Talk:Negro

.

Accepted by Blacks?

Where did you get that from? I know of no tribe in Africa caled negro. In the US, which is what I assume you and most people get their ideas of a black person, they may have been called that and used it in the past, but that does not mean that it was accepted. When you were kidnapped and shut out of society, it is hard to figure out what you should be called, since half whites cannot be called white - yet. This article is clearly biased and I would not doubt if it is just anohter one created by white supremacist groups who roam the internet trying to make it appear as if they are larger than what they are.--71.235.94.254 19:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, there is little or any evidence that the word Negro ever encountered any objection from black people until the late 1960's, when the word rather abruptly went out of favor. During most of U.S. history it was by far the most respectful term for black people, was the term most commonly used by (among others) Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Thurgood Marshal, Charles H. Houston, Martin Luther King, and in fact just about everybody. I've never been able to figure out how and why this word suddenly became regarded as offensive. I do know that it was Malcolm X who first popularized the idea that there was something wrong with it. I also know that prior to Malcolm's popularity, not only "Negro" but "Colored" were quite acceptable to black people. I guess this was just one of those linguistic coups that comes along every once in a while. Of course, if people now regard the word as offensive, we shouldn't use it, no matter how it may have originally come to be regarded as such. But for sure there was hardly anyone who thought of the word Negro as offensive or inappropriate, or indeed as anything but a quite respectful term, until the late 60's. Tom129.93.17.229 00:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Portugal and Africa

How come the article states that Portugal first came into contact with Africa while trying to find trade routes? Portugal was an extension of Africa and came into contact (literally) with Africa at least 700 years prior! Black(I know there were 'other' types too) Moors as clearly dipicted by Europeans were in Portugal as rulers. I always find it funny when whites try to run away from this fact and try to make it appear as if there are two different types of black (complexion) Africans. The Moors were black, which is why they were NOT called Arabs. They were from Africa, not Asia. They may have been called Moors beofre Africans were called negros, but they were black as well. You also have to keep in mind that Europeans only knew the parts of Africa that was Muslim dominated, this is why they went around the west coast of Africa - to avoid the Muslims who controlled the Medditeranean.

Stop the lies and get the facts straight. There are too many Euopean deipctions of clearl black Moors in RULING positions ans well as blacks in slave positions, which you will find in Africa even today. I guess since North Africa controlled whites and imported them as slaves as well as mixing with Europeans, white pride feels the need to lie about this aspect of Euopean reality. Not everyone stays on top forever.--71.235.94.254 20:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)\

Presentation

The phrase "Negro is a racial term...." could be written without "racial". Strictly speaking, the context is correct but the meaning in common language may be understood as a negative. "Negro is a term...."Goodpaster 08:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Poor e?

I'm not familiar with this short form. What do you mean by poor e? (With regard to removing a portion of text).--Gregalton 05:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I clicked the enter button, instead of shift. I meant to type "poor English grammar". As it's difficult to understand. Cheers. - Jeeny ^Talk 05:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, language-corrected and more complete, with citation flag, re-inserted.--Gregalton 05:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Thank you. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 05:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Slurs

I wonder about this category. In what way is "Negro" an ethnic slur? In some places and contexts it may be viewed as outdated, or even somewhat negative, but to call it a slur is pretty questionable. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the term "Negro" is outdated in some contexts, perhaps. But I think it falls short of slur. Any contrary opinions? Otherwise we should remove it from that category. WDavis1911 19:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I also see negro as being outdated but it's not a slur.--BeardedWoof 03:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a slur but if you need some reference: Modern Language Association (MLA):

"negro." Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 18 Dec. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/negro>. Alatari (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Negro in Spanish

I edited out the part about 'negro' being derogative in Spanish because it simply means 'black'. The pejorative term in Spanish is 'negrata'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.156.221 (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Portrait of a Negress"

I don't really think that it is necessary; if others feel that a picture is needed, I'd say one without nudity would be better. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 23:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that the anon IP who keeps reinserting this material is a suspected sock of an indef-banned user, and is currently disrupting this article, WP:3RR, WP:ANI, User talk:Muntuwandi and others...--Ramdrake (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I see. Dispute resolved, I guess, if the user only seeks to be disruptive. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 00:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

She is hardly nude, only exposing a breast. It's not porn it's very elegant art. I personally find her to be rather beautiful. And when did we start censoring on Wikipedia? --222.155.47.162 (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that she was very beautiful but the nudity offends many people. Alatari (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Negress

The term "negress" is present in art and sculpture because the names of such artifacts are not changed to suit the current terminology in any culture about any matter, so far as I know. The word was the then-current descriptor at the time the art was created. To make a point of saying the word endures is to suggest that it is somehow noteworthy in this use rather than merely a fact of no particular importance. If there is a need to illustrate this historical use (and I do not agree that it is required) then the illustration should also clearly show that context. Bielle (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The title of the portrait, "Rittrato di una negra", has been translated into English. There is no reason it could not have been entitled "Portrait of a Black Woman", which would render the use in this article incorrect. Bielle (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, there are many English examples of this. And Karen Walker and others have made recent artwork in which this use appears in the titles. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been called "Portrait of a Negress" since it was painted. That is what it is universally known as in the English speaking world, meaning it is relevant, and shows the preference of the art world to call/translate it as 'Negress' rather than 'Black Woman'. --222.155.47.162 (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why it can't be included, especially because Negress redirects here. Here's some information on the painting Alatari (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

2 versions

"people of high melanin content" is wrong. People with very dark skin would be clear, and "people with skin with high melanin" would be valid (scientifically) but obscure. Who came up with "people of high melanin content". The people are not, percentage, by mass or volume, full of melanin. Their skin is. Big difference. user:Wpostma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.198.185 (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Can we have a consensus vote on which version to settle on for this article? I apologise if there's already been one reached but I can't find it. One version (the current one) starts with the paragraph "Negro is an archaic racial term referring to people of high melanin content.." while the other begins with "Negro is a racial term referring to dark-skinned people, usually of African origin." Both versions seemed to keep getting reverted by several editors, 2 of whom are banned dynamicn IP socks Jeeny and Hayden5650. I personally have no real preference for one over the other but it would be nice to have a consensus reached. --Nuttycoconut (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• I prefer this version because it appears more neutral and there are more references, although the article still needs improvement. The first sentence, as far as I'm concerned, can be either the one you quoted or the one there now. Whatever everyone else agrees with is fine by me, of course. :-) BBhounder (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• I wrote the current sentence to be as neutral as possible while making sure it's obviously become a disused English word and that many hate the word. The melanin content goes to science which I hope would carry fewer connotations. The references should be kept. Thanks for protecting the page. Alatari (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The "high melanin content" version is ridiculous. People don't use racial slurs based on expert scientific analysis of a person, they do it based on a visual judgement, such as "looks black, I'll call him a (insert whatever slur here)". To use that version is to introduce a gross factual inaccuracy, because it implies that this term is used as a slur after a determination has been made that a person has high melanin content, which everybody knows is false. It's like saying "Bitch is a term used for people with two X chromosomes" (pardon my language but this is a rare case where there's no apt analogy that can be made in a polite manner (also, wikipedia is not censored)). A better wording would be "dark skinned", or something very similar - TheBilly^Talk 22:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

High melanin content is what causes dark skin and can be determined after visual inspection. However, light skinned people with suntans aren't called Negro though so some other ethnic facial and body features are at work. This is an encyclopedia and I don't see a problem with using neutral scientific terms. Alatari (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And again I go back to my chromosome comment - TheBilly^Talk 23:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bitch-chromosome content was a poor analogy for Bitch refers to only a specific type of woman depending on her behavior while negro is more about genome content. There are people who could be called negro who have light skin so maybe we need an ethnogenetic definition not a colour one; something along the lines of the Race and genetics article. Alatari (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the Dictionary.com list of definitions. I wouldn't be opposed from selecting from one or combination of those defs. Alatari (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Dount yawl thank iss juss two hawd to make a defunishun? Negro --- Ah knows wun when ah sees wun.