That's what it sounded like. YOU: "I just got done talking with my wife about this, and apparently there are Albinos in her native country in Africa (Equatorial Guinea). Therefore this is evidently something which does happen amoung African people (not just African Americans)" ME: "You seriously didn't know this? lol. Malian singer Salif Keita ( a direct descendent of Sundiata Keita by the way ) is an albino. Why would you think albinism was only among Black Americans? Any group of color can produce albinos, don't even White people have their own version of albinos?" YOU :"I know this is difficult to believe African_Prince, but I don't know every black person in the world! I don't even know half of them!" If I misread you, I misread you. You can understand how strange it would be if you had meant what I mistakenly thought you did. "You're right, that's how you took it! That is why people don't need to make assumptions, if you don't understand something, ask question. Don't fly off the handle with asinine remarks!" I apologize! No more asinine remarks from me.
Look African_Prince I usually don't say this, but this is stupid. I know what I said & I didn't say what you tried to imply. Any rational person would know that. You can tell by my user name that I don't think Africans & African Americans are a different race. Anyone who has ever read any of my post (which you have) would know that. I didn't know who Salif Keita was, I'm not obligated to know every African person that ever lived. I've never seen an African Albino, therefore I was unaware of the history & extent that exist in Africa. I don't mind admitting that I am unaware about certain things. You can enlighten people without trying to ridicule them . That is what seperates educators from loudmouths....this will be my last post on this issue!
"Look African_Prince I usually don't say this, but this is stupid. I know what I said & I didn't say what you tried to imply. Any rational person would know that. You can tell by my user name that I don't think Africans & African Americans are a different race. Anyone who has ever read any of my post (which you have) would know that. I didn't know who Salif Keita was, I'm not obligated to know every African person that ever lived. I've never seen an African Albino, therefore I was unaware of the history & extent that exist in Africa. I don't mind admitting that I am unaware about certain things. You can enlighten people without trying to ridicule them . That is what seperates educators from loudmouths....this will be my last post on this issue!" Okay, I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to ridicule you.I know you consider yourself a pan-Africanist, I misread you, but it's because I'm so used to hearing some Black Americans subtly and blatantly distinguish themselves from Africans racially. Like I said, you can understand why I would have thought that was strange even though I now know that's not what you were implying.
Let's try this... "There is strong evidence that white skin is a form of albinism. Both conditions Caucasians and albinism, are genetically recessive traits and microscopically, there is no difference between the two types of skin, This lack of melanin was serious taboo to ancient Africans, so the albino populations become isolated. Furthermore, they could no longer withstand the strong equatorial sun and had to migrate north to cooler climes, These people become the early European and Asian races and 20,000 B.C. is the estimated time-line of their appearance as a group, the result of a process coiled "depigmentation", as described by Dr. C. A. Diop & Dr, F. C. Welsing" h_mmmm_MM???
There's nothing wrong with Black folks investigating and thinking......... "Evidence shows that the structure of the nose, both bony and soft tissue, may undergo radical changes to adapt to the environment (Molnar, 1991). Thus, nose shape would give little evidence of genetic relationship. Eskimos, American Indians, Northern Chinese, etc., all have narrow noses but show little other evidence of gene flow with Europeans. Indeed, genetic studies have shown that the belief that straight, narrow noses among Nilotic peoples is due to migrations from Europe or Asia is not correct. (Molnar, 1991) There also is no evidence supporting claims that skin complexion and limb ratios are any less genetically determined than nose structure. Probably, light-colored eyes and hair are among the rarest prominent external traits among the human species. They are found mostly in Europe, and aside from albinos, are hardly found at all outside of Europe, West Asia, the northwest part of India (generally not past Gujarat) and possibly a limited region in the northwestern Africa. In the latter two areas their occurrence is very rare, and even in most of West Asia it is uncommon. Even populations that have resided for long periods in cold climates like the Altaic peoples of Siberia, the northern Chinese, the Eskimos and Native peoples of Canada do not possess such traits. Thus, light hair (including light brown and red hair) and light eyes (blue, green, etc.) might be seen as very strong genetic traits, and their complete or near complete absence among a group as evidence of minimal genetic relationship. Given such genetic resistance to such adaptation, the genetic distance between a significantly large Europoid people who had, say, 25% light hair and eyes and that of a proportional group that, outside of albinism, had zero % of these traits would be enormous. However, from the Eurocentric perspective, the color of skin, eyes, hair, etc., is given little importance in anthropological studies. This is not justified, and it shows the different standards in judging shades when the situation is related to politics, society, etc., as compared to matters of anthropology, history and the like. 2. Related to the previous point, there was, and to a great extent, still is a practice of labeling traits according to race. Thus, the long, high narrow nose becomes "Caucasoid." Indeed, the importance of the nose in Western anthropology is so great that one might label it "nasal science." For in the division of the races, the nose has played a greater part than the skull altogether. The nasal nature of the Brace et al. study is reminiscent of an earlier work by Risley (1915), that sought to racially classify the castes of India according to nasal index. According to Risley's thinking, the higher castes would have been primarily of Caucasoid ancestry and thus would have longer noses. Later studies by Ghurye (1961) and Dutt et al.(1973), however, show Risley's studies were invalid. The glaring discrepancy of the data in the two Indian studies as compared with Risley, despite measuring the same populations, was also startling. One might wonder whether the claim of Afrocentrists and others of vandalism by Europeans of Egyptian, Indian and other non-European sculpture by breaking off the non-Europoid noses is not connected in some way to this nasal 'fetish.' The nasal index was popularly used by diffusionists to prove "white" origins of civilizations as diverse as the Chinese, Mayan and Polynesian." h_mmm_MM???