This is an archive of past discussions about Black people. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I see blacks from almost everywhere mentioned but India! To leave that large group of black people out does a dissiervice to the article. If the US had thei way, blacks would only be those from the US and 'certain' parts of Africa. You know, the parts that did anything noteworthy or who came into contact and mixed with whites.--71.235.81.3902:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Indians are considered Asian (specifically South-Asian), not black. There may be blacks living in India, or even Indians with skintones resembling black, but for the most part, Indians are not black. --74.12.81.178
????
Why is this article titled black people, when wikipedia redirects a search of "white people" to the article "Caucasian People." I believe that this article should be renamed to "African American People," or "Caucasian People" should be renamed to "White People"
Sure, but that would pose as a problem for Jamaicans, Afro-Caribs, Afr-Brazilians, Haitians and everyone else not African AMERICAN.
Just as the anonymous comment above mine states, Black People are not the same as African Americans. African Americans must live in America. Black people do not have to. Many Americans make this mistake, being to PC in my opinion. Also, the Caucasian people article does not cover White people. It mostly covers people from the Caucasus area, as thhat is what Caucasian means in pretty much every country but the good old USA.ɱўɭĩєWhat did I dowrong00:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
PROPOSAL!
My thoughts and suggestions are as follows;
I question the whole subject as not having WPOV or NPOV in encyclopedic terms. I conclude that the subject "Black people" is too broad a term, and is actually only an observation, and a subjective one at that, made by some people to describe or to categorize as they see fit. It can never be NPOV, not as it is now. Yet, if the subject/title would be "Blacks in the Americas" or some form thereof and which can include topics such as;
Brazil: suffered a long internal struggle over abolition and was the last Latin American country to adopt it.
Prejudice Against Blacks or Racism
Assimilation of Black Minorities
Regional Differences
Cultural Modifications
Religious Practices
Black Literature
POLITICS
Resistance: as Blacks resisted enslavement from the time of capture in Africa but, outnumbered by whites, North American slaves were less likely than Brazilian or Caribbean ones to engage in massive rebellions. Africans in North America typically underwent 'seasoning' in the West Indies and a 'breaking' process on the mainland, etc.
Other headings can include;
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND BLACK REBELLIONS
SEMI-FREE BLACKS
ABOLITIONIST MOVEMENT
GROWING ACTIVISM
CIVIL WAR
RECONSTRUCTION AND URBAN MIGRATION
GROWING SELF-AWARENESS
BLACK CULTURE IN THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY
WORLD WAR I
THE HARLEM RENAISSANCE.
And many more topics/subtopics that have to do with valuable contributions/inventions, influence, and oppression that Black People are known for, and have persevered under great injustices, and have a rich and diverse history. We can have other pages connecting to any page(s) that have any of these and other titles listed here. Perhaps disambiguation pages too? This is just my suggestion (and not in any particular order as expressed here) that I feel may alleviate the constant bickering and do away with the many different points of view, edit wars, heated discussions, and have a better WPOV, etc. Just a thought.
I know this is long, and it may be encyclopedic in some areas on this page. Or even ignored altogether. You may think I'm a lunatic, and you may be correct. You may think I'm ignorant of the content that already exists, which can be absolutely correct. But I think this project as it is is not going to work on this site as note worthy, encyclopedic, etc. Heck, it can be put with Genetics, Race, Human Beings, or whatever. Please, just not "Black people" as this will always be more controversial than any of the topics I've suggested, and possibly all can be included an it's own article as I suggested in the beginning of this diatribe Blacks in the Americas just not Black people! forgive me, I think this article, as it is, is embarrassing, stupid, too controversial and can only have individual POV in this context. --Jeeny 20:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
An enormous part of the layout you have here is dedicated to African Americans, and as such is probably alread covered in other articles. There is an article on African Americans. This article is on black people as a whole, not black people in America. Yes, you would cover some non-American blacks with your sections on Black Muslims and on The Caribbean, etc. I understand that you think the article is POV, stupid, and controversial, because for the most part it is. It needs a huge amount of work, a near complete rewrite, and it's much too brief for the huge subject it covers. But there's already and article on blacks in America. ɱўɭĩєWhat did I dowrong00:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Scientific racism has had a huge influence on how black identity has historically been constructed and what it has come to mean and how black people are treated in everyday life, so even if Rushton were a racist (which I don’t think he is) the reader to have a complete understanding of the topic needs to know more than just all the Afrocentric and black views quoted in the article (most black kids hear that on the street growing up, they don't come to encyclopedia's to hear that), but the contemporary “racist” perspective on who is considered black, and from that perspective Rushton is as influential and scholarly as they come. The only reason he is considered racist is because he’s assembled serious data showing black men have larger penises than white men who have larger penises than oriental men. But his data comes from the World Health Organization and is is part of a serious sociobiological theory and Rushton has been defended by very eminent scientists.
Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson (one of the two cofounders of r/K selection theory) states "I think Phil is an honest and capable researcher ... The basic reasoning by Rushton is solid evolutionary reasoning; that is it's logically sound. If he had seen some apparent geographic variation for a non-human species-a species of sparrow or sparrow hawk, for example-no one would have batted an eye."[1]
Rushton is an extremely credible source because he’s spent the last 3 decades studying black people, writing articles about black people in peer reviewed academic journals, and teaching a course on race. I think he’s reliable enough to give a 1 sentence definition of who a black person is. He is a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, holds two doctorates from the University of London (Ph.D. and D.Sc) and is a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations. He is also a member of the Behavior Genetics Association, the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, and the Society for Neuroscience. Rushton has published six books and nearly 200 articles. In 1992 the Institute for Scientific Information ranked him the 22nd most published psychologist and the 11th most cited. Professor Rushton is listed in Who's Who in Science and Technology, Who's Who in International Authors, and Who's Who in Canada. Iseebias
I think known racist should be reduced in content as the base for their info is a racist one, even if content sometimes doesnt violate. Its like why would Jews quote any Nazi, even if the statement was fair. Lets find someone else and stop advertising ,celebrating, validating these kind of people.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ00:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
A section about Arabs is fine. It is infact quite relevant if it is about Yemenis etc (some of whom are black). However, as the sub-section is currently about how Arabs view blacks, spiced with ignorancies such as "hybridized blacks", I have removed it. Quote Rushton, but only if it is relevant. Not merely as another attemt to push fringe POV. --Ezeu00:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
We need more freaking quotes from Rushton to keep the article balanced. 90% of the quotes are from FREAKING AFROCENTRICS with a 9th grade education which doesn't surprise since the talk page is full of Afrocentic shit. And what fring POV was Rushton pushing? And Rushton never said Ethiopians were hybridized but anyone with an IQ over 50 knows they are. Bernard Lewis in his landmark book about slavery in the middle east said exactly the same thing as Rushton said about how the Arabs viewed the blacks. That's probably where Rushton got it Christmasgirl
I find it funny go to White people or Jews do you see them adding Afrocentrics to bring balance? So y do we need racist Eurocentrics to bring balance. last time i checked it was called Black people, i am sure they can speak with enough diversity to rep balance--dont u?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ01:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Because White people were the ones who decided to call themselves White. Jewish decided to call themselves Jewish. It was White people who decided to call some people black so we need to hear more from white on people on what they mean by the term. Also, Afrocentics have no power over white people so it doesn't matter what Afrocentrics think about white people. But it matters lots what white people think about black people because it determines where black people live, work, and their standard of living. Afrocentrics belong in the Africoid article cause they made that shit up Christmasgirl
I cannot possibly reply properly to the above message without violating all of Wikipedia's civility policies. This is the worst piece of racist crap I have seen on this page so far, and if it is coming from a black person, then ---- us. I really hope it represents juvenile ignorance and not the thoughts of an educated person. --Ezeu01:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well what do you expect this article is about racism. Black is a racist slur. No different from the N word in fact the literal translation of Black is the N word. No self-respecting African would call themselves black. And I've been to Africa so you better pay attention to what I got to say. And no I'm not African, I'm one of those hybridized people you think don't exist Christmasgirl
I am sorry if you have an identity crisis, but perhaps you should deal with it outside the scope of Wikipedia. Whether you like it or not, and despite your belief that it is evidence of self-loathing, most people of African ancestry (especially those in your home country) refer to themselves as black. --Ezeu02:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a FREAKING identiy crisis I'm the most secure chick you've been lucky enough to meet. Sure African ancestry people call themselves black but it's because of racism they've been brainwashed into doing that. No one would choose to call themselves black on their own, as it's the color of the devil, the color of evil, the color of death. All the great religions have said this. Why do you think Afrocentrics are always trying to push that the East Indians, the tamils, the Australian aboriginals were black. They feel it's unfair that they got stuck with the black label and are pissed that other dark people escaped it. That's why this article will always be controversial. Me I don't care because I'm half Asian (notice I didn't call myself yellow), half White (that I will call myself because it's the color of purity)Christmasgirl +
Well FREAKING HELL the talk page was nice and quiet until you started talking about FREAKING RACISM!!!!!!!!!!!!! By the way the Who is a Jew? article has a whole FREAKING section about how anti-Semites defined Jewish people. How come they're mature enough to handle FREAKING REALITY and this place has 15 archived talk pages of FULL of FREAKING COMPLAINING!!!!!!!!!!!! Christmasgirl
I agree with Muntuwandi, but i will do one better, i am picture them killing one another in a ring or something. 2 b fair to both. I agree with Christmas girl (on one point), nobody in their right historical mind would refer to themseleves as black, no people in history have done this. They have been called Black, they either accept it or reject it. No one in Africa ever said "we is blacks" the said "we are Nubian" We are Nigerian or Wolof or Fulani. However Afro centric r not to blame for race lumping. Afrocentrics have done a lot for reforming African identity many dont use the word black. see Kimani Nehusi and Karenga. I do find it amazing however that anyone from anywhere from any identify can take all kinds of shots at the poor Negro. I challenge anyone 2 try that on jew, u cant even breath wrong if you edit there. Their is no group more oppressed than Africans i tell u that. Only 2 race color identify, everyone else has rejected these color labels save the Negro, sorry the Black.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ14:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The decision to call black was one of necessity to distinguish between the two. Wherever the white man went, he was also given a name. In east africa it was muzungu. the use of the term black was not forced upon, it was more common sense. But at the time there were no negative stereotypes to attach to the word.Muntuwandi14:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
BLACK IDENTITY WAS INVENTED BY RACISTS WHO CALLED THEMSELVES WHITE FOR PURITY AND AFRICANS BLACK FOR WICKEDNESS, DIRT, AND EVIL. ALL THE SLAVERY BOOKS SAY THIS!!!!!!!! And even though Jewish people named themselves the Who is a Jew? article contains a whole FREAKING section on anti-semitism and it got so big it was turned into a whole FREAKING ARTICLE. Christmasgirl
Please stop swearing and shouting. Maintain calm. There is no good evidence that the term black was chosen for derogatory meaning, but there is, of course evidence that the symbolism of black/white and dark/light became interwoven with it. Lots of ancient commentators, including the Egyptians and the Greeks considered "excessive" paleness not to be so-called purity but to be just as unappealing as excessive darkness. Paul B15:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Muntu, it doesnt matter what a disempowered people call white people, no where is the opinions of African the globall standard for identity, if you dont have power to make it law and process then who care what white were called. We love black because we were trained to love it. I never heard anyone call themselves black in Ethiopia, or NIgeria. It was only in the west that people say "I am black". what we say is we r African. Black means we r not white, we r not them, we r the opposite of purity. Still i fail to see y Negro is worst than black. One is spanish one is English. And AA got sold this lie. Y? X said you r African American. That makes sense as Shahad said "there is no Blackia or Blackistan" there is also no history of us calling ourselves black prior to 500 yrs ago.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ15:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Some examples of Greek writings on excessive (in their view) paleness:
Polemon, Physiognomica, 8.11-1:
Blond [CANQH=] and whitish [U(PO/LEUKOS] hair, like that of Scythians signifies stupidity [SKAIO/THTA], evilness [KAKO/THTA], savagery [A)GRIO/THTA]
Pseudo-Aristotle, Physiognomica:
The people whose eyes are light blue-grey [GLAUKOI/] or white [LEUKOI/] are cowards [DEILOI/]
Actually the Arab slave traders said "we are neither unbaked dough or bunt crust but cooked just right". Christmasgirl
But does anyone ever wonder why first White Americans decided to go all the way to Africa to get their slaves when they had a huge population of Native Americans they could have enslaved? Well there were lots of reasons of course, but one of the biggest according to the history books was the negative attitude the Europeans had towards the color black. They defined black as evil, wicked, soiled, deeply stained by dirt. They couldn't bring themselves to enslaves the people they saw as red as red was considered a pretty color, hence they went all the way to what they called black Africa to get slaves over and over again wasting huge amounts of time and effort when they could have just used Native Americans as slaves who were already in the Americas anyway. That's how much they hated the color black Christmasgirl
Native Americans WHERE used as slaves by the first white Americans (who came from Europe) butthey died too quickly because of the new diseases brought from Europe, therefore not suitable for the type of work the new Americans needed. African's where considered stronger, healthier and a better investment in the long haul (they did not have the same vulerablities to diseases.) Read up more about Georgraphy, History AND Science, etc. (not other's opinions or commentaries. ::I would like to know where you live in the world, and what is your educational background, if any. Also, you seem to change your "ethnicity" combination often to suit your agenda, whatever that is I have no idea. I do believe you are white (more than 50%, at least more than any other supposed "race" you've stated. Scientifically, there is only ONE race, the Human Race. Social Biology is another word for eugenics (not a real science), this is a very racist THEORY about the different "races" and there strenghts/weaknesses. Much like when Hitler used it to push his evil agenda. I can go on and on, but there is no reasoning with you. Jeeny 17:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I've said all along that I'm half Asian, half White but I've been all over the world. North East Asian actually so I'm white as ghost in color. Never understood why they called us yellow. And yes Jeeney a lot of the stuff you said is true. I never said color was the only reason nor did I say it was the primary reason. But it was one of the reasons at least according to the history books I've read. I may be a little rough around the edges but I seldom get my facts wrong. It's funny that you think I'm caucasian because I'm widely feared in the white people article because I corrected their Eurocentricism. In fact users there were so shell shocked by my edit that they threatened to block me. It's was the most shocking edit they had ever seen. Problem with me is I'm brutally honest. No sugar coating from me baby. I'm a straight shooter. People start out hating me but always end up respecting me. Christmasgirl
Okay, about our heredity. :) Facts about the subject are more important, right. Anyway, there were many reasons Native Americans where not used in the way Africans were used for slavery. But they sure tried and would have prefered it as African slaves where much more expensive. Europeans did use Native Americans right along side the Africans though. The owner's of the lands didn't like the fact that Natives could escape too easily, and they feared rebellion more so, as the Natives could run off into the wilderness and come back and fight. So, eventually it was worth the extra cost and the safety of their lands.
Also, Native Americans used slaves long before any "white" man came to America. The slaves would be captives of warring tribes, among other reasons. Another irony is that when Europeans first used Africans to work their new lands, they were considered indentured servants, and could be freed after a certain amount of time. But then the racial rationalization took over them (greed, ignorance, etc), and they were afraid that Africans would war with them, and didn't want them to mix with the so-called superior whites. They took advantage of taking them from their homelands, and different parts of Africa so the slaves could not communicate with each other as lauguage varied among African tribes. They feared escape plans being made and other such fears the white man had.
It's so complicated the more I type, leads me into another thought and facts are of a very complex nature of the first slaves (not allowing them to read, threats, beatings, etc). Eventually though, yes, whites did justify their slavery of African blacks because they thought them inferior, because of religion reasons (were thought of savages, etc), also their perceived notions that Africans where next to apes, therefore, not true humans (so they could "morally" use slaves like animals). All nations used slavery, from the beginning of times, but nothing like the History of African slavery in the US. Where actual LAWS where made to keep them as less than human for thier own greed,etc. Ugly, ugly ugly. :/ Jeeny 18:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the socalled Africans who were involved in selling Africans into slavery were extremely hybridized with Arab blood. This tendency to say Blacks themselves were responsible for slavery further victimize Black people. Authentic Black slave traders were exceedingly rare. Iseebias
In 1620 ,when the european pilgrims first landed on plymouth rock of the 102 people, 50 died during the first winter from various diseases. A year earlier in 1619 the first africans had landed in virginia. They were not slaves but indentured servants. There must have been great amazement that the africans were not easily succumbing to the various diseases of the new world. millenia of battling malaria and other jungle illnesses made the africans more resistant. They were already good farmers, fishermen and hunters[2]. They knew how to navigate themselves through difficult jungle terrains as many escaped to form communities in the busheg columbian communtity. because of the skills of the africans, the europeans must have sensed a great economic opportunity.Muntuwandi22:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
71.110.94.8921:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Seek the Truth
Africans, Black, Negro African American it doesn't matter! What matters is the truth. The white man has exploied everything and everyone. I would hate to see one form of racisim replaced with another!(Black People holding the power hand) If you believe in nature - nature has a way of cleaning its self. The old reap what you sow. We are now in the 400th year of Black Oppression although things are better now than 400 years ago there is still work to be done. Look at the horizon for our time is near.
Incivility
I fully appreciate the concept of free speech, but I do not understand why we have to contend with unnecessarily offensive language that is clearly not aimed at improving the article. Even talk pages can be vandalised.Muntuwandi15:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
And your complaining about me using the FR word (now that's offensive too?) which I've already stopped using does what to improve the article? It seems like everytime us editors are starting to get along you create another controversy. Speaking of controversy the only contribution you've ever made to this article (population section) was controversial. But lucky for the article, you create most of your controversies on the talk page Christmasgirl
Everything is offensive to you which is why you keep draining our energy with one pointless talk page controversy after another. Christmasgirl
And please stop removing comments from the talk page. Ezeu is an admin and he told you not to do this. Christmasgirl
Please be considerate and helpful by signing your posts using four tildes, instead of three. You can also use the button at the top of the page if you have problems. It helps to follow the coversation by knowing what is new or old. Thank you. Jeeny 04:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Rushton Quote
"Although the Koran stated that there were no superior and inferior races and therefore no bar to racial intermarriage, in practice this pious doctrine was disregarded. Arabs did not want their daughters to marry even hybridized blacks. The Ethiopians were the most respected, the "Zanj" (Bantu and other Negroid tribes from East and West Africa south of the Sahara) the least respected, with Nubians occupying an intermediate position"
The Rushton quote is definitely wrong. Africa is huge. It is therefore for exemple very ulikely that Arabs in Egypt would have known about the situation in West Africa. Or that they would have been able to differentiate Ethiopians from Western Africans(In order to avoid intermarriage, etc.). I am from Western Africa. And we had different waves of Arab immigration. And some deffinitely mixed with the local population(Spread of Islam, etc.). Besides, (Christian&Jewish) Ethiopians are often considered as absoulte ennemies of the Arab World. Just ask the Somalis, who are very close to the Jemenites and who can definitely be considered as part of the Arab World, even though they look black.(Afro-German)(87.176.254.8017:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)).
Well if Rushton is wrong than Bernard Lewis the foremost scholar on the Arab slave trade of Africans is wrong because Lewis says the same. Also Halaqah who I respect for his knowledge of African/Arab history said the quote is right on the mark. But I'm not trying to take sides on whether the Arab section should stay or go I'm just saying Bernard Lewis says the same Christmasgirl
Just go to Egypt, Algeria, Marocco and so on. It is obvious that a sensitive part of the population has African descent. But if you have like 10-20% looking very "African"-even in remote places-, then it is likely that the rest of the population has also a very high likelyhood to have some African ancestrors.(87.176.254.8017:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)).
Rushton never said there was no interbreeding. All he said was that the Arabs didn't want it for their daughters. But the fact that he mentions hybridized blacks prove your point. There was interbreeding between the blacks and the Arabs. Lots of it. Christmasgirl
It just has nothing to do with Skin Colour. Regionally, in Sudan and elsewhere, Arabs and Black Africans look extremely similar. But they clearly differentiate themselves by culture and so on. So Arab slave trade is true. But if somebody is very Black but is extremely well integrated in the Arab society, he might very well marry whoever he wants. => Rushton speaks of "colour" where the key to understanding the problems is culture. (87.176.254.8017:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)).
See this where the confusion comes in with the word black. Some people use it to mean dark skin, but Rushton & Bernard Lewis use it to mean sub-Saharan African ancestry. So you can have people who are dark skinned pure Arabs from Southern Arabia who are much darker than say the Khoisan but only the Khoisan would be considered black cause he's sub-Saharan. But the people who define black by color would consider the pure Southern Arab to be blacker Christmasgirl
Rushton is a typical white arrogant man, he is imposing his own understanding and coming up with sense according to his racism. It is more than color in Sudan. Sometimes very dark people are "Arab" and their social ranking would far exceed a light skin guy like Cuba Gooding, but all of this is confusing to these racist so they just generalize and make all kinds of mistakes. Rushton is so ill informed he also seperates Zanj and Habesha, crazy the Zanj would be the Ethiopians..these kinds of mistakes show the quality of his knowledge he is a popular eurocentric with the same low quality academics as the worst of the Afrocentrics.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ18:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
But just so you know, Rushton is not talking about color. To White academics, black is just another word for African. And those ideas aren't Rushton. We should have quoted the original source, Arab scholar Bernard Lewis. Christmasgirl
All of them are heads of the Orientalismcrew. if you quote the devil or his son they basically say the same thing. J.D. Fage, all John Reader, al of them. God knows why African validate these people. u know what they are yet we prop them up, never does Diop (a valid academic) appear on their little pages.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ18:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
But just a few days ago you praised Rushton's quote in your edit summary[3]. So should I believe what you are saying today or what you are saying then? And how do you define the Zanj? For example you complained about Rushton separating Ethiopians from the Zanj but not about him separating Nubians from the Zanj. So I'm very curious what your definition of Zanj is. Christmasgirl
What was said was correct, however why he said it maybe for his racist agenda. the quote is in isolation to his other posion. When he draws a conclusion it is to suit his argument. But the statement is correct. I think we should quote someone else with a better perspective, see dispute on Zanj and the racism going on where some people on wiki dont like to be told. Rushton doesnt know what a Zanj is, sometimes i like these things because it shows his ignorance.Ethiopians would be Zanj.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ23:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the dispute at the Zanj article and the expert on Arab linguistic translation seems convinced that Ethiopians are not Zanj. Christmasgirl
Well then it proves my argument on the Zanj page that Zanj is not a generic term for all "blacks" but it also proves that Rushton doesnt understand the usage of the word. However in a nutshell the word is clearly not generic. That is the point, Zanj is not a general word it has a specific meaning just like Habasha.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ10:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Rushton never said the term was for "all" blacks; he sad the Arabs divided blacks into 3 main groups: Ethiopians, Nubians, and zanj Christmasgirl
Yet you know this and go and counter my work on Zanj, so clearly Zanj is not a Black generic term, it is specific like saying Habasha, or Ethiopian. People used Ethiopian to mean Africa, but it real meaning is specific, so you canot say Ethiopian means Ghana can u. wrk with me here not against my edits as i find it very dishonest.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ13:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Black People = American Topic
Americans have no knowledge about the cultural complexity outside their country.
Some of them might even go to Iraq and think the people there will speak Spanish, beaucause they look "Brown" and therefore must belong to the "Brown race" like the Mexicans, etc.
And because Americans lack this cultural knowledge, they tend to identify themselves by very primitive criterias like "Skin colour", etc.
Just look at the many awfull wars there were in Europe, and you will understand that it is totally crazy to put whites, blacks or others in one group just beacuse they somewhat look similar.
Now other countries, cultures, etc. also have many problems. But as a whole, this article does only make sense in the US.(87.176.254.8017:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)).
I totally agree. It's a POV article. One of the reasons color makes a difference in the US is the Bill of Rights for example. If it were not for this, blacks especially would still be very much oppressed today. The whole Bill of Rights, and many of the Ariticles of the Constition would have to change. Though Blacks want to keep their idenity as being "black" or African-American for many reasons. Black and whites are very preoccupied by race, even though things have changed since the 1960s, ignorance and bigotry is very strong here. I'm hoping things will changed very soon. With the Internet we have access to many other POVs, and cultures where we would not have had before, unless one was wealthy and could travel. Even then, there exists an ignorance for sure. Like I said, I'm hoping things will change soon. Let the people who are aware of the complexities speak up, and continue to challenge those with small minds. The Internet is one place to start. Free higher education would help too. Jeeny 18:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a very US-centric article, as far as POV. I believe this helps explain why biological/genetic concepts of "Black" are prioritized and social and political concepts are currently barely present. For example, the entire section on Arabs is written from a US POV —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jd2718 (talk • Forgot to sign Jd271823:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This has been a very difficult article to work on, as rapid editing took place over the last few weeks without any clear plan, but with a clear consensus to push a biology-related POV. I was waiting for a version to stabilize, and when it did it was very far from where the article had been. I do not know how to improve this article without reconstructing it. It is permeated with US-centric and race obsessed assumptions. Jd271800:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The article will never please everyone since the topic itself is controversial. Christmasgirl
A category of people "Black" as opposed to simply Ethiopian, Bantu, Khoisan, etc, arose not from simple contact between Africans and Europeans - such contact had occurred repeatedly in the past; not from internal identification in Africa - there's no evidence of an internal African identification based on skin color; but rather from European-African contact related specifically to colonization and the slave trade. Yet this article insistently puts forward a timeless notion of Blackness based on ancestry and biology, and assiduously avoids mention of oppression, economics, slavery. Look at our race article. Majority, reliable source POV has race as a social construct. Yet this article avoids explaining what that means. When I saw the discussion of Arabs, that was too much. The article treats "Black" as a genetic or biological or ancestry-related category. The view is popular, especially in the US, but is a minority POV among experts on race. Jd271817:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
DO NOT REVERT TAGS
If an editor feels a tag is valid, unless it is really stupid u shouldnt take it off. Allow the debate to back up the tag and then determine if the tag is valid. As i have asked the editor, is the tag the correct tag. Tags dont hurt anyone. the minute we start deleting tags we become dictators, tags should not be deleted and those posting the tags should also be quick to explain the tag, as i have asked the editor to do. Until it is resolved the tag stays. I was the one that added avoid the pan-Americanism, i have an issue with the term when it is exported to mean what Americans say it means. Is that what the issue is? I dont think the article is unbalanced, but allow the editor time to explain his views. there is no admin, no collection no matter how large that can out weigh the rules. wiki shouldnt b mob rule. allow the debate--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ01:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree the article is U.S. centric at all. The whole history of the term is based on European anthropologists not Americans. We have huge sections on what the term means in Latin America and South Africa. The U.S. may be mentioned a bit more because being black was a bigger deal in the U.S. than other countries so they made blackness into law. In other countries we're all just human beings so being black is less of an issue (and other countries don't always categorize people based on color terminology), and so they don't have as much to say about it. The article reflects the real world Christmasgirl
Makes no difference if you agree or disagree. All editors have equal weight and the process says they have a voice and are free to contribute, object add content, delete content in a sincere developmental manner. My opinion is Blackness is a US dominated or Western idea. Hence it has no encyclopedic value as a racial identifier. To use this lay term out of context is a problem as the term is not definable. It isnt used in African much, so your argument is very confusing since you keep reasserting this word to Zanj. So when a Fiji Island person reads it he doesnt know if it means him or not. This is a worldview issue. i am waiting for the editor to explain his tag, as i also disagree but believe a worldview tag would also be incorrect. however deleting tags isnt civil conduct.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ02:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The only encyclopedic value is to explain all the different ways the term is used. This will tend to have a Western bias because it's mostly Westerners who use the term. But there's not much use knowing how Africans use the term if they don't use it much. It is useful to know what terms Africans use to describe themselves and that could be added so that readers don't make the mistake of using the term "black" in Africa where it may be offensive Christmasgirl
well its up to the readers i actually think i did a good thing. well if the page isnt gonna be deleted then why worry? i think it is a strange page anyway. and i think it is wrong to point out black and white people. and i think the black people section is full of wrong facts and alot of racist facts.the msot strange thing is the massaj man,i mean does he really represent the black community?--Matrix1718:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no global black community. One of the topics that has been discussed is diversity among "black people". There is much cultural, genetic and lingustic diversity within Africa, in fact over 1800 languages are spoken. Outside of Africa blacks live all over the americas speaking dutch, french, spanish, portuguese, english and other creolized lingos. The idea of a black community is US centric. we should speedily undelete the article as it will just be waste of energy going through the debate. Muntuwandi18:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
If you don't believe blacks form a single community, and the other guy doesn't believe blacks form a race, and if they obviously don't share the same language, culture, religion, appearance, experience, and identity, then why should they all share an article? Iseebias19:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
make you say on the deletion page entry instead of here... their are already one saying it should strongly be deleted. so i am not in charge here. i still think i agree with the person writing that it is wrong to have this page.and we are all tired of this editing wars all the time--Matrix1719:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
the dark skinned people of africa and their descendents numbering almost 1 billion, too many to form one single monolithic community(eg francophone and anglophone africa). but there are some shared characteristics.
1 chiefly darker skin and other phenotypes, with many exceptions.
2 A shared recent history.
3 Outside of africa one is likely to face discrimination from being dark skinned.
4 Even though cultures are different certain cultural elements are ubiquitous throughout africa and the new world(eg cornrows).
Blacks are not one community in the sense that one person can be representative of all, but at the moment they are enough of a group to be easily recognized and identified as a group.Muntuwandi19:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Make your vote
make your vote on the deletion tag on the front page on Keep or Delete. Their is already one saying strongly deletion on this page because of the constant editing wars and strong opinions for deletion and not deletion here,their is no use to fight over it here. make your voice heard in the issue. i think this is a strongly deletion page to,i have also now voted for strong deletion due to the various racist toughts on this article like the vanuatu man ,whats that?>?..--Matrix1719:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I had mentioned earlier that when society becomes colorblind, I would be the first to nominate this article for deletion, but we are still a long way from that. Yes there have been some strenouos edit wars. My opinion is this is because of the desire to incorporate complicated, extreme or exotic views. I very much favor scientific views over sociological opinion because science is more objective. So and so's opinion always has a motive. Whether it be cheikh anta diop or rushton. A scientific study whose results can be reproduced regardless of who is doing the study is more respectable. I earlier proposed restructuring and simplifying article because in its current state I can only make sense of the gallery. I will make a vote but i think it is a waste time because deleting this article will mean deleting all articles on ethnicity, white people, asian people etc. which i do not see happening.Muntuwandi20:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Make your vocie heard on the deletion tag to the entry instead.i dont agree with you at all just want to point that out.--Matrix1720:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
1st - Why is there an article titled 'Black People'?? That is not very politically correct.
2nd - Hugo Chavez is not considered balck by anybody. Randomfrenchie02:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Where is your comment regarding the existence of the "White People" article? I don't see your comments in that article's discussion page. Where is the request to delete the "White (People)" article in any event? --208.254.174.14802:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
1st - There is the term Negroid to refer to all black people but the term African American would be politically incorrect due to those that are NOT from America that are black.
It's not "politically" incorrect, it's just wrong if the article is not limited to "black" people in the United States. I suppose the correct title would be something like "people with skin colors darker than some arbitrary standard," but that's a little long. Being singled out by reason of skin color should be offensive to anyone, but I wasn't aware that the term "black person" is in itself offensive to anybody. I could be wrong. I don't actually object to being called a "white person" since I understand that "white" is short for "shade of pink mixed with a little brown that is lighter than the speaker's arbitrary standard" and I can accept that statement as close enough for government work. Of course I can also accept it when somebody says, "You are not white." Again, it comes down to the speaker's arbitrary standard for "the color white." As long as the sentence is not a coded threat display of some kind, why should I be concerned?
Another consideration —— any term that is habitually used to refer to some group can become a term of abuse. I can imagine "caucasian" being pronounced in a certain way and spoken out in an aggressive tone of voice that would make it much more offensive to me than "honky." So whatever one choses to entitle an article like this should be responsive to the wishes of those who might be hurt by it. "Black," as in "Black is beautiful," was at one point the preferred term for activists in the United States. Later, some people (maybe most people) came to prefer "African American," but I don't recall any of them being terribly negative about the other term. P0M19:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Old theories
If an old hypothesis has now been discarded, is it necessary to mention it. For example carlton coon categorized the races. He believed that that the black race and white race evolved seperately over a million years. These theories have now been disproved. Is it thus necessary to mention these archaic theories. I think they just add to the spirit of animosity. I suggest we replace all old hypothesis with what mainstream science says. the old stuff can be placed in a more appropriate article or simply remain on the author's page.Muntuwandi05:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I like your idea. The article on Race has sections on all of the old stuff. Just link to that article and be done with it. I really like the newer discoveries done with genetic traces that show, contrary to what Coon said, that we are all related, and that we can pretty well trace these connections out. I hope that more information will come out regarding the genetic histories of the peoples of Africa. P0M05:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I recently read where geneticists actually found a mutation in the DNA that made skin white from the first Africans. I forget where I read that though, as I've been reading so many reference books, researching, etc. It's like it's been a job, or school. LOL. My brain is fried. I also read that there is a new theory that the first human was from Asia. This just after the "Out of Africa" information on human origins is basically well accepted all around. Except for the extreme racists, of course. That theory, or finding about the mutation is on my list to do more research on. Cheers. Jeeny 06:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I think old theories are important for their historical value to understand where the concept of black people came from. This isn't a science article so complaining that certain theories are outdated has nothing to do with the point of the article. This is an article about how people were defined by other people, where it all started, and how society is changing. Christmasgirl06:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
If they are still important they can remain on the page of the author of those theories or a "history of race" page. For example when talking about the earth and globalization we no longer mention that people once thought the earth was flat.Muntuwandi12:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
On the flat earth page they talk about people who thought the earth was flat. So on the black people page we talk about people who thought some people were black. Perhaps science will one day progress to the point where everyone agrees that race is not real and everyone agrees that the earth is not flat, but until then, we have these articles Christmasgirl13:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this article would be a good place to talk, in an objective way, about the impact that "flat earthers" have had on people of the black [race]. IMHO, [race] is a kind of delusion but racism is real. What is easily provided with citations are records of people using "academic" discussions of [race] to put people down and keep them down——and that, in turn, explains lots about the group identity of black people. Rather than just repeating Rushton's "theorizing," it would be more powerful if we could say something like, "On 3 May 1989 the state board of education heard the arguments for defunding public libraries in school districts x, y, and z based on the words of Rushton, who said..." (That's a made-up example, of course, but you get the idea.) P0M06:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
To me this article is simply a list of all the different ways black identity has been defined. The purpose of this article is to inform people what is meant by the term black when they see it in different contexts so when people see the term "black" used by academics who believe in race and study racial differences, it refers to people of predominantly sub-Saharan descent (recent), and when they see the term used by the U.S. government it refers to people who self-identity with their recent sub-Saharan ancestors, and when they saw the term used by the South African government it refered to people who had enough African ancestry to get a pencil stuck in their hair, when they see the term used by Afrocentrics it refers to people with tropical (or semi-tropical) ancestry of any kind and can even refer to people with tiny invisible degrees of African ancestry. It's useful for people to know that black has different meanings so that if someone is doing say a school paper criticising the theories of people like Rushton they don't make the mistake of using an Afrocentric definition of black to counter him or if they're doing a paper on Afrocentric theories, they realize that Afrocentrics have a much broader group of people in mind when they use the term black and this needs to be taken into account when reading and analyzing their work. If someone is in Latin America it's useful to know they sometimes require a higher degree of African ancestry to be considered black than is required in the U.S. and that one needs to adapt how they use ethnic terms to be sensitive their social conventions. Iseebias13:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we could even put in a picture of a typical member of the "Black Irish" then? ;-)
This article is making out that ALL Indians are black. These are contentious claims when Indo-Aryans are usually classed as Caucasoid and are racially and even genetically more similar to Europeans. This Italian opera Singer Andrea Bocelli http://image.listen.com/img/356x237/0/2/4/4/504420_356x237.jpg
Looks like a Punjabi. Should he be included in the `Marginal Blacks' Image gallery as well? He would be classed as white by most census definitions. Please write Tamil, Dravidian or South Indian School girls instead of contending that all South Asians are black, or better still, delete their images alltogether. Many Saudis look more Negroid than Indians, and they'd be classed as white in the US census. `Brown' is usually the preferred colour metaphor for Indians..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.169.34.17 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC).
The Siddi are of African ancestry so they would not belong in the same section of the gallery as the Indians currently are Iseebias19:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Most Indians, except of the Siddis, are not Black. South Indians are also usually considered Caucasoid. And South Indians are also genetically more similiar to Europeans than to Africans. But that dosent make North or South Indians in any term "White".
Most Punjabis are actually Indo-Aryans, resembling a Mediterranean Type like Nahwaz Sharif pictured here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1030000/images/_1032134_nawaz150.jpg
Like I said about Andrea Bocelli, he looks pretty brown to me and that's why I personally do not consider ALL Southern Europeans as `white' either. Off the subject, why is there a Nazi Swastika frequently appearing on the first image of this page?
Well most South Indians speak a Dravidian language, but still resembling the same Mediterranean type, like ur Punjabis. North Indians resemble South Indians more than any other ethnicity and vice-versa. Go to London and u will see what I'm talking about. I would consider most Europeans as White, even thug some of them have brownish skin. I would call people from Turkey southward as "Brown". But I wont call them to be of the same race as Indians.Asian2duracell23:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I have lived in London and I came across a few Southern Italians and Greeks who looked South Asian. I have also known Italians who have experienced racism and been called `Pakis'. They are mixed race populations so it is not surprising. They cannot be classed as white! the previous comment is in support of the fallacy of Indians constituting a `race unto themselves'. There is NO standard appearance of what an Indian is supposed to `look' like.
Well then.. but u as a Punjabi should know that Indians vary a lot North or South. I've seen enough North Indians with very dark skin and South Indians with very light skin and otherwise. So why is it wrong to be a "dark skinned" Italian, and still be white? Indians have more incommen with themselve than with other ethnicities. There is no "Indian race", ur right. But still most South Asians look alike. I think there are more Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans who get called "Paki", than there are Italians and Greeks. Asian2duracell16:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to strongly disagree with this, i myself am Tamil & 1/4 chinese. My father was very dark skin and would be considered black anywhere else in the world, actually BEING and having been around tamils i can very clearly say that tha majority to almost all tamils i have seen have all had dark skin and myself have faced racism having even been called "Nigger". Since the person above me used pictures to prove indians being more closer to europeans with pictures of tamils and south indians. I feel obliged defending the notion of Tamils as to be able to be known as "blacks",
I think i have made my point, to say that Tamils can not be considered "Black" i find unbelievable because tamils have very dark skin. Also noted the person who had pictures of fair Tamil's, it is the same case with modern day African Americans where you see a lot of fair skinned African Americans and also in Asia light skin is thought as beautiful while dark skin is considered ugly thus not having a lot of dark tamil actor's because they would come off as unpleasing to watch and as i am sure majority of the pictures the person above me put were actor's. Now if this column is to stay up, i insist that tamils at least stay in the column because i think it is rather obvious from the proof i have given that Tamils at least can be considered "Black".
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Yes the persons above are light skinned, while the majority of us Tamils (I'm 100% Tamil) are dark skinned. But I chose them because the Punjabi guy tried to say that SouthIndians are dark where NorthIndians are light skinned. And thats not true those Tamil guys I've posted will be accepted as any kind of Indian, North or South. So would those U have posted. Just because we are dark skinned, that doesnt make us Black. We are genetically closer to Europeans than to Africans thats a fact. But we are genetically most related with EastAsians.
If u take a look at the physical features of the persons u have posted.. u will realise they look pretty Indian and not African. Well its not my problem that u have been called a "Nigger". I've heard some Anglos calling South Europeans or Turks also "Niggers", so are they Black? I guess No. But I hope u know that there is a similiar word in Tamil for Blacks, which has the same pejorative meaning as "Nigger" does. Why would some give himself such a rude name, if they think they're the same?Asian2duracell11:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the term "black" is used by white (ie Northern European descended) people rather indiscriminately. I know that amongst ourselves that virtually anyone who is not fair-skinned is liable to be called black. Black, as white people use it, does not simply refer to those who would be scientifically or culturally classed as Negroid, but any dark skinned person- be it Indian, Arab, Turkish, PAki, Polynesian. This might not be correct , but the average person isn;t exactly a paleoanthropologist, are they?
As for the nth vs sth india arguement: it is a generalisation, yes, but it is generally true that northern indians are lighter skinned becasue of the mixture with the iranian tribes. Same deal with Italians. Northern italians are generally fairer than southerners because they northerners are mixed with germans whereas the southerners often mixed with northern africans (over the millenia)
First of all, i did not imply that Africans and Indians are the same. However this article is "Black People" rather than "Africans", almost all the Tamil people i know refer themselves as Black not because they believe they are African but because of their skin color. In many cases in columns with the subject of "black people" you can always spot an Indian or too (mistakenly if you must) put there. Whether we are genetically closer to Europeans than to Africans seems to have been debated on many times as the 'Afro centric perspective' would say. Now onto the physical features of the people i have posted, i don't really know what "looking pretty Indian" because that could mean anything. From the time i have spent with all kinds of Indians appeaence varies especially in Tamil, some features-wise look more like the one's you have posted while others i have seen have had thick lips, broad noses and afro like hair so "looking Indian" can be varied as i think the pictures i have put up have proved in fact. As you can see in picture #7 she has thick lips and a broad nose, i have to end this now because where i am at it is late and i am rather tired however like i first stated i believe we are black (based on skin color and appearance) and NOT African. Now if you want to get into genetics, people whose jobs are to find these things out have yet to come to a real conclusion whether we are closer to Europeans or Africans so I'll leave that one alone but if you want to believe you are closer to a European, more power to you.
This article is about Black people not Dark skinned people. You can be as dark as you want but unless you are of African descent you're not Black. Tamils are caucasoid (they are primarily related to Europeans and Arabs), they are not negroid. If the Tamil people you know refer to themselves as Black then they are very confused. Needshape16:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Well If the most Tamil people u come across think they are Black, then I guess u havent met many so far. Tamils call very dark skinned Tamils sometimes Black and very light skinned Tamils as White. But more collegial or as a joke. So how many Tamils would call themselve "White"? I think noone. So why should we call us "Black"? Tamils with broad nose, kinky hair and thik lips? I've seen more Whites with curly hair than Tamils. Broad nose is not uncommen but very rare and if then not so brad as that of an African. Most Tamils have a inbetween nose from Arabs and Whites, not as sharp as a white and not as big as an Arab nose. Tamils like most Indians dont have thik lips, there are many with very small lips. And others who have full lips. ex. Jay-Z has thik lips, Angelina Jolie has full lips...
Lewis Hamilton, is called the first Black Driver in formula one. Narayan Karthikeyan was the first Tamil and first Indian Formula one driver who had dark skin. The Press never called him "Black". Can you please explain why is it that way? I think its because most people consider only people of recently african origin as "Black".
I even doubt that U are Tamil at all... I've come acros many Blacks who act like Tamils on the internet to propagate their Afrocentric wievs. But anyone who met a Tamil person in real life will doubt ur theories.Asian2duracell16:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
FIRSTLY, I AM NOT A PUNJABI GUY MR `ASIAN2DURACELL' SECONDLY, MANY ANTHROPOLOGISTS HAVE CLASSED INDO-ARYANS AS HAVING MEDITERRANEAN ELEMENTS. LIKE MY IMAGE OF OMAR ABDULLAH WHICH I POSTED WHO LOOKS WHITER THAN MANY SOUTHERN EUROPEANS, WHY ARE YOU CONTENDING THAT ALL GREEKS AND ITALIANS ARE WHITE REGARDLESS OF COMPLEXION? hARDLY ANY nOTHERN EUROPEAN I KNOW WOULD THINK SO. THEY MAY BE FAIRER THAN YOU WHO IS A TAMIL, BUT NOT COMPARED TO A NORDIC. R1A1 IS A SOUTH ASIAN, WEST ASIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN DNA HAPLOGROUP WHICH DOES NOT PROLIFERATE AMONG EAST ASIANS IN LARGE NUMBERS, HENCE SOUTH ASIANS ARE NOT CLOSER TO EAST ASIANS (AS A WHOLE) GENETICALLY!
thx mister "i dont want to sign my posts". U have to understand that not JUST ur INDO ARYANS, but also the so called DRAVIDIANS are Mediterranean Caucasoid.. and so is most of India today. From Southern Europe over the MiddleEast to India, the people are so called "Meditarranean" what ever that means. Ofcourse are Italians and Greeks fairer than Tamils, and about atleast 95% of the Indian population North or South. I live in Europe, so u dont have to tell me what "Nordics" think on skin colour. Yes indeed some Nordics will call Spaniards/Italians/Portugese/Greeks as brown. But most dont. Where I live there are atleast 300'000 to 500'000 Southern Europeans mostly Sicilians. And hell they look "white" to me. Some are darker some are fairer. Its the same in India. Indians usually have "dark" skinned and "fair" skinned siblings, but that doesnt make them to be of a separate ethnicity. And Sub-SaharanAfricans are black, whether they have dark or light skin. Finally, its not me who claim to be of EastAsian ancestry, the last thing i look like is "EastAsian". But some anthropologists do think so. But that doesnt mean its true. But i guess we are closer related to EastAsians as we think, even thug we dont look like them.Asian2duracell22:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
This image of a Swedish (Nordic) and a Greek (Mediterranean) mix does not look White
http://www.knowprose.com/images/Yusuf_Islam.jpg It is Cat Stevens who self identifies as mixed race on his own website and I agreee with him 110%!! He looks Pakistani, more than Nikki Bedi or Nasser Hussain do, who are both classed as mixed race `black' according to the faulty logic of this article!
Sub-Saharan Africa debate
Firstly, the first statement in the sentence was problematic. The statement that people who equate black with African descent have a narrow minded view is personal opinion. A lot of people argue that blacks are the only people indigenous to Africa, and any Caucasian presence is due to relatively late immigration. Africans traveled and populated the entire world, it would be extremely foolish and plain racist to assume that they couldn't of populated the northern part of their own continent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taharqa (talk • contribs) 08:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
Under Mostafa Hefny, I added an additional statement which is relevant to the topic.
Quote:
"Although Mostafa admits the region of Africa he comes from is North of the Sahara, he claims that he is black because his ancestors were from the ancient kingdom of Nubia, now part of Egypt and Sudan. In 1997, Mostafa attempted to sue the U.S. government to get his racial identity changed.[26] Though seemingly there is a contradiction here, as Nubia was also North of the Sahara and so is most of modern day Sudan."
Mostafa could very likely be a descendant of the Ancient Egyptians or Nubians, who knows (many people in southern Egypt look like him, and they are native)? I don't see where the U.S census gets off on telling people that the original inhabitants of North Africa were 'white' (including Egypt, when even to this day they aren't all 'white', that's mainly the Northern Arab Egyptians) then try and cover their absurdism by claiming this is simply a socio-political label and not scientific classification. Africans spread across the entire world, it would be foolish to believe that they didn't settle in North Africa, which is the closest thing to them. Egypt and Race is a whole other debate, just check the wiki article for that.Taharqa08:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It’s no more racist to say Blacks are from sub-Saharan Africa than it is to say that Caucasians are from North Africa and Western Eurasia, and East Asians are from East Asia. It’s no more insulting to say Blacks did not populate Africa North of the Sahara than it is to say Caucasians didn’t populate Africa South of the Sahara or Eurasia East of the Himalayas or that East Asians didn’t populate Asia West of the Himalayas. Although most anthropologists now reject the idea of race (or at least use less loaded terminology like ethnic group, genetic cluster, or population) geneticist Neil Rich argues that humans separated by barriers that impeded gene flow (i.e. major deserts, mountain ranges, oceans) separated into races [[4]] so if you’re going to speak of racial groups, you have to define their limits by landmarks that historically prevented them from blending into other races (otherwise how could races have emerged as relatively separate groups assuming you believe that they did). So that’s one reason why the definition of Black is frequently restricted to Sub-Saharan ancestry. The other reason is climate. As Muntuwandi has repeatedly explained, only the tropics and semi-tropics produce skin color normally described as black, so any dark skinned peoples living in North Africa would have to be the descendants of relatively recent arrivals (though how recent, and how long ago North Africa was first populated is a matter of debate).
As for your claim that Africans spread around the world; this is generally regarded as an Afrocentric view, though future research and discoveries may prove Afrocentrics right. It's sometimes just a matter of semantics. For example if you define Australian Aboriginals as Black you may also define them as Africoid, in which case you can cite the recent discovery of an ancient Australian aboriginal skull in the Americas as evidence for your assertions. However those who take a genetic view do not consider Africans and Australian aboriginals as part of the same population. Iseebias12:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The US Census reference is bullcrap, IMO. It was used to represent certain people living in the US with Government representation. Early on, because of Slavery, there was much ado, because States (like those in the South with plantations) wanted to have it both ways i.e. Slaves as non-people (so they could justify the use and abuse and treatment as property like a friggen tractor.), yet they also wanted them to be counted so their State would have better, or more, representation! Today, that is not the case, as all Humans are considered "real and whole, not sub-human" people and are counted as such. (I'm not talking about prejudices here) This subject is Black people, although it does apply and is important to point out how they are viewed in the US but not a whole article almost exclusively based on US policy and views especially involving the US Census crapola. This article is American-centric. The U.S. Census, and Hefny etal, would be relevant to Race, Racism, etc. But, Black people? It's a whole different thing in the US. Black and White are still at odds. This is not a world view topic, as it is mostly American and some Western European ideas..etc...I don't know...<sigh> Jeeny 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This map is completely misplaced. I already removed it once. By placing a map so high that links to articles that all refer to various terms in the United States - with no caption or explanation to its relevance - is not helpful. It was restored on the basis that it shows who is "legally black" in the U.S. Whatever that issue involves should be in some subsection which deals with that country. Not high up in what appears to be a general part of the article. It is very misleading in its present context.--Zleitzen(talk)13:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that it's not helpful. It shows exactly what part of the world you must have indeigenous ancestry from to be considered black in the U.S. and what parts classify you in a different category. It's not a general part of the article; there is no general part of the article because the article is divided into 2 separate definitions of Blackness: African ancestry & skin color. It's in the African ancestry section where it belongs Iseebias15:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
There's still no caption, Iseebias, and no surrounding clarification as to how it refers to black people. In fact the whole section seems to be about the United States census, which is probably why someone added a huge tag to it to complain. The mapo should still be removed, the global nature of the map is extremely misleading. Asians, Africans, Europeans and Latin Americans are going to do the same thing I did, see it - click on their locale - only to get linked to some article about the United States. --Zleitzen(talk)15:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The text itself explains. And yes the debate is personified by the case of one individual who happens to be American? Is that a problem? Iseebias15:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
My point doesn't seem to be clear enough. I'll try again. (1)The map has no caption, which is pre-requisite for all maps, graphs etc. Thus it is confusing to readers (2)The section seems to refer solely to the United States - thus the section title (Sub-Saharan Africa debate) and body should be clarified to explain this debate is something that is happening in the U.S. not something that relates to black people in general. The clearer the better - to prevent people like me clicking on it and then complaining; to prevent the editor who added the global-tag, and anyone else in the future who feels the same way which is almost inevitable. --Zleitzen(talk)16:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Huh? The section is mostly about the views of Owen ‘Alik Shahadah who is German. And the sub-Saharan African debate is not confined to the United States. We quote other non-Americans in the article defining Blacks in terms of sub-Saharan ancestry. Do you think the term Black Africa is confined to Americans? Do you really? Do a google search on Black Africa and you'll get about 88 MILLION hits. Do you think our readers are so dumb, stupid, and unitelligent that they'll get confused by a map just because there's no caption? Are they not able to read the text? Iseebias16:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll try and be even clearer, and stick to the main point: The map has no caption. All detailed maps and graphs should have explanatory captions. --Zleitzen(talk)17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I tried to put a caption under the map, but could not figure out how to do it with the new syntax being used. I tried using the old way of showing messages, but then the labels and links on the map did not show up. I think the user who wants to can figure out what the map does, anyway.P0M01:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed it again. The map and template are for the U.S. census page and have not been created for pages like this. Without adding a clear caption, which seems impossible at this stage, it means that readers are clicking on universal terms but finding themselves at pages that deal with the United States only. --Zleitzen(talk)07:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I modified the map by making it one image including the text so that a caption would be easier to include with it. I'm not sure how it would look on other monitors or browsers with the text as part of the image now, though. I haven't uploaded it to Wiki. Thought I'd get feedback first. I can't seem to post it directly on this page, here's the link:
Modified US census map
That would be an improvement. I notice Iseebias restored the offending U.S. map claiming "incoherent reasons" and "no support on the talk page". Which part of the globalise tag added by an other editor, and my repeated statements that the map without a caption is misleading does Iseebias find incoherent?--Zleitzen(talk)15:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I uploaded the image to the Commons so it can be used here, and therefore have a caption. Now, who's going to write the caption? This has something to do with a census in the United States, but as of yet the context is not clear. Jeeny 17:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Jeeny. Now we need to figure out what the map actually signifies. Are there five boxes on the U.S. census, and you have to tick one of the above? Any ideas?--Zleitzen(talk)18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome, Zleitzen. This ONLY represents the 5 definitions of race according to the year 2000 US Census. I believe, but not sure, this has changed since. I think they added another category, I will check. Also, I was just trying to add the new map with caption but I don't know how to format it so it stays the same size and to the right. OH, No, you cannot tick any one of the above, it's just one image. I would not know how to do that in this Wiki format. Sorry. Heck, I can't even position an image correctly on this format...yet. Jeeny 18:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant ticking categories on the census form. This section [5] seems to discuss these categories in relation to the 2000 census. Here is the map formatted.--Zleitzen(talk)19:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No, don't be sorry. You were clear, I misunderstood. After I wrote that (about the image ticking) I actually did think you meant the categories not the image, duh me. I then went on research and posted the stuff below. Thanks for formatting the map. :) Jeeny 20:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Question: Does the Census Bureau have a policy on which tabulation options data users should use when comparing data on race from Census 2000 and previous censuses?
Answer: The Census Bureau is providing different tabulation options so that users may decide which option best satisfies their needs. In addition, the Census Bureau will provide a data file, using results from the Census Quality Survey to be conducted in the summer of 2001, that will assist users in developing ways to make comparisons between Census 2000 data on race, where respondents were asked to report one or more races, and data on race from other sources that asked for only a single race.
Question: What are the race groups that federal agencies are to use to comply with the Office of Management and Budget's guidance for civil rights monitoring and enforcement?
Answer: The categories (made available in OMB Bulletin No. 00-02, "Guidance on Aggregation and Allocation of Data on Race for Use in Civil Rights Monitoring and Enforcement"[6]) to be used are:
American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
White
American Indian and Alaska Native and White
Asian and White
Black or African American and White
American Indian and Alaska Native and Black or African American
>1 percent: Fill in if applicable with multiracial combinations greater than 1% of the population
Balance of individuals reporting more than one race
Total
(end, there is more at the link above)
I had an editing war when I first saw this section a month of so ago, because of the example of Hefny (1997), and no mention of him since! Not in any references that I can find. Another reason I was against it is because it's about the frickin US Census! Which is, supposedly, only to help "create equitable legislative representation" and to monitor civil rights and enforcement for protection. Not make people choose between Black and White, Blue or purple.
While, I am not sure about immigrants entering the US at this time, I DO KNOW one can choose one's race that one identifies with, ALSO one may choose NOT to check ANY one of them. It is NOT required. Again, I don't know about immigrants entering the US, but those who are in the US at the time of a Census. Another ALSO, not everyone fills out those dang things either. It's not a law to comply (It is illegal to be in the country illegally, lol. but that's a whole other story). I guess one can call it a civic duty (census) so that the people are fairly represented in the US, but it's not a law but it is strongly encouraged that everyone participate. Jeeny 19:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe hefny is a one off case, its an interesting story but it ends there. my preference would be to remove hefny because i do not see his situation affecting many people. yes they are many afro-arabs in saudi arabia and yemen but they are not complaining.Muntuwandi19:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Most Ethiopians are Afro-Arab so technically they too could sue the U.S. government to get classified as White. According to Jeeney's argument though, second generation Ethiopian Americans would be free to self-identify as White if they chose to identify with their Arab ancestry. Anyway, not sure why you want to get rid of the hefny case. It's a high profile case that relates to the topic. Yes he's the exception not the rule, but text books often discuss exceptions if they are high profile Christmasgirl19:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Christmasgirl, this is exhausting. Anyone can 'sue' anyone they want to in the USA for anything. Doesn't mean they will get far, depending on the subject/reason/crime/etc, that is. But, in this topic about the US Census crap... Most people entering the US and applying for citizenship or for visas, etc. do get classified, yes.... BUT they can CHOOSE later to identify with whatever they wish. Within reason, of course (so you don't jump on me again) Within reason!. ARG!. Jeeny 20:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thank YOU! 10 years ago! I tried to make this point and put it in the article and kept getting reverted. Jeeny 20:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You kept getting reverted because you kept trying to rewrite the section in the past tense as though whatever problem Hefny was fighting had been solved. I personally like to see relevant evidence before relegating an issue that occurred only 10 years ago to the history category and your evidence failed to convince me Christmasgirl21:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You don't get it. 10 years ago IS past tense. It happened 10 YEARS ago. The way it was written suggested it happened at least just recently. 10 years is a decade! A decade ago (past tense). A long time ago. Why is there no other information ANYWHERE if he actually DID sue the US Government AND could not take advantage of the Affirmative Action available soon after he "threatenED" to sue? Jeeny 23:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC) present
Thank you for clarifying the U.S. census. Reading the census information provided, and the background sources, there is no mention of Europe, nor "Sub-Saharan" anywhere. It seems to me that the map is actually original research, is it not? An editor has taken it upon themselves to establish white=Europe and North Africa, and Black=Sub Saharan Africa in relation to the census, when no such definitions were offered. --Zleitzen(talk)07:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to clarify this on the map, adding a source which should have been on the map in the first place. Readers shouldn't be expected to navigate other parts of the page and even other wikipedia articles to find out what and where information has been taken from. If all this doesn't emphasise how unclear the map was in the first place - then I don't know what. --Zleitzen(talk)14:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The US Census has gone through many changes from the beginning of "America", to today. It is very complicated and confusing and needs a whole article on it's own to explain the classifications, justifications, legislation, caste systems, gender, laws affecting it, etc. It is based on complicated American history and it's many changing laws. I believe a mention should be made somewhere, somehow, but I don't know how without misleading others and without making this all about America. How does one condense 500 years of history, much involving race and politics in America, while maintaining a WPOV, and keeping the article at a reasonable length? (I deleted a bunch of stuff trying to prove a point, just to explain the US Census) This just in talk page would have been a whole article itself. Sheesh, my head hurts and I bet a number of comments where place while I was writing this and deleting a bunch of crap. lol. __Jeeny 15:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Sub-saharan africa debate
I think this heading is misleading because I don't think there is any active debate or controversy going on regarding the term. It is recognized by the UN as a Subregion. the assertion that it is racist really doesn't have much support because very often it is black africans themselves who want to be distinguished from their northern comradespage 20. What i think can be racist is the context within which the term is used, not the term itself( eg even the term "black" can be racist depending on the context). I do not see any difference between the cultural distinctions between east africa and west africa. Therefore I propose to change the heading to sub-saharan africa, and the notion that it is racist should be considered WP:FRINGE.
Secondly, how relevant is the case of Mostafa hefny. for example Naomi Campbell can make the sam e claim, stating that she is british and therefore by US law she is white. but that does not hold water because her ancestors are eventually from sub-saharan africa via jamaica. The same can be said for hefny. Somewhere in his recent family history his ancestors came from the same place all dark skinned people came from which is Sub-saharan africa. Muntuwandi 16:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Muntuwandi16:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
U.S. law would not force Naomi Cambell to be White (I don't think) because she not from the original peoples of Britain. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Hefny's case is probably different because he is claiming origins in the original peoples of Egypt-so really the debate appears to be about which "race" colonized Egypt. But feel free to change the title of the section if you feel it implies a big debate where little exists Iseebias17:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I have made an attempt to make the section less US centric and more about SSA itself. but i still question how relevant hefny is because he seems to be the only person going through such a dilemmaMuntuwandi19:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Iseebias, Hefny claimed, he is not "claiming" as that is old news. It makes it seem that that is the case today, it is not. This encyclopedia is supposed to be up to date, right? Doesn't mean his story is not relevant though, but it is misleading as it speaks in the present tense. Which is not true. He is no longer suing the US Government. There is NO evidence that he even did or HAD to. Jeeny 20:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Good on y'all
It feels fine to know that
this article is getting much better
the article is much better than it was here, and that
clever people are watching it, and cleaning it from missinformation.
Ezeu, thank you for that link. Goodness, I clicked on the link, and began reading for hours! I saw many of the same names. The hundreds of edits seconds apart. Some comments were funny, and others made my blood boil all over again. Edit wars, misinformation, all of it. lol. I see that you've been working a long time on this. You deserve a great big pat on the back. Thank you so much. Jeeny 00:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
POV
This article is written from the point of view that "Black" is a biological category. Biology, genetics, and blood lines underly most of the writing. There is not a single section to point to. Jd271802:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Just asserting that something is so does not make it true. I cannot understand your statement above. What do you intend to convey by the words "not a single section to point to"? One should not put a "POV" label on an article without giving clear and convincing arguments. P0M04:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope we can all agree that old theories are obsolete Muntawandi, but the point of them is to give the reader a history of the term. If you wanted to limit the article to current mainstream scientific views, why did you leave in the Afrocentric theories? I understand your desire to remove the likes of Rushton, but by doing so you removed the standard by which people are defined as Black in peer reviewed academic studies that treat race as a meaningful genetic category. Now when readers confront such studies in the academic literature, they wont know how the term Black is defined in that context. Iseebias05:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the afrocentric theories should also be removed because I do not think people apply them in everyday use. I respect much of cheikh diops work but when it comes to defining who is black he does not seem to make much sense.Muntuwandi13:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
In something you wrote above you said:
there's no evidence of an internal African identification based on skin color; .... This article insistently puts forward a timeless notion of Blackness based on ancestry and biology....
My own personal point of view says that [race] is a "myth." That being said, scientists who have studied the genetic records believe that humans first developed in Africa, then moved in one trail of migration following the edge of the ocean from Africa all the way to Australia. Along the way there remain to this day groups of people who have retained a dark skin color, presumably because that coloration is adaptive to the high ambient UV in tropical regions. Another outflowing from Africa followed much later, and this group took an inland route the divided and went in several directions. Over the intervening centuries the people who took the more northernly route have generally evolved lighter skin colors, particularly where heavy dependence of grains and other vegetable crops have created a need for those humans to be able to synthesize their own Vitamin-D despite the lower intensity of UV. All of these groups are part of the same species, homo sapiens, and part of the same subspecies, homo sapiens sapiens. The differentiation of people into subdivisions with minor differences in traits has been clinal, i.e., there are no discontinuities between groups. Furthermore, the travel of people has not all been outward and away from Africa, and some groups in Africa give indications of reproduction occuring among peoples carrying traits developed outside of Africa with people still living in Africa.
I think that nobody claims to know what color the people of Africa were 150,000 years ago.
One issue that has been forcefully aired among writers contributing to this article is whether it is appropriate to construct one black [race] consisting of people with deep historical roots in the genetics of Africa and to construct other [races] for people who are equally dark but who are indigenous to places far from Africa, Australia being the most remote area with very dark aboriginal inhabitants. That issue needs to be discussed in the article. Since these are competing social constructs, there is no right or wrong to this question. It is simply the fact that some very dark people living in, e.g., some parts of India, resist being grouped with people of recent African origin.
The pictures of the several black or "black not" people are ironic because they point clearly to how artificial these descriptions are, but the fact is that people make these distinctions and sometimes even die on account of them.
Some constructs, such as Leprechauns (which are now forbidden by law to march in some parades!), are clearly based on little or no empirical evidence and lots of construction done on the basis of the wishes of the fabricators. Other constructs, such as electrons, protons, etc., relate to things that have never actually been seen but concerning which much objective evidence has been collected. In between are constructs like [race] that have some empirical evidence upon which a great deal of fabrication has been done. The objective of this article might be to discuss that social construct, or it might be to simply trace the family connections of the people who have long lived in Africa and those who have moved beyond Africa and have at least selectively favored some traits that were present in Africa but have become prevalent and "signature" traits of the remote members of the original family. They may also have picked up some significant mutations that have introduced new traits into the remote groups and are only slowly coming to be represented in Africa.
Does that off-the-cuff description of one outline for the article on Black people" seem "POV" to you? If so, why? P0M06:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Tracing a family connection, ie, some sort of kinship article, might be quite satisfying, but it's hardly encyclopedic. In fact, who is Black and who is not is, in places where the word is meaningful (ie where "Black" is used to differentiate one group of people from another), is largely a political and social issue, not biological or genetic. Yet a worldwide kinship approach is used as premise throughout the article. Jd271807:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Tracing the kinship of Australian aborigines back to Africa is not "unencyclopedic." That is one the "fact" parts of the social constructs involved in being constructed as a "black person." Some people, as you indicate, mzy rule them in and other may rule them out. On the other hand, not many people construe Icelandic people as black for a couple of obvious reasons.P0M20:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No more than is tracing my kinship back to Africa. And that "me" could be any individual on this planet. However, "Black" is not constructed on the basis of kinship, even thoguh that is exactly how this article is constructed. What do you make, for instance of this bit I took from the Brazil discussion: "Essentially most of the black population was absorbed into the multiracial category by miscegenation." It sounds to me like the editors of this article have an unstated bloodline/kinship theory, a US lens through which the rest of the world is being categorized. Jd271820:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I am having lots of trouble to understand you. You begin with "No more than..." but who knows what sentence or idea of mine you have reference to. See what Muntuwandi has to say below. Maybe if you answer his question we can get somewhere. P0M02:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to Tracing the kinship of Australian aborigines back to Africa is not "unencyclopedic." Sorry for the unclarity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jd2718 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
It is an empirical question whether some people see their "blackness" as an inherited trait of identity or not. Some people who have participated in these discussion have been upset at being called "blacks" because of their very dark skin color. So it would appear that there is some evidence to indicate that a "black" identity is not constructed on the basis of skin color. Some "black" people are not "black" because their ancestors came from Africa and had dark skin color. Some "black" people are not "black" because they have very dark skin color themselves. Neither of these statements implies its contrary. There may well be individuals who construct their "black" identities on these two factors. But what are the other factors that you believe people can construct a "black" identity on? How do you get empirical evidence about how prevalent each of these means of construcing a "black" identity is? P0M04:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
If there is POV in the article we should pinpoint the exact areas for discussion rather than it just being a general POV.Muntuwandi13:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
this article is controversial but if they are disputes they should be highlighted directly ie sentence, paragraph. the concept of some abstract pov somewhere does not communicate the problem. until this is done there is no need to have the npov tagMuntuwandi12:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Genetics
the results of lewontins study have been confirmed by DNA because in his study he used blood groups. This was before DNA technology was available. So these are not his personal views, though I am sure he has them, they are results of his experiments.
To what comment or question is this part addressed? I am lost.P0M
Clustering- there is still much debate over clustering, some argue that it is the correlation of the DNA not the actual variation. but once again the debate at the moment still favors that clustering of traits is still insignificant to differentiate any race. This because human race is descended from one african couple who lived 150, 000. In evolutionary terms this time is insignificant considering the millions of years that hominids have been in existence.
If I am following what you are saying correctly, the amount of "slop" (in the engineering sense of the word) in the system makes only statistical statements receive lots of confirmation. For instance, Chinese people are unlikely to get skin cancer. But a doctor can't look at a Chinese patient and rule out skin cancer simply because s/he is Chinese. Or, to flip it around, what do I know about Frances if I know that Frances is Japanese? I keep asking this question in the discussions on [race] and nobody has ever taken the bait. If you wanted to round up a hundred people over two meters tall in a short period of time, one of the best places to try would be in the Netherlands. But although the average height is over 6 feet tall, that very statement implies that there are considerable numbers of people rather under two meters tall.
Blood groups though simplistic is still a valid argument. The fact that two people from the same race, such as two whites, who are have different blood ABO blood types can be incompatible for a blood transfusion and two people from a different race with the same blood type are compatible such as a black and white is an example of human variation. One may make an argument in regards to rare blood types that ethnic specific, but the keyword is rare.Muntuwandi00:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The blood groups involved are not (primarily) the ABO types that we need to know about for giving transfusions safely. They are groups defined by the fact that something in the genetic identity of individuals makes certain people produce a certain protein fraction in the blood, whereas in some other group another "substitute" protein fraction will be found. Now that we can get better genetic information we can ask, "What genetic characteristics code for the production of that protein fraction?"
In one of the books in our university library there is one that has loads of maps on the blood groups in several areas of the world. You don't find the type z people in one valley and the type x people on a mountain range while the type w people find their own niche somewhere else. They are multiply overlapping with the peaks of frequency are at some distance from one another. If these groups be taken as models for [races] (and they seem as valid a reason as any to group people according to [race]) then that suggests that in a place such as Eurasia you would find [racial] groups superimposed upon each other for parts of their ranges. (Imagine blindfolding yourself, picking up cookie cutters one after another, and thrusting each cookie cutter through the dough at random places. You'd probably be lucky to get a single whole cookie.) To me it looks like the various protein varieties may have some adaptive value to certain environments, so the genes have spread out from wherever they entered a large area to assume prominence in the parts of that range where they are the most highly adaptive. If that idea is correct, then it would strongly challenge one's unconscious assumption that all of the characteristics of a certain ancestor hang together throughout history. But that idea is disproven by the knowledge that a single individual can inherit traits from all eight grandparents. (That's because two paired chromosomes, one from grandpa and one from grandma, can swap ends. Something that looks like AAAAAAA and something that looks like BBBBBBB can twist, snap, and recombine to form something like AAABBBB and the offspring carrying that chromosome has some genes from grandpa and some from grandma.
Cavalli-Sforza's big book has information in much more detail than I can give you off the top of my head.
Another interesting question is: If some ethnic group has a rare genetic trait, perhaps the result of a relatively recent beneficial mutation, how long will it take for that trait to become present in all parts of the world? (If I remember correctly, there are some traits present in American Indian genotypes that are rarely if ever seen in other groups. But if some mutation protects against obesity and hardening of the arteries, how long will it take to spread planet-wide?P0M03:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I find it ironic that shortly after Ezeu praised the great shape the article was in, Muntawandi felt the need to make an enormous revision removing a large number of references on the grounds that old theories are obsolete (as if there were a correct definition of what it means to be Black). If your goal was to please the guy who is complaining this article is POV, it didn't work, as you are currently in an edit war with him. The article as it stands now simply duplicates information already available in articles on race, the single origin hypothesis, and human skin color, and the African diasporas, and merges them together into one incoherent hybrid. Muntawandi I understand your desire to turn this into a science article, but the term Black is seldom used in the scientific community so science shouldn't be the dominant theme of the article, especially when that information is already duplicated in other articles. I think we should focus much more on Black as a label, that way this article can offer something unique instead of just duplicating other articles. Science should only be mentioned to describe how scientists have labeled people Black, but if this article is to be anything other than a duplicate of existing articles, it needs to focus on various perspectives of Black identity Iseebias14:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
But Iseebias you say the article was better April 1st, but you were in the forefront advocating the article to be deleted. this is contradictoryMuntuwandi18:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not my wish to make this article a science article but modern science is relevant to the article. As mentioned in the article old myths like the hamitic curse say that blacks were cursed and burnt by god hence black skin. In this day and age there are still people who believe such myths. But science says the opposite, that black skin was actually a blessing necessary to survive. There are other myths around that perpetuate notions of racial superiority and inferiority. thus we see their effects in the color stratifications of many countries. once again science shows there is no fundamental biological difference between populations and that in fact the human race is just one extended family. Even though to scientist this is new, these concepts were known to most religions. The Abrahamic Religions all indicate the human race is descended from Adam and Eve, science just seems to confirm that we are all descended from one couple.
One of the problems that i see in the article is extensive use of quotes from people who are not known or who may not be credible. It is better to have explanations rather than quotes. Because the quotes are an opinion of one person. If they are not backed by facts, surveys or experiments then they may not even be true.Muntuwandi20:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
But again, you keep focusing on facts, experiments and truth. It's all about science to you and we already HAVE articles about the science of race and skin color. We even have articles about the African diasporas and the negroid race. What we don't have is an article about the history of Black as a label, whether used by scientists, sociologists, governments, or black power movements. If you want to turn this article into a duplicate of existing articles, then I'm not sure if I have the energy to stop you Iseebias20:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Mostafa Hefny is relevant because his situation illustrates the effect that racism distorts a person's own racial view point. Someone else said that most afro-arabs in the middle east aren't complaining about being classified as white, but the fact is, 1. they are not white. 2. they aren't in the US and Hefny was put in a context regarding racial perceptions in the US 3. they arent' complaining because of the social-economic benefits they get for being classified as white. Hefny's case is important becuase it gets to the heart of where and why Egypt is considered part of the "white" racial category when in fact much of Egypt is obviously indistinguishably black! --68.60.55.16204:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank god for reference #56. This refreshing response is effective in dealing with the most annoying aspect of Eurocentric bias. It is so silly to call north-east Africans caucasoid when we can plainly see that they are black african negroid people. The "Caucasoid" type has gradually increased in scale when scientists continue to unscientificly make associations between North African blacks and Europeans. The most interseting aspect is how bi-racial people of a mixture of unquestioned negroid and caucasoid parentage will routinely be classified as "Caucasoid" with negroid admixture. Physically, the middle ground is perceived in certain social situations (Egyptian and Sudanese hood) as "Caucasoid" and in others (American hood) as "negroid". In the end, the association is purely political and black people (whether called Caucasoid or not) experience the same prejudice in Sudan, Egypt, and India as they experience in the U.S.A. That alone should remind us of the irrelevance of classifying a Sudanese or Egyptian black person as a "Caucasian". Same with the Ancient Egyptians. The amount of "white" genes will not cause people to look at Tim Duncan, Halle Berry, or Barack Obama as more Caucasoid than Akhenaten, Queen Tiye, or Tutmoses... yet the Egyptians will be forced into being Caucasoid! . --68.60.55.16214:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Cavalli-Sforza is a great deal more objective than many of his critics who pick on one or another paragraph taken out of context. Look at the context and you can see that frequently what he does is say something like this: Look at all the people in region X. If you divide them according to one standard of categorization, you get groups A, B, and C as "races." If you divide them according to another standard you get groups D, E, F, G. Any two standards for categorization will put some people in the same group one time and in different groups the other time. So he is very clear that even when you are dealing with things like genetic markers, about which there is not much room for debate or discretion, you get inconsistent results. If you go beyond the kinds of measures that C-S and others in his profession work with, then an even more scrambled picture emerges.
What a single person claims for another can even be instructive. A Thai guy named Pissit once triumphantly announced that I am Jewish. He could be right (I've only even seen three out of my four grandparents, so who knows where my maternal line originated), but the evidence he used to make his claim proved more about his racism and lack of objectivity than my genetic status.
Generally speaking, however, the really instructive cases will be where some "authoritative" group looks at an individual and makes one [racial] determination, perhaps another "authoritative group" looks at that individual and makes a different [racial] determination, and perhaps the rest of us would look at the individual and wonder how he or she could possibly fit into either of those groups. Such discordant notes can cut both ways. Some people have an American Indian (partial) genetic and cultural heritage and proudly regard themselves as Lakota, Cherokee, or whatever. The BIA may agree with them and give them an identity card that indicates their membership in that group. But white people may look at them and say, "How can you be Indian? You look just like us?" And, more unfortunately, some American Indians may want to exclude them from the group that they believe they have the sole right to define.
To me, it is more important that you are whatever you are in specific detail. The contribution this article can make to general understanding is two-fold. One constribution is to show the richness in diversity of the people that are variously called "black." The other constribution is to show the ridiculousness of the small-minded people who rule people out and rule people in according to their own subjective needs. One has to be really small to need to knock somebody else to the ground and stand on him/her in order to make oneself 5 inches taller. Strangely, one person can try that by saying, "X is Lakota," and another can try to do it by saying, "X is not Lakota." They say much about themselves and nothing much about X. P0M17:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. I recently came across this article, describing a certain Dr. Goldstein who has collected DNA samples from the Lemba people of Zimbabwe, and found Y chromosomes of a Cohen modal haplotype characteristic of Jewish priesthood (this is being used on many websites to claim that Semitic people built Great Zimbabwe). Anyway, whether the study is correct or not, the Lemba apparently claim Jewish ancestry. Does that mean Lemba are not black, or does it mean that Semitic people are black, or both or neither? The Lemba of course are black by all points of view, Y chromosomes notwithstanding. This exemplifies the futility of trying to define "Black" as a scientifically quantifiable racial grouping. Black is nothing but an ascription based on subjective criteria that is used to identity certain groups of people. Even in the USA, where people are still legally classified according to race, the Census Bureau notes that the concept of race reflects self-identification, and that racial categories are socio-political constructs, and are not scientific or anthropological in nature[8]. For that reason, I am agreeing with Iseebias and reverting the article to this version, as it gives a better perspective. This does not mean that I endorse claims made in that version, but that I believe it is a better version to build on. --Ezeu18:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Ezeu actually both. 1. The Jews of the world end up becoming that much more black because of the presence of the Lemba. 2. The Lemba in addition to being black are also Jewish. Yes it works both ways, but that does not contradict. Blackness is not seperate from being an Ethnic group. Of that I agree it's subjective, but only in regards to appearance. Being black does not diminish the legitimate link to an ethnic group. Jews are no less Jewish if they are also black. On the otherside of the same coin, a Black person's blackness does not diminish if they are also of another ethnic group. Were that the case, we would have to define which ethnic groups are "black" groups and which ones are not. Which will go straight to the "Egyptian" debate from which much of this contention really is about. The ancient Egyptian culture is black (relatively speaking), yet some argue against that because that means that black people are 1. not a monolithic group of identically looking individuals. 2. The Egyptian society was not distant or detached from their heritage (Puntland in Somalia/Ethiopia). As the story goes, some will try to redefine Ethiopian people as also, not black, as they carry their own legacy and are the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians. Remember, so much of Western Civilization (the origin of our writing system, the first book of the Bible, the earliest elaborate social structures, the earliest form of monotheism...) comes from a group of people who looked black, who lived in a region that was filled with black people, and which is constantly being redefined to be "not" black. So the right thing to do is not to diminish or stratify blackness from any other group. --68.60.55.16207:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Suppose I claimed direct descent from King Sundiata of Mali? So with that as a basis I self-identified as "black" and explained my tow headed, blue eyed present-day appearance as the result of the broadmindedness of the ancestors in my line over the intervening 15 centuries or so? I could make the "ascription" of blackness, but I think most people would not accept the construction that I put on my claimed ancestry. Perhaps I am narrow minded, but my reaction to an acquaintance of mine who claimed direct descent from King David was something like, "What difference can that possibly make now?" You say, "The Lemba of course are black by all points of view," so I think that you too imagine that most people at least will look at the major factors when making their social constructs. The exceptions would be the "one drop" theorists who presumably would die of shame if they traced their own ancestry back far enough, and maybe the people like me who claim that the differences between me and my friend Malunga are the specific points on which we differ and none other.
The problem you have is that the Lemba have been practicing their Jewish faith and kept much of their identity as Jews through the ages. How then can one group of Jews be less Jewish for being black, yet another group, which adopted German names, lived equally far from Israel, and became more like their surrounding people be not only unquestionably Jewish, but be the authority from which all other Jews must be judged? Another coiencidence that the authority has a white face and the one being questioned for legitimacy has a black face. So again, how does being Jewish or not being Jewish get oppositionally defined from being "black"? Why are white Jews not diminished in their Jewishness for being white? --68.60.55.16207:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
So even if we admit that there may be a dimension of social confirmation involved such that, socially, it matters whether my group accepts my ascription of myself as "Pretender to the throne of Mali" (and maybe that group's reaction is an important influence on whether or not I am put into a mental hospital ;-). But even looking at things that way, the places where different groups draw the line between "black" and "non-black" are essentially arbitrary.
The most important part of the whole thing is what is done to people on the basis of these ascriptions. Malunga is a better person than Moran, but he would get treated worse in lots of social contexts. Finding pictures of two identical-looking people, one of whom is treated as superior and one of whom is treated as inferior simply because of where the group doing the treating has drawn an arbitrary line may make my case most closely. P0M20:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Inaccuracies
There are several inaccuracies in the version April 1st
to start with this table
Post World War II". 2005. August 28, 2006.</ref> does not site who the anthropologists that are surveyed, neither does it give their rationale, it looks like just their opinion. It thus does not seem to qualify as a reputable source.
The quotations of rushton and satel who are controversial figures, how are they relevant. do they have the authority to define who is black and where are they drawing there reasoning.
Maybe the article should not attempt to evaluate the scientific validity of their claims but should simply point out what people who held their "science" in high regard tried to do to black people on the basis of their claims. People can be influential without being right.P0M
Troy Duster and ethicist Pilar Ossorio - once again the names of people who do not have articles on wikipedia is unhelpful because we do not know who they are and their credibility.
Maybe the fact that nobody seems to have heard of them indicates that regardless of what they thought and said it did not have any appreciable impact on how 'black" people see themselves or on how "non-black" people treat them.P0M
the sections on black vs multiracial focus heavily on multiracial side. They do not mention anything on the development of the black identity in the US but bypass black to multiracial.
There are even some inaccuracies for instance "reverse one drop rule". This terminology is not used in academics. It is incorrect to say that in Latin America one drop makes you white. Race relations are a lot more complicated than that. For example in Brazil there are probably a dozen color categories that an Afro-brazilian may be in.
Who is James Davis?
Who is Jon Michael Spencer?
I think I remember looking him up on Google. I don't recall being impressed by his importance or influence. P0M03:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The whole "one drop" thing may not have been properly described or substantiated even for "one black drop." "One drop" is too fuzzy even for crazy laws. Laws would have to say something like, "any ancestor of X color within the previous N generations..." Has the article cited even one law defining who is black? P0M03:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Capitalization?
I was wondering whether anyone else thinks the whole political and stylistic controversy over when (or if) "White" and "Black" should be capitalized needs to be addressed somewhere in the article. Mdumas4307320:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The rule is that proper nouns get capitalized. Does "white" name a thing the way that "Jupiter" names a planet? Does it even name a thing the way that "Social Democrat" names a political party? Personally, I don't think of myself as being "a white." I suspect that people who identify themselves in terms of white skin color may prefer other, less pallid, terms.
Somebody who says, e.g., "I am a Methodist," can generally give you a fairly clear idea of what that designation means. Even if all the person can articulate is something like, "I belong to the First Methodist Church of Lickskillet, Nebraska," given that information a curious person can fairly quickly find out what the organizational structure of the Methodist church is, what the prominent teachings are, what hymns are traditionally sung, etc. If somebody asks me what I mean if I say I am white, all I can tell them is that my skin is white. In contrast to my being white, I have a clearer idea of what it means for me to have been raised in a Presbyterian church community, what it means to be an American, what it means to be a scientist, what it means to be an agnostic--and even in the last two cases there would be no reason to capitalize these terms. There is no Agnostic Church, incorporated in Delaware, with world headquarters at 1 Forty-second Street, NYC. It's just a trait. And it would be almost sacreligious to capitalize "scientist." Science is not some club that one can gain entrance to. It's something that one either does or fails to do.
As for the article, the issue of whether to capitalize "black" is parallel to the issue of whether anyone whose skin is darker than some arbitrary standard is "black," or whether there are non-phenotypical standards for "blackness." I doubt that it would be helpful in the article to double up on discussion of this problem. Maybe stating that there is such a parallel would be o.k., but I suspect it would just detract from the general clarity of the article. The issue the article addresses is, as I understand it, who are the people who get called "black," what is the history of this categorization or series of categorizations, what are the histories and accomplishments of those who are so categorized, and what are the real-world consequences of being given a categorization that sometimes stigmatizes people? Asking whether to capitalize the term or not may amount to asking which of the above categorizations is the true one, and in Wikipedia we are supposed to avoid trying to be the arbiter of such questions. P0M05:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there any consensus on this issue among linguists or scholars? Either way, I think this article should be consistent (although maybe there are times to capitalize it and not capitalize it). There should be a set of guidelines on when to use which form for people writing the article. Bonus Onus02:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Racism is a crime without bail in Brazil. There is no such thing as "upward mobility and education results in reclassification of individuals into lighter skinned categories" because, in this country, each person classifies their own color in the census. What classification are you talking about? This information is false, besides being offensive to anyone who actually LIVES in this country, understands its legislation and is not taking their information from jingoist american books. CuriousDog13:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Racism is illegal in the US too, but that hasn't prevented the racial polarization in the US. The point of the paragraph in question is to discuss how class, education and social status play a role in race relations in Brazil. In the US one can argue that even middle class and wealthy blacks face considerable discrimination. It is said that race relations are more flexible in Brazil. The reclassification is not a legal classification but I gather it is the dozens of everyday classifications such as those listed herezonalatina eg Mulatinha, mulatta, morena clara. On the census there are only five categories. black white brown indigena yellow. If you are from brazil and know from personal experience then that would be helpful as long as the information that you include is cited from reputable sources. The information in question is cited from books and much of the literature from other sources is consistent in discussing how class and social status play a role in race relations.Muntuwandi14:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I am From Brazil
Something that American and European scholars who come to Brazil fail to notice is that there are very little, if any, 100% white people in our country. Those actors that we see in TV and who may seem white to an American or European scholar have most probably either indigenous or african ascendents whose traces though not perceivable in their skin or face are easily detected in their genes. A genetic study of Dayane dos Santos, a famous Brazilan olympic athlete, revealed that she is 39,7% African, 40,8% European and 19,6% Indigenous. Although her skin color is black, it could as well be white and in this case she would be said to be white. That´s what differs the question of race in Brazil and in the USA. Renato Costa11:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Medical differences
This statement:
Some scholars argue that even though there is more variation within a population than between populations, the small between population variation may have implications in medical science
seems odd, as if this is not a universal view among the relevant scholars. Surely no modern scientists deny that there are some medical differences between races, e.g. in susceptibility to sickle cell anemia and malaria? (Blacks being more susceptible to the former than whites as a side-effect of being less genetically susceptible to the latter, presumably an evolutionary adaptation as malaria is more common in the tropics.) Ben Finn13:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
what exactly is odd. be welcome to paraphrase it better. The argument of Race and health is still going on. Yes some such as Neil Risch argue that these differences are important. Whereas others say that race itself should not be a factor but the specific trait such as sickle cell disease should be used as a criteria. For example even though africans have higher rates for sickle cell, the trait is found in the middle east and India. Basically it is not race, but people who are located in malaria prone regions of the world who are likely to have the trait. In fact some Africans who do not live in Malaria prone areas show low incidence levels of sickle cell.
In addition intermixing of people will very soon make race in medicine of much less importance. For example if two blacks who passed for white were both carriers of sickle cell. If their white descendents married and had children, they could have sickle cell disease. This is already happening with diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis or MS. Europeans tend to have the highest rates of MS whereas Africans have some of lowest rates. But MS is being increasingly encountered among African Americans, eg Richard Pryor or Montel Williams. Muntuwandi14:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Arab World View = Bullshit
Although I'm undoubtedly sure some black Arabs/Latinos consider themselves white (for whatever categorical reasons). The vast majority are not viewed as such in their own countries and aren't seen as such by themselves (it's an undeniable fact when looking in the mirror). But they do consider themselves Arab, which is an unrelated word to white or black. And although Middle Eastern Arabs (particularly white ones) have continuously believed none Arab blacks to be inherently inferior. Black Arabs themselves have never shown any signs of being shunned on the premiss of their color or shunning their color as it may be.
In my opinion, and in the opinion of others I have spoken to, the terms black and brown in themselves are points of contention. That much is obvious. However, instead of arguing that point, which will get me nowhere, I am petitioning for the use of "black people" and "brown people" as opposed to simply "blacks" and "browns". It is not merely a minor linguistic discrepancy, but the latter terms remove the human element from the classification, making the former more favortable if we MUST use either. Of course "blacks" and "browns" are not as blatantly derogatory, but an argument could be made that they are covertly so, and covert racism is the flavor of the day. There is no valid argument that can be made for NOT using "people", and therefore I am making the change throughout the article. Even if it is the case that "blacks" and "browns" are acceptable to some people - NONE of those people would object to "black people" and "brown people". That "blacks" and "browns" are "shorter" terms is entirely irrelevant; here I am addressing Muntuwandi. The N-word is shorter than "African-American", but that does not become justification to use that term. The only argument can be made in favor of "blacks" and "browns" instead of including "people" would have to be a fundmentally racist one in itself. Do no revert this change without better justification. Godheval19:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
the lead reads "Black people is a racial, political, sociological or cultural classification of people".I don't know whether that is grammatically correct.
If we use blacks whites, and browns equally then it is not derogatory. I do not mind the use of black people, but I do feel in certain instances blacks, whites and browns is suitable. Some grammatical variation is also necessary to avoid monotony. For instance the phrase "black people and brown people" now appears five times. If this was a speech it would sound to repetitive because "people" is appearing 10 times when by inferrence blacks and browns refers to people. In addition you left out "white people", in which case the word "people" would appear even more.Muntuwandi19:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
In cases of redundancy, perhaps the article should refer more specifically to the group(s) in question. I would disagree that "blacks" is not derogatory, for reasons I describe here. With regards to "whites" vs. "white people" - there is no dehumanizing connotation to either term, because if anything, "whiteness" invariably and globally confers higher status. Therefore, in that case, it is a moot point Godheval20:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
When it comes to race, any term can be derogatory, it just depends on the context, who is saying it and why etc. Eg blacks can call themselves whatever they want but non blacks have to be careful of which term they use when referring to blacks. a quick poll from google news shows that "blacks" is still in use, even by major news outlets and is more popular than black people
with racial definitions are never satisfying to everyone. I disagree that whites deserve to b e called whites and blacks should called black people, in my personal opinion we should be held to the same standard.
Many of reference articles use "blacks" such as these [9], [10].
Good prose will always maneuver to eliminate redundancy. It is for this reason that the I can understand that you feel uncomfortable with the use of the term blacks but that is your personal opinion. Formally it is still in use and thus is still acceptableMuntuwandi20:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Those articles mean nothing. Just because a term is commonly used in the media does not justify it as proper or acceptable. In the case of the United States, where racism is an institution moreso than an everyday practice, there are many things which are taken for granted that when subjected to closer examination then become unacceptable. The term "blacks" is one of these cases, which for some reason, has been both recognized and disregarded at turns, as unacceptable. Every media outlet you would list is undoubtedly run by the white mainstream, and therefore they do not necessarily give any concessions to "black people" with regards to what is and is not appropriate, save for not using obvious euphemisms. That they even budge there is to placate the sensibilities of other white people, because if the majority still agreed that the N-word was appropriate and acceptable, it would appear in mainstream media. Godheval20:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, it's okay that you disagree on my point about "whites" and "white people". However, it really doesn't create a double standard to apply people in one instance, and not in the other, for the reasons I stated - that white people have no experience with dehumanization. Consider any other double standard and you'll see what I mean. In any case, I wouldn't argue for keeping "whites" in the article if you decided to change it. Godheval20:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
we disagree. I have cited information and sources so this is not just my opinion. The media may be biased etc but wikipedia works on citing sources not our opinions. If you have proof that blacks is not acceptable, present it. The link you showed is a dead end.
I would favor a mix of styles blacks , black people, african american or ancestry model. Each has pros and cons. Not everyone accepts the ancestry model so I disagree with the some of the changes you have made. and not everyone prefers black, some the noun others the adjective.Muntuwandi20:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The link I gave wasn't a citation, just an explanation of my own stance. Corrected here However, you didn't really cite anything, either. Showing a google news search for "blacks" doesn't mean that all the articles coming up are even talking about "black people", nor does it mean that people themselves advocate the use of the term. So both of those links are nonsense. As I said earlier, just because the mainstream media uses a term, does not mean it is acceptable. Honestly, I don't even understand your argument on this point. My way - NO ONE is offended. It's that simple. Godheval02:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
A parallel case might be the use of the expressions "Jewish people" and "Jews." If somebody just starts talking about "Jews," it can easily be interpreted as the beginning of a diatribe. It is usually considered polite to say "Jewish people," the reason being that that expression makes it clear that the speaker regard them as people first and Jewish secondarily. If somebody then went on to make some comparisons between "Jews and gentiles", I don't think anybody would feel offended. The reason is that the fundamental stance of the speaker has already been made clear, and people can deal with the use of shorter forms of reference later in the article or discussion. P0M01:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with POM. It is context that makes the terms offensive not the term itself. but Godheval, you have not given evidence that it is offensive therefore as it stands, it is still your personal opinion. I have provided several sources where the term blacks is used to show that it is accetable. Other than the fact that all racial terms are sensitive, there is nothing wrong with the term "blacks". For this reason you have to provide evidence, not from your personal page, and this evidence must be closer to Mainstream belief or opinions not WP:FRINGE.Muntuwandi03:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
In addition your philosophy is too inconsistent and personal. I have not seen any literature that says its okay to use "whites" but not okay to use "blacks".Muntuwandi04:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Julian Bond is one of the stalwart figures in American civil rights affairs, and a very savvy and suave person, too. I just did a search for "Julian Bond" and "speech", and in the first listing I found in one of his recent speeches: "No black could ever come to a white person's front door." The first time I found "black" in that speech it was in the expression "black people." P0M04:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, I fail to even understand why you are fighting me on this. If even one person is offended by the way something is worded, and it can be fixed so that it works for everyone, then why not? I've already exhausted all possible explanations I have for why I want to change it, yet you keep talking in circles, returning to points I've already debated - such as "mainstream validity". The "mainstream" is white. You also seemed to miss where I said that I had no problem with rewording all instances of "whites" to "white people", even though I throughly explained why that was not a double standard. So, there are only two reasons I can think of that you insist on keeping the present wording - 1) to lord over the article and "be right", or 2) you are yourself, to some degree, a racist. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume number 1. Either way, I no longer care. I've come to realize that I am too forward-thinking for average minds, and Wikipedia has demonstrated to me on two occasions now that it is run by - your favorite people - the mainstream, those run of the mill, tragically indoctrinated, morons. It is exactly because they are so impersonal, so bureaucratic, so hive-minded, that they will never achieve even a semblance of real humanity. Hm, but I digress. You win. Congrats. Godheval13:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
This is not about winning or loosing. When you have an issue you have to back it up with facts, or citations otherwise it is original reasearch, see WP:NOR.Muntuwandi14:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
LOL! I'm Black and I didn't know chocolate faces would redirect me to this acticle! xD Maybe I should check it out...--71.36.176.17420:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Bigger question. Why did you search for "chocolate faces". You're taking a fair bit of umbrage for somebody who searched it...
{{(POV)}}
Slave traders never had any "fear of uprisings" by the people whom they used as their merchandise called "black ivory" by certain people. Velocicaptor17:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Trading of slaves continued until circa 1860
Hundreds of slave ships sailed across the North Atlantic Ocean after 1807, especially in the 1820s, 1830s, and 1840s. The slave trade did not "end in 1807" (see the article). That statement is an example of some flagrant propaganda. Velocicaptor17:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The legal slave trade ended in 1807 with regards to the US. After that it was illegal with britain patrolling the seas. Yes the illegal slave trade continued with the last reported slave ship in cuba circa 1870. However the numbers were severly reduced.Muntuwandi17:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I glimpsed a mention on a lift further up the page of 'Iberian Black'. Does this term regard Spaniards etc who have African ancestry somewhere, or am I way off? Would this also be what 'Moorish' means? Lady BlahDeBlah23:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Eighth century Muslim invaders of Spain were called "Moors." The cultural and material civilization traces they left were called "Moorish." Those who stayed on after the initial invasion were called Moors too, and by now their traces have probably been diluted to the point that few if any people in Spain identify themselves as descendents of the original Moors, but that's just a guess.
Okay...I know what I had in mind for the term, as I use it as a description for a Basque character of mine...I just wondered whether there's any feasible truth to it. Lady BlahDeBlah00:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Ashy?
As someone about as white as the day is long, I don't understand this phenomenon. If it doesn't get its own article, shouldn't it be in this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
African American girl 2007.jpg
This image shows a typical African American girl, although she is of German descent. I am sick and tired of you removing it. The image shows a good depiction of that type of woman. I am re-enstating it again. Sarah Goldberg23:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Firstly I am not the only one removing it. two other editors have removed it, so you have not sought a consensus. You are also in violation of the 3RR rule. I would suggest you revert yourself to avoid possibly being blocked.Muntuwandi23:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a great addition. (although I would crop the top off a bit) There are no (typical, as in average, not famous) African American biracals in the gallery. (I think, anyway.) I don't agree with Chavez being in the gallery though, as I would not consider him as 'black' and don't know anyone, personally, who would either. I don't know about other country's views on that, though, and don't know how he "self-identifies". - JeenyTalk00:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
There are two reasons why I took that picture off. Firstly, there are more than enough pictures that illustrate the point. Including several non notable individuals. Secondly, I'd prefer it if those galleries only contained notable people whose ancestry is verifiable. CJ00:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The picture has no context attached to it. There is no independent information indicating who she is, whether she is african american, whether she is biracial, it is just based on the author. I do not know for sure but it smacks of Vanity press .Muntuwandi00:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
She is biracial, she is of no African descent. I know this girl, and no she is not my daughter, she is not related to me. I'm white, she's not. Sarah Goldberg00:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
But, you said she was African-American biracial. Now she has no African descent? Although, I do understand how she could be considered "black" no matter if she was of African descent (via slavery 400 years ago). So, what is her descent, other than German? Just curious. - JeenyTalk00:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Some articles I've been involved with have gotten away with galleries and other articles have had editors so firmly opposed to galleries that they have been taken down. One article on spiders happens to be about a really beautiful kind of animal, and nobody has objected to two or three rows of pictures of pictures. So one purpose for a gallery can just be to make beautiful pictures available to people. On the other hand, the gallery of all spider picture in the Commons is huge, so somebody has to exercise some judgment on the "over-kill" level.
Besides beauty, the other reason for including pictures is that they can be instructive. In this case, one reasonable requirement would be that each picture should show something special about black people. One instructive thing to show is the range of individuals that all get called black. (Maybe we should add some black Dutch? ;-) Having people with known backgrounds can make it clear that they really are called black. (I know some people who are identified as American Indians, but you'd have to have their BIA cards to prove it to anybody.)
There are also possibly legal issues involved in some cases. I don't know how U.S. law has evolved over the last few decades. Nor do I know how the law reads in other countries that may be involved. It used to be that if I took a picture of somebody and wanted to use it in an advertisement for a soft drink I had to get the person to sign a model release. Their image was considered their image, and I couldn't just take a snapshot of somebody and use it. I don't think people can take a picture of Colin Powell and use his picture in a car advertisement for that reason. People can take a picture of him giving a speech and publish that in the newspaper because he is a public figure and because he is doing something out in public. I'm not sure of the picture that Ms. Goldberg provided. Do we need a model release? What if it turns out she doesn't want her picture used here? (I have the same qualm about the pictures of people of different races used in the race article.)
Anyway, it is generally not considered appropriate for one to put one's own picture in an article, to push one's own book in an article, etc. P0M02:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
For one who's been involved in "model release" situations. One has to sign a release to agree to "release" their image to whatever agency or photographer for any purpose. When one does, that image then belongs to the company or individual who took the photo, therefore, they now have the copyright. It's that way here in the US. At least, it is, commercially. That is, someone in the business, whose occupation or intent is to model/act/speak etc., and expects something of value, whether that be monetary or to "get one's foot in the door" as an "extra" and one who does not belong to SAG, etc., or other such union organization -- Even if the person does belong to a union of such, they can waiver the "fee scale" but has to sign a release. But, does NOT apply to individuals without a paid membership to one of the unions. But, anyone has the right to sue in a US court, but it is then left to the court to decide if it merits the time, etc. So whoever allows their photo to be taken and does not belong to a union, it is the photographer's property. Now, with all those "buts" (you can tell I'm no lawyer) -- in other words, it's best to err on the side of caution. :) Sorry for blabbering and all the "buts'. :/ - JeenyTalk03:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Just from the standpoint of politeness we ought to know that we are not offending somebody.
I know the legal situation is probably unclear. I'm pretty sure that if photographers take a picture of people watching a parade from the sidelines then the newspaper doesn't need a model release. P0M04:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, exactly! That's what I started out to say. Honest. But, somehow/way was compelled to write an incoherent diatribe, that forked off into lala land. lol. :) I will never learn to make a point, without a bunch unnecessary babbling. Oh no, I have to go on and on and on and on. D'oh! Sorry. - JeenyTalk04:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Biological factors
There are no biological factors used to "define" black people besides skin pigmentation, so I've removed the mention of biology from the lead paragraph. --Ezeu04:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if what you say is always true. For instance, isn't an albino child born of two black parents still considered black by his/her family and community? Albino people do not look like people, white, black, or whatever, who have ordinary pigmentation, so on encountering such a child I suspect that people might look at hair, nose, lips, etc., and guess that the child's parents had to be black. Or, to turn the argument around, I could shave off the remaining hair on my head and get a good make-up person to color my skin as dark as possible. (Oh, and I'd have to get contacts that would mask my blue eyes, too.) Do you think I would "look black" to people who had grown up in an African community? Or would they imagine that I must be from India, Sri Lanka, or some other distant place?
Of course is you are making an adamant stand on the logic of the words, then "black human" is any human who is "black" (whatever range of shades that includes). But we have seen many examples of people from a non-African part of the globe who reject the label "black." So I would have to wonder what "biological factors" they go on.
Personally I am rather torn between the desire not to have people defined by superficial characteristics, biological or otherwise, and the desire to let people who have been so defined have a forum to discuss their accomplishments, triumphs, challenges, etc. So the whole issue of "defining" people leaves a sour and "iron-ic" taste in my mouth. I suspect that defining people is a species of sin, one that falls under "Judge not that ye be judged." Still, we have to report on the sins as well as the sorrows they produce... P0M05:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The picture on top, with the caption reading "A Maasai man in Kenya" is wrong. First, she is a woman, and she's not black. Is this vandalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.85.31 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
Black people, or Black, is part of a political or historical terminology used by some cultures or nations. The classification is based on the variation in human skin color and sometimes used by a group to define another section of humanity. It has also been used by communities and individuals to identify their own ethnic backgound, especially African Americans. The validity of the term itself has been the subject of debate; opponents cite the extremely low genetic diversity of the human race, others identify it as a unifying concept for discriminated cultures or communities. The term was notably influential in the United States of America, appearing in laws and censuses during the history of that nation, and maintaining currency in academic discussion and the published media. The apartheid era of South African history identified people of African birth and ethnicity as Black and indigenous inhabitants of Australia, India and elsewhere were sometimes informally or offensively described in this way.
The sociological classification of 'black people' can be a complex intermingling of historical, cultural and familial circumstances; it has, however, been widely used in the reduction or removal of rights and other discrimination in of some nations's past. In the english speaking world, the term is also associated with policies in former colonies, Australia, South Africa and the U.S., during the eighteenth and nineteenth century. In european countries such as Spain, France and Germany, it can refer to an ethnic group whose more recent origin may be the african continent. A contrasting term, white people, refers to those whose ethnicity is mostly northern european; a group whose skin often had lower levels of melanin than other ethnic groups with a greater diversity of skin colour.
With a copyedit and some brevity, I think that this lead to the article should replace the current one. The term needs to be carefully defined and given a world view. The currently oversimplified, geographically limited view of the lead introduces the term, but it is not given in a context of the arbitrary and subjective nature of this topic and the associated concepts. The term is used throughout the article as an absolute, despite discussion of the difficulty in ascribing it to an individual or community. The formerly racist laws of the US and elsewhere are the few verifiable references for this term. I can find no encylopedic or dictionary definition for "Black people", only "Black". This would, of course, be meaningless to people who live(d) in societies with a more usual variation in skin tone. The use of the term in a sociological and legal sense is verifiably harmful, thus the ream of laws that have attempted to counter this part of Western history. The term has been adopted by communities, this appropriation of an adversaries opprobrium is frequent in other social revolutions. Taking pride in, what is after all, a circumstantial and superficial aspect of people is an effective counter to denigration [pun intended] and abrogation of civil rights. The term became important to a culture whose lack of variation in skin colour was notable in the regions that they invaded or colonised. Other cultures used equally arbitrary distinctions in justifying their expeditions, such as religious differences, but former english colonies frequently made reference to 'colour'. Most other interpretations of class, worthiness, ability and origin are, and have been, widely disputed or effectively negated. If others can see the merit in this suggestion, they are free to edit it here. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions12:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
A long intro runs the risk of introducing a POV. I think the current one is simple enough to avoid controversy. The intro you propose is bringing in issues of colonialization, racism, discrimiation. By doing so is silently equating black with colonialization, or discrimination which is a POV and and some may find it condescending. It is a narrow view of black like thinking every black person enjoys hip-hop.Muntuwandi12:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
My dissection of the current version:
Blackis a racial, political, sociological or cultural classification of people. ["is"=absolute: actually a highly subjective and contested classification] No people are literally colored black [OK ... !?], but many people who have dark skin colorare considered to be. [How? and by whom?]
Some assert that only people of relatively recent African descent are black, while others argue that black may refer to individuals with dark skin color regardless of ethnic origin. [and many others do not consider this a practical distinction. Why is determination of this important and how is it done.][3][this is commentary not a reference][4][this is an online dictionary, not a pertinent ref]
My view, and that of international organisations, sociologists, geneticists, legal professionals and historians, is that the term is divisive and unworkable in application. The label "black people" can be adopted from oppressive policies and used as a source of pride, but this is a reaction to bigotry and abrogation of human rights. Others acept the label, and associated baggage, through a process of hegemony. Many think that being labelled in this way is oppression, historically this was very true. But I'm repeating myself. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions15:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The lead can be modified. but anything in the lead that mentions discrimination, racism or colonialization is POV. Black people existed long before these concepts came into being.Muntuwandi17:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
That is incorrect, the term is POV and this needs to be identified. I will be blunt, "is a racial ... classification" is inherently racist. It assumes that this is a universally accepted distinction. It is not, please reread my comment. I addressed this matter on talk page to avoid a debate on the subject here. Please provide a citation that the people you label as 'black' described themselves as such before 'white' people informed them of this. The only reference I can find to "black people" is after these events, notably during the slave trade and in obselete theories of the nineteenth century. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions17:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
This is an old argument. there is a notion that the term black was imposed on people only recently by whites. I beg to differ. Humans have a natural tendency to classify people based on whatever is the criteria of the time. When whites first came to east africa they were called Muzungu by the africans, this implies a differentiation from themselves. by doing so they had defined themselves as implicitly as black. When Langston Hughes a light skinned African American travelled to Africa to connect with his roots, he was frustrated because the Africans did not treat him as an African but rather as a white man. This means the africans had defined themselves and the one drop rule that was imposed in the US to define blacks there, had no effect in Africa. Which means that blacks had defined themselves.
That is a fallacious argument. Muzunga, according to our document, means "one who moves around" and ... "became synonymous with "white person" because of the traders' complexion. I have no doubt that many cultures had names for newcomers or strangers, there is a similar term in Nyungar for the people who showed up in their country for instance. This did not change their conception or name for themselves, it probably changed their world view. That people recognise difference is not in contention, but it does not imply that is there is objective view on this. The example of Hughes only supports the proposition that it is a highly subjective term. What do laws and rulees in the US have to do with the African continent, other than the colonisation and slavery imposed by Anglos? The conclusion of your syllogism is fallacious, being based on licensed premises. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions20:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
This argument of black being imposed on by whites is condescending because it implies that the poor blacks cannot even name themselves and they had to wait for europeans to come and give them a derogatory name. As you have read from the article blacks have chosen terms for themselves. First they called themselves Africans, meanwhile whites had used all kinds of derogatory names, but they chose Africans. In 1835 they then chose for themselves the word Negro and colored. Whites conformed to their preferences for formal use because lincoln uses the terms colored. After the civil rights era blacks chose the word "black". They could have chosen any other color but they chose black. So this implying that whites imposed the word when as you can see several times blacks chose a term for themselves, if they didn't like it, they could have chosen something else.
Muntuwandi18:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You have twice tossed out the word condescending, it is not applicable here. Neither do I doubt that people can name themselves, derogatory or otherwise. Once again, you use the term 'Black' (and poor black) as if we know who you mean. I do not, for the reasons I have outlined and that you have failed to address. People may have elected to use the word, to suggest that they coined it after the 60s is ludicrous. If someone 'opts into' the label, that is all well and good. Many did not have a choice and this remains a substantial part of any discussion of the term 'Black people', they DID NOT choose it. This discussion would be shorter if you would produce citations, rather than the contradictory 'received wisdom' you seem to be parroting. I'm sorry to inform you of this fact: the world is not an extension of the US, its history or its remarkable unwillingnes to shed the compulsion to categorize its citizens by an arbitary terminology. Please bear in mind that this was a system of assumed superiority and that it is used by racists as a factually based categorization. Do you consider it one? ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions20:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate any input regarding the proposed lead paragraphs. It seems a reasonable starting point for an improved introduction. The system of laws introduced in various countries are worth a mention there, for example. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Mixed ancestry category
there is no need to have a category of mixed ancestry because it is too ambiguous. where will one draw the line to say who is mixed and who is not. The category should be possibly even deleted.Muntuwandi13:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree but only to a point. Because there ARE many of mixed race who consider themselves black. I'm not saying that's a good argument, but it is the truth as I know it. - JeenyTalk22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Adding blacks to a category of mixed race ancestry serves no purpose. In which case we would have to add whites, Native Americans and Asians, groups with which blacks have been mixing with. By doing so we make up the whole world. Frankly this category is a waste of time and unnecessary distraction. I will assume good faith but it seems like a candidate for possible troll like| intentions.Muntuwandi22:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Better Article Name
I think the article would be better entitled 'Capoid and/or Congoid because it's speaks of characteristics associated with a more monolithic group/stock of people as opposed to a group classified under social racial implications. Furthermore, Blacks of the world are more aesthetically diverse than what the article indicates. It feeds into stereotypes. Relir21:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Capoids and Congoids is not the same as black people. This article is about black people.----DarkTea22:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the Congoid article has been redirected to this one. The Capoid still exists. Both groups are from which Black people, Black culture, and Black identity evolved. Since this is the case, there should be distinction made between Congoid and Black people. Also, this article stereotypes Blacks as all having dark skin and certain features when in fact, Black people encompass every aesthetic under the sun. Also, there are different aspects of Black people: social, cultural, and, genetic and geographic. There is a non African Diaspora aspect of Black identity that is not covered in the article, yet this aspect has the same social roots. This article needs to be expanded and broken up into, at least, two separate articles. Relir19:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, there's already an African diaspora article. Secondly, this article does cover a very wide world view. I'd hardly say that it primarily covers the united states. Based on that, I feel it's appropriate to pull your globalize tag. That's not saying that this article doesn't need expansion. It does. But I have to wonder if you've been looking at an older version of the article. CJ20:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
BBC Brazil genetic study
I commented out the section. It is poorly written, and the refs are in Portuguese. My Portuguese is very limited, but I think this test was done on a few famous people. Anyway, isn't it commonly known that people of Brazil are of mixed race? I just didn't want the article to get out of hand. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can make a decision about this. Possible re-word and translation. Thanks. - JeenyTalk00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Many brazilians are mixed race. the study was done on the Y chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA. the person who added the information to the article left out some of the crucial details. With both the Y and mtdna if you have one ancestor in your patrilineal or matrilineal line of descent who is of a different race, say in the last 500 years, then your y-chromosome or mtDNA will be characteristic of a different race. This is certainly not a good indicator of admixture, because all it says is that you have at least one ancestor of a different race. The pattern in the americas of mixed race people was that of a european y chromosome and an African or Native American mtDNA. Because European Men fathered children with african and Native american women and not much the other way around. The situation is reversed in modern times because many more black men date white women than the other way around. the person who added to the article didn't mention that 85% of the respondents had african mtDNA.Muntuwandi00:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Muntuwandi. I didn't think it was a good indicator, as you said. But, like I said, I wasn't sure. And I didn't see the 85% at all either, and that translates in any language. Of course I didn't read the whole thing, just words I could understand, which was less than 35%. :) - JeenyTalk00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The astounding claim of a connection between 'race' and genetics needs an extraordinary citation. I could not find anything in the reference section that would support this. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions06:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
"Race" has a zillion definitions. The way "race" is defined by most people in Brazil, a genetic definition of [race] would have to go down to the genes that control things like hair color to have any relevance. What generally happens, I would imagine, is that any assertions about the genetics of an individual are inferred from visible traits. The way most people in the U.S. categorize others by [race] doesn't even go as far as asking, e.g., a black person, "Do you have any ancestors that did not derive from Africa?"
The facts of "driving while black," "competing for jobs while black," "trying to live a normal life while black," etc. have much more to do with this article than genetic complexities. What real-world difference does it make to Freedom Gaskill if one of his remote ancestors was a Moor in Wales? What does one know about Freedom Gaskill if one knows that he had such an ancestor? Does he have an innate advantage in learning Arabic? Is he more musically inclined to dig quarter tones? Will camels obey if he whispers in their ears? Not bloody likely. What matters is that if he is darker than the proverbial grocery store paper bag he will have a rough row to hoe.
Except for the irony that for racists no amount of dilution of "black ancestry" can reduce their level of hurtfulness, it is probably a mistake to bring genetics into the discussion of what it is to be black in America or to be black in the world. In the 1950s (?) a white author in the U.S. changed his skin color. He suffered all of the social impacts ordinarily visited on black people from that day on. In other words, "being black" does not have to have anything at all to do with genetics (beyond the level of being human, of course). (For the rest of his life the man suffered the medical consequences of whatever extreme means he used to change his skin color. Apparently he feared the consequences of being found out so greatly that he did far more than use some safe stage cosmetics. So don't try his methods at home.) P0M16:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
BBC's study did not analise only famous Afro-Brazilians. They analised the DNA of 120 self-reported Blacks from São Paulo. The study was made analising these people's Y chromosome (which comes from the father) and the Mitocondrial DNA (which comes from the mother). If you analised both, they can give you the percentage of European, Amerindian and African ancestors you have. It is a serious study.
I stil do not understand why the user Jeeny erased my contributions without asking me about it first. It is a serious study and should not be erased. Opinoso16:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
That's how wikipedia works. Why didn't you ask on the talk page before adding the information? At any rate, the question isn't whether it's a serious study or not but whether it's relavant to the article and whether it's verifiable. As far as I'm concerned if the sources are in Portuguese then it's not a verifiable source for the English wikipedia. Why not try to use it on the Portuguese wikipedia instead or provide an English language source.
The information itself is relavant because I think, properly added, it clarifies the broad definition of what constitutes being a black person. CJ17:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Opinoso, I brought it here on the talk page for others to respond. As I found it poorly written, and for the reasons CJ brought up about the references not being in English. I don't doubt it was/is a serious study and that it has merit. It just didn't fit in the article the way it was introduced, and sourced. That's all. Not to discredit the study. Like I said on your talk page, sorry if I offended you, as that was not my intention at all. - JeenyTalk17:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
the information from the articles was not written correctly correctly
“
A recente genetic study made for BBC Brasil in Black Brazilians' DNA found an interesting fact about their ancestry: most Afro-Brazilians are mostly of European ancestry. The study analised the Mitochondrial genome of 120 self-reported Blacks from São Paulo.[2] The study was made analising these people's Y chromosome (which comes from the father) and the Mitochondrial DNA (which comes from the mother). If you analise both, they can give you the percentage of how much European, Amerindian and/or African genes a person has.
50% of self-reported Black Brazilians are, in fact, of mostly European ancestry. Only 48% of them have more African ancestors than European ones. 1.6% are of mostly Amerindian ancestry.[3]
This study confirmed the great miscegenation in Brazil's History: White people largely mixed with Blacks and Indians.
”
Firstly it says if you analyze y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA(mtDNA) then you can tell how much admixture a person has. This is incorrect. for example if you follow your family tree up 10 generations(approx 220 years) you will have 1024 ancestors. If by chance the one ancestor who gives you your Y chromosome was of a different race and the other 1023 were of the same race then your y chromosome will be characteristic of a different race even though the other 1023 ancestors will contribute to your physical appearance. thus your admixture will be 1/1024 only. this is because the y chromosome is very small and has very few genes. The only genes it has are the ones that make a person male. Females live without a y chromosome, but males have one X chromosome because that is where the important genes are.
The same with Mitochondrial DNA. It contributes nothing whatsoever to a persons physical appearance. the mitochondria live outside the nucleus and is involved in energy production not in transmitting hereditory information. For a detailed explanation see Recent single-origin hypothesis#Genetics.
The same study was done in Europe which found that a small but significant number of white europeans had Sub-saharan mtDNA or y chromosomes. In portugal almost 4% had mtDNA from africa, Germany 1%, england 0.4%, france 3%. see Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe.
I am also sure that if the study was carried out amongst white brazilians there will be a significant amount of African haplotypes too
“
Essa análise revelou que, por parte de mãe, 102 (85%) dos 120 estudados têm conjuntos de seqüências genéticas (haplogrupos) tipicamente africanos.
Once again, the references are still in portuguese. Additionally a consensus was reached that the section shouldn't be added. And at this point a fart in the wind would gain more notice than WP:3RR. CJ02:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Forced Migration vs Atlantic Slave Trade
Is there really any point to using an euphamism. I'd prefer to call a spade a spade for clarity and understanding. Aside from that, forced migration means something different than Atlantic slave trade. Firstly, forced migration is just moving people from one place to another. It doesn't say what happens to them when they get there, just that they were forced to move. Saying Atlantic slave trade is clear that we're talking about that specific group of events and not just that people were forced to move, but were pressed into slavery. CJ14:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
what is important in this case is that they moved from one place to another. The term "forced migration" is gaining some popularity. It is preferable because it is less stigmatizing. Muntuwandi14:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Gaining popularity with whom? Less stigmatizing to whom? To me it sounds like revisionist history. I'll grant that in some situations euphamisms are warranted. Such as using the word cult. It presents a sometimes undue negative connotation on a group. But this is not one of them. Simply calling it a forced migration says that these people were meerly transplanted. It doesn't answer the question why. It doesn't answer the question how. And in this article, that discusses racial identity, slavery is too important to racial identity in the African diaspora to be brushed over with a euphamisim. Furthermore, saying it was because of the slave trade doesn't create an undue negative connotation, so there's no reason to seek a "nicer" term. CJ17:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I just saw the change you made linking forced migration to Atlantic slave trade and I suppose that's an acceptable compromise. I don't like it at all but I can live with it for now. CJ17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's important to call it what it was, the Atlantic slave trade. As "forced migration" is too broad in this sense, even if it does link to the article. To apply a euphanism that is gaining some popularity is misleading to this section of the article, anyway. IMO. - JeenyTalk17:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
the reason is that being dark skinned existed long before any slavery occurred. As is commonly mentioned "the history of black people did not begin with slavery". In fact the first humans may have been black skinned according to some scholars. My problem is that today there is a somewhat subconscious association between blacks and slavery. I see it all the time in articles or in the media Stereotypes of blacks. Yes slavery did occur but it occurred all over the world. The history of all ancient civilizations involved some sort of slavery, getting paid is a recent phenomena. Yet in every day life we do not associate europeans with being slaves, but they were, the same with asians. The issue is not to revise history but to use more dignified words in light of these stereotypes.Muntuwandi17:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes I understand that completely. I deal with that every day. But that's not relavant to this issue because the text in question is discussing how persons of African descent ended up in the Americas. Yes we had a history in Africa before the slave trade, even before colonization. But we ended up in the Americas because of the slave trade. To say anything else is misleading. CJ18:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
but you could also say forced migration and that is equally true, maybe not as detailed but the slave trade is recognized as a forced migration. Anyway there isn't any disagreement in principle its just the semantics, one way or the other it is not a big deal with me. I was just hoping that I could read something about blacks without seeing the "s-word".Muntuwandi18:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with both of you. I had it all typed up, but you both summed up what I was going to say, especially CJ's point. - JeenyTalk18:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
No it's not the same thing. It's false by ommission. You wouldn't call the holocaust a forced relocation would you? It's like saying Britain granted independence to America. That's not what happened. Americans fought for their independence it wasn't handed to us.
And I don't understand your not wanting to read something about blacks without mention of slavery. You have to understand that colonialism and the slave trade have permanently affected what it means to be a person of African descent. Everything about our history and our culture is affected by it. Slavery defines who we are as an ethnic group separate from other African ethnic groups. It's not like we're sore about it or that we blame anyone living for it. It's just a fact of existence and to use an euphamisim when discussing is like pretending it didn't happen. CJ19:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
"a forced movement of large groups of people from homelands to new areas; movement of Native American to the Indian Territory was a forced migration established by law of the United States government; the movement of Africans to the Americas to be used as slaves was forced until a law in the U.S. forbade importation of humans for slave trade"
The forced migration is a valid term and depending on the preference is used to refer to the Atlantic slave trade. These are a few examples
This is just to show that forced migration is a valid alternative term. but if other editors prefer the slave trade then that is fine. Personally I prefer forced migration because of stereotypes associated with the word "slave"Muntuwandi19:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC).
There's another point I failed to make. Atlantic slave trade is the academically accepted name for that period. But since you said it was ok I've changed it back to Atlantic Slave Trade. CJ20:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
What happened to the section which blasted the term BLack?
There use to be a section which discussed issues with the term black, it had a quote by Diop etc. Can someone put it back because as a reader i would like to get immediately to all opposition.--RastaRule13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Discussing usages of 'black' from general to specific
Just a tentative suggestion for organising and globalising this article: How about we take a look at the various conceptions of what we mean by 'black', and then structure the article from the general to the specific? As it is, the article dives almost straight away into 'black as African descent'. While this is almost certainly the majority usage worldwide, it misses what I feel are some important points to make.
Firstly—this is just my perspective, so the anthropologists and sociologists here can correct me—'black' at its most general is grounded in the efforts of the lighter-skinned Europeans to characterise the peoples they came into contact with. As such, Australian Aborigines (for instance) are no less 'black' (not just in terms of skin colour, but in terms of being described thus upon European contact) than black Africans.
Secondly, by concentrating on an African-descent definition of 'black', the article implies at times that other people aren't 'really' black, or aren't often called black. Using Aborigines as an example again, they most certainly are called 'black'… in Australia. Globally, it's a minority usage (maybe because there's no Aboriginal diaspora to speak of?) But that in itself doesn't mean it's unimportant, encyclopaedically; and the parallels between usages of the 'black' description for different groups are notable. (For instance, the question of 'Is "black" an acceptable description?' is just as significant in Australia with Aborigines as it is elsewhere with Africans.)
So essentially what I'm advocating is that the article should first treat the different groups identified as 'black', and the history of and parallels between those usages, then perhaps move on to 'black as African descent', being the majority usage. -- Perey05:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that might be worth a go. Maybe first up a biological look at skin color and other features. Then go into which groups that can be defined as black, starting with Africans, Aboriginals, other Black islanders and indigenous peoples. Then modern definitions that are based on ancestry of one of these groups rather than skin color. CJ10:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the article has come to be almost entirely about Africans, and not about Black People in general. The only mention of "other" Black people is in the small section titled "Non-African peoples" (moreover with POV in the title). Even the section on "Dark skin" omits mention of Black people other that Africans. We had a huge argument a few months ago, and reached a consensus that Black is not a synonym for African. The article as it is now, alludes not too subtly that Black is African. Renaming and expanding the section "Non-African peoples", then adding a section that describes Black People from a more NPOV towards the top of the artice could be a start. --Ezeu14:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
one of the problems was the controversy of whether other dark skinned people are black. Some editors were unhappy that the Tamils or Dravidans are sometimes considered black and they removed all such references. Muntuwandi14:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The argument about this particular image was specific, and not the reason why the article is skewed against other Black people. Adding a Tamil to the gallery WILL be controversial. I do not see anyone hurrying to remove the Vanuatu woman or the Indigenous Australians. --Ezeu15:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall all the arguments being directed against one photograph.
I think the history of the article may have something to do with the "is what is is" kind of nature of this argument. Coming in on the middle of the argument it seemed that this article may have been begun by African Americans who wanted an article about themselves that was not contaminated by the notions of white people. If that was the deal, I'm wondering why they didn't entitle the article "African Americans" or something like that. Maybe it was because they wanted a term that would include Africans and African Americans?
Conceptually, the problem is that some people left Africa more that 80,000 years ago and made their way along the margins of the ocean from Africa to Indonesia and then to Australia. The people who are descendants of those who left the migration trail along the way are related to the Africa of 80,000 years ago. During those 80,000 years, the people in Africa have changed genetically and the people strewn between Africa and Australia have changed genetically, and now there are many differences all the way through. The African Americans are the result of another movement of huge numbers of people, but one that happened during the last several hundred years. So the genetic heritage they carried with them has changed very little from the genetic heritage of people in Africa. It usually takes more than a few centuries for mutations to accumulate and become significant. But what has happened is a considerable amount of interbreeding with "white people."
There are still people who claim that people living close to the Equator are black simply because of the UV.
It's a challenge to name and depict these interrelations and changes sensitively and appropriately. P0M06:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I said that there was a specific argument about this particular photograph, not that all the arguments were directed against this photograph. --Ezeu11:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
To be objective and neutral, we must accept that black is a "human" concept first, and then debate whether it's an African "only" concept or not. It seems that Tamils and other "non Africans" are ok with being called Black when they are not mistaken for Africans. For Wikipedia to encourage the exclusion of Tamils and other non-Africans is simply to reinforce the bias and prejudice called "negrophobia" or "afrophobia". Think about how someone mentioned that the "reason" why they took the mention of Tamils off (which has been a very well established contribution over the months) is simply because some people "didn't like it". Shall we take off scientific evidence of the old age of the universe just because million creationists don't like it? Of course not. The "Tamil argument" has already been established to include them under the definition of Black because their skin color is as dark as the average "black" person from Africa. Whatever Genetic changes occurred over time, it did not cause their skin to get light. Since they reasonably acknowledge they are black (when the thought of Africans does not come to mind), then we are to address the negrophobia that comes from some black people not wanting to be associated with Africans. It is obvious by now that much of this recurring and redundant debate on this discussion page is due to negrophobia. Or shall we just call my comment "race baiting"? - The Dreaded Pirate Osirica.
I've talked to people all over the world, told them about this Wikipedia entry, so regardless of how my own personal contributions are censored, the influence and position that I represent will not (and has not) been muted nor diminished. Sorry Eurocentricists, you're only bringing more attention to the article by your attempts. No one in their right mind believes that "true blacks" come from historical Africans only. Those that do are either those of Nazi/Eurocentric philosophy or the purely reactionary and ignorant "opposites" who represent the so-called extreme Afrocentricist philosophy. - Osirica
No it is not a violation WP:NOR, it is factual that depending on the context, many dark skinned people are called black, even some light skinned people are labeled black. Blackness is a social construct, even Mariah Carey is sometimes black.Muntuwandi20:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Everything you said is right, except your conclusion that this implies that "extending the specific term "Black people" to all dark people" is not Original Research. deeptrivia (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Original research implies making something up. But if in history certain groups have taken on a black identity, or certain groups have been referred to as black by other groups, simply quoting the evidence is not original research. Muntuwandi20:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Where are the sources? Which evidence has been quoted? Who have taken whom to have black identity? Who referred whom to be black? The statement is completely unsourced as it appears in the article. There was some confusion on whether South Asians were white (see Racial classification of Indian Americans), but there was no confusion the other way. deeptrivia (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Sadat picture
A while back I removed Image:Sadat5.jpg, with caption "The mother of Anwar Sadat, Egypt's third President, was Sudanese" from the page [13]. Considering that the caption was about his mother but the picture was of him, I didn't see anything particularly illustrative about the image and removed it. While I was later reverted by someone probably wikistalking me [14], I still don't think the picture is adding anything to the article so I am going to remove it again.
I'm placing this note on the talk page just to open a space for discussion in case anybody cares, but again, I don't see any real reason this removal should be controversial. Just giving you all a heads up. Thanks. The Behnam22:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Well the issue is that some think that sadat was black, at least partly, and in this particular picture he does appear to have sub-saharan ancestry. I've seen others where he does no seem so sub-saharan. The issue is on the black identity since sadat apparently was unhappy that a dark skinned man portrayed him in a movie. It is an interesting piece of information. However I do not know whether it is representative of issues facing blacks in the middle east. Muntuwandi23:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Brazil : Race Relations : White Media
I have a problem with the term 'Anglo' being used as it is quite misunderstood and misused in alot of contexts, if it weren't for popular belief the term probably would not be used in this article. Would it be ok to remove the word from the article ? Gazh08:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be better if the first image in the article, Image:Afro diversity.jpg, identified the four people by their ethnicity, as opposed to country of origin, because ethnicities stretch across national boundaries. I know the woman at bottom right is Masai, but the others I can't identify. Can someone help with this? Picaroon(Talk)02:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
South and Southeast Asians
There are some unsourced statements about South and Southeast Asians being included in the category by "some people". No references are cited, but User:Yom says it was the definition "agreed upon" on the talk page. I should perhaps be reminding everyone that wikipedia is not a place for "agreeing upon" definitions. Only content that can be cited from notable sources is added to wikipedia. If there are sufficient number of notable sources with this definition, we can definitely put it here, but otherwise it would be removed as Original research. As of now, not even a single source is cited, even of dubious notability. The "source" cited clearly restricts the term to "Africa, Oceania, and Australia." If there are certain tribes that have been included in the category by anthropologists, this information has to be sourced. [15]deeptrivia (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
explanation
This article is reckless in the use of vagues terms, such as the title, and presenting it as a qualifiable or quantifiable fact. It is a term of self identification (a belief) or an instrument of oppression, these are the only things for which there is a high degree of verifiability through extensive references. It should not become another garden for 'fringe research' that cites nothing later than Linnaeus, a man who gave a taxon to mythical creatures. At best the article is a hodge podge of factoids, at worst it is another platform for bigotry. The term and article is flawed and hopelessly subjective, it needs to be given a sound defintion to expand on, for goodness sake, the first line puts the page title as Black. I suppose it is assumed that the reader will 'know who we mean'. Fred ☻ 14:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Sad mess
This was one of the earlier articles I ever tried to help with. I gave up in disgust after a while. Many others have given up as well, I notice. The difficulty is that a certain cabal of editors feel that they WP:OWN this article, and use the "race card" to do so. This is particularly funny since none of us knows for sure what "race" any of the rest of us are. What I find disturbing is:
the article still is an awful mess with lots of OR and narrow viewpoints
the writing is poor
most real science has been driven out of the article, and people who could provide a scentific perspective on this issue have been discouraged from contributing.
a huge amount of effort is expended in worthless ways here
The term "black people" is interesting, because it means different things to different people, at different times, and in different places. And what is even stranger is that there is no such thing as a "black person", strictly speaking. And there are lots of examples where the shade of the skin is uncorrelated with the classification as "black". However, as long as this topic is so fraught with political and racial tensions, this article will continue to be essentially worthless, while a small group proudly struts around protecting their "prize".--Filll15:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
^Knudtson P. (1991), A Mirror to Nature: Reflections on Science, Scientists, and Society; Rushton on Race, Stoddart Publishing (ISBN0773724672)
^Negritos and Australoids have dark skin, but do not have recent African ancestry. Some members of these groups consider themselves, or have been considered, black.
^black. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved April 13, 2007, from Dictionary.com website
