Talk:Black people/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

This will not get resolved

The difficulties will not be resolved until people acknowledge that there are many different points of view here. The encyclopedia article should acknowledge this, and document as many of these as it can, with links to more extended articles on subtopics if need be.

Just claiming "oh it is simple, just follow my point of view" does not help matters. The problem is, not everyone agrees with any given point of view. So lets acknowledge that there is disagreement, catalog the disagreements, and move on.--Filll 21:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have my point of view, but I have argued from day one that there is no agreed precise definition of "black". "Black" is an ascription based on subjective criteria; "black" is adopted as an identity by a variety of groups; "black" refers not only to African people, as other black peoples are referred to as black and self-identify as black. This point has been made over and over again by almost everyone, except for two stubborn people who have now escalated the quarrel by trying to assert that some black Africans (Ethiopians) are not black. The problem here is that some editors are trying to push aberrant theories (eg. the Ethiopian issue). Under no circumstances can such bizarre assertions be accepted. When editors cease from pushing controversial assertions, and agree to what is generally accepted, then an acceptable consensus may be reached. . --Ezeu 23:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I specifically discussed the Ethiopian issue on your talk page and you agreed it could be mentioned as long as we didn't imply that it's a mainstream view. We made very clear that it is not. You're saying that under no circumstances can the scientific judgement of oxford scientists be accepted, and yet you accept bizarre sources claiming that South Asians are Black even though this is contradicted by the census and the world's most authoritative dictionary (webster) says Black refers primarily to negroes. I have no problem accepting diverse views but stop implying that the views of others are bizarre when our sources are far more mainstream and credible than yours and we're not the ones starting race wars on this talk page by calling Tamils Black.__Whatdoyou 23:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have never claimed that South Asians in general are Black. I have argued that Papua New Guineans, Andamese Islanders and Australian Aboriginals are black.--Ezeu 05:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

But you do understand that that's not a mainstream view. For example there was a famous case where a film maker was accused of creating an anti-Black film and Black people were outraged by how Blacks were portrayed in the movie. The controvery died down when the film maker explained that the characters in the movie were not Black, they were Australian aboriginal. I understand that in Australia Black commonly refs to all dark-skinned people and so this view has the right to be represented, but it's obscure, just as the view that Ethiopians are NOT black is also an obscure view. Most people consider Ethiopians Black because they're sub-Saharan and most people do not consider Australoids black because they've been genetically and culturally isolated from most Black people for at least 50,000 years__Whatdoyou 16:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do we not just make a list of different definitions, with references. Everyone can put in their two cents. There is no answer to this otherwise. Now all we need to do is to get everyone to agree that it is ok to let all divergent views heard. Is anyone not in favor of letting all views heard? --Filll 00:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Black People - A Descriptive Term

Moved Because of Excessive Modification to My original Text Regrettable Polemics I am sorry to encounter tension between different Black people on this page. Many have criticized Back Americans in various ways. This is quite tragic since African Americans have been struggling for centuries against the worst forms of discrimination and oppression. Lives have been lost in these struggles. Much of it has been done in the name of other Black people around the world. It is sad to learn that we African Americans have so few friends outside of our own nation. Also, all Black people, and people of color in general, regardless of their continent of origin, are in serious danger in view of the virulent White Supremacist activity that is springing up all over the White Occident. So, lets have a little solidarity, please. I see that some non-American Africans have expressed the opinion that African-Americans "appear different than" or "think differently from" other Africans. Well, any phenotypical differences can be attributed to the miscegenation which was forced on us during the 400 years of slavery. Cultural differences are due to numerous factors, not least of which is the fact that we reside as a subjugated sub-culture in a powerful, wealthy nation with which we have a complex relationship. Yet, for the most part we are of Africans of African origin and physiologically, differ only superficially from other Black Skinned people around the world.

PBAAD - Person of Black African or Asian Descent: Terminology appears to be a sore point here. Why not introduce a new term which has fewer painful associations? I propose Person of Black African or Asian Descent (PBAAD). Or, Black-Skinned Person, BSP.

The Word Black: Some of you resent the terms "Black" and/or "Black people". There should be absolutely no displeasure or shame associated with this word. If the term "Black people" is used in a descriptive sense rather than as a socio-political term, then there is no need to differentiate between African American Blacks and non-American Blacks. Nor should geography be a limiting factor. People who can be described as Black based on the color of their skin can be found all over the world. I have personally spoken with dark-skinned people from around the world and they invariably identified themselves to me as Black. There are Black-skinned people residing in Oceania, in Micronesia, and all over Asia, including Sri Lanka, China, Vietnam and especially in India. The Dalits of India, for example, have identified themselves as Black people. They have actively reached out to African-Americans and expressed a wish for solidarity with them. Where slavery, war and enforced miscegenation has caused a lightening of Black skin, or a total disappearance of a given Black populace, this should not be misconstrued as a proof that Black people did not exist.

Some one here wrote in to say that she doubted that a certain Arab prince who has Black features would consider himself Black. How can she know? Self-identity is very personal process. It is not up to non-Blacks to decide who they wish to designate as Black. Black as an identity is majority based on superficial phenotypical characteristics. If the Arab prince's skin is Black then he is a Black man. Blacks did not initiate the idea of race. Choosing to categorize human beings as Black or white was an arbitrary decision probably made by Whites. After creating this quite unnecessary identity, whites often imposed restrictions and abuse as a result. Black people have a right to reply to this phenomena. Since many if not all have suffered based on race, Blacks have a right to heal from their wounds. They have a right to digest the discriminating practices which have been imposed on them again and again over the last several hundred years. I speak not only of slavery and social subjugation but also of such phenomena as the designation of the Black skinned Dalits as "untouchables". We Black-skinned people have the right to forge an identity that spans a nation, a continent, or the entire globe.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by VaniNY (talk • contribs) 22:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC).

There has been no critisism against African Americans per se. There has been some worry that the African American point of view may permeate the discussion, as African Americans have a more prominent web presence than other black people. These worries have however turned out to be unwarranted as there have been vocal African Americans on both sides of almost every issue discussed here. --Ezeu 23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that 2 of the African American editors are speaking for groups they have no knowledge of. They are saying that many Tamils consider themselves Black but the Tamil editor says fewer than 1 in 10,000 Tamils would self-identify as Black. They are saying that White people have called South Asians Black but the White editors are saying that they only consider people of sub-Saharan ancestry Black. Everyone needs to speak for themselves. If Zaph or Deeceevoice want to call themselves Black they're free to do so, but why they should care so much about what other cultures and peoples they know nothing about are called is beyond me.__Whatdoyou 00:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Just delete this article. It's pointless

How can you have an article called Black people when editors refurse to adheare to standard definitions of the term. If we can't all agree on who Black people are, the article should be called people who have been called Black in different times and places, and since that's a stupid title, let's just delete the whole thing and move on. Essentially what has happened is that a few (not most)of the African ancestry editors are angry that they are the only ones who are considered Black and wish to spread the label to other groups by citing less mainstream sources. They feel it's unfair that they are called Black when equally dark skinned people descending from South Asia and the Pacific Islands are not generally called by that term. They also don't wish to be associated with the ethnic groups that never left sub-Saharan Africa prior to slavery and so they want to broaden the definition of Black to include many others. But by spreading the term to others, they have caused a backlash from segments of the Tamil community who don't wish to be lumped in with people of sub-Saharan ancestry. This is a very disturbing development and I don't see anything positive coming from this article. It's just causing people to focus on race and in a very unhealthy way. People should just identify by their specific ethnic groups (African American, Nigerian, Tamil, British, German). Broad terms like Black, White, and Oriental serve no useful purpose outside of medical research, and just encourage people to stereotype one another & paint with a broad brush. People speak of forging a global black unity. For what purpose? Are you trying to start a global color war? Why not forge a global human unity. Unity has no integrity if it is based on excluding those of the wrong color. __Whatdoyou 23:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

U know how an African person feels knowing no one wants to be us, even in Africa you get people trying to be Arab before they are "us". This is what happened in Darfur. I think the word black is a very silly thing, I in part agree with the above--WHAT THE HELL DOES BLACK MEAN. But to be African-American has far more meaning, African-British, Ethiopian-African, Nigerian, or Nigerian-African) this is far clearly than some silly color black, Africans aren’t even black. And in America many are very light skinned. But that is my opinion, and this article is about black people, even the word sounds wrong. And when people say "the blacks" i cringe. Anyway lets have a diverse view of black with all the issues associated with it. The article is almost there. The beginning is fine. It shows some sort of balance, once one of the def. can actually be from a "BLACK PERSON" but i repeat the begining is actually VERY GOOD!!----Halaqah 23:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A few of the definitions were created by Black people/people of color. And Ezeu and Editingoprah did an excellent job finding criticism of the definitions which provides good balance.__Whatdoyou 00:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes there are a lot of people who don't want to be of African ancestry, that's why I was hoping Black could be a term that Africans could claim with pride, the way Europeans take pride in the word White. But unlike the white people article, where other ethnic groups are begging to be included, on the black people article we have this ridiculous attitude of "if I have to be called Black you do too." I would rather see the whole thing deleted than publicize this embarassing display of self-hatred.__Whatdoyou 00:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Then lets move on to the next section, and stop debating the intro or issues with who is black because the intro is politically correct and if iwas a little green alien on a 2 week vacation i would have a better understanding of the issue.--Halaqah 00:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

B4 Zap gets back

Wouldnt it be nice to get it right before Zaph gets back? --Halaqah 00:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary. Zaph can be somewhat quarrelsome, but I'll take Zaph anyday instead of blatant stupidity. --Ezeu 03:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Still confused

I do not believe anyone can agree on what the term black means. It is contradictory and to some groups has negative connotations and to some other groups has positive connotations. And it matters desperately to some groups about whether outsiders are calling them black, or they are identifying themselves as black, or if some other group is called black or not, or if some other group willingly self-identifies as black. And this is all wrapped up in a huge measure with people that seem to be very angry about everything and anything.

Unless people accept that there is a divergent set of views on this topic, it is going to die under a hail of vitriolic and bombastic polemics.

Just take a deep breath and accept it: not everyone will agree on a definition of what a black person is.--Filll 00:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This article might be beyond hope:

• Too many people are angry about too many things.
• There are people who want to edit the article who want to lecture everyone about how awful white people are and how white people are the cause of all their problems (which might very well be true, but how does that help us write an article?)
• There are people who want to include the widest possible range of dark skinned people around the world as black.
• There are people who do not want to be called black.
• There are people who think that people should be proud to be called black.
• There are people who think that people should be uncomfortable with being called black and that black is an offensive term.
• There are people with narrow definitions of black.

And everyone is angry at each other and positive that their definition and writing is correct and everyone else's is incorrect.--Filll 00:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is a real mess, and as long as editors keep trying to assert their opinions, rather than relying on attributable, reputable, and reliable sources, it will continue to be a mess. If such sources are not forthcoming, we should mercilessly delete the unsourced and non-cimpliant material. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Why do we continue? what is written as an intro accommodates more people than it excludes. I am a die hard anti-black. I hate a color label for my race. And i am happy, i represent the African camp, the we are not black we are from Africa. The intro is fine, it cant get much better, the def are fine the critic is fine-finish. what is the other option, start over? wait for zaph to get back? Lets move to the next issue. Lets not worry about the huge measure of angry people, lets just do our best to be balanced and reflective of the plethora of pros and cons regarding the whole "black" issue-Baka!--Halaqah 00:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Question is: are there any reputable/reliable sources that describe the issue of "black people". If not, this article is doomed. If there are, then we can rely on these sources only and avoid creaing original research, i.e. "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm still asking for feedback on my alternative lead (above). It is properly sourced/footnoted and, as any good introduction should, it incorporates, along with some corrections and some tweaking, some of the original language and summarizes the scope of the article fairly succinctly, with appropriate qualifying language. deeceevoice 11:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The lead we're using now is much better than the one you created. Yours is selective and redundant and your sources are not reliable. It's an obvious attempt to push your agenda that non-African ancestry people can be Black, even though you know nothing about these groups. Kobrakid 19:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Pejorization

A fairy tale: Over 100 years ago, African Americans favored the term "colored". They formed the NAACP. And then the term came to seem old fashioned and fraught with negative feelings, so they adopted the word "negro". And formed the United Negro College Fund and other organizations. But in time, this word came to sound old fashioned and had developed negative associations. So they took the word "black" . And came up with phrases like "black is beautiful" and "black power". But again, eventually this word seemed sort of out of date, and had developed some bad connotations, so it was discarded in favor of "Afro-American". And people wore "Afros" and platform shoes and bell bottom pants. And again, after a while this term seemed mired in ancient history, so Jesse Jackson proclaimed that "African American" should be the preferred term. But again, predictably, "African American" has started to sound out of date and inaccurate and negative to many...and on again, looking for new terms and phrases....--Filll 00:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

can we work with what we have? Unless you wanna go back to being called Negro- self-determination man, let the process flow, let it flow. But i dont know where you been reading but Race-Nationality model was started by X and now even Italians say Italian-American, so i doubt African-American is getting old. If i said all Africans are free you will always find someone with something opposite to say. now Caribbean people say African-Caribbean, and now African-British. Stay in the loop man, look at this new site www.ligali.org if you don’t see the trend. U guys are boring now i am going an trouble the Christian site because i added Slavery in Christianity and they said it never existed--can u dig that and you guys think this page is biased---Halaqah 01:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to work with what we have. I am just trying to get people to acknowledge that there is no real concensus here, and that it is permissible to have more than one opinion. It does not help to bludgeon others that do not agree with your opinion; it is more realistic and reasonble to just let everyone express their opinion and let everyone be heard. Just as long as it is all documented and referenced.

I do have some comments, however:

1. I think even the notion of "race" is a somewhat obsolete concept, now that we have better genetic and scientific knowledge. Let's face it; whether we like it or not, we are ALL members of the human race
2. I believe that expressions like Italian-Canadian, German-American, or African-American do not really represent Race-Nationality, but instead are "Country or Region of origin"-"Nationality or Region of domicile". This is more complicated when language or other cultural features are considered, as in the case of English-Canadian or French-Canadian. The model of Race-Nationality you refer to is a bit abhorrent to many, but Black African or White Russian might fall in this category. One could also imagine that Black African is just another descriptive term, as in Immigrant American or Hispanic American or Native American (it is just hard for me to accept "black" as a race, since it is sort of an ambiguous and contradictory term that people cannot seem to agree on, but for the purposes of this article, I would welcome all opinions, even those contrary to my point of view).
3. I wish I could agree that all Africans are free. Unfortunately, the evidence does not support that.--Filll 02:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• The fixation on race by some editors here is alarming. The Ethiopians/black issue is parallel to scientific racism, and should be treated likewise – as racism. Furthermore, I disagree that all Africans are "unfree".--Ezeu 02:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Science has rendered race obsolete. The questions about what genetic intermixing and migrations have taken place over human history, ever since the ancestors of ALL HUMANS emerged in Africa are just interesting. How they have somehow become fodder for these vicious arguments is beyond me. Are Ethopians black? Some would say yes, some would say no. So let's document both sides, and leave it at that. It is sort of irrelevant, in any case.

I do not really know if Ethiopians are black or not (whatever that means; I think the term is sort of meaningless), and I do not really care. We should just coldly and unemotionally describe who says or said that Ethiopians are black and who says or who said that Ethiopians are not black, in a responsible scholarly manner. And not try to take sides and decide who is right and who is wrong. I think that the entire question is undecideable and leads to pointless arguments. Do you really care if Ethiopians are called black or not? Maybe they are, maybe they are not, depending on the definition (which no one can agree on). So who cares?--Filll 03:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Is an Ethiopian black or not? Is a Swede white or not? Is a woman female or not? The answer is pure and simple. I have looked at that Oxford study that Whatdoyou uses, and I cannot see that it explicitly says that Ethiopians are not black, and even if it did, I'd disregared from it. --Ezeu 03:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Some think Ethiopians are black. Some do not. Some Swedes are white. Some are not (Sweden has a lot of immigrants, and it has the Sami/Laplanders who are more akin to the Inuit). Some women are female but some are not, depending on what you mean by female; there are a lot of intersex individuals who have both male and female characteristics of various kinds. This is just far more complicated and ambiguous than people want to admit.--Filll 03:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

... which strengthens my original point that "black" cannot be defined in one sentence. For the sake of argument, ethnic Swedes are white, and so are the Sami (twist it like you wish, but they are certainly not black). Immigrant Swedes like myself may not be white, but that is is a different issue. But let me commend you on your good-natured point of view.--Ezeu 04:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. The entire topic is far too complicated to define it in one sentence. This is even more true given that different people want to use different definitions for what is "black", and it is not possible to reconcile these different definitions (including getting agreement about the exact "racial" makeup of the Inuit or Sami, whatever race means in this case). I just want to get some sort of agreement out of most people here that a range of opinions are all equally valid and should be allowed, as long as they are all catalogued and documented and supported with references. --Filll 04:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I also want to point out that according to the definition of "free" some Africans might be viewed as free by some people, and some Africans might be viewed as not free by other people.--Filll 04:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but most Africans consider themselves free. Geopolitical and globalization discourse dictates that Africans are unfree, but the man on the street corner in Harare or Kampala will argue vehemently that he is free.--Ezeu 05:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Repeat

Why do we not just make a list of different definitions, with references. Everyone can put in their two cents. There is no answer to this otherwise. Now all we need to do is to get everyone to agree that it is ok to let all divergent views heard. Is anyone not in favor of letting all views be heard?--Filll 00:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Tamils

Blacks and Oceania This article has enormoous potential to create unification and solidarity around the world. However, it would benefit from some first hand experience and real facts. Some one has got to go out there and speak to dark-skinned people around the world. Everyone here would benefit from reading Runoko Rashidi. He has done so much of the footwork that I am also trying to do. He has traveled to many different nations, finding Black people and supporting archaeological evidence in different nations. He has discovered Blacks on every continent. His Text "The African Presence in India" gives us these three quotes:

"...Apollonius of Tyana, who is said to have visited India near the end of the first century C.E., was convinced that "The Ethiopians are colonists sent from India, who follow their forefathers in matters of wisdom."

"The literary work of the early Christian writer Eusebius preserves the tradition that, "In the reign of Amenophis III [the mighty Dynasty XVIII Egyptian king] a body of Ethiopians migrated from the country about the Indus, and settled in the valley of the Nile."

"And still another document from ancient times, the Itinerarium Alexandri, says that "India, taken as a whole, beginning from the north and embracing what of it is subject to Persia, is a continuation of Egypt and the Ethiopians."

Regarding Oceania, I myself have often encountered people from Nouvelle Caledonie. Intrigued by their dark skin, I wondered if they considered themselves Black. The answer was yes. I was invited to their community center in the city in which we live and met numerous Melanesians, Polynesians and even encountered dark skinned Micronesians. They all look like African-Americans or Caribbean Americand. There is some minor different in hair type. On the other hand, I have met obviously Black Europeans who have told me that, although they look Black, they aren't because, either their father or mother is white and they "feel" white.

A Tamil has written that the Tamil are not Black. This is fine for him to say. However, just as neither a woman or man can deny their gender, a Black person can not deny his color : it's immutable (excluding Michel Jackson) and belies the facts. We are talking about a skin color here and not an elusive socio-political identity. The Tamil gentleman should try to go beyond the implication of what the term "Black" means in the Occident to get to what Black means to him and his people. It looks as though he is being overly influenced by what Black means in Western culture. Let him realize that being Black doesn't mean that he has to go out and learn to rap. A West African also wrote to say that Tamils and people of West African descent have little in common. He felt that African-Americans were denying their link to Black Africa while creating ties with Black skinned people around the world. There appears to be unhealthy resistance on both sides of the question - those who have been traditionally labeled as Black by the Occident as well as those Black-skinned Asians, (or residents of Oceania) who have been left to languish as dark skinned anomalies in their various nations. Hence we have had a sort of non-identity for these people since the dominating ethnic and racial group has traditionally crushed and excluded such dark-skinned people. A good example are the various indigenous ethnicities of Vietnam - many were dark skinned people. Calling the indigenous brown and black people "Moi" or savages, the Vietnamese invaded their mountainous land, crushed them, excluded them and reduced them from 50 million to 50 thousand. China has registered morethan 2,400 minorities with the UN. Many of these are Black skinned peoples.

We should be carefully about accepting only a narrow set of criteria for determining who is Black and who is not. About superficial racial appearance, Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop stated that:

"There are two well-defined Black races: one has a black skin and woolly hair; the other also has black skin, often exceptionally black, with straight hair, aquiline nose, thin lips, an acute cheekbone angle. We find a prototype of this race in India: the Dravidian. It is also known that certain Nubians likewise belong to the same Negro type...Thus, it is inexact, anti-scientific, to do anthropological research, encounter a Dravidian type, and then conclude that the Negro type is absent."

It's true that African-Americans have a direct link to Black Africa that is very important to acknowledge and honor. Yet other ties are quite as real and important. Thus the Tamil's dark skin color frankly, does link them to other Blacks at a paleontologic level. Regardless of whether someone says they are not Black, they are Black if both archaelogical evidence (such as the art work discovered in India by Runoko Rashidi) and paleontologic evidence (genetic research conducted by Villena) conflates. --VaniNY 04:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with stating these views, as long as you let people express other views and people to critically examine your views and provide rebuttals and references. However, trying to impose your will on everyone else will just cause trouble.--Filll 04:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Duuuh The sources are listed above, but here are some additional data Runokou Rashidi - Runoko Rashidi is a historian, research specialist, writer, world traveler, and public lecturer focusing on the African presence globally and the African foundations of world civilizations. He is particularly drawn to the African presence in Asia, Australia, and the Pacific Islands, and has coordinated historic educational group tours to India, Aboriginal Australia, the Fiji Islands and Southeast Asia as well as Egypt and Brazil.

Philostratus II (born c 172) Author of at least four important ancient text which have survived:

   * (c. 215) Life of Apollonius Tyana, which he dedicated to Julia Domna, wife of Septimius Severus and mother of Caracalla (see Apollonius of Tyana).
   * (231-237) Lives of the Sophists. 
   * (after 220) Gymnasticus. The Gymnasticus contains interesting matter concerning the Olympic games and athletic contests generally.
   * (?) Epistolae or Love Letters. The letters are mainly of an erotic character.

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275 – May 30, 339) Referred to above as the early Christian writer Eusebius - was a bishop of Caesarea in Palestine and is often referred to as the father of church history because of his work in recording the history of the early Christian church. (Wikipedia)

The Itinerarium Alexandri The Itinerarium Alexandri is an anonymous Latin work written around AD 340. It originally contained a summary of the conquests of Alexander the Great and Trajan in the East, but only the part about Alexander survives. (Wikipedia) Iolo Davies, "Alexander's itinerary (Itinerarium Alexandri). An English translation", in AHB 12 (1998), pp. 29-54. (This translation, with some minor changes, was included in W. Heckel & J.C. Yardley, Alexander the Great. Historical Sources in Translation (Blackwell Publishing 2004.)

Cheikh Anta Diop (29 December 1923- 7 February 1986) was a Senegalese historian, anthropologist, and staunch defender of the world view known as Afrocentrism, which places emphasis on the human race's African origins and on the study of pre-colonial African culture and its connectedness to the rest of the peoples of the world.

John Henrik Clarke (January 1, 1915 - July 16, 1998), was a Nationalist, Pan-Africanist, author, poet, historian, and Afrocentric lecturer and teacher. (excerpted from Wikipedia)

Yosef Ben-Jochannan (born 1918) is an African-American historian known for his Afrocentric views. Ben-Jochannan is an author of numerous books, primarily on ancient Nile Valley civilizations and their impact to Western cultures. (Wikipedia)

Molefi Kete Asante (born August 14, 1942, in Valdosta, Georgia, United States) is an African American scholar who has written more than 60 books and 300 scholarly articles. His 1998 book Afrocentricity generated the term Afrocentrism. He is currently Professor of African American Studies at Temple University, where he created the world's first doctoral program in African American Studies in 1987.

Martin Bernal - author of "Black Athena"

A way to solve this issue

I suggest that myself, Zaph, DCvoice, Whatdoyou, Kobrakid and EO stay away form this article for at least two weeks so that other editors can have a go at it. Let us do this voluntarily. This could also be a chance for us to take a step back from this unruly issue and take a rest. If y'all agree to leave the article alone for two weeks, and not use socks, I will unprotected the article. The way it is now, we are going around in circles and heading nowhere. Give this proposal a chance. If bad comes to worse, I'll take this to arbitration and request that we (the above mentioned) all be blocked from editing this article. --Ezeu 04:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Add your decision below:

• I agree to not edit this article for two weeks after it is unblocked. --Ezeu 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• I also agree to not edit this article for at least two weeks after it has been unblocked--Filll 05:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hell, no. I'm not going to permit those who are clearly and obviously antagonistic toward the subject matter have free rein using any one of a number of sockpuppets. That would solve absolutely nothing. And then what? After the article has been mutilated and distorted beyond rationality, beyond recognition, we'd return to try to make some sense of the mess?

Not on your life.

How about asking those who repeatedly have raised objections to properly cited and referenced text to walk away -- and stay the hell away? Now, that's a good starting point. deeceevoice 10:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Deeceevoice that that's not a good solution. Let's just work towards a compromise on the talk page and not unblock the article untill one is reached. I propose a structure below that allows all cited views to be included.__Whatdoyou 16:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Last Thing - Self Determination

Self Determination

I read above that a White Scandinavian is determined to write this article. Would a Christian be permitted to structure and mold an article on Jews and Judaism? Just as the article on Mormons was written by Mormons and the articles on Jews and Judaism are written by Jewish people, this article should be written by Black people. Really, this article reminds me of the Museum of Natural History in New York. Everyone deplores that they exhibit the human remains of non-white people as though they are an inferior species. But no one has succeeded in closing the museum down. If this article goes forth as it is - writing about a vast number of often disenfranchised and powerless people who themselves have limited access to technology, without their input, without their consent, as third parties in their own earthly existence, then this article violates basic standards of human rights and humanity. This article has been proposed despite the fact that it is a questionable subject matter. Its creation has been structured in such a way that members of the hegemonic white culture are permitted to write about (objectify) the historically subjugated Black and Brown people. No consideration has been taken of the extremely active White Supremacist movement which is currently gripping the international white community. Their internet activity is particularly intense. No consideration has been taken of the frequent inclusion here of references to and quotes from Michael Levin who is an avowed White Supremacist. History has shown the damage that white racism and racist value have done to the other races. Yet no one has suggested that there is conflict of interest inherent in the participation of the follower of a White Supremacist in the writing of an article on Black people. This article is be written in the apparent exclusion of members of the World's Black Population. This is a clear indication that this project is inherently:

• exclusivist,
• racist
• classist
• unjust
• biased against Third World people
• biased against agricultural societies, that lack equal access to technology
• slanted towards the West and against the East
• Pro-White
• anti-Black and anti-people of color

I have noted that all the other Wikipedia articles involving issues of identities were written by those who belong to those identities. Some Scandinavian person, who speaks very flippantly about things which I live and know as a Globe Trotter and as a Native New Yorker - I find this to be a violation of human decency. This articles smacks of intellectual imperialism and identity rape.

Welcome to wikipedia. This piece is typical of the kind of racist, intellectual arrogance of the website I constantly encounter when dealing with black subject matter. I refuse to let these ... ("people") define our past, what and who we are. They have no clue, no right. deeceevoice 10:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

But you're trying to define the past and identity of ethnic groups completely unrelated to you (i.e. tamils, Australian aboriginals, etc).__Whatdoyou 16:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Black Boycott of Wikipedia

This is one of a number of articles on Black people on this site that reveal a disproportionate manipulation by non-Blacks who reveal a less than healthy attitude towards Blacks. Another article is the Black Supremacy article which is filled with incendiary, anecdotal, primarily conjectured material that does nothing more than rile anti-Black hatred and rationalize Anti-Black racism. Black people should envisage Boycotting Wikipedia. Without some support and complicity from Wikipedia, it's impossible to correctly handle the insidious, insistent, systemic racism that pervades this site.

Technological Inequalities Has Wikipedia given any thought to trying to level the terrain so that Black Africans, Oceanic residents and Asians may participate more fully in the article-writing processes? Europeans and White Americans dominate here. Since many Africans have no access to technology, how likely are they to contribute here and speak for and of themselves? Let not a Blond Scandinavian tell me what Black people think about themselves. If not, isn't this just some vulgar rehashing of the old invading Ethnographer studying the primitives? The two individual above were discussing my people as one would discuss germs under a microscope. This is so vulgar! I appeal to these trespassing individuals to retire from this domain and allow Blacks to write an article about themselves.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by VaniNY (talk • contribs) 05:32, 12 October 2006 .

Response: When this sort of situation arises, there is no possible response. All one can do is walk away. And hope that somehow balance and reason will surface in this process. I for one would decline to even confront these issues. --Filll 05:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. There is no evidence that non-Africans are "manipulating" this article. The most begrudging arguments are between Africans/African-Americans and each other. On the contrary, some of the most intelligent arguments, and the best attempts to quell silly arguments have been made by those who are no black. If anything, we blacks should be ashamed for the state of this article. --Ezeu 06:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You're definitely speaking for yourself on that score, Ezeu. The article had its shortcomings, but the racist trolls are out and about here -- just as everywhere else. I'm ashamed of nothing. deeceevoice 10:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

DOnt boycott, that is our problem we like to protest in the wrong way. We like too many marches. Chinese go and open up a chain store we go and protest the white store. Bring your brothers and sisters here and lets make our stand--man. thats 60's lets boycott thing is dead, join in fight the struggle, just your comments alone have made a mark, the worst thing you can do is boycott. Someone somewhere is reading this site and seeing the debate and they are becoming a warrior. Keep fighting but you are so right. You think the man wants you to have Self-determination, you cant ask for that, you take it! At least here we can add things so it has the hope of a ray of light, think how Anti-African the rest of the www is.--Halaqah 10:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Reflection

As I reflect on the situation, I think that there have been some slightly unfortunate statements. Some comments:

• It appears to me there are differences of opinion between various people of color here
• These differences of opinion might or might not be due to some manipulation by caucasians, either now or in past centuries. However, these differences exist, so the reason they exist is somewhat irrelevant.
• this article is being fought over so fiercely because it is viewed by some as a rallying point for "black pride" or "black unity" or "black identity" or "black consciousness" or "black empowerment" or "black solidarity" or a global black movement or black separateness. I think that is a bit much to expect from this article. I would humbly suggest that another article, linked to this one, might be a better place to promote this kind of agenda.
• science has rendered the concept of race obsolete, particularly when it comes to trying to identify the race of someone by skin color or by the slope of their heads or the width of their noses. This smacks of the sort of "racial science" the Nazis tried to promote to support their vision of an Aryan race (which is somewhat comical considering that the Aryans were from South Asia and in all likelihood had dark skin). Using skin color to identify people by race is a trap; the same trap that white supremecists fall into. Now some people here want to promote the same viewpoint? I think it is ill-advised. It should be mentioned and documented with references of course, but other viewpoints as well should be presented.
• a lot of the long statements I am reading would be better suited to a blog or a forum than here on Wikipedia
• is it really reasonable to expect Wikipedia to address the imbalance and misrepresentation of groups that have no access to the internet? If they did, one option might be to remove access of people from rich Western countries to participate in this venue. As technology spreads, those people will have increasing access to Wikipedia and the article will evolve accordingly.
• humans are tribal by nature and wiring, and a lot of this rancor is driven by tribal hatreds, just as our Cro-Magnon ancestors probably killed off the Neanderthals. Can we put these aside to allow a calm, reasoned article with references and multiple viewpoints to proceed? Let's not give in to our worst instincts and try to use this article as a platform to promote a Race War.
• over human history, clearly there has been intermixing of those with different characteristics and migrations. And these outward characteristics are quite fluid and can change in a few generations. Just consider how much the Lemba resemble their neighbors in the Kalahari, athough they are definitely genetically related to the Seraphidic Jews. The same can be said of Jewish communities in India and China. Another intriguing example of how complicated human history is is presented by the discovery of Kennewick Man, the remains of a prehistoric man found in Eastern Washington who has features that more closely resemble Patrick Stewart than the autochthonous peoples of the Americas. And then there are the mummies from Nevado Ampato, Perum and the Tarim mummies, which appear to have Caucasian features. What about the Ainu, the indigenous peoples of the Japanese Islands who were displaced by the arrival of the Japanese, presumably from the Korean Peninsula, and appear to have many Caucasian features outwardly, but more complicated genetic backgrounds? This seems to indicate that humans migrated, that humans interbred, and that outward "racial" characteristics can change in just a few generations. This should just be recognized and acknowledged, and documented with references.
• This notion that there is some struggle between blacks and whites that has driven all events of human history for thousands of years and all history must be viewed through this lens seems sort of ridiculous to me. This is the same sort of bankrupt argument the white supremacists use. Do we want to follow their ugly lead?
• according to the best scientific evidence we have, ALL humans at one time lived in Africa
• according to the best scientific evidence we have, ALL humans at one time had dark skin. Lighter colored skin is just some sort of mutation, as far as we can tell.
• clearly humans will use anything they can get their hands on to divide themselves into tribes and to attack those who are different (see Jerzy Kosinski's story The Painted Bird): perceived "race", language, appearance, sex, interests, physical characteristics, disabilities, religion, age, dress, profession, etc. These tribal forces might be hard-wired into humans by evolution and might have had some evolutionary advantage in our past. However, they are not useful in the discussions about writing this article.
• When I look back at the history of the article and the history of the discussion, the one good thing I see arising from all this discord is that there is a lot of good information that is embedded in it. If we could cull out the wheat from the chaff and mine these histories, we would have a lot more good content to present in Wikipedia.

I again appeal for some acknowledgement that people will allow multiple viewpoints in the article, as long as they are properly documented and referenced. Why try to beat those with other viewpoints to a pulp and silence them? To what end?--Filll 13:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Response

Many of your ideas are fallacious, but I will respond to only a few.

• You Say - It's All in The Past

I deplore your sweeping dismissal of the past, calling the reason that differences exist irrelevant. By placing all transgressions in the past, healing and reparations can never truly. Negation is the next step. Did anything really occur? Wasn't it all in your imagination? With all the raping and torture of Third World People occurring in the past, the occident never has to take the various offenses into account. Because it is in the past, people of color are never accorded the time out necessary to regenerate and heal deep wounds. Yet, in the present the culprits repeatedly escape detection. Until too late, when it becomes the irrelevant past. And so on...

• You Say This Article Is a Rallying Point

What is so surprising that Blacks may be vitally interested in an article on this subject? When I look on the entire section that is devoted to the Jewish people, I found that they too are terribly excited about the article and have even set up external sites to monitor it's creation. Why are Blacks supposed to be disinterested in their own identity when others are very naturally excited about theirs?

• You Say - Should Rather Be in Blogs

While deploring the length of other's comments your's is no less lengthy, subjective or open-ended.

• You Say Those Without the Internet May be Excluded From the Dialogue

Apparently you are from the out of sight, out of mind school of though. Since some people do not have access to the internet, then those who do should feel free to discuss them and their identity as they see fit. This is what dominant cultures have been doing for centuries, to their great loss.

Against my better judgement

• OF COURSE the past is important and it should be recognized in this article and other places. And the discrimination and prejudice that existed and still exists should be mercilessly exposed and documented extensively. I find it offensive that you want to infer meanings which are not implied or intended to my statements based on your own cultural blinders. What my statement was intended to convey is that I find it unfortunate that the influence of whites might be leading us into interblack arguments and interblack conflict here. Why give in to it?
• OF COURSE blacks should be interested in this article. Who said they shouldn't be? Why are you looking for arguments where none exist? Maybe you might want to examine your motives.
• What do you propose we do about billions of people with no internet access? We could block the access of people in unrepresentative places like New York City, to start with, to balance things out...(this is sarcasm, in case you do not get it). There is NOTHING that can be done to give people with no access to the internet input into Wikipedia, aside from letting some self-declared representative like yourself dominate the discussion and the editing. I think many people would object to this, but that is just a hunch. I would be in favor of having you personally, individually and solely take over the entire writing and editing of the article for 6 months, and see what results and how other people of color feel about it. I think there is no problem with your viewpoints, I just wonder about your frenzy to squelch others who might disagree with you with polemical diatribes.
• Another alternative is for you to start a page on black identity to catalog your own personal theories and political stance here on Wikipedia, with many links to it.

Proposed structure for the article

I agree with Fill that there is room in this article for all cited view points, and so I propose the following structure.

• Definitions (which we can keep pretty much as it is, since it shows all sides including intense criticism)
• History (this section has potential if it can be cited)
• Peoples of sub-Saharan ancestry (Here we can discuss all the diverse populations of sub-Saharan ancestry including watusi, pygmies, (to show the range of height) African Americans, Haitans, San, etc). The reason why I feel this section deserves to come first is because these people are Black by every definition.
• Peoples of North African ancestry (here we can discuss various theories that the ancient egyptians etc were Black, but only briefly since there's a whole article related to that)
• Peoples of non-African ancestry (here we can discuss all the peoples who have been called Black in narrow cultural contexts (i.e. Australian aboriginals, tamils etc)
• Racial Boundaries (here we can discuss various people who have both Black and non-Black genetic traits and how they are identified)
• Can White people be Black? (this section is optional but it's a place where we can discuss the Black Irish, Bill Clinton being described as the first lack president etc)__Whatdoyou 16:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you whatdoyou. Finally someone who is willing to acknowledge that there is no reason to exclude other viewpoints. The value to an encyclopedia is that we can capture any divergence of viewpoints that exist and put them on display. We should not be trying to form a spurious concensus where none exists by attacking each other. The reader can look at the two or three of 4 or more different sides to each of these issues, and come to their own conclusion. Even if you disagree completely with another viewpoint, it is at least thought-provoking. I for one think your proposal sounds pretty good.--Filll 16:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you support my proposal. As you may know if you've been reading my posts, I personally prefer that Black=sub-Saharan ancestry perspective, but just to show my willingness to not censor alternative view points, I propose this definition (supposedly by Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop) be added to the biological section of the definitions section (so that Ezeu, Zaph, Deeceevoice don't feel their views are being excluded from that section):

There are two well-defined Black races: one has a black skin and woolly hair; the other also has black skin, often exceptionally black, with straight hair, aquiline nose, thin lips, an acute cheekbone angle. We find a prototype of this race in India: the Dravidian. It is also known that certain Nubians likewise belong to the same Negro type...Thus, it is inexact, anti-scientific, to do anthropological research, encounter a Dravidian type, and then conclude that the Negro type is absent.__Whatdoyou 17:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is no such thing as a black white person. It's an oxymoron. This isn't some article about metaphorical blackness. This is the guy who wanted to put Bill Clinton in the article, but edit-warred against the inclusion of Tamils. Absurd.

Well there are also a lot of people who would say there's no such thing as a Black person of non-African ancestry, including the U.S. census. And the Tamil editors seem to think its absurd to call them Black.__Whatdoyou 17:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• And what the heck is a "black genetic trait"?

So being Black's not genetic? Is it environmental? If so than why can't White people be Black if there are no genetic restrictions?__Whatdoyou 17:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• And just what "concession" are you talking about with regard to equatorial Africans? deeceevoice 17:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about adding the definition by Cheikh Anta Diop so that your views get more cited representation__Whatdoyou 17:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the entire "black white person" discussion is somewhat ludicrous. But if it is listed, then it is complete. People are free to present material that supports other viewpoints. There is no sense to trying to bury some viewpoints, even if you disagree with them vehemently. Just show why they are highly suspect viewpoints and document it. The reader can then discard them. The reason to include them is because a reader might encounter a statement like "Clinton was the first black president" or a phrase like "black irish" and want to understand what the heck people meant. This is a place to explain it, no matter how ridiculous you might feel those terms are.--Filll 17:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Mention of the so-called "Black Irish" has absolutely no place in this discussion -- another silly addition by the same person who sought to include Bill Clinton. NO ONE alleges they are black people of any kind. It's just a name utilizing the word. That's like including indigenous (native) Americans in an article on East Indians -- simply because they are called "Indians". There's no connection whatsoever. deeceevoice 17:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't care whether that section is added or not (though it would be useful) but it only sounds oxymoronic to those who take the word Black literally and can't get past the fact that it's meaning is more subtle. For example, there are still nearly half a dozen editors who are unable to comprehend my resistance to lableing non-Africans black because they can't move past the fact that Australoids, Tamils, etc have dark skin and thus logically must be Black. But what these people fail to comprehend is that that the largest population of dark-skinned people are of sub-Sahran ancestry, and so over time the term Black became exclusively associated with sub-Saharan ancestry (except in Australia where the archaic definition still persists to label Australoids), regradless of whether the Black person in question was as dark as Whoopi Goldberg or as light as Halle Berry. People need to understand that just because the term Black is rooted in color does not mean it's defined by color today, although that view certainly deserves representation too.__Whatdoyou

If "black" just refers to skin color, what about:

• a "white" person that can get a very dark tan and be darker than a "black" person, at least temporarily?
• "black" people with vitiligo and therefore white skin?
• "black" people that are albinos and therefore have white skin?
• dark skinned people that do not want to be called black?
• "black" people whose background is so mixed that they are lighter than many "white" people?
• the "one drop" rule in the Southern US states?
• W.E.B Dubois, NAACP, who has many white features and fairly light skin?
• Colin Powell, who self-identifies as black but is very light skinned?
• Dark-skinned Inuit peoples, that many people claim are not black but white?
• Jamaican Americans, who are often very dark skinned, but refer to light skinned African Americans as "blacks", to distinguish African Americans from themselves.

I could go on and on and on, but it is clear that in some contexts, the meaning of "black" is quite complicated and subtle. We can try to ignore this, or we can acknowledge this and document it. (a unsigned entry by an apparent troll.)

Why not put the references to "black white" people and other complications in a separate article? --Filll 18:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Filll, don't bother. The above is just nonsense. It doesn't even rise to the level of trolling and merits no response. deeceevoice 21:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually Fill is criticisng you because you're the one who keeps arguing that Black is just a skin color, hence you wish to include Tamils and other non-African ancestry people simply because they're dark. Kobrakid 18:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I am actually arguing in favor of including all points of view, afrocentric and nonafrocentric. Since there is disagreement, ALL different definitions of "blackness" and all different points of view need to be represented, documented and referenced.--Filll 18:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Structure For The Article on Black People

• From VaniNY

I disagree that Bill Clinton and the subject of Whites becoming Black should even be included in this article. These quirky facts are fun but really serves no purpose other than to amuse or provoke. Inclusion of such material makes no sense whatsoever.

• Additional proposals for the Black People Article
• An Early Draft

Since the title includes the word "people", I have chosen to assume that this article addresses the subject of Homo Sapiens who are Black and not an abstract, socio-political, North American sub-commmunity known as "Black People". In other words, "people who are Black" rather than Black people who may be bound as much or more by kinship ties than biological factors such physiognomy and phenotype. Therefore, at least as a point of departure, the article should be firmly based on the origins of "Blackness" in the physiology of Black skin, since this is the overriding defining factor until today. Certain superficial factors such as phenotype, bone structure, and skull formation may also be relevant here. But I propose that, for the purpose of this article, such socio-political factors concerning race such as political variations in racial taxonomy, racial disharmony, ethnicity, religion and nationality be totally discarded in favor of a total focus on Black skin as a defining factor. Also discarded shall be such outdated scientific terminology and associated concepts as Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid etc. In this model, whether or not a group of people have Black skin will determine whether it is included in the article. I propose the inclusion of the following sections in the article, to support this more physical, less abstract approach. --VaniNY 21:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Black Skin

The article should open with an explanation of how skin color works in human beings. There should be a thorough exploration of the mechanics of melanin, it's evolution, utility, function etc. Also how skin pigmentation, solar rays, etc work.

• Pigmentation Loss

In this next section there should be an extensive discussion of how skin color was lost. It's clear that the should be a brief explanation how Whites and Blacks differ from each other. The recent discovery of the mutated chromosomes which were responsible for loss of 30 percent of skin color, and which lead to the development of white skin can be discussed here.

• Prehistory
• Homo Sapien's Origins in Africa
• Narrative Movement

Black people have been traditionally considered as limited to one locale: Africa. Yet current knowledge can situate dark-skinned people around the world, not just in Africa. This article should strive to reconcile these two facts. The article should follow a natural movement - from Africa outward towards the Occident. So, it should begin with a thorough discussion of the current belief that all humanity, (Homo Sapiens) originate in Africa and were Black skinned. This section should quite solidly situate humanity in Africa and explore the fact that the first human beings were undoubtedly Black skinned according to current dominant scientific thought. With referral to the most significant archaeological discoveries, this section should briefly summarize theories on the length of time that all humans were Black and resided in in Africa. There should be some information on Cheikh Anta Diop, John Henrik Clarke.

• Homo Sapiens Out of Africa

There should be an exploration of the trajectory of the exodus out of Africa (40,000 years ago), so that concrete connections can be drawn between Black skinned Africans and those dark people who live elsewhere but are also Black. This should be accomplished with heavy reliance on the more recent archaeological discoveries that trace the exodus out of Africa from the around the Lake Victoria region towards what is now Monaco. There should be some discussion of the Grimaldi man discovered in Monaco and related phenomena and implications. Discoveries which have been made and that successfully link dark skinned non-Africans to Black Africa should be explored. In spite of the Dalit's of India's declaration that they are also Black, there are many dark skinned Asians and other non-Africans who hesitate to consider themselves Black, deny their skin color, feel disconnected from Africa, feels conflicted about their connection to Africa. This may be due to stigmatization. This article can, based on archaeological, paleontological, linguistic, genetic and eventually, classical evidence construct a formidable argument that can and will tie all Black people to their African origins.

• History

Early History In this section, there should be some discussion of the Black skinned people's history, including African and Black Indian kingdoms. Between 3,500 to 600 years ago. Black Africa The African subsection should be made up of several geographically defined subdivisions : West Africa, North Africa, East Africa and South African. Information on the ancient African kingdoms should be included here. There should be special treatment of Meroë, the Cush, the Nubians, the Egyptians. I will not list all the great African kingdoms and peoples which should be either treated in detailed or briefly mentioned in this section.

• Black India

Same thing - with referrals to ancient texts which describe India as a land of Black people. There should be some discussion of the brutal invasion of the White Aryan people, and the repercussions of this invasion on such indigenous people as the Dalits, the Dravidians and others. The Buddha and his depiction as a woolly haired man with African features can be included in this section.

• Black Oceania

Similar treatment with an exploration of Black phenotypes, etc.

• Black Asia

This subsection should at least deal with the idea that some very dark-skinned people reside in China, South East Asia.

• Middle Ages

Karth-Haddas Eclipse of Egypt End of Meroë and Kush

• Modern History

This section should trace in broad strokes the last 600 years history and destiny of Black Skinned people around the world. There should be some treatment of the most important events, both positive and negative, such as the numerous discoveries, the Transatlantic Slave Trade, the Eastern Slave trade, the Islamization of Africa, and so on. Also

• Asante Empire
• Lunda, Kuba and Luba Kingdoms
• Macina, Sokoto, Zoulou Kingdoms.
• Colonization begins - Industrial Revolution
• Euro settlers in South Africa
• Napoleon invades Egypt
• Rise of New Slave Trade in East Africa - Zanziba

(some of the above list from a relevant website)

• Contemporary History

• Current Events --VaniNY 22:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"The mechanics of black skin" and how the pigment was lost? TERRIBLE ideas! First, there is no "mechanics" of black skin; it's a chemical phenomenon. Even so, we don't need to reinvent the wheel. There are already articles on Human skin color, race, etc. We don't need to start from square one and repeat information that already appears elsewhere -- and in more appropriate locations. Sorry, but those ideas are not tenable. I'm in the middle of a deadline and haven't read the rest, but I'll come back -- when I have a little more time and a lot more patience. deeceevoice 21:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

*Response to DCvoice Since the article is about Black people, I see nothing wrong with dissecting what Black skin is all about. It is a fascinating process and is highly relevant here. Although you may know all about it, others to whom black skin is completely foreign may be nonplussed by the "mechanics" behind Black skin. I see no reason not to include a brief reference to this extraordinary phenomena which is at the base of dark skin. (Referring to these processes as mechanical is merely figurative - why nitpick?) Starting at the very beginning is an excellent way to tie everything together in a very synthetic, holistic way. So you start with the chemicals at work in the human body and work outwards towards a clean cut informative, neatly structured article. Unless you can give me a valid scientific or procedural reason not to include the above paragraph, then I will consider this a difference of personal vision or style, and not a real basis censuring my views. I feel for you, but since Wikipedia is supposed to be a participatory ad democratic experience, I hope you will allow me to participate in the manner I see fit. Thank you.--VaniNY 22:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've already stated the reason for my objection. This material is covered elsewhere, and I don't see the point of starting at square one, on a celluar level.

And what's all the business about wikipedia being a "participatory ad democratic experience"? Did I at any point question or challenge your ability or right to participate? If you're going to take any and every disgreement with your suggestions -- I assume that's what they are, rather than mandates -- as an affront, some effort at "censure" [sic], then that's a problem with the lens through which you regard simple disagreement and has absolutely nothing to do with me.

Now that I've reviewed your suggestions, I have to say they get worse. This isn't an article on history. And, again, most -- if not all -- of these subjects are covered in their respective articles elsewhere on the website. Furthermore, the history section (which, again, is unnecessary) appears to treat only African peoples. And it is quite clear from the information already presented in the article that "black" is a term that transcends "race" and geography. Contrary to the assertions of some, the view that only African peoples are black is extremely provincial and limited. As a biological fact and a sociocultural, sociopolitical, historical construct transcends "race", ethnicity, and national boundaries. While your suggestions are wa-aay too broad in terms of suggested scope, I find your perspective exceedingly narrow; it inappropriately ignores other black peoples -- another reason to ditch it all together, unless you want to go into the history of aboriginal blacks all over the globe, and into Tamil/Dravidian history ando Negrito history and Melanesian history ad nauseam. It's simply not feasible. deeceevoice 23:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Because you seem to think otherwise and seem to have taken my comments personally, I will make it a point to say that I appreciate your efforts at outlining your vision for the article. I simply disagree -- and strenuously. Do not mistake my bluntness for hostility or antagonism. That's just the way I roll -- particularly when I'm crunching deadlines. I don't play nicey-nice. If I think an idea sux, I'll say so. (Also, the "patience" comment was not related to your suggestions specifically, but to the history of the ongoing disputes and trolling going on with this piece.) So, take a chill pill. deeceevoice 23:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

To Above

• Participation

I posted the idea here because the article is frozen. also, I'd like to see thing move forward and abstract rationales and definitions of Black People do seem to be the cause of all the frustration here. I consider that a biological starting point is best for a such a topic which must naturally transcend national and cultural boundaries.

• Various subjects already covered in their respective articles

Many things are covered in their respective articles, but by its very nature the Black People article is extremely broad so that it must necessarily synthesize several topics which are heretofore covered in various other articles on Wikipedia. So the idea that Melanin is covered in a brief 100 word article does not preclude its inclusion here anymore than the fact that an article on Africa, Slavery, various tribes, and other subject matters which should be included in this article have already been treated elsewhere in Wikipedia. This is simply not a valid argument. Because of the scope of this encyclopedia, it appears that almost everything is slated to be included here.

• Taking things personally

Everything here is personal and yet nothing is... Nothing matters and yet, somehow it does.

• Etc

Chill pill... right. You are not the only person "crunching deadlines", so please... I suspect that you are a sister, so I will bite my tongue.

• Narrow Scope - appears to treat only African people

No, no and no. This shows that you did not read through this very brief text. Didn't you see the words India, Oceania, Asia, Latin America written in bold text. The article structure which I suggested clearly suggests inclusion of Black, Brown and Dark skinned people from around the globe based on the color of the skin. There are sections for Africa, India, Asia (excluding India), Latin America. I only left out North America and the N & S Pole. This is the opposite of narrow. In fact, no approach could be more inclusive.

• Not a History article

Says you. If this is not a history, then I have to ask why not? A chronological approach lends coherence to the text.

Why not? Because each of the peoples referred does (or should) have an article in the project devoted exclusively to them which treats such matters in depth. Keep in mind, there is a recommended length for an article. When the scope of an article becomes overly broad (such as that proposed here for this piece) or it simply becomes too long, it eventually is mercilessly chopped up into its constituent parts, either to start new articles, to become part of old ones, or the material recedes into the obivion of the article's "history" log.). It's a matter of praticality; it's the way the project functions. There's simply no way an article of the scope and size you have proposed here will survive intact. deeceevoice 18:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Disappointment

But I am terribly disappointed in you. I thought you had something to say. I frankly revise my opinion. You type a lot, but, at least in this case, you are not thinking things through. My God, you have not even READ through what I wrote. The will to censure and criticize should be accompanied with the ability to think piercingly and to understand. I can tell you right now that you have not thought through the role that Melanin has in defining Black People on earth today.

Yep, I skimmed it, having immediately seen a problem with the "mechanics of melanin" and the exhausting (and exhausting) "let's start from square one in human history" approach. And I have to say I completely missed Oceania. So, sue me. But, please, do us all a favor and don't assume what I have or haven't thought through. We simply disagree. If you want to twist that to somehow mean I'm trying to impose some sort of gag order on you or challenge your right to participate in this so-called "democratic" experiment, then here's nothing I can do about that. That's a personal problem. I don't edit here to gain the approval, friendhip, respect, or even enmity or hostility of anyone. I'm here to do what I do, and that's it. Finally, you're "disappointed"? lol Aw, gee, dat's too bad. But I think I can live with that. :p deeceevoice 18:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Melanin is at the core of what Black people are all about

It is frankly central. Without melanin you have no Black people. Starting from Melanin does away with any political discussion because Melanin is very PHYSICAL. Other arguments about Black identity can then be addressed later and separately. But Melanin is the core. Starting from Melanin does away with any need to struggle people who see the term "Black" as a socio-political term originating in the United States with Black Americans. And I don't care if it is mentioned elsewhere - the subject of Melanin is central to what Black people are all about and MUST be included here. --VaniNY 10:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)-- 10:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I find most of this proposal very compelling for the section on history. I for one, am impressed. Some parts might need more fleshing out and some parts might be removed or references to other pages used. But I like the general sweep, which agrees with current scientific understanding that all Homo Sapiens are of African origin and all were originally dark skinned peoples, as far as we know or understand. --Filll 21:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Response to Filli

I appreciate the feedback. Certainly it is a shell, but it is at least very clear cut. I think that it may guide us towards an informative, helpful article. With so many divergent elements it is important that this text have a well-defined outline, a continuous, unifying theme, a movement and a compelling logic which permits the writers to bring everything together to form a coherent whole. Well, it's midnight here, so good night to all of you. Although I have my misgivings, I do hope that from henceforth this will be a constructive project. Sincerely--VaniNY 22:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

tasmanian aboriginals

many tasmanian aboriginals would find the caption "the last four tasmanian aboriginals" highly offensive! that may be the original title of the photograph, but there are several hundred original tasmanians alive today Benvenuto 22:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A compromise

The majority of the arguing here seems to be whether to include people not usually described as Black, such as Indians, Arabs, Tasmanians. There are a few Afrocentrists that would like to claim these peoples as Black, but the vast majority of the world thinks otherwise. We've had an apparently Indian fellow here who was outraged at being called black. There are black people in India, just as there are in the U.S. and Mexico, but few level-heads consider Tamils or Tasmanians black. What's more, when we get to the real science of it, we find that genetically these people are only distantly related ot present-day African blacks. The citations we have are out-of-date and just barely notable. The article is not about who used to be called Black and most academics chuckle at the notion of Afrocentrist "science".

A solution would be to put all this into a single, short paragraph labeled "Afrocentrist views", so we can handle the article reasonably not motivaed by a desire for some form of "Black Unity" which groups like Tamils are not interested in. They have their own culture and language and are not interested in teaming up with American blacks or Somalians.

I do think a description of what makes skin color dark belongs in this article.

CarlosRodriguez 00:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent compromise. I agree with Carlos 100% Kobrakid 18:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Response to Carlos

Carlos, you really need to separate the idea of Black from the idea of race as per the American value system. Essentially you are expressing the sentiment that nobody wants to be Black. The choice is not up to you. For the purpose of this article, being a Black person is not a matter of choice - it IS a fact subject to visual and scientific verification. There are not implications of either a good or bad nature, no inferences to be drawn. All the discrimination is already in place in our current international environment. Denying physical evidence is not going to make racist people hate you less and has nothing to do with this article. Black people is not a racial category. Black people is largely a descriptive term . If you were a Monotheist, you might say that God made human beings that way. Why do you read more into it? If you want to know whether or nor you are Black, look in the mirror! If your skin resembles any of the following, charcoal, caramel, chocolate, ebony, cinnamon - you have Melanin in your skin and you are a Black person. You may also be Hausa, Tamil, Honduran, American, Chinese, Democrat, Republican, Nazi, whatever, but physically, from a biological stance your skin contains Melanin in abundant quantities and makes you Black. Black is a color, is a skin color, is a group of human beings who have MELANIN in their skin. Let's establish that and let varying people, ethnicities, religions decide iwhat they each want to do with the information.--VaniNY 12:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Am Hausa and Igbo have no plans of teaming up with African-Americans or each other, does that invalidate they are the same race?---Halaqah 01:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

But Peoples of African ancestry are their own separate race and are in no way shape or form genetically related to Australian aboriginals or Indians. Those groups have closer genetic links to Europeans than they do to anyone of sub-Saharan ancestry. Kobrakid 18:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Response to Halaqh

If this is a serious question, I will respond as an African American. This is a descriptive article about Black People and not a social or a political declaration or manifesto. It is not intended to limit or constrain Black skinned people. I and most A-Americans I know have always held deep compassion for Africa and its people. We have at least two things in common, our skin color and our place of origin. That said - you are totally independent of us. We are separated by thousand of miles as well as by history, culture etc. This article goes beyond the modern African Diaspora, to embrace the large subject of black people around the world. That means Oceania, Asia, etc and not just Africa. Our tale is just a part of a far larger web. Whether Hausa, Igbo, Wolof or whatever, you are not teaming up with African-Americans just by having the same COLOR as we do.

You misunderstood, I asked someone who said Tamils dont want to know black people. so i used the example of hausa and Igbo dont unite, but that doesnt mean they are not the same race. Dont think that African-American and African are different, you only need to look at both conditions to see they are in the same mess.--Halaqah 13:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• What This Article Should NOT Be About

This article should not be about race, as that concept has largely been dismantled. This article should not be about tribal affiliation. Or social values. Or political affiliation. Wow.

• Black People Transcend Man-Made Boundaries

Halaqh - Human beings were here before such concepts as nations, money, politics, race, tribes, community and religion were invented. As far as we know, human beings and Blackness were created simultaneously since the first human beings were Black. So, Blackness and Black people exists outside of national boundaries, political ideology, sexuality, religion. Black skin is! Why does the word Black have such a political interpretation?

• You Are Off the (African American) Hook

You're off the hook Halaqh. Having black skin does not mean you like or follow Black Americans. Having black skin does not mean you like or follow Black Americans. Having black skin does not mean you like or follow Black Americans. Having black skin does not mean you like or follow Black Americans. Having black skin does not mean you like or follow Black Americans. Black skin is black skin. That is it. PS - (I'm not calling you a traitor or sell out or anything. Keep moving and watching your own back. We A-American can take care of business.)--VaniNY 12:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood, I asked someone who said Tamils dont want to know black people. so i used the example of hausa and Igbo dont unite, but that doesnt mean they are not the same race. Dont think that African-American and African are different, you only need to look at both conditions to see they are in the same mess.--Halaqah 13:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay this site is the biggest UK "Black" site http://www.blink.org.uk/bm/ BLINKlook at there hit rate and look at their definition. Now if you think they are sell outs, then look at their web content to see they are not kissing anybody--

Although it might make the article very long, I would agree that the afrocentrist perspective should be represented, in addition to those views which are in disagreement with the afrocentrist perspective. Of course, if the article gets too long, one could try to divide it up in various ways into different articles. If the science of black skin is in another location already, perhaps a shortened summary would be appropriate with a link to the more complete explanation. I think that genetic information would also be interesting, even if it is only a sketch. If there s a simple explanation for the genetic reasoning behind an african origin for homo sapiens, that would be very interesting, but I do not know if there is enough room for it (the African eve and the pinch point in human evolution 60K years BP etc). Also, I am somewhat confused about the Tasmanian Aborigines. I had understood that in Tasmania, the Aborigines were essentially hunted and completely wiped out by Europeans; is this incorrect? When I went to Australia, I was stunned to find out that there was a law on the books in Australia that allowed the hunting of Aborigines as "wild game" until the mid 1920s!!! Also, I had an awful time trying to find Aboriginal handicrafts anywhere to purchase, but there were American Indian handicrafts on sale in every tourist area. I asked around, and every time I was given the same answer, "Aborigines have no culture, so there is no point to selling anything associated with them". I was just bewildered...What about dreamtime and the walkabout and the boomarang and didgeridoo and the wiggity grub and ayer's rock and survival in one of the world's harshest environments? It was impossible to have a rational conversation with any (nonAboriginal) Australians on these issues. Very disheartening...--Filll 03:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Didgeredoos, boomerangs, and assorted other cultural items are easy to find in Australia, but many of them are manufactured in China. Major shopping malls sell these goods and there is a store at the airport, so I'm not sure how you missed thi. I am unsure of whether there are any "pure" Tasmanian aborigines remaining. There are many descendants of aborigine/white relationships. In any case, it doesn't matter for this article, no one considers native Australians black. CarlosRodriguez 05:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A few comments.

• There are dark-skinned peoples/population groups around the world who, by virtue of their skin pigmentation, have been referred to as "black." This is separate and apart from any particular historical paradigm (Afrocentrism) or political ideology. Blackness may, or may not, have anything to do with being Africoid or being from Africa or the African diaspora. Blackness is, first and foremost about relative skin color. What about that don't you understand?
• Some of these "black" populations are African. Some are regarded by some as part of an African diaspora.
• Some non-African non-whites self-identify as "black" at least in part because of an identification with the political struggles of African peoples against racism, discrimination and oppression -- or, as is the case with the Tamil Tigers, with a particular struggle, that of African-Americans.
• Filll, Tasmanians were massacred. There are no surviving Tasmanians. The last of them died in the 1800's.
• "...no one considers native Australians black."

"No one"? Let go of the narrow, provincial, African-Europeans paradigm, people! Because it's not something you grew up with, or are familiar with, stop ignoring the evidence in front of your faces. It's been presented on the talk page and in the article time and again. Let's give this one more shot:

• A BBC News article "Australia's New Black Pride"[1] which observes "Thousands of Australians are now willing to publicly acknowledge their black roots and identify themselves as part of the indigenous community."
• Doesn't anyone remember the white, Australian cricket professional who was suspended after going on a rant in the locker room postgame against the team's Sri Lankan opponents, calling them "black c*nts"? It made international news.[2]
• Here's an article about Australian athletes in India, calling the locals "niggers."[3]
• An article about titled "Understanding Australia's Black Uprising"[4] by a very mainstream -- and white -- journalist/film documentarian.
• A mainstream press article titled "Australia's Dark Secret"[5] about the nation's white racism and the Block (an Aboriginal ghetto in Australia): "Sydney is not Los Angeles; Sydney is relaxed, as people keep saying, which means that most whites can go about their business without laying eyes on a black Australian, let alone having to think about righting an historic wrong."
• A 1985 article in the journal Sociology and Social Research, "Blacks and the Crime Rate: Some Observations from Australia,"[6] discusses "Australia's black minority (the Aborigines)," repeatedly characterizing them as "black."
• For a more historical perspective, there's The Harold Finch-Hatton Website, which features excerpts from Advance Australia: An Account of Eight Years Work, Wandering, and Amusement, in Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria, published in 1885. Chapter 10[7] is entitled simply "The Blacks." Finch-Hatton repeatedly refers to the Aboriginals as "black."

Those in denial regarding the common and longstanding practice of applying the term "black" to various non-white, non-African populations around the globe -- or those who seek to denigrate and pigeonhole this view to an "Afrocentrist perspective" -- need get off their rumps, do a little rudimentary investigation -- and then give it a rest. The evidence is not only in plain sight if one cares to look; it is ubiquitous. deeceevoice 08:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks your for these insights. They are very helpful.--VaniNY 19:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wrong Again Carlos - Many Aborigines Call Themselves Black

You appear to be making a definitive statement. Yet it is clear that you have no idea what YOU yourself mean by the word "Black". You may have observed Black skinned people somewhere. But that is not sufficient for making grandiose statements about who and what the earth's Black People are. What does the term Black mean to you? A race? A person from Africa? A Black American? Or just someone who has asked your permission to so think him/herself? These concepts represent the full extent of the possible conceptualization by Whites and many non-Whites who are writing about the Black People article on this talk page. Due to the history of slavery, subjugation, exploitation and indeed as Filli has indicated, even HUNTING of people of color, I wonder if Whites shouldn't RECUSE themselves from participation in the writing of this article. FYI Carlos - I and many other people consider the Australian Aborigines black. Many of them consider themselves Black. due to the near Black color of their skin, there is not doubt of the amount of pigment and therefore melanin at work. Maybe if they had not been persecuted and hunted to DEATH, they would have had a more developed opinion on the subject. Yet are you Black, Carlos? If not, why are you invading this space? If you are an outsider and your knowledge limited, then what good can you bring to this article, besides your prejudices and misconceptions? --VaniNY 12:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

BLINKlook at this definition. Why dont we accommodate all views on blackness I am African and dont think i am black--how about that? So if tamils dont think they are black doesnt mean this def. doesnt include them. they all have to be included. Because black doesnt have a country, there is no Blackia or Blackistan so black is who ever is called black (by the man, the someone who went around the world calling people black). what i find interesting is the pattern of identifying with blackness and the pattern of direct oppression--Halaqah 13:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Second Response to Halaqh

Halaqh - The subject at hand is whether to open the article with a section on Melanin, OK? I have given up telling you that this article is about People who are dark-skinned much as the article on White People is about people who are light-skinned. This is not the place to explore whatever, superficial socio-political angst you are grappling with in this lifetime. You keep referring to Black as though it's some sort of neighborhood you don't want to visit or a street down which you refuse to walk. It's not about that. It's not on your damn papers or passport. It's a skin color - to start with. So as I told you earlier - go take a look in the mirror, Bud. If the mirror sends back the image of a brown or black man (woman) who can be described with any of these terms - black, ebony, jet, chocolate, chocolat-au-lait, coffee, mocha, cinnamon, caramel, or a million of other terms THEN YOU ARE BLACK - so deal with it. For you have abundant Melanin in your skin. If the mirror reflects back a pale skin that can be described as white, alabaster, peaches and cream, ghostly (among other terms) then you are WHITE. You keep saying but I live in Africa, I live in Africa. You have already received messages that indicate that this is not about A F R I C A. So, so what if you live there? Black skinned people live everywhere on earth. Have you got it now? Can we move on now, Halaqh? Anyway, if you are not Black then why are you haunting this page. At this stage, there is work to be done on constructing the article and not deconstructing it. You keep tearing everything down just cuz you've got issues. Can you please go elsewhere.

Huh? Black has nothing to do with skin colour. Black means African ancestry. An albino can be Black if they have recent African ancestry.

Melanin - the root of Black People

• Melanin is at the core of what Black people are all about

Melanin is present in large doses in ALL dark skin. It is nearly absent from white skin. Above, I submitted a proposal for an article outline which would take a very inclusive approach to the subject at hand. It's founded on the physicality of Blackness - that is the very Melanin that can be found in the skin of some people and not in others. The insertion of a concise but striking exploration of the physical mechanics in this article is essential to communicating what Blackness is all about. This will permit an exploration of how Blackness transcends national boundaries, political ideologies and diverse racial taxonomies. This approach would enable the inclusion of dark skinned people from all over the globe. This will widen the scope beyond Africa and include dark people from Oceania, India and East Asia, Latin America - the entire globe really.

Let's use the proposed outline which I submitted and which can be found above. As I said, it leads in with an exploration of the mechanisms of Melanin functioning. (Yes, mechanism) Melanin is frankly central this article. Without melanin you have no Black people. Departing from such a PHYSICAL basis does away with any discussion stemming from subtle socio-political debates. Other arguments about Black identity, (such as Black identity based on kinship tradition, social tradition, racial taxonomy, political or juridical arguments) can then be addressed later and separately. But Melanin is the core. Such a basis obviates some of the superficial concerns at hand such as the fact that some people see the term "Black" as a socio-political term originating in the United States with Black Americans.

Someone has mentioned that Melanin is mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia - but the independent subject of Melanin is not the issue here. The issue is Melanin in its vital and dynamic role as the "forger" of Black skin and therefore, Black people. It is central to what Black people are all about and MUST be included in any article purporting to discuss the subject. --VaniNY 10:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this makes no sense at all. Melanin is universal (with the possibly exception of some albino people who cannot make melanin at all). So, what you're arguing is that we're all Black, just to different degrees, except for albinos, who are what, precisely? -- The Anome 11:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Your Objection to Including a Paragraph on Melanin is Ridiculous

You don't know what you are talking about. Stating that Melanin is universal is a ridiculous and even dishonest oversimplification. Melanin acts as a PIGMENT in the human body. Your claim does not communicate that Black skin has far more pigment and therefore, FAR MORE melanin. Are you trying to say that they both produce the same levels of melanin? This is totally false. Dark skin is a function of abundant melanin production. White skin is a function of VERY LOW level of production. You can not ignore this. White skin may process melanin but it does so in small amounts, that to say that they have it is misleading. Melanin may be universal but the quantity differs in Black skin. In order for people to understand Black people, they should address the one physical factor which is unifying, irrefutable, irreducible. --VaniNY 13:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No it isnt misleading to say they have it, because they do. Especially Turks and Italians and Spanish. They just dont have the same vol. Because they are some light skin bros and sisters that are lighter than some of these Europeans. I think the topic belongs elsewhere. if it has a link but i dont see why the obvious needs to be stated. isnt it crowed enough? A simple link will do.---Halaqah 13:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Halaqh & Trolling

Stop trolling. I introduced the idea of HIGH levels of Melanin as a factor in Black skin. If this article was about Turks, Italians and Spanish then your comment would be highly relevant. How does the fact that they have a little more than others change the fact that they are essentially white skinned people. I lived in Spain and can tell you that the majority of the inhabitants have quite pale skin. I have also spent much time with Italians, and although there are some dark skinned people in the South, they too, are predominantly pale-skinned. I would have to ask Halaqh to stop trolling this space as he appears to be trying to thwart any possible advancement or consensus. --VaniNY 15:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The problems is this: in English, words are defined by their usage, so "Black" means whatever people who use the word 'Black' mean by 'Black'. Unfortunately, there is no consensus at all about what that might mean. In particular, there is no direct correspondence of actual usage to skin colour, remarkable as that might seem at first sight. Although a very dark skinned Ethiopian man will be almost universally regarded as Black, and a light-skinned Norwegian man as White, contrary to most people's expectations, there is no consensus about any kind of clear point in between where 'Black' can be said to stop, and 'White' to begin.

However, I think the current article goes too far in not mentioning right at the start that the term "Black" is typically associated with darker skin, so I've added "typicially but not always darker-skinned," to the intro sentence. Does that help? -- The Anome 13:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to amplify this a bit more; there's a remarkable website where you are presented with pictures of a few dozen people, and are asked to classify them into "Black", "White", "Hispanic" and "Asian", and then scores you by the extent to which you get the answers "right", by either matching these people's own racial self-identification, or the U.S. Census' racial classification of the same people. Although the task seems trivial at first sight, it's almost impossible to get even most of the people in the "right" categories. I'll see if I can find it: it's quite an eye-opener. -- The Anome 14:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Black is not a color - black is a state of mind.

Anome, do you have a link to that website? or any others like it? --Filll 15:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't find it: I've just spent some time looking for it. I think I might have found it via Metafilter, perhaps six months to a year ago... it was the website for a U.S. TV (perhaps public TV?) documentary. Got it! http://www.pbs.org/race/002_SortingPeople/002_00-home.htm -- The Anome 20:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I just took that test. It is brilliant. I think everyone from this discussion should take that test and explore that website.--Filll 20:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets Start with where we Agree, and go from there

I would like to see an article that encompasses a diversity of opinions in a scholarly manner. If there is disagreement, Great ! Lets try to capture it and document it in as succinct and coherent a manner as possible, with references. This is a complicated topic but it can be done, even if we have to make several articles. After all, other groups like Jews and whites have a whole assortment of websites devoted to different aspects, and therefore a large footprint in Wikipedia. Why not "black people"? (whatever the heck a "black person" is...) There is a HUGE amount of material here and we should try to get it all into Wikipedia. If there is disagreement about blackness or ambiguity, let's make sure we put that in there with references. If there are contradictions, lets put those in there. That is what will make the article useful and interesting to people trying to understand what the phrase "black people" means. This term is freighted with layers upon layers of meanings and connotations, depending on a variety of cultural and historical contexts, and its meaning is temporally and spatially dependent. So there will be no concensus, but so what? There are things that CAN be agreed upon, however, like

• the historical fact that ALL human beings most likely came from Africa

Many would disagree with this. Zaph says we all came from the Middle East (Ararat, etc). Australian Aborigines don't believe this. In Spencer Wells documentary a group of Ab's became very angry when Spencer told them humanity originated in Africa. Native Americans also disagree, as do people in China.unsigned comment by 15:38, 13 October 2006 CarlosRodriguez

• as far as we know ALL human beings were dark skinned originally

Do we have any reason to believe this? I don't think there are any ancient human remains that tell us about skin color.unsigned comment by 15:38, 13 October 2006 CarlosRodriguez

• white skin is the result of some mutations as we are now starting to understand from scientific investigations.

"Mutations" carries negative connotations. Humanity "evolved" different skin colors as it reached different environments. This includes skin becoming lighter in some areas and darker in others.unsigned comment by 15:38, 13 October 2006 CarlosRodriguez

• human beings migrate, including those with dark skin and light skin, and they interbred etc.

• historical consequences in some places at some times associated with having dark skin, including persecution, slavery, annihilation, being viewed as subhuman, hunted, economically disenfranchised (granted this was not universal, but you have to admit there are some patterns)

Where we disagree, lets try to get as many as possible of the discordant points of view recorded, documented properly, and referenced with the best references we can find. --Filll 14:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to Carlosrodriguez

I suspect that some comments were added after my points by Carlosrodriguez (15:38, 13 October 2006 CarlosRodriguez). Let me try to address them if I can:

• the historical fact that ALL human beings most likely came from Africa

Many would disagree with this. Zaph says we all came from the Middle East (Ararat, etc). Australian Aborigines don't believe this. In Spencer Wells documentary a group of Ab's became very angry when Spencer told them humanity originated in Africa. Native Americans also disagree, as do people in China.unsigned comment by 15:38, 13 October 2006 CarlosRodriguez

I am not talking about folk histories or legends or myths or religion. After all, the Japanese feel they are related to the Sun God or whatever. Raelians believe that humans come from extraterrestrial visitors. I am talking about our best current anthropological and scientific undestanding based on our best current information, and the view of mainstream science. This of course might be incorrect, but I would favor going with the hypothesis/theory that is accepted by most scientists and supported by the best scientific data. I think that any disagreements or contradictory theories should be acknowledged and noted, with references given.

I'm just telling you there is some disagreement on this. What is "myth" to you is indisputable truth to others. CarlosRodriguez 17:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely correct. And where there is disagreement, it should be described, documented and referenced.--Filll 17:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• as far as we know ALL human beings were dark skinned originally

Do we have any reason to believe this? I don't think there are any ancient human remains that tell us about skin color.unsigned comment by 15:38, 13 October 2006 CarlosRodriguez

Of course, we do not know for sure. However, this theory/conjecture/speculation is widely accepted by the scientific community and is our best current understanding. We cannot know what we do not know, but we can go with our best current science. I have NO PROBLEM with making it clear with caveats etc that this is not known for sure, and describing the supporting evidence for this theory and viewpoint.

I'm not aware of any science to this effect. Our closest animal cousins, the chimps have skin color that would fall somewhere in the middle of a specturm of human skin colors. CarlosRodriguez 17:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Allow me to make a few comments:--Filll 18:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Chimpanzees and other primates are very different than humans. They typically have more hair on their bodies to protect them. They do not wear clothing. They do not live in the wide range of environments that humans do and do not eat the same wide range of foods that humans do. So drawing any conclusions based on chimpanzee skin color is a bit silly.
2. Also, one can easily find a wide range of references to support my assertion (just look at the one below to get an indication).
3. Nevertheless, lets try to analyze your statement. Would we expect early humans in Africa to be dark skinned or light skinned?

* Humans lived in Africa originally, as far as we can tell from genetics, human remains, evidence of human influence on the environment, and probably other evidence.

* Now over the past 200K years that humans have existed, Africa has had a certain climate, which we can readily estimate from paleoclimate records: dendochronology, studies of coral beds, climate modeling studies, tectonic drift models, paleoclimate proxies like benthic sediments and limnological evidence, ice core data, etc.

* As far as we can tell from all our evidence, Africa has basically been hot and sunny over all of human history from 200Ky BP to present. Sometimes parts of it were drier than they are now, sometimes parts of it were wetter than they are now. Sometimes it was a bit cooler than it is now and sometimes a bit warmer. But it was always relatively hot and sunny, as far as we can tell from all our supporting evidence.

* Humans probably did not start wearing clothes until much later; clothes require a fairly high level of technology and it is a bit much to imagine that humans developed clothing technology very rapidly. So it was hot and it was sunny and humans were naked.

* Of course, solar output is a substantial variable about which we have only cursory information. However, we do have models of stellar evolution and some proxy data and they do not support some wide variation in the "solar constant" in the 200K years of human history.

* So it was not only hot and sunny and humans were naked probably, and the sun produced a substantial amount of ultraviolet radiation. Africa is and was at a latitude that a lot of this UV radiation would reach the ground, given that the upper atmosphere of the earth was not drastically different than it is today. Paleomagnetic studies of the earth's field which governs the structure of the ionosphere do not suggest that the conditions were drastically different in the last 200 K years (the field flips much less often than that, and has not flipped for much longer than that). So there is no evidence to suggest that there was much less or much more upper atmospheric ozone over the mid latitudes than there is at present.

* So Africa was hot, Africa was sunny, the sun probably produced a fair amount of UV radiation and a fair amount of that UV radiation made it to the ground in Africa. And humans were naked. And unless humans had good resistance to various ultraviolet radiation wavelengths, the humans would have been unlikely to thrive. So probably humans would have had to have some sort of resistance to UV radiation.

* What sorts of resistance to UV radiation do we know of? Well humans could have been covered with fur. Humans could have had dark skin. I do not know of any other ways to fight UV (except clothing which came later, and lotions and creams and chemicals and medications which came far later). Human ancestors were covered with fur at one time as we can tell because of our vestigial erector pili muscles (causing goosebumps) but our best estimates are that we lost this fur a long long time ago, well before 200Ky BP. The only thing we know of that seems to fit the evidence is melanin. And guess what? We have plenty of evidence that there were and are humans with a lot of melanin in their skin!! So unless you can come up with some better theory, then I am afraid you are just off in the weeds...Produce some documented evidence or arguments with references that the first humans did not have dark skin. Please, I want to see them--Filll 18:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• white skin is the result of some mutations as we are now starting to understand from scientific investigations.

"Mutations" carries negative connotations. Humanity "evolved" different skin colors as it reached different environments. This includes skin becoming lighter in some areas and darker in others.unsigned comment by 15:38, 13 October 2006 CarlosRodriguez

ALL of human beings are the result of mutations from "lower species", in the dominant view of our best science. Mutations can be good, and they can be bad. Nature sorts those out (that is just evolution, right?). In the case of melanin mutations, there are some drawbacks (e.g., sensitivity to UV radiation) and some advantages (e.g., better ability to collect vitamin D in high latitudes??) Scientists call white skin a mutation. So if it has some negative connotations, well then we should acknowledge that, but that is no reason not to use the most standard scientific characterization, in my opinion. In addition: Things are a bit more complicated than just saying that lighter skin is always found in higher latitudes, since the Inuit have darker skin and are found in high latitudes with less sun, but the current theory to explain this is that they are able to get the necessary Vitamin D from their diets.

--Filll 16:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"White skin" is an evolutionary adaptation, as are nearly all differences between the major "races". Scientists do not call white, brown, black, yellow or red skin "mutations"; racial supremacists have latched onto notions like this over the years. Evolutionary adaptation is a more accurate and more neutral way to describe changes in populations over a long period of time. There is no single mutation responsible for "race". CarlosRodriguez 17:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there is no single mutation responsible for "race". Even skin color is governed by several different genes in a complicated way, if I remember correctly. One could say it is an evolutionary adaptation if you prefer. However, scientists definitely have said white skin is a mutation. I wonder if you do any research whatsoever to back up your claims? Lets take a look at some work from Penn State reported on in the Washington Post in the past year:

Friday, December 16, 2005
DNA mutation accounts for white skin
Penn State University scientists claim to have discovered a genetic mutation responsible for the emergence of white skin between 20,000 and 50,000 years ago. From the Washington Post:

The work suggests that the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa, when all people were brown-skinned. That person's offspring apparently thrived as humans moved northward into what is now Europe, helping to give rise to the lightest of the world's races.

Leaders of the study, at Penn State University, warned against interpreting the finding as a discovery of "the race gene." Race is a vaguely defined biological, social and political concept, they noted, and skin color is only part of what race is -- and is not.

In fact, several scientists said, the new work shows just how small a biological difference is reflected by skin color. The newly found mutation involves a change of just one letter of DNA code out of the 3.1 billion letters in the human genome -- the complete instructions for making a human being.

"It's a major finding in a very sensitive area," said Stephen Oppenheimer, an expert in anthropological genetics at Oxford University, who was not involved in the work. "Almost all the differences used to differentiate populations from around the world really are skin deep."

I have read several similar statements and reports of other scientific work.--Filll 17:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Agreement

I do agree that the term "mutation" is a scientific term which should have absolutely no negative connotation for laypersons such as ourselves. Fear of such innocuous terms is fear of the facts which is fear of the emerging truth. Carlos appears to be here to thwart constructive progress. It is not Filli's responsibility to educate him, if he is ill-informed. He appears to not have a real rationale for participating in this debate other than preying on others and draining their energy with foolish arguments. Carlos' ridiculous statements regarding humans originating in the Middle East is in total conflict with current scientific belief. His decision to mention subjects such as Sun Gods, extraterrestrials is a indication of his level of irresponsibility and inaptness for the task at hand. Please recuse yourself, Carlos you are sabotaging this project.--VaniNY 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It cuts both ways. White supremacists like to use the term "evolved," because it suggests that, because whites came along much later than black folks, they're more highly "evolved." The more accurate scientific term is "mutation," because it describes a genetic change within a species, but not a differentiation between or among different species. Whites are the result of genetic mutation -- mot species evolution. deeceevoice 20:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• On Melanin

I do not think that we have resolved the previous issue at hand Melanin which I raised earlier. This was the inclusion of a section that explores the mechanism of skin pigmentation, melanin functioning etc. This has not been properly resolved. The melanin issue should be resolved before moving on. --VaniNY 15:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok let me ask. WHY is discussing melanin bad, aside from the fact that it might be covered elsewhere and we might not have space? Is there any other reason? --Filll 15:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the wider we cast the net in terms of subject matter for the article, the more room there is for disagreement and debate. Energies are dispersed, and the article becomes lopsided and uneven. Or, worse, the article blows up/stagnates as a result of protracted edit wars -- and over crap that isn't even essential to the article, that already has been hashed out elsewhere!

Read the article on Human skin color. It discusses the various theories about human skin color. One scenario is that fair skin is the result of spontaneous, random mutation, that, theoretically, there were white-skinned people (the result of genetic mutations) in Africa, but they simply did not survive to produce progeny; that the same mutations occurred when humans migrated north, but because of the climate, those mutants survived to bear and rear offspring. Another scenario posits that humans initially were pale like simians, but as they began to lose their hair, their skin darkened over time as a climatic accommodation. And there are other theories, as well. You want to get into melanin in this article -- and the accompanying sturm und drang of agrument, disagreement and, potentially, more edit warring (just look at what's happened here with a far narrower piece) -- and for material that eventually will be cut out, anyway? The "mechanics of melanin"? This still reads like a phenomenally bad idea. deeceevoice 19:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Why do 3 Editors have to say what is on the article?

deeceevoice , halaqah and Zaphnathpaaneah, say what they want and edit what they want. If they think someones is black its in the article, if they think someone isnt then they are not in it.

Moved following comment because it appears to be a complaint and doesn't warrant a new section. --VaniNY 20:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Who ever prodectet this page is playing a game with all the other serious editors. It dosent make sense if we have to discuss it out. When its not gonna change a sh!t. asian2duracell

• Response to Asian2

Why don't you go to the White people site and see what is written there? Maybe Tamils are white skinned or do you claim that they are all somewhere in between? The problem is that you are only one person. Can you really speak for everyone? Pictures have been taken showing Black skinned Tamils. How do you explain their existence if all Tamils are white or gold in color? Are you ignoring them? Are you even aware of them? Do you mean that you have no Black skinned people? Your problem arises from racial identity concerns which are rooted in how your nation and class tells you to think about race. This article is NOT concerned with race or with other such superficial elements as politics, wealth, culture or psychological factors having to do with people who ashamed of their identity. I repeat that China has registered 2,400 minorities with the UN. Is it possible that you nations shelters some minority groups of which you are unaware?--VaniNY 20:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Start with the Basics

Au contraire. Speaking of Melanin sharpens the focus of the article and gives it roots, meaning and direction. Let's create a solid foundation based on simple facts and build from there. It seems illogical to discuss Black People without discussing the biological functions that are in operation behind this phenomena.

• Let's not be distracted

I deplore some of the following obstacles which are blocking this article:

• Pseudo-scientific arguments and faulty info (ie Melanin is universal and therefore meaningless, as affirmed by Anome, We all came from the Middle East, (Zaph))
• Arguments based on popular culture and ignorance (Black People is an American concept, coming out of America and refers to African Americans only or alternatively - All Black people come from Africa, Aborigines are not Black, South East Asians cannot be Black)
• Arguments supported by anecdotes and hearsay
• social-political questions concerning racial identity (such as those who do not wish to be considered Black and the whole Tamil mess) )
• Conflict arising from embroilment in the variations in racial taxonomy
• Taxonometric issues arising from diverse factors whether political, social or cultural (ie The Arab Prince question)
• arguments based on myths, fantasy, and various cosmological visions (anecdotes recounted by Carlos Rodriguez concerning the Japanese "Japanese feel they are related to the Sun God or whatever. Raelians believe that humans come from extraterrestrial visitors" )
• Foolishness - (ie Let's include a section on White people who are Black)
• And far-fetched scientific theories. (ie Human beings initially were pale like simians)

People!!!! LET'S STICK TO THE BASICS! What is the basic building block of Blackness - skin pigment. Where does that come from? Melanin. Simple and easy as pie. MOVING FROM THE SPECIFIC AND THE TANGIBLE OUTWARD TOWARDS THE ABSTRACT. Moreover, it only requires the insertion of a brief section consisting of a mere two or three paragraphs. We can do this!! --VaniNY 20:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Basics

I agree with VaniNY that we should have a firm foundation. The best current theory that ALL human beings originated in Africa, including Tamils and Chinese and Aborigines and Europeans and Indians etc. ALL OF US (unless you are some alien from another planet). And blackness, at its root, refers to people who have darker skin, or whose ancestors have darker skin, or have been suggested to have darker skin by someone else, who have identified with a darker skin group etc. Now, these people might not have dark skin in practice, and that is a complication and an interesting ambiguity and contradiction that can be addressed. However, someplace, somehow there is a connection with the IDEA of darker skin. Which means melanin. And all humans used to a lot of melanin and therefore darker skin, and some mutations have created some humans with less melanin and therefore lighter skin. And melanin can be described. And humans migrate. So we have three pillars that we can use to start with:

• all humans have African origins
• all human ancestors had darker skin
• humans moved around

Does anyone dispute those three pillars? Then we start with that firm base, and move on to more complicated issues.--Filll 20:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me respond to one of the theories mentioned by deeceevoice: "Another scenario posits that humans initially were pale like simians, but as they began to lose their hair, their skin darkened over time as a climatic accommodation." Well first, the simians I have seen are not particularly pale, except for albino simians. Have you seen many pale simians? Of course, there were probably human ancestors with fur. But how long ago was that? Were those humans? Or were they evolutionary forebearers of humans? I have not researched this carefully, but it seems AWFULLY hard for me to swallow that the first humans ca 200,000 years BCE had thick furry pelts. I know there are genetic conditions like hypertrichosis that produce hirsute humans. I have not heard of any scientist claiming that this is some evolutionary throwback (atavism) to a recent time in human evolutionary history when all humans had thick fur. Possibly if we get better at extracting DNA from really old human remains we can get better answers to this. But I do not think that is the dominant scientific theory or understanding at the moment. And without thick fur, humans had to be darker skinned. I will do some looking for more information, but I do not put much stock in this theory at the moment.--Filll 21:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have seen no scientific evidence whatsoever that early humans were dark-skinned and you have provided none. This is not a mainstream scientific theory you are presenting, actually, no scientist has commented on it. That Africa is a sunny place does not mean early humans were dark-skinned. Evolution happens. The Africans today are not identical to the Africans of 20000, 200000 or 1000000 years ago. There is no melanin evidence from 200000 years ago and scientists do not say that white, brown, black, yellow, or red skin is a mutation. They are evolutionary adaptations. There is no evidence that the first humans had dark skin and likewise, there's no evidence that their skin was "darker" than everyone today, and there's really no reason to think that would be so. CarlosRodriguez 23:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Am I to understand that the proposal includes a section covering the mechanics Melanin (this is the term which scientists in this field use), skin pigment, coloration etc.? Otherwise the proposal seems reasonable but vague. --VaniNY 21:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You completely miss my point. I don't support the hypothesis, but didn't feel the need to comment on it; it's not the issue at hand. (Try to stick to the point. We're discussing the structure of the article.) I was simply stating -- again -- that another article on the site already deals with the melanin/human skin color issue -- and presents information that likely will lead to unnecessary bickering and controversy here. All the more reason to leave it be. deeceevoice 21:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Still half-way doing the first paragraph?

Ok let me help you all in here. When the first paragraph is created it describes very clearly what the word (the title of the article) is. So, despite arguments for why it "should" or "Should not" be used, it is what it is. It's a definition, not a "disclaimer" or "justification". Let's use some examples so you can all understand:

Planet - The International Astronomical Union (IAU), the official scientific body for astronomical nomenclature, currently defines "planet" as a celestial body that, within the Solar System... then there is a, b, c reasons why a planet is defined as such. Very clear. Now, later on in the article, there are opposing views and what not.

• Notice that the paragraph doesn't start off saying "There is no universally agreeable definition of what a planet is, some believe it is based on this while others believe it should be more based on that". This is a "disclaimer" and is pointless and useless.

Arab - The Arabs (Arabic: عرب ʻarab) are predominantly speakers of the Arabic language, rather than a pure ethnic group, mainly found throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

• Again notice what they are clearly defined, and any disagreements are later on in the article.

Jewish - Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים, Yehudim; Yiddish: ייִדן, Yidn) are followers of Judaism or, more generally, members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation, or the Children of Israel), an ethno-religious group descended from the ancient Israelites and from converts who joined their religion. The term also includes those who have undergone an officially recognized formal process of religious conversion to Judaism. The current Jewish population is over 14.5 million, the majority of whom live in the United States and Israel.

• EVEN THOUGH JEWISH has a whole ARTICLE called [who is a Jew], where the same lack of agreement is present, the definition is clear.

NOw, I will unilaterally make this article's first paragraph follow the policy, the character, the integrity and the common sense for THIS article. because despite all of those in here who are sure they are "more competent" or "more objective" than I, you have FAILED to do such a simple thing. WHY? Because too many of you do not LIKE the definition. You do not WANT it to be what it is. Some of you hate the notion of black people being so numerous, or so accepting in other cultures, some of you hate other cultures being a part of the black identity. Too #$&#$ BAD! When will you guys get it in your thick skulls, this is not about what YOU think a term or concept "SHOULD BE", this is about what it is. THIS IS THE ONLY TIME I WILL DISCUSS THIS FOREVER. You have all read my comments, and I am tired (as I am sure so many of you are) of writing about it, talking about it, debating about it. Your complaints have been noted, your arguments have been considered. There has been consensus and there has been discord. ENOUGH! I am angry BECAUSE many of you in here have better skill at this than I do, and you choose, CHOOSE not to put your personal prejudices to the side and honestly and accurately handle this article. Some of you are so anti-black or so narrow minded in general, you fail to observe objectivity outside of your "should" (non-objective) mindset. I am through with waiting. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

But the definition you provide is contradicted by the census.

So what! The Census is biased, we all know that. the CENSUS has changed the definition every 20 years. There are 200 countries each with their own Census. You don't think that the census writers are motivated by prejudice or bias? Your not that stupid and I'm not going to play along with your pretend stupidity. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed the CRAP

This is crap. Period. I removed it. End of discussion:

• There is no universally agreed upon criteria for deciding who is and isn't Black, and the precise definition of black people has varied in different locations and time periods. A person's designation as Black has often been determined by colloquial, social, political, scientific or legal understandings. The classification of Black has had implications in factors such as censuses, anti-miscegenation laws, racial segregation, affirmative action, racial marginalization, slavery, apartheid and racial quotas.

Why is this crap? because it is someone's attempt to say in so many words "I don't like the notion that Black people are more than what I assumed, but I cannot really disprove it because it is historically true, so I will put this disclaimer in so other readers won't objectively come to conclusions I disagree with."

For example the Aeta (people who have historically been black before all of those "implications" were even thought of.) are black, the word Aeta "means" black in Tagalog. None of those determinations or implications in the crap above have played a role. There were no census, anti-bullcrap laws, racial segregation, affirmative action, etc etc that caused the Aeta people to be known as Aeta or Black in history. Same with the Kushites, the Nubians, etc. Those are historically black people. I do not think anyone in here is too stupid to see this obvious fact, so I am no longer interested in hearing the arguments against this obvious fact. No more crap guys. Sorry. We baked this issue completely. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Most people don't agree that the aeta are Black. Please don't force your views on others. The tagalog language does not have majic powers to define someone's race.

The word AETA means "BLACK PERSON" in Tagalog. Discussion ENDED. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Because tagalog was written by God and whatever tagalog says must never be questioned. Who cares that the rest of the world says only African ancestry people are Black.

The rest of the world DOESNT say that! Thats the whole point. You assume too much. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes actually they do and you'd know that if you actually read the only cited section of the article, which you removed.

This is why I get personal. You pretend I'm stupid. But i am not getting personal at this juncture. You do not read. A cited "section" does not simply mean cutting and pasting from another source. A cited section means that the statements are backed up with cited and reputable sources. What you are doing is again playing a political game. Trying to cleverly use terms and what not to get a position that you really don't have. "cited section". Are you going to continue playing or just be honest about this article? --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the Who is Jewish article

So I decided to adopt that approach. It has honesty and helps clear up a never-ending debate. I consider this better than us copycatting the approach to the white people article (once again I defy the age old follow the white leader philosophy) as the white people article itself is rife with consistency issues. That silly crap I took out, it's in the Who_is_black article. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You removed the only cited encyclopedic section in the whole article. All that's left now is essay style crap most of which reflects your personal opinons. You destroyed what was starting to become a good article.

Aww the emperor lost his new clothes you say? Well thank you for the compliment. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if it is the Who_is_black article it is not lost. It is just in a possibly more appropriate place. There is nothing wrong with having SEVERAL articles covering a range of topics. This topic is broad. There are a lot of varying approaches to it. So why not have several articles? Why not have a big footprint in wikipedia, like white people, like catholics, like jews, like muslims, etc???? I think limiting yourself to a single short article is to short change people who want to learn about blackness. I applaud the move to spin off pieces to a range of articles, all interlocking to present the whole range of information we are assembling. This is fascinating stuff and I think anyone would be interested to read it.--Filll 04:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets do it that way then. Finally someone who sees the honesty in whats going on. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What's honestly going on is you removed the only cited section of the article and replaced it with POV crap. Fill's suggestions are fine, but everything you've ever added to the article is unproductive speculative original research.