Race does not exist as you know it. It's a social construct invented by Europeans. As an OCD group they had to label everything from flora to fauna and they took it a step further with humans. They did this to assert some sort of special catagory for themselves and labelled others in reference to themselves.
Essentially yes. Eugenics as we know it was a 19th century concept, and it's insemination into mainstream society debuted somewhere in the early 1900's. It's stranglehold on how races viewed themselves is more or less imaginary as people quickly realized that DNA breakdowns were absorptive rather than pure. And let's not sugar coat it; They did it to assert
their racial dominance.
You see cadaans are more closer to each other. They came from a bottle neck population and most of them can share a common ancestor from as close as 1000 years ago. How about I tell you a Xabeshi is more distantly related to us (3000 years apart) than two Europeans are to each other. Similarly, Horners are 40,000 years apart from West Africans. Europeans should not project their experience on to people that are different from them.
Will definitely have to concretely prove those claims tbh, fam. The genetic dispersion among African groups is already a hot button topic with embarrassingly flawed source material. I know. Accidentally did a 30 minute seminar detailing the genetic results for King Ramses III with a debunked source before the autosmal compilations were done. But we are in agreement as far as Europeans asserting their experiences on others. The problem is they already have and ironically enough at this point seem to refrain from doing so.
And there isn't a universal African phenotype. There are South Asians with greater prognathism than Africans. Same goes for East Asians. People with the broadest features in the world aren't even African, rather they are Australoids from Papua New Guinea. They also have dark skin and often have afro-textured hair. Yet they are genetically further from Africans than Europeans are.
Again I need your sourcing. Both of their DNA breakdown and the claim that Europeans are genetically closer to Africans than they are. From what I can gather a wave migration from Australia is being primarily linked to most of the indigenous living in and around South America. I legit can't find their autosmal breakdown or a competent DNA analysis anywhere.
What I have found on them so far however is their migration linkages. Which isn't all that surprising.
In resisting the 'black label' which is a European invention we are saying we don't want to be an arbitrary color that is not imbued with our unique lived experience as Somalis.
Who genuinely wants to be an arbitrary color? This frankly makes me chuckle. The idea that people (who live in diasporas as they have fled war-torn nations) can merely shrug off the categorizing created by people who still thoroughly dominate. I mean, yeah. Reject it. But literally so what? Will it at all change census taking, or how your interviewee would see you if you lived in NA? No, I certainly think it wouldn't.
We resist all other color labels too and are not trying to create linkages to people we don't share much in common with. Yes; there is a binary. You are either black or Somali. You cannot be both, as there is only room for one or the other. Black is arbitrary in Africa. It has little to no meaning there.
Here's the rudimentary issue with this analysis; it's incomplete and generally contradictory. At first you state that black and Somali are mutually exclusive terms (even though we've already discussed the relevant, though flawed, concept of racial designation over ethnic identification), however, you go on to shrug off the black label entirely in the continent it was originally used to describe. A continent the terminology has its origins forever intertwined with.
The question is simple: How can such a flippant terminology with no real bounds in Africa have some unyielding effect on ethnic self-identification. If it is indeed a social-construct, and arbitrarily designated within Africa, than why would there be a compromising relationship with ethnic identity in any way, shape, or form?
These social constructs obviously carry specific connotations depending on the region you live in, so accepting the label should by your own definition be entirely region based, and society-specific.
To accept others as apart of your group is to face extinction in the continent - look at the pygmies, san (each of these groups clustered away from other Africans bari hore, many of them have been assimilated by hostile groups and are nearly gone).
See this is essentially where the meat of the problem lies; our diverging comprehension of nuance and evolution as a whole. With the advent of the internet and globalization, isn't is somewhat ludicrous to still maintain that ethnic extinction is even a remote fear?
Ask someone back home and I'm positive they will agree with me that they are Somali and not black
No offence, but who cares? A country decimated by colonization, clan warfare, and war isn't exactly the hotspot to go for discussing the evolution of racial connotation. Nor is it exactly the generality of your argument is that you're Somali as your first and only ethnic or racial identifier, and it is a nation you likely don't have citizenship in and likely will not be returning to.
My father is indignantly against being labeled black in any way shape or form. Didn't exactly stop the cop in Columbus from calling him a , nor does it stop censuses from typing him down as African Canadian.
rather the term madow refers to non-Horners/non-Somalis. To the AA wanabes and hoteps, stop projecting your chip-on-the-shoulder experience you acquired from N. America on to other Somalis that don't have the same grievances.
I... wouldn't say you don't have grievances in this department in the slightest. You seem genuinely perturbed by any and all notions of being labeled black to any extent. While not a chip on a shoulder, it's equally irritating. But again, you clearly touched on North America, it's experiences, and how people will view themselves from region to region.
My country is technically not even 200 years old as far as its government is concerned. So any and all perceptions of race were dictated as immigration swelled in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. And without the same history of racism and slavery, it's pretty easy to see how simply having races like white, black, south asian, middle eastern, native, other would be incredibly easy for a country to just follow through on. And how certain people could feel comfortable after checking the box after so many years.
Because that's all race breaks down for to me. Wouldn't call that a chip-on-the-shoulder at all.
But again, Somalis are and will always be proud folk who view themselves as country first. The second categorization of race shouldn't really matter all that much if the first is still genuinely strong. And for me it is, as I believe it is for you.
And please link any DNA findings you have. Genuinely curious on those breakdowns.