69. "RE: at least you are basing it on something real (langu" In response to In response to 66
>instead of some bogus shit such as "africans" vs. the rest >of the planet. >Does kinky hair make one an "african" and then how does that >make people different from the other people that >live in the same region that is called "africa"?
what? clearly not every1 within the region commonly defined as africa fits into the protypical african definition as i have put forth, they are either long diluted/bastardized breeds or simply foreign in all aspects such as the zinedine zidane of north africa or francis botha of south africa types. they are not africans, but foreigners and bastards living in africa.
And then >what about the other black people on other parts of the >CONTINENT (Asia) that have the same characteristics as what >you call a traditional "african" (Runoko Rashidi).
they are referred to as africans living in asia, not "asian". as their phenotype is not a product of what commonly constitutes asia but of africa.
they did not significantly change in appearance after leaving africa many, many thousands of years ago. therefore they remain africans.
again the example:
negritos are africans in the phillipines. they were in asia first and they are likely the group from which the other eur/asian races descend (assuming the "out of africa hypothesis to be true). they nonetheless did not change drastically after their ancestors left africa in terms of phenotype.
the majority of filipinos like the majority of asians (and europeans) belong to these non-african races which emerged in asia. they are significantly different in physical appearance and generally culturally from what i have defined as "africans". therefore not african.
i hope that is simple enough for you to understand, but i doubt so.