Jump to content

Black people

Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kobrakid (talk | contribs) at 16:00, 24 January 2007 (What talk page consensus? There are no grounds to remove cited marterial. I thought you of all people believed in being NPOV Ezeu). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A Kenyan man

Black people or Blacks can be a political, racial, ethnic, societal or cultural classification. No people are really black in the colour sense of the word. A variety of socio-political and biological factors are used to create categories called "black people".

There is no universally agreed-upon definition for who is "black". For example, some assert that only people of recent African descent are "black" while others argue that "black" may refer to individuals with dark skin colour regardless of ethnic origin.[1]

Historical background

The label Black received something like its present meaning during The Enlightenment when anthropologists of that era defined five human races: Yellows (East Asians), Reds (Native Americans), Whites (Europeans), Browns (Australoids, Indians, Southeast Asians), and Blacks (Africans).[2]

The role of the Bible

According to some historians, the tale in Genesis 9 in which Noah cursed the descendants of his son Ham with servitude was a seminal moment in defining black people, as the story was passed on through generations of Jewish, Christian and Islamic scholars.[3] According to columnist Felicia R. Lee, "Ham came to be widely portrayed as black; blackness, servitude and the idea of racial hierarchy became inextricably linked." Some people believe that the tradition of dividing human kind into three major races: Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid (now also commonly called black, white, and Asian), is partly rooted in tales of Noah's three sons repopulating the Earth after the Deluge and giving rise to three separate races.[4]

The biblical passage, Book of Genesis 9:20-27, which deals with the sons of Noah however makes no reference to race. The reputed curse of Ham is not on Ham, but on Caanan, one of Ham's sons. This is not a racial but geographic referent. The Caanites, typically associated with the region of the Levant (Palestine, Lebanon, etc) were later subjugated by the Hebrews when they left bondage in Egypt according to the Biblical narrative.[5] The alleged inferiority of Hamitic descendants also in not supported by the Biblical narrative, nor claims of three races in relation to Noah's sons. Shem for example seems a linguistic not racial referent. In short the Bible does not define blacks, nor assign them to racial hierarchies.[6]

Historians believe that by the 19th century, the belief that blacks were descended from Ham was used by southern United States whites to justify slavery. [7] According to Benjamin Braude, a professor of history at Boston College, "in 18th- and 19th century Euro-America, Genesis 9:18-27 became the curse of Ham, a foundation myth for collective degradation, conventionally trotted out as God's reason for condemning generations of dark-skinned peoples from Africa to slavery."[7]

On the other hand, author David M. Goldenberg contends that the Bible is not a racist document. According to Goldenberg, such anti-black interpretations came from post-biblical writers of antiquity like Philo and Origen who equated blackness with darkness of the soul. [8]

Science attempts to define race

Many argue that racism did not always exist, and that its origins can be traced to the Age of Enlightenment which gave rise to biological classifications and the theory of evolution.[9]

At the end of the 17th century a French doctor named Francois Bernier divided up humanity based on facial appearance and body type. He proposed four categories: Europeans, Far Easterners, Lapps, and blacks who he described as having wooly hair, thick lips, and very white teeth.[10] The first major scientific model was created in 18th century when Carolus Linnaeus recognized four main races: "Europeanus", the white race; "Asiatic", the yellow race; "Americanus", the red race; and "Africanus", the black race.[11] According to Linnaeus, the black male could be defined by his skin tone, face structure, and curly hair. Linnaeus believed blacks were cunning, passive, inattentive, and ruled by impulse. To Linnaeus, black females were shameless, because "they lactate profusely".[12] Linnaeus' protege, anthropology founder Johann Blumenbach completed his mentor's color coded race model by adding the brown race, "Malay" for Polynesisians and Melanesians of Pacific Islands, and for aborigines of Australia.[2] Some anthropologists added the brown race back in as an Australoid category (which includes aboriginal peoples of Australia along with various peoples of southeast and south Asia, especially Melanesia and the Malay Archipelago)[13], and viewed it as separate from Negroids (often lumping Australoids in with Caucasoids).[14] By the 1970s, due to the Black Power and Civil Rights movement redefining black as a symbol of pride and resistance from oppression, the term black replaced Negro in the United States[15]

Sociopolitical definitions

Mostafa Hefny is white under US law, due to his national heritage

According to Frank W. Sweet, the most controversial answer to the question "who is black?" is "whoever looks black." He writes that although most who use the label rationalize it in terms of physical appearance, there is little objective consistency in this regard, and that different cultures can assign the same individual to opposite "races": North Americans, Haitians, Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Barbadians, Jamaicans, and Trinidadians all have different subconscious and automatic perceptions of just what features define who belongs to which "racial" label.[16]

According to Professor R Bhopal a black is "A person with African ancestral origins, who self identifies, or is identified, as Black, African or Afro-Caribbean (see, African and Afro-Caribbean). The word is capitalised to signify its specific use in this way. In some circumstances the word Black signifies all non-white minority populations, and in this use serves political purposes."[17]

In Sub-Saharan Africa, terms specifically describing black people are not as commonly used as in the western world. According to Sri Lankan activist Nirmala Rajasingam "I think the idea of a Black identity, was inspired by the Civil Rights movement in the US. Unfortunately, now Black is identified with people of African origin only, but it didn’t used to be that way. It was used as a political term of people of color uniting to fight racism".[18]

The U.S. census race definitions says a black is a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro," or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian. The Census Bureau however notes that these classifications are socio-political constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature.[19] According to the Untied States' one drop rule, a black is any person with any known African ancestry.[20]

Self-identifying as black is not enough to be considered Black under U.S. law. Egyptian immigrant Mostafa Hefny describes himself as dark skinned with kinky hair, but nonetheless is legally White not Black. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget defines Blacks as having origins with the Black racial groups of Africa and Whites as having origins with original peoples of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, including Egypt. "I was born and raised in Africa and" Colin Powell and Dennis Archer "were not. And yet they are classified as Black and I am classified as White." Mostafia has attempted to sue the U.S. government to get his racial identity changed.[21]

According to psychologist Arthur Jensen, "American blacks are socially defined simply as persons who have some degree of sub-Saharan African ancestry and who identify themselves (or, in the case of children, are defined by their parents) as black or African-American"[22] "In this country [the United States], if you are not quite white, then you are black," said Jose Neinstein, a native white Brazilian and executive director of the Brazilian-American Cultural Institute in Washington. But in Brazil, he added, "If you are not quite black, then you are white." [23]

Biological definitions

In biology the term race is synonymous with the term subspecies, although in biomedical research the term race is often used to define social groups as opposed to biological groups.[24][25] All modern humans form a single subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. Some biomedical researchers claim that social races are biologically quantifiable, while others argue that race is biologically meaningless.[26][27] Modern DNA studies are interpeted by some as having cast doubt on old biological racial categories and classifications of peoples as black or otherwise.[28] Nevertheless attempts have been made to define black people genetically.

According to philosophy professor Michael Levin (who has spoken at events for the white separatist American Renaissance magazine),

Ordinary speakers acquainted with the out-of-Africa scenario are most charitably construed as intending 'Negroid' to denote individuals whose ancestors 15 to 5000 generations ago (with Harris & Hey, 1999, counting a generation as 20 years) were sub-Saharan African...Hybrid populations with multiple lines of descent are to be characterized in just those terms: as of multiple descent. Thus, American Negroids are individuals most of whose ancestors from 15 to 5000 generations ago were sub- Saharan African. Specifying 'most' more precisely in a way that captures ordinary usage may not be possible. '> 50%' seems too low a threshold; my sense is that ordinary attributions of race begin to stabilize at 75%.[29]

Highly controversial University of Western Ontario psychology professor J. Phillipe Rushton (who is head of the anti-immigrant and pro-eugenics Pioneer Fund), states "a Negroid is someone whose ancestors, between 4,000 and (to accommodate recent migrations) 20 generations ago, were born in sub-Saharan Africa.[30] Rushton's book "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" states: "In both everyday life and evolutionary biology, a 'Black' is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa[31]

Psychiatrist Sally Satel of the conservative Policy Review (and who wrote a book opposing political correctness in the medical field) stated “The entities we call ‘racial groups’ essentially represent individuals united by a common descent — a huge extended family, as evolutionary biologists like to say. Blacks, for example, are a racial group defined by their possessing some degree of recent African ancestry (recent because, after all, everyone of us is out of Africa, the origin of Homo sapiens).[30]

To those who define black genetically, the Sahara desert divided the human gene pool into blacks and non-blacks.

Criticism of definitions

There are objections to the standard definitions of black people, as well as criticism of the term itself.

Cultural writer and filmmaker Owen 'Alik Shahadah says "as a political term it was fiery and trendy but never was it an official racial classification of peoples who have a 120,000 year old history. Indians are from India, Chinese from China. There is no country called Blackia or Blackistan. Hence, the ancestry-nationality model is more respectful and accurate: African-American, African-British, African-Brazilian, and African-Caribbean." 'Alik Shahadah also objects that "in addition, because it is a term placed on us, we have no bases for its control, and hence they are able to say; 'Ancient Egyptians weren't black.' Black has no meaning; except the meaning they place on it, if and when they chose."[32]

Owen 'Alik Shahadah states "the notion of some invisible border, which divides the North of African from the South, is rooted in racism, which in part assumes that a little sand is an obstacle for African people. This barrier of sand hence confines/confined Africans to the bottom of this make-believe location, which exist neither politically or physically". Shahadah argues that the term sub-Saharan Africa is a product of European imperialism, "Sub-Saharan Africa is a byword for primitive African: a place, which has escaped advancement. Hence, we see statements like 'no written languages exist in Sub-Saharan Africa.' 'Egypt is not a Sub-Saharan African civilization.'[32]

Activist Nirmala Rajasingam considers most standard definitions of black too narrow: "It was a failure because it divided the Black community into its constituent parts.. into Jamaican or Punjabi or Sri Lankan Tamil and so on, rather than build up Black unity.. But you know, there are young Asians who would like to call themselves Black, but the African youth will say 'You are not Black, you are Asian. We are Black'. Similarly, there are young Asians who will say 'We are not Black, we are Asian.'. So it has all become diluted and depoliticized."[18]

Lewis R. Gordon (Director of the Institute for the Study of Race and Social Thought at Temple University) says "Not all people who are designated African in the contemporary world are also considered black anywhere. And similarly, not all people who are considered in most places to be black are considered African anywhere. There are non-black Africans who are descended from more than a millennia of people living on the African continent, and there are indigenous Pacific peoples and peoples of India whose consciousness and life are marked by a black identity".[33]

Psychiatrist Ikechukwu Obialo Azuonye says "being dark skinned is a widespread phenomenon which does not define any specific group of human beings. The tendency to reserve the designation black to sub-Saharan Africans and people of their extraction is manifestly misinformed".[34]

Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop also feels that the standard conceptions of black people fall short, stating: "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."[35]

Capitalization

There is some controversy as to whether the word black should be capitalized when referring to a racial group. Section 8.43 of the Chicago Manual of Style calls for the use of lowercase letters when referring to race by color (e.g. black people, white people). Some scholars feel that such racial terms denote a special significance, especially the term black, and thus elect to capitalize.[36]

These are photographs of famous individuals who have been labelled as black by a significant number of people.

See also

References and notes

  1. ^ Negritos and Australoids have dark skin, but do not have recent African ancestry. Some would consider them(selves) "blacks", and some would not.
  2. ^ a b Gould, S. J. (1996) The Mismeasure of Man (p. 402), W. W. Norton & Company (ISBN 0-393-31425-1)
  3. ^ Bernard Lewis, Race and Slavery in the Middle East: An Historical Enquiry, (Oxford University Press, 1982), pp. 28-117
  4. ^ The Descendants of Noah (bible-truth.org)
  5. ^ Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. (Princeton: University Press, 1992), pp. 23-87; Goldenberg, D. M. (2005) The Curse of Ham: Race & Slavery in Early Judaism, Christian, Princeton University Press
  6. ^ Goldenberg, op. cit.
  7. ^ a b Felicia R. Lee, Noah's Curse Is Slavery's Rationale, Racematters.org, November 1, 2003
  8. ^ Goldenberg, D. M. (2005) The Curse of Ham: Race & Slavery in Early Judaism, Christian, Princeton University Press
  9. '^ George M. Fredrickson. The Historical Origins and Development of Racism, backgrounder to RACE - The Power of an Illusion, PBS. Accessed online 4 November 2006.
  10. ^ D'Souza D. (1996) The End of Racism, Free Press; New Ed edition (ISBN 0684825244)
  11. ^ The Importance of “Whiteness” in American Legal History (PowerPoint presentation)
  12. ^ Audrey Smedley, Race in North America: Origin and Evolution of a Worldview (Westview, 1999), excerpted online at library.marist.edu. Accessed online 4 November 2006.
  13. ^ Definition of Australoid (Yahoo Education)
  14. ^ The Origin of Races (apologeticspress.org)
  15. ^ F. James Davis, Who is Black? One Nation's Definition, Penn State University Press (1991). Excerpted online, accessed 4 November 2006.
  16. ^ Frank F. W. (2005) Legal History of the Color Line: The Rise and Triumph of the One-Drop Rule, Backintyme (ISBN 0-939479-23-0)
  17. ^ R Bhopal, Glossary of terms relating to ethnicity and race: for reflection and debate, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2004;58:441-445
  18. ^ a b Interview by Ahilan Kadirgamar Lines. August 2002. Retrieved on 2006-10-08 Cite error: The named reference "Kadirgamar" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  19. ^ http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_309540.htm Quickfacts: U.S. Bureau of the Census
  20. ^ Who is Black? One Nation's Definition (PBS), by F. James Davis
  21. ^ [[ http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n5_v92/ai_19543513]]
  22. ^ Jorion, P.J.M. (1999). [Intelligence and race: The house of cards], Psycoloquy 10(064)
  23. ^ "People of Color Who Never Felt They Were Black: Racial Label Surprises Many Latino Immigrants", The Washington Post, December 26, 2002
  24. ^ Templeton, A.R. (1998). Human races: A genetic and evolutionary perspective. Am. Anthropol. 100, 632–650.Partial access to article. Retrieved 01 January 2007.
  25. ^ The Whole Side of It—An Interview with Neil Risch [1]
  26. ^ Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease Genome Biology 2002, 3:comment2007.1-2007.12
  27. ^ Evidence for Gradients of Human Genetic Diversity Within and Among Continents David Serre, Svante Pääbo Genome Research 14:1679-1685, 2004
  28. ^ Leiberman and Jackson 1995 "Race and Three Models of Human Origins" in American Anthropologist 97(2) 231-242
  29. ^ Levin M. The Race Concept: A Defense, Behavior and Philosophy, 30, 21-42 (2002)
  30. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Rushton was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  31. ^ Rushton J. P. (2000) Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, Charles Darwin Research Inst. Pr; 3rd edition (ISBN 0965683613). Abstract available here
  32. ^ a b Linguistics for a new African reality by Owen 'Alik Shahadah, first published at the Cheikh Anta Diop conference in 2005
  33. ^ African-American Philosophy, Race, and the Geography of Reason
  34. ^ Azuonye I. O. Who is "black" in medical research?, British Medical Journal 1996;313:760
  35. ^ The African presence in Indian antiquity by Runoko Rashidi
  36. ^ http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?49+Duke+L.+J.+1487