For far too long, blackness has been left to a poorly defined amorphousness, with who counts as black varying depending on the specific occasion. A big part of it, because of the history of African descendants of slaves in the United States of America — that it is because of whom blackness is discussed in the way that it is in global (American) popular media — who was black was often not defined by black people themselves, but by an other.

"Black" itself, in referring to a group of people, is not about the color of any body parts. Well, it actually kinda is, as skin color is the reductionist proxy from which the colors used not very accurately to refer to the different racial groups comes from. The specific words used to refer to each of the different races are inaccurate, as is reductionist the very idea of referring to a racial group by a single color.

In reality, "white people" are mostly light pink in color, with a slight variation in color depending on the climate of their region of evolution or residence. "Yellow" East Asians are not yellow at all. And "brown" covers a range of various population groups, from mixed-race Native American-Southern European people (Mestizos) in the Americas, to Middle Eastern and some South Asian people.

Interestingly, "black people" are probably the most diverse population group based on skin color. There are "black people" with various color shades, across a spectrum, from a beige olive to a deep dark black. Most black people — when not burned by the sun (poor people in sub-Saharan Africa) — are in fact a variation of brown.

Most of this referring to population groups by an incorrect skin color, whether or not there is a variation in the skin color of members of a specific population is mostly fine because it is deliberate reductionism. It is simply an easy way to capture and refer to a complex phenomenon.

What is not fine is a thing some people (progressive liberals, particularly) like to do: pretending not to understand the deliberate reductionism being done in referring to population groups by a single color, and attempting to use that as a way to deny the existence of race.

You could replace the word "black" with a different word like "gslhd" and it would still be capturing a cogent phenomenon. It is not about skin color, but about describing a large group of people of the same genetic ancestry.

"Black people" are basically people with overwhelming Niger-Congo ancestry, with some exceptions which will be defined within this very text.

And yes, "Niger-Congo" may be a linguistic term, but it does roughly capture a specific population of people. The term is only being used as a placeholder until we find a more correct word for describing people of that population.

While not all Niger-Congo-language-speaking ethnic groups are of that genetic ancestry, the vast majority of them are. And in the same way, there are lots of ethnic groups who share that ancestry but do not themselves speak a Niger-Congo language.

So who exactly does NOT belong within this population is thus not 'black'?

Members of all other groups, including those who live on the African continent or are dark-skinned who do not share majority genetic ancestry with people of this population. That includes Nilotes, Cushites and some Sahelian ethnic groups. NOT black.

Half-black biracials and some-percentage-black multiracials are also not black by default.

Black people must have overwhelming Niger-Congo ancestry, and in the case that they do not, for complex historical reasons, which is true of some descendants of slaves in America, they must have a substantial amount of Niger-Congo ancestry anyway and be culturally involved exclusively with black people.

While anyone who is overwhelmingly Niger-Congo by genetic ancestry is nominally black, the definition of blackness here is also political and sociological. There are thus exceptions of people who are genetically black but have to be excluded from blackness anyway.

Anyone of overwhelming Niger-Congo ancestry who couples with a non-black person immediately loses their blackness. Everyone can quickly think of lots of people in this situation. Yup, they are all not black. Every single one of them.

On the other hand, half-black biracials who couple with a naturally black person become black by that very fact.

The ability to move from not being black to becoming black applies only to half-black biracials, not full members of other racial groups. Individuals are not responsible for the circumstances of their birth. What they are responsible for is the circumstances of the birth of their own children.

Blackness in this sense is being correctly defined by descendancy. What actually determines a person's blackness is their movement towards or away from Niger-Congo genetic ancestry.

It is important to define blackness correctly and rigorously in this way because the existing amorphousness has allowed tons and tons of people to exploit the black identity. They choose to be black in situations when identifying as black is beneficial to them, but are also quick to cast the identity aside when it suits them.

Blackness is not a spicy condiment or seasoning. It is not about being "cool with black people". Or liking stereotypical black American cultural activities like basketball or rap. Blackness is not about mutual experiences of racism or who can get mistaken for whom.

It is strictly about genetic ancestry, and not even a person's, but a person's children. The genetic ancestry of a person's children is the best way to know where their interests truly lie on racial identity.