DragonPearl
Well-Known Member
Mahalialee4 said:
Me too!!!
Shoot, next time I see an Ethiopian woman with hair I admire, I'll ask her about her hair regimen. Who knows, I might learn something...
-
⏰ Welcome, Guest! You are viewing only 2 out of 27 total forums. Register today to view more, then Subscribe to view all forums, submit posts, reply to posts, create new threads, view photos, access private messages, change your avatar, create a photo album, customize your profile, and possibly be selected as our next Feature of the Month.
Ethiopian Women!
- Thread starter Shine-On
- Start date
⏳ Limited Access:
Register today to view all forum posts.
Me too!!!
Shoot, next time I see an Ethiopian woman with hair I admire, I'll ask her about her hair regimen. Who knows, I might learn something...
BrownSkin2
Well-Known Member
Tru_Mind, I saw that video too. I remember the narrator saying that it takes 20,000 years for the features and hair to change. The farther natives moved away from the equator, the more their features changed.
Lusa
New Member
tru_mind said:
I see where you're coming from and I agree. The reason that I was first leery about this topic is how it seemed to headed in the "jump on the band wagon" route with respects to Ethiopian women's hair. And I think it has been helpful for us to have this discussion educating each other that some hair really doesn't need a lot of manipulation and "regimens" to look like it does. It would be sad to see some members start applying cow dung or coochie cream to their hair based on what they may have heard is traditionally practiced by Ethiopians. (that is just an extreme example just to illustrate my point and not a commentary on anyone in particular)
It is good to get ideas as to what different people and cultures do with hair to maintain it's health but at that time each person should be aware that his/her hair will not necessarily look like another's because of our different genetic make up. One just has to look at how different we all are even as black people.
I am outtie...
tru_mind said:I agree with you.
When I read this thread...well some of it, because I was saying "OMG here we go again." Yep, I knew what was causing this thread to turn, but I just didn't want to go into it...not anymore.
My point was why should these things matter? I don't understand what's wrong with saying that Ethiopians have gorgeous hair. You know? It's nothing like saying look at these bi-racial people with gorgeous hair. It's just not the same.
Anyway, if a group of people are mixed or not...it does not matter to me. So what...its hair.
A couple of years ago I watched The Real Eve Video and before that I read about the topic, and from my understanding their hair and features are naturally theirs. It has to do with migration, climate change and adaptations to different climates. I know that it’s hard to believe that Africans can have curly hair …or even straight hair. It has to do with where Ethiopia, Egypt, Somalia, Eritrea, Morocco, etc is located. I can’t remember how long it takes for the changes to occur, but it takes thousands of years. It's too much for me to explain. I see some have attempted to explain on this thread. I've tried and others have tried to explain this once before on this board...it's just too much to explain.
I know someone that didn’t know that Morocco was in Africa. I don’t know where they thought it was. They said Moroccans don’t look African.
My answer is yes Ethiopians mix...just like most races do. Mixing is not what makes their hair look the way that it does. According to the research their hair and features are naturally theirs...PERIOD. I know that you're wondering if they mix than how is it that their hair and features are naturally theirs.
They are many books on this topic that explains so much more.
I just don't get it. I know that if you ask some Ethiopians what they are mixed with they will say "nothing." Why Africans have to be mixed to have curly hair?
On the old thread India was brought up. Indians come in really dark to light shades. To me they can look like Africans with straight black hair. Why Ethiopians can not naturally look the way that they do if Indians can. So...I guess the dark Indians are mixed with Africans...right? Nope.
-tru
In regards to my quote- the one about certain features- that's what is done with regards to "race" by ppl in non-science related fields/ the general human population. That is not my own opinion about how race is determined. And about dark indians being mixed with Africans- who knows what everyone is mixed we- some may be some may not be. Were u saying that my point of view reflects that ethiopians can't look that way naturally? Im not sure if the last portion of your post was a question for me....... If so, i didnt really understand your argument b/c im not disagreeing with that. All of my arguments are surrounded by the scientific means by which we uses DNA, genes, etc to determine phenotypes attributed to individuals.
And to Foxy:
mitochondrial DNA (since that's what can be traced to the mother) is indeed used to find ancestors/origins. I dont get your argument either. you have a degree in biology so Im sure you understand the nessecity to distinguish between scientific fact/ theory/ and hypothesis. And im also sure that you understand that evidence- does not always equate fact. What some scientist deem as proof for one phenomena may be indeed proof of something else that they have yet to discover. It happens everyday w/ science and the things we know today to be "fact" can easily be proven wrong in the future. My argument is for the need to keep theories and facts separate and for the need to understand the sensitive differences b/t the two. About us starting in Africa- this is more than likely true- im not negating that, and my argument has nothing to with creationism vs. evolution either. But the scientists themselves who created these theories will not tell you that this phenomena is fact yet- even with their "evidence" they cannot come to such a conclusion. Again- look up Dr. Spencer Wells as an example ( the guy with the theory of one ancestor, working on the Human Genographic project) He has a lot a theories that sound pretty solid- but even he will be quick to tell u that they are indeed theories.
foxybrownsugar said:
Again, please read my entire post b/fore you quote that statment. If you do, you will see that that is NOT MY OPINION!!!!! This is the way that nonscientists refer to race. This is not what I believe race to be- i was trying to give a comparison b/t the scientific basis for race- and what the general population believes race to be and how they go about defining it.
foxybrownsugar
New Member
amara11 said:
This is so true and vice versus things that weren't believed are proven true all the time. And I wasn't arguing about mitochondrial DNA, I was just showing techniques scientist are using to prove theories.
Last edited:
foxybrownsugar
New Member
Ok now I now where you are coming from. Your post was a bit lengthy and a little hard to understand. Or maybe it was the screen being so wide that confused me?amara11 said:
but like I said in science debates are never ending...
Tru_Mind
New Member
amara11 said:
I thought that I deleted your qoute...but now I see that I didn't. I see why is looks as if I was questioning you. No, I was not questioning you...I originally used your quote to explain...I just failed to delete it. Sorry!
I agree with your quote. I am arleady familiar with everything that you are staying...I agree. My point was according to research Ethiopians naturally look that way.amara11 said:
Sorry I need fix my post... your quote does not make since being there. I was not questioning you at all. I totally agree with you.
About the dark Indians I meant that they don't have to be mixed with Africans to be dark. It's just something that happened naturally. I do understand that people mix now and have mixed years ago. I believe that those who don't understand should read the reseach, because explaining bits at a time can be confusing...because there is always another question.
You see we are are the same page here.
-tru
Last edited:
Tru_Mind
New Member
I agree, and I say this every time on this thread..."so what" when it comes to this mixed/not mixed type of topic.FlowerHair said:If you go back far enough EVERYONE is African.
Ethiopians may be mixed a thousand years ago, but what group of people isn't? Only those who lived on an island with no means of leaving and no one to visit them. We have dark people here in Sweden that are mixed with Belgian immigrants that came here in the 16:th century. They are no less Swedish just because they don't have the typical Blond hair and blue eyes.
Mixed Africans live in every African country. They can be mixed recently or in ancient history. If you go back 100-1000 years, people along the coasts on both sides of Africa are mixed with Arab, Portuguese, British, German, you name it. People who live on the border to Arab countries are mixed.
I know a woman from Kenya who has type 1 hair because her family has been mixed in the past with Arab. So what? She is 100% African anyway, the same way that many of you on this web site are 100% American. If you have lived in a place for 400+ years where else can you belong other than the place you were born? My colleague is from Africa, says she is of Portuguese heritage but looks completely East Indian. She's probably a little bit of each.
Africans are not only blacks south of Sahara, Africans are everyone that lives in Africa, including white people
This is like someone telling me that I'm not a Black/African American, because my family mixed 100 years ago. Believe me I have been told this before. It's like going to Ethiopia and seeing their curly hair and features and then saying, "Ok...now where are the real Ethiopians." They are the real Ethiopians too.
The White Africans are going to look totally different thousands of years from now. Naturally, they are going to adapt to the climate.
Ethiopians’ hair and features are genetically inherited features. Their hair and features naturally became theirs no matter how it was naturally done.
It is possible that Ethiopians could have migrated back to Africa from another part of the world and....well you know the rest. They could have come from Arab countries…or maybe they were Caucasian once before. Just me thinking out loud.
We need to stop separating groups of people the way that we do.
-tru
Last edited:
foxybrownsugar
New Member
I wish I could get one of my friends to join (she is AA). She just graduated with a P.H.D in genetics but all her interests are academic and rarely watches television and never chats on message boards.
DahomeyAhosi
New Member
Actually it was not at all an insult. Generic just means generalized. And you've mentioned several times over that your information comes from written sources. Hence generic book learning. The East African ladies who've come into this thread have confirmed that they have significant Arab admixture. Most Africans find it reasonable that most of their physical features come from this admixture. What caused my response is the fact that you were saying basic things about East Africans to an East African. In general Africans know more about Africans than any others and it was not at all clear why your were doing this. I'm not sure what a Beverly hillbillies is but I am African. Africans generally don't need to know what you've learned out of a book about us. However I'm here to learn hair tips so this will be my last post to you on this topic.
ximenia said:wow, "generic book learning." is that a line from the beverly hillbillies?
i wasnt expecting the conversation to deteriorate to that level.
most of the interesting facts we've contributed to this thread, including kinikakes, are the result of exposure and education or "generic book learning" as you call it. ive personally enjoyed this discussion as have others. there are quite a few knowledgeable sistas on this site and i hope they dont feel like they have to dumb it down (or keep their "book learnin" to themselves) in the future. sorry you felt the need to insult it. i personally think that conversations like this and knowing about our past is a good thing.
Last edited:
DahomeyAhosi
New Member
Exactly. I'm from Benin and can fully relate.
amara11 said:
punchinella
New Member
Mahalialee4 said:
Thank you Mahalialee4. Very well said
MissMarie
***sigh***
DahomeyAhosi said:
No offense, but your post did come across as kind of insulting especially since posters were debating over issues of biology, bio anthropology and genetics, areas where book-learning forms the base of one's knowledge.
I can see how someone could get insulted in this convo, but we're not arguing cultural practices or ethnic history, the debate is over which physical characteristics are typical of entire groups of people and how those groups acquired them. Personal stories are helpful and provide clues but that deals with the micro rather than the macro view.
Most AA think no one knows us better than we know ourselves, and this is true in terms of culture and history but doesn't always pan out when it comes to biological issues like health and medicine, and genetics. Many AA believe they are mixed with indigenous Americans, they attribute their complexion, cheekbones and hair types to this admixture, but studies using genetics have shown that the amount of indigenous ancestry in the general AA population is barely significant (though there are groups and regions with significant admixture). One also can't be certain which features on any given AA individual are a result of the mixed ancestry (Euro) in the general population, or whether the feature arises solely from that person's African ancestry (given that West and Central Africa are so very diverse).
So if people can be wrong with assumptions about where and from whom certain characteristics made it into an ethnic group that is only a few centuries old, it is massively more difficult to assign physical characteristics among groups of people that are millenia old and have been consistently intermingling the entire time.
amara11 said:
so if we don't know the exact genotype of the original people, how can we separate out who gave which group what physical characteristics?
the trait could be indigenous to the original people there, it could have arisen within the group later as an adaptation, or it could have been introduced into the group from populations which originally left the continent.
we just don't know when it comes to group traits.
and it really shouldn't matter since the moral of the haircare story is that to have healthy hair one should keep one's hair clean and well moisturized, and to minimize heat, chemicals and manipulation.
edited for clarity, hopefully
Last edited:
MissMarie said:
I was one of the main ppl discussing the biological/genetic standpoint and I wasnt offended. There's a difference between scientific book knowledge being used to creat hypotheses and theories that may be proven one day and using the research you gained about some country to tell someone from that country about what they already know from experience. I believe Dahomey was referring to that- i dont think she was disregarding all book knowledge. I believe ppl are getting confused when we use that term-- though I dont know a better term for it. The two of us (as Africans, as ppl, as what have you) are saying that experience and living something is different from reading about it, or learning about it from some source that is NOT based on actual experience. This description we are using cannot be applied to science or medicine- --------We were referring to individuals (non- East African) telling native East Africans about their own ancestry, practices, mixing. We were not referring to anything else.
When you say we just dont know when it comes to group traits--- (after posting my quote) that was my argument, so I do not understand what your question is asking, (or whether you were even asking me or simply re-iterating).............
sweetascocoa
New Member
please not everyone is mixed. i know im not
Dahomey, ITA with your posts above
Dahomey, ITA with your posts above
MissMarie
***sigh***
amara11 said:
I was simply reiterating your argument and using it to back up the point I believe Ximenia was trying to make. You and some other ladies here are arguing personal ancestries, I am arguing ethnic origins. There's a big difference. One relies on the highly useful genealogies of individual families, the other eventually must make use of biology which is scientific book-learning. Yes an individual knows best where the family is from and what their family is made up of. But that still doesn't solve the debate of whether non-type 4 hair appearing among East Africans as a group is solely a result of intermixing with Arabs or whether the presence of this trait is because its indigenous to East African populations and Arab intermixing simply further reinforced the trait in that population.
To find out whether certain traits are indigenous to a certain millenia old population or brought in from another group one must use science, and no offense, but personal ancestries aren't enough to tell us that 3,000 years ago (or however long) EAs had type 4b hair until semetic Arab traders, businessmen and such mixed with them to create type 2 and 3 hair.
We're not really in disagreement here. I agree that we can't determine how certain group traits came to be in a population, I agree that outsiders can't dictate to people their culture and family history, and I agree that as the cradle of humanity Africa is incredibly diverse and to limit its people to just a few stereotyped traits is asinine. I was simply supporting what another poster was explaining: that just because individuals have a certain trait because they are mixed do not mean that the presence of that trait in the greater population is solely because group A mixed with group B, human social history and genetics are much more complicated than that.
(some AA have high cheekbones because of their indigenous American ancestry but that doesn't mean all AAs with that trait have it because of their mixed ancestry, for most they likely get that trait from their African ancestry. Stating that fact isn't negating that for certain individuals the features come specifically from being 'mixed')
MissMarie said:
Ok, we're clearly not on the same page. I am not arguing personal ancestries alone. My argument was in reference to genetic inheritance on the basis of divergence and the evolution of man. Personal ancestries- is lineage- and I may have referred to it in one of my posts (to prove my greater point) but that was not the essence of my entire argument. If you read all of my posts, in their entirety, from the beginning you will see this. They are long, and therefore many ppl are reading the lines that they want to and taking them out of context- which is why i keep having to go back and reiterating, and why ppl then come back after reading again- stating they see what Im saying. You dont have to agree with me, b/c I am not arguing my own personal opinion- I was providing the difference between how SCIENTISTS operate, and how ppl formulate their own believe systems, culturally accepted norms, and dogmas in regards to race and ethnicity- terms that ppl throw around often- without paying attention to their actual definitions. For example we use 'race' everyday, but few realize that biologically- there has yet to be a distinct methodology for the characterization of races.
And "personal ancestries aren't enough to tell us that 3,000 years ago (or however long) EAs had type 4b hair until semetic Arab traders, businessmen and such mixed with them to create type 2 and 3 hair." Who said that it was? Again, this was not my argument- so I cant even address this.
And then you stated "You and some other ladies here are arguing personal ancestries, I am arguing ethnic origins. There's a big difference. One relies on the highly useful genealogies of individual families, the other eventually must make use of biology which is scientific book-learning."
Wow, even if personal ancestries was actually my argument- again- ppl too often confuse the terms race, ethnicity, heritage, blah blah blah.
Genealogies- i.e (compiled by creatiing phylogenetic trees, involve genes and are based on scientific experimentation and deduction. Ethnicity is ethnic character, background, or affiliation.!!!
And I can't believe I am explaining what we meant about book-learning again!
We were referring to experience being the best teacher!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is IT. Please look back at ALL of the quotes in reference to this- you are taking it out of context in comparison to the entire comment. We were replying to someones statement made even before I got into the argument about science, genetics, and cellular and molecular biology. I made more than one statement with various examples BEFORE MY ARGUMENT ABOUT GENETICS TOOK PLACE.
I have no issues with book learning in its literal sense- Im almost in medical school- if I did, I wouldnt be where I am!
So the "scientific book learning" that you quoted- does not even pertain to my or Dahomey's argument b/c neither of us was referring to that, so it's unfair to tack your own word in front of the NON-LITERAL symbol that we used. "book-learning" was representative of when ppl do their own research about something- (i.e african food) and then proceed to tell the african about their own native food- when the african is the one who knows it from experience. It was not fair for you to make your statement about "scientific book learning" because we never even mentioned "scientific" and the term book-learning (as we have now tried to explain at least a dozen times) was NOT LITERAL!
If you have any further questions, please feel free to pm, b/c as more and more ppl come in after the original points of the different arguments, they are getting lost and confused and taking things ENTIRELY out of context and many ppl are having to explain themselves over and over again- making this entire thread pretty redundant. SO I do apologize to all the ppl who have heard my arguments TOO MANY TIMES TO COUNT!!!
I took the time to read all 11 pages before making my comment- I wanted to know what the different arguments were referring to b4 I starting making my own points.
MissMarie
***sigh***
amara11 said:
I agree, this is basically what was brought up before you entered the thread. Since I'm not in biology I couldn't go into detailed, informed explanations.
you didn't argue this, this is what other posters originally debated this response was not aimed at you in any way, just general info for debateamara11 said:
I don't have a bio background (i'm cultural anthro, so i know what ethnicity is), so I was actually referring to this more mundane definition: A record or table of the descent of a person, family, or group from an ancestor or ancestors; a family tree. The study or investigation of ancestry and family histories. Which clearly is more limited in time-scale and can involve little to no scientifc knowledge (natural sciences). *running off to look up phylogeny*amara11 said:
amara11 said:
I also read this entire thread. This is why i said we aren't in disagreement here. I was simply defending a poster who words I believed were being misconstrued.
Two posters responded to this statement saying that this poster was out of line, that she was basically telling the woman that she was wrong about her own personal ancestry when to me the poster was clearly referring to population traits which aren't proven or disproven simply by individual circumstances. Then people responded with comments about cultural practices. To me the comment had nothing to do with culture/ethnicity, it was instead focusing on tracing physical features and assigning their origin to different groups, something that we all only heard about through books as opposed to cultural practices which are learned about through observation, interviewing and such.
I agree with the basic statement that poster was making, that looser hair types aren't a 'mixed' or Arab trait (referring to entire populations not individuals), regardless of whether it came from intermingling populations or was indigenous to those populations after having certain features within the population all this time we can just say its one of many Ethiopian outward physical traits.
The only difference of opinion seems to be in how we interpreted one posters words.
MissMarie
***sigh***
amara11 said:And to bring it back to hair- I just saw your album and your hair is inCREDible....
Thanks.
Are you transitioning? If so welcome to the club, you've got a good start with all that healthy hair.
(i'm oughtie, now that i've assisted in killing this thread with my long @$$ posts)
CurleeDST
Well-Known Member
OT what is considered sea vegetables?
Isis said:I understand where you are coming from Jwhitley and KiniKakes. For me though, I can see how their Ethiopian foods or hair techniques can assist in making my 4b hair look like healthier, prettier 4b hair.
For example, this is part of why I enjoy eating lots of sea vegetables. Besides being more of an Asian food staple (which I find delicious), it also bring more beauty to hair, mainly from the iodine and other naturally occurring minerals and vitamins. And Asian hair for the most part is greatly admired and beautiful enough to be made into weaves for Americans. I enjoy my sea veggies knowing I won't have type 1 or 2b Asian hair, but I'll sure have healthier 4b hair.
.
Mahalialee4
New Member
I notice that they tend to stick to their own culture and language, customs etc. they do not from my personal observation, socially intermingle like the Nigerians, Ghanians etc. who will marry outside their cultures. But that is just my opinion. However, I believe that this is the reason they are able to maintain that certain hair look, texture etc. If they were to start intermarrying with the African Americans, the texture of their offspring would gradually change, and if they intermarried with whites or Asians, or East Indians their hair texture would change. Bonjour
Last edited:
czyfaith77
Well-Known Member
Here is another Ethiopian. Those of you who watched General Hospital in the late nintiesmay remeber her as Keesha Ward. Her name is Senait Ashenafi. (I will try to find a better picture of her.) She is from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Miss*Tress
Well-Known Member
Sorry to continue the off-topic discussion, but I came across a blog by a woman from Somalia. In her post, "Where do Somalis originate from?" she insists that Somalis are 100% African, unmixed with Arabs or anyone else, and that studies show they share their DNA and Y chromosomes with the Mandinka peoples.
She also makes the claim that European and N. American whites invented the myth that it was contact with Arabs and Asians that led to the development of civilisation in Egypt, Nubia, and the Horn of Africa. (She must have read Cheikh Anta Diop.)
Other than her actually being from the region and "generic book learning", I don't know what qualifies her to make those statements, however, they do ring true to me.
Follow the link to her blog if you understand French (using SMS spelling) for details.
Peace out and happy hair growing!
She also makes the claim that European and N. American whites invented the myth that it was contact with Arabs and Asians that led to the development of civilisation in Egypt, Nubia, and the Horn of Africa. (She must have read Cheikh Anta Diop.)
Other than her actually being from the region and "generic book learning", I don't know what qualifies her to make those statements, however, they do ring true to me.
Follow the link to her blog if you understand French (using SMS spelling) for details.
Peace out and happy hair growing!
bajanplums1
Well-Known Member
I agree with this. There are Ethiopians in this part of Brooklyn. Their hair is beautiful, but their natural non-relaxed texture is so different from mine, I figure that we have different needs.Lusa said:
Similar threads
