Vijay Singh and Tiger Woods

And your point is? The fact is that Vijay Singh is not negroid and has no ancestry from sub saharran Africa. Tiger Woods, irregardless of the one drop rule, is negroid and has sub saharran ancestry. One is and the other isn’t “Black”. In America black means a person of sub saharran African ancestry. In Australia black means Australian Aborigine or Torres Trait Islanders. Both are dark skinned and neither is negroid, sub saharran African. Vijay Singh is Fijian of Indian ancestry and looks typical of someone from South India not sub saharran Africa.

>>> “Tiger Woods does not look Negroid.”
That’s because he’s also part Asian. He looks Negroid-Mongoloid.

>>> “Vijay Singh looks blacker than Tiger Woods.”

No he doesn’t. Singh looks purely East Indian. I would never mistake him for any kind of African.

>>> “the people in NORTH Africa are obviously mulatto.”

Incorrect. North Africans have on average 10-15% sub-Saharan admixture. Some (to the south) have more, while the northerly ones have far less.

>>> “Nearly all of Latin America has ‘Negroid’ ancestry.”

Wrong again. Only Brazil and the Caribbean Islands have more than negligible Negroid ancestry. Mexico, Central America and the rest of South America are essentially Mestizo or European.

What you said is not true.Wow. It’s scary how much graeme and grecoroman sound like me.

Vijay does not have any ancestry from Africa if we don’t count the first migration out of Africa.

From: “jaimepretell”
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 12:01 am
Subject: Re: Fw: Barack Obama and the OneDropRule

ODR has never been about Dark Skin. Black Power movement maybe, but
not ODR. Vijay Singh, may be dark but he doesn’t have one drop of
African blood. There is a difference in someone showing their
ancestry, and someone looking like they had some ancestry. Just
consider the case of Wayne Joseph. The man had no problem believing
he was Black. Always assumed that there was some African in him and
always looked in the mirror and saw dark skin. But the moment he
took the DNA test and it said he had zero African ancestry, the ODR
wasn’t there to support him. He had an identity crisis.

From: Jaime Pretell
Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:18 am
Subject: Re: [OneDropRule] Re: Vijay Singh and Tiger Woods

Let’s not kid ourselves that Americans aren’t familiar with Asian phenotypes or ancestry. Afrocentrism aside, most people know that there are dark skinned people out there who are not of recent African decent. Most African-Americans don’t just go by color. I agree that it is stupid for people to try to force the Black label on Tiger, but using VJ as a counterpoint isn’t very effective. Blacks who have issues with mixed people usually have the mentality that if you have African ancestry and significantly show it by any phenotype, be it skin color, facial structure or hair type, you are Black. Be you Latino, raised in Hawaii, or whatever. They are wrong, but that is there argument. VJ has no such African ancestry so his dark color is irrelevant. They don’t see him as denying part of his ancestry when it is so ‘obvious’ to them.

>>> What I said is true.
Assertions have to be supported with evidence, not just stated and then declared to be true.

>>> “Greco-Roman” is just trying to spare certain people from what he sees as the “disgrace” of having the dreaded “black blood.”

Don’t put words in my mouth. There’s nothing wrong with having black blood. But there’s definitely something wrong with believing against all evidence that everyone on earth is black or mulatto.

>>> Let him read this, as a start: Latinos and their Escape Hatches

Mexicans have nothing to “escape” from, because genetically they’re not African:

http://www.dienekes.com/blog/archives/000137.html

Pad you are speaking nonsense. First you have to show that any of us think Anatole Broyard was Black.
Second. Some Mexicans have African Ancestry and some don’t.

Demographics of Mexico
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The population of Mexico is ethnically, culturally and racially diverse. Most Mexicans today are Mestizos (of mixed indigenous Amerindian and Spanish ancestry), and constitute around 60% of the population. In some regions of Mexico, most notably the state of Veracruz and the Costa Chica, many mestizos have also absorbed significant amounts of African strains once heavily present in those areas during the colonial period.

Estimates of unmixed Native American peoples in Mexico vary from a very modest 10%, to a more liberal and more accurate 30%, of the population. The reason for such discrepancy in estimates of Amerindians in Mexico is a direct result of the Mexican government’s current policy for the use of spoken-language, rather than race, as the basis of classification.

The flaw that arises in this method of classification is that in Mexico — much like the US and other countries across the Americas — the great majority of Amerindians no longer speak their native tongues, and haven’t done so for decades, and in some cases centuries. Instead, they now speak the nationally recognised and dominant language in their respective countries. This itself was achieved by successive Mexican governments implementing cultural (Mestizo Culture) and linguistic (Spanish Language) assimilation policies resulting in the Hispanization of the large Amerindian populations.

As a result of these ongoing policies of assimilation, and of the linguistic basis for classification used only by Mexico, today many of their “mestizos” are in fact assimilated Amerindians. This in turn causes the Mexican mestizo population estimate to inflate from the accepted 60% to as high as 80%. Meanwhile, the number of Amerindians continue to “decline” as more of them are assimilated and while the linguistic policy of classification remains the same.

In the states of Chiapas, Oaxaca and in the interior of the Yucatán peninsula the majority of the population is indigenous. Large indigenous minorities, including the Nahua, Tarasca, and Mixtec are also present in the central regions of Mexico. In Northern Mexico the indigenous are a small minority and include the Tarahumara of Chihuahua and the Yaqui of Sonora.

A small percentage of Mexicans, mostly in Mexico City and other large metropolitan areas are of unmixed European descent. Historically, european-descended Mexicans have been referred to as Creoles. In addition to the Spanish colonists, 19th century French and German settlers arrived during the Mexican Empire and Porfirio Díaz periods.

During the 1930s substantial numbers of Spanish refugees fleeing the Spanish Civil War arrived, mostly in Mexico City. Polish and Russian refugees, Ashkenazic Jews among them, had also settled during wartime. Mexicans of Lebanese descent are also present in substantial numbers. Asians, including some Chinese, arrived from the Philippines in colonial times. During the period of Asian Exclusion from the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, sizable numbers of Chinese and Japanese immigrants settled in northern and western Mexico. Also of note are isolated communities of Anglo-American Mormons, and colonies of Mennonites of German descent, mainly in the northern states.

Furthermore, you can see which areas are more or less mixed.

http://ritmoproductions.com/salsassin/Images/AdmixtureMapMexico.jpg

Finally, refering to Bernardo Bertoni’s study, feel free to translate Bernardo’s letter to me (Better to ask then assume from a summary):

Original Message
From: Bernardo Bertoni
To: Jaime Pretell
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: Una pregunta sobre genetica en Mejicanos

Jaime, primero queria disculparme por la tardanza de mi respuesta, me encontraba con varias cosas entre manos en el momento que tu mail llego.
Los resultados entre unos y otros trabajos no son de extrañar ya que en cada caso se utiliza un set de marcadores diferentes (aun cuando coincidamos en algunos). Las muestras no son necesariamente las mismas ya que en la publicacion son hispanos del Suroeste lo qeu cubre una region extenza y ademas capaz de contener individuos con diferente origen al mexicano. La elección de las parentales tambien es una limitante ya que con distintas parentales se obtienen diferentes resultados.
Por otra parte, lo que mandas no aclara qeu tipo de marcadores son utilizados en el analisis Conozco algunos de los trabajos de Ricardo y recuerdo qeu son con autosomicos pero los marcadores mitocondriales para africanos detectan un 5% en Mexico en localidades cercanas a la frontera con EUA (Green et al, 2000).El comentario se refiere a ese tipo de datos?? Es de esperar que con estos valores para aportes maternales, el aporte autosomico pueda ser bajo, por un tema del directional mating.
Por ultimo si tenes oportunidad de leer el trabajo veras que el hincapie esta mas en las diferencias entre hispanos en EUA apoyandose en los datos del origen de esas poblaciones.

Si estas trabajando en estos temas te agradeceria si pudieras enviarme informacion sobre las frecuencias de marcardores del cromosoma Y en la poblacion mexicana. En particular me interesaria conocer como se distribuyen los marcadores uniparentales.

Saludos
Bernardo

Original Message
From: Jaime Pretell
To: bbertoni@fmed.edu.uy
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 8:22 PM
Subject: Una pregunta sobre genetica en Mejicanos

Leí su comentario y me pregunto como se correlaciona con los estudios de Cerda-Flores y Shriver en lo que se refiere a admixtura africana en la poblacion mexicana y mexicana-americana

“The effect of gene flow on Hispanic populations from different geographic regions of the United States was analyzed using six autosomal DNA markers (LDLR, GYPA, HBGG,D7S8, GC, and HLA-DQA). By region of sampling, the Hispanic populations showed different ancestry contributions, from a trihybrid structure with European, Native American, and African contributions (California, Nevada, Florida, New Jersey, and Virginia) to a dihybrid structure with European and American contributions (Southwest population) or European and African contributions (Pennsylvania and Southeast population). These findings allowed us to define two regional groups, the West and the East. In the former, Native American contributions ranged from 35.58% to 57.87%; in the East region the values ranged from 0% to 21.27%. An African influence was similar in both regions, ranging from 0% to 17.11%, with a tendency of increasing in the East region. These data reflect the different origins of the Hispanic populations that led to the present ones. In the West, Hispanics are mostly of Mexican origin, and in the East, they are predominantly of Cuban and Puerto Rican origin. ”

“In fact, Mexico even differs from the rest of Latin America, where distinct black populations remain genetically unassimilated. “Mexico is unique in this regard,” commented population geneticist Ricardo M. Cerda-Flores of the Mexico’s Autonomous University in Nuevo Leon.
Cerda-Flores’ team found that a sample of Mexicans living around Monterrey in Northeast Mexico averaged around 5 percent African by ancestry, according to its genetic markers. In other words, if you could accurately trace the typical family tree back until before the first Spaniards and their African slaves arrived in Mexico in 1519, you would find that about one out of twenty of the subjects’ forebears were Africans.
Cerda-Flores and his colleagues also examined the DNA of Mexican-Americans in Texas, who came out as about 6 percent black. Other studies of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans by molecular anthropologists have come up with black admixture rates ranging from 3 percent to 8 percent.
By way of contrast, this appears to be, very roughly, something like half of the black ancestry level of the overall American population, as implied by Shriver’s studies. Of course, most of the African ancestors of Americans are visibly concentrated among African-Americans, who average 82 percent to 83 percent black, according to Shriver. Among Mexicans, however, African genes appeared to be spread more broadly and evenly.
According to Cerda-Flores, intermarriage continued steadily until African genes had widely diffused into the population.”

Obviously, “Greco-Roman” defines “black” in a racist, “one drop” way. Anatole Broyard was a white man. Anyone who looks white is white. If you are what others on the street think you are (as some “one drop” supporters insist), then Singh is blacker than Tiger Woods.

It is generally conceded that calling someone “black” when he or she does not identify as “black” is an insult. Only black ODR supporters and their allies try to confuse the issue when the criminalized sub-Saharan “blood” is involved.

At “Interracial Voice,” I was constantly assaulted by black ODR supporters who whined “What’s wrong with being black?!” The answer, of course, is that EVERYTHING is wrong with it when you’re NOT “black.”

Even the most pro-black groups concede that calling someone “black” can be a racist insult. Blond Rashida Jones “black” and the nearly ebony Vijay Singh and Bridget McCain dark “Caucasians”? I’m not buying it. “Racial classification” is a con game designed for fools.

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=9&threadid=315663

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0821c.html

Bush Supporters Spread Racist Rumors About McCain’s Daughter. Bush supporters in South Carolina made race-baiting phone calls saying that McCain had a “black child.” The McCains’ daughter, Bridget, was adopted from Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh. In August 2000, columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that the McCains “are still seething about Bush supporters in South Carolina spreading word of their dark-skinned adopted daughter.” [Time, 3/6/00; Boston Globe, 3/4/00; Dowd column, New York Times, 8/9/00]

Picture of Bridget McCain
http://www.mccain2000.com/contents/welcome/biographies/cindy.shtml

9/3/2004 6:37:41 PM

@What I see in this discussion is a simple problem.
Far too often people who look down upon Black people, they want to make the word “black” mean one thing and then change what it means later.

For example, Wayne Joseph, a Black man is used as an example

Here is a quote from the website regarding the “One white drop rule”. This is the kind of sick racism that persists in the society nowadays:
“The [pre-Dynastic] Badarian type represents a small branch of the Mediterranean racial group. … The Badarian skulls are more prognathous than those of their successors, and have higher nasal indices. … In fact, while the prognathism and nose form would suggest a negroid tendency, this cannot be established, since the hair form is definitely not negroid. … Morant shows that the Badarian cranial type is closely similar to that of some of the modern Christians of northern Ethiopia—who incidentally do not show negroid characteristics in the skull—and also to the crania of Dravidian-speaking peoples of southern India. … On the basis of these racial comparisons, it seems reasonable to suggest that this Badarian physical type may have come from the south, near the headwaters of the Blue Nile. It may represent an early Hamitic racial strain, which persists despite some negroid admixture in Ethiopia and Somaliland to the present day.”

Even though the Badarians are known to come from UGANDA of all places, they have everything Black but the knappy HAIR, here the website owner wants to call them… what was that? MEDITERRANEAN? (That is a subgroup of the Caucasoids)

WHy? Because Egypt was a society we regard as an accomplishment.

>>> Greco-Roman needs a course in reading comprehension.
So does A.D. Powell, as well as a course in physical anthropology, and maybe something for her memory…

>>> Vijay Singh is blacker than Tiger Woods. That is one more proof that the whole racial classification system is a con game designed to deceive fools.

…because she keeps repeating the same unsupported claim, which I long ago refuted with evidence that skin color is not a primary signifier of race:

http://www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/skincolor.html

>
No one has ever used him as racial rape. All they have used him is as an example of ancestry misidentification.

>

Who said they are Black people? The English imposition? Whom? Are all Indians Black? They were called so at one time.

>

Not really. It is just the dumb concept that Arabs are seen as caucasian, and Americans are misinformed that Egypt is populated by Arabs, when in fact it is still mostly populated by Egyptians. Some dark descendants of Nilotic populations some call Black today.

>

Wrong. Black is a sense of identity. Unless you are raised in it or forced into a bundled group by it, it doesn’t apply.

>

That is innacurate. Black is only an identity of imposition or of acceptance. The Aeta do not see themselves as Black Nor do all Aborigine. Some do use the term Black imposed by English, but they do not see themselves as some sort of Global Black group. They specifically use the term to refer to Australain Aborigines. Much like native Americans don’t consider themselves the same as Indians from India.

>

You can’t ignore what isn’t there. Only if those cultures embraced some sort of Black identity could you claim it, nor can you claim it as some sort of global Blackness as it is not.

>

Wrong. DNA shows where populations come from, not racial differences.

>

False. Black: Person who belongs to a group historically identified as such and that has grown up in a culture that identifies as such, or strongly identifies with said group.

>

Wrong again. While in the USA one droppism would have applied for Vanessa or For Tiger in the US, in other cdountries they would have been mulattos, colored, or other groups. Vijay would have depended on the region he were in.

>

More like identification and beleif that you belong with that ethnic group and no cognitive dissonance about it.

>

Wayne Joseph was raised in the Black Culture. So was Mostafa in Egypt probably with the 70’Pan-Africanism Black power movements. Not all people identify as they do, nor is Blackness a global perception.

>
No one has ever used him as racial rape. All they have used him is as an example of ancestry misidentification.

>

Who said they are Black people? The English imposition? Whom? Are all Indians Black? They were called so at one time.

>

Not really. It is just the dumb concept that Arabs are seen as caucasian, and Americans are misinformed that Egypt is populated by Arabs, when in fact it is still mostly populated by Egyptians. Some dark descendants of Nilotic populations some call Black today.

>

Wrong. Black is a sense of identity. Unless you are raised in it or forced into a bundled group by it, it doesn’t apply.

>

That is innacurate. Black is only an identity of imposition or of acceptance. The Aeta do not see themselves as Black Nor do all Aborigine. Some do use the term Black imposed by English, but they do not see themselves as some sort of Global Black group. They specifically use the term to refer to Australain Aborigines. Much like native Americans don’t consider themselves the same as Indians from India.

>

You can’t ignore what isn’t there. Only if those cultures embraced some sort of Black identity could you claim it, nor can you claim it as some sort of global Blackness as it is not.

>

Wrong. DNA shows where populations come from, not racial differences.

>

False. Black: Person who belongs to a group historically identified as such and that has grown up in a culture that identifies as such, or strongly identifies with said group.

>

Wrong again. While in the USA one droppism would have applied for Vanessa or For Tiger in the US, in other cdountries they would have been mulattos, colored, or other groups. Vijay would have depended on the region he were in.

>

More like identification and beleif that you belong with that ethnic group and no cognitive dissonance about it.

>

Wayne Joseph was raised in the Black Culture. So was Mostafa in Egypt probably with the 70’Pan-Africanism Black power movements. Not all people identify as they do, nor is Blackness a global perception.

“For example, Wayne Joseph, a Black man is used as an example of the “racial rape” of people into Black culture, because he is does not have “African”.”
No one has ever used him as racial rape. All they have used him is as an example of ancestry misidentification.

“Yet there are Black people all over the world who do not have Equatorial African ancestry.”

Who said they are Black people? The English imposition? Whom? Are all Indians Black? They were called so at one time.

“Yet Mostafa Hefny (look him up in Google) IS an African, AND obviously looks it, but because he was born in Egypt, a country whose ancient heritage is coveted by European historians as their own… because he was born there, he is considered “white” legally.”

Not really. It is just the dumb concept that Arabs are seen as caucasian, and Americans are misinformed that Egypt is populated by Arabs, when in fact it is still mostly populated by Egyptians. Some dark descendants of Nilotic populations some call Black today.

“Being Black is a human way of being, that goes from the Aeta people of the Philippines, to the Austrailan Aboriginies, to the people of Latin America, to the US.”

Wrong. Black is a sense of identity. Unless you are raised in it or forced into a bundled group by it, it doesn’t apply.

“Here is a news flash, being “Black” does not mean you are of Equatorial African descent. Being Black has always been a role between those who live with dark skin (or descendants of families of those who do) in a world where light-skin is given preferential social treatment.”

That is innacurate. Black is only an identity of imposition or of acceptance. The Aeta do not see themselves as Black Nor do all Aborigine. Some do use the term Black imposed by English, but they do not see themselves as some sort of Global Black group. They specifically use the term to refer to Australain Aborigines. Much like native Americans don’t consider themselves the same as Indians from India.

“Ironically these same racist people want to apply a “worldview” on Blackness and then redefine its meaning, and out of ignorance, IGNORE the Blackness of other societies.”

You can’t ignore what isn’t there. Only if those cultures embraced some sort of Black identity could you claim it, nor can you claim it as some sort of global Blackness as it is not.

“The only reason DNA is so important to the Black bashers is this. DNA is the only thing that can be used to show an “objective” seperation between whites and blacks. If DNA were to show (and it often does) that Black people are no differnt than whites, then white people would ignore it, (and often they do). So the game is “where can we find a difference between the ni&&ers (that is those vocal and and somebody else. Then we can isolate them from each other.”“

Wrong. DNA shows where populations come from, not racial differences.

“The new White definiton of Blackness
“ALL OF THE ABOVE”:

1. flat nose
2. 50% or greater Equatoral African ancestors (higher percentage if the other 6 criteria are not met)
3. medium to dark skin
4. large lips
5. live or be born in the US or AFrica south of the sahara.
6. speak english natively
7. not have straight or wavy hair.”

False. Black: Person who belongs to a group historically identified as such and that has grown up in a culture that identifies as such, or strongly identifies with said group.

“So many in here use this rule in explaining how obviously Black tiger woods is “not really black” or how obviously black “Vijay Singh” obviously isn’t. 50 years ago for you Vijay and Tiger were Black.Vanessa Williams, etc.”

Wrong again. While in the USA one droppism would have applied for Vanessa or For Tiger in the US, in other cdountries they would have been mulattos, colored, or other groups. Vijay would have depended on the region he were in.

“Now Being white no longer is about being a Central-Western European. Now being White has it’s own “One drop rule”… remember those criteria on the rule above? Look at how people argue for “Caucasian Tiger Woods, and McCain”… they only need to have a thin nose and light skin and viola.”

More like identification and beleif that you belong with that ethnic group and no cognitive dissonance about it.

“The fact is this: Being Black is a shared WORLDWIDE heritage, that goes beyond DNA, and not only does Wayne Joseph and Mostafa Hefny prove it, but Joseph proves that one can WANT to be Black.”

Wayne Joseph was raised in the Black Culture. So was Mostafa in Egypt probably with the 70’Pan-Africanism Black power movements. Not all people identify as they do, nor is Blackness a global perception.

“Black is Black. “Black” is a color in most cases, and a social status in others. Tiger Woods is Black because his father is Black. His mother is a Black Thai. Africa is the most genetically diverse place in the world. To say that Sub-Sahara Africa is one way is moronic. There is plenty of variation all over. Vijay Singh is Black because his skin color is black and because, well, he said he is Black. I have to side with A.D. Powell on this one.”
That Tiger Woods father is Black does not make him Black only of Black ancestry. Tiger Wodds Mom is not a Black Thai.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020721/sp4.jpg
http://www.aftonbladet.se/sport/0206/21/NYHETER-21s99elin.jpg

Vijay’s skin is dark brown and I have never heard of him refering to himself as Black. He is Indo-Fijian