Troy

Sara, you make my point Homo Habilis and Homo Sapiens are different species. If you trying to suggest that these creatures could be called Black or white does not make sense. They are classified as a difference species because we can not interbreed with them. Cynique, while there is no way of "knowing," which cultural influences there are many clues. Indeed people who study this stuff make pretty convincing arguments. Some suggest, for example, that we can trace aspects of Jazz and gospel music back to Africa. If I used you argument, about bad food creating obesity the one would expect these rates to go down, nit that our food is "better." Also staples like Okra is not all about scraps and did not originate in America it came directly from Africa. While Xenophobia, may be "hardwired" human have the unique ability to behave in ways that may conflict with a genetic predispositions. So while I may fear people who look different than me, I can use reason and not be afraid of those you are different. Using your logic I should be afraid of 1/2 my family, including my mother who is light skinned. Again humanity has evolved beyond these primitive instincts. You can use culture to define a group of people in the case of Nigeria you be better our categorizing group in terms of being Hausa, Fulani, Igbo or Yoruba. Of curse these groups which are much older and have nothing to do with the boundaries of Nigeria.

What?! Sara and I agree on something out the box Well almost. Keep in mind humans did not evolve until about 200,00 years ago. So no one was Black "millions of years" before anything.

Hi Mel, I'm not sure what there is to disagree about. I'm also not sure what you mean by adapting to conditions of North America. If you mean genetically, we have not been here long enough for any genetic adaptation to have taken place. Would you believe after making my last post here, someone sent me an email about a movie they made discussing race: The Myth of Race and the Evolution of Skin Color.

Have you ever found yourself wondering why humans look different? Why some people may have eyes that appear to be slanted? Why some people may have light skin, blue eyes and blonde hair or why others may have dark skin, coarse or kinky hair and dark colored eyes. Well, the answer is called a mutation, which occurs in every generation when the sperm from a male fertilizes the egg of a female. Now mutations are not a bad thing, actually, they're a good thing because without them all humans would look the same. How boring would that be? This ground breaking documentary entitled The Myth of Race and the Evolution of Skin Color answers those questions by combining anthropology, paleontology and human genetics to show how that all humans, no matter what race, nationality or ethnicity you claim to be, share a common ancestor with a small population that lived in Africa around 200,000 years ago. This documentary is scheduled to be released in March of 2016.

Hi Guest B I'd encourage you to create an account so that your comments will display right away and not require manual approval. I also checked out your website and like the premise. But since the site has no content I won't share it others at this point. Of course keep us update on your progress.

@Cynique, I'm not saying Black American's should NOT be defined by our time enslaved here in America. I saying we should not be defined SOLELY by our enslavement. Our culture is informed so much more. Our collective propensity to diabetes and hypertension has more to do with our food supply and lifestyles than our cuisine. And of course some African people are not lactose intolerant as this has to do with genetic traits that have nothing to do with what we look like. If you want to put people into boxes because of physical characteristics; have at it, you'll be busy for a very long time. You should also appreciate the boxes you create are purely arbitrary and have nothing to do with science. Yes, I do want to put all people in one box, because technically we are in one box, the human box. Any differences in treatment we chose to apply to each other because of differences in physical characteristics are also done so subjectively. It would be like saying all left handed people are inferior because they are left handed, all men with red hair are inherently more evil, all slender men are smarter, etc. All of this would be considered dumb, because it is. Also you can't reasonably use Nigeria to define a group of people. Nigeria was made up by europeans; the boundaries they created has little to do with the people who lived there before Europeans carved it up. @Mel keep in mind that your mtDNA only tracks your mother's, mother's, Mother's, Mothers, After 9 generation we are talking about a single ancestor out of 1,024 who contributed to who you are. In other words you know less that 0.001% of you ancestry based upon that ancestor's mtDNA.

Funny Mel, your attitude about Men who can't make it in America, is the same one I held about White men who can't make it in America--I had no concern and little sympathy for their predicament. Then I traveled the country and saw whole swaths of the nation covered in white poverty. They are not covered in media, but they exist. Then I also realized when we pit men and against women, white against Black, we lose track of the cause of our problems, and we fail to work together to fix them. I have not read the articles yet, but it seems contradictory to suggest that Black women are surviving when Black males are not. But again it is the divide mentality of us against them, you against I. I can only win at your expense... Also I wish they really would stop issuing those bogus unemployment figures, because they fly in the face of the reality most of us see. They stop counting who have been looking over two years, they don't count the millions of recent college graduates who have not found a job. No wonder folks are embracing Donald Trump for president. Folks are desperate.

I believe we are one race. We are all descended from one male (y-chromosomal Adam) and one woman (Mitochondrial Eve), and are therefore family. It would be nice if we looked out for each other they was a family would, but we have to operate in the real world... That said, the issue I would take with your perspective Cynique, is that it is unnecessarily limiting. Why should Black culture be defined by what happened in the last 150 years? We know from our cuisine, our way of practicing religion, our speech, music, and a whole host of other things are influenced by Africa. Everything was not striped from us, indeed it is part of our core being. Part of the reason some embrace a so called "Afrocentric" perspective is that we see where the European perspective mindset has gotten us, hundreds of years of enslavement and 2nd class citizenship. People--even white folks-- are desperate for something different, something that would them better. Pioneer, any African that would fail to embrace an African-American as his Brother is simply a victim of the same colonial mindset we are. Pan-Africanism is better than the fractured, powerless, state we are in today. "Pan worldism" would serve humanity better, but I'm happy to go one step at a time. Oh, the middle east, is clearly on the African continent. Mesopotamia, Egypt, the birth place of Christ, and the Great Pyramids are all in north east Africa.

Cynique considering the board is named for you, you know I'm not about "political correctness," shoot all the stuck I let slide from Kola Boof should have proven that. More recently I even let the likes of an Unkel Rukus post here until he went crazy with the spamming. I would have hoped you would know it is not about being politically correct. We'll be here when you get back. Pioneer, you would not have anything meaningful to contribute if you did not have better things to do.

Sorry @Cynique and @Sara I decided to exercise my rarely used moderator authority to prune this conversation and remove the back and forth name calling. I can't remember the last time I took an action like this. It was not that what you two were doing was particularly egregious, it just was not advancing the conversation at all. More importantly I think the protracted back and forth you two were engaged in would turn people off who might otherwise have contributed to the conversation. Now I also appreciate that there are some people who love to see two people go at it, and it hat could be good for traffic, but honestly I'm not interested in that type of traffic. I think, for the sake of the discussion forums, I need to more actively moderate these conversations. Something I really do not have the extra time to do, but I'll have to find it. As always I'm open to your comments and thoughts.

Women, with a better than a high school education, are this site's largest demographic. Opinionated adjective: (1) conceitedly assertive and dogmatic in one's opinions. (2) having and expressing very strong ideas and opinions about things As far as opinionated I guess it depends upon the way you are using the word. I tend to find you often more characteristic of the first definition. This is based upon our interactions, For example, when you asserted Black girls are the largest demographic of college students (factually inaccurate), and was presented with a simple question which would make the truth plain, you resorted to Sarainistic replies, rather than simply conceding you made a mistake. Now it is great to have strong ideas and opinions, as in the second definition of the word--in fact this forum would be boring without people who have them. Of course you fall into this category as well. But often there is a thin line between strong opinion and dogmatism. I guess from time to time we are all guilty of it; but rarely does one who is called on it back up and say, "you know you are right, I need to rethink my position." Instead they generally dig their heels in deeper--which defeats the biggest benefit participating in these forums growing by learning from other.

Great line up! Many are firends of the AALBC.com website. In fact Zetta Elliott just guest blogged for us: “Who Will Write a Story for the Children of Eric Garner?” I have already added this event to our events calendar.

There have been many books written n the subject of technology and one's feeling of "disconnectedness" I blogged about some of the more popular book in his vein here. One of the books, Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other by Sherry Turkle get deep into this.

@Pioneer1, that is exactly why I choose that particular word. There probably aren't many places where few places I could use it where folks would "get it."

sa·ra·ian: adjective: Hyperbolic, unsubstantiated conclusion fueled on emotion, ignorance, or desire to obfuscate an issue. Typically utilized when facts, reason or logic can not be applied.

Thanks for sharing the additional information. Once Facebook opens the floodgates does anyone one, for a split second, think their Blog posts will be seen as many times as a big corporation's content? Sure we have to compete with corporations on the World Wide Web, but the web, even with Google's dominating search, is far more democratic that Facebook. Where else can you quadruple your fan base and see your reach drop by 75%? Whats next promoted (paid) Facebook Instant posts? I don't serve a lot of Ads on AALBC.com. This discussion forum only has two. I could very easily quadruple the number of ads and even embedded them in the posts (like Facebook), but I hate sites which inundate you with advertising. Facebook also recognizes too many ads spoil the experience, hence the limit. But again Facebook can afford the limit the ads because they are not paying for the content creation. I hear you Mel regarding the selling of advertising, but here is the trade off. I'm giving content to Facebook for a marginal increase in reach, which will likely come at the expense of reach that I would have gotten directly. All content producers should boycott this Facebook "service." Then what would Facebook do? I guess Facebook would have to create content and compete like everyone else. Which would not be a bad idea for them since they have the platform and already know how to control people. They could run the HuffPost Okie Doke and get people to write for free--just for the privileged of being on Facebook. Indeed many of us do this already...

Cynique, you touch more people than you may appreciate :-) Your stories are important for they are a historical record. I will do my best to ensure they, as well as everyone else's thought are preserved.

Here is a more balanced take on Facebook's Instant Articles. If anyone finds a Black platform talking about this subject in a critical way please post a link. My Huria Search, shows Black sites just sharing Facebook's press release, which is not news but free propaganda/promotion for Facebook.

Hi @Mel, I finally got a chance to watch this video. This is a brilliant idea, beautifully packaged, and presented in a compelling fashion. While I was watching this video I was tapping my foot trying to figure out how one is compensated for providing Facebook with all this compelling content. Over 2 minutes into this 3 minute video they finally said, "publishers can bring their ads with them." But it is not clear to me how this ad presentation will work from watching the video. I'm still not moved, and actually have a problem with, Facebook constantly telling us how many people they have on their platform, as a selling point to convince publishers to give them FREE content. Our platform’s potential audience is not Facebook, but the World Wide Web itself, which will ALWAYS have more people! Content does not just pop out of thin air, we pay to have it produced, or spend a great deal of time and effort creating it. Why for, God's sake, would anyone give content to Facebook for free. This allows Facebook to monetize the traffic and the visitor behavior without having incur the expensive of generating content of their own. This is why we have our own websites. So, I'm supposed to pay writers, edit the copy, produce video, gather images, format it for Facebook system, and just hand it over to Facebook—for free? No. They need to pay. The notion that Facebook can deliver content to mobile users, better than a major content producer is silly too. First, 4G mobile phones can download content faster than most people can receive it with the cable connection at home. Nobody waits 10 seconds for a page to load on a 4G phone. There is nothing that Facebook is doing that National Geographic (the subject of the video) could not do better on their own website. Also, publishers can only do what Facebook allows them to do, which is a very limited subset of what is possible. This, I argue, is what is curbing creativity on the web. Facebook's content will always be presented in a less compelling fashion than what is possible on the web. This is not to suggest that websites always get it right. In fact, most of they time they don't. But the imperfect world of the World Wide Web, is what makes it beautiful, The stale, cookie cutter world which FaceBook promises is far less desireable. Besides, why would major companies so willingly give one company so much power? If Facebook is not paying National Geographic for the right to publish their content then Facebook is simply brilliant and National Geographic are fools, or engaged in a desperation move (are print publications in THAT much trouble?) Also giving content to Facebook introduces another gatekeeper controlling who can see your content. I often lament the control Google exerts as a gatekeeper in terms of the discovery of content on the web. But while I have my complaints about Google, they are more focused on providing you with the best answers to your searches. Facebook, in contrast, is concerned with delivering content that will keep you engaged with their platform. Their is a profound difference between the two. Google sends you to websites most likely to help and inform you. Facebook presents you with content most likely to keep you on their platform so that they can maximize their revenue. Whether you are helped or informed is incidental. If all the major content providers give their content to Facebook, then users may feel completed to go to Facebook, which increases Facebook's stranglehold on the net and when on entity exerts this much control we are all worse off.

... courtesy of my favorite racist spammer -- Unkel Ruckus. The funny thing is that I had to think a few seconds before I put 2-and-2 together to get the stupid joke. I didn't recognize any of the women.

I send her some book recommendations and my latest Black History Month post and was unfriended

24th Day of ‪#‎BlackHistoryMonth‬ - Zora Neale Hurston’s - Glossary of Harlem Slang

Pioneer, don't even play; Xeon and Sara are clearly not the same person.

I get friend requests like this on a regular, almost daily basis. I noticed this trend last year. But it seems to be getting worse lately. I know one of Facebook's biggest challenges is dealing with stuff like this as these pages surely contain links to sites with viruses, malware, spam you name it--which you can quickly spread to others. Usually the images are not quite so pronographic, typically a provocative bathroon mirror selfie, but sometimes the images are FAR worse (or better depending upon your predictions). This is the the kind of photo that gets a site banned from Google, but Facebook is strong enough in that they don't have to worry about what Google thinks.

@Pioneer1 I ain't studying Sara. Rest assured there is nothing she could write to brew animosity between you and me.