Talk:Black people

Removal of 'Refimprove' tag

This article should be removed. Black people are marginalised in todays society so they dont really need a page devoted to them.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweet as911 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the 'Refimprove' template tag from the top of the article, which requested that users submit more verifiable references. As of this edit, the article has around 6000 words, and over 100 references. Unless there is something else at work here that I haven't noticed during my (admittedly cursory) read-through, I think we can safely say that the content is well-sourced. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 05:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, but I think that this article still needs to be improved in some ways (See "Re organization at the bottom of the page) -(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

Barak Obama picture

It should be moved one paragraph down to the part that talks about his "Blackness" issue during his 2008 campaign. Though really I don't even think his picture should be here since he is 50% White, so not Black.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.72.135 (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"50% white, so not black" What??? Are you being sarcastic, here? "black and white" are messy and loaded terms, making percentages -- let alone absolutist and arbitrary definitions thereof -- pointless except to further add to the confusion and the legacy of racism.Youngea (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The picture is there to illistrate an example of partial blackness. Yahel Guhan 03:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Afro-Arabs and Obama

Just to jump into a real thicket, a few points To help improve two WIKI articles on an increasingly controversial topic:

• The Afro-Arab article is a messy stub that needs to be beefed up with some of the useful material in the "Middle East" section, as well as better definitions of how the phrase generally is used (working on it);
• Despite what this article says, given the (not addressed here) Sudan issues on black Africans and Arabs, seems the "Middle East" section should be renamed "North Africa and the Middle East";
• Obviously there are (prejudiced sounding) claims that Obama's relatives are African Arabs and/or Muslims. While I'm no genealogist and haven't tracked down a reliable source yet in online searches (and haven't read his books) it seems this would be relevant given Obama gets coverage in this article. So Wiki actually can shed reasonable light on an issue ;-) Carol Moore 00:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I am not surprised there would be attacks on Obama and alleged Arab connections. I wager that the same folks who are pushing an 'Aryan' model by stealth on Wikipedia across a number of articles are behind it. The source shown below exposes a lot of these falsehoods. I'll check out what you say.

http://wysinger.homestead.com/keita-1993.pdf Mojabba (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re organization

Would it be better to classify races by ancestry rather than skin color? For instance, there may be dark skinned peoples in Australia and Africa, but they are of very different lineage. I think that the articles that concern races and ethnic groups such as this article should be classified in the following manner:

• African Ethnic Group(s)

• Caucasian Ethnic Group(s)

• Asian Ethnic Group(s)

• Native American Ethnic Group(s)

Each article would have information such as the history of each group. Then, there would be an ethnic category, in which all of the ethnic group articles would fall.

What do all of you think of the idea?-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

The human race section of this article is a bit irrelevant. This should only be on the Human Race article, not here. I'll delete it on someone's permission.--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

On the contrary, I find it quite relevant as background info. Please leave it in.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

O.K. Leave it there! No ignoramus brainwashed by PC curriculum will recognize that it is a collection of mendacious crap. Considering how many such types are present here, the harm for Wikipedia will be minimal. And don't forget to add that we are all Africans under the skin and gorillas and chimpanzees are our brothers and sisters. Centrum99 (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Today most scholars have abandoned these views and see race as a social construct with no biological basis.

Most is a relative term, Race has always existed by people to define people for their people by the people.

NO support for MOST Scholars statement Race is a word that begs definition, it does exist form a medical treatment standpoint. " most scholars have abandoned " Academic scholars frequently bow to peer pressure,as long as there is tenure their will be conformity but this has nothing to do with truth. Race only in a medical sense has been proven. Its relevance outsides that physical sphere is another argument.Stevo46 (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Could you please make your comment more clear?

If we are to classify race by social structure rather than ancestry, there is still much re organization to be done.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

Please, we should erase all the ludicrous garbage from the article! It is not only outdated, but even misinterpreted and falsified! I found out that it was a person called "Muntuwandi", who implanted this rubbish there one year ago. For example, the quotation "any two individuals within a particular population are about as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world" is not a conclusion of Witherspoon's paper (2007), but a quotation of American Anthropological Association from 1997 that Witherspoon et al. actually refute in their study. Not speaking about that the "small" 15% interpopulation divergence in humans is typical for mammals that biologists routinely divide into subspecies. The author of the Fst value, Sewall Wright, said it himself explicitly! And the insane claim that "Today most scholars have abandoned these views and see race as a social construct with no biological basis" may be praised in USA and some multiracial Western countries, but not in the whole world, where scientists still have enough common sense. This article is a disgrace for the whole Wikipedia! Unfortunately, it is not the only one about human differences that is filled with this pseudoscientific, politically-motivated crap. Centrum99 82.100.61.114 (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Centrum, I'm afraid you ran out of credibility a long time ago.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember that you have ever had any credibility, not speaking about knowledge. Centrum99 82.100.61.114 (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

Today most scholars in USA and Western Europe have abandoned these views...

Breakthroughs in genetics and the mapping of the human genome in the late twentieth century have helped dispel many of the earlier myths about race. At least 99.9% of any one person's DNA is exactly the same as any other person's, regardless of ethnicity.

UNSUBSTANTIED CLAIMS OR IRRELEVANT TO THE VALIDITY OF RACE. BREAKTHROUGHS IN GENETICS SUPPORT THE VALIDITY OF RACE MORE AND MORE.

Did you Know that the DNA of mice is 96% same as humans, and that of chimps and primates 98%(ththats why those poor things are guinea pigs for humans) with just a difference of 2% chimps and humans are different species, and differences in .0's define our human races. It is that micro differences that define humans, and give us our (individual and collective) individuality

Of the 0.1% variation, there is an 8% variation between ethnic groups within a race, such as between the French and the Dutch. On average, only 7% of all human genetic variation lies between major human races such as those of Africa, Asia, Europe, and Oceania.

GENERALIZED AND INCORRECT CLAIM, TRUE ONLY FOR SOME DNA MARKERS:

The proportion of genetic variation within continental groups (~93%) is therefore far greater than that between the various continental groups (~7%)

HARDLY CORRECT. THE INTERRACIAL (INTERCONTINENTAL) VARIATION IS FAR GREATER, BECAUSE THE INTERPOPULATION FST VALUE IS LOWERED BY SMALL FST DISTANCES AMONG CLOSELY RELATED GROUPS:

Or to put it another way, "any two individuals within a particular population are about as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world.

A CLAIM BASED ON OUTDATED SOURCES (VALID ONLY FOR A SMALL NUMBER OF MARKERS) AND - FOR GOODNESS'S SAKE!!! - TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT FROM AN ARTICLE THAT REFUTES IT!!!

Because of these facts, there is general agreement among biologists that human racial differences are too small to qualify races as separate sub-species.

A COMPLETE FABRICATION THAT IS NOT BASED ON ANY FACTS. WHAT ABOUT QUOTING SEWALL WRIGHT OR A RECENT PRESENTATION OF HENRY HARPENDING AT THE Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists?

http://www.physanth.org/annmeet/aapa2007/aapa2007schedule.pdf

http://www.paxhumana.net/forum/showthread.php?t=160

NO WORD ABOUT THE CLASSICAL TYPOLOGY OF SUB-SAHARAN AFRICANS (HIGHLY CONSISTENT IN ALL PROMINENT ANTHROPOLOGISTS OF THE 20TH CENTURY) AND ONLY 3 SENTENCES ABOUT PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES OF AFRICAN POPULATIONS. AGAIN, IGNORANCE WINS. BUT NOTES ABOUT OPPRESSION, APARTHEID AND OTHER SOCIAL ISSUES MUST BE ADDED AT ANY COST.

Centrum99 82.100.61.114 (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that different human races were sub species. Please read my comment again. --(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

This whole conversation is consistent with one problem. How we define races changes with our sentiments. We define races based on skin color and regional association. This is before DNA anything came into the conversation. The DNA research has been used to reaffirm this social agenda. IN this, you see that only certain genetic markers are used to define race... and those genetic markers have little or nothing to do with the physical appearance. But because, as even random chance will indicate, out of the millions of genetic markers to choose from, some will follow the same regional and skin color pattern... it is those markers that are used to hoist the myth that race is as real as stone. The fact is race is a concept. And it's also obvious at this point in society that the Genetic race game is all about disassociating as much positive meaning a possible from black Africans. You will invariably find "yes... but" and "however" in statements where black heritage is demonstrated in non African groups. While you will find the smallest genetic indication of Caucasoid presence heightened to mislead readers into thinking a founding heritage of white-Caucasians established a great society and culture (from Japan to Ethiopia). You can certainly find just as much black "African" genetic markers in European and Asian groups, but those will be given the heave-ho when those in editorial power re-examine those markers and redefine them to be Caucasoid or (not black) markers, thus redefning the very ancestors as "not truly black". --71.238.121.147 (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be best if the 99.9% comparison statistic was entirely removed from this page. Humans may all be 99.9% similar to each other but our DNA is also over 98% similar to Chimps. This statistic does not mean the same thing to the biologists that researched it as it seems to in the largely social context of this article. '.1%' is a HUGE difference when it comes to DNA, NOT a similarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.139.151 (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Race of ancient Egyptians section should be removed

no it shouldn't - there is a direct lineage from Americans and Egyptians based on DNA research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.120.194.67 (talk • contribs)

That section is already it's own article and does not need to be here since it is very controversial. Also most people labeled "Black" living away from Africa are descent from Western Africa which is far away from Egypt so they have nothing to do with Egypt anyway. Also ancient Egypt, like today's Egypt, was very mixed and people didn't really label each other as "Black", so the term "Black" has nothing to do with them. Anyone else agree that that section should be removed from this article?

No it shouldn't. Look up Berber, Moor, and Blackamoor. Even in the Webster's dictionary makes the link between Africa - Egypt - American Blacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.120.194.67 (talk • contribs)

Agreed complitely. The picture itself is loaded, highly controversial in that it purports to represent an ancient Egyptian ethnicity, while ancient Egypt was governed and populated by different ethnic groups during its existance. =Unsigned= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.56.60 (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with your points about ancient Egypt and different ethnicities, there is in fact some "controversy" put forth by Afrocentrists about this and therefore should remain. Remember, we're working towards verifiability, not truth.--Woland (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I find the exclusions of the Ancient Egyptians unacceptable. The article is about black people, not merely black people in America. Also, we do not know the proportions of West to East African compositions in Black Americans. We also do not know how much of Ancient Egyptian ancestry blended through the many migrations and contacts with West Africa over the past 3000-4000 years. It's absurd to dismiss the Ancient Egyptian presence in this article based on their speculated lack of direct ancestry to Black Americans. --71.238.121.147 (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Prejudice

Should we mention that most of the people are afraid of black people, and black people usually rapes or mug other races, that most of the time they are the ones to go to jail, that they control the rap business, that they are good at basketball and usually the term gangster often draws up an image of a black male? -150.108.232.26 (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

--edit-- Possibly use the popular culture's view against blacks. Maybe explain the media bias against them, explain the origin of streetgangs since racism was still rampant and gangs had to form. The current gang is a perversion of its true intended purpose. Also maybe explain the cause of white flight, and culture on the blacks. Maybe add a pop culture section to the article? -150.108.232.26 (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The sorts of things you're mentioning are discussed in Stereotypes of black people, although that article could use a lot of work.

PS - If you want people to take you seriously, don't make a comment like "black people usually rapes or mug other races". It's considered trolling, and that's why your comment was removed twice. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am a black person, and I haven' rape or mugged anyone in my life,and all of the black people i know. None have ever done that either. In fact, black people usually DONT rape or mug other races --71.238.121.147 (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls people. --Woland (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't edit

CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE REMOVE THE SECOND SENTENCE OF THIS ARTICLE THAT CURRENTLY READS "Also know as gay n*****s."??? THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR THAT TO BE HERE. 160.39.152.18 (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's vandalism, and it's been removed. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 05:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No it hasn't. It's still there for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddhartha21 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

that'll happen. i think it's some issue involving caches. 4.174.169.60 (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Page Move

To minimise offense, I recommend a speedy page move to Tinted Brethren. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slydevil (talk • contribs) 17:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dame Right!! Sums em' up init!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.115.148 (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

the stupid quote is there again

the "Also know as gay n*****s." is still in there, I've seen by these posts that it was once removed, but it's there right now, can someone take care of that please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.185.81 (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

darker skin color?

The first sentance is "Black people is a term which is usually used to define a racial group of human beings with darker skin color." That doesn't make sense, whith darker skin colour than what? If you say 'with a darker skin color' then you have to compare it to something, for example, with a darker skin colour than white people. I haven't changed it my self because I'm not sure what to make the comparison with. Your thoughts???DineshAdv (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a valid concern. The problem is that it varies cross-culturally and we can't just have the Euro-American POV. That sentence does make it seem like anyone with more melanin than Europeans would be labeled 'black,' when in fact that isn't the case. The best solution may be to add another sentence about how this varies cross-culturally, which I believe is mentioned in the article.--Woland (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

yes i have to agree also it should read people with very dark skin as black, though in the united states weird construct some people who do not have very dark skin are considered black(though they should not )--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats because "blackness" is not merely a description of phenotype, it is an interplay between culture, self-identification, and the arbitrary classification of skin pigment. Saying that "people with very dark skin" are black is not particularly useful to this article.--Woland (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As a light skinned black person, I find Wikiscribe's comment to be patently false. "Should not"? No Wikiscribe I "should" be black based on my culture and ancestry, not based on the definitions and insistence of those who are not even members of the group. When you say "should not", you are implying that someone else "should" determine what black means... and who might that be? --71.238.121.147 (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical usage of the term "black" as regards human race

Being "black" has not always meant being of sub-Saharan origin. For thousands of years the term "black" (in regards race) meant a dark caucasoid, eg. Black Irish, Black Jews, Black Italians, Black Moors etc. This article makes it look as though "black" has always meant "Sub-Saharan". It hasn't. Even into the 20th century Turks, Arabs, Berbers and related peoples were referred to as "black". The use of "black" meaning "sub-Saharan" has only existed since the term n****r became unacceptable. A lot needs to be added to the article showing the usage of "black" through the ages.... Dr Rgne (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The strength of the term over the last few generations has been concentrated within Black people from Africa. In fact, the issue is really that there are those who do not wish to include Moors Jews and others as black because they do not wish readers to believe that those groups had African (Sub-Saharan) heritage. Also, the use of Black Irish as anything more than a passing mention does little else other than to disenfranchize the Black African from their own social identity. Black even becomes no longer a unifying identity among the black people of the world (of which the Black Irish would have no part of). Black has been used through the ages since the word "Kush" "Kemu" and "Nehesi" were used in Ancient Egypt. Kush meaning black skinned Southerner in Africa. KEmu meaning Black Person from Egypt. Nehesi meaning Black Nubian. "Ethipian" meaning black skinned. So the word "black" has been used, simply not in English since English did not exist yet. --71.238.121.147 (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

ERm, the point was that for thousands of years the word "black" (not just in English but the equivalent words in Greek, Latin, Arabic, German, French, Aramaic, Berber languages, and various other languages too) used to mean "dark caucasoid". Obviously that isn't the case today. But for thousands of years there was a clear difference between a "black man" and a "n****r". Just like the word "gay". Today it means 'homosexual', but for hundreds of years 'gay', and 'gai' meant lighthearted. It is only recently that "gay" started to mean 'homosexual'. This is not the place to get into the 'Moors, Egyptians, and Israelites were Sub-Saharan' argument. I can say that the same words used to describe them were also used to describe Greeks, Italians, Turks, Afghans etc. I also noticed you used the word "African" as a racial/ethnic term. Yet this definition of 'African' does not include over 150 million North Africans, nor the Khoikhoi and San peoples, who are obviously African, but not "African", as you use it.

Getting back to the actual point, just because the word "black" today means a certain type of person(as used by some people), does not mean it was always used in that way. In fact, the modern definition of 'black' is very recent. All I was suggesting was that a paragraph or two on the historical usgae of the term, showing how it differs with the modern definition, may be included... Dr Rgne (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

True enough. The work of Frank Snowden shows that "black" was not used in the same way as it is today in European, particularly American society with its race obsessions. Also the term 'black' takes in people with a wide range of physical appearance, even on the African continent, from narrow-nosed, wavy haired East Africans, to brown-skinned fellahin of Egypt, to Bushmen way down south. Just as Europeans have shorter, swarthy Italians and Portugese, alongside tall, ultra-pink Scots- just so black people vary. Bit of course there is a clique on Wikipedia that fears this basic truth, even though it is supported by well documented modern scholarship- as referenced in the article. They like stereotypical definitions of 'black', just like the old time anthropologists who use it to drum out 'bleks' out of areas 'reserved' for those designated as 'white' or whatever label is most misleading at the moment.Larsposenaa (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

i am wondering wether Black means sub saharan africans or just skin colour. for example, both my grandparents on my fathers side were French and on my mothers side it is half Iranian and african. i have green eyes and 'straight' hair, and i am tanned. africans calls me white and europeans calls me black.., . my point is basicaly, are mixed race people black or white ?41.220.99.64 (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)HConfiance41.220.99.64 (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Dr Rgne tried to add a paragraph abotu his personal theory to the article, but without supporting citation regarding both change in application of the term and evidence of prior historical usage, it looks like a personal version of history, and needs citation before reinclusion.ThuranX (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Rgne's point is supported by Frank Snowden, in "Blacks in Antiquity" where the term is used for a variety of peoples, some of whom today are seen as 'white.' It is also supported in Historical definitions of race article. Larsposenaa (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not my personal theory. In Peter Frost's 1990 book "History of European Ideas" this is included:

"This older, more relevant sense has been noted in other areas. The Japanese once used the terms shiroi (white) and kuroi (black) to describe their skin and its gradations of color. The Ibos of Nigeria employed ocha (white) and ojii (black) in the same way, so that nwoko ocha (white man) simply meant an Ibo with a lighter complexion. In French Canada, the older generation still refers to a swarthy Canadien as noir. Vestiges of this older usage persist in family names. Mr. White, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Black within the normal color spectrum of English people. Ditto for Leblanc, Lebrun, and Lenoir among the French, or Weiss and Schwartz among the Germans.

And apparently wikipedia has a Black Irish page too.

Joseph Ben Nathan, a medieval Jew made frequent references to Jews being "black" yet see that he looked just like modern Jews.

The phrase "blackamoor" to describe a Moor, is so well-known it does not have to be cited, yet look under the Moors page to see what Moors really (look)ed like.

I'm sure it's also well-known enough that the Ancient Egyptians were describe as "black"", yet go to http://www.geocities.com/enbp/eg_pics.html to see what the Ancient Egyptians really looked like. I'm sure everyone would agree that they don't look like "white Europeans" but they certainly aren't "black" in the modern sense either! Dr Rgne (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

you must not be aware of our Race of Ancient Egyptians article. The depiction of Egyptians as un-black is, of course, an evil Eurocentric conspiracy designed to hush up the superiority of the black race (rollseyes). dab (𒁳) 15:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you still trotting out that old Afrocentric strawman from the early 1990s? Well sourced, respected scholarship in the field has long shown the Egyptians to be a variable population with links to tropical Africa as well as the Mediterranean coast, and Palestine/ Syria over the long span of Egyptian history. The field has already moved on from such tired strawman tactics. Larsposenaa (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And you included this citation when you added it? Further, it's one author, and his theory, one apparently drenched in the 'oh noes teh ebil white man is lying about history again' agenda. It's about as boring as the 'oh noes, all the other people was to revize teh hsitorys' agenda. Find a few citations showing this view that the meaning has been narrowed, and we'll find an inclusion, but right now, not enough for me. ThuranX (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

More nonsensical strawman statements. What 'ebil white man is lying'? Is that authentic 'colored' dialog you are using? lol.. Rgne's point is supported by several references from the article Historical definitions of race. You want citations, they are there, including Snowden (1983), Smedely (1999) etc.. Some want the narrowest possible definition of 'bleks' because that allows them to allocate certain others to their preferred groupings or classifications. See: Snowden FM (1983) Before color prejudice: the ancient view of blacks. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, or Smedley A (1999) Race in North America: origin and evolution of a worldview, 2nd ed. Westview Press, Boulder Larsposenaa (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not one author and his "theory" (misuse of the term). It's also not "narrowing" of the term, but an entirely new definition. The idea was to add something that stated that the term "Black person" USED TO mean one thing, and now means a DIFFERENT thing. Also, when people see Herodotus' writings stating that Egyptians were "black people" that they should be aware of the fact that what he meant by "black people" and what is today meant by "black people" are 2 different meanings. I do not understand the need for the "oh noes etc" part either. A lot of stuff has been added to wikipedia with far less informative/reliable citations/sources, but then what would be good enough for you personally? Some quotes from Shakespeare? Some NAZI propaganda about non-"Aryans"? Could you be more specific what exactly would suit your criteria? Dr Rgne (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, your point is backed up by at least 3 sources in Historical definitions of race. Methinks some want to keep out your observation because the narrowest possible definition of 'bleks' suits certain agendas. If for example 'bleks' are conceived as somewhere way down south, then people like Ethiopians can be shifted to the 'white' column. That's part of a whole agenda and some scholars even note it in their academic writings critical of 'race' theorists. Of course, I won't be referring to anyone here mind you.... Larsposenaa (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

'''Reference#41'''

The source says nothing about race definitions. It should be http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68178.htm instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbobsween (talk • contribs) 01:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Who said it had anything to do with race definitions. In fact that was the actual POINT, that "Black" did not signify someone of a different race, and only in the recent years has "black" meant someone of sub-Saharan origin. So thanks for making my point for me. Also your link is to a site giving the latter-day modern definition of "black". You haven't proved anything at all. Quite the opposite you've actually done a quite good job of giving my suggestion a stronger position. Thanks. Dr Rgne (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The fact that they are trotting out old Afrocentric strawmen using pseudo 'colored' dialog, shows they have no real position re your points.Larsposenaa (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

any two individuals within a particular population are about as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world

I hope that this clear error will be fixed, and politics will not enter into the discussion. This article quotes the following from the cited paper (citation 5): "any two individuals within a particular population are about as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world"

In fact this paper states the following: "In particular, the American Anthropological Association (1997, p. 1) stated that ‘‘data also show that any two individuals within a particular population are as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world’’ (subsequently amended to ‘‘about as different’’)."

So, the paper that is cited is actually quoting a different paper, and also noting that the quotation was subsequently amended (to "about as different"). I think that the proper source should be cited, and the quotation changed to "about as different".

--137.99.117.114 (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

 possibly the quotation in the ref is too lengthy but it does indeed I think make it quite clear Matilda ^talk 21:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It is good to get an accurate quote, but the point is a valid one that appears elsewhere in Human Geonome research, and undermines those who want to allocate all of humanity into neat little racial checkboxes on a biological basis. Of course, someone does not want the quote in there. It has vanished. Larsposenaa (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So-called 'Off topic' section arbitrarily taken out

The so called 'off topic' section (bogus labeling) worked on by Matilda and others was unilaterally taken out without discussion and needs to be restored. It is directly relevant to the article, because it discusses the changes in the definition of black people and race. It's discussion of the history of the race concept including the theories of Carleton Coons has direct historical relevance. Seems it was taken out in order to hide or eliminate the work of scholars that challenge traditional race categories in relation to blacks.

The point about the small amout of genetic variation internally versus that external to a group is crucial to any discussion about 'Black people' for it calls into question a whole bunch of agendas. For one thing it means that 'bleks' cannot be defined as some narrow type, as far south as possible in Africa, but that they vary in how they look, just like other normal human populations. The other point about the high genetic diversity in skin color within Africa is another point. Yes, Black people vary in skin color, within Africa, as part of their native variation, just like other folks elsewhere. People like Somalians, Ethiopians, etc form part of the package, unpalatable as this may be to those who want to consign 'bleks' to the narrowest possible checkboxes. It is no wonder some desperately want that section removed.

The human race: section arbitrarily removed section without discussion

-

A Maasai man in Kenya

-

Main articles: Human and Race and genetics

- In the early twentieth century many scientists held the view that biologically distinct races existed. The races corresponded to the major continental regions of Africa, Europe, Asia and the Americas. These races were distinguished from each other based on a few visible traits such as skin color and hair texture. Black people were largely defined by their dark skin and sometimes by their tightly coiled hair. The belief at that time was that not only did the races differ in appearance but in behavior, intellect and origins. Some scientists such as Carleton S. Coon believed the different races to have evolved separately over millions of years and that racial differences were thus extremely significant.

- Today most scholars have abandoned these views and see race as a social construct with no biological meaning. Breakthroughs in genetics and the mapping of the human genome in the late twentieth century have helped dispel many of the earlier myths about race. At least 99.9% of any one person's DNA is exactly the same as any other person's, regardless of ethnicity. Of the 0.1% variation, there is an 8% variation between ethnic groups within a race, such as between the French and the Dutch. On average, only 7% of all human genetic variation lies between major human races such as those of Africa, Asia, Europe, and Oceania. 85% of all genetic variation lies within any local group. The proportion of genetic variation within continental groups (~93%) is therefore far greater than that between the various continental groups (~7%). Or to put it another way,

data also show that any two individuals within a particular population are about as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world.

- - Because of these facts, there is general agreement among biologists that human racial differences are too small to qualify races as separate sub-species. However there is still much controversy regarding the significance of these small differences. For example, some scholars argue that even though there is more variation within populations than between them, the small between-population variation may have implications in medical science.

-

A San man from Namibia

- ===Single origin hypothesis===

-

See also: Recent single origin hypothesis

- Based on genetic evidence, the contemporary world population is assumed to be descended from a relatively small population of Homo sapiens living in Africa some 70,000 years ago (in population bottleneck scenarios, this group may have been as small as 2,000 individuals). The differences in physical appearance between the various peoples of the world is as a result of adaptations to the different environments encountered by various populations subsequent to this split.

- Examples of African variation due to natural selection include the Dinka, some of the tallest people in the world and the Mbuti, the shortest people in the world. Others such as the Khoisan people have an epicanthal fold similar to the peoples of Central Asia. Furthermore, a recent study found that Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest within population skin color diversity. An example of what might be the result of the simple accumulation of variation over time (due to the fact that Africa has been occupied longer than any other continent) is the large variety of body shapes and facial features found among sub-Saharan Africans.

If necessary the section can be trimmed, but the core points are relevant to the topic, and need to be in place, not arbitrarily removed. Larsposenaa (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, how do you justify a section on "the human race" as relevant to this article? I can see a section with {{main}} article African peoples, but "race and genetics" and "human"? If any of these points need to be made here, they need to be made much more briefly. It won't do to present a reader trying to look up "black people" with a lengthy discussion of humanity in general, the notion of race, general observations about genetics, etc., before condescending to give information about the actual topic. Stay focused, and use wikilinks to refer to related topics. --dab (𒁳) 09:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Rosa Park's picture

Is Rosa Parks black or white. She is known as African American, but she looks white on images, uploaded on computer. Most people learned she's black.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 01:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Talk pages are for the discussion of the relevant article, not this kind of question. --Woland (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Asia and australasia

The section claims that Europeans are more closely related to Africans than to Asians, but this appears to contradict the Race and genetics page. The cited reference (Thangaraj et al.) doesn't say anything about Europeans. Qemist (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Most anthropologists, geneticists and biologists would probably argue that the evidence as it stands supports the Recent African origin model for human expansion out of Africa. This model is predicated upon a bottleneck during the out of Africa migration, this means that all non-sub-Saharan African people are more genetically similar to each other than they are to sub-Saharan African people. That means that Europeans would be more closely related to all global human populations outside of sub-Saharan Africa than they are to sub-Saharan Africans. Peoples from East Africa are probably the most closely related to non-sub-Saharan Africans. I think the confusion here is that Europeans are closer to sub-Saharan Africans than Asians are, and that's a different thing. Or to put it another way, the further from Africa one travels the less like Africans the populations become. There is direct genetic evidence for this. So populations from regions close to Africa are more like Africans then populations far from Africa, but all non-sub-Saharan Africans are still all closer to each other than they are to sub-Saharan Africans, due to them sharing a much smaller and much more recent set of common ancestors. It also means that we would expect to see significantly reduced genetic diversity outside of Africa, and there is direct evidence for this as well. Human populations in African south of the Sahara contain about 100% of all human genetic diversity, but populations in Papua New Guinea contain only about 70% of human genetic diversity. As people moved away from Africa there was a series of bottlenecks that acted to "dilute" the gene pool of each successive migration further from Africa. Meaning that Africa is a genetically much richer place than anywhere else in the world. I have some nice papers that discuss this in detail if you are looking for sources. Cheers. Alun (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's not clear who else Africans are being compared to in the phrase Africans are more closely linked genetically to Europeans -- more than whom? -- nor is the sense of the comparison clear. Africans are more closely linked to Europeans than Africans are linked to someotherrace, or Africans are more closely linked to Europeans than someotherrace are linked to Europeans? In all the article would be better without the sentence. Qemist (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually Africans from different parts of Africa are related in different degrees to each other and to non-Africans. We can't think of Africa as some sort of genetically homogeneous continent, any more than Europe or Asia are genetically homogeneous. Indeed Africa may be a great deal more heterogeneous because of it's rich genetic diversity. The strange thing is we know very little about African genetic diversity and a great deal about say European genetic diversity, but it's in Africa where we can learn the most because it is the birth place of our species. Clearly east Africans, especially Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis are most closely related to the peoples of the Middle East (outside of Africa), especially those of the Arabian peninsular, these are their closest geographic neighbours outside of Africa, and this is one of the possible routes for the original migration out of Africa. Is the claim sourced? I agree the sentence makes little sense. Cheers. Alun (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Synonym for Negro

The term black people usually refers to a racial group of human beings with dark skin color, but the term has also been used to categorise a number of diverse populations into one common group. Some definitions of the term include only people of relatively recent Sub Saharan African descent (see African diaspora), while others extend the term to any of the populations characterized by dark skin color, a definition that also includes certain populations in Oceania and Southeast Asia.[1][2]

OK, this paragraph is problematic.

1. It assumes the existence of biological race, which in itself is controversial - but also perhaps appropriate since "black people" often refers to a perceived race.

2. This article mentions "a racial group of human beings with dark skin color", there are several racial groups with dark skin color, which haven't been very often classified as a single race - this paragraph mentions them.

It also says that the term is used to catergorise diverse populations into a single group (while it no doubt has been used in many ways, I would dispute how notable that is)

In Australia, Aborigines are referred to as "blacks", the aboriginal news program is called "Living Black" etc.. Very few Australians would classify indigenous Africans and Australians in the same racial group, though black describes them both.

This paragraph should mention that the term black people is commonly used as a synonym for Negroes primarily in the US (though this term is well understood in Australia, Europe etc), rather than project the difficulties (of using an English adjective to classify a racial group, when the adjective is equally applicable to other groups) this causes on to Australian-English. It seems like this paragraph is accusing the people describing non-negros as black of being imprecise.

Explaining that black people is a synonym for Negro, and that the term negro has become problematic for some people, in the opening paragraph would alleviate these difficulties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.183.78 (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Negro" (Do you live in 1960?) is actually kind of archaic now dude. It be better to say that "Black" is often synonymous with African and/or African-American.--Woland (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, his premises are bad. I've met plenty of Australians who call anyone dark 'black', african or aborigine. As for racial groupings, there are plenty of books which examine this stuff, and conclude that scientifically there's little difference, but sociologically the gulf between skin tones is vast, and called a race. ThuranX (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Negro has been been largely replaced by a synonyms, but whatever synonym is used inherits the exact definition of Negro ie African comes to mean Negro, and not literally any person with a connection to Africa, black comes to mean negro and not any person with dark skin etc

Your suggestion of using African does not work, because populations exist in Africa such as North Africans, Afrikaans etc who are not generally referred to as black.

The term white people is also problematic - usually referring to native Europeans (with the exception of some small groups - Sammi etc), and people near these areas , since some groups such as North East Asians also have light skin, and an albino of any group would also have light skin. However, the wikipedia article on White People mentions in the opening paragraph that it's also used as a synonym for "Caucasian", which explains these inconsistencies.

An albino child born to African Americans is a "black person", so it must be explained that in this sense the term is being used a synonym for a perceived racial group.

The Negro page on wikipedia mentions that the term is a synonym for "black", "black african", "african american" etc