Insults will not winthis discussion. What I have said is based on hard facts: history. For those ingorant of African history,especially as it relates to this topic, just go to the histort depatment of your library and ask the librarian. He/she is sure to have proof.
If you get the keywords right, you can probaly find proof on the internet. And if you cal me "dilusional" again, I might just do it to humiliate you and to prove how ignorant you are.
Besides, I would argue that that sister is "mixed". It is just that she has deep dark sunburn. If you saw her in the middle of winter, she would probably be very light. For one tingher looks silky, not kinky. And,this tend to be the norm in that part of Africa.
Okay. Here is a start: "By 1659 Van Riebeeck possessed a total of 18 slaves, two of whom came from Guinea, one from Madagascar, three from Bengal, and the remainder from Angola, Van Riebeeck’s personal preference. He was particularly prejudiced against slaves from Guinea and Madagascar, believing them to be ‘unreliable’ and likely to desert. " (
http://www.rebirth.co.za/slaves_at_the_cape.htm)
Did that sink in? I doubt it. So let medumb it down for you. One (1) from Madagascar. Three (3) from Bengal. Get that? Do you know where Bengal is?
Well, let's google it: "Bengal (Bengali: বঙ্গ Bôngo, বাংলা Bangla, বঙ্গদেশ Bôngodesh or বাংলাদেশ Bangladesh) is a historical and geographical region in the northeast region of the Indian Subcontinent." (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal) Bengal is India. The people from that area are called East Indians. And, 3 out of 18 slaves from that region means that nearly 20% of the salves brought to this country where not African, if we use that as a guide. They were Asians. And, they "mixed" with the other slaves.
And, if you count the ne from Madagascar, you would be close to 25%. This is what the Malagasis look like:
http://www.google.com/images?q=mala...=ZvFETPbELOPsnQeOyLXqDQ&sa=N&start=60&ndsp=20.
This ought to prove my point.