coloring threshold. No color for under 1 million, a darker green for 1-5M and darker yet for 5-10+M. Or a threshold number could be picked and only one shade (or stripes/dots) used to represent it.
Wrt to Cuba, I should say it is the most populous country in the Caribbean islands. The countries of Haiti (
10M) and the Dominican Republic (
10M) share the island of Hispaniola making it the most populous island by a large margin.
Your maps are fine – they give a general idea of where most Blacks live.
Even Detroit/Flint would be just a dot on the map.
While California has over 2 mil. the percentage is still pretty low (there are twice as many Asians as Blacks). The state’s major cities are less than 10% Black.
More populous countries with many black people but where they constitute a smaller proportion of the population have their black presence erased while smaller countries with numerically fewer people get colored. Heck, there are more Black British than the entire populations of some of the colored countries. That’s unfortunate from a visual standpoint even if it follows naturally from the methodology used.
I like the map but I think it could give a more comprehensive picture, at a glance, of where people of recent African descent are scattered.
An alternative methodology would be to color the countries according to the absolute number of Blacks they had (and not according to their relative numbers).
– Nigeria would come in the first place…
– … and Brasil would come second (before even all African countries except Nigeria!)
Yes. It’s very interesting that Brazil has more people of recent African descent than any other country except Nigeria. That implies that Portuguese is almost the most commonly spoken language among black people (Angola and Mozambique in Africa are also Portuguese official). It’s probably eclipsed only by English, assuming that the majority of Nigerians speak it alongside the languages of their ethnic groups. I think that says a ton about the impact of the slave trade and colonialism.
Right, the map gives you no idea of the relative sizes of the different Black populations. The best way to handle that graphically is to size the countries according to how many Black people each has. That would be an interesting map too.
As has been pointed out, Nigeria would be the largest with Brazil second. The US would only be half the size of Brazil. South Africa would be smaller still.
I’m half-Fijian (maternally), half-African American (paternally). Because I’m Black and proudly Black, I circle African-American or Black on anything pertaining to race or ethnicity. But keep in my mind that Fijians are phenotypically Black too. My mother and maternal relatives have medium to dark-brown skin and ‘buiniga’ (frizzy) hair texture. They’re often mistaken for African-Americans. There are plenty of Fijians in California, but the numbers of Fijians don’t match that of Tongans and Samoans. Indigenous Fijians (so-called Melanesians) can trace their African lineage back to a Tanzanian “tribe” called Fipa. Interestingly, many Fipa and Fijian words are similar: “Mai” (water in the Fipa language) and “Wai” (water in the Fijian language) “Kuli” (Fipa for “dog”) and “Koli” (Fijian for “dog”) “Yaasa” (Fipa for “hunt”) and vakasasaa (Fijian for “hunt”) “Wane” (Fipa for “man”) and “tagane” (for “man”) “Kuru” (Fipa for “village”) and “koro” (Fijian for “village”).
“Is there a certain form of language that we can call ‘fundamentally African’?”
I can’t really say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. However, many leading linguists and historians on the languages of Oceania would probably say yes. Jane Resture, a beautiful Samoan woman and one of Oceania’s best historians said: “Present research indicates that human occupation of Oceania – those vast reaches of the Pacific encompassing Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia – began on New Guinea (West Papua and New Papua Guinea). The first settlers brought with them a language that was fundamentally African. They then moved along the Melanesian Archipelago from West Papua and New Guinea to the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, New Caledonia [Kanaky], and eventually to Fiji. During this time, the language evolved and became fragmented until it developed into the present-day language of Melanesia.” http://www.janeresture.com/melhome/index.htm (scroll down to “Origins”)
Ms. Resture also said: “The migration, thousands of years later, of the ancestors of the present-day Polynesians out of Asia, brought with it languages and dialects that were essentially Asian in origin and which developed into the present-day languages of Polynesia.”
Yeah, other maps could be made that would also be interesting.
Thank you so much for chiming in. I’m glad to hear directly from someone of Fijian heritage rather than simply reading about it secondhand. (BTW, I just noticed I’d typed “religion of Tanzania” instead of “region” oops) It’s interesting so see that linguistic links survived.
Vinaka gane (thank you, brother) for being receptive and understanding to Fijian history. But I must thank every Dau Ni Talanoa (oral historian) in Fijian villages for keeping our African history alive.
I agree with Kiwi and Michael Cooper. India definitely has its large share of blacks, and places like Fiji, Vanuatu and Papa New GUINEA should be classified as majority black. Also the Andaman Islands, etc.
I have no idea why Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea are in medium blue. They definitely have over 90% black populations each. As does Mauritania.
Also, limiting “blackness” to haplogroup L misses that M and N are also prevalent all over Africa, including in very remote locations untouched by outside admixture.
Why is Ethiopia and Sudan medium blue: 50% to 74% Black? its more than 90% black
They are “more than 90% black” based on what?
In Ethiopia, for example, the 2007 national census says the following 6 ethnic groups account for 80% of the population: Oromo, Amhara, Somali, Tigray, Sidamo, Gurage
Unless one considers these ethnic groups as non-black, then Ethiopia’s population is more than 74% black.
“In Ethiopia, for example, the 2007 national census says the following 6 ethnic groups account for 80% of the population: Oromo, Amhara, Somali, Tigray, Sidamo, Gurage
“Unless one considers these ethnic groups as non-black, then Ethiopia’s population is more than 74% black.”
Ethiopia was based on mitochondrial DNA. Many Ethiopians, though not most, have mitochondrial DNA that comes from outside Africa. You find the same thing if you look at the history and languages of Ethiopia. The Amhara and Tigray, for example, speak Semitic languages that are believed to have come from Arabia.
What the hell, why would you seperate horn of Africans? Djobuti is mostly Somali, and besides that all horn of Africans cluster together genetically (Afro Asatic speaking ones like Amhara, Somalis, TIgray, Oromo, etc, etc).
What the hell, why would you seperate horn of Africans? Djobuti is mostly Somali, and besides that all horn of Africans cluster together genetically (Afro Asatic speaking ones like Amhara, Somalis, TIgray, Oromo, etc, etc).
Add to the above, the semitic speaking horners have minimal south Arabian admixture, it’s really miniscule (it came with the language shift, previously they were cushtic speakers).The non “African” genetics of all horners, whether Semitic speaking, or Cushitic speaking is largely shared and pre historic (pre dating Arabs or any modern west asian group) The semitic speaking east Africans like Amhara and TIgray are overall 50% west Eurasians, while Somalis are 40% west Eurasian. It’s believed that in pre history (think stone age, or the neolithic era) there was a mixture between genetically middle eastern pastrolist and a unique group of ancient east Africans that don’t exist in a pure form anymore. The admixture is super old and I don’t consider horn of Africans “mixed” because of that.
Please read this blog post, it’s very good and talks about the above in way more detail with evidence.
But yea, my main point is not about race itself, but rather making genetic distinctions based on language family and what not, the cushitic speaking horners (somalis, Oromos) and Semitic speaking horners (Amhara and Tigray) share large portions of ancestry with each other (both African and non African), the latter having a bit more (10%) due to probably when they shifted their language to Semitic.
The semitic speaking horners have minimal south Arabian admixture, it’s really miniscule (it came with the language shift, previously they were cushtic speakers).The non “African” genetics of all horners, whether Semitic speaking, or Cushitic speaking is largely shared and pre historic (pre dating Arabs or any modern west asian group) The semitic speaking east Africans like Amhara and TIgray are overall 50% west Eurasians, while Somalis are 40% west Eurasian. It’s believed that in pre history (think stone age, or the neolithic era) there was a mixture between genetically middle eastern pastrolist and a unique group of ancient east Africans that don’t exist in a pure form anymore. The admixture is super old and because of that I don’t consider horn of Africans “mixed” because of that.
Main point is there is very little difference between the semetic speakers and cushitic speakers genetically.
The number of Blacks and Mulattoes in Brazil are actually not that higher than the US. Those figures are actually counting all mixed people and non-Whites as Black. The pardo group stands for mixed and includes Mestizos, Gypsies and Eurasians. More than half of those counted as Black are actually Mestizo or Castizo and look like Jessica Alba and Taylor Lautner. The Northern region or North-West (Amazon basin area) that appears as dark in the map is actually mostly Castizo, Caboclo and Indigenous with a White minority.
Brazil has 89 million European descendants 10 million Levantine Arabs, mostly Christian Lebanese 162 thousand Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews and 800 thousand Anusim, descendants of colonial Dutch and Portuguese Crypto Jews or Marranos.
800 thousand Roma people or Gypsies 400 thousand Eurasians, mostly Ainoko or hafu, meaning Japanese and European. 2.3 million East Asians and 30 thousand South Asians and East Indians. Most Asians are Japanese. Brazil has 1.8 million Japanese people, 300 thousand Chinese, 50 thousand Taiwanese and 150 thousand Koreans.
Caboclo people are people whose genes span from 70% to 90% European (mostly colonial Portuguese, Dutch, French and Spanish) with the rest being Native blood admixture. In Spanish they use the word Castizo. Brazil has 43 million Caboclos or Castizos/Mestizos. The number of Indigenous people who live in reservations is 500 thousand. 160 thousand people speak speak Indigenous languages. Brazil has 42 million Mulattos and 13 million Blacks. According to DNA research people who identify as Mulatto or Black and White mix have a range of 62 to 80% European DNA markers (colonial Portuguese, Dutch and French) with the other markers being Sub-Saharan African blood assimilation.
Argentina and Uruguay have small Mulatto populations. Peru has a Black minority and Colombia, Venezuela, Suriname and Guyana have a considerable Black and Mulatto population. In French Guiana, Suriname and Guyana there are the Maroon people, formerly called Bush Negroes. Peru also has East Asians and Colombia and Venezuela also received European and Arab immigration. They also have Jewish minorities. Most Jews in South America live in Argentina and Brazil. Peru and Venezuela have large Chinese populations.
The Einstein-Bohr legacy: can we ever figure out what quantum theory means?
Quantum theory has weird implications. Trying to explain them just makes things weirder.
- The weirdness of quantum theory flies in the face of what we experience in our everyday lives.
- Quantum weirdness quickly created a split in the physics community, each side championed by a giant: Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr.
- As two recent books espousing opposing views show, the debate still rages on nearly a century afterward. Each "resolution" comes with a high price tag.
Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr, two giants of 20 th century science, espoused very different worldviews.
To Einstein, the world was ultimately rational. Things had to make sense. They should be quantifiable and expressible through a logical chain of cause-and-effect interactions, from what we experience in our everyday lives all the way to the depths of reality. To Bohr, we had no right to expect any such order or rationality. Nature, at its deepest level, need not follow any of our expectations of well-behaved determinism. Things could be weird and non-deterministic, so long as they became more like what we expect when we traveled from the world of atoms to our world of trees, frogs, and cars. Bohr divided the world into two realms, the familiar classical world, and the unfamiliar quantum world. They should be complementary to one another but with very different properties.
The two scientists spent decades arguing about the impact of quantum physics on the nature of reality. Each had groups of physicists as followers, all of them giants of their own. Einstein's group of quantum weirdness deniers included quantum physics pioneers Max Planck, Louis de Broglie, and Erwin Schrödinger, while Bohr's group had Werner Heisenberg (of uncertainty principle fame), Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli, and Paul Dirac.
Almost a century afterward, the debate rages on.
“The evidence indicates that Blacks in ancient times came to Britain from Spain, Felix Arabia, Egypt, West Africa, India, Persia and what is today named Denmark. These Negroes were builders, scientists, masters of ocean travel and inventors of letters, according to Higgins they built Stonehenge, Gerald Massey agrees pg 11 books of the Beginnings” see Ancient and Modern Britons- MacRitchie pg 2. The Welsh chronicles described the Danes coming in by way of England and Norwegians by way of Ireland were “pretty well all Black Black Gentiles (y Kenedloed Duon) Black Norseman (y Normanyeit Duon) Black Host, Pagans, Devils and the like” (cont.) see History of the Vikings by Gwyn Jones (1968).
The Oseberg Carving in Ship Detail
Are there any black people mentioned in the Bible?
We can say with a fair degree of certainty that, yes, the Bible does mention black people, although the Bible does not explicitly identify any person as being black-skinned. Neither does the Bible specifically identify any person as being white-skinned. A person’s skin color is rarely mentioned in the Bible the color of one’s skin is meaningless to the basic message of the Bible.
The vast majority of the Bible’s narrative takes place in the Middle East, in and around Israel. Neither “black” nor “white” people are common in these regions. The majority of people in the Bible are Semitic and would have been light to dark brown in complexion. Ultimately, it does not matter what skin color the people in the Bible had.
Some scholars guess that Moses’ wife, Zipporah, was black since she was a Cushite (Numbers 12:1). Cush is an ancient name for an area of Africa. The Shulammite may have been black (Song of Solomon 1:5), although the context indicates that her skin was dark due to working in the sun. Some propose that Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:3) was black. Some believe that the Queen of Sheba who visited Solomon (1 Kings 10:1) was black. Simon of Cyrene (Matthew 27:32) may have been black, and also “Simeon called Niger” in Acts 13:1. The Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:37 was almost certainly black. Ethiopians are mentioned about 40 times in the Bible, and we can assume that these are references to black people, since Ethiopians are black. The prophet Jeremiah asked, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin?” (Jeremiah 13:23)&mdashthe natural assumption is that Jeremiah refers to black skin.
Most Bible teachers believe that black people are descendants of Noah’s son Ham (Genesis 10:6&ndash20), but we cannot be sure since the Bible does not specifically say. When it comes to skin color, the Bible is consistently silent. The color of the skin is not as important to God as the condition of the heart. The gospel is universal good news. Black people, white people, and every shade in between are invited to come to Christ for salvation. By the grace of God we can take our eyes off of the skin and focus on the soul.
Difference Between White and Black People
How are the black people different from the white denomination? Obviously, it all boils down to skin color of course. Nonetheless, the term ‘white or black’ has been used to describe certain races, at least metaphorically.
Also termed the Caucasians, the white people are called as such, primarily because of their seemingly light skin pigmentation. These people are those who are basically European in ancestry. They have the lightest skin color (almost to the point of having no skin color at all when untanned) though you can’t safely pinpoint the Americans to be purely white because of the great diversity in their specific sub-races.
Earlier definitions of black people described them as those who are of Sub Saharan-African ancestry. Today, the term has been embraced to include the indigenous inhabitants of Oceania and even some parts of Southeast Asia. Along with this are key characteristics like the hair texture being afro-like (dense, thick and wooly haired individuals) and of course those who really look black.
Black skin color is due to too much melanin ‘“ the skin pigment responsible for color. Scientifically, this pigment is a form of protection against the harsh rays of the sun and other external factors. That’s why white people are more prone to have sunburn when left exposed under the heat of the sun for prolonged periods of time, compared to the blacks. Also, they are more prone to having skin cancer with particular mention to those from Australia as they are the ones with the highest skin cancer index.
The blacks, on the other hand, are more protected from vitamin folate destruction which makes them healthier beings for reproduction. Hence, it is safe to say that under natural conditions (without the aid of medicine, vitamins and other forms of supplementation) the blacks have a higher life expectancy and chances of survival and reproduction when left in the tropics compared to the white people.
Not to demean either group, it has been said (although not proven yet) that there are some other differences between them. Some scientists claim that black people are less intelligent and more prone to commit violence than the whites. Most likely it is because of the way they think. However, there’s no clear proof to this notion yet and even if there will be proof, the case is difficult to get generalized as being intelligent and violent can be a result of lots of variables and situations that are hard to control. In addition, it has also been noted that both blacks and whites have different reactions to some drugs. And like the ones mentioned earlier, either group has some predispositions to certain diseases which make one group more likely to have them compared to the other.
1. Black people are those who are of Sub Saharan-African ancestry, while the white people are those who are primarily European in decent.
2. Black people have very dark skin colors compared to the whites who have very light skin.
3. Black people have wooly and denser hair compared to the whites who often have straight and light-colored hair.