Who is an African/Black person?- Black Genetics(Part 1 of 4)

Who is black?  What is an African?  This is a question I have been thinking about the last few years.  Mainly because I have seen many debates on YouTube,Twitter and Facebook on who is a black person.  It’s  a hot topic that just wont seem to go away.  I think the fact that people are debating it must mean many of us are still very confused.  Why is that?  Why is the black collective so confused about our own identity?  The video(above) is really good.  I know for some it might seem offensive.  But you can tell that the speaker has really analyzed this issue.  It’s a very touchy subject that most black people want to run away from.

Black People1...

This picture(above) shows different African women around the world. And of course there are people of African descent in America,Canada and the United Kingdom.  Some people say many of us are mixed raced people.  Some say we come in different shades because of years of race mixing.  I will address race mixing in part two of this series.  I personally don’t think race mixing is good for the black collective.  It seems to cause more confusion more than anything else. But I guess the real question is how is a black person defined? What do Africans look like?  How are Africans classified?

African features...

Black family...

Fellow blogger C.C. Saunders stated this about blackness:

“Blackness is not limited to a skin color, but it is a state of being, an incomparable experience prompted by skin color, facial features, body type and hair texture. Omitting any identifying attribute allots a significant privilege absent from the lifetime of any black person possessing these attributes in entirety. However, melanin, while a chief component of blackness, does not encompass the totality of blackness. To distinguish between black and melanated is essential to understanding blackness as a collective identity.”

Blogger Amos Magazine said this about African people:

“Prior to the enslavement of West and Central Africans, Africans had certain traits and certain biological markers that made them a separate distinct group. Africans prior to 1500 and prior to the infamous fictitious Willie Lynch Letter had traitsAfricans prior to the invasion of Arabs, Berbers and other West Asian people had skin color from brown to dark brown. This is an African trait. Africans had one common hair texture. Yes, Europeans upon arriving  in what today is called Rwanda did notice that many Africans were a lighter shade of Brown from other Africans. But they were not yellow or near white. They were simply a pecan brown color as compared to the dark chocolate color of the other group. They used these slight differences in order to pit one group against on another. Today, DNA* test (* because there are holes in this science) show that the Hutu and Tutsi were actually the same people and that Hutu and Tutsi were actually social status. Now Negros will use to in order to say mulattoes are Africans. ***(3star concepts mean this is something to pay special attention to) ***The Tutsi who were divided into people of a lighter hue of brown were not products of mixed raced sexual relationships. My opponents will purposely leave this out in order to compare a mulatto vs. an authentic African or an authentic disasporic Africans.”

Blogger Bhekizitha breaks it down from a biological standpoint:

“An African / Black person is clearly visually a “close” descendant of people from East Africa, a region comprised of countries now known as Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. Their color variation ranges from bronze, dark reddish-brown, dark or nut brown, dark-chocolate color plus “peppercorn” hair.”

This video(above) is very interesting.  I first saw this video about four years ago.  It’s the author Supreme Understanding. He has authored books such as How to Hustle and Win,Knowledge of Self and Black God.  I’ve read a few of his books.  I must admit that he knows quite a bit about black history and African culture.  But he’s not African…he’s an Indian man.  Years ago I remember seeing him in a picture with his black wife.  In this video he says that being black is color,culture and consciousness. So he’s saying it’s not just physical traits that make you black.  So if a Mexican,Indian or Asian man listens to rap music,studies African culture and has a black wife…..that makes him black? So it’s just about having a black consciousness? This can create a problem in the long run.

What is Black....

This picture(above) is from Supreme Understanding’s website.  It’s titled What is Black? Looking at the pictures you can see all these dark skinned people from India,China,Pacific Islands,Malaysia and Australia. But are these people really Africans? Or do they have racial admixture? Were the original inhabitants of Australia or India really Africans? And if so,what does it mean for black people today?  I think black people really like to be all inclusive.  We like hearing that our ancestors were all over the world and created civilizations.  That’s very true to a large extent.  And to many of us we have a dream of creating some type of racial utopia.  A world in which all people who have some melanin are brothers and sisters.  But this is not reality.  There will always be racial and cultural divisions.   Just because you have dark skinned people in India and Malaysia doesn’t mean they can relate to a black person in America.  The culture of a dark skinned Aborigine in Australia is totally different than a black person living in Jamaica.  I always promote black unity,black love and black power on this blog.  But you can’t have any type of unity if you can’t even decide who is black and who is not black.  How can you have any type of cohesiveness when there are no clear cut definitions on your identity? And this is why the video by Supreme is problematic.  He believes that all “people of color” are fighting against a white power structure. Therefore we are all in this fight together.  But my thinking is that why can’t we fight a racist society and still maintain our own unique racial identity. Why does everyone with a little bit of color have to be considered black?  By making everyone black…no one is really black.  Our unique blackness gets lost in the process.  Chinese people don’t have this problem.  They don’t accept just anyone who might have their physical traits.  I’ve seen Hispanics with a yellowish skin tone but they are not seen as Chinese.  I’ve seen people that were biracial(Black/Chinese) with slanted eyes.  But just because they had slanted eyes,Chinese people still don’t see them as one of them. By doing this it helps them stay homogeneous.  They are able to maintain their racial identity.  And this is something black/African people must keep in mind when want to distinguish ourselves from other groups.  By letting anyone claim “blackness” it devalues those that are black in the process.

Distorted Truths:Bastardization of Afrikan Cosmology

Distorted truths...

History is not properly taught to Afrikan people. We have no idea how our worldview set the standard in ancient history. What has been erroneously called polytheism–that was us; the belief that a part of the person survived death, and could be communicated with, ancestor communion–that was us; the notion that the Supreme Being was self-evident throughout existence–that was us; the idea that the divine was both masculine and feminine–that was us; the idea that there was a natural order that was observable, could be emulated, and reproduced as a system to live by–that was us. And what did this worldview produce–the grandeur of Kemet, Sumer/Elam (pre-Aryanian Mesopatamia), Mohenjo-Daro (pre-Aryanian India), and the Li Min or Yellow River high culture (pre-Chou China). In other words, the Afrikan worldview was responsible for developing ALL the early so called river valley civilizations. Yes, before the rise of the Semites (mulattoes), Afrikan thought was predominant in the world. This point is nothing but an extension of what Chancellor William’s Destruction of Black Civilization was about. We don’t understand that the development of Greek philosophy, Judaic monotheism, Roman Christianity, and Arab Islam, all came about as challenges to Afrikan though. What did these systems of thought all have in common–They attacked or removed the feminine from the divine! That’s what they all did. Review history and you’ll see this is what happened.  Merlin Stone’s When God was a Woman documents this–she does not make the connection between race, culture, and worldview though. Even Elaine Pagels’ Gnostic Gospels demonstrates this attack upon the feminine in early Christianity but she too fails to put her argument in the context of race, culture, and worldview. My book Distorted Truths does this.

Someone said about my book that it was an “interesting look at the foundations of Afrikan thought and the struggle against it in the ancient world.” Actually, our system of thought was and continues to be constantly under ATTACK. Non-Afrikan people have been attacking the Afrikan worldview for millennia now. They have replaced our matrifocal system with patriarchy structures. To me this simply means they have problems with the feminine and anything they equate with it. That means they will dishonor nature, women, emotions, the body, all things that they perceive as in opposition to their masculine counterparts: God (the Father), men, reason, the mind. This is based on their dichotomous logic.

I was recently telling a friend of mine that the Bible is anti-Afrikan, that at its core it challenges the Afrikan worldview. I proceeded to point these things out clearly, and unequivocally, and she said, “I disagree.” It is not my intention to present those arguments now, but it was the person’s knee-jerk reaction that concerned me. We have become so enamored with these foreign ideas (religions) that we are afraid to look critically at what we had. And when I say what we had I am not just talking about Nubia and Kemet, I’m referring to the Afrikan worldview and culture as it existed among any Afrikan people. Their foundations are the same though their level of “achievement” differed. It is this foundation that we need to rebuild. Our challenge is to regain our worldview and if this entails waging an ongoing struggle against Western, Eastern, or any system of thought that is anti-Afrikan, then so be it. The struggle to regain our worldview is paramount.



Initially, human identity was based on culture, and since cultures differed, people naturally viewed themselves as different. Ethnocentrism was a naturally occurring yet harmless phenomenon. Racial identity did not exist until the European creation of the concept. However, today, human beings are classified and divided into racial groups. Europeans for the most part are the most unified grouping while Afrikans number among the most disunited. Our apparent lack of racial unity (and economic cohesion) obstructs our development as other racial groupings feed on our factionalism. Nevertheless, we do have a genuine basis for togetherness. I have argued in my book Distorted Truths, that though Afrikan cultures are diverse, something our enemies (all to willingly) frequently point out, Afrikan cultures share the same worldview assumptions and cultural intentionalities. Thus, our worldview assumptions, and our unique history at the hands of other groups are but two of the most powerful rallying points for Afrikan racial unity.

Pan-Afrikanism must be the concept that provides that unity; it should become the eternal theme of Afrikan existence; it must be instrumental in the development of global Black Power. Pan-Afrikan unity cannot simply be a territorial unity but ought to express the solidarity of Afrikan people based on our distinctive racial, cultural, linguistic and historical identity; it should offer means for Diasporan inclusiveness and participation; it needs to provide for the collective security and ultimate survival of Afrikan people. We have to champion it and the Afrikan worldview with a passion exceeding European cultural chauvinism, modern Zionism, and Asian ethnocentrism.

Peace
Damani Agyekum or Seba Damani