I was just looking up the defination of brown and black and this is what i found...

Brown means...

The term applied to a copper coin that no longer has the red color of copper. There are many "shades" of brown color -- mahogany, chocolate, of a color similar to that of wood or earth. Of a dark color, of various shades between black and red or yellow, a tawny, dusky hue. A brown-skinned person. To become brown, to make brown, to cook until brown. Often Offensive, of or being a person of nonwhite origin. The color of coffee; noun brown colour, pigment, or material. To be roasted, deceived, taken in.

We all know what black means "in the euro dictionary it basically means everything evil, crooked, wicked, dirty, ect, then also includes us people of african decent.

What are we brown or black Which one best describes us as a whole?

I'v never really met someone really black maybe dark dark brown but not black and by the way look up black in the dictionary...

Soiled, as from soot; dirty: feet black from playing outdoors. Cheerless and depressing; gloomy: black thoughts. Marked by anger or sullenness. Attended with disaster; calamitous: a black day; the stock market crash on Black Friday. Being or characterized by morbid or grimly satiric humor. Connected with or invoking the supernatural and especially the devil. Thoroughly sinister or evil : WICKED!!!

The word black is a english word anyway you cut it and means what the people from england wanted it to mean anit no changing it, the word moor is what we were called b4 black and negro... The word MOOR evolved from the Greek 'Mauros' which just simply means DARK. Moor doesn't have a harsh meaning sh*t the moors conquered back parts of africa and the middle east from the romans, greeks and europeans who ruled over them. The moors weren't all muslim either or arab like people think, moors were all dark skinned people from africa, india, the middle east, south east asia who all got together and fought the oppressive roman, greek and european regimes. If you were dark no matter were you came from you were label'd moor aka dark, non-white.

I was just looking up the defination of brown and black and this is what i found...

Brown means...

The term applied to a copper coin that no longer has the red color of copper. There are many "shades" of brown color -- mahogany, chocolate, of a color similar to that of wood or earth. Of a dark color, of various shades between black and red or yellow, a tawny, dusky hue. A brown-skinned person. To become brown, to make brown, to cook until brown. Often Offensive, of or being a person of nonwhite origin. The color of coffee; noun brown colour, pigment, or material. To be roasted, deceived, taken in.

We all know what black means "in the euro dictionary it basically means everything evil, crooked, wicked, dirty, ect, then also includes us people of african decent.

What are we brown or black Which one best describes us as a whole?

I'v never really met someone really black maybe dark dark brown but not black and by the way look up black in the dictionary...

Soiled, as from soot; dirty: feet black from playing outdoors. Cheerless and depressing; gloomy: black thoughts. Marked by anger or sullenness. Attended with disaster; calamitous: a black day; the stock market crash on Black Friday. Being or characterized by morbid or grimly satiric humor. Connected with or invoking the supernatural and especially the devil. Thoroughly sinister or evil : WICKED!!!

The word black is a english word anyway you cut it and means what the people from england wanted it to mean anit no changing it, the word moor is what we were called b4 black and negro... The word MOOR evolved from the Greek 'Mauros' which just simply means DARK. Moor doesn't have a harsh meaning sh*t the moors conquered back parts of africa and the middle east from the romans, greeks and europeans who ruled over them. The moors weren't all muslim either or arab like people think, moors were all dark skinned people from africa, india, the middle east, south east asia who all got together and fought the oppressive roman, greek and european regimes. If you were dark no matter were you came from you were label'd moor aka dark, non-white.

Interesting topic and info.

However, I have seen a "black" person....really black.

As a People, no we are not "black" but some of us are.

Interesting topic and info.

However, I have seen a "black" person....really black.

As a People, no we are not "black" but some of us are.




Wow! You got me on this one sister cherry, you said what you've said that I cannot deny, Like peopleofcolor, I've just never laid eyes on a Black, really Black person in my life, very, very dark, even what they call blue black; but never, never have I laid my eyes on a jet black person.

Wow! You got me on this one sister cherry, you said what you've said that I cannot deny, Like peopleofcolor, I've just never laid eyes on a Black, really Black person in my life, very, very dark, even what they call blue black; but never, never have I laid my eyes on a jet black person.



Well, Bro. Clyde, you took the words right outta my mouth. I almost said "blue Black" when I posted.

However, what's the difference between "jet black" and "blue black?" When it comes to "skin color," would you describe a "blue black" person as "dark brown?"

For the purpose of this thread topic, I stipulated that "we, as a People, are not 'Black" but that I have seen a really "black"-skinned person before.

I've known some people who had what's called a "flat" black skin color and some others whose skin had a "sheen" to it. But, their skin color was still "Black."----not dark brown, BLACK.

So, I'm not getting how you are differentiating between a "blue black" person-of-color and a "JET black" person-of-color. :?:

Maybe perhaps the problem is we need to stop reading the white man's language and definitions. All of this stuff comes from Latin and Greek

Well, Bro. Clyde, you took the words right outta my mouth. I almost said "blue Black" when I posted.

However, what's the difference between "jet black" and "blue black?" When it comes to "skin color," would you describe a "blue black" person as "dark brown?"

For the purpose of this thread topic, I stipulated that "we, as a People, are not 'Black" but that I have seen a really "black"-skinned person before.

I've known some people who had what's called a "flat" black skin color and some others whose skin had a "sheen" to it. But, their skin color was still "Black."----not dark brown, BLACK.

So, I'm not getting how you are differentiating between a "blue black" person-of-color and a "JET black" person-of-color. :?:




sister cherryblossom,

I'm glad you didn't say or use blue black in lieu of a "black" person....really black. In my mind the difference between a jet black and a blue black person would be the color blue, whereas in jet black, there is no blue hue, at all. Also, for me, to say a black person or really black is tantamount to saying jet black.

And yes I would describe a "blue black" person as "dark brown,"
and depending on just how much dark brown, which is to say, equatorial affects, I would say very, even very, very dark brown; in fact, you could even say, almost black, but I would never say black, fully black or jet black due mainly to me never having laid eyes on a black...really black person, such as yourself.

Yes, I got your stipulation to which point I made no argument, only that you got me with having seen a black person.

For me, the differentiation is use of the term blue, itself. If there is blue involved, then its not and should not be considered jet black or fully black or for that matter, flat black (which implies no other color noticeable), I could be wrong, however.

Now, as far as I know, which is very little, the darkest people on earth would be considered, Blue Black in color. Are there any darker people on earth than Blule Blacks?

Maybe perhaps the problem is we need to stop reading the white man's language and definitions. All of this stuff comes from Latin and Greek




KMTSista,

Couldn't agree with you more, Greek and Latin influences are widespread; but nevertheless, in this case, we are on the topic of what we physically see, with our own eyes and can discern colors and such.

Have you ever seen a black person, the color of black, as you know the color to be?

Maybe perhaps the problem is we need to stop reading the white man's language and definitions. All of this stuff comes from Latin and Greek

On many levels, Sister, I will agree that we should not classify or define ourselves by European standards and definitions.

Your very screen name is a testament to how the White man took the word "black" and attached negative connotative and denotative meanings to it.

However, not all of the "Latin and Greek" etymologies, suggest "black" in a negative light....Even scientifically, BLACK is the presence of all color and WHITE is the ABSENCE of color.


...I am the color of BLACK
The sole shade of the prism no pigment falls lack...

And in finance, to be "in the Black" denotes profit..."in the red" is in debt.

Personally, I don't have a problem with labeling myself as "Black."

IMO, we need to reclaim our BLACKness and return to the days of "Black is Beautiful" and "Black Power!" and "Gimme Five on the BLACK-hand side!"

KMTSista,

Couldn't agree with you more, Greek and Latin influences are widespread; but nevertheless, in this case, we are on the topic of what we physically see, with our own eyes and can discern colors and such.

Have you ever seen a black person, the color of black, as you know the color to be?





But who instructed US what our eyes are seeing and who defined color? What is black what is brown, green red yellow?

We can't even say because this is not our original language.

This is the thinkin that we have to collectively get away from because it alls stems from the paper bag theory and slavory from words we weren't even allowed to read, but they defined you as this, so this is what our eyes are seeing?

So to continue to study their language continues the mind program.

Instead we need to have a topic to help each other learn Twi, Swahili and other African languages.

I could care less what the white man's dictionary says.

But who instructed US what our eyes are seeing and who defined color? What is black what is brown, green red yellow?

We can't even say because this is not our original language.

This is the thinkin that we have to collectively get away from because it alls stems from the paper bag theory and slavory from words we weren't even allowed to read, but they defined you as this, so this is what our eyes are seeing?

So to continue to study their language continues the mind program.

Instead we need to have a topic to help each other learn Twi, Swahili and other African languages.

I could care less what the white man's dictionary says.




Sister KMT Sista,

Please, do not give the so-called white man, technically...pink man, too much credit, my sister friend; who invented writing, story telling, science and many of the fundamental learning centers.

Are you forgetting who stole our Legacy? Who's claiming to be the original people? Do our ancestors get no credit, not even for inventing our current coloring system...God forbid?

Again I ask, cause you definitely didn't answer me, have you ever seen a black person the color of black?

Sister KMT Sista,

, have you ever seen a black person the color of black?




what is the definition of that please?

what is the definition of that please?



Do you own a pair of black shoes, do you have a black dress or a black belt or even a black purse, when you sleep at night, what color do you see, my sister friend...KMT Sista, for real.

Do you own a pair of black shoes, do you have a black dress or a black belt or even a black purse, when you sleep at night, what color do you see, my sister friend...KMT Sista, for real.




Give me the DEFINITION that you have for the word BLACK please?

Give me the DEFINITION that you have for the word BLACK please?



Colorless.

Give me the DEFINITION that you have for the word BLACK please?




What night looks like....when you can't see any thing else but...

Give me the DEFINITION that you have for the word BLACK please?


Close you eyes, have you ever seen someone that color?

sister cherryblossom,

I'm glad you didn't say or use blue black in lieu of a "black" person....really black. In my mind the difference between a jet black and a blue black person would be the color blue, whereas in jet black, there is no blue hue, at all. Also, for me, to say a black person or really black is tantamount to saying jet black.

And yes I would describe a "blue black" person as "dark brown,"
and depending on just how much dark brown, which is to say, equatorial affects, I would say very, even very, very dark brown; in fact, you could even say, almost black, but I would never say black, fully black or jet black due mainly to me never having laid eyes on a black...really black person, such as yourself.

Yes, I got your stipulation to which point I made no argument, only that you got me with having seen a black person.

For me, the differentiation is use of the term blue, itself. If there is blue involved, then its not and should not be considered jet black or fully black or for that matter, flat black (which implies no other color noticeable), I could be wrong, however.

Now, as far as I know, which is very little, the darkest people on earth would be considered, Blue Black in color. Are there any darker people on earth than Blule Blacks?




Well, Bro. Clyde, I guess this discussion between us falls to a matter of personal opinion and perception.

For the same reasons I mentioned to KMTSista, I am approaching this topic according to the very rules of science in color.

Now, I'm no expert nor have any significant science background; but from my understanding.....The human eye really can NOT detect color. COLOR is seen as a result of reflected LIGHT, usually from the sun....,e.g., KEMET, meaning "the BLACK land" or "land of BLACK," whether from the soil or from its people, Black is the color which was detected and described.

So, IMO, whether a person is "BLUE black" or "JET black," they're still considered really, really BLACK.---not very dark brown, IMO.

Even in paints, a "FLAT" has a very low REFLECTIVE "finish." ---As do we also distinguish ourselves when some people-of-color are described as being a "dull black" or a "shiny black."

So, a "BLUE black" person's skin is just more REFLECTIVE in that it shows a BLUISH tint within the skin.

Just as I said to Sister KMTSista, "BLACK is the PRESENCE of ALL color."
In order to make the color black, you have to mix all the other colors together.

And since WE are the original people, then BLACK is the prototype.


...I am the color of BLACK
The sole shade of the prism no pigment falls lack...

So, again, IMO, I have seen some "really, really BLACK people-of-color."

Personally, I would not describe a person's skin color as "blue black" and then say that he or she is "very, very dark brown."

And by "equatorial effects," do you mean in Africa? :?:

I'm referencing people-of-color in the US.

sister cherryblossom...Post #6 is still open.

sister cherryblossom...Post #6 is still open.





How so? :10500:

Well, Bro. Clyde, I guess this discussion between us falls to a matter of personal opinion and perception.

For the same reasons I mentioned to KMTSista, I am approaching this topic according to the very rules of science in color.

Now, I'm no expert nor have any significant science background; but from my understanding.....The human eye really can NOT detect color. COLOR is seen as a result of reflected LIGHT, usually from the sun....,e.g., KEMET, meaning "the BLACK land" or "land of BLACK," whether from the soil or from its people, Black is the color which was detected and described.

So, IMO, whether a person is "BLUE black" or "JET black," they're still considered really, really BLACK.---not very dark brown, IMO.

Even in paints, a "FLAT" has a very low REFLECTIVE "finish." ---As do we also distinguish ourselves when some people-of-color are described as being a "dull black" or a "shiny black."

So, a "BLUE black" person's skin is just more REFLECTIVE in that it shows a BLUISH tint within the skin.

Just as I said to Sister KMTSista, "BLACK is the PRESENCE of ALL color."
In order to make the color black, you have to mix all the other colors together.

And since WE are the original people, then BLACK is the prototype.



So, again, IMO, I have seen some "really, really BLACK people-of-color."

Personally, I would not describe a person's skin color as "blue black" and then say that he or she is "very, very dark brown."

And by "equatorial effects," do you mean in Africa? :?:

I'm referencing people-of-color in the US.



I see said the blind man, sister cherryblossom...we posted at the same time:

Not really, cherryblossom, this is hardly a matter of personal opinion and perception, your response to me is late and science otherwise wasn't a bone of contention; with the Sister, you have made that argument and now with me.

You are correct to say the eye cannot see color, but you leave out that this occurs when there is no light, it sees no colors, its sees darkness or blackness, which is not a color, neither is white for that matter.

On black being a combination of all colors, no...it is the absent of light and is without color. The three primary colors, which is to say, colors that cannot be mixed, are yellow, blue and red...Black absorbs all light, hence it becomes colorless or the color we know as black, for there is no light to be seen, it is black, can we agree of this basis of fact?

Since Blue is a primary color that cannot be made from a concoction, if it is present in black people, then they are no longer black, but blue black.

Of course equatorial affects refer to Africa/Alkebu-lan, what else, I'm confused why you would ask me that?

How so? :10500:


I explained already in my response, simple...we posted at the same time, check and see and compare for yourself my sister friend.

Originally Posted by KMTSista
Give me the DEFINITION that you have for the word BLACK please?


Colorless.



http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3613/1lg035faint.gif (http://img5.imageshack.us/i/1lg035faint.gif/)

How can you possibly say that BLACK is "COLORLESS?!"

What is COLOR if not PIGMENTATION?!

WHITE is COLORLESS, i.e., NO pigmentation.

If a "blue black" person-of-color is "very dark" to you, then how can BLACK be "COLORLESS?!"

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3613/1lg035faint.gif (http://img5.imageshack.us/i/1lg035faint.gif/)

How can you possibly say that BLACK is "COLORLESS?!"

What is COLOR if not PIGMENTATION?!

WHITE is COLORLESS, i.e., NO pigmentation.

If a "blue black" person-of-color is "very dark" to you, then how can BLACK be "COLORLESS?!"




sister cherryblossom,

It is obvious to me that you did not read my next to last post before you made this reply, if necessary, I will explain again, why black is colorless, meaning that light is absent and therefore none of the other known colors are reflected...got it?

see how lost we are,we're on a website devoted to BLACK TOGETHERNESS and we sittin up here talking about black or brown...GET IT TOGETHER AND STOP THE FOOLISHNESS.

are we black or brown... ...what do you say oldiesman?


see how lost we are,we're on a website devoted to BLACK TOGETHERNESS and we sittin up here talking about black or brown...GET IT TOGETHER AND STOP THE FOOLISHNESS.




As they say, with all due respect oldiesman,

Personally, I'm involved in many other agendas here, I think you know that, correct? So, lets be specific about who's doing what, okay brother.

On the topic, I disagree, whether we are black or brown is now in vogue and we'd better have our position on it. There is a new paradigm on the conscious scene and the debate is that black as define by europeans is negative and the younger folks wish to challenge the definition by taking a closer look at our color, not to mention that white folks should be really pink folks, lol.

Besides oldiesman, as you well know, first and foremost, Destee.com is a Discussion Forum that is open and uncensored...Peace In

I see said the blind man, sister cherryblossom...we posted at the same time:

Not really, cherryblossom, this is hardly a matter of personal opinion and perception, your response to me is late and science otherwise wasn't a bone of contention; with the Sister, you have made that argument and now with me.

You are correct to say the eye cannot see color, but you leave out that this occurs when there is no light, it sees no colors, its sees darkness or blackness, with is not a color, neither is white for that matter.

On black being a combination of all colors, no...it is the absent of light and is without color. The three primary colors, which is to say, colors that cannot be mixed, are yellow, blue and red...Black absorbs all light, hence it becomes colorless or the color we know as black, for there is no light to be seen, it is black, can we agree of this basis of fact?

Since Blue is a primary color that cannot be made from a concoction, if it is present in black people, then they are no longer black, but blue black.

Of course equatorial affects refer to Africa/Alkebu-lan, what else, I'm confused why you would ask me that?



No, I didn't see this post.

Yes, Bro. Clyde, it IS a matter of opinion and perception. You have yours and I, mine.

I will agree w/you on the "absorption of light" point. And, I did stipulate that in my post when I stated that color is detected from reflected light. ---Yes, a "WHITE" object RELECTS all LIGHT, causing our eyes to perceive it as "white." --Yes, black ABSORBS all colors and does not allow reflected light.

However, for the purpose of this topic, in differentiating between "black" and "brown" or "blue black" or even "red" in our skin tones, MY stance/opinion/perception is not a LITERAL translation that "Black" is "colorless."

And any attempt to determine which is "BLACKER" a "BLUE black" person-of-color or a "JET black" is splitting hairs, IMO.

Also, I asked if you were speaking of Africa because (as I stated earlier), I am referencing "really, really BLACK" people-of-color here, in the U.S....not "equatorial" regions.

sister cherryblossom,

It is obvious to me that you did not read my next to last post before you made this reply, if necessary, I will explain again, why black is colorless, meaning that light is absent and therefore none of the other known colors are reflected...got it?



You are correct that I did not see your previous post then.

However, BLACK does not REFLECT light because it ABSORBS all colors.

So, if BLACK is an "absorption" of ALL colors, then it does, in fact, contain, color.....It is just that our human eyes can not detect them within it because of the absence of reflected light.....Got it?

Again, my opinion and perception is not a LITERAL translation of "black" being "colorless."

And, since black is a combined absorption of all color, then a "blue black" person's skin reflects just enough light to see/detect a "bluish" tint.

No, I didn't see this post.

Yes, Bro. Clyde, it IS a matter of opinion and perception. You have yours and I, mine.

I will agree w/you on the "absorption of light" point. And, I did stipulate that in my post when I stated that color is detected from reflected light. ---Yes, a "WHITE" object RELECTS all LIGHT, causing our eyes to perceive it as "white." --Yes, black ABSORBS all colors and does not allow reflected light.

However, for the purpose of this topic, in differentiating between "black" and "brown" or "blue black" or even "red" in our skin tones, MY stance/opinion/perception is not a LITERAL translation that "Black" is "colorless."

And any attempt to determine which is "BLACKER" a "BLUE black" person-of-color or a "JET black" is splitting hairs, IMO.

Also, I asked if you were speaking of Africa because (as I stated earlier), I am referencing "really, really BLACK" people-of-color here, in the U.S....not "equatorial" regions.




sister cherryblossom,

Not when science was interjected my sister friend, this subtle point you overlook. Before you mentioned science to KMT Sista, you and I were dealing with what we saw, physically, remember? There had not been any mentioning of science at that point, which made it personal by perspective.

There is no need to stipulate for this discussion that black is not literally colorless, my God; all can see our varying shades of brown, well nearly all, KMT Sista refuses to tell me if she has ever seen a black person the color of black.

Splitting hairs you say, naw, you didn't say that, you nearly used the term blue black in lieu of black...really black, sounds more like confusion than hair splitting. After all, Black is colorless due to the absence of light, such as in the night or when your eyes are closed, there is no light and you see no color, right?

Fine, my scope was simply broader to include our African brothers close to the equator, automatically; not just those ones here in the United States.

You are correct that I did not see your previous post then.

However, BLACK does not REFLECT light because it ABSORBS all colors.

So, if BLACK is an "absorption" of ALL colors, then it does, in fact, contain, color.....It is just that our human eyes can not detect them within it because of the absence of reflected light.....Got it?

Again, my opinion and perception is not a LITERAL translation of "black" being "colorless."

And, since black is a combined absorption of all color, then a "blue black" person's skin reflects just enough light to see/detect a "bluish" tint.




Got it! You do know what you have done, correct sister cherryblossom,

Everything explained above removes that fact that the person you saw as black was not nor could have been black...got it?

The argument is beautiful and bears repeating: "And, since black is a combined absorption of all color, then a "blue black" person's skin reflects just enough light to see/detect a "bluish" tint"

This also reduces your previous position on splitting hairs, to null and void.


Almost forgot, earlier I had asked you are there people darker than those described as blue black, I never received that answer, now would be a good time.

Got it! You do know what you have done, correct sister cherryblossom,

Everything explained above removes that fact that the person you saw as black was not nor could have been black...got it?

The argument is beautiful and bears repeating: "And, since black is a combined absorption of all color, then a "blue black" person's skin reflects just enough light to see/detect a "bluish" tint"

This also reduces your previous position on splitting hairs, to null and void.

Almost forgot, earlier I had asked you are there people darker than those described as blue black, I never received that answer, now would be a good time.



Quite the contrary, you did receive an answer. I stand on my position that differentiating between "blue black" or "jet black" is splitting hairs.

I don't view my previous statements as validating your position.

Instead, I repeat, MY opinion and perception is not a LITERAL translation that "black" is "colorless."

sister cherryblossom,

Not when science was interjected my sister friend, this subtle point you overlook. Before you mentioned science to KMT Sista, you and I were dealing with what we saw, physically, remember? There had not been any mentioning of science at that point, which made it personal by perspective.

There is no need to stipulate for this discussion that black is not literally colorless, my God; all can see our varying shades of brown, well nearly all, KMT Sista refuses to tell me if she has ever seen a black person the color of black.

Splitting hairs you say, naw, you didn't say that, you nearly used the term blue black in lieu of black...really black, sounds more like confusion than hair splitting. After all, Black is colorless due to the absence of light, such as in the night or when your eyes are closed, there is no light and you see no color, right?

Fine, my scope was simply broader to include our African brothers close to the equator, automatically; not just those ones here in the United States.


Yes, I did introduce the "science" element to the discussion.

However, again, MY opinion and perception even with the scientific references is not a LITERAL translation that "Black" is "colorless" in relation to the topic of this thread.

So, IMO, in answer to the question "ARE WE BROWN OR BLACK?," MY opinion and perception is that SOME of us are BROWN, and SOME of us are BLACK.

Quite the contrary, you did receive an answer. I stand on my position that differentiating between "blue black" or "jet black" is splitting hairs.

I don't view my previous statements as validating your position.

Instead, I repeat, MY opinion and perception is not a LITERAL translation that "black" is "colorless."




Please give me your answer sister cherryblossom,

Will you show me where and when you answered that question, cause I pride myself on focusing when I find myself involved in a back and forth discourse, such as this.

If you stand on the splitting hairs position, then the argument I cited, in your own words, is rejected out of hand, please remove it from the post and re-submit. And no, that same argument wasn't used to support my position, but was used to clarify that the person you saw, could not have been black.

Why would you continue to repeat and restate something that was clearly stiupulated by me...this is becoming redundant.

I was just looking up the defination of brown and black and this is what i found...

Brown means...

The term applied to a copper coin that no longer has the red color of copper. There are many "shades" of brown color -- mahogany, chocolate, of a color similar to that of wood or earth. Of a dark color, of various shades between black and red or yellow, a tawny, dusky hue. A brown-skinned person. To become brown, to make brown, to cook until brown. Often Offensive, of or being a person of nonwhite origin. The color of coffee; noun brown colour, pigment, or material. To be roasted, deceived, taken in.

We all know what black means "in the euro dictionary it basically means everything evil, crooked, wicked, dirty, ect, then also includes us people of african decent.

What are we brown or black Which one best describes us as a whole?

I'v never really met someone really black maybe dark dark brown but not black and by the way look up black in the dictionary...

Soiled, as from soot; dirty: feet black from playing outdoors. Cheerless and depressing; gloomy: black thoughts. Marked by anger or sullenness. Attended with disaster; calamitous: a black day; the stock market crash on Black Friday. Being or characterized by morbid or grimly satiric humor. Connected with or invoking the supernatural and especially the devil. Thoroughly sinister or evil : WICKED!!!

The word black is a english word anyway you cut it and means what the people from england wanted it to mean anit no changing it, the word moor is what we were called b4 black and negro... The word MOOR evolved from the Greek 'Mauros' which just simply means DARK. Moor doesn't have a harsh meaning sh*t the moors conquered back parts of africa and the middle east from the romans, greeks and europeans who ruled over them. The moors weren't all muslim either or arab like people think, moors were all dark skinned people from africa, india, the middle east, south east asia who all got together and fought the oppressive roman, greek and european regimes. If you were dark no matter were you came from you were label'd moor aka dark, non-white.
we are lost

Yes, I did introduce the "science" element to the discussion.

However, again, MY opinion and perception even with the scientific references is not a LITERAL translation that "Black" is "colorless" in relation to the topic of this thread.

So, IMO, in answer to the question "ARE WE BROWN OR BLACK?," MY opinion and perception is that SOME of us are BROWN, and SOME of us are BLACK.




cherryblossom,

How many times must we quiver about what has been stipulated, again and my God, for this discussion, black people aren't colorless, but the color black is colorless due to absorbtion of all light.

Thank you for the acknowledgement of bringing science into the the discussion; now the question is why did you, if not to support your position of seeing a black person?

Now you want it both ways, which is say, black has color and it(black) doesn't have color, unbelieveable. Until you remove the argument in post #27 and resubmit, your opinion and perspective on color, as you see it, is terribly flawed.

... we need to have a topic to help each other learn Twi, Swahili and other African languages...




There are threads on the subject but I'm not certain that any actual "lessons" have been applied.

we are lost


We? Speak for yourself, brother Ankhur, not for this site or our people, only for yourself.

when ever a man is encxouraged by his wife to fullfill his nuptual duties, he has to look down bewteen his legs to make sure who and what he is,

then he has problems,

and after all the White supremacy we have endured for 400 years,

we are still asking identity questions in the age of Ipods and pocket internet,

something is wrong

when ever a man is encxouraged by his wife to fullfill his nuptual duties, he has to look down bewteen his legs to make sure who and what he is,

then he has problems,

and after all the White supremacy we have endured for 400 years,

we are still asking identity questions in the age of Ipods and pocket internet,

something is wrong



Sir, the problem is that this is a Discussion Forum, its open and uncensored. If you wish to change that, check with management, please. No one bothers you and what you post, for real...why is this a concern now?

Please give me your answer sister cherryblossom,

Will you show me where and when you answered that question, cause I pride myself on focusing when I find myself involved in a back and forth discourse, such as this.

If you stand on the splitting hairs position, then the argument I cited, in your own words, is rejected out of hand, please remove it from the post and re-submit. And no, that same argument wasn't used to support my position, but was used to clarify that the person you saw, could not have been black.

Why would you continue to repeat and restate something that was clearly stiupulated by me...this is becoming redundant.

If this conversation contains any "redundancy" or even contradiction, then it is you who makes it so.

You asked me if there were "any DARKER people than blue blacks?"

TO WHICH, I replied in POST #26>>>


And any attempt to determine which is "BLACKER" a "BLUE black" person-of-color or a "JET black" is splitting hairs, IMO. .


However, your definition of "BLACK" is>>>

Colorless.


Yet, you describe a "blue black" person as>>>

In my mind the difference between a jet black and a blue black person would be the color blue, whereas in jet black, there is no blue hue, at all. Also, for me, to say a black person or really black is tantamount to saying jet black.

And yes I would describe a "blue black" person as "dark brown,"
and depending on just how much dark brown, which is to say, equatorial affects, I would say very, even very, very dark brown; in fact, you could even say, almost black, but I would never say black, fully black or jet black due mainly to me never having laid eyes on a black...really black person, such as yourself.

Yes, I got your stipulation to which point I made no argument, only that you got me with having seen a black person.

For me, the differentiation is use of the term blue, itself. If there is blue involved, then its not and should not be considered jet black or fully black or for that matter, flat black (which implies no other color noticeable), I could be wrong, however.

Now, as far as I know, which is very little, the darkest people on earth would be considered, Blue Black in color. Are there any darker people on earth than Blule Blacks? [/SIZE]

So, if a "blue black" person who is really, (according to you) a "dark brown," then what is the point in asking what shade of skin tone would be darker? :10500:

Moreover, since from your own account, you've never seen a "really BLACK" person, other than a "blue black" person; AND from your own admission, you "know very little," then again I stand on my statement of "splitting hairs."

Which is why my previous statement stands that this discussion is a matter of OPINION and PERCEPTION.

Moreover, from your position of "black" being "colorless" but "blue black" being "DARK BROWN;" and if a "blue black" person's skin tone only reflects the "blue," then why not describe them as.......BLUE? :10500: :lol:


HERE is POST #27>>>>

You are correct that I did not see your previous post then.

However, BLACK does not REFLECT light because it ABSORBS all colors.

So, if BLACK is an "absorption" of ALL colors, then it does, in fact, contain, color.....It is just that our human eyes can not detect them within it because of the absence of reflected light.....Got it?

Again, my opinion and perception is not a LITERAL translation of "black" being "colorless."

And, since black is a combined absorption of all color, then a "blue black" person's skin reflects just enough light to see/detect a "bluish" tint.

Again, from MY standpoint, I still maintain that "black" is not "colorless."

Even in a "blue black" person, for whatever reasons, enough light is reflected from their skin to detect a "bluish" tint. ----As I said before, BLACK is the combined absorption of all color.

If you take a box of crayons and mix the primary colors together on a piece of paper, you get black.


So, yet again, if you maintain that you have never seen a "really BLACK" person, then, that is a matter of OPINION and PERCEPTION.

You have yours, and I, mine.


Oh....and just for the record, NO, you did not mention any comparison between "jet black" and "blue black" in your question. However, I included the former in my answer in relation to "splitting hairs" because, IMO, it IS "splitting hairs" to try to ascertain what could be "BLACKER" than "blue black."

It signified no purpose to even ask me such a question when, in YOUR opinion/perception "blue black" is a "DARK BROWN?" :10500:

If this conversation contains any "redundancy" or even contradiction, then it is you who makes it so.

You asked me if there were "any DARKER people than blue blacks?"

TO WHICH, I replied in POST #26>>>




However, your definition of "BLACK" is>>>




Yet, you describe a "blue black" person as>>>



So, if a "blue black" person who is really, (according to you) a "dark brown," then what is the point in asking what shade of skin tone would be darker? :10500:

Moreover, since from your own account, you've never seen a "really BLACK" person, other than a "blue black" person; AND from your own admission, you "know very little," then again I stand on my statement of "splitting hairs."

Which is why my previous statement stands that this discussion is a matter of OPINION and PERCEPTION.

Moreover, from your position of "black" being "colorless" but "blue black" being "DARK BROWN;" and if a "blue black" person's skin tone only reflects the "blue," then why not describe them as.......BLUE? :10500: :lol:


HERE is POST #27>>>>



Again, from MY standpoint, I still maintain that "black" is not "colorless."

Even in a "blue black" person, for whatever reasons, enough light is reflected from their skin to detect a "bluish" tint. ----As I said before, BLACK is the combined absorption of all color.

If you take a box of crayons and mix the primary colors together on a piece of paper, you get black.


So, yet again, if you maintain that you have never seen a "really BLACK" person, then, that is a matter of OPINION and PERCEPTION.

You have yours, and I, mine.


Oh....and just for the record, NO, you did not mention any comparison between "jet black" and "blue black" in your question. However, I included the former in my answer in relation to "splitting hairs" because, IMO, it IS "splitting hairs" to try to ascertain what could be "BLACKER" than "blue black."

It signified no purpose to even ask me such a question when, in YOUR opinion/perception "blue black" is a "DARK BROWN?" :10500:




sister cherryblossom,

It is almost laughable that you would expect me to accept what you offer as the answer, you cannot be serious:

And any attempt to determine which is "BLACKER" a "BLUE black" person-of-color or a "JET black" is splitting hairs, IMO.

Please go to post #17 and find the above or your answer, what you will find is that you failed to answer the question after quoting the post...never mind, its too late now.

You are terribly confused about my definition of black and to take an excerpt given to KMT Sista, who never had the decency to answer me, is low and beneath all integrity, especially in view of clear stipulations from me that black people have color, for this discussion, repeatedly.

And this is absurd:

Moreover, since from your own account, you've never seen a "really BLACK" person, other than a "blue black" person; AND from your own admission, you "know very little," then again I stand on my statement of "splitting hairs."

My position is clear, here, let me reiterate:

I've just never laid eyes on a Black, really Black person in my life, very, very dark, even what they call blue black; but never, never have I laid my eyes on a jet black person.

The idea that you would attempt to twist my words is appalling.

And then you overlook this key statement and refused to recant and resubmit, sister, you can't have it both ways, for real:

And, since black is a combined absorption of all color, then a "blue black" person's skin reflects just enough light to see/detect a "bluish" tint.

Now, you are telling me that you cannot comprehend what you have written, if black is a combination of all colors, then we never see black because light is present to reflect the many other colors within. It cannot be black on its on, since it is not a primary color: red, yellow and blue, which require no mixing.

Therefore, a Black...really black person or even a blue black, and they are the darkest persons on earth, by the way; is not nor cannot be purely black, solidly black or fully black...as you say the person was that you saw, and this is because black consists of other colors that show up with light.

Something is wrong if you cannot see the contradiction with this, hence your perception on color is still flawed and there is no hair to split. Blue is not Black.

Finally, I'm down to the word twist, when I say black, it is not the color black to which I refer, it is the socially acceptable term denoting our people, which people are various shades of brown, from light brown to very, very dark brown, even almost black, and lastly blue black: but for me, all those references are to the color brown, not black.

On the other hand, you have not established any proof, scientifically or otherwise that people are the color Black, again and by your admittance, those that are blue black, through light, reflect what we see as the color blue and they are the darkest people on earth.

Again, how do you know that the person you saw and say was indeed black...really black? Please stop saying that you have seen a person the color of night or the color we see when our eyes are closed, please stop saying this sister cherryblossom.

Sir, the problem is that this is a Discussion Forum, its open and uncensored. If you wish to change that, check with management, please. No one bothers you and what you post, for real...why is this a concern now?


My apologies I was not aware this was a private chat, instead of a public post

sister cherryblossom,

It is almost laughable that you would expect me to accept what you offer as the answer, you cannot be serious:

And any attempt to determine which is "BLACKER" a "BLUE black" person-of-color or a "JET black" is splitting hairs, IMO.

Please go to post #17 and find the above or your answer, what you will find is that you failed to answer the question after quoting the post...never mind, its too late now.

You are terribly confused about my definition of black and to take an excerpt given to KMT Sista, who never had the decency to answer me, is low and beneath all integrity, especially in view of clear stipulations from me that black people have color, for this discussion, repeatedly.

And this is absurd:

Moreover, since from your own account, you've never seen a "really BLACK" person, other than a "blue black" person; AND from your own admission, you "know very little," then again I stand on my statement of "splitting hairs."

My position is clear, here, let me reiterate:

I've just never laid eyes on a Black, really Black person in my life, very, very dark, even what they call blue black; but never, never have I laid my eyes on a jet black person.

The idea that you would attempt to twist my words are apalling.

And then you overlook this key statement and refused to recant and resubmit, sister, you can't have it both ways, for real:

And, since black is a combined absorption of all color, then a "blue black" person's skin reflects just enough light to see/detect a "bluish" tint.

Now, you are telling me that you cannot comprehend what you have written, if black is a combination of all colors, then we never see black because light is present to reflect the many other colors within. It cannot be black on its on, since it is not a primary color: red, yellow and blue, which require no mixing.

Therefore, a Black...really black person or even a blue black, and they are the darkest persons on earth, by the way; is not nor cannot be purely black, solidly black or fully black...as you say the person was that you saw, and this is because black consists of other colors that show up with light.

Something is wrong if you cannot see the contradiction with this, hence your perception on color is still flawed and there is no hair to split. Blue is not Black.

Finally, I'm down to the word twist, when I say black, ]it is not the color black to which I refer, it is the socially acceptable term denoting our people,[/B] which people are various shades of brown, from light brown to very, very dark brown, even almost black, and lastly blue black: but for me, all those references are to the color brown, not black.

On the other hand, you have not established any proof, scientifically or otherwise that people are the color Black, again and by your admittance, those that are blue black, through light, reflect what we see as the color blue and they are the darkest people on earth.

Again, how do you know that the person you saw and say was indeed black...really black? Please stop saying that you have seen a person the color of night or the color we see when our eyes are closed, please stop saying this sister cherryblossom.

Quite the contrary, Bro. Clyde, I do NOT "expect you to ACCEPT" my position, but I do expect you to respect it.

Indeed, at the beginning of this "discussion" between us, I expressed that this is a matter of OPINION and PERCEPTION, which you out-right rejected. ---Yet, in this post, you contradicted that rejection by acknowledging my "perception" but stated that it was "flawed."----So, which is it, Bro. Clyde?....Is it a matter of "perception" or not?...You can't have it both ways.

However, it does appear that it is YOU who 'EXPECTS me to ACCEPT what you offer.'

You're right. It definitely IS "too late." ----This is not a game of "Find & Seek" nor a "Treasure Hunt," and my name isn't Fido. So, I don't "fetch." Since you referenced the specified "POST #17," then you should have supplied a link to it.

As for my "integrity," it is neither evaluated nor validated and most certainly not measured by YOU.

And you have great audacity to FALSELY accuse me of replying to an "EXCERPT" of your post to KMTSista when in actuality, I QUOTED your Post #14 (http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=633497&postcount=14) in its ENTIRETY.

Just because I did not also include your SECOND, THIRD or FOURTH reply to her does not equate to an "excerpt" when I replied to the COMPLETE post I QUOTED. I was not obligated to include all FOUR of your replies to the SAME QUESTION KmtSista asked you.

Moreover, you had the GALL to attach an attack on my INTEGRITY based on what you incorrectly consider as an "EXCERPT."

But, in my POST #22 (http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=633517&postcount=22) when I asked YOU three QUESTIONS, in your haste/rush to be so condescending to me, you cherry-picked which questions you would answer....And, since you "PRIDE YOURSELF on FOCUSING when involved in back-and-forth discourse, such as this," then that must mean that you did, in fact, SEE my other question but purposely ignored it. --And I find that behavior especially telling from YOU, the very person who has such an aversion to "hanging posts," repeatedly POINTING out to another poster what they DID NOT respond to from YOU, literally DEMANDING that YOUR questions be addressed. ----So, speaking to that particular character trait from you...well, THE TEMPTATIONS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgmTvZhOBtg) said it best.

So, it is YOU who made these "exchanges" between us "LOW." ----Your language during this "discussion" has been, increasingly, insulting and condescending, starting with your usage of "Got it?" and the "redundancy" jibe; and when I (admittedly) returned a similar tone to you, you only became even more insulting.

In this very post, in describing either me and/or my position, you have chosen to use adjectives such as: "confused, appalling, absurd, and flawed" as well as insulted my comprehension and integrity.----And, that behavior is what is "LOW."

So, if you lack the maturity to engage in a discussion without using "Ad Hominem" tactics, then, perhaps you shouldn't participate in the forums and should curtail your participation here to the "Group Think" projects and your "premium membership" cheer-leading.

However, as to the "crux" of this discussion between us....

It appears that "REDUNDANCY" is, indeed, necessary, after-all. So, I repeat: MY opinion/perception is not a LITERAL translation that BLACK is "COLORLESS."

My stance is not based SOLELY on the "scientific" references I made.
I, too, was also speaking to the BROADER issue of our skin color, not just "Black" being a "color" or not a color.
I was also METAPHORICALLY speaking to our various skin tones with the scientific input.
I was COMBINING the "scientific" standpoint of Black absorbing all colors but, as a result of that absorption, not reflecting the light to visually see them.
I was speaking to US being the ORIGINAL people, created from and within and spreading from the LAND of people of color.
I was referencing PIGMENTATION. --I stated previously that "BLACK is the PRESENCE of all color" and that "WHITE is the ABSENCE of color."

And, I did not "contradict" myself because my entire position is based upon that even "blue black" is really BLACK to me, not "dark brown."

But, again, that is MY opinion. Just because you do not recognize any distinction of a "JET black" skin tone, that does not irrefutably/inarguably negate my position. ----Again, IMO, any attempt to distinguish between "blue black" or "jet black" is SPLITTING HAIRS.

Moreover, neither have YOU 'established any proof, scientific or otherwise, that people are NOT the color Black.'

And, I don't have to provide any "proof" either.

I said at the beginning of these exchanges that this was a matter of OPINION and PERCEPTION.

So, don't you dare tell me what I can or cannot perceive as "BLACK."

If you choose to make such a LITERAL comparison between the night sky and closed eyes to the shades of our skin tones, then that is your OPINION.
If you choose (as you do) to describe "blue black" as very DARK BROWN, again, that is your OPINION.
If you choose to designate "blue black" as the DARKEST of skin tones, that is your OPINION.

You have yours, and I have mine. And I have REPEATEDLY stated this, but you won't ACCEPT that.

I will not quibble with you on whether "blue black" is BLACK or very dark BROWN. :cool:
I will not SPLIT HAIRS with you on why "JET black" does NOT qualify as a skin color but that "BLUE black" does. :cool:

But, I WILL maintain and assert that I have seen a "really, really BLACK" person-of-color in my lifetime.

However, YOU, on the other hand, have only seen "very DARK BROWN/BLUE-BLACK" people-of-color in yours.

So, I repeat, yet again, this is a matter of OPINION and PERCEPTION even WITH any scientific input because MY stance is NOT literal.

IMO, this started out a "discussion," an exchange.

But, unfortunately, it ended up being a barrage of personal insults from you born of your inability to "agree to disagree."

My apologies I was not aware this was a private chat, instead of a public post


Brother, don't apologize, just stop acting as a censor. What you stated below caused me to remind you that discussions here or open and uncensored:

we are still asking identity questions in the age of Ipods and pocket internet, something is wrong

To imply that our dialogue concerning whether we are brown or black connotes a problem of something being wrong, takes on the actions of a censor.

I cannot speak for everyone else on this subject...I can only speak for myself...My skin is brown, but I call myself black...

Some people of the African-American community have (i heard this myself) do not want to be called black but prefer to be called yellow, or brown...

To me that sounds like you are separating yourself

This reminds me of the "paper brown bag" test...

when ever a man is encxouraged by his wife to fullfill his nuptual duties, he has to look down bewteen his legs to make sure who and what he is,

then he has problems,

and after all the White supremacy we have endured for 400 years,

we are still asking identity questions in the age of Ipods and pocket internet,

something is wrong

Yes we still are discussing it...Because folks are still having an identity crisis...

Quite the contrary, Bro. Clyde, I do NOT "expect you to ACCEPT" my position, but I do expect you to respect it.

Indeed, at the beginning of this "discussion" between us, I expressed that this is a matter of OPINION and PERCEPTION, which you out-right rejected. ---Yet, in this post, you contradicted that rejection by acknowledging my "perception" but stated that it was "flawed."----So, which is it, Bro. Clyde?....Is it a matter of "perception" or not?...You can't have it both ways.

However, it does appear that it is YOU who 'EXPECTS me to ACCEPT what you offer.'

You're right. It definitely IS "too late." ----This is not a game of "Find & Seek" nor a "Treasure Hunt," and my name isn't Fido. So, I don't "fetch." Since you referenced the specified "POST #17," then you should have supplied a link to it.

As for my "integrity," it is neither evaluated nor validated and most certainly not measured by YOU.

And you have great audacity to FALSELY accuse me of replying to an "EXCERPT" of your post to KMTSista when in actuality, I QUOTED your Post #14 (http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=633497&postcount=14) in its ENTIRETY.

Just because I did not also include your SECOND, THIRD or FOURTH reply to her does not equate to an "excerpt" when I replied to the COMPLETE post I QUOTED. I was not obligated to include all FOUR of your replies to the SAME QUESTION KmtSista asked you.

Moreover, you had the GALL to attach an attack on my INTEGRITY based on what you incorrectly consider as an "EXCERPT."

But, in my POST #22 (http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=633517&postcount=22) when I asked YOU three QUESTIONS, in your haste/rush to be so condescending to me, you cherry-picked which questions you would answer....And, since you "PRIDE YOURSELF on FOCUSING when involved in back-and-forth discourse, such as this," then that must mean that you did, in fact, SEE my other question but purposely ignored it. --And I find that behavior especially telling from YOU, the very person who has such an aversion to "hanging posts," repeatedly POINTING out to another poster what they DID NOT respond to from YOU, literally DEMANDING that YOUR questions be addressed. ----So, speaking to that particular character trait from you...well, THE TEMPTATIONS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgmTvZhOBtg) said it best.

So, it is YOU who made these "exchanges" between us "LOW." ----Your language during this "discussion" has been, increasingly, insulting and condescending, starting with your usage of "Got it?" and the "redundancy" jibe; and when I (admittedly) returned a similar tone to you, you only became even more insulting.

In this very post, in describing either me and/or my position, you have chosen to use adjectives such as: "confused, appalling, absurd, and flawed" as well as insulted my comprehension and integrity.----And, that behavior is what is "LOW."

So, if you lack the maturity to engage in a discussion without using "Ad Hominem" tactics, then, perhaps you shouldn't participate in the forums and should curtail your participation here to the "Group Think" projects and your "premium membership" cheer-leading.

However, as to the "crux" of this discussion between us....

It appears that "REDUNDANCY" is, indeed, necessary, after-all. So, I repeat: MY opinion/perception is not a LITERAL translation that BLACK is "COLORLESS."

My stance is not based SOLELY on the "scientific" references I made.
I, too, was also speaking to the BROADER issue of our skin color, not just "Black" being a "color" or not a color.
I was also METAPHORICALLY speaking to our various skin tones with the scientific input.
I was COMBINING the "scientific" standpoint of Black absorbing all colors but, as a result of that absorption, not reflecting the light to visually see them.
I was speaking to US being the ORIGINAL people, created from and within and spreading from the LAND of people of color.
I was referencing PIGMENTATION. --I stated previously that "BLACK is the PRESENCE of all color" and that "WHITE is the ABSENCE of color."

And, I did not "contradict" myself because my entire position is based upon that even "blue black" is really BLACK to me, not "dark brown."

But, again, that is MY opinion. Just because you do not recognize any distinction of a "JET black" skin tone, that does not irrefutably/inarguably negate my position. ----Again, IMO, any attempt to distinguish between "blue black" or "jet black" is SPLITTING HAIRS.

Moreover, neither have YOU 'established any proof, scientific or otherwise, that people are NOT the color Black.'

And, I don't have to provide any "proof" either.

I said at the beginning of these exchanges that this was a matter of OPINION and PERCEPTION.

So, don't you dare tell me what I can or cannot perceive as "BLACK."

If you choose to make such a LITERAL comparison between the night sky and closed eyes to the shades of our skin tones, then that is your OPINION.
If you choose (as you do) to describe "blue black" as very DARK BROWN, again, that is your OPINION.
If you choose to designate "blue black" as the DARKEST of skin tones, that is your OPINION.

You have yours, and I have mine. And I have REPEATEDLY stated this, but you won't ACCEPT that.

I will not quibble with you on whether "blue black" is BLACK or very dark BROWN. :cool:
I will not SPLIT HAIRS with you on why "JET black" does NOT qualify as a skin color but that "BLUE black" does. :cool:

But, I WILL maintain and assert that I have seen a "really, really BLACK" person-of-color in my lifetime.

However, YOU, on the other hand, have only seen "very DARK BROWN/BLUE-BLACK" people-of-color in yours.

So, I repeat, yet again, this is a matter of OPINION and PERCEPTION even WITH any scientific input because MY stance is NOT literal.

IMO, this started out a "discussion," an exchange.

But, unfortunately, it ended up being a barrage of personal insults from you born of your inability to "agree to disagree."




sister cherryblossom,

This will explain why your integrity is at stake and the change from respecting your position to no respect, largely based on your style of debate, as I will outline below. At the beginning of this discussion, I did not reject your opinion and preception, as you say. Please see the beginning of our discussion:

Wow! You got me on this one sister cherry, you said what you've said that I cannot deny, Like peopleofcolor, I've just never laid eyes on a Black, really Black person in my life, very, very dark, even what they call blue black; but never, never have I laid my eyes on a jet black person.

Clearly, your opinion was not rejected by me saying, you got me on this one, you said what you've said that I cannot deny. Where is the rejection? My point was that I had never seen a black person, I've seen a very dark brown, but not black, I've even seen what they call blue black but I've never seen a jet black person.

This is your response:

Well, Bro. Clyde, you took the words right outta my mouth. I almost said "blue Black" when I posted.

However, what's the difference between "jet black" and "blue black?" When it comes to "skin color," would you describe a "blue black" person as "dark brown?"

For the purpose of this thread topic, I stipulated that "we, as a People, are not 'Black" but that I have seen a really "black"-skinned person before.

I've known some people who had what's called a "flat" black skin color and some others whose skin had a "sheen" to it. But, their skin color was still "Black."----not dark brown, BLACK.

So, I'm not getting how you are differentiating between a "blue black" person-of-color and a "JET black" person-of-color

Your initial response consisted of a series of questions, and then the attempt to force prove your position that people are the color black and not dark brown, as underscored above. How could you overlook, or better still not comprehend that I had already stated: I cannot deny what you have said? This becomes an integrity issue, in my view?

At this early stage, you had not mentioned science at all, you didn't resond to my post, instead, responded to another poster, and again, I question your integrity to install the scientific ploy with that poster to suit our ongoing discussion.

In my next reply, I answered all your questions in this fashion, and concluded with the question if you knew any darker than blue black, and no clear prompt answer was offered in the expected post:

I'm glad you didn't say or use blue black in lieu of a "black" person....really black. In my mind the difference between a jet black and a blue black person would be the color blue, whereas in jet black, there is no blue hue, at all. Also, for me, to say a black person or really black is tantamount to saying jet black.

And yes I would describe a "blue black" person as "dark brown,"
and depending on just how much dark brown, which is to say, equatorial affects, I would say very, even very, very dark brown; in fact, you could even say, almost black, but I would never say black, fully black or jet black due mainly to me never having laid eyes on a black...really black person, such as yourself.

Yes, I got your stipulation to which point I made no argument, only that you got me with having seen a black person.

For me, the differentiation is use of the term blue, itself. If there is blue involved, then its not and should not be considered jet black or fully black or for that matter, flat black (which implies no other color noticeable), I could be wrong, however.

Now, as far as I know, which is very little, the darkest people on earth would be considered, Blue Black in color. Are there any darker people on earth than Blue Blacks?


Sister, at this point, I only expected the answer to the question, and there was nothing else for us to discuss, really. But here is what I get:

Well, Bro. Clyde, I guess this discussion between us falls to a matter of personal opinion and perception.
For the same reasons I mentioned to KMTSista, I am approaching this topic according to the very rules of science in color.

Notice, you took the proper position, "this discussion falls to a matter of personal opinion and perception." This is very true, but then you interject science and state your approach will be with the rules of science. Do you still not see an integrity issue? Our dialogue was over, it was agree to disagree, contrary to what I've read from you. You have now brought science into our debate, as well as what I call an excerpt out of my three posts to the Sister, yet again, an integrity issue, or as you put it, cherry picking, cherryblossom.

Compare the above with this: "My stance is not based SOLELY on the "scientific" references I made." Again, the perfect example of attempting to have it both ways, shifting your positons when necessary to prevail; such to me is either an integrity issue or selfishness. You cannot have it both ways, on the one hand, this was your position: "I am approaching this topic according to the very rules of science in color." Which is it, but not both?

Because of time constraints, I will not go any further, except to say thank you for your honesty in all that you have stated about me, I will consider some of this constructive criticism to a point, and those harsh things about GroupThink and the rest, well, this conversation will have no bearing on those activities, sorry it had to come to this.

I learned i wasn't black some time ago , the texture of my skin is brownish
i realize i wasn't black when i place'd a black mug up against my face in a mirror
and i asked who am i ......!

Black is colorless it's of darkness
purple and blue mixed will make a black shade
In a scientic way, Black is the absence of color
on the other hand brown is a color and not a shade

Are white people white? What color are they? White people have shades too...

Here is how society says it is...

African-Americans = Black
Asians = Yellow
Native Americans = Red
Hispanics = Brown
Caucasians/Europeans = White
Middle Eastern = Brown, too

Blue black? Jet black? Are you kidding me?!! High-yellow!!

To hell with the tones and shades...Seriously

It's a shame we all can't see how God would see us...Sometimes I think some of us would be better off being color blind...Or just straight up blind

This will explain why your integrity is at stake and the change from respecting your position to no respect, largely based on your style of debate, as I will outline below.....

Really, Brother Clyde?!

Is this so important in your life that you would JUDGE my INTEGRITY on a "style of debate?!"

When it comes to my INTEGRITY, if I had deliberately LIED to you or had deliberately sought to trick or deceive you in any way, then THAT kind of behavior would speak to my lack of "INTEGRITY."

But, I did none of those things. We were having a DISCUSSION--a discussion in which YOU have insulted my "perception," my "comprehension," my "position," and my very INTEGRITY based our exchanges on an INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD. Yes, our views may run opposite to the other, but that does not give you the LICENSE to insult me.


Your initial response consisted of a series of questions, and then the attempt to force prove your position ...

Well, I find it very telling that when KmtSista asked you for your definition of "Black," YOU asked KmtSista "a series of questions" in POST #12:
1.Do you own a pair of black shoes,2. do you have a black dress or a black belt or even a black purse, 3. when you sleep at night, what color do you see,...

However, when I employed that same "style of debate" (http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=633517&postcount=22), you have accused me of trying to "FORCE PROVE" my position."


....and again, I question your integrity to install the scientific ploy with that poster to suit our ongoing discussion.

And, again, I find it incredulous and shocking that you would insult my INTEGRITY based on what I said to another poster and because I then continued that same discussion with you.


... as well as what I call an excerpt out of my three posts to the Sister,yet again, an integrity issue, or as you put it, cherry picking, cherryblossom...

wow. This is the 2nd time you've said this. Your 1st reference was this:


... and to take an excerpt given to KMT Sista,..., is low and beneath all integrity...

Really, Brother Clyde?!

Well, yet again, I will point out your flawed understanding of an "EXCERPT." Again, I QUOTED the COMPLETE post of yours that I responded to.

KmtSista asked you for your definition of "BLACK." --You, FINALLY, answered that question in POST #14 (http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=633497&postcount=14) which was the very post I replied to.

Another reply you made to that SAME QUESTION was not an answer but an ANALOGY: What night looks like....when you can't see any thing else but...

And then, in another reply to that SAME QUESTION, you said:
Close you eyes, have you ever seen someone that color?

And, that wasn't an ANSWER. That was a QUESTION.

So, just because you INCORRECTLY choose to call ONE out of a SERIES of 4 SEPARATE replies to KmtSista an "EXCERPT," that does not speak to my INTEGRITY but instead to your misapplication of its meaning.


Because of time constraints, I will not go any further, except to say thank you for your honesty in all that you have stated about me, I will consider some of this constructive criticism to a point, and those harsh things about GroupThink and the rest, well, this conversation will have no bearing on those activities,...

And I sincerely hope you do seriously consider my suggestions, Brother Clyde.

Moreover, I'm sure that my previous statements will NOT prevent or impede those activities. I never implied otherwise.

What I DID express was my acknowledgement of your Group Think participation and your STAUNCH advocacy for premium membership. I also expressed that it is the behavior you've displayed during this discussion which may necessitate that you restrict yourself to those activities IF you are not capable of having a discussion WITHOUT PERSONAL ATTACKS on another poster.



.. sorry it had to come to this.

NO, Brother Clyde, it did NOT have to "come to this."

In fact, if YOU had not elevated these exchanges to some kind of personal BATTLE, then you would have never insulted my INTEGRITY based on WHICH posts I respond to, HOW I respond nor on WHAT position and/or support I employ.

It's really not that serious, Brother Clyde. You have every right to DISAGREE with me, but you had no right to insult my INTEGRITY based on a cyber discussion.

.....Moreover, Brother Clyde, there are TWO components in science which concern COLOR.

These two components are called "ADDITIVE coloring" (LIGHT) and "SUBTRACTIVE coloring" (PIGMENTS).

Scientifically, in the "COLOR OF LIGHT (additive)," BLACK is the ABSENCE of all color and WHITE is the presence all color.

In the "COLOR OF PIGMENTS (subtractive)," BLACK is the PRESENCE of all color and WHITE is the absence of all color.

So, when speaking of any TANGIBLE, CONCRETE object, "Subtractive Coloring" is applied.

When speaking of any the presence or absence of LIGHT, "Additive Coloring' is applied.

Do you own a pair of black shoes, do you have a black dress or a black belt or even a black purse, when you sleep at night, what color do you see,...

The PIGMENT of a black dress, belt, purse or shoes is produced by "Subtractive Coloring." In order to make them BLACK, other colors were mixed. And the wavelength of the color BLACK is reflected to our eyes.

The "darkness" of sleep relates to "Additive Coloring" because it applies to LIGHT.

Colorless.

Again, this is an "Additive Coloring" aspect.

What night looks like....when you can't see any thing else but...

The night sky is also "Additive Coloring," the absence or presence of LIGHT.

COLOR MATTERS

"Are black and white colors?"

The answer to this question is one of the most debated issues about color. ...

Red, Green, and Blue
(The primary colors of light)

The question:
Are black and white colors when generated as light?

The answers:
1. Black is the absence of color (and is therefore not a color)

Explanation:
When there is no light, everything is black. Test this out by going into a photographic dark room. There are no photons of light. In other words, there are no photons of colors.

2. White is the blending of all colors and is a color.

Explanation:
Light appears colorless or white. Sunlight is white light that is composed of all the colors of the spectrum. A rainbow is proof. You can't see the colors of sunlight except when atmospheric conditions bend the light rays and create a rainbow. You can also use a prism to demonstrate this.

Fact: The sum of all the colors of light add up to white.

This is additive color theory.


Color Theory 2 - Color as Pigment or Molecular Coloring Agents
(Subtractive Color Theory)

Red, Yellow, and Blue
(The primary colors of pigments in the art world)
Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow
(The primary colors of inks in the printing industry*)

Question:
Are black and white colors when they exist as pigments or as molecular coloring agents?

The answer:
Black is a color. (Chemists will confirm this!)


Explanation:
Here's a simple way to show how black is made: Combine all three primary colors (red yellow and blue) using a liquid paint or even food coloring.

Is white a color?
No white is not a color....

Part 3 –Vision and Reflection
Colors exist in the larger context of human vision. Consider the fact that there are three parts to the process of the perception of color.

1. The medium - The color as it exists as a pigment/colorant (such as the color of a tangible object) or as light (such as the color of an image on a television screen).

2. The sender - How the color is transmitted.

3. The receiver - How humans see color. In other words, how we receive information about color.

Is black a color? Is white a color?

The answer to whether white and black are colors combines both of the theories described in Part 1 and Part 2. Pigments and coloring agents are only half of the answer.

Here's how we see color:

The color of a tangible object originates as a molecular coloring agent on the surface of the apple. We see the color of an object because that object reflects “a color” to the eye. Every color is the effect of a specific wavelength.

In the case of the apple, we see the color red because the red apple reflects the specific wavelength of red (440nm is red).

The same theory applies to black and white.

Is black a color?

No, black is not a color; a black object absorbs all the colors of the visible spectrum and reflects none of them to the eyes.

The grey area about black:
A black object may look black, but, technically, it may still be reflecting some light. For example, a black pigment results from a combination of several pigments that collectively absorb most colors. If appropriate proportions of three primary pigments are mixed, the result reflects so little light as to be called "black." In reality, what appears to be black may be reflecting some light.
In physics, a black body is a perfect absorber of light.

Is white a color?

Yes, white is a color. White reflects all the colors of the visible light spectrum to the eyes.

In conclusion

The colors we see are simply a degree of how much of this color present in light is reflected. To be completely accurate, a color reflects the wavelengths in the NM range that our retinal cones respond to.

The medium is the process of reflection of the wavelength of the color.
The receiver is our eyes which receive the wavelength of the color.


http://www.colormatters.com/vis_bk_white.html

Really, Brother Clyde?!

Is this so important in your life that you would JUDGE my INTEGRITY on a "style of debate?!"

When it comes to my INTEGRITY, if I had deliberately LIED to you or had deliberately sought to trick or deceive you in any way, then THAT kind of behavior would speak to my lack of "INTEGRITY."

But, I did none of those things. We were having a DISCUSSION--a discussion in which YOU have insulted my "perception," my "comprehension," my "position," and my very INTEGRITY based our exchanges on an INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD. Yes, our views may run opposite to the other, but that does not give you the LICENSE to insult me.



Well, I find it very telling that when KmtSista asked you for your definition of "Black," YOU asked KmtSista "a series of questions" in POST #12:


However, when I employed that same "style of debate" (http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=633517&postcount=22), you have accused me of trying to "FORCE PROVE" my position."



And, again, I find it incredulous and shocking that you would insult my INTEGRITY based on what I said to another poster and because I then continued that same discussion with you.



wow. This is the 2nd time you've said this. Your 1st reference was this:



Really, Brother Clyde?!

Well, yet again, I will point out your flawed understanding of an "EXCERPT." Again, I QUOTED the COMPLETE post of yours that I responded to.

KmtSista asked you for your definition of "BLACK." --You, FINALLY, answered that question in POST #14 (http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=633497&postcount=14) which was the very post I replied to.

Another reply you made to that SAME QUESTION was not an answer but an ANALOGY:

And then, in another reply to that SAME QUESTION, you said:


And, that wasn't an ANSWER. That was a QUESTION.

So, just because you INCORRECTLY choose to call ONE out of a SERIES of 4 SEPARATE replies to KmtSista an "EXCERPT," that does not speak to my INTEGRITY but instead to your misapplication of its meaning.



And I sincerely hope you do seriously consider my suggestions, Brother Clyde.

Moreover, I'm sure that my previous statements will NOT prevent or impede those activities. I never implied otherwise.

What I DID express was my acknowledgement of your Group Think participation and your STAUNCH advocacy for premium membership. I also expressed that it is the behavior you've displayed during this discussion which may necessitate that you restrict yourself to those activities IF you are not capable of having a discussion WITHOUT PERSONAL ATTACKS on another poster.




NO, Brother Clyde, it did NOT have to "come to this."

In fact, if YOU had not elevated these exchanges to some kind of personal BATTLE, then you would have never insulted my INTEGRITY based on WHICH posts I respond to, HOW I respond nor on WHAT position and/or support I employ.

It's really not that serious, Brother Clyde. You have every right to DISAGREE with me, but you had no right to insult my INTEGRITY based on a cyber discussion.




sister cherryblossom,

There is no need for me to go over much of this response, since I stand by the post you quoted. I'm satisfied that I laid out the facts as they progressed.

What's interesting is the integrity issue. Once more, I will attempt to explain your particular debate style with me. The integrity of our discussion was divided and muddled with the incomplete exchanges I was having with KMT Sista. There was no need for you to borrow from what the sister and I were discussing, and place my answer into the discussion we were having. To do so, becomes a clear integrity issue, for me. KMT Sista never answered the question even after I supplied four different definitions. So, for you to use my responses to her in our discussion, in my mind, spoke seriously to your integrity, and still does.

If you honestly think I do not understand application of the term excerpt, then again, I question your integrity; yet, you've ranted about this excessively. I question you cherry picking the one post when all four applied to the same question, as you so expertly pointed out and attempted to excuse the necessity of applying all four posts. To me, you excerpted(plucked or cherry picked) from my complete thought, contained in four separate posts. Integrity would have cited all four posts/answers; the complete thought provided to the one question, otherwise, you plucked from my answers.

Selectively, you have pounced on the remaining 3 posts in an attempt to argue against me. Moreover, anyone viewing the exchanges between KMT Sista and myself, can only conclude that regardless of what I submitted, her intent was not to answer the question. Of course, you would find no fault in her refusal to answer, but I do.


My final point on integrity and debate style is this; in your own words:

"Well, I find it very telling that when KmtSista asked you for your definition of "Black," YOU asked KmtSista "a series of questions" in POST #12: However, when I employed that same "style of debate", you have accused me of trying to "FORCE PROVE" my position."

Is this not low integrity to overtly misrepresent my accusations? The facts show something other than what you say above. In my own words:

Your initial response consisted of a series of questions, and then the attempt to force prove your position that people are the color black and not dark brown, as underscored above

(Below is what the above refers to as underscored, and in your own words):

I've known some people who had what's called a "flat" black skin color and some others whose skin had a "sheen" to it. But, their skin color was still "Black."----not dark brown, BLACK.

Not only did you leave all of this out in this reply back to me, but it is totally false an untrue and speaks squarely to integrity. On the one hand, you find something between KMT Sista and myself to be telling, and then improperly associate my questions, which are rhetorical, to your questions to me as similar styles of debate, but then you go further to claim that in this manner, I accused you of trying to force prove. This is absurd!


As proven already, you were accused of the force prove attempt in what was underscored and made bold, I repeat what I was refering to again: "But, their skin color was still "Black."----not dark brown, BLACK."

That is what I referred to as a force prove attempt, to assert people to be Black, through your eyesight, as the only proof, not when you employed the same style of debate of asking questions of me to be the force prove.

Please explain to me how you failed to understand that point, and totally misrepresented what was actually said. What is this kind of mistake called? I see it as an integrity issue, deception, etc...

Hopefully, you will agree with yourself, if not, you said it best:

When it comes to my INTEGRITY, if I had deliberately LIED to you or had deliberately sought to trick or deceive you in any way, then THAT kind of behavior would speak to my lack of "INTEGRITY."

Finally, I disagree with your assessment that I have employed personal attacks in this final exchange between us.

.....Moreover, Brother Clyde, there are TWO components in science which concern COLOR.

These two components are called "ADDITIVE coloring" (LIGHT) and "SUBTRACTIVE coloring" (PIGMENTS).

Scientifically, in the "COLOR OF LIGHT (additive)," BLACK is the ABSENCE of all color and WHITE is the presence all color.

In the "COLOR OF PIGMENTS (subtractive)," BLACK is the PRESENCE of all color and WHITE is the absence of all color.

So, when speaking of any TANGIBLE, CONCRETE object, "Subtractive Coloring" is applied.

When speaking of any the presence or absence of LIGHT, "Additive Coloring' is applied.



The PIGMENT of a black dress, belt, purse or shoes is produced by "Subtractive Coloring." In order to make them BLACK, other colors were mixed. And the wavelength of the color BLACK is reflected to our eyes.

The "darkness" of sleep relates to "Additive Coloring" because it applies to LIGHT.



Again, this is an "Additive Coloring" aspect.



The night sky is also "Additive Coloring," the absence or presence of LIGHT.




sister cherryblossom,

We have gone over all this in the scientific portion of our debate/exchange. I find the same arguments, maybe with better scientific explanation, but certainly nothing we haven't covered already and each understood the other.

Based on what you submit above, the point I will make is this, a person cannot be independently black due to other colors being present, along with the interplay of light, as a factor. And Brown is definitely a color present in Black. You have proven once again that the color black does not, can not, stand alone, for it is not a primary color. Hence, there can be no jet black, or black...really black people, only deeper shades of Brown.

I'v never really met someone really black maybe dark dark brown but not black ...


There was a man in my childhood neighborhood whose nickname was "Ace" because he was as black as an "Ace of Spades." His skin tone was a shiny black, what I'd call a "rich black."

I've seen other "black"-skinned people. Some were a duller tone but still "black."

My mother used to describe my father as being "Black as midnight; and if he didn't smile at night, you wouldn't see him." (lol) Now, THAT's black! :lol:

Melanin comes in two types: pheomelanin (red) and eumelanin (very dark brown). Both amount and type are determined by four to six genes which operate under incomplete dominance. One copy of each of those genes is inherited from each parent. Each gene comes in several alleles, resulting in the great variety of different skin tones. Melanin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color)


There is no 'black' melanin - and thus we cannot be black though some of us can appear that way. When we as a people fail to acknowledge the very dynamics of our skin color then the term "ignorance is skin deep" can be applied.

What doesn't exist within us we create a fictitious ideal based on a description that we were forced to accept. We were called 'negro' which is the exact same word as 'black' by Europeans. Here in America we still carry the same word as applied to us during slavery yet we've learned how to apply these word to ourselves in order to deal/cope with. In the 60's and 70's our music encouraged us to 'say it loud I'm black and I'm proud" making words such as black (description) to be coo. In the 90's and 2000's we us the word '*****' as though its a term of endurance; foolish us.

The ancient Khememu people called themselves Dark (having being the same color as us) but for spiritual purposes. The word 'Kemet' as I have explained on here before does not mean black land but rather 'blacks' as we understanding in this language. The word 'Ta' is the Kemetic word for 'land' and thus the word(s) Ta Kemet means blacks land or the land of the blacks. The .t at the end of the word is a silent s as in plural rendering the word Kemet/Km.t as 'blacks' but that is not the true meaning of the word because the Egyptians if you will didn't call them selves the American meaning and word 'black'.

We as a people have got to wake up and stop purposely denying our truth. We know dang well that we are not black but brown. Some of us are so brown that we appear to be black (which doesn't make sense because its the absense of color) and thus we as a people carry a label that is truly dictating our very actions as a whole. All of the ancients knew without a doubt that words carry frequences and that it was through the word creation is, was and will be. How we define ourselves is how we will be as a people/whole.

The word black is the most negative word in the dictionary because it encompass a group of negative words which are and have been applied to us. The word brown actually is the closest word to the word Kemet because the word brown means 'dark' which is the literal meaning of the word Kemet.

All of this teaching dealing with our black melanin is fictitious at its root because there is no medical/scientific element within humans called black melanin; NONE!!! Some of our people have made a sales career teaching this false ideal and many of us bought it. But many of us will hear this - bypass this truth and continue to use the word 'black' as their description because they are not part of the word black description. Please read carefully - especially that which is highlighted in red. This is how our people is acting but in the red I'm speaking directly to those who are not paying attention or are paying attention but still refuse to see or grasp the negativity that is being applied to our people.

Dictionary word black:
4. soiled or stained with dirt: That shirt was black within an hour.
5. gloomy; pessimistic; dismal: a black outlook.
6. deliberately; harmful; inexcusable: a black lie.
7. boding ill; sullen or hostile; threatening: black words; black looks.
8. (of coffee or tea) without milk or cream.
9. without any moral quality or goodness; evil; wicked: His black heart has concocted yet another black deed.
10. indicating censure, disgrace, or liability to punishment: a black mark on one's record.
11. marked by disaster or misfortune: black areas of drought; Black Friday.
12. wearing black or dark clothing or armor: the black prince.
13. based on the grotesque, morbid, or unpleasant aspects of life: black comedy; black humor.
14. (of a check mark, flag, etc.) done or written in black to indicate, as on a list, that which is undesirable, sub-standard, potentially dangerous, etc.: Pilots put a black flag next to the ten most dangerous airports.
15. illegal or underground: The black economy pays no taxes.
16. showing a profit; not showing any losses: the first black quarter in two years.
17. deliberately false or intentionally misleading: black propaganda.
18. British. boycotted


Peace


Ru2religious

Are white people white? What color are they? White people have shades too...

Here is how society says it is...

African-Americans = Black
Asians = Yellow
Native Americans = Red
Hispanics = Brown
Caucasians/Europeans = White
Middle Eastern = Brown, too

Blue black? Jet black? Are you kidding me?!! High-yellow!!

To hell with the tones and shades...Seriously

It's a shame we all can't see how God would see us...Sometimes I think some of us would be better off being color blind...Or just straight up blind






MsInterpret,

First, let me stipulate that I agree with your points. Especially this one:

It's a shame we all can't see how God would see us...Sometimes I think some of us would be better off being color blind...Or just straight up blind

But on behalf of sister cherryblossom and myself, this exploratory discussion into color, had to happen, someone had do it, as costly as it may seem to be. There are only a few others that have tackled this subject, one of which is poster, ru2religous. If you read the entire thread, you will see the riducule of such a discussion and its source, and just how uncomfortable this topic, Black or Brown, really is to this Forum and our people, as a whole. I'm of the persuasion that the time for change is here, and its our responsiblilty, its in our laps to do so; or at least begin to have the civil conversation.

If you keep reading, you will see the need for a paradigm change in order to move away from the otherwise negatively connotated European definition of the word/term Black.

At the end of the day, we, commonly known as Black People, are Gods first born on earth and irrefutably, the Originals...Peace In my sister friend, for real.

Here are some links to the issues I raise:

http://destee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48634

http://destee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61565

I think this whole black and brown thing is utterly ridiculous...

Call yourself whatever color you want...if it so happens to make you feel better

You are what you are...

And society will ALWAYS give you a label, whether you like it or not...

Is being called "black" really offensive?

Moors, *******, negros, colored, coons, porch monkeys....etc...We've been called it all...

And we're debating whether we should be considered brown or black?

I LOOOOOOOOVE my skin, my heritage, my people, my race, my nationality, and who I am...

Oh and the Dictionary's definition of BLACK does not apply to me and how I see myself

I think this whole black and brown thing is utterly ridiculous...

Call yourself whatever color you want...if it so happens to make you feel better

You are what you are...

And society will ALWAYS give you a label, whether you like it or not...

Is being called "black" really offensive?

Moors, *******, negros, colored, coons, porch monkeys....etc...We've been called it all...

And we're debating whether we should be considered brown or black?

I LOOOOOOOOVE my skin, my heritage, my people, my race, my nationality, and who I am...

Oh and the Dictionary's definition of BLACK does not apply to me and how I see myself




MsInterpret,

As I have already stated to you before, I agree and copy your position and understand the intolerance. Here is the question I'm putting to you:

Have you ever seen a black, really black person in your lifetime?

Actually, its a yes or no question...Peace In my sister friend

MsInterpret,

As I have already stated to you before, I agree and copy your position and understand the intolerance. Here is the question I'm putting to you:

Have you ever seen a black, really black person in your lifetime?

Actually, its a yes or no question...Peace In my sister friend



I have seen some Africans who were REALLY black....

or should I say "Extreeeeeemly dark brown"??

But my question to you is why is being called BLACK a big deal?

Because of Websters definition of black? Because in scientific terms of black it is actually not a color...

There was a man in my childhood neighborhood whose nickname was "Ace" because he was as black as an "Ace of Spades." His skin tone was a shiny black, what I'd call a "rich black."

I've seen other "black"-skinned people. Some were a duller tone but still "black."

My mother used to describe my father as being "Black as midnight; and if he didn't smile at night, you wouldn't see him." (lol) Now, THAT's black! :lol:



sister cherryblossom,

First, please do not think or feel that I am doing something I held you accountable for, with this response to this posted reply of yours to peopleofcolor; there is huge difference if we need to go there.

Nevertheless, because you have explained away my use of the midnight or night as a mere analogy, as cited below; my question is: what are these examples you offer:

as black as an "Ace of Spades."

"Black as midnight

"Another reply you made to that SAME QUESTION was not an answer but an ANALOGY" :

What night looks like....when you can't see any thing else but...


.....Moreover, Brother Clyde, there are TWO components in science which concern COLOR… These two components are called "ADDITIVE coloring" (LIGHT) and "SUBTRACTIVE coloring" (PIGMENTS)…When speaking of any the presence or absence of LIGHT, "Additive Coloring' is applied….


What night looks like....when you can't see any thing else but...

“The night sky is also "Additive Coloring," the absence or presence of LIGHT”



Are they analogies, is it additive coloring, or real proof that people are Black?

I have seen some Africans who were REALLY black....

or should I say "Extreeeeeemly dark brown"??

But my question to you is why is being called BLACK a big deal?

Because of Websters definition of black? Because in scientific terms of black it is actually not a color...



MsInterpret,

Personally, I do not have a problem with being called black, its no big deal to me, like you, Webster doesn't apply, okay....but there are others that do, and they make a strong point, so, how do we treat with that, squash it or consider that position? And that my friend, is the million dollar question.

Now, on the more funnier things...lol, I appreciate the split vote on seeing a black, really black person or "Extreeeeeemly dark brown."

It is at this point that our debate took off into explorary heights, up to and including science, and not just the naked eye. We attempted to break-down whether you see black or dark dark brown...nearly black.

For those not wanting to go that far, tha's fine, but there are some, like me and sister cherryblossom that will.

For the record and unlike you and others, I've never seen a black person the color of black or jet black...in my life time; again and as you say, maybe extremely dark brown, but never Black... Peace In my sister friend.

MsInterpret,

Personally, I do not have a problem with being called black, its no big deal to me, like you, Webster doesn't apply, okay....but there are others that do, and they make a strong point, so, how do we treat with that, squash it or consider that position? And that my friend, is the million dollar question.



I think we should tie them up and throw them into a ditch...j/k

I don't care what they want to call themselves...

That's like the people who prefer to be called black rather than being called African-American...

I think we should tie them up and throw them into a ditch...j/k
I don't care what they want to call themselves...

That's like the people who prefer to be called black rather than being called African-American...



Beloved, tell me why it is that I get the feeling you are not just kidding:)....okay, J/K MsInterpret.

Now you 've hit on the other and bigger point, the necessity of a paradigm change, after all, we can't just say anything without lining up concretely with directions...we have choices now, real choices to set the record straight, I've enjoyed our conversation...take care

now can we move on?

i am black.......really?

now can we move on?


bro. jamesfrmphilly,

Socially, yes...but by avatar, you look dark brown to me, lol

"you can call me OJ"........bob dylan

you can call me brown, black, african american, negro.
you can call me sweet pea. you can call me daddy. you can call me big boy.

i really do not care. if it is called in love, it's all good.:10500:

"you can call me OJ"........bob dylan

you can call me brown, black, african american, negro.
you can call me sweet pea. you can call me daddy. you can call me big boy.

i really do not care. if it is called in love, it's all good.:10500:

Hey big boy...

This looks to be a very heated debate, albeit necessary, I feel...so if what I have to offer is gonna get me shot down then gimme a few secs to line myself up :D

I dont profess to have any answers to the original question; all I do feel I know is that the term 'black' as a descriptor for us is becoming more ambiguous by the day. I have no problem with using the term to describe myself and others 'like' me, i.e., Afrikan/of Afrikan heritage, mainly because it was/is- at a guess- the most commonly used descriptor in the West/Europe/UK, and has practically been a part of my/popular vocabulary since I could talk...but there is always an undercurrent of resentment for me personally, at having to use this word which has been 'given' to us via the English language, particularly in relation to its many negative synonyms (deliberate move, I feel). This feeling has been greatly exacerbated in the light of the knowledge which I have been privileged enough to recieve from my Teacher. The resentment has arisen as a result of the ambiguity I am seeing with regard to this term, which appears to have the capability to rob us of our cultural/historical/national/'racial' identity (unless we decide for ourselves what the term means, or what/who we are, definitively), since it doesnt seem to clearly denote any of these, and affiliate them to a specific people. For example, I'm not sure about the US, but every October in the UK is 'Black History Month'...I wont even get into it since it makes me so mad :D But, apart from teaching schoolkids about a few Black inventors, Martin Luther King and Slavery (I kid you not), I have witnessed this month- which is dedicated to 'Black' history- to encompass the history of other groups, e.g., Turkish, Iranian, Kurdish...I have witnessed this with my own eyes. So, in a nutshell...to a great many, anything which is not 'white', is 'Black'- we can't afford to let ourselves be absorbed in this way...we need to carve out a very definite identity for ourselves, which is exclusive, not ambiguous, and not necessarily just based on skin colour...whether we adopt the term 'Black' or not...as I said, I dont have an issue, but we need to decide who we are, not let the powers that be decide for us. As silly as it sounds, as a 'black' woman born and living in the diaspora, referring to/identifying myself as Afrikan felt strange to me at first; it still doesn't roll off the tongue naturally...racism/white supremacy did as much a number on my psyche as the next person, and i'm not ashamed to say it because i'm freeing myself daily. I'm making a conscious effort every day to refer to myself as Afrikan, where I would refer to myself as Black ordinarily- in conversation, application forms, etc., because it returns my identity to me- to be Afrikan is more than just a skin colour, and everyone knows it (even 'them'- thats why they want to keep us confused)...that's just a personal choice. So that's my 2 pence anyway...Identity and self-determination is the order of the day, regardless of what label/s we decide to use...I'm also well aware that this may be easier said than done, for a number of reasons...

Hotep :)

This looks to be a very heated debate, albeit necessary, I feel...so if what I have to offer is gonna get me shot down then gimme a few secs to line myself up :D

I dont profess to have any answers to the original question; all I do feel I know is that the term 'black' as a descriptor for us is becoming more ambiguous by the day. I have no problem with using the term to describe myself and others 'like' me, i.e., Afrikan/of Afrikan heritage, mainly because it was/is- at a guess- the most commonly used descriptor in the West/Europe/UK, and has practically been a part of my/popular vocabulary since I could talk...but there is always an undercurrent of resentment for me personally, at having to use this word which has been 'given' to us via the English language, particularly in relation to its many negative synonyms (deliberate move, I feel). This feeling has been greatly exacerbated in the light of the knowledge which I have been privileged enough to recieve from my Teacher. The resentment has arisen as a result of the ambiguity I am seeing with regard to this term, which appears to have the capability to rob us of our cultural/historical/national/'racial' identity (unless we decide for ourselves what the term means, or what/who we are, definitively), since it doesnt seem to clearly denote any of these, and affiliate them to a specific people. For example, I'm not sure about the US, but every October in the UK is 'Black History Month'...I wont even get into it since it makes me so mad :D But, apart from teaching schoolkids about a few Black inventors, Martin Luther King and Slavery (I kid you not), I have witnessed this month- which is dedicated to 'Black' history- to encompass the history of other groups, e.g., Turkish, Iranian, Kurdish...I have witnessed this with my own eyes. So, in a nutshell...to a great many, anything which is not 'white', is 'Black'- we can't afford to let ourselves be absorbed in this way...we need to carve out a very definite identity for ourselves, which is exclusive, not ambiguous, and not necessarily just based on skin colour...whether we adopt the term 'Black' or not...as I said, I dont have an issue, but we need to decide who we are, not let the powers that be decide for us. As silly as it sounds, as a 'black' woman born and living in the diaspora, referring to/identifying myself as Afrikan felt strange to me at first; it still doesn't roll off the tongue naturally...racism/white supremacy did as much a number on my psyche as the next person, and i'm not ashamed to say it because i'm freeing myself daily. I'm making a conscious effort every day to refer to myself as Afrikan, where I would refer to myself as Black ordinarily- in conversation, application forms, etc., because it returns my identity to me- to be Afrikan is more than just a skin colour, and everyone knows it (even 'them'- thats why they want to keep us confused)...that's just a personal choice. So that's my 2 pence anyway...Identity and self-determination is the order of the day, regardless of what label/s we decide to use...I'm also well aware that this may be easier said than done, for a number of reasons...

Hotep :)






enquiring_mind,

Outstanding post my sister friend, simply outstanding. No one can shoot you down for accurately describing the nature of this thread, its topic and outcome; yet, its necessity.

Also, your position to the original question is respectable, and equally, your position on the term black and its ambiguity is on point. As far as Black History month in Europe in contrast to America, there is much similarity, so don’t feel terribly bad, lol.

What I find most helpfu about your pence is the candidness with which you make the case for our urgency in dealing with the current problem of identity as a people. You are correct to say, if we don’t come to a conclusion concerning our true identity, we will find ourselves watered down, so to speak, and not a part of determining, for ourselves, self-identity.

In my opinion, the application form is the back-door allowing, yet again, European designation of humans, to slip in and gain acceptance, while we wonder what happen. As you put it, the task is arduous for us, especially, if aren’t even incline to have civil conversation on the crowning issue that defines us as a people…Peace In my sister friend, Queenie, and again, excellent post, for real.

that's my 2 pence anyway...
Hotep :)

two pence? you some kind of furrener?:10500:

two pence? you some kind of furrener?:10500:

LOL!!

Geographically speaking, yes, Bro...we use pounds and pence round these parts :D I'm still your sister though :toast:

enquiring_mind,

Outstanding post my sister friend, simply outstanding. No one can shoot you down for accurately describing the nature of this thread, its topic and outcome; yet, its necessity.

Also, your position to the original question is respectable, and equally, your position on the term black and its ambiguity is on point. As far as Black History month in Europe in contrast to America, there is much similarity, so don’t feel terribly bad, lol.

What I find most helpfu about your pence is the candidness with which you make the case for our urgency in dealing with the current problem of identity as a people. You are correct to say, if we don’t come to a conclusion concerning our true identity, we will find ourselves watered down, so to speak, and not a part of determining, for ourselves, self-identity.

In my opinion, the application form is the back-door allowing, yet again, European designation of humans, to slip in and gain acceptance, while we wonder what happen. As you put it, the task is arduous for us, especially, if aren’t even incline to have civil conversation on the crowning issue that defines us as a people…Peace In my sister friend, Queenie, and again, excellent post, for real.




Thank-you for the positive feedback, Bro :toast:

hey here's a novel idea,since everyone is talking about[retro this an that]let's use[coloured]again what do ya think???

Are they analogies, is it additive coloring, or real proof that people are Black?

Yes, Brother Clyde, those were "analogies" I used as examples of a "really, really black" person-of-color.

Yes, I still assert that I have seen a "really, really black" person-of-color.

No amount of "science" will turn me from that position. No, there is no "black melanin," and there is also no "blue melanin" or even a "purple melanin" nor a "grey melanin." ---But, I have seen people-of-color in all these "shades" of black: bluish, purplish, and greyish.

Yes, I will admit my error about the "style of debate" issue. That was an ERROR, not an example or application of my INTEGRITY. It was not done with any deliberate deceit. ---Yet, you did repeatedly insult my INTEGRITY by equating and connecting my INTEGRITY to these exchanges between us.

I repeat, it's not that serious.

For ME, this was a DISCUSSION...not a PHYSICS workshop nor a DISSERTATION on "The science of Black."

But, during these exchanges, you have also insulted my comprehension, my perception, and my position.

Moreover, I still disagree with you on the "excerpt" issue.---When KmtSista asked for your definition of "Black," AT FIRST, you asked her a series of questions. THEN, you replied, "Colorless." - And, THEN, you supplied a few analogies, using the night sky and closed eyes...You also asked if she had ever seen a person the color of the night sky or closed eyes.

When you applied those analogies, those were your opinion and perception of "BLACK."
Moreover, you asked her if she had ever seen a person-of-color ACCORDING TO YOUR opinion and perception of "Black."----By asking such a question, you applied YOUR opinion and perception of "Black" to skin tone.--However, you maintain the position that there are no people the "color" of "black"......only "very, very dark brown."

You stated before that I "could not have it both ways."----However, for this discussion, yes, I can.

Just because I introduced a science element to the discussion, that does not eradicate/negate my opinion and perception of a "BLACK" person-of-color.----You also approached this from "both ways" in that you argued the scientific elements of "black" AND you hold the position that you have never seen a "really, really BLACK" person, only "very dark brown."

Likewise, in keeping with "subtractive coloring" AND with my opinion and perception, I HAVE seen a "really, really BLACK" person-of-color. (as I was referencing in POST #8 (http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=633485&postcount=8) to KmtSista.)

However, no matter what negative connotative and denotative meanings attached to the word "black," I do not have to accept or embrace those definitions.

And I still would not describe a "blue black" person-of-color as "very dark brown."

Again, that is MY opinion and perception which is different from YOUR opinion and perception.

But, that position does not speak to any state or characteristic of my INTEGRITY.

RU2religious has denounced the descriptor "black" for himself and prefers to apply the label of "brown."

That is his right as an individual as it is yours to apply "brown" or "very, very dark brown."

And it is just as much my individual right to describe a very dark-skinned person-of-color as black.

As a people, we may never change how European society views the color "black;" but FOR US, we can.

If we reject the European's definitions for "black," we can better combat the very disunity which divides us. Unfortunately, for too many of us, our minds are still poisoned with the White Man's overt and covert brain-washing that "White Is Right."

Consequently, any of us who are closer in skin color to "White" are bestowed with certain "attributes" which are, supposedly, better than our darker-skinned people....And I don't agree with that.

I don't have to accept White society's definitions for "black" nor do I have to accept YOURS.

I don't have to accept that "blue black" people-of-color are the darkest.---It may be my opinion that there are some who are darker than "blue black."

I don't have to accept that, according to "science," there is no skin color which is "black" but only "very dark brown."

And, again, for you to insult my INTEGRITY based on my opinion and perception, with or without science, is shocking and disappointing that you would display such behavior.

are we brown or black ...that is the million dollar question


hey here's a novel idea,since everyone is talking about[retro this an that]let's use[coloured]again what do ya think???


lol...I think you are out of your right mind to say such a thing, oldiesman, for real! Its a good thing you prefaced it with a novel idea.

Yes, Brother Clyde, those were "analogies" I used as examples of a "really, really black" person-of-color.

Yes, I still assert that I have seen a "really, really black" person-of-color.

No amount of "science" will turn me from that position. No, there is no "black melanin," and there is also no "blue melanin" or even a "purple melanin" nor a "grey melanin." ---But, I have seen people-of-color in all these "shades" of black: bluish, purplish, and greyish.

Yes, I will admit my error about the "style of debate" issue. That was an ERROR, not an example or application of my INTEGRITY. It was not done with any deliberate deceit. ---Yet, you did repeatedly insult my INTEGRITY by equating and connecting my INTEGRITY to these exchanges between us.

I repeat, it's not that serious.

For ME, this was a DISCUSSION...not a PHYSICS workshop nor a DISSERTATION on "The science of Black."

But, during these exchanges, you have also insulted my comprehension, my perception, and my position.

Moreover, I still disagree with you on the "excerpt" issue.---When KmtSista asked for your definition of "Black," AT FIRST, you asked her a series of questions. THEN, you replied, "Colorless." - And, THEN, you supplied a few analogies, using the night sky and closed eyes...You also asked if she had ever seen a person the color of the night sky or closed eyes.

When you applied those analogies, those were your opinion and perception of "BLACK."
Moreover, you asked her if she had ever seen a person-of-color ACCORDING TO YOUR opinion and perception of "Black."----By asking such a question, you applied YOUR opinion and perception of "Black" to skin tone.--However, you maintain the position that there are no people the "color" of "black"......only "very, very dark brown."

You stated before that I "could not have it both ways."----However, for this discussion, yes, I can.

Just because I introduced a science element to the discussion, that does not eradicate/negate my opinion and perception of a "BLACK" person-of-color.----You also approached this from "both ways" in that you argued the scientific elements of "black" AND you hold the position that you have never seen a "really, really BLACK" person, only "very dark brown."

Likewise, in keeping with "subtractive coloring" AND with my opinion and perception, I HAVE seen a "really, really BLACK" person-of-color. (as I was referencing in POST #8 (http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=633485&postcount=8) to KmtSista.)

However, no matter what negative connotative and denotative meanings attached to the word "black," I do not have to accept or embrace those definitions.

And I still would not describe a "blue black" person-of-color as "very dark brown."

Again, that is MY opinion and perception which is different from YOUR opinion and perception.

But, that position does not speak to any state or characteristic of my INTEGRITY.

RU2religious has denounced the descriptor "black" for himself and prefers to apply the label of "brown."

That is his right as an individual as it is yours to apply "brown" or "very, very dark brown."

And it is just as much my individual right to describe a very dark-skinned person-of-color as black.

As a people, we may never change how European society views the color "black;" but FOR US, we can.

If we reject the European's definitions for "black," we can better combat the very disunity which divides us. Unfortunately, for too many of us, our minds are still poisoned with the White Man's overt and covert brain-washing that "White Is Right."

Consequently, any of us who are closer in skin color to "White" are bestowed with certain "attributes" which are, supposedly, better than our darker-skinned people....And I don't agree with that.

I don't have to accept White society's definitions for "black" nor do I have to accept YOURS.

I don't have to accept that "blue black" people-of-color are the darkest.---It may be my opinion that there are some who are darker than "blue black."

I don't have to accept that, according to "science," there is no skin color which is "black" but only "very dark brown."

And, again, for you to insult my INTEGRITY based on my opinion and perception, with or without science, is shocking and disappointing that you would display such behavior.






sister cherryblossom,

Analogies, good answer and thank you. It is difficult to prove what we see. But moreover, it is tremendous relief to find that the style of debate issue was in fact an error on your part and not deception. On the excerpt problem, our opposing points of view beg that we agree to disagree, and with that, consider it done.

On the rhetorical question put to KMT Sista, it is a mute point worthy of no further comment on the basis of her disingenuous behavior and a failure of simple courtesy to answer the question. Regardless of whose definition, no answer was given. Unlike you have stated, my appeal only compelled her definition of black, no one else’s.

Wrong sister cherryblossom, I’ve made no attempt to maintain a dual position consisting of personal and scientific measures. Remember, you interjected science into the equation, and I complained about that. Once science entered, my only option was to take each argument into the direction of proving the naked fact that black is colorless, it consists of most colors and cannot be said to exist independently as primary colors, red, blue and yellow.

Wrong again sister cherryblossom, I have only maintained, all along, to have never laid eyes upon a black, really black person the color of jet black. And from my understanding black’s ability to absorb light and its composition, consisting of all colors, it is, in my mind, doubtful that a jet black or black, really black person exists. Why these facts are so difficult for you to wrap around is beyond me.

Here is more evidence of my single position from the outset:

KMTSista,

Couldn't agree with you more, Greek and Latin influences are widespread; but nevertheless, in this case, we are on the topic of what we physically see, with our own eyes and can discern colors and such.

Have you ever seen a black person, the color of black, as you know the color to be?


My single position is clearly on topic and has nothing at all to do with science. Her post split our dialogue and afterwards you interjected science to KMT Sista, not me...but carried it over into our discussion, as I have repeatedly stated, do you not understand what I'm saying here?

Here is a problem, you say this now: I don't have to accept that "blue black" people-of-color are the darkest.---It may be my opinion that there are some who are darker than "blue black."

But you’ve also said this, about the same subject when I clearly ask were blue blacks the darkest people:


And any attempt to determine which is "BLACKER" a "BLUE black" person-of-color or a "JET black" is splitting hairs, IMO. .

Is this another example of having it both ways in this discussion?

Which is it sister cherryblossom, is it your opinion that some are darker or is this a matter to split hairs on?


In conclusion, what I find shocking and disappointing is that the discourse went beyond post # 3: http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=633429&postcount=3

Is this another example of having it both ways in this discussion?

Which is it sister cherryblossom, is it your opinion that some are darker or is this a matter to split hairs on?


In conclusion, what I find shocking and disappointing is that the discourse went beyond post # 3: http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=633429&postcount=3

LOL!

It just may be.... Since, I haven't seen every dark-skinned person in the world, it just may be that there are some who are "darker" than "blue black."

It just may be that "jet black" is darker than "blue black."

It just may be that "purple black" is darker than "blue" and "jet" black.

This is a discussion. I took the position that I have seen a "really, really Black" person-of-color. It is my position that a "blue black" person is a "really, really Black" person, not "very dark brown."

However, as to this discussion continuing past Post #3, the subsequent exchanges were produced by participation from both of us.

Moreover, your combative language which insulted my INTEGRITY, my comprehension, and my perception was what produced this state between us......NOT Post #3.

LOL!

It just may be.... Since, I haven't seen every dark-skinned person in the world, it just may be that there are some who are "darker" than "blue black."

It just may be that "jet black" is darker than "blue black."

It just may be that "purple black" is darker than "blue" and "jet" black.

This is a discussion. I took the position that I have seen a "really, really Black" person-of-color. It is my position that a "blue black" person is a "really, really Black" person, not "very dark brown."

However, as to this discussion continuing past Post #3, the subsequent exchanges were produced by participation from both of us.

Moreover, your combative language which insulted my INTEGRITY, my comprehension, and my perception was what produced this state between us......NOT Post #3.






sister cherryblossom,

And it just may be that this time you are caught straddling the fence when relied upon to answer honestly, lol...in an attempt to have it both ways. Your first answer to the question implied to determine the darkest person is splitting hairs, now it seems there are no hairs to split, lol...(which was my original position in this debate).

Do you really think there are people darker than black, really black or darker that blue black? Nevermind, the answer cannot be trusted to a flawed perception of color...Peace In my sister friend, for real.

Nevertheless, to continually misrepresent my position of a black, really black person as “very dark brown” only, brings reproach your way, beyond travesty.

A more accurate assessment of my true position has been that people can be considered, very, very dark brown, almost black, yet you chose to bolster your ambiguous position of black, really black by not acknowledging and comparing, more closely, my true posture of almost/nearly black with what you say, “very dark brown” (repeatedly, my position has been stated to be darker than just very dark brown)

In other words, you could have used my statement of nearly black rather than very dark brown, but to do this would seriously weaken your argument of comparison.

Do I need to prove to you that in this discussion, I’ve accredited people to be nearly black?

You are correct to say that post #3 is not responsible for this sharp dispute, and thank you; but in hindsight, you honestly fail to see, I had no intentions to further discuss something I admittedly could not deny, you having seen a black, really black person.

In hindsight, you honestly fail to recognize my candidness of never seeing what you had seen, a black person. And finally, can you honestly say what would have occurred if you had not interjected science into the discussion.

If you cannot answer to any of this in the affirmative, there is nothing more to be said, really.

I am unapologetically, unequivocally, undeniably, irreplaceably BLAK.

:10500: i can not believe that two intelligent people are fussing over what is black....

get a room.......please...where is your mind?

:10500: i can not believe that two intelligent people are fussing over what is black....




jamesfrmphilly,

Sorry to say, this is not fussing. It should just be considered a sharp debate. I'm certain of one thing, from the various comments I've read, not only has this been uncomfortable for some, but hardly anyone is paying attention to the real bone of contention.

This has not been about our black race/group and how/why said group is currently identified, but has all to do with the broad range of skin color existing within our group and whether or not the color black applies, while shades of brown are understood to apply, hence the thread starters question: are we brown or black?

Moreover, anyone afraid to answer the question has no clue to the bone of contention...Peace In my brother friend, for real.

And finally good sir, allow me to point out that it took 5 years, repeat 5 years for this thread to receive any comments and/or replies...ask yourself why, my brother? So, I thank the threadologist for this discourse, really...it has brought out true colors...know what I mean?

Thank-you for the positive feedback, Bro :toast:


Quite welcome, you speak truth to power.

jamesfrmphilly,

Sorry to say, this is not fussing. It should just be considered a sharp debate. I'm certain of one thing, from the various comments I've read, not only has this been uncomfortable for some, but hardly anyone is paying attention to the real bone of contention.

This has not been about our black race/group and how/why said group is currently identified, but has all to do with the broad range of skin color existing within our group and whether or not the color black applies, while shades of brown are understood to apply, hence the thread starters question: are we brown or black?

Moreover, anyone afraid to answer the question has no clue to the bone of contention...Peace In my brother friend, for real.

And finally good sir, allow me to point out that it took 5 years, repeat 5 years for this thread to receive any comments and/or replies...ask yourself why, my brother? So, I thank the threadologist for this discourse, really...it has brought out true colors...know what I mean?


we are both. we are brown and black. we are brown skinned people who are commonly refered to as black.
and yes, exactly 75 angels can dance on the head of a pin.

i truly don't get it.........to the contrary jamefrmphilly, its as simple as you have put it


we are both. we are brown and black. we are brown skinned people who are commonly refereed to as black.


You got it...that's the point!

But to come back and add this later, is absurd and doesn't make sense, in my view:

and yes, exactly 75 angels can dance on the head of a pin.


Tried to slip that one in didn't you, lol...I thank God that I use the full quote button, cause some don't use the edit button:)

:10500: i can not believe that two intelligent people are fussing over what is black....

Brother James, FOR ME, ever since Brother Clyde insulted my INTEGRITY, it has not been about "what is black."

For ME, the topic of this thread doesn't have any "cut-and-dried" or "written in stone" answer. With or without science, it is still a matter of opinion and perception, per each individual.

For ME, this was a discussion, not a platform for personal insults as it has been for Brother Clyde.

Whatever his opinion/perception of "black" is, that is his personal right, as is mine.

For ME, I have no desire to harp on-and-on about it.

RU2religious stated that "ignorance is skin deep." And that may be so. But, BLACK goes to the BONE! (lol)

...A more accurate assessment of my true position has been that people can be considered, very, very dark brown, almost black,....


How wonderful, Brother Clyde.

is there anything that can be done to end this thread and release the energy tied up here?

How wonderful, Brother Clyde.




Thanks for the acknowledgement, sister cherryblossom.

how could we end this?

how could we end this?




Try closing out and responding to open posts to you, and as always for me, when the posting is over, I'm out and I unsubscribe from the thread.

When it comes to you, I usually wait several days to see if you come back and then I leave the thread.

i meant with you two....

i meant with you two....




If I were in your shoes and someone had laid out a case scenario in my lap, I would investigate and attempt to reconcile the differences. And when I say these things to you, I do so from no other perspective than many, many real life experiences/situations. It's called conflict resolution, jamesfrmphilly.

"you can call me OJ"........bob dylan

you can call me brown, black, african american, negro.
you can call me sweet pea. you can call me daddy. you can call me big boy.

i really do not care. if it is called in love, it's all good.:10500:


Or would you prefer "Big Daddy?!" :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cT1jLY20tLo

Malcolm X makes it plain about Black

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cT1jLY20tLo

Malcolm X makes it plain about Black


Brother, you and a few others are still missing the point made by the thread starter. Our designation as Black People is both accepted and understood. Any time spent arguing that fact, as with this video of Malcolm X(Denzell) is useless and makes no sense at all; and doesn't adequately address the issues of peopleofcolor's Thread.




Are we brown or black???

I was just looking up the defination of brown and black and this is what i found...

Brown means...

The term applied to a copper coin that no longer has the red color of copper. There are many "shades" of brown color -- mahogany, chocolate, of a color similar to that of wood or earth. Of a dark color, of various shades between black and red or yellow, a tawny, dusky hue. A brown-skinned person. To become brown, to make brown, to cook until brown. Often Offensive, of or being a person of nonwhite origin. The color of coffee; noun brown colour, pigment, or material. To be roasted, deceived, taken in.

We all know what black means "in the euro dictionary it basically means everything evil, crooked, wicked, dirty, ect, then also includes us people of african decent.

What are we brown or black Which one best describes us as a whole?

I'v never really met someone really black maybe dark dark brown but not black and by the way look up black in the dictionary...

Soiled, as from soot; dirty: feet black from playing outdoors. Cheerless and depressing; gloomy: black thoughts. Marked by anger or sullenness. Attended with disaster; calamitous: a black day; the stock market crash on Black Friday. Being or characterized by morbid or grimly satiric humor. Connected with or invoking the supernatural and especially the devil. Thoroughly sinister or evil : WICKED!!!

The word black is a english word anyway you cut it and means what the people from england wanted it to mean anit no changing it, the word moor is what we were called b4 black and negro... The word MOOR evolved from the Greek 'Mauros' which just simply means DARK. Moor doesn't have a harsh meaning sh*t the moors conquered back parts of africa and the middle east from the romans, greeks and europeans who ruled over them. The moors weren't all muslim either or arab like people think, moors were all dark skinned people from africa, india, the middle east, south east asia who all got together and fought the oppressive roman, greek and european regimes. If you were dark no matter were you came from you were label'd moor aka dark, non-white.

Brother, you and a few others are still missing the point made by the thread starter. Our designation as Black People is both accepted and understood. Any time spent arguing that fact, as with this video of Malcolm X(Denzell) is useless and makes no sense at all; and doesn't adequately address the issues of peopleofcolor's Thread.





my apology so the real concept is one of assimilation with other non whites?

As if they face the same hell we do, or unify with them before we establish our own unity?

my apology so the real concept is one of assimilation with other non whites?

As if they face the same hell we do, or unify with them before we establish our own unity?



No sir, not at all...that is inference rather than focus, brother.

No sir, not at all...that is inference rather than focus, brother.


my apologies, this topic
is above my head

my apologies, this topic
is above my head


Not really, its just not on your agenda. Then again, I may have given you too much credit.

i meant with you two....



I see you got your charm working brother jamesfrmphilly, what about trying it on Ankhur...for me, lol

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"

Is this not the lie of the centry? Words are one of the most hurtfull things in the universe. I have been bullied and have done the bulling at times so I know how words can effect people. Words have the power to start and stop wars, make people laugh or commit suiside. I believe that this phrase teaches kids to not take resposibility for what they say to people and tells the victoms that it is their fault for being hurt by the words. Now, I know we all have to take resposibility for not letting other people push our buttons but, the resposibility is not one sided. We also have to teach the kids to think about what they say to people. The truth is low self-esteem or not words get to us sometimes. You can shrug it off all you want but, having to hear the same negative words (for kids and adults) repededly does weaken the spirit a bit. Some are better than dealing with it than others but we can't dismiss the "others" as too weak or too sensitive. If we are loving the people around us we have to meet people where they are, strong or sensitive. If you are a sensitive person and you know it then you should take steps to learn to handle situations better and boost your self-esteem. In the mean time we have to deal with people on their level the best we can and not make sensitive people feel bad about it. If your a stronger person well that's great! Be a good strong example for those who need more help.

Very well said and an important message/lesson for all of us.

To humble oneself to apologize for an insult to another is a true sign of character and integrity.

And with this, I do apologize for offending you my sister friend, cherryblossom, to save the character and integrity issue and to clear the heart.



Thank you very much, Brother Clyde. Apology accepted with a clear heart.

Thank you for your knowledgeable post!

I seem to recall that we have been called many things over the years. Sometimes whites gave us a new name, sometimes we chose our own.

It doesn't matter what we change our name to. As the new name becomes "embarrassing" or associated with "badness", they will be changing it again.

Idiots, morons and imbeciles were terrible names. They gave way to the label of being retarded. That was too negative, so then it was mentally disabled. Now it is differently abled, special, or mentally challenged. I imagine that will be changed soon because "special" is seen by some as an insult.

Orientals have changed their name to Asian, but this is confusing as their are others that share that huge continent (India, Pakistan, Russia) that are culturally distinct. I imagine that they will change it at some point in the near future.

Enough of the history lessons. I guess I am trying to say that we should start working on the next name after brown.

After revisiting this post...


I seem to recall that we have been called many things over the years. Sometimes whites gave us a new name, sometimes we chose our own.

It doesn't matter what we change our name to. As the new name becomes "embarrassing" or associated with "badness", they will be changing it again.

Idiots, morons and imbeciles were terrible names. They gave way to the label of being retarded. That was too negative, so then it was mentally disabled. Now it is differently abled, special, or mentally challenged. I imagine that will be changed soon because "special" is seen by some as an insult.

Orientals have changed their name to Asian, but this is confusing as their are others that share that huge continent (India, Pakistan, Russia) that are culturally distinct. I imagine that they will change it at some point in the near future.

Enough of the history lessons. I guess I am trying to say that we should start working on the next name after brown.




CITIZEN,

Thanks for the insight...and this made me chuckle a bit:

Idiots, morons and imbeciles were terrible names. They gave way to the label of being retarded.

So true, and this as well:

Orientals have changed their name to Asian, but this is confusing as their are others that share that huge continent (India, Pakistan, Russia) that are culturally distinct.

Also, I agree with starting on the next name...Peace In.

....

Enough of the history lessons. I guess I am trying to say that we should start working on the next name after brown.


:lol:


You are on fiya today, Sister Citizen! :toast: