Talk:Black people

This term defines a race of people, not just a skin color as discussed in the opening paragraph. Black people are not just dark-skinned. Blacks have many other genetic characteristics that define the race.--Black Man 00:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Archived discussions

Talk:Black (people)/Races of Egypt

Early comments

This article needs to clean up some of its language, and specifically define the terms of its discussion. For example, exactly what are "black" or "European" characterisrics that are found among these groups, but not found in others? Also, what is "black blood?" This term has no scientific merit; there is no inherent difference in the blood of those who have varying degrees of any ancestry. [[musicus, 24 July 2005]

Nothing article, not even a stub, one ill-chosen link and a naive question. Ortolan88

---

Not any more, moved ill-placed section from black. Previous redirect was to African American, also not quite as accurate. Quill 22:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

This paragraph moved here from the article:

Blacks of Sub-saharan African ancestry thrive best relative to other races in tropical climates. In the tropical lowland parts of the Americas, most notably the Caribbean, which were colonized originally by Europeans, Africans have displaced the Europeans in those regions where they were introduced due to their much greater tolerance to humid tropical conditions. This phenomenon is also observed to a lesser extent in the southern United States, where blacks dominate inland lowland areas and whites the mountains of Appalachia.

A claim that different "races" of people are better suited to different locales is pretty controversial, and might well deserve its own article. A few things are well accepted, such as having darker skin making one less susceptible to sunburn, but whether skin color correlates well with "thriving" in particular climates in general is another matter entirely. In these examples, many would argue that the demographics are due more to accidents of history than to people with more melatonin being partiuclarly well-suited to the Carribean. --Delirium 08:15, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't read this article in a while, but I'm glad you moved the above passage. It's absolutely ridiculous/backward. deeceevoice 12:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to move and merge article

Would anyone oppose moving this article to Race in society or a similarly named article, where Whites could also be discussed? As it stands, this article is dangerously close to unencyclopedic by mere virtue of its name alone. Tomer ^TALK 05:55, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything "dangerously unencyclopedic" about the nature of this piece. However, I'm not opposed outright to your suggestion. Perhaps it would be helpful to see the beginnings of such an article (on "race in society") first. My first reaction to your idea, however, is that your suggested piece seems a bit overly broad and potentially ridiculously unmanageable/sprawling. Perhaps the solution, since you seem concerned about "whites" as a subject, would be a separate article in which changing definitions of whiteness could be explored. deeceevoice 14:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Non-African dark-skinned peoples

Deeceevoice, of course all humanity originated in Africa. This is exactly why I don't think the article should imply that, say, Tamils are particularly more African than, say, Han Chinese.--Pharos 20:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note that the article says "can" apply. Actually, more properly/grammatically, it should say "may"; it doesn't say it definitively does, or that it applies to all -- say, Han Chinese. deeceevoice 20:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about the use of the term "Blacks", I'm saying the quote "more broadly to persons whose ancestors formed early migratory waves of humanity from Africa in prehistoric times to members of other dark-skinned groups" implies that dark-skinned peoples outside of Africa have a closer genealogical/genetic relationship to Africans than lighter-skinned peoples do, which I don't think is demonstrated.--Pharos 21:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that was an incomplete revert/edit. I've corrected it. You likely still will have problems with it, but the text now is accurate. It implies no such thing. It doesn't even mention gentics. The definition is purely about the use of a word, "blacks." Members of the groups mentioned (and likely others) historically/colloquially have been referred to as "blacks." I can't help what someone incorrectly may infer. deeceevoice 21:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I still think the text, though literally true, is somewhat misleading and reinforces a common but false idea. Why is it particularly relevant that dark-skinned groups had "ancestors [who] formed early migratory waves of humanity from Africa in prehistoric times"? As you say, this is true of all humanity.--Pharos 21:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I edited it -- again. I thought your version far too simplistic/sparse. Now I suppose people will complain about my use of "Negroid." (shrug) deeceevoice 21:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Though the idea of "Negroid" has of course been incredibly abused, I think the link is relevant. Like many things on Wikipedia, this article puts a bit too much emphasis on language. There could be far more, for example on racism and the social meaning of "blackness".--Pharos 22:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization

Particuarly w.r.t. use in the U.S.A., should 'black' be capitalized? I've seen it both ways in WP, and I'm curious if there's a good reason to pick one over the other. (I also suspect that there are subtle political issues involved in the use of capital letters in white/White and black/Black...) jdb ❋ (talk) 10:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the most common usage is as it has always been -- "black/s" and "white/s" are lower-cased. deeceevoice 15:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have NEVER seen black capitalized when referring to dark skinned Africans. Also, if you look at the Wiki article on whites, white is not capitalized. I will be going through this article when I have some spare time and decapitalizing black. Gold Stur 05:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I was about to ask whether there was a Transatlantic divide on this: here in the UK, "Black" is much less common than "black", whatever the race of the writer. In any case, there's plenty of inconsistency in this article as it stands now (eg the sentence "non-black political entities define the person as Black"), and that just looks indecisive. Loganberry (Talk) 12:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Lowercase "black" is by far the most common usage in the US, but capitalized B "Black" is not uncommon in ultra-politically correct writing and in Afrocentrist literature. Capital W "White", by contrast, is used almost exclusively in white supremacist literature. Kwertii 00:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

What does it mean if somebody capitalizes both then? --24.63.36.180 10:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

My take on this capitalization issue is that it meshes nicely with the modern understanding that we use color (and other ethnic) terms as adjectives, not as nouns, so "a black person" instead of "a Black". Notice that the 'black' in the first one is not capitalized, since black is not a proper noun anymore (it's an adjective). I think the reason we do this is because we want to be thought of as people, not as "Blacks", or "Whites". I'm not really a huge fan of trying to use language to change people's thought processes (we all know how calling them "special" has really helped us to stop making fun of the mentally challenged), I respect what I believe is the motivation behind this grammar/capitalization change. The ideal, in my mind, would be to get to the point where we're all just "people", with the occasional "dark-skinned" or "pinkish-hued" thrown in just as a descriptor, but I realize that's a long way away.

To answer your question, I think if you capitalize both, it means you need to get with the times. Or it means you're german (they capitalize ALL nouns, not just proper nouns). ThePedanticPrick 14:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I know of no mainstream English-language publication that would capitalize "black" or "white." This article has considerably more problems than just this, tho. This is pedandic drivel entirely about blackness and not about people (origin, culture, language) at all. ----

I was one of the first ones to complain about the semantic and epistemological issues in the article and the last one to complain about the specific syntactical issue of the capitalization of white and black. However, I was the first one to standardize both articles, but now the capitalizations are creeping back in. What I don't understand is why we can't fix both. As Jesus allegedly said, "This ye ought to have done, AND not to have left the other undone". ThePedanticPrick 15:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I think that capitalization of the words "black" and "white" in this context is a matter of preference, and I have no problem following any reasonable standard. The vital issue in my mind is how best to communicate to the reader. Readers of this topic, especially Americans, habitually confuse four different concepts of "black" and "white".

• First is African-American ethnicity—a collection of customs and traditions that spring mainly from the rise of political ethnicities in the Jackson Northeast, but with merged customs from the freedmen of the Reconstruction Era and the Mulatto (Creole) elite of the Gulf Coast and South Carolina. Specifically, the inhabitants of Barbados, Haiti, and Santo Domingo are not of African-American ethnicity, not matter what they look like to Americans.
• Second is African appearance—the cluster of physical traits (dark brown skin, kinky hair, broad nose, steatopygia, prognathism, etc.) that Americans tend to see as "African" because those traits happened to be common among the families caught up in the transatlantic slave trade. Specifically, neither Walter White nor Homer Plessy were of African appearance in the past, any more than Soledad O'Brien and Mariah Carey are of African appearance today.
• Third is membership in one or the other of the two U.S. endogamous groups—which side of the color line you are on. If you are automatically and without qualification seen by Anglophone Americans as a suitable marriage partner for Anglophone Americans who are on the "white" side of the color line, then you are a member of the U.S. White endogamous group, no matter your ethnicity, no matter your appearance. If you are automatically and without qualification seen by Anglophone Americans as a suitable marriage partner for Anglophone Americans who are on the "black" side of the color line, then you are a member of the U.S. Black endogamous group, no matter your ethnicity, no matter your appearance.
• Fourth is genetic admixture—how much of your DNA originated in the transatlantic slave trade versus how much came from European colonists.

Intelligent discourse and pedagogy are both impossible when participants unconsciously and indiscriminately switch among those four concepts. Each concept applies differently to different individuals, each arose in a different place and time historically, and each is seen differently by different people around the world. Any serious discussion of racialism must clearly distinguish among those four concepts in every single sentence.

For what it is worth, in my own writing, I use "African American" as noun and "African-American" as modifier whenever I mean the first concept (note the initial caps). I use "African-looking" versus "European-looking" whenever I mean the second concept (again, note cap use). I use "U.S. Black endogamous group" or "U.S. White endogamous group" whenever I mean the third concept, although after the first few such usages I usually shorten this to "Black" and "White" (again, note caps). I use "African genetic admixture" or "European genetic admixture" whenever I mean the fourth concept, although after the first few usages I usually shorten this to "African DNA" and "European DNA". In my writing, I use lower-case "black" and "white" only when referring to colors.

Finally, as you can see above, I put the terms in quotation marks only when the referent is the word itself. Example-1 (without quotation marks): "Rosie Perez has noticeable African appearance but is of Hispanic, not African-American ethnicity, yet English-speaking Americans probably see her as a member of the U.S. Black endogamous group. She has not published her specific Afro-European DNA admixture." Example-2 (with quotation marks): John Doe says that the word "Black" applies to Mariah Carey but not to Rosie Perez.

Do not misunderstand. I am not suggesting that anyone adopt my standards, and I am willing to adopt whatever consensus standard arises. But I dig in my heels regarding the need to distinguish among those four concepts. -- Frank W Sweet 17:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

african ethnic groups

it must be kept in mind that in africa, there are thousands of ethnic groups. it seems logical to me that members of those african ethnic groups would have, in the past or present, interbred with members of other african ethnic groups. thus, logically, there would be black africans, who are, say for example, part swahili and part xhosa.

of course, many blacks in america don't consider themselves as members of the african ethnic groups, and simply think of themselves as "black". however, i know for fact that there are some blacks in america who still adhere to an ethnic group, and it's language, culture, religion, foods, architecture, clothing styles, etc. Gringo300 30 June 2005 02:16 (UTC)

Fed up. The "pretty table" should be history -- certainly, at least, here.

I'm fed up with going through this with every single article treating black people on Wikipedia: the perverse need to insert an endless list of pejorative, insulting racial slurs associated with the group. No other ethnic or racial group on Wikipedia receives similar treatment in articles dealing with them. There may be a legitimate need to present such information on Wikipedia -- but it should be done in a separate article. The time for automatically associating backward, ignorant, disgusting terminology with a group -- as though it defines who and what its members are -- is long past. Time for this to end. deeceevoice 14:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Most wikipedians are German, which explains racism. Here's proven racism from an admin. That same admin has many sock puppet accounts and stalks people out of racist motives, shown here. 66.252.129.190 16:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

First, deleting the entire table goes a bit far. But I suppose that was meant to evoke a response. The problem is that people have always used derogatory names for other groups. It's just that blacks have suffered most from this. I'm afraid your suggestion that this is a thing of the past will never be true. Condescending attitudes towards other groups, and the namecalling that goes with it will always be a part of mankind (well, maybe in some distant future....). Now, I can understand it's irritating to be confronted with that all the time, but 1) it's a fact so it can't be ignored in an encyclopedia and 2) ignoring it would almost be something like saying the holocaust never happened. And we can't have that either. By the way, what's 'pretty' about the table? It's just an ordinary table. I suppose that's meant as an ironic derogatory term :) .

I'd say there isn't too much use of derogatory terms in the table. There is however some explanation of how the same term can sound differently in other languages, and that's useful. Though it is confusing that the article is about Blacks in the sense of 'sub-Saharan Africans' but that the table is partly about them, but also partly about the use of the term 'Black' for other groups. In that sense the table is out of place here, but I wouldn't know where else to put it. Oh, and I notice that under the US there is a mention of 'the N-word'. Now that's useful! This is something I really dislike about US lingo. Say it or don't, but don't be halfhearted about it. If you want to say 'nigger', then say it. If you don't, then don't.

As for a solution. You suggest a separate article. If you mean splitting this one up, I'd say that doesn't solve it and the two resulting articles would be rather short. Or do you mean putting derogatory terms for all 'races' in one place? That does make sense. How about the racism article? (By the way, how do you feel about the fact that two of the three illustrations are about blacks? Just another example, but justifiable by my previous reasoning.) Let's give it a go. Let's make a list of derogatory terms for different human 'races' (which don't taxonomically exist, but that's a different issue). I can't think of too many off the top of my head (and I'm just about ready for bed :) ). One problem is that there's namecalling for other groups like nationalities. Not sure if that should go in the same table. And then there are misnomers like Indian for Native Americans. And different languages, like in the table you removed. And certain names are used for different groups too (like 'darkie' can refer to any person with a dark skin). And the same word can be good or bad in different setiings, times or countries. Much work to do :) .

White: camarron (though really for tourists in Mexico only I believe), bleekscheet

Black: nigger, darkie, chombo, nikker, roetmop, kaffer

Asian: chink (though that's for Chinese I believe)

Native American: redskin

DirkvdM 20:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The term "pretty table" (or something like it) was used by someone in an edit note -- hence the quotation marks. And there already is an article devoted to slurs: List of ethnic slurs. And, no. I did not suggest that such ugliness is a thing of the past -- quite the contrary, especially on Wikipedia, which is frequently a venue for racist interjections in articles, racist vandalism and the like. What I meant was that automatic inclusion of racist slurs in an article on any ethnic group should be a thing of the past. As I said in the discussion regarding someone's interjection of a racist photo in an article on Watermelon, it's time for Wikipedia to be an intelligent, enlightened arbiter of information (no, not a censor) and stop reducing segments of articles to racist word association games. Enough already. deeceevoice 23:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, some list! If only people would use their creativity in a more constructive way. Strange, though, that the racism article doesn't link to it. But about the 'pretty table', what do you have in mind then? Remove the derogatory terms (which, like I said, aren't all that many) and put it back? But then there's the 2 problems I mentioned. You suggested a separate article, but I don't see how that solves it. Another idea would be to make a list like the one I started, with just the most common terms in various languages, and put that in the racism article, with a link to the List of Ethnic Slurs, because that is rather extremely long. And the slimmed down 'pretty table' couild go back then, with a link to the racism table, so people don't get just the 'black slurs'. DirkvdM 08:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

No. I didn't suggest a separate article. I stated that an article already exists where such information would be appropriate. Frankly, I don't see the need for the table at all. This is an English-language site. There are absolutely no parallel such tables in other articles on so-called "races" or other ethnicities anywhere else on Wikipedia. It's simply unnecessary. And it's a safe bet that there is no, for example, listing of terms like "dago," "guinea," "greaseball," etc., in the article on Italians, or of "Christ killer," "kike," etc., in the article on Jews. Leave it be! deeceevoice 11:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, at first you suggested a separate article, but never mind that. Now you come with a different reason, namely that this is the English language Wikipedia, which seems to be the definitive word on this (wish you would have come up with that in the first place; would have saved me some work :) ). There's still some information in the table that makes sense in the article, though. I'll give it a go. DirkvdM 20:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Portuguese language

Just a bit of trivia here: in Brazil, the term "negro" is the politically correct, whereas "black" is deemed pejorative. I cannot vouch for other portuguese speaking countries, but this is how these words are viewed in brazilian portuguese.

^^^ someone wrote above (not me) and didn't sign their name DyslexicEditor 14:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I made an edit like this saying when negro was the thing black was bad to say but I heard it off a stephen king novel (said so in my edit summary). Well, Stephen King was right it seems and I also guess so as nobody reverted me. Oh and the n-word used to be a friendly term that should go there--I want some others to do it because I don't want to write it and have what I wrote erased via reversion (instead of altered) if I do it wrong. DyslexicEditor 14:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Racial slurs do not belong in this article. I'm sick of readig "nigger" every time I come to an article on Wikipedia about black people. Enough! deeceevoice 15:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Lowest Common Denominator in Wiki?

Is Wikipedia sinking to the lowest common denominator, as detractors feared when it first emerged? Unless one is an EXTREME populist, after all, one acknowledges that the majority of any population is ignorant about most things. (Specialists, by definition, specialize.) Yet if all voices are treated equally, and if increasingly they dominate postings on Wikipedia due to their sheer numbers, then the result will be an ignorant Wiki. There must be many discussions about this elsewhere, but this page (and the non-mirror image page at whites illustrates the problem as well as any other.

The intent of the Wiki founders and directors is good and clear. E.g., the Wiki guidelines state: "If possible, terms used to describe people should be given in such a way that they qualify other nouns. Thus, black people, not blacks; gay people, not gays; and so forth." Yet this page here [1] is named blacks, and that usage is prevalent throughout.

1. Then let us just change it to "Black" and link it within the Black page. I agree with you, i just don't know how to change it. I'm not experienced enough yet

Before doing any of these changes, there needs to be consensus on this talk page to do so. I disagree with the above comments because the Wiki guidelines quoted are about how to refer to groups of people within an article, not about the name and cultural connotations that arise from what a group of people call themselves. The title of this article, for what it is about, is correct.--Alabamaboy 00:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest even further changes to the article name. Instead of using Black (people) why not just Black people? In my opinion that would make the meaning much clearer and could not be mistaken for the colour black or something else. Denis Kasak 21:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

To the Moderators: I stand corrected

I, through my inexperience, could not isolate a particular edit, so i figured that the moderators were unilaterally editing the article.

Apologies to the wiki-moderators.

The Hip-Hop paragraph issue.

Well, the first sentence of the paragraph is false. Who would the author credit for creating the "hip-hop" style, the Italians? The article is about Black People, not when the hip-hop style of rap music began, or where. It is most certainly not a podium for extremist propaganda.

The comments surrounding this paragraph are just as bad. It equates Black culture with "the ghetto", assumes that all Blacks inherit this "ghetto life", and presumes to make the spread of this musical style as important an event in the education of anyone about Black People as the inventions we have created, our philosophical positions and the lives of Blacks who have never been touched by slavery. Music is a distracting asset in the discussion of a culture, and there are many other, more important aspects of Black Society that would edify a Wiki reader more thoroughly.

If we're taking a vote on it's inclusion, I vote no. Juan 11:53, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

---

I pulled this from the article and put it here, someone wanted the matter to be resolved, but didn't want to discuss it first.

(This statement/paragraph is not true, hip-hop was started by Blacks and Puerto Ricans in New York, and began as a medium to re-express the hardship of blackness, specifically Black ghetto life, and as a unique musical expression to distance itself from disco which was also a black music genre that was usurped by the homosexual/glam community. Hip-hop wasn't adopted by anyone until the Italian sons and daughters of italian record executives put pressure to promote this music, and from the rich lavish lifestyle promoted it's been adopted by everyone that wants to be everything Black but Black, this the last paragraph is not true based on fact, PLEASE EDIT TO REFLECT THE REAL, NOT THE WHITE SUPREMIST COMPANY LINE SOLD BY WHITES, AND THE WHITEMANS HOUSE NEGRO.

What is the difference between this position, and the position you say is not true? A medium to re-express the hardship of blackness, especially Black ghetto life is the same thing as to express their heritage openly and their social concerns.

If I recall, in Jamaica, and parts of France and West Africa they were into rap in the late 80s and early 90s. Especially in West Africa, Hip Hop remained a social expression against oppression. For example Nas gives clues all over his music, the Pharaonic cover of one of his Albums "I AM" seems to relate to the French group "I AM" who also use the motif of Egyptian Pharaohs for their names. In his music, "One Mic", he references to "one God" in French. There is a deeper social and moral aspect of Hip-hop that has been present long before and still despite white meddling into it. And since in America, the social climate isn't receptive to direct social commentary in rap like it was in the 80s, subtlety is the name of the game on this side of the Atlantic. SO I would say that you added some insight but you also missed some, but the original paragraph is true, not withstanding "HOW" the phenomonon spread. Why didn't you put this on the discussion area instead of right into the article? Delving into how Hip-hop spread does nothing to deny that Black people throughout the world do benefit from the expression.

______________________________________________________________________________

I notice you mention Hip Hop in this article, but there is no mention of jazz, blues,rock music, gospel or even old slave hymns that were important to black people and has had such an effect on American culture/black American culture.

One could argue that some of these musical forms have had a greater impact on society then hip-hop simply based on how they've withstood the test of time and broken down cultural boundaries. I would say that blues, rock, and slavery era songs had/have their own social commentary; and if you must include hip-hop and the media driven 'hip-hop' culture in this article then it's only fair that you include the other musical forms that blacks have innovated and the culture that surrounds them.

I actually dislike hip-hop even being included in this article as there is a thought in society among blacks and whites that listening to hip-hop and embracing that as your life style has something to do with being black. So those blacks who don't listen to hip-hop and don't subscribe to it's associated culture are some how running away from their blackness, when it's nothing more then a matter of an individuals taste. There is a mass thought out there that in order to be black you have to listen to hip-hop and when you do not, you are some kind of aberration that shouldn't exist. This is not just a thought in America, but in many cultures. So, I ask that you please either remove the reference to hip-hop music in this article, or also include other important musical styles that were started by black people. Thank you.

Black Anarchism?

What the heck does Black Anarchism have to do with Black People? Do we see the KKK links on the White People article? No. It's gone!

flagrant POV

This section:

Non-Black scholars try to take a strictly anthropological or genetic viewpoint, often in order to concentrate and further marginalize the significance of Black people in history. In doing so they subjectively establish beforehand which gene markers and anthropological characteristics to include or exclude. Because of this, attempts to base Blackness on a biological or genetic foundation are objectively flawed, and overlook the most meaningful and relevant human aspect of Blackness: a shared human experience that transcends regional boundaries and physiological criteria

is ridiculously POV. Firstly, it quite plainly connects non-black scholars in particular with a wish to 'marginalize the significance of Black people in history'. What does their being non-black have to do with it? Are they racists? Are scholars 'often' guilty of misrepresenting black people? Another problem I have is with 'attempts to base Blackness on a biological or genetic foundation are objectively flawed' - surely they are only objectively flawed according to someone's POV! Massively POV, and this is just the opening few paragraphs... the whole article needs to be checked, and points of view mitigated with contrary voices, so I'm tagging it. --81.154.236.221 16:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I am the major contributer to the article as it has been revamped a few months ago. What I addressed in that paragraph you pointed out is the assumption that white scholars make in determining what is or is not Black. In comparison, no one but white people define what white people are and are not. However, with Black people, there is a confirmation process that has to occur with those who are white (whether scholars or not) in determining the boundaries of Blackness. I and most Black people find that double standard unacceptable. Most notably is the insistance that Blackness is based on a regional connection to exclusively west african heritage. So that East Africans are "less Black" and non-africans in Asia are "not really Black". That is why I put that paragraph there. As far as other articles go. I believe that like "Afrocentricism", this article is being tagged because areas of it are simply difficult for you to accept, and not based on a POV. Yes many scholars who are racists throughout history have tried to create the "classical negro". In addition during many investigations of Black people, there is a habit to marganialize the people into a small grouping, and referring to any other people, whether East Africans, Nubians, people who are mixed, East Indians, etc... as Caucasoids. This is misleading to the readers. Then what happens is that Genetic markers that are present in the various groups, but not present in high concentrations of West Africans, well those are used as "evidence", but they are not evidentiary, because there has been no reason to associate those markers, or "west african orientation" with an exclusive Black heritage. It would be like us trying to associate whiteness with an exclusively "Scandanavian" heritage, and relying on genetic markers ONLY found in scandinavian people, thus creating a "classical caucasoid". From there, Italians, Greeks, Arabs, etc, would be considered Negroids because they do not fit in so nicely into the specialized Scandanavian type. As rediculous as that is, this is how many scholars take the approach with mixed people, they want to lump them into the "Caucasoid" section and keep them out of the Black section, thus redefining Blackness. This does not address their linguistic, social, cultural experiences which have more to say than a skull shape or a genetic marker. For the time being I will not remove the tag, but I am expecting an honest dialouge on your concern, and not a repetitive exasperated accusation that ignores the comments I raise. I have noticed that in a few articles I worked on. --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a little overbroad, but you cannot dispute the truth of the first sentence. I'd refine it to focus it on works during slavery, Jim Crow and such recent screeds as "The Bell Curve", but if their intent is/was different, show me how. The conclusion of the paragraph, that you cannot define Blackness genetically, can not be disputed, and is certainly unbiased. If you think otherwise, by all means, enlighten me! I am not the original author of the paragraph, but I defend it's conclusion with my own life experiences. I further intend to provide references in the near future.

Juan 12:42, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Again, i was the writer. And if I recall, I had modified that paragraph from an earlier version that had insisted that genetics was the defnining factor.--Zaphnathpaaneah 19:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yup, the opening two paragraphs of the article are ludicrously POV. Actually it's a shame that this article is currently linked to from the main page, as it's a poor advertisement for Wikipedia, IMHO. Ben Finn 11:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Well you aren't addressing the concerns you have, nor offering a "neutral" position. What then? --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've decided to 'be bold', and have cut the most obviously POV text from the first two paragraphs, viz.:

As Equatorial ancestors are usually darker skinned, and over the past few centuries, they were universally oppressed by European and North Eurasians, one who openly identifies as "Black" affirms their heritage despite the current social atmosphere to denounce it.

Non-Black scholars try to take a strictly anthropological or genetic viewpoint, often in order to concentrate and further marginalize the significance of Black people in history. In doing so they subjectively establish beforehand which gene markers and anthropological characteristics to include or exclude. Because of this, attempts to base Blackness on a biological or genetic foundation are objectively flawed, and overlook the most meaningful and relevant human aspect of Blackness: a shared human experience that transcends regional boundaries and physiological criteria.

But a quick look through the rest of the article suggests to me that this isn't the only POV text in there. Ben Finn 11:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

So, what gives you the right to be so bold? Isn't there a method for resolving disputes that precludes such unilateralism? Why didn't you REWORD what you felt was biased, instead of destroying it? Do you have a patent on the presentation of facts that we must license in order to use them in our presentations?

I strongly suggest that you reinsert the text while it is being discussed. Your censorship is not appreciated in the least.

Are you trying to mask the fact that Europeans and Eurasians oppressed Africans? Maybe you are of the school of thought that believes and propounds the theory that describes race as an identifier of species? If so, and even if not, who made you the arbiter of NPOV?

Once again, I strongly suggest that you reinsert the text, and allow it to be reworked by consensus. Juan 12:42, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Consensus. I had also noted in the Eurocentricism article, that Eurocentricists take a unilateral approach in resolving issues of dispute, rather than coming to a consensus. I believe here we have an example of that. --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia recommends new users to 'be bold' (I'm newish), so that's what I was. We all have the right. I'm not the (sole) arbiter of NPOV but I can spot blatant POV as well as anyone! I have no view on the issues in this article and no sinister motive (as you seem to imply). But I think the opening of this article is (was) far below the level of objectivity Wikipedia aspires to.

What is NPOV to one person can be very biased to another. You have not explained what you feel is a neutral position, but instead, you complain about what you do not like and unilateraly try to change it. Shall I change (being a Black person) the parts of the White People article I do not like in the same unilateral fashion? --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Rights have responsibilities, and your responsibility here is to be objective. You claim to have no view, but all I see in your action is your view: you think the article is below Wiki's aspirations, so you alone destroy it? How "viewless" is that? You think the article cannot be saved (whose point of view is that?) so you think you have the right, again, to destroy it. Even in the face of an attempt to straighten it out.

That is a unilateral Eurocentric approach. I agree, the user is masking the rules of Wikipedia to cover his intentions. But I want to see how far it goes. --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

So, rather than continue to argue, I am going to restore the text, then we can all work on it. I think the text can be saved. I also believe that you must prove your claims before you take destructive action. Juan 23:07, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I also think the above text is largely unsalvageable, which is why I didn't edit it. Re the first chunk:

As Equatorial ancestors are usually darker skinned, and over the past few centuries, they were universally oppressed by European and North Eurasians, one who openly identifies as "Black" affirms their heritage despite the current social atmosphere to denounce it.

while I doubt they were 'universally' oppressed, the central point made by the sentence is POV and unsourced (and also in my opinion both untrue and strange) - namely that there is currently a 'social atmosphere' (where? worldwide?!) to denounce 'it' (what - Black heritage?) Though no doubt this makes an interesting and provocative subject for debate, such a statement would not be presented as fact in any objective publication.

How can anyone doubt that Black people around the world were universally oppressed by white people in the 18th and 19th century? There was no country in the world that a Black person could live in, which white people ruled, that was not subject to slavery, until probably the mid 1830s.

As for the second chunk above, 'Non-Black scholars...', well, what can one say. I have no expertise or opinion on what the paragraph says, but that it is unsalvageably POV (not to say quite inflammatory) speaks for itself. I have no shame in just cutting it. Nor do I agree with your statement 'you cannot dispute the truth of the first sentence' - while knowing little about it, I do dispute it. The sentence is suspect from the second word, and the second half (that many non-black scholars have evil ulterior motives) is implausible and inflammatory. And, of course, unsourced. If you think you can fix it to a NPOV state with sources, please go ahead. Ben Finn 14:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like us to debate why it's POV. What kind of evidence would contribute to this statement? Do you disagree with it personally? Do you believe that Blackness is NOT determined primarily by gentics? If you believe that Blackness is based primarily on a west african genetic makeup, then I would say that you are proving the point I put in that paragraph! --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't have time to revise this myself or get heavily into the debate, but for the record, I agree that this article is ridiculously POV and needs major revisions to become NPOV. Kwertii 00:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

POV and source warnings

Juan, I see you've removed the POV and source warnings on the article. I think this is unwarranted. This extremely long article contains no sources that I can see from a quick look-through. It therefore gives the appearance of a series of original research (and somewhat POV) essays.

While your reinstatement of the text I deleted is certainly better than it was, it is still POV (and not the only POV stuff in the article):

Some non-black researchers have taken a strictly anthropological or genetic viewpoint to concentrate and marginalize the significance of Black people in history

What is the objective evidence of this sinister motivation? (None is cited.) This sentence is clearly from the POV of someone who disagrees with these unnamed non-black researchers and wants to present the alternative view as objective fact. And also, while they're it it, wants to impugn their motives. A sentence like this would not appear in any reputable print encyclopedia. Anyway, I don't have much interest in editing this article further as I have no expertise in the subject matter. But I still think it falls short of Wikipedia's standards. I hope someone will improve it. Ben Finn 11:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The difference between us is this: you saw a article full of errors and mistakes, and wanted to abort it; I saw the same article and began cleaning it up. It's not gonna be done in 5 minutes. I have to review things and add references and citations.

OK, good luck with it, Juan. Ben Finn 00:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Now, by your own admission above, you brought nothing to this article but a desire to criticize it, hack it up and talk about ancient metaphors (print encyclopaedia? We don't need no steenking print encyclopaedia!!). I'm glad that you've been honest with yourself about your motivation, and I hope you'll come back from time to time and watch it grow.

Juan 23:34, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Why I modified the article.

I see the complaints being made by some regarding the POV in the article. What I presented was a widespread point of view by BLACK people on what they consider THEMSELVES to be. Not what someone who is not part of that experiences believes. IN addition, much of the content is from a Black point of view. What is so hypocritical of those complaining about the POV in the article is that, before when the article was so crappy with a lot of anti-Black pov, and empathsis on what the word "nigger" and "negro" means (which has little relevance to Black people), very few people complained except those who were Black. Now here we are, and once again a Black perspective, which is complex, and difficult to grasp is being attacked for the parts that are critical of the white aspects. That's too bad, because White people need to get it that they are not above reproachment. I am not here to villify White people, but I am here to accurately describe what and who considers themselves Black and how that inclusionary grouping has come to be, changed, and currently is changing. PART OF THAT is the impositions by white government officials, white judges, white scholars... throughout the past three centuries. Those imposition define and redefine it for their (white people) own convenience, whether economic (slavery), social(Jim Crow/Apartheid/NAZI), or cultural (bell-curve, concerns about diffusionism and Afrocentricism).

The complaints that come and go in some of the racial articles in Wikipedia follow this format, that is, when they are distortions of Black people, no white person cares. When the distortions are removed, and in the process white people are noted for their participation in the accurate portrayals or distortions, white people cares and wants to dump the whole article. No the article won't be dumped. It doesn't matter how much you dislike my point of view, we will find a equitable (and I empathize that word) way to a consensus. We will not allow unilateral Eurocentric exasperations to dominate the future of this article. Yes, it's sad, someone said, about the article. Go back in time before I touched the article, with it's stupid chart of "negro" and "nigger" and tell me how sad that was to you? Did you find that crap enlightening or did you not read the article at that time?

yes I am very critical when the quality of insight into an issue is determined by how much a white critic is exasperated. Enough! --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should not represent black POV any more than they should represent white POV. They should represent NPOV. (Though that may of course include objective statements of what white and black views/beliefs are, to the extent that that's relevant.) As to the issue of whether criticisms against the article are being leveled by whites or blacks, it's of course irrelevant. The validity of a criticism depends solely on whether it is true or not, not the race of the critic. (As for my criticisms, you don't know what race I am; nor is it relevant.) Ben Finn 10:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well here is a newsflash, Wikipedia seems to present a white POV all too often. Except for the Nazi articles, I find an annoying habit of the articles being softened up when White people are being criticized. I do not see this softening up of other groups. I also see an unnecessary need to "prove" things with racial issues, for example, in the Curse of cain article, the writer tries to somehow soften up the significance of associating Black people with Cain because a slave had made the connection in her writing in the 19th century (you know, the old idea, if one black persoon did it ignorantly, then it must be ok to flaunt it as fact). One article on Mormonism, the writer tried to make it look like a Black Mormon had somehow been the catalyst of all of the anti-Black policies in the Mormon church. In another, the Caucasoid article, someone kept trying to include Ethiopians as Caucasoids, based on craniometry, and Coon's analyses, despite the fact that Coon himself had indicated that the Ethiopians had Negroid tendecies in their skulls. It's hard to do checks and balances on POV about race when the owners of the media, the arbitrators of the service, and those of an opposing view are all overwhelming of the same background. Again, where were you when the silly "negro" chart was on this article?--Zaphnathpaaneah 04:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

East India omitted from the article

WHy is any reference to East India taken out of the article? I agree that we need to cite the sources, a process that I am horribly unfamiliar with doing. But I do believe that Black people are abundant in India, about 20-30 percent of the population, depending on who is counting. I am aware of the Dalit movmements that AFFIRM the blackness of the Dalit people in India (about 100 million of them), as well as the Siddi people and many Dravidians consider themselves Black. However, I am aware of many East Indians who hate Black people so much that the mere mention of there being a Black presence in that country scares them to death. I will place the East Indian references BAAAACK into the article. Unilateral removals of course is underhanded, and I would like some insight BEFORE it's done.--Zaphnathpaaneah 19:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I would appreciate some assistance in resource citing and what not. i am not able to go through 500 books and a thousand articles to cite to prove what I have put into the article. I do know that we all in here can collaborate and find the references. Since web-based material is not considered on par with written material (and I can respect that), I would hope someone in here can provide. Runoko Rashidi, for example did a very well in depth insight into this topic.--Zaphnathpaaneah 19:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to completely rewrite article

Hi, everyone. I just stumbled on this page for the first time today and it's causing me to lose faith in wikipedia as a concept. The language and organization is so bad, most of the sections overlap and repeat information, and there are so many confusing, slanted, and false statements that I can't even begin to address them one by one. I think we could do a lot better if we started from scratch, but before we do that, we should have a discussion about what the goals of this article are, and what the layout should be. In my opinion, race is a social construct, not a genetic one, so to me the article should focus on the sociological use of the term "black". The various anthropological 'research' over the years that has attempted to define who is black should be presented as just that: attempts to define who is black. We would also do well to define ahead of time what sections to have and what info these sections will cover. What does everyone think? ThePedanticPrick 21:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I am going to make a guess. I am guessing that many people are so race-charged about Black people, that when they find an area of something that deals with Black people, there is a stronger than normal sense of urgency, stronger than normal loss of faith, stronger than normal concern for quality. I rewrote this article, because before hand it was horribly disconnected from reality. It did not show any real insight into the topic. Much like the "Yoruba" article, which summarized the 25 million Yoruba people as a "merry making tribe", it seemes that those Wikipedians, like yourself, who have a lot of faith in the concept, did not find their faith lost with such crappy quality. Look at the Yoruba article now, and see the difference. Same thing here. If you want to discuss the matter I'm all ears. I am the number one person who will INSIST that race does not have anything more than a social component. But let us be objective, and not run to a dramatic exasperated attitude that seeks to unilaterally remove the hard work that is being done so far. I am so ok with major changes to the article. I am not ok with omissions and erasure of content (for example, someone I believe has erased most of the East Indian references) to uphold a status-quo mentality. So let us discuss some of the false statements, and see what we can do about them. If you find false statements, please post them and lets discuss that. The goal of the article for me is to make sure that Black people are presented in a unique way on Wikipedia, and not as a mirror or reflection of White people. I read the White article, and I find the first sentance particularly misleading and circular The term White ... refers to a person ....with a connection to White culture Can someone tell me what "white" culture is? The White people article to me seems to be more of an attempt to defend the comfort zone of those of West European descent. Zaphnathpaaneah --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Zaph, I haven't seen the Yoruba article, but rest assured that poor quality is what gets my ire up, not positive portrayals of black people. The word "pedantic" in my screen name reflects my sometimes obsessive concern for quality, accuracy, and comprehensibility of any writing. The problem with the article is not due to a lack of hard work. On the contrary, what we have here is a "too many cooks spoiling the broth" phenomenon. It's like a bunch of people keep coming by and piling more bricks onto a lousy foundation, and the building looks terrible and is about to fall apart 'cause it wasn't designed correctly to begin with. Some of it can be salvaged and made part of a better-designed article, but most of it is just poorly-written garbage. I don't have time right now to enumerate all the POV statements, but I'll start with one (actually, it shows up repeatedly) that I believe you were responsible for based on your comments on this Talk page: the repeated accusations of "eurocentrism" being leveled at everyone, but primarily at scientists. The problem with this is not that it's not true (I have no doubt that it is true, btw), it's that Wikipedia has a policy of no original research and neutral point of view. That means that this article can't just come out and say "European scientists are racist, white-supremacists, and euro-centrists". We need something more like "Professor So-and-so in his book Such-and-Such made the claim that many studies of racial differences have been adversely affected by the biases of the scientists conducting the studies." See how much better that is? ThePedanticPrick 15:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, and what I had hoped is that we would all do that together. I do not have the patience to cite resources, firstly because I have to figure out how to properly link them, which is a pain in the butt. Secondly, I have a big problem with "credibility" and race. It seems that the bulk of the African based research is regarded as second-rate afrocentric POV stuff. For example, Ivan Sertima, Cheikh Anta Diop, and Runoko Rashidi have been vilified many times as less than quality researchers. --68.60.55.162 05:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this needs a major rewrite. It is blatantly POV, bordering on anti-white racism. The article makes it out like there is an agreed-upon consensus in society that there is an ongoing vast conspiracy of whites to belittle and subjugate blacks and "Blackness". There are undoubtedly people who think this, and so their POV must be included amongst all others in order to achieve NPOV. The article must, however, 1) include specific references to professional academic research for every assertion; 2) make it clear that these are just one particular POV; and 3) include other POVs, as well. A few examples of specific problem areas are:

• There is a constant attempt to reject Blackness outright by pointing out the "non African" aspect of Asian Blacks, or by relying on DNA markers to de-empathize any valid connection between the two groups. Blank assertion, unsubstantiated. Needs references, and needs to be toned down from such a broad generalization, and include differing points of view, too, to something like "In works such as ABC, Dr. DEF says that ... because ... Others, such as Dr. GHI, point out that..."

I have read articles by many researchers, who insist that there are no Black people outside of Africa in history except those brought as slaves to the middle east. They insist that the Egyptians, Nubians, Ethiopians and Sudanese are just Caucasoids that have some superficial resemblance to Black people. that's retarded, but seriously considered by mainstream scientits. --68.60.55.162 05:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Most criticisms against the term are based on either a Eurocentric fear of its inclusion of others in the world outside of Africa and North America, or the use of hypodescent rules to try to classify anyone as Black, due to the fact that somewhere down the line, everyone has a Black ancestor no matter how far back in time one goes, even to the earliest prehistoric human days. I live in the US and I don't notice many criticisms at all of the term, much less evidence that these reasons are productive of criticism.
• However, the White established view is that these Cochin Jews are Black but not as Black as a Negro or a Black African. Again, blank, unsubstantiated assertion. Needs supporting evidence and references.
• Much like Jewry, Blackness is related to a history of struggle, oppression, and a sense of individual integrity in the face of superficial acceptance by those who would otherwise view Blackness with contempt or disdain. Highly POV assertion of opinion. Needs references to professional research, and needs to make it clear that many people - of whatever race - do not think this. Otherwise, needs to be removed.

The racial struggle that Black people endured is apparent. What research other than the Jim Crow, Apartheid, Untouchable, and such laws do I need to provide that would be sufficient enough for you to accept that from the time that Blackness established as a "seperate" group, to the present day, were systematically degraded to the point that those could pass, and fool people into thinking they are "not" Black, (i.e. not of African descent, not dalit, not Zulu...) so they could get benefits by their oppressive society denied them. They had to choose between those benefits and remaining true to who they were (acknowledging even in the face of contempt, that they are African, dalit, or Zulu).... I dont think that widespread experience needs citations. I think that's kind of silly. --68.60.55.162 05:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm somewhere in the middle on this one. Obviously, the racial struggle is apparent, and we don't need to obsessively cite it, but I still think the language in that sentence is unencyclopedic. ThePedanticPrick 19:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• The second, the intrinsic method, is where a person or group of people independently identify themselves as being black, either in response to the immoral caste system imposed upon them, or in recognition of their own love for others who share much of the same heritage. "immoral caste system imposed upon them"? This involves 1) the (highly controversial) POV judgement that there is a caste system; and 2) a further POV judgement that the purported caste system is immoral. Again, needs references to professional research, some indication that this is not a widely held opinion, or needs to be removed.

A caste system is immoral in its very nature. I'm sure we don't need evidence that killing defenseless non-threatening children is immoral. A caste system which places more value of one person over another by virtue of worthless superficial appearance is immoral. Jim Crow, slavery, the B.S. in Sudan, and so forth, these are caste systems that place many Black people in a situation where they can choose to either join the immoral side that supports the caste system, or continue to suffer the possible fallout from remaining on the oppressed side. I think what you are doing is looking at this from a strictly "USA" point of view. Black people, and this article isn't a US only (or even primarily) article. But you know what, let's see what Wikipedia says about Caste systems "A caste system is a rigid system of social stratification, which divides members of a society into different castes. Castes are separated socially, economically and physically to varying degrees. Intermarriage between castes is limited, occupations may be assigned to particular castes, and lower castes may live in separate communities." This happened in America during the Jim Crow period (octoroon, quadroon, 3/5th human, and so on), in South Africa (white, colored, black, bantustans etc), it happens now in Sudan and Mauritania (Tuareg), somewhat still in India. Perhaps the thing to do is to take the word "immoral" out. I think that's best, as there is no such thing as a "moral" caste system anyway. See? We can discuss the matter and find a sensible way to improve the situation. But I do know this, at some point I will have to take a commitment to go to a library, borrow about 40 or so books on this topic and cite the heck out of this article. No one else will. And until I do, many people are going to pretend that much of what I have put in here is made up fairy tale. --68.60.55.162 05:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

That would be greatly appreciated. ThePedanticPrick 19:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• There has been a strong position by African Americans that regional proximity to Africa proper is and should be the third defining characteristic. Nobody at all is qualified to make such blanket statements about the position of "African Americans" in general. There is as much diversity of opinion amongst blacks as amongst any other large group of people. This is as ridiculous as making a generalization about the position of all "people who drive green cars" or all "people who like football". If some particular researcher or researchers who study black culture think this, then of course, that should be included, but it needs to be sourced and referenced.

I can agree with that, I have been having difficulty with the similarities between some Black "purists" and white racists in that they have all to similiar view points on what is "really" black.

These (and much of the rest of the article) are blatantly POV assertions. If we can find references to specific published works that advocate these POVs, I'm all for including these POVs, but we mustn't just assert them as though they are generally accepted fact. They need to be referenced, and the article needs to make it clear that they are controversial. On the capitalization of "Black" throughout the article: as a racial identifier, the word "black" is written with lowercase-b "black", not uppercase-B "Black". Writing "Black" with an uppercase-B is as pretentious and racist as writing uppercase-W "White" is (which is almost never done outside the context of white supremacist literature), especially as almost all instances of "white" as a racial construct are written with lowercase-w. That is indisputably lopsided, racist, and belies the editorial slant that informs much of this article. And, allow me to say preemptively: no, this is not merely some knee-jerk reaction of a scared Eurocentric white afraid of the very concept of Blackness encroaching on my snowy-white Nazi worldview; as another poster said, nobody here has any idea what my race is, nor does it matter. This article needs major refactoring and referencing to become NPOV. Kwertii 01:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

No, actually that's a good point. I actually picked that up from seeing White people in racial discourse uppercase the W and omit uppercasing the B. My undersatnding is that an ethnic group has an uppercase first letter, like Basque, Dalit, and so forth. Black people are considered an ethnic group. But then again, maybe not? I will be sure to recall your comments here the next time I see others putting that "W" in the thing. Oh wait a minute. Let me just go back to the "White" article and see... sentance ONE of the "White people article" is as follows:

• Whites (singular; White, as in White person or White people), as understood in its sociological context, is a colour-defined form of ethno-racial classification. Though literally implying light-skinned, "White" is a highly fluid social construct that has been used in different ways, at different periods of time, and has included and excluded - even today - different peoples in different places under differing definitions.

I see the capital "W" in white, all over that article, at least 10 times. And I mean as a "racial construct", not as a cultural title, or a name of a country, or ethnic group. I see that you yourself, your own example, in this talk page, using lowercase "w" in "white supremacist groups", but the White people article is as follows...

• "Quite a few White Supremacist groups in the United States, however, have accepted Southern Europeans and Eastern European Slavic peoples as White." (8th paragraph 1st sentence of the egocentricly ethnocentricly minded "who is white" section)

Now explain to me again, how is it that "White" is used throughout the White people article with a capital "W" when referring to a racial construct or identifier, yet you are here, meticilously explaining what seems to be a neutral un-biased observation of my pretentiousness. So which way are we going? Just so you know, the more you present yourself as being commited and devoted to neutrality, fairness and quality in this conversation, the more biased and blind you convince me you are. If you are explaining in such meticulousness about the capitalization of B in this article, but you never have made any comment about the same ignorance in the White people article, you are demonstrating a BIASED point of view in regards to Wikipedia quality and articles of a racial nature. This is where I see unfairness and hypocracy. "Dont ever let them make us look bad, but be sure to scrutinize the hell out of those black people, we don't want them to mess THIS up!"--68.60.55.162 05:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I've standardized the capitalization of "white" in the whites article, and removed the racist external link. Can we move past this now? ThePedanticPrick 19:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Hold on a second! In the white people discussion board over a month ago, this very issue was raised. "the word white is not a proper noun. As a description of "white" people, therefore, it is not capitalized. And in Wikipedia, it’s not even a noun at all: "If possible, terms used to describe people should be given in such a way that they qualify other nouns. Thus, black people, not blacks; gay people, not gays; and so forth." Apart from that, this article is a load of semiliterate horseshit. Carry on. (Sixten8 22:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)) I had a go at editing it but it's like polishing a turd. You're white if you're lighter than the next person is about the top and bottom of it. I'm not sure we should have any more discussion of it than that, unless we give a carefully sourced discussion of what "white" means to various groups. Okay, back to your fun, fellahs. Clair de Lune 09:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It is amazing, Kwertii... and I want to apologize ahead of time.... It is amazing how rediculous you and Pedantricprick come across now. ThePedanticPrick made a response to the article on the next section almost a week ago... overlooking or ignoring this. Anonymous

I haven't read the article on white people. I can't read every single article on wikipedia, nor do I attempt to do so, nor do I even read them systematically. I found this article by pressing "random article" a few times, noticed its bias, and decided to comment. If you're suggesting that the white people article should have a lowercase w (as is standard usage in English), then I agree with you completely. You're ignoring my major points and zeroing in on this capitalization issue to the exclusion of all else. Respond to the rest, too! Kwertii 18:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Style Note

I have read enough complaints about the quality standards. I am firstly, convinced that yes, the article needs a lot of citations, of course. I am also convinced that the biased attitude of some of the critics here is obvious, as the white people article lacks the same standards as this article. Two references. One reference to a criticism of the term (which is irrelevant since the term itself lacks references) and one governmental refernce to the U.S. census, which I also have in this article. In addition, there is ONE link to an outside source, no books, and no professors so and so, no nothing. Shall we start rewriting the white people article? It miserably fails to meet the standards of quality that critics here earnestly point out. I think the critics need to find a reasonable attitude and to set their racial fears and egos aside and deal with the uncomfortable issue rationally. Right now I see an immature eurocentric attitude and yes a knee-jerk response. I see critics anticipating how I may respond to their next comments, but no real interest in truthseeking other than to defend the "honor" of the white race (or social construct or whatever). The "white people" article sucks, it's lame, it's retarded. I don't care, because I am interested in this article. If you want to be constructive, be constructive. Do not try to come in here with a notion of fairness and think I am too dumb to notice obvious things. Where is the neutrality and lack of citation tag on the white people article???--68.60.55.162 05:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me empathize how bad the White people article is, (and thus explain why the critical complaints about quality in this article are so offensive). The only outside link about white people in the article goes to a website www.white-people.com which among all things has this:

• Chapter 8. Egypt - Nordic Desert Empire - 3000 BC - 800 BC; Nordic Egyptian kings and queens; Racial Imagery in Egyptian artifacts; Dissolution of White Egyptians into Semitic, Arabic and Black (Nubian) neighbors (Includes special sub-page: "White Egypt: Refuting the lies of the Black supremacists about the White origins of Ancient Egypt")

Chapter 9. Alpha and Omega - The Rise and Fall of Civilizations - The rise and fall of civilizations explained in terms of their racial homogeneity; with the Near East civilizations as examples;

This garbage racist link is THE link in the white people article? Grow up. It is no doubt in my mind that whoever is writing and editing the white people article is engaging in some kind of ulterior motive. Well beyond the POV concerns you have here. Firstly Egypt was a mixed-black civilization, owing its dynastic origins to the South. Secondly, the damn link equates "Caucasoid MIXTURE with pure-whiteness" which is a bad habit that white people have of doing. But you know what, leave that racist link in the white people article, it demonstrates the biased prejudiced nature of white group mentality, --68.60.55.162 05:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me also remind the readers how unreliable Thepedantricprick is as he points out problems in this article, but ignores those same problems in the white people article. He not only fails to mention the same problems, but he does not acknowledge the same problem when mentioned by others. So no, I am not taking your concerns to much merit now. Apart from that, the critical comments about this article is a load of semiliterate horseshit. Carry on.

Listen, anonymous shrieking victim, there is no conspiracy going on here. None of us know each other, and you don't know the race or sex of any of the other contributors. If you would get off your high horse and quit whinnying about racism for a second you might have noticed that I have edited the article on whites. I agree that it's pretty bad. It's a load of crap, in fact. The problem is that this article is an even bigger load of crap. At least the whites article doesn't say "Black people are trying to make us look bad!!!" every paragraph. The link to the white-supremacist page is positively embarassing. I must confess that my eyes glaze over every time I get to the references section of an article, so I hadn't noticed that. If it's still there, I'll remove it. How about instead of hooting and hollering and stamping your feet every time someone has a criticism, you try to work with others to make a better article? ThePedanticPrick 14:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately when the same person is present in one article and makes no comment about certain problems, yet comes into another article maknig the same comments about the same problems... i find that to be a little ludicrous. ANd just recall, I am responding to others who came in HERE hooting and hollering and stamping THEIR feet everytime they saw a criticism of white people. Complaining that the entire article should be rewritten. I requested that THEY (you being one) contribute to make it better and not attempt to unilaterally control it. I have already contributed a great deal to make this article better. Rememebr, before I came along, there was a stupid "negro/nigger" chart on the article, and little or no real information about Black people. Now, I am seeing that the issue is really gaining momentum. --68.60.55.162 06:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who raised the capitalization issue. I was the one who fixed it. And the reason I haven't suggested starting the Whites article from scratch is that it has a clear structure and considerably fewer POV statements. It mainly just needs to be cited better. That is not the case with this article. ThePedanticPrick 16:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not addressing you specifically, nor did I name you specifically. I am adddressing you, Kwertii, and any other complainant who seems to be biasedly motivated to denounce the article instead of just contributing contstructively to it. I don't feel like trying to keep track of who is who, because up until now, none of you were interested in contributing, just complaining. Furthermore, I don't believe there is a conspiracy, nor did I imply it. I am very sure each of you individually are acting out on your own passions, and I could care less if you are acting in concert or not. --208.254.174.148 19:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't read the white people article. If you say it's bad, I'll take your word for it, and I'll agree that it ought to be cleaned up, too. But there are a lot of bad articles on Wikipedia. That some other article is bad is completely irrelevant when discussing how this article is bad. That the white people article is bad is not an excuse for the black people article being bad, and in fact is entirely irrelevant. (See Ignoratio elenchi.) Don't read a racist pretext into this - there is none, and you have no idea what my race is, nor does it matter. Kwertii 19:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Unacceptable. You do not unilaterally apply standards in one area of wikipedia under ultimatium to delete the article, while ignoring the same lack of standards pointed out. I do not care what your race is, what I care about is the overall big picture of Wikipedia showing a biased POV slant in favor of white people at the expence of black people. Go read the whtie people article. They just made some changes thanks to your comments. I saw a lack of change beforehand even though some of the same concerns were raised. Only now, is some action being taken. The black people article is not bad, it is firstly unfinished, and open for honest adjustment. Trying to dump it is unacceptable. --68.60.55.162 06:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference between dump and rewrite. Please stop being so paranoid. If people want to make this article better, it seems like you of all people should support that. Can't we all just get along? ThePedanticPrick 16:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes we can get along when you respect the contributions of others. I am not getting that. I am getting a condescending attitude with sprinkes of sarcasm, and the usual exasperations. My responses have hedged that, but now that you want to get along. Tell me, what do you think of the last section below? It is a matter of opinion if there are Black people in Egypt??? --208.254.174.148 19:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm no expert on demographics in Egypt, but the sections on it seem fine to me. I think you should just ignore the anonymous racist. S/he's not making any sense, and just exemplifies the tendency to downplay Egypt's black component that is mentioned in the article. I think the 3 pages of discussion on it could be deleted or archived without any great loss. ThePedanticPrick 20:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Cochins

There is an area in India inhabited by Black jews. This area is known as Cochins, and is documented currently and in antiquity. Cochin_Jews and Herodotus mentioned the Colchins (in modern Georgia) as Black:

"it is undoubtedly a fact that the Colchians are of Egyptian descent. I noticed this myself before I heard anyone else mention it ... My own idea on the subject was based first on the fact that they have black skins and woolly hair... and secondly, and more especially, on the fact that the Colchians, the Egyptians and the Ethiopians are the only races which from ancient times have practiced circumcision." - Although this story is heresay, it is not an account to be dismissed as a fabrication. This is not "vandalism" or "nonsense". --208.254.174.148 20:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It most certainly is nonsense. Cochin Jews are Indians inhabiting the town of Cochin, also spelled Kochi, in the South of India. They are as dark as the other Indians of the area. They have no connection whatever with Colchis, which is the ancient name for part of the Caucasus, in Georgia. The story from Herodotus is not evidence of anything. It is part of a completely nonsensical passage in which Herodutus is saying that the ancient Egyptian pharaoh Sesostris conquered a vast swathe of territory in Europe and in Asia Minor. Herodotus tries to prove this by saying that he has seen boundary markers put up by Sesostris in Thrace and that the Colchians look like Egyptians. But the fact is that there are no boundary markers put up by Sesostris in Thrace because the whole Sesostrian empire as he imagines it did not exist. There is no historical or anthropological evidence suggesting anything so improbable as Egyptians in Colchis, nor is there any other claim about black skins (and by the way, when ancient Greek writers used the term melas for skin they often meant swarthy or even ruddy. That's how Homer uses it). The whole story is worthless as history and should mnot be presented here as fact. Paul B 13:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

No mention of iq?

Why is there no mentions about blacks having a smaller IQ than the rest of the population? Ashkenazi-article has a mention about their high IQs, so I think we should also note which races have a low IQ. Lapinmies 12:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if this is explicit enough to satisfy you but I linked to Race and Intelligence in the 'See also' section. I think having the information there as a link of optional interest is a good start.

Lapinmies, where is the proof that black people tend to have lower IQs than non-black people? Where is the proof that IQ tests are even accurate, useful or able to be consistently applied across different cultures? And did you even consider the role of poverty? As is so, so, often the case if you replace the word black with the word poor you begin to see that a lot of features held up as being due to the colour of someone's skin are actually due to the conditions in which that person lives; which in turn is generally due in large part to the society in which they live. Also your user page has a racist lyric on so I wouldn't trust your comments on a wiki about race for one second.

Then we must delete the mention from Ashkenazi too? Or add a disclaimer saying that they just are educated and wealthy making them score higher in tests? Races have differences in hormone levels and brain mass, I don't understand why these facts are supressed in the mainstream media. I suggest you read Race and Intelligence, it has arguments for and against. The lyrics on my page were made by a jewish entertainer and are just humour and satire. Lapinmies 17:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Most of what people consider to be race is really about regional characteristics that are inherited and have little to nothing to do with the underlying genetic variances that have any sort of medical relevance. I suggest you do some actual research before spewing disinformation about certain ethnic groups being genetically superior to others. The scientific community cannot agree on the exact definition of race or what intelligence actually is and any way to accurately measure it. So please explain to me how there is supposed be some sort of scientific correlation drawn between two concepts that are not properly defined. This is the reason why the “facts are suppressed” because they are neither factual by any definition nor have a purpose other than to propagate flawed data emanated from flawed research. Next time make sure you actually know what you’re talking about. Especially before making a suggestion to edit a source where others come to educate themselves, something you obviously have no interest in doing.- Concerned Non-Wikipedia Member

I really don't see why IQ is at all relevant to the page. IQ is IQ, intelligence is not IQ. It's like claiming to be able to measure different levels of 'average' beauty between races, based on a Miss America beauty pagent with a panal of elderly white judges doing the judging. Hmm, I wonder who will win when the choice is between a black woman, an asian woman, an arab woman and a blond haired blue eyed white girl? And how exactly do you define intelligence? If you could show me some proper evidence that there are differences in intelligence levels between races then sure, I would have to agree it should probably be on the page. But IQ tests only measure the ability of an individual to answer an IQ test, nothing more. Therefore why should anyone want any mention of IQ tests on a page about a certain race, when IQ tests have such a long history of being used by racists to promote illogical and irrational prejudices? Unless of course you are interested in proving that black people are somehow stupider than other races. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.76.89 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I am in full agreement. This article needs major re-working (it's the most pastel-colored boxes I've seen on any article). I believe Lapinmies should be reprimanded against his racist comments and edits, and at least provide some factual backup for his problems. I approached him at his talk page to remove an obvious copy vio (which I did very politely, I belive) from his user page, and he complied, but his edits combined with these lyrics show a strong appearance of racism/religion bias. Although I really do like Ali G, and find his character Borat to be humerous, I do not think the lyrics of that song should be used in a negative way. Sascha Baron Cohen, the actor who plays Ali G and Borat, is Jewish, and so am I. I find good humor in it, not in a self-hating Jew stereotype kind of way, but in a way that it is indeed funny. Why can't we all just get along? -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{02:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)}

Okay, I was just trying to bring up the fact that these articles did not have any consistency. I think we must either add this link to every race-related article, or remove it from every race-related article.

I love Cohen's stuff and I am no Ku Klux Klan member. The song combined with the oversized picture was so cartoony that I thought that no-one would take it seriously. I feel somewhat disturbed that you make it seem like I did not want to remove the lyrics, proving I am a Nazi or something. I removed the lyrics immediately after you told me about them being copyvio, and answered you politely.

I am going to try and remove the mention from Ashkenazi and stay away from any race related articles in the future.

I started this conversation under the headline "No mention of iq?", I would appreciate it if you did not add a new headline for every reply. Lapinmies 14:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, and I'm sorry for perhaps being wrong about this. Yes, you did remove the lyrics, and the image went as well, without hesitance, but I guess it was the lyrics in combination with your edits and the comment. I'm a little on edge recently, and it was wrong of me to label you a racist or an anti-semite, but I tend to be someone with very little tollerance of racism or other bigotry. On another note, should I move it to below the other header? Thanks for your understanding, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{19:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)}

Well Lapinmies I appreciate you removing the lyric. I certainly don't like curtailing freedom of speech for senseless PC reasons, and I appreciate that you are not racist. However, I just really don't think any credence should be given to racial IQ claims. This is not PC gone mad, this is simple logic. Intelligence cannot be measured any more than it can be defined as a single entity able to be compared across individuals, who are likely to differ far more in IQ than races. And what about social conditions? Again and again it must be pointed out that it's no wonder that the poorest people also often tend to have the highest crime rates and the lowest IQ rates: they don't go to good schools and they crime is often highly profitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.76.89 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

When an editor points out something is missing the correct response is not to explain away the need for the section -- in all but the most trollish cases, that he has asked is proof enough that the article is lacking. IQ should be mentioned, if anyone has the initiative to do it. It comes up often in discussion; no psychology or sociology class would be complete without a debunking of IQ tests and why certain races do better or worse. A short paragraph and a link to Race and Intelligence would be good. Any breif debunking can be included. The phrasing should stick to the facts; IQ scores differ (steer clear of "intelligence") -71.112.11.220 16:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

IQ discussion is in no way relevant to Black people. The mention of IQ tests, which are disputed of objectivity, do nothing more than reinforce a conceived notion that Black people are in some way "less" than whites and northern asians. This isn't the place for your insistence of reinforcing deep-seeded prejudices. One day, when IQ tests are not used to prove intellect, then sure we can put them here. IQ tests are useful for individual purposes, not racial discourse. NO one is ever going to suggest that low scoring IQ whites should be treated any differently (in any less way) than higher scoring IQ blacks. So no, keep the IQ BS out of this article. And why don't you get over your obsession of trying to comfortably compartmentalize blacks beneath whites. - Zaph.

Oh holy christ

I think we need a new template reading "This article is intensely retarded."

And of course you didn't put your name, or give any reasons. Typical "I dont want Black people to think for themselves, I want them to think the way I feel is best, cuz I'm white and I don't like black unity. " reaction - Zaph

Yes, before you type it in, I know... you aren't white. You should be able to disagree without being white. yes yes. - Zaph.

The word "SUB-saharan" will not be used.

No discussion. No more "sub" words to describe Black people. Use "Equatorial" to describe Black Africans. - Zaph.

No discussion? I thought this was a talk page. For what it's worth, a google search gives 542,000 hits for "Sub-saharan african" and only 21,000 for "Equatorial african". The "sub" in sub-saharan simply denotes the fact that black people primarily come from the part of Africa that is south of, or below, the sahara desert. "Sub" comes from the Latin word meaning under or below. It does not mean inferior. "Equatorial" isn't really accurate, since, as the article clearly states, black people are indigenous to many areas that are quite far from the Equator, both in and out of Africa. ThePedanticPrick 03:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, Sub-Saharan as a relationship to the Sahara is far less accurate to describe people outside of Africa, as you indicate. You yourself indicate that black people are indigenous to many areas that are quite far from the equator. You can choose to call them "non-Equatorial Black people" and we can debate that. But that is not related to the people who DO live IN Africa. the issue is the appropriateness of "Sub-saharan" vs "Equatorial". Equatorial describes a human type. "Tropical" would be another better choice. I use Equatorial, because black people who are indigenous to many areas outside of the equator certainly relate closely to those Equatorial people(and again we can debate that). All "sub-saharan" does is put the entire Black population of Africa in the context of a desert. That's silly. No one ever thought to call Europe "Peninsular Asia". No, that section of "eurasia" gets their own continent, even breaking the rule of what a continent is. Wikipedia is partly a resource to clarify, and I am clarifying. Black Africans are not "Sub-saharan" they are Equatorial. there are Black people way out of Africa that you can say "are not equatorial" but they are certainly not "sub-saharan" either. - Zaph

I think the other issue is that you and I disagree on the value of using language to change thinking processes. I believe that "Sub" is a prefix that reinforces a inferiority in the minds of black children and in the minds of white people. Do you find it coiencidence that the label goes in line with a people that are considered to be "sub"-intelligent based on "IQ" tests? or a people who are considered to be "sub"-human in their ability to grow and function socially based on the past 500 years of interaction with Europeans? Or a people who are expected to be sub-ordinate to the authority and policy making of White and European leadership? Or a people who are taught to be sub-missive to the social priorities of White people, especially in economic, educational, and cultural things? So when I see "sub" to describe Black people, a "NPOV" flag comes up in my mind. Lets do away with "sub" saharan. - Zaph

As a clarification. Ever listen to the word "Suburban"? The psychological impact of that is not there, even though the word is "sub-urban". Why? Because in the states, the 'Burbs are where affluent white people live and the now 'technically' proper use of the syllables 'sub' - 'urb' - 'an' has shifted to 'su' - 'burb' - 'an' in order to de-empathize the negative or unappealing context of being "beneath" the city. Remember, originally the Suburbs were the crappy rural areas of European and early American cities. - Zaph.

Editing the talk page - No censorship allowed.

Pedantricprick - you are way out of line removing the large sections of the talk page. The discussions between the rest of us was relevant, and there is no reason to remove them. You do not remove something you disagree with and call it superfluous. I am sorry that discourse about race and black people is so touchy with you, that the mere debate about it causes you to over react. Perhaps with discourse about Kashmir, Israel, Russia, and other "non-black related debate" you feel less inclined to take the nuclear options you take here, but I am here to make sure that won't happen. This discussion is tense, it's touchy, it's hard. But it is no less worthy or relevant to the respect of any other controversal subject. I am so sick of the attitude of putting black-related-discourse under a paternalistic overcompensating form of censorship. I have seen flagarent ignorance left on talk pages. I see you left the discussion about IQ tests (which is far less relevant than whether or not Egypt and India have sizeable Black populaionts) in here. I am not going to tolerate your fake-ness. Aren't you the same person that obsessed about using the capital "B" in Black in this article, while also ignoring the fact that "W" was used in the White people article? Yes, you (or whomever) did change the W, but only after I pointed out the obvious contradiction. Someone had mentioned it earlier that month, and her comment was ignored. So no, I restore the content you deleted. And I reported you. - Zaph

Slow down there, Zaph. I didn't delete any sections. I only removed the sections headers that were separating a discussion that properly belonged in one section. If you look at the history page, then click the link that says "last" next to my name, you will be able to see the difference between my version and the previous version. Because you didn't take the time to look closely at the change I made, and instead just added a bunch of content to the talk page, there are now about 8 duplicate sections in the article. I'm not going to take them out, since I want you to see for yourself that I'm right. (And also, since it's your mess, you have to clean it up). ThePedanticPrick 20:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

PS Click here to see what I'm talking about. Notice there are no substantial deletions of content, but some content is moved around because I remove the section headers. ThePedanticPrick 20:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey you got me, I had scanned some of the sections above, and hocus-pocus they weren't there. Now they are. Why don't you just leave the talk page alone. That's what it's here for. Free-form discussion. I am trigger happy about our freedom of speech. Don't tread on me :) - Zaph.

NPOV

Since there are multiple allegations of NPOV on the talk page, I'm putting a notice on the article. Small black sun 05:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

And I will give the customary 7 days to address them, and I will remove the damned thing again. - Zaph.

So quick to cry POV, so slow to address it... 5 days to go - Zaph

Could you do me a favor, though? Please sign your posts on talk pages, so we know who you are, and when you posted the comment. Thanks, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{02:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)}

Well, unless you're going to address them, I hardly see what justifies you to remove the NPOV tag after an arbitrary number of days. Kwerti laid out several examples of shaky, POV statements that have still not been backed up or corrected. Also, has it occurred to you that your vitriolic attacks and accusations of racism might not encourage people to edit the article? ThePedanticPrick 15:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my concerns (and thank you for signing!). The article definately needs work—not just on POV, but others as well—and I appreciate you voicing support for that tag. If the user cannot be bothered to log in, why would he be trusted to make good descisions about the article? I'm a little torn on this issue, and I especially hate being called a racist. It really undermines all I have done to try and quell racism. Thank you, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{00:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)}

Ok I will make a deal with you. If I respond to your concern, you gotta actually acknowledge and respond to my response. For example. Mysekurity has replied a few times AFTER I responded regarding my unwillingness to sign my name on the talk posts. Mysekurity, you should actually acknowledge what I had already stated (I believe also on YOUR talk page). When you fail to do that, that also causes the lack of trust in handling the article. If you ask me to sign my name, and then I respond and tell you that Wikipedia gives errors when I try... you should then respond to that instead of repeating your request that I sign my name. When you fail to respond, you make me think that 1. you are not reading my replies, and just pretending to act professional. 2. You read my responses, but are intentionally ignoring them, and repeating yourself, to try to make me look bad. So for the third time. When I try to sign into Wikipedia, 90% of the time, Wikipedia has a server related problem. - Zaph.

This page definately needs a {{controversial}} template, if nothing else. I'll add it now. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{02:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)}

IQ test, why not included.

The cause and effect of IQ testing is disputed, Although all of these tests have been denounced for their lack of objectivity, or have disproven the myths they were tested for, many people still accept some of these myths as self-fufilling facts. In the IQ testing area, the characteristic lack of objectivity in regards to race and intelligence, is revealed in the fact that the testing methods do not use a control or any further detailed study to investigate the relationship between the racial categories and the IQ tests. (ex. test variations within each race do not investigate the amount of interracial mixture within the individuals, or the subgroups of the races, and where those are done, there is no correlation to their genetic makeup as sub-groups and their IQ.

Perfect example. Those children without fathers in their lives experience a far greater disparity in educational achievement. Well, Black children are substantially more likely to not have their fathers in their lives in this day and age. I think that example should give more perspective to the value of IQ tests and their relationship with intelligence. - Zaph

I do however have to agree with you there "zaph" race has NOTHING to do with intelligence and thats some bullshit it got me pissed when I read it.

TAKE the controversial flip out of this talk page

For god's sake, do you guys come in here dreaming and sleeping about the big bad black intellectual? Israel, Jewry, Arab, and those other racial and ethnic groups where there is currently war, destruction, racism abound, and all sorts of ignorance, they do not have this much "controversy". What do you guys think is going to happen? This article is going to be respected and then Black people are going to take over the world and enslave you all? Shit! If you want to contribute positively to the article then DO so, but stop putting up complaints, then folding your arms with a smile, and expecting any black person who reads your complaint to do a dance and step to conform to your concern! Enough with this "Oh no no no, negro, we must put a stop to your assertive point of view, let me put a "flag" on your articles!" How many more stupid flags can you put in here to distort the reader from reading the article objectively? - Zaph

It's hard to believe that a topic that is non-controversial could inspire so much emotion and foul language. How about instead of barking at everyone who disagrees with you, we try to work together, thereby eliminating the controversy? Isn't the best way to get rid of an enemy to make him/her your friend? ThePedanticPrick 23:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Seconded and backed. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{03:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)}

Well since no one actually has tried to work together, but instead merely pointed out controversies, I believe that you Pedantric and Mysekurity are talking the talk, but not walking the walk. - Zaph.

Please feel free to remove the POV flag from the article page, as noone seems to have voiced an objection to this. If you do not want to do so, discuss it here, or I will do it myself. Also, please refrain from making this a racial issue, as it is clearly not. If I have offended you in any way, I appologize, but stating that I'm a racist, or want a black person to come and clean this article up is completely untrue. I don't see why you take such an issue with me, when I am almost completely agreeing with you. I will not bring up the number of black friends that I have, or how much I love black people, because I do not need to defend myself. As a caucasian male living in an Urban dwelling, and attending a public school where the majority of the students are non-white, I take personal offense to your accusations. Please follow the guidelines of civility, and do not make assumptions about me or the other contributors to the article. Thank you. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{03:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)}

I am not accusing you of being a racist. I am annoyed that people voice complaints about the article, but offer little positive suggestions, or alternatives, NOR investigate the matters in question. It's a very counterproductive way of handling the issue, despite the fact that it's done civily. I find myself less trusting of a civil person who withholds positive suggestions of substance, than I would of a person who is less civil but more active in actual results. - Zaph

Whenever I try to add something to a wikipedia page, worried whites usually delete it. All I'm Saying is that the horrible anti-black racism you claim is in Egypt and other Arab countries simply isn't there. In the Arab world an Arab is one whose family language is Arabic, not a color. Populations in the Middle East are so mixed that harldy anyone thinks about brown or black. America is where the real racism is. Whether its wiggers subtly thinking they can do black culture better than blacks or traditional Mississippi hick lynch mobs, nowhere in the world hates Black fols as much as the USA. Many American dark skinned people feel let out of a racial prison when they travel abroad to the Middle East.

Anonymous, that would be great if it were true. Perhaps you could explain the following: http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=1325 (Thanks, zaph, for the link) ThePedanticPrick 21:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have to explain nothing to you, but I will say that the situation in Sudan is ridiculous, because they are all black! I tell you it all started with Europeans taking over Egypt. Then they hired only Yugoslavian and Bosnian actors to play in films to brainwash the population. The last king in the 50's was Albanian! This was all part of a grand design to disunify the region. So now you have brown Arabs that wish they were white so bad that they call themselves that, even though real white laugh at them. Its like mullatoes in the days of slavery trying to brag about being "white" to all the other full-black slaves when the white master considered them all "niggers". We sure have to overcome racism in the middle east, and so does everyone else.

Also, this page is 170 KB long, and needs to be archived shortly. I will gladly do the honors, provided there are no objections. Thanks, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{03:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)}

What is the word in the Middle East for "Black person"? It's "Abd" (slave). As in "Hey Slave come here, where are your papers?" or "I don't like my daughter marrying that Slave, she should marry a good (white) Arab instead."

Oh and just so you know, it's not worried whites that delete it. It's me, Zaph, the Black person who took the most effort in rewriting this article, I am the one that deletes it. I think you are the same person that kept deleting all the references to Egypt and the Middle East having Black heritage? Are you "Mr. Egyptian", the person I discussed earlier? I will give Pedantric some credit for pointing out this above. But in addition to that, Referring to Black "Arabs". I posted an article on Basra-Iraq where Black Iraqis are going through the same BS there that you mention about in America. - Zaph

No I'm not "Mr. Egyptian". And man are you a know-it-all. You talk about all these places like you actually have been there. You say black ""Arabs"" so sarcastically. it really offends you doesn't it. Ok so some idiots in the middle east may say abed. What's the America word for black people "nigger"? Whats the black vernacular for whites "cracker"? Whats the black AND white army word for arabs "desert niggers"? Everybody has derogatory terms for everybody, fool. I don't defend Arab racists, black racists, white racists, hispanic racists or anyone else. But not all middle easterners are racist believe me, unlike your strange, judgemental, prejudiced self, I have been to Jordan and Palestine, two Middle Eastern Arab nations.

That is totally outside of what i am saying though. I never implied that arabs are predominantly racist. What I am saying is that Arabization (the cultural imposition of Arab identity on non Arab people) is a real issue in North East Africa. You think that because I bring that up, I'm being racist on Arabs? Thats rediculous. And by the way, does it strike you odd that the racist slur for Arabs is "desert nigger?", I always found that to be wierd. When you get to Sudan and Egypt, get back to me - Zaph

Zaph, we don't need you to keep explaining what you think "arabization" is. I have been to Egypt, actually. I went there with my cousins. For a little background information, my cousins have an arabic dad , and a white american mom. They look, however like white americans. When we entered a run down section of town(in Cairo), some little (brown arab)boys trew pebbles at them and called them americans. This only happened because they looked white. Truth is, people are just scared of people that look different from them. Are you saying you were one of those soldiers in Iraq, shooting Arabs and calling them "desert niggers"? And you did imply that all Arabs are racist. "what's the middle east word for black people" That is a word used by ignorant idiots and is in no way representative of the entire middle east. You have proven yourself far too predjudiced to edit this page, but that's just my humble opinion. -Niz

I have changed the {{Controversial}} template at the top of the page to {{Controversial3}} to better reflect the concerns stated on this talk page. It appears we might have an edit war brewing, as noted by the discussion above. Please sign your comments on talk pages, even if just with an IP address (which is already visible by viewing the history, and will eliminate comments like "are you 'Mr. Egyptian'?" because you will be able to see who it really is). Thanks and happy editing, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{19:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)}

Archive and lets take it from the top

I agree, this should be archived, and after that point, each one of the issues of disagreement should be posted, clearly, with alternatives. Allowing for a reasonable period of response, and collaboration BEFORE a "NPOV" flag is put on the article itself. You should not put NPOV's on articles before discussing and contributing constructively. If that were not respected, practically every humanities article (and some science articles) would have NPOV flags up all the time! It is not good enough to simply say "the whole article is terrible, it's that bad that a NPOV should be put up anyway!" That is where I start to sense some level of racism. In my opinion there is so much BS in the Mormon articles and so much POV in the Israel/Palestine articles, that I would take the same approach, but obviously, that is not how these issues are handled. So I think you guys all get it. Let's handle this article with the same respect. Some of you in here who are NOT Black, may not be aware of some of the information in the article, and you may want to consider the notion that there are some things about Black people that you just aren't familiar with or know about. And no, I am not talking about little psysciological and psychological idiosyncracies. Now, I hope you Pedantric and Myse will "second" this. - Zaph

P.S. Invariably, when I try to login, Wikipedia experiences server issues. Often when I try to update the Black People article, Wikipedia experiences difficulties. Anyone else having this problem?

Why are there anti-Arab inuendos in the article. I have lived in Egypt and there is minimal racism there, people don't think about color. Why do you have to slander arabs in this artcle??

What is anti-Arab in the article? Arabs are not villified in here. Arabization (that is the racist practice of forcing non-arab people to adopt Arabic as a language, culture, and identity) is a real situation. I also have and know Egyptians who dispute you. You want to talk to them? In Egypt, racism prevails where Black people are in question. WHy do you accuse me of slandering Arabs when that is not happening? It is like an article about NAZIs and Jews and a German accusing the writer of slandering Germans. - Zaph

its sad that Egypt has racists when a good proportion of Egyptians are darker than American blacks. It's like they hate themselves and don't even know it.

To the person who claims that people from the Maghreb are less black I would like some proof. The countries include Morocco, Mauretania, Algeria, Niger and Libya. Every Libyan I have ever seen has been very dark skinned or mixed. Moroocians and Mauretanians are both located in West Africa so I did not know when West africans became white. If so I would at least like a refernce to something that proves so and explains why other than someone own racist point of view that all black must look like the ones they see on tv in America. Unitl proof that Maghreb is home to mostly none black is proven I will remove these falsities from the article. Jmac800

I will not stop you. I personally find the silly idea that Northern Africans are less Black annoying. BUT I don't know about those areas (except Egypt). Just get ready for the complaints from "legitimate" sources. I backed off cuz I couldn't dispute them, and yes, the racism in Libya kind of tipped it in their favor. - Zaph

Myths regarding black people

I think this section is poorly written, poorly supported, and just plain unnecessary. For each of the myths listed, I'll explain why it's either POV or unnecessary. 1. That black Africans rarely ventured from the continent of Africa of their own free will, and instead came merely as slaves or hired soldiers to Asian civilizations. We've already got some good data here about Africoid migrations, both prehistoric and later. 2. Intelligence quotient standardized testing, a very recent Western social practice, holds some defining or relevant intellectual characteristic of black, and especially West African descendants. Poorly written, and can't we just link to Race and Intelligence? 3. Most Old World cultures that show equatorial featured peoples (Egypt, India) do not represent black people, but instead represent Caucasian people with a tan. I'm not even sure how widespread this myth is. It's news to me. In any case, Zaph has provided some awesome links proving that ancient Egyptians were black (or partly black). Can't we discuss this briefly and be done with it? 4. The growing black presence in many cultures contributed to the demise of the societies and civiilizations they inhabited. Again, who is making this claim? Other than that wacko over on [www.white-history.com white-history.com] 5. In pre-modern times, invention, discovery, and adaptation was a one way affair, only non-blacks would invent, create, or express a new idea or art form, and those in Africa would eventually mimic it. Again, misguided racist rhetoric. Not a widespread belief that needs to be counteracted here. 6. Blacks are predisposed (either biologically or inherently through cultural history) towards self-destruction. This one's just vague. 7. Black people must have originated from Caucasoid ancestors. I usually hear the opposite from racists, i.e, that black people are less evolved. Has anyone ever wondered what color apes are underneath their hair? For all we know, black people could be MORE evolved than white people. In summary, this whole section is just kind of sloppy, but what's worse, it's very negative and depressing. Why not just state positive things about black people without having to enumerate all the stupid outrageous things certain bigots believe? Can we get rid of it?

I am ok with getting rid of it. This was mostly a response to the person who insisted on putting IQ testing into the article. But I would want to leave this section in here the talk section. - Zaph

No, we cannot link it to race and intelligence, because IQ test results do not show any valid, reasonable, or logical link between race and intelligence. - Zaph.

Thanks for editing the Defining Characteristics Section

I appreciate sincerely the editing done in that section. I have the hardest time clarifying some of the points in the article. I added one paragraph to it. Anyone want to work on the next section? - Zaph

Anti-Arab racism?

Here was a comment from a "anonymous" source:

"Why are there anti-Arab inuendos in the article. I have lived in Egypt and there is minimal racism there, people don't think about color. Why do you have to slander arabs in this artcle??"

Let me respond directly on two fronts. Firstly, I am getting tired of Arab, European, and anyone-else-avian complaining about "anti-my-racial-group" comments in the article. There is something you have to accept, and that's historical facts and current events. In North Africa, Black people are fighting against racism, period. I have relatives from Mauretania, who are here because they were treated like Blacks in 1955 Mississippi by their government and the "Arab" neighbors. I know Egyptians who (although relatively lightskinned), consider themselves Black and consider the "arab" attitude of Egypt to be nothing more than selling out bullcrap. I know people in Ethiopia who remember when they were younger 30 to 40 years ago, that Ethiopia was practically all Black and all Christian, now every other person in Ethiopia want's to get on the Islamic-Arab bandwagon. I don't care what Black people in America think about Christianity being a white man's religion because in East Africa, whose Christian heritage is earlier than any in Western Europe, one way of selling out your Blackness and jumping on the Arab (I.E. not Black) bandwagon is by renouncing your Christian heritage to Islam. I know this, because my Ethiopian friends tell me so. This is what happens. Need I go into the silliness in Sudan?

(I see "Zaph" you have sunk to the level of comparing race to religion)

And I see, you have no idea what you are talking about. The majority of Sudanese being oppressed in Darfur are Black MUSLIMS, not Christians. The Majority of Black Africans in Mauritania were displaced because of their skin color, as 99.99% of all Mauritanians and Senegalais are Islamic. So Once again, someone speaking irresponsibly tries to sink the conversation to a lower level and attribute their own ignorance to me. Take a moment and educate yourself beyond the CNN articles. I studied these subjects long before they became front page in the states. (Two false accusations refuted) - Zaph.

So the second front. Quote FROM the article one slander against Arabs. One IMPLIED slander. And if you can't, then take a moment and rethink something. Maybe you should not be so quick to find LEGITIMATE criticism of history and current events "slanderous". Black people are critisized all over Wikipedia, in all sorts of articles, and I have no slanderous accusation. - Zaph.

Now I doubt that you have ever read a quality book such as "The Autobiography of Malcolm X" , but in that book (written over 40 years ago) Malcolm reflects that he discovered that Ethiopia was mostly Muslim, but had held on to a "Christian" image due to the policies of the Christian ruling regime, regardless Islam and Christianity don't have anything to do with race, no matter what you say. Racism is not acknowledged in any of the holy texts of either religion. I don't know if you've really ever met anybody from Mauritania but the Arabs over there are mostly darker skinned than black Americans. Let me give YOU some advice, kid. If you see anyone slandering black people, don't sit back fam, do something. I won't deny that there are Arab bigots, there are racists in every corner of the world. The slave trade was run by Whites, Blacks, and Arabs and everybody was wrong to do it. I simply don't see the reason Arabs were singled out while other blatant racists were not. Let me now tell you something about myself. I am an Arab but my grandfather was an Arab black man. When I went to live back in my Palestine, I expirienced no discrimination like I did in America. Over there, I made good natured jokes against lighter skinned people and they did the same to me for my complexion. No body "looked at me weird", and there was no hostility. Educate yourself more fam, and God bless.

Malcolm's ideas were from his own perspective. I read his book, where he also indicated he found no racism in Islamic culture, which is obviously false overall, but was true in his own personal experiences. I never said that Islam and Christianity have anything to do with race. (Three false accusations refuted) I believe the misrepresentation of Christianity during the reformation period and enlightenment period in Europe contributed to the ignorance we all have today, and the backlash against Christianity. In Islam, the foundation of it, in my study has had the same "blacks are ok but" attitude of the "White" arabs. Again do a search of "Zanj Rebellion", and read the Hadith where it's written that Black people are "raisin headed" people worth listening to "even" though. I have met people from Mauritania, and I will be happy to reference you to them. THEY are the ones who told me what I told you! (Do you READ my comments, or just the highlights). And in that regard I AM doing something. I am, among other things, in this forum, speaking against it, in all it's benign forms. Your experiences in Palestine are great, but that's PALESTINE, not SUDAN. Like I said above, I do not espouse "anti-arab racism". I report on what has happened in history, and Palestinians by the way, experience similar ignorance from Jews, Whites, and other Arabs, but that's another debatable point. What is not debatable is that Arab hegmony in the Middle East and Africa follows the similar pyramid of ignorance with the ligher skinned on top, the darker skinned working on the bottom. - Zaph

Ok I snipped 95% of the conversation, where I think the content went from racial (black people) to religious. feel free to correct, or update. You, TerrelWatkins~NIZ, feel free to continue this on my talk page. I have a whole section devoted to this coversation, and I have no problem clarifying the points both of us make, that will prevent any confusion. I don't want to email because it's less productive, and I want WITNESSES. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zaphnathpaaneah

Try a different approach

I am going to standardize the first part of the article to reflect a continuity with the other articles (White, Arab, Jewish, Latino, Asian, etc). I want to AVOID trying to "be like" the white people article, however, the first paragraph looks like a group of people took a lot of effort to COLLABORATE on it. The first paragraph looks like an objective approach, ill adopt the format, for the readers' sakes, however the important distinctive differences will remain. - Zaph

One Drop Rule

It is not a "claim" that the one drop rule was invented by white politicians for the sake of white social sensiblities in the 18th and 19th century. Laws were made based on this rule, i took "It has been claimed that" out of the statement in the "Criticisms of the term" section. Come on. - Zaph

The fact that laws were made based on this rule does not prove that white politicians invented it. Legislation usually reflects the cultural values of its time, rather than create these values. If the US government had as much influence over the racial views of its people as you seem to think, affirmative action would have already been successful and we would all be getting along happily. ThePedanticPrick 18:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Pedantric a "rule" in the article relates to a social rule (de facto) and rule of law. Those WERE established by White politicians. Some rules do not reflect the cultural values, but other rules ESTABLISH cultural values. Look at the history of the one drop rule and you will find laws being established in the states, that did not "universally" recognize throughout the western hemisphere. Keep it as it was --208.254.174.148 00:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)- Zaph

Just because something is called a rule (and the one-drop rule is often called a theory, as well as a rule) doesn't mean it is a law or started out as a law. After all, there is no rule of thumb or golden rule on the law books in any state or country that I am aware of. The fact that laws were made based on the One-Drop Rule (or theory) is interesting and merits mention in the article, but the claim that white politicians invented it is unsubstantiated and should be left out. I hope I have made myself clear this time. ThePedanticPrick 17:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Closer inspection of the "Criticisms of the term" section reveals that there is not one single criticism of the term "black" mentioned. Instead, we have a poorly structured and extremely POV discussion of hypo-descent. As an educated person with white skin, I think it's safe to say that most of us "educated whites" came to reject the "One-Drop rule" because it's completely f--king ridiculous, not because we're afraid of being bred out. This fear isn't even rational from a racist perspective, because after all, if you don't like black people or their genes, you would want to keep them away from your race as much as possible, and keeping the mixed-race children classified as "black" would be more effective at this. Can we either clean up this section and retitle it (eg. "Disputes over hypodescent and the One-drop theory") or just get rid of it? Maybe move it to the hypodescent or the one-drop rule article? ThePedanticPrick 19:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm ok with rewordin the title. However, you confuse me. First you say "This fear (of being bred out) isn't even rational from a racist perspective, because after all, if you don't like black people or their genes, you would want to keep them away from your race as much as possible, and keeping the mixed-race children classified as "black" would be more effective at this." yet that's exactly what the purpose was for the onne drop rule. So could you clarify? Maybe I misunderstood your statement. --208.254.174.148 00:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Zaph

My mistake. While the fear is definitely irrational, what I meant to say is that if you're afraid of black genes getting into your race, the last thing you would do is drop the one-drop rule to artificially (from a hypodescentist view) inflate your race's numbers. You would use it to keep black people and their genes out. I'm going to edit that section later today. Let me know what you think. PS. 'Pedantric' is not a word, nor is it a part of my username. Pedantic is. Thank you. ThePedanticPrick 17:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Look, I won't ask you to spell out my name in it's entirety. Pedantic is not easy to remember at this point, and I make not intention of misspelling. I'll try to cut and paste from no on, but I'll call you Ped till then (just kidding). --68.60.55.162 00:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Zaphmacarana

Wording

Let this section contain wording that needs to be changed. Primarily, my concern is that the wording used often reflects racialized sentiments, and not neutrality.

For example "miscegenation" would not be a good choice to describe the mixing and intermarriage between Black and Semetic north Africans in ancient history. It implies some kind of illicit or improper behavior.

"miscegenation" comes from the Latin for "mixed origins". The second half of the word derives from the root that also gave us "genetics" and "Genesis". The first half "misce" is used in words like "miscellany" (a mixture of things). So stricly speaking miscegenation just means the same as the English term "mixed race". The problem arises because of the similarity of "misce" to the "mis" prefix, meaning "wrongly", as in misconstrued, miscreant, misconceived or misbegotten. Some people assume that "miscegenated" means something similar to "misbegotten".

However I agree that the word should be avoided, even though it did not originally imply what you say it does. In the context in which it is used is does reinforce a rather unpleasant set of suggestions, it creates an unnescessary impression that there is something "wrong" with race-mixing, an impression sustained by this whole paragraph with its portrayal of "black" identity as something static until alien peoples come along and mix with this essentialised "black" body of people. It's fairly typical of essentialist thinking, as though there is no natural gradation from "black" to "white" occurring as a result of adaptations that created the very disctinction in gradations in the first place. Paul B 09:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about dropping "miscegenation" simply because it has the syllable "mis" in it. By that logic, we should stop having the "Miss America" pageant. I would vote for "intermarriage" simply because its meaning is more clear, but hasn't a large percentage of the racial mixing in history occurred outside of marriage? ThePedanticPrick 15:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thats because you are ignoring the connotation that has been established that Paul pointed out. When a word carries a negative connotation, and is understood widely to carry that connotation and it is not necessary to use, then we should not use it. Miscegenation is not a word that is necessary to use, and it carries a negative connotation. In contrast, "Miss America" does not carry that, because firstly, the "miss" in Miss America is a title and an adjective, and is unrelated to any negative connotation in regards to race. Come on Pedantric, don't get me started. --208.254.174.148 00:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC) Zaph

Fair enough, but let me assure you that I wasn't deliberately ignoring the connotation. Being largely unaware of the word until quite recently, I'm also unaware of the negative connotations. I also have not read the paragraph that Paul was referrring to. In any case, I'm all for using a different term, provided it's a simple yet accurate one. Perhaps "racial mixing" is best? ThePedanticPrick 17:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Bravo Paul, you have elaborated on something I have had difficulty doing. And "essentialist" is a word I am going to use now on. This is the same reason I have issues with "sub-saharan" and "true negro". - Zaph.

How much more do we need to do to remove the flags anyway? - Zaph

I'd say the frequent, matter-of-fact claims of eurocentrism on the part of scholars and people in general need to go. Unless the author says "I am eurocentric, europe is great and wonderful, and this is how I feel about x", then we need some real proof that the author or idea being quoted is, in fact, eurocentric. ThePedanticPrick 19:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That's fine. I am keeping my eyes peeled in the White people and Caucasoid articles. That one statement that lighter skin helps prevent rickets and has a suggested asthetic appeal caught my attention. The "asthetic appeal" had to go, so I took it out. --208.254.174.148 00:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC) Zaph

Yeah, that was pretty ridiculous. I still want to see some better evidence that being white actually prevents rickets, and with people like Thandie Newton, Denzel Washington, Taye Diggs, and Beyonce Knowles walking around, the idea of white aesthetic superiority quickly becomes patently ridiculous. ThePedanticPrick 17:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Har de har har har

I was just looking through the previous edits to see what's going on. I found 152.163.101.11's vandalism quite entertaining. It's the little things that racists do to give our bland boring politically correct days a little zap of fun huh? - Zaph, one of the original inhabitents of the welfare office.

Criticisms of the term

Original paragraph:

Many scholars criticize the hypodescent rule. Although others theorise that their motives for doing so are often to limit any social movement towards economic self-determination among black diaspora. The One Drop Rule, now villified by many Eurocentric scholars (especially when applied to ancient cultures by Afrocentric scholars), had been established by white politicans generations ago, to prevent racial mixing. This one drop rule, which white American, Australian, and, to a lesser extent, other colonies had established for the sake of upholding white society's perceptions of purity with its own identity, became the de facto social experience for black people across the United States. For the sake of moral solidarity against the presumed immoral oppression, this rule was embraced by black people in America, especially in a Christian context, and the effect has become a permanent aspect of black identity. Once black literature and intellectual expression experienced a boom in the beginning of the 20th century, the hypodescent rule is said to have become a new threat to European colonial ambitions, and to white racial-social controls.

Comments:

The original paragraph conflates hypodescent (the notion that anyone of even slight sub-Saharan phenotype is Black) with the one-drop rule (that someone of utterly European appearance and White self-identity but with a known trace of African admixture is also involuntarily Black). The former custom dates to the early colonial period (around 1700) while the latter did not become widespread or statutory until the early 20th century. The former is common in other former British colonies (substituting ‘’Coloured’’ for ‘’Black’’) while the latter is unique to the United States.

FrankWSweet 17:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Let us clarify this then:

1. . hypodescent - any other race + black = black (early colonial period in the U.S., and in former brit. colonies, perhaps currently, perhaps in earlier periods.)
2. . one drop rule - white + black = black (only in the U.S.A. since the early 1900s to the present. Not occuring outside the U.S.? If so, at what periods.)

I had written a fairly long reply, but I would rather instead just see you make whatever changes you feel you want to make, and lets see where we go. The problem is, you are seperating two things, one which entails the other, and they are not mutually exclusive in any event. The one-drop rule is a form of hypodescent, and Black by hypodescent would include all other races (including white) --68.60.55.162 00:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Zaph

---

Sorry, but that is not what I was trying to say. What I meant to say was:

Hypodescent — the notion that anyone of even slight sub-Saharan phenotype is Black. For example, it would be an expression of hypodescent to consider Tiger Woods and Halle Berry to be Black, despite that the fact that each has less than 50% African genetic admixture.

One-drop rule — the notion that someone of utterly European appearance and White self-identity but with a known trace of African admixture is also involuntarily Black. For example, it would be one-drop rule to consider Carol Channing or Martin Sheen (or his sons Emilio Estevez and Charlie Sheen) to be Black, despite the fact that they look White and consnder themselves White, merely because they have acknowledged Black ancestry (Channing's father, Sheen's grandmother).

In short: Hypodescent is "If you look even slightly African then you are Black." One-drop is, "If you do not look even slightly African and do not consider yourself Black, but you acknowledge Black ancestry, then you are Black anyway."

As you say, the one-drop rule is hypodescent taken to its ridiculous extreme. The former depends upon the later. American society could not have invented the one-drop rule had it not already subscribed to hypodescent. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive because one (one-drop) is a subset of the other (hypodescent), sort of the way the concepts "nickels" and "coins" are not mutually exclusive.

My point was that the mild form of hypodescent (labeling Halle Berry and Tiger Woods black) is historically old, dating from about 1705 in the U.S., and geographically widespread (common in most Anglophone countries). But the hypodescent extreme of one-drop rule (labeling Martin Sheen and Carol Channing black) is historically recent (1910) and unique to the United States. In short, although one notion depends upon the other, they are empirically different concepts, different social phenomena, that arose in different centuries, were adopted in different lands, and were designed to serve different ends. I thought it would be wise to avoid conflating them. I have no opinion (and little interest) as to the motives of either Whites or Blacks who either oppose or advocate either of the two notions.

I had already made the changes before I posted my original comments above. -- FrankWSweet 01:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I saw them, I think it's ok, although the statement "to resolve their social status" is just a little too nicey nice. It brings a picture of the nice, not-really racist white politicians in Virginia calmly saying (for the sake of good reasons) that the children should be considered black. Let's reword that to reflect the reality of the slavery movement that was gaining momentum in those days please. - --208.254.174.148 04:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Zaph

Good point. Consider it fixed. -- FrankWSweet 12:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, it seems still rather soft. I mean "the europeans were exempt." Almost sounds like native americans were the ones deciding which kids were black and which ones were white. There is a lack of connection between the subject and object in the structure of the idea. Who was this unseen entity that was making these decisions?

Okay, I have expanded the story of when, where, how, and why hypodescent was invented by the planter elite. But I fear that this narrative strays so far from the topic (criticisms of the term) that it confuses more than it informs. The problem is knowing what we can safely leave out. -- FrankWSweet 16:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think you did go a long way explaining it, but you should make a section in there. I still think you are downplaying the racist, self-righteous prejudice behind the history, after all, at some point indentured servitude became slavery for black people only, and that relates closely to this. But just spend time editing it, and in good faith we can make sure to make it work. I personally think that a lot of factors went into European-Americans esp southerners having a deep seeded prejudice against Black people. Remember, at some point, the Antebellum culture had a widespread practice of extra-marital affair, and interracial sex with white men taking their black slaves and having children, whom they also would abandon to slavery or some lesser form of it. (Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings is one example) This contrasting sharply with Christian values of fidelity and family and I am convinced there was a psychological dysfunction involved, not just "planters", because it was accepted as normal in the south, and it took the writings of Harriet Jacobs who lived in that environment to really open the doors of that. Now this isn't me whining about bad old white man. This is me illustrating that we need to be candid about what happened, and not downplay what we don't like to acknowledge. The Bible-belt south has been revered for historically being the Christian heart of America. But this kind of activity was morally neutral and hypocritically acceptable, regardless of how many or few slave owners there were in proportion to the population. It was a cultural norm, and if Harriet Jacobs, a slave was able to describe it as she saw it so clearly, then we need to re-evaluate how we see it now. It's not a matter of economics. And in fact, I am against the philosophy that all black-white racial problems in the west are based on economic motivations. --68.60.55.162 00:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC) Zaph

Vandalism

apparently some clown whose pornographic name I will not mention wants to entertain himself, so I had to check the reverts to make sure he wasn't a smokescreen to make other less obvious changes to the article. I kind of caught on as to how a vandal will make some obvious ignorance and then some "hero" will change things back... but not to exactly what was in the article before...and we overlook our "hero's" changes because we assume he just did reverts from the vandal's obvious mess.... drowning out the subtle with the obvious. But it looks like we are playing fair in here. Thank you Paul, TMS, and Frank, how can we ban blankey-blank-man? --208.254.174.148 04:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Zaph

Arabs singled out?

I figured out anonymous Arab person's whole problem with my position on here: "I simply don't see the reason Arabs were singled out while other blatant racists were not." - the comments from the unknown... My response is what the $#&@#^ do you think I have been doing in this page? Heck you don't even realize what you say. Why is one "racist" singled out, but the "other" racists are not? In essence you ADMIT there is a real issue with Arabization, but you just don't like that the focus is on Arabs. Well you know what? Take a number, just about everyone, Jews, Arabs, Asians, higher Caste East Indians have made the complaint you made... It goes something like this

1. You see an article or comment I make.
2. You ignore the fact that there are mentions of other people because you focus on your own "group"
3. You then accuse me of singling you out and pre-emptively accuse me of being racist against your group.
4. We argue.
5. You get offended
6. You admit that yes we have a race problem with black people interacting with our ethnic identity, but...

Did you read the whole article? Arabization AND Latinoization AND European Colonialism, AND Eurocentric Jewish rejection of black Jews, AND... The point is, this is a global issue. People in China rioted (with national "moral" outrage no less!) when African students were dating Chinese women in the late 80s (they don't riot when white people do it, or arabs!). East Indian hindu fundamentalism oppresses Dalits to this day. The Papuans on the Java side of New Guinea are treated like crap by the Jakarta government.... I could go on and on. So you being Arab need to get a grip and, (pun intended) stop calling the tea kettle black. This conversation has ended. --208.254.174.148 07:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Zaph

Making progress but

I think this part should go

"In short, hypodescent and the color line itself were designed to avert servile insurrection at a unique time and place. It was the only time and place with more forced laborers of European descent than of African descent. Virginia was the only New World colony where such a method of permanently splitting potential insurrectionist allies could have worked. No other colony would have benefited from splitting Europeans from Africans by an endogamous barrier. This is because no other colony, whether British, French, Dutch, Spanish, or Portuguese, had such a high fraction (more than half) of European forced laborers. None could benefit by preventing mixing between Europeans and Africans, and so none had to criminalize intermarriage. Consequently, none ever needed to invent or enforce an endogamous color line nor adopt hypodescent."

There awere many other places in the new world where there were more than half the population being African. Brazil, Mexico at some points, Puerto Rico before 1896, Cuba, British Honduras(Belize), Jamaica, Guadeloupe, Martinique, etc... Also, I think the section is more of a discussion on "the History (or the origin) of American bans on interracial marriages. Is there a way to shorten the section, and/or maybe link it to another page? --68.60.55.162 00:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Zaph

---

You wrote: I still think you are downplaying the racist, self-righteous prejudice behind the history, after all, at some point indentured servitude became slavery for black people only, and that relates closely to this.

Sorry, I do not see it that way. At your suggestion, I was trying to explain the origins of hypodescent. I was not trying to explain the origins of "racism" nor of slavery. The Chesapeake planters were ruthless men who did whatever it took to rule and become rich. Feel free to characterize this stance as "racist, self-righteous prejudice." But in this they were just like the Spanish hidalgos, the Portuguese bandeirantes, the French in Saint Domingue, and the Muslim Wolofs in Senegal. All of those people can be characterized as having "racist, self-righteous prejudice" because all of them enslaved Bantu-speaking peoples without qualm. But only the Chesapeake planters invented hypodescent. And the invention of hypodescent is the only thing that I was trying to explain.

You wrote: I personally think that a lot of factors went into European-Americans esp southerners having a deep seeded prejudice against Black people. <snip>

All that may be so. But I was not writing about the origins of "prejudice," deep-seated or not. I was writing only about the origins of hypodescent in the 17th century. This was long before slavery spread beyond Dutch New York, British Chesapeake, or Barbadian South Carolina. Long before the Second Great Awakening. Long before Jefferson, and Jacobs, and the Bible belt. Long before the phenomena that you refer to even existed. In the 17th century Chesapeake, intermarriage was common, Africans populated all social classes, including being among the wealthiest slaveowning planters. Northampton County, Virginia, was typical of the early colonial economy. In 1666, about 300 of Virginia’s colonists were of African ancestry. At that time, 11 percent of African colonists and 18 percent of European colonists owned either land or slaves. This comes to a 61 percent ratio of Black-to-White net worth—higher than the United States would ever see again in its history. For comparison, two centuries later in 1860, the county’s Black-to-White property ownership ratio was zero percent. By 1980, the overall U.S. Black-to-White net-worth ratio had risen to 15.4 percent, but by 1995 it had fallen again to 12.6 percent.

You wrote: I am against the philosophy that all black-white racial problems in the west are based on economic motivations.

You lost me. I was not writing about "all black-white racial problems." I was not writing about "black-white racial problems." I was not writing about "racial problems." I was not writing about "problems." At your suggestion, I was writing about the origins of hypodescent. That is all.

You wrote: There were many other places in the new world where there were more than half the population being African....

Now you really lost me. Did you read what I wrote? What made the 17th-century Chesapeake unique was that Africans were a small minority of the forced laborers. 7,000 out of the 9,000 Virginians held in bondage were of European descent and only 2,000 were of Native American and/or African. Please read that sentence again. Of 9000 forced laborers, 7000 were Europeans and only 2000 were Africans! I agree that many other colonies had a larger ratio of Africans to Europeans. In fact, every other forced-labor colony had a larger ratio of Africans to Europeans. Of course. That was precisely my point. It was not that they had too many Africans, It was that they had too few!

You wrote: I think the section is more of a discussion on "the History (or the origin) of American bans on interracial marriages.

Yes it is. That was our goal--to explain the origins of hypodescent. You cannot have hypodescent between two populations unless you have an endogamous color line between them. Countries/cultures lacking an endogamous color line lack the concept of hypodescent. And you cannot have an endogamous color line between populations without criminalizing intermarriage between them. Countries/cultures lacking reluctance to intermarry lack an endogamous color line. (Just imagine trying to convince an Englishman that a Yorkshireman is someone with any Yorkshire ancestry, not matter where he was born, raised, or lives. The only way you could even begin would be forbid Yorkshire exogamy for generations.) Whence sprang the notion of hypodescent? From the presence of a color line. Whence sprang the color line? From the criminalization of intermarriage. Whence sprang the criminalization of intermarriage? From an attempt to prevent servile insurrection. In short, preventing servile insurrection-->criminalized intermarriage-->created a color line-->spawned the notion of hypodescent.

If you would like to read others who have researched the same facts and reached the same conclusions, I recommend: Theodore Allen, The Invention of the White Race, 2 vols. (London: Verso, 1994); Lerone Bennett Jr., The Shaping of Black America (Chicago: Johnson, 1975); T. H. Breen and Stephen Innes, Myne Owne Ground": Race and Freedom on Virginia's Eastern Shore, 1640-1676 (New York: Oxford University, 1980); Marvin Harris, Patterns of Race in the Americas (Westport CT: Greenwood, 1964); Edmund Sears Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York: Norton, 1975); Audrey Smedley, Race in North America: Origin and Evolution of a Worldview, 2nd ed. (Boulder: Westview, 1999). Bennett's book is the easiest read.

You wrote: Is there a way to shorten the section, and/or maybe link it to another page?

I don't know about linking it to another page, but we can certainly shorten it or, better yet, eliminate it altogether. Seriously, I really think that you need to give some careful thought to just what you want to convey with this section. The original paragraph was factually inaccurate in its conflation of hypodescent with the one-drop rule. I fixed it. You wanted an account of the origin of hypodescent. I wrote this in one paragraph. You wanted an in-depth analysis of the motives of the planter elite who invented the notion. It did so based on the works of the seven most highly respected historians of the period. If this motivational analysis is too long, we can revert to the short version without the motivation analysis. But, in all honesty, I do not think that is the problem.

It seems to me that you want to read a different motivation into the 17th-century gentry who invented hypodescent than the one that I and a half-dozen other historians have concluded. If so, please feel free to write one that reflects your conclusions. Just bear in mind that I would expect you to use scholarly sources. Peer-reviewed historians would be nice. Well-known Black ones, like Bennett, would be even better. -- FrankWSweet 02:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey I'm cool with much of the content you put in, although i disagree with some of it, but honestly I think we should put it into the "one drop rule" section, and maybe summarize greatly the end result in here. I have been trying to shorten some of the other sections as well, so this isn't to conveniently erase what I disagree with, I honestly don't find it to be in opposition to my perspective anyway, just we need to put more ideas into it (which calls for its own section). - Zaph--208.254.174.148 12:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Response

Response. I am impressed with the amount of research you put into this, but my perspective is that there is a different motivation of why hyperdescent was established and justified in America. What you are saying is that only the Chesapeake planters invented hyperdescent, ok, fine I had originally agreed with that position, but on your request that I investigate the matter further, i found that is not the case. It seems to me that although Africans had succeeded in Virginia in the early time of the settlement, European ignorance and prejudice was present and growing at that time. But let's still go along with your position for a moment, because "inventing" it on paper and why is still questionable. Why did they invent it, is what I am talking about. Why and how did it spread across the country, and why was it upheld legally even after slavery ended? Why for example did the Mormon church establish it as an order from God in their religion? Your response is that hyperdescent was invented as a continuation of forbidding intermarriage between whites and blacks, and this was establshed to stop slave rebellions. So ultimately, the goal was to stop slave rebellions. - Zaph

This is where the issue becomes murky. We know there were African and European indentured servants, a period of 7 years. What I cannot figure out is how the first judgement condeming an African servant to perpetual slavery, and punishing a white indentured servant to merely two or three extra years of service was done to prevent more slave insurrections. Why not punish them both equally? The intermarriage ban would have to be designed after an establishment of African based slavery, not the other way around. - Zaph

Lets look at one example, Anthony Johnson who lived in Virginia in 1670. He was an indentured servant, he became free, and like other white indentured servants, he became a landowner and successful. He moved to Maryland, and for some odd reason his property was confiscated in Virgina by the government because he was originally from Africa. Not because he was a former indentured servant, not because he was formerly non Christian, but according to Virginia because he was a "negroe and by consequence an alien." Then and only then did the English system respond by increasing the slave trade. And that slave trade made white indentured servants obsolete for the most part. But the alienation of Africans occurred not because of any fear of slave insurrection. THe next question is, ok were the children of these alienated africans (whom were also of European descent) also alienated? - Zaph

I believe from what I read, and I did read it, that your saying that hyperdescent comes from simply a need to maintain enough of a population to work the fields? My response is, why not just pay the workers regardlesss of their racial background. During the middle of the 17th century, in Virginia, there were black plantation owners. However, there was an attitude that Africans were not worthy of the same respect as whites, in part because they did not have a Christian background in their original cultures (which is hypocritical, as Europeans were not the original christians, nor were their religious beliefs originally Christian), and secondly Africans were not as numerous as the white indentured servants that were the more threatening competition (especially if Black slavery would be established, causing even more of an economic hardship on the poor white working class.). What I believe you may overlook is the abundance of Native American land that was doled out (again by establishing another group of people as sub-human) to these poor whites, and they thus became landowners and had to have slaves as well. You see where I am going? The hyperdescent did not play a role in creating slavery or stopping slave rebellions, it was more of a result of the established order. So here is where we differ: You say "Whence sprang the criminalization of intermarriage? From an attempt to prevent servile insurrection." - Zaph

I say: "Whence sprang the criminalization of intermarriage? From an attempt to maintain a slave based economy AND from a racist perception of Black Africans as an alien person (no longer equitably human). This "alien'ness" becomes spread out as an inherent human or spiritual defect. It came from an attitude that since Europeans were by and large Christianized at the time, and Africans were not, the individual Africans by this association had no moral rights to the same equal treatment even if they converted. Somehow there was an inferred biological or physical ineptitude that was associated with Black Africans, and this sub-humanness was "passed down" to the children, tainting their bloodline whether or not the child was of white parentage or not. In fact, the fear was not of slave insurrections, but of a tainting of the white race and the drawing away of white women to black men. (you might want to review some of these laws at this period as they penalized white women and black men more harshly or singled them out for punishment more often than whitemen and black women) - Zaph

All servants imported and brought into the Country. . . who were not Christians in their native Country. . . shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion. . . shall be held to be real estate. If any slave resists his master. . . correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction. . . the master shall be free of all punishment. . . as if such accident never happened. - Virginia General Assembly declaration, 1705 (before any miscognation law was passed) - Zaph

Perhaps the original intention in that part of Virginia is as you say, but lets look at what the actual court documents themselves describe. (This will take the guesswork out of what is considered a credible source).

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/sthtml/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1h314t.html - Court document regarding Anthony Johnson, a Black land-OWNER.

http://www.lovingday.org/map.htm - a link showing the history of interracial bans with a year by year comparison from state to state.

http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/family/cruz-berson.html - Miscogenation Laws in the US by Barbara Cruz and Michael Berson

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/

In An American Dilemma (1975), Gunner Myrdal, a Swedish economoist states that miscegenation policy developed because intermarriage was a principal concern in the white man’s order of discrimination. - Zaph

now the question is, why and how does this relate to hyperdescent. Well, I am trying to establish that the anti Black motivations PRECEEDED or at the very least were intertwined the ideas of banning interracial marriage. Hyperdescent was in addition a gender based, and social institution, not an economic one. A white man marrying or cohabiting interracially would experience a different reaction from virginia courts than a white woman. Only five states had anti-miscognation laws by the time of the civil war. Hyperdescent, or the one drop rule, developed after these events were established, not before. I could not find any law in Virginia preceeding 1800 that says "a person of any percentage of negro ancestry is deemed to be black". And i still do not see the economic "logic" that allegedly was the root cause of the one drop rule going that far back in Virginia. - Zaph

I think we also may be mixing two ideas. There is intermarriage and it's laws. Then there is the status of the children, from Nth generation of African ancestry. I'm saying the one-drop rule was established due to racist attitudes, those racist attitudes may or may not have been the result of greed. But they were at least concurrent (I believe the attitudes against Africans were before the first slave insurrections) with the first slavery laws in Virginia. I do not believe that a fear of (predominantly white) slave insurrections at this early time would be the inspiration for white Virginians and Virginian judges calling a child of various degrees of parentage "black". I believe the attitude that black people were tainted aliens of lesser humanness were the motivating factors. - Zaph

Virginia's list of events regarding slavery, black people and intermarriage 1641 - Black people first encounter racism in an institutional form. 1662 - All children born to slave mothers are slaves. And interracial marriage becomes illegal. 1691 - Mixed Children by white women places the white woman into slavery. 1705 - All people from Africa are slaves.

Derrick A. Bell, Race, Racism, and American Law, 2d ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1980). Black Historian Gunner Myrdal An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem in Modern Democracy. Pulitizer Prize winning author. --208.254.174.148 04:29, 4 December 2005 (

Itemized Response

You wrote: What you are saying is that only the Chesapeake planters invented [hypodescent], ok, fine I had originally agreed with that position, but on your request that I investigate the matter further, i found that is not the case. It seems to me that although Africans had succeeded in Virginia in the early time of the settlement, European ignorance and prejudice was present and growing at that time.

True, but off-topic. "Ignorance and prejudice" have been around since the Paleolithic. But the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry (the topic of this conversation) dates only from 17th-century Chesapeake.

Firstly, itemizing every sentance, or idea I have is not going to bring any satisfactory response to this issue. This isn't a newsnet group and the length of the topic and disucssion cannot be addressed realisticly by itemizing each idea I have and categorically trying to either deny, or refute it. I am certain on many of the positions, and you are starting to come across less as one who wants to find an honest solution, and more as one who wants to win some kind of debate. For example, I am sure you realize, that the KIND of prejudice we are speaking of in this context is "anti-black" prejudice, which is ON topic, and NOT been around since the Paleolithic, is this how the next three dozen itemized responses will be? Let's find out.

You wrote: Why and how did it spread across the country, and why was it upheld legally even after slavery ended? Why for example did the Mormon church establish it as an order from God in their religion?

Off-topic. (The 17th-century emergence of the notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry.)

Yeah, it looks like you are going into debate mode, trying to refute everything. I asked a question, and the question is on topic. This is an article entitled "Black People", the subgroup is called "hypodescent" (or one drop rule), and what needs to be addressed in the article is how the onedrop rule, if it started in the Chesapeake, how did it spread. You say that is off topic, and I am starting to see your intergrity unravel.

You wrote: Your response is that [hypodescent] was invented as a continuation of forbidding intermarriage between whites and blacks, and this was established to stop slave rebellions. So ultimately, the goal was to stop slave rebellions.

I would say "as a consequence of," not "as a continuation of," but generally, yes.

You wrote: Why not punish them both equally? The intermarriage ban would have to be designed after an establishment of African based slavery, not the other way around.

Off-topic. They were not punished equally because European colonists were beginning to see Africans (who were usually referred to as "heathens") as "other" and so targets of prejudice. Off-topic because the issue at hand is the status of biracial individuals (the specific notion notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry).

On topic. This is relevant to the relationship between Black people, the experiences they faced, and how mixed people were considered "black" and why. On topic, because many Africans were Christianized (the African Methodist Church is one of the oldest churches in the U.S.A. and whites did not allow blacks to go to their churches, which is a circular hypocritical, revealing more on topic, and showing that Christianity was not the true "reason", but a cover.)

You wrote: The intermarriage ban would have to be designed after an establishment of African based slavery, not the other way around.

True, but off-topic. The first statute that decreed lifelong hereditary forced labor (the very definition of slavery) was 1662. And intermarriage was outlawed one generation later in 1691. It was one thing to declare Africans slaves. But it then took another generation of producing biracial colonists to force the question, "But just who is African?" Just imagine yourself trying to explain the census form "race" question to the citizens of Puerto Rico or Santo Domingo. Again though, the topic is the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry.

On topic, and I am convinced that your "off-topic" response is more due to you not listening.(In this case, paying attention to what the topic really is about.) It was your notion that intermarriage was designed to stop slave rebellions (of any race, not just blacks), and NOT a consequence of anti-black slavery. Well, I just proved that it is, and you want to say it's off topic. That's rediculous. The fundamental question is why choose the Africans (whether christian or not) to be the sole slave, and then you have an answer as to why the intermarriage ban comes into play, and hypodescent either came at the time of the intermarriage ban, or after it. Remember, the intermarriage ban is not the same as hypodescent to black. And I am starting to see your credibility to be questionable at this point. You can't call this "off topic" this and "off topic" that, when it is obviously getting to the heart of the matter. I think you are trying to convince yourself or me, or whomever, that the overall intention of the hypodescent was to stop slave rebellions. Your "off topic" responses convinces me further, because your logic is circular. In addition you keep focusing on "intermarriage bans" and not finding out when black people started to consider themselves black based on hypodescent. (when mulattoes described themselves as Black). THe fact that they were rejected as "white" is not the same as being lumped together as being "black".

You wrote: Lets look at one example, Anthony Johnson who lived in Virginia in 1670. He was an indentured servant, he became free, and like other white indentured servants, he became a landowner and successful. He moved to Maryland, and for some odd reason his property was confiscated in Virgina by the government because he was originally from Africa. Not because he was a former indentured servant, not because he was formerly non Christian, but according to Virginia because he was a "negroe and by consequence an alien."

True, but off-topic. Intermarriage was criminalized in 1691. But because the public ignored the ban, penalties became increasingly cruel. Soon, according to Bennett, a horror of intermarriage was planted in the minds of the colonists:

I tell you what, I am going to cut and past "on-topic" at the beginning of each of my sentances, and then we can have a "off-topic" - "on-topic" competition. No better yet, I will use the phrase "You are out of touch with the article, or simply Out of touch" to indicate that you are indiscriminately paying no attention to the matter and instead trying to view "hypodecent" in a theoretical mechanical white colonial perspective. You are unaware that even if you are right in your timing of "laws" you are lacking in information to support your logic. For example mr "off topic", you need to describe HOW the horror of intermarriage was planted in the minds of the WHITE colonists, not "the colonists" in general. Because the BLACK colonists were not horrified with it. They were horrified with the legal consequences. The horror was for a whtie colonist to have their "whiteness" stripped away, and the consequence was the the rest of the colony of more numerous whites (as opposed to blacks) would shun them. (In essence peer pressure sanctioned by the government, which was also white). ON TOPIC. I told you there is a psychological component. This obviously goes outside of any "slave insurrection". Pay close attention as to how off topic you get from your original point was this was all done to stop slave insurrections!

:by the creation of a total system of domination, a system that penetrated every corner of Colonial life and made use of every Colonial institution. Nothing was left to chance. The assemblies, the courts, the churches, and the press were thrown into the breach. A massive propaganda campaign confused and demoralized the public, and private vigilante groups supplemented the official campaign of hate and terror. -- Lerone Bennett Jr., The Shaping of Black America (Chicago: Johnson, 1975), 74-75.

As you say, the Johnson's fled to Maryland, where he died shortly thereafter. Sadly, Maryland soon followed Virginia's lead, and so his impoverished widow Mary and their children had to manumit their last remaining slave (John Casor) and flee again. We do not know where they went. Incidentally, the "odd reason" that Anthony Johnson's lands were escheated by Virginia colony was because he had died intestate in Maryland. But again, this is off-topic. The topic is the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry.

No you are incorrect, JOhnson's land was taken because the courts alleged that he was "an alien" and thus unable to receive the due rights and respect of his estate to his family as a white man. Other colonists, white colonists, left Virginia, and their lands were not confiscated. There was no law in Virginia stating that a man who leaves and dies, his estate goes back to the state. You are really losing your way here, and I honestly am getting irritated with every sentance you start off responding "off topic". Saying off topic over and over is not going to win you credibility or confuse me. ANd if you are going to be patently wrong this many times, you should review what the topic is. Hypodescent was placed onto black people because the white institutions of that time wanted to preserve an air of purity about who they were, and in addition, economic reasons (which now I find even less of a reason thanks to your responses)motivated this as well. All of the examples I find, show that the government responded to a comparative notion of inherent superiority, not to a desperate need to resolve a social crisis. Free Blacks who were numerous in D.C. for example, should not have been penalized for marrying free whites, as neither were slaves. If the white government cannot distinguish "free people" intermarrying from "servile insurrection" then either they were mentally incapable of running the colonies due to some kind of lapse, or we here are arguing about something that you are misunderstanding. ON TOPIC.

You wrote: Then and only then did the English system respond by increasing the slave trade. And that slave trade made white indentured servants obsolete for the most part. But the alienation of Africans occurred not because of any fear of slave insurrection.

True but off-topic. "The alienation of Africans" had begun at least generation earlier in 1662. There is no evidence that it was caused by fear of [servile] insurrection, as far as I know. The topic, however, is the notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry.

Dude, whatever, If you are going to respond to my comments in the future, respond to them en masse. You started off saying that the whole reason was that they were finding a way to deal with "servile insurrections" and now you are reversing your own argument.

Continuation of Itemized Responses

You wrote: The next question is, ok were the children of these alienated Africans (whom were also of European descent) also alienated?

On topic (finally!). There is no evidence of this. Judging by court-case wording, Chesapeake social customs of the time resembled those of the Spanish Empire. Recall that Jamestown was a benighted backwater surrounded by a vast commercial New World empire comprising millions of European colonists in huge cities that rivaled those of Europe, and with universities that had been in operation for over a century. As in the hegemonic Spanish Empire, Blacks were held as slaves and cruelly treated by Whites, even by those Whites who had visible African ancestry themselves. In short, you were White if you looked mostly White. This predated the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry.

YOu missed your whole point. You said that hypodescent was designed to stop slave insurrections. Now you are flip flopping. We don't know what the overall experience was of Black people. And you trying to focus on Chesapeake bay for the next 100 years or so (at the exculsion of the many other colonies that sprang up with their own issues with blacks) is not an honest way to look at the matter. I apologize, but I am kind of fed up. It would seem at this point I am

You wrote: I believe from what I read, and I did read it, that your saying that [hypodescent] comes from simply a need to maintain enough of a population to work the fields?

I wrote no such a thing. I wrote that it was a consequence of the outlawing of intermarriage in 1691.

Let me quote you via cut and paste

What made the 17th-century Chesapeake unique was that Africans were a small minority of the forced laborers. 7,000 out of the 9,000 Virginians held in bondage were of European descent...

and "In short, preventing servile insurrection-->criminalized intermarriage-->created a color line-->spawned the notion of hypodescent." You had made a cause and effect link leading to "servile insurrection"as the ultimate first cause, or ultimate goal. Again you say "It seems to me that you want to read a different motivation into the 17th-century gentry who INVENTED hypodescent than the one that I and a half-dozen other historians have concluded. " (empathsis mine)

You wrote: Why not just pay the workers regardless of their racial background?

Off-topic. The social preference for wage labor over forced labor was still far in the future. Trust me, you do not want to know why.

MAN, what is up with you? Put the reason in here and discuss the matter. There was a reason that the WHITE settlers chose the relatively small number of AFRICANS to be the slaves, and why they decided to hypodescent their progeny as black. I didn't ask for the social preference for wage labor over forced labor. I said the social preference for exclusively using BLACK AFRICANS as forced labor.

I'm going to stop here, this has become a mess, of YOUR doing. I will restart the topic below. I am kind of pissed that you would go through all of this rigamorole, and even though you seem to keep an air of seriousness, you do not show CONSISTENCY in your position! SO I am starting it over.

You wrote: During the middle of the 17th century, in Virginia, there were black plantation owners. However, there was an attitude that Africans were not worthy of the same respect as whites, in part because they did not have a Christian background in their original cultures (which is hypocritical, as Europeans were not the original christians, nor were their religious beliefs originally Christian).

True, but off-topic (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry).

You wrote: Africans were not as numerous as the white indentured servants that were the more threatening competition (especially if Black slavery would be established, causing even more of an economic hardship on the poor white working class.).

Not exactly, but off-topic. White forced laborers were not nearly as serious a threat as what actually happened in 1676, reflecting dozens of servile insurrections throughout the New World. What actually happened was a bloody uprising by ALL forced laborers, Africans, Europeans, biracials, and Hispanics (incidentally, Anthony and Mary Johnson were named Antonio and Maria when they stepped off the boat). As in every other New World servile insurrection, they correctly saw that their ethnic separation into groups was a divide-and-conquer strategy fomented by the planters to weaken them. Nevertheless, this is off-topic from the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry.

You wrote: What I believe you may overlook is the abundance of Native American land that was doled out (again by establishing another group of people as sub-human) to these poor whites, and they thus became landowners and had to have slaves as well.

Wrong and off-topic. It was illegal for forced laborers (whether African, European, Hispanic or biracial) to even till any land to their own benefit, much less to own land. The class of poor White subsistence farmers (as opposed to the middle class of craftsmen and shopkeepers) did not become demographically significant until after the changes of the 1690s. It did not precede those changes. But this is off-topic from the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry.

You wrote: [Hypodescent] did not play a role in creating slavery or stopping slave rebellions…

I never said it did. I said that the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry was a consequence of the 1691 outlawing of intermarriage. The outlawing of intermarriage was meant to split society into Black and White. The splitting of society was meant to prevent alliances among forced laborers.

You wrote: Whence sprang the criminalization of intermarriage? From … a racist perception of Black Africans as an alien person (no longer equitably human).

Perhaps, but off-topic. It may be true in the sense that Gooch could not have pulled off the intermarriage ban otherwise. (Just imagine trying to outlaw intermarriage between tall people and short people.) But it is off-topic from the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry.

You wrote: This "alien'ness" becomes spread out as an inherent human or spiritual defect. It came from an attitude that since Europeans were by and large Christianized at the time, and Africans were not, the individual Africans by this association had no moral rights to the same equal treatment even if they converted. Somehow there was an inferred biological or physical ineptitude that was associated with Black Africans, and this sub-humanness was "passed down" to the children, tainting their bloodline whether or not the child was of white parentage or not.

Perhaps, but off-topic (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry). Worse yet, you are bizarrely equating the topic at hand with contempt for Blacks. The population of Puerto Rico is genetically 50-50 Euro-African in a normal (Gaussian) distribution and yet 90% of those living in the U.S. check of "White" on the census, and most of those on the island disdain Blacks. The average White Puerto Rican is proud of his fractional African ancestry, but this does not make him any less White nor any less contemptuous of Blacks. "Racism?" Perhaps so (although I prefer to call it colorism). But Hypodescent (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry)? Not a chance.

You wrote: you might want to review some of these laws at this period as they penalized white women and black men more harshly or singled them out for punishment more often than whitemen and black women.

Please cite a specific source if you want me to examine evidence.

You quoted from the 1705 law that first made hypodescent statutory via a 1/8 rule.

What was your point? This law came 14 years after intermarriage was outlawed. It was the first expression of hypodescent on record and it is clearly consequent to the 1691 law. I fail to grasp your point.

You cited: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/sthtml/

Off-topic (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry). This account starts in 1740 and we are talking about the 17th century.

You cited: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1h314t.html - Court document regarding Anthony Johnson, a Black land-OWNER.

Was there a point to this citation? If so I fail to grasp it.

You cited: http://www.lovingday.org/map.htm - a link showing the history of interracial bans with a year by year comparison from state to state.

This website claims that intermarriage was outlawed in Virginia in 1662. This is incorrect. The correct date is 1691.

You cited: http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/family/cruz-berson.html - Miscegenation Laws in the US by Barbara Cruz and Michael Berson

This website claims that, "Laws prohibiting miscegenation in the United States date back as early as 1661." This is incorrect. The correct date is 1691.

You cited: http://academic.udayton.edu/race/

I see nothing on this website pertinent to the topic (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry).

You wrote: In An American Dilemma (1975), Gunner Myrdal, a Swedish economoist states that miscegenation policy developed because intermarriage was a principal concern in the white man’s order of discrimination.

Wrong and off-topic (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry). First, Myrdal was talking about the U.S. in 1944. This is three centuries after the topic at hand. Second, what he actually wrote was, "The ban on intermarriage has the highest place in the white man’s rank order of social segregation and discrimination." (p. 606) Finally, as it turns out he was wrong. For details, see http://backintyme.com/Essay050501.htm. Still, it us off-topic (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry).

You wrote: I am trying to establish that the anti Black motivations PRECEEDED ... the ideas of banning interracial marriage.

Off-topic. No one disputes that. The issue at hand is not whether Blacks were seen as the "other" by 1691. They were. The issue is, "who was considered Black?" Specifically, the notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry.

You wrote: Hyperdescent was in addition a gender based, and social institution, not an economic one.

No one disputes that. Indeed, I see no economic motivation for hypodescent (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry) at all. I believe that the framers of the 1705 law making hypodescent statutory were telling the truth when they said they were trying to resolve who would be considered Black in the light of the1691 law outlawing intermarriage. Recall the topic (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry).

You wrote: A white man marrying or cohabiting interracially would experience a different reaction from virginia courts than a white woman. Only five states had anti-miscegnation laws by the time of the civil war.

Wrong on too many counts to be worth discussing (read Breen and Innes), and thoroughly off-topic (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry).

You wrote: I could not find any law in Virginia preceeding 1800 that says "a person of any percentage of negro ancestry is deemed to be black". And i still do not see the economic "logic" that allegedly was the root cause of the one drop rule going that far back in Virginia.

You have reverted again to conflating hypodescent (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry) with the one-drop rule! Please stop doing this! It is very irritating! The topic is the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry. Recall Woods and Berry versus Sheen and Channing. Furthermore, I am truly astonished that you could find no hypodescent (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry) law preceding 1800. Virtually every state had a hypodescent (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry) law on the books by then. The first law in this regard was in 1705 Virginia, the first in history defining who was considered a member of the Black endogamous group. The law used a one-eighth blood-fraction rule (you belonged on the Black side of the color line if you had one or more great-grandparents who had belonged on the Black side of the color line). For a thorough analysis of the statute, see Paul Finkelman, “The Crime of Color,” Tulane Law Review, 67 (no. 6, 1992), 2063-112, 2085-86, 2106. The article also tells where you can find and examine the original document. The later Virginia law of 1785 dropping hypodescent (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry) down to a 1/4 rule (you were Black if one grandparent was Black) is even more famous. Jefferson's explanation of the 1785 hypodescent law has been scanned into the web and you can read it in his own handwriting. As Jefferson explained, the new law made his son Eston Hemmings legally White, a social status into which he was accepted by Charlottesville society after his father's death. Dozens of articles have analyzed the 1785 law, but Finkleman is as good a place to start as any.

You wrote: I think we also may be mixing two ideas.

I disagree: I think that you find it impossible to stay on-topic.

You wrote: I'm saying the one-drop rule was established due to racist attitudes, those racist attitudes may or may not have been the result of greed.

Off-topic. We are not talking about the one-drop rule. For a history of the one-drop rule, see African_American#Who_is_African_American.3F. We are talking about the notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry. We are not talking about labeling Sheen or Channing "Black." We are talking about labeling Berry or Woods "Black." Why is this so hard to understand?

You wrote: But they were at least concurrent (I believe the attitudes against Africans were before the first slave insurrections) with the first slavery laws in Virginia.

Off-topic. The topic is the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry.

You wrote: I do not believe that a fear of (predominantly white) slave insurrections at this early time would be the inspiration for white Virginians and Virginian judges calling a child of various degrees of parentage "black".

I never suggested that it was. I even diagrammed out the cause/effect chain.

You wrote: I believe the attitude that black people were tainted aliens of lesser humanness were the motivating factors.

The motivating factors for what? For the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry? If so, then merely labeling "attitudes" with terms like racism, prejudice, ignorance, and so forth explains nothing. Historiographical narrative must explain why something happened there and not elsewhere and why then and not earlier or later. In this context, we must explain why the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry arose in the Chesapeake (rather than in Massachussets, Jamaica, Sainte Domingue, or Puerto Rico) and why it arose at the turn of the 18th century (first expressed in statute in 1705) and not before or after.

Unless you can stick to the topic (the historical origins of the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry), this conversation is senseless.

More importantly, I am increasingly convinced that the whole subject is misplaced in this section. The role of hypodescent (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry) is important both in racialist U.S. Black self-identity and in racialist U.S. White perceptions. It is important enough in U.S. history to deserve a section of its own under Black (people), the way that African_American#Who_is_African_American.3F has its own section under African_American. It must be made clear that, although "racism" and slavery are important, they are distinct phenomena from the unfolding of the unique ways that USAmericans have determined whether someone belongs in the Black endogamous group or the White one. It must be stressed that slavery and "racism" were ubiquitous both geographically and temporally, but hypodescent (the notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry) and one-drop (the notion that even if you look White, were raised as White, and consider yourself White, you are still Black—like it or not—if you acknowledge any African ancestry at all, no matter how slight or how distant) were unique to British North America. The first arose in the 1690s and was made statutory in 1710. The second arose in the 1830s was made statutory in 1910.

It appears to me that you are more interested in the origins of "racism" than of either hypodescent (calling Woods or Berry Black) or one-drop (calling Sheen or Channing Black). I suggest that you pursue this interest. I am more than willing to help, if you would accept. You might start with the Rig-Veda of 3,750 years ago, where it tells that in the Indo-Aryan conquest of Dravidian India, the Hindu god Indra blew “away with supernatural might from earth and from the heavens the black skin which Indra hates.” Where it says that Indra “slew the flat-nosed barbarians” and decreed that the foe was to be “flayed of his black skin.”

In the meantime, I shall make a separate section on the origins of hypodescent (the notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry) and try to connect it somehow to the account of the one-drop rule in African_American#Who_is_African_American.3F. -- FrankWSweet 19:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Frank, these quotations from the Rig-Veda are completely and utterly spurious. There are no references to 'flat nosed barbarians'. You are referring to the passage in which the Dasa are referred to as 'anasa', usually translated as 'faceless', but sometimes as 'noseless'. This is a generic insult-term (like the modern american term 'dickless'). Yes, some 19th century racialists adopted the - minority - interpretation of 'noseless' and further interpreted that interpretation to mean 'flat nosed'. But that's not what the passage says, and in any case, the dominant reading, from Panini, is 'faceless'. As for the other passage, there are no references to Indra hating 'black skin'. The Dasa are certainly abused with epithets associating them with darkness, but the most obvious interpretation of that is that they are being associated with the night in opposition to the light. As for the Gita, it would be odd to interpret racist content to Krishna's discourse to Arjuna, because Krishna himself is dark-skinned! He is always depicted that way in Indian art, and his name actually means "black" (the word "krisna" is Sanskrit for black) Paul B 12:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No kidding! I got the translations from Thomas F. Gossett, Race: The History of an Idea in America, New ed. (New York: Oxford University, 1997), pp. 3-4. He also gives several other examples. He was peer-reviewed by Oxford, but I do not know if he reads Sanskrit or was just quoting someone else. I shall look up his sources and get back you, if you do not mind. I appreciate your comments. There is a lot of strange stuff floating around about the period when the Indo-Aryan language replaced Dravidian in much of India (for example, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml ). You are far more knowledgable about India than I (my field is the US color line), and I would hate to unknowingly step into something unpleasant. -- FrankWSweet 12:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Paul, are you still there? According to Gossett, he got the translations from two sources. The first is The Hymns of the Rigveda, trans. Ralph T. H. Griffiths (Benares, 1896), v.I, pp.488-90. The second is Adolf Kaegi, The Rigveda: The Oldest Literature of the Indians (Boston, 1886), pp 43-45. Would it be safe to say that these two are no longer considered to be idealogically objective translations? -- FrankWSweet 16:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The origin of hypodescent in America

The question: Why was hypodescent (one drop rule) established in the USA? Zaph believes it was motivated out of a white sense of superiority, and a white sense of black inferiority. This was due in part to White aristocratic ambition, greed, and perhaps of associating cultural differences between blacks and whites with human-ness. It would possibly be encouraged with the state that many Africans came to the colony, as slaves, and no examples of aristocratic Africans coming over on their own. Frank had earlier made a connection between hypodescent and slave insurrections, however this link seems to be refuted in the itemized responses he made above. So now, that plus the phrase "off topic" makes it difficult to understand his position. I am convinced that the slave insurrections were not the root cause, as Frank illustrated, because, as Frank pointed out, Africans were a small minority of slaves, and inconsequential to the nature of the overwhelmingly white slave rebellions. Since at this time slavey was indentured servitude of 7 years, there is no reason why singling out africans for lifelong slavery would reduce the misery of the indentured servants whom were white. I doubt that a far-reaching goal of ending white indentured servitude was what the colonial administrators had in mind when they decided to exclude black africans for perpetual slavery. Finally, when you Frank, respond to someone's comments. it's much more sensible to clarify your position. You indicated "off-topic" so many times, if you were seriously seeing it that way, you should merely clarify your position in a clear concise response. It's unereasonable to expect anyone to stay on topic (you yourself seemed to get off your own position) with itemized, line by line rebuttals. Save that kind of thing for the newsgroups.

Oh, please! You've written more verbiage on this page than anyone else, but now that someone with some education has shown up to put you in your place, you try to shut them up by saying "save it for the newsgroups". Grow up! ThePedanticPrick 01:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

1. hypodescent was caused by a white perception of distinct purer humanness (superiority)
2. hypodescent was caused by a white perception of black inferiority
3. hypodescent was motivated by economic and psychological reasons.
4. hypodescent came after or concurrently with marriage bans.
5. hypodescent was viewed and established in various ways in different parts of the country and was not linearly spread from the Chesapeake bay to the rest of the country.
6. hypodescent was not applied consistently. The Virginia leglislature had responded later that they could not enforce it indefinitely as practically every other white person in the state would be black and lose their rights.

Here are two sentances Frank made.

1. hypodescent - ...Black even if you have less than half African ancestry
2. one-drop - even if you look White, were raised as White, and consider yourself White, you are still Black—like it or not—if you acknowledge any African ancestry at all, no matter how slight or how distant).

Then later you say that I reverted again to conflating hypodescent (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry) with the one-drop rule!

Frank, i think the obvious quesiton is, where does the line between the first end, and the second begin. Why don't you discuss where and how the hypodescent evolved into the one drop rule. For me, I honestly think you are spending too much energy trying to narrowly limit the scope and relevance of hypodescent in the broader context of being black. The one drop rule would take generations (at least three, maybe more... about 75-100 years) to even have examples from the first intermarriages in Chesapeake. So where we are at, seriously is how the one-drop rule (which is a form of hypodescent) came to play (and I did consistently use 18th and 19th century examples). You seemed to nitpick at the difference between the two, ok fine, I respected that, but now you are trying to convince that the origin of the hypodescent was "NOT" a racist origin, but purely a social and economic one. Funny you should mention the Vedda history in the Hindu religion, because I had WANTED to incorporate that into the article a few months back, but I could not link that to the racism in Europe, except that I have a theory that it migrated via the middle east through Arab slave trading (and as you can see further above I am still arguing with someone who is offended by that).

So you are not aware of the scope of where I am coming from. Why don't you just make the section. However I will not let the racist attitude and motivation be downplayed in this article as to the origin of the one drop rule and hypodescent in general in the USA. We know that racism had a role in it.

Now, I seriously did not go past half of the items in the list. I will not read and respond to discussions that way in WIkipedia indefinitely, otherwise each section will be overly confused.

I agree completely. This discussion has become a waste of time. It is finished. If you have anything more to say about the history of the U.S. color line or about my writing style, I would encourage to first read Frank W. Sweet's Rules of History-Writing.

deeceevoice rfc

(removed orginal comment but leaving zaph's self-self dialogue)

Awww that is so cheezy. I don't even get to see her comments in this discussion and now you all want to silence her. --Zaphnathpaaneah 18:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yea it looks like they are trying the nuclear options this week! --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

What is this article supposed to be about?

Specifically, how does its goal differ from that of the African American aricle? At first glance, the difference seems to be that the present article is permeated with moral judgement towards ideological concerns rather than NPOV. But a deeper reading suggests that this article may have been originally intended to be about the Pan-African notion of "Blackness" as a global self-identity associated with colonialism and the post-1500 African Diaspora, while the African-American article is focussed on the U.S. ethnicity.

Whatever its goal, its has serious problems of factual inaccuracy and logical fallacy. An example of factual inaccuracy (among many) is the claim that the very dark skin tone of the Bantu-speaking peoples is the "default human type as far back as the human species is known to exist." In fact, the oldest known genetic populations of our species are the light-skinned Khoisan and Ethiopians.[2] An example of logical fallacy (again among many) is the claim that many "black people in the west ... [like Brazilians] do not consider themselves to be black." Just imagine yourself reading that "many who are actually Republicans do not consider themselves to be Republicans but register as Democrats instead." You see the problem? Either Blackness (in the sense meant by the article) is inherent or it is ascribed. You cannot have it both ways in the same sentence.

Nevertheless, the many innaccuracies and logical fallacies would be relatively easy to clean up.

The deeper problem is defining just what the article is supposed to be about. If it is about the physical anthropology and genetics of the thousands of diverse populations in sub-Saharan Africa and how a small band from one of those populations (mtDNA haplotype L3) crossed the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb to colonize the planet, then the ideological definitions of Blackness are irrelevant, since the ideology of Pan-Africanism did not exist 70 millennia ago. On the other hand, if the article is about the ideology of pan-Africanism (the ethnic and cultural commonalities among dark-skinned people all over the world—especially their mistreatment and marginalization by Western culture), then the genetic and phylogeography stuff is irrelevant.

So, can anyone tell me (in 100 words or less <grin>) what is the goal of this article?

Oh, yes. I just started contributing to Wikipedia a few days ago and there is something else that I do not understand. Just what does it mean when an article is "tagged"? Who tags articles and why? -- FrankWSweet 17:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I also think that the scope is way too vast. There is a lot of material in here that, while good, would be better placed under Afro-centrism, african-american, pan-blackness, racism, anti-black racism, and so on (not sure if there are currently articles for all those topics). I think this article should be a starting point, similar to the White (people) article, which has its problems, but at least it doesn't try to define the complete historical experience of white people (although some people have tried to expand it in such a way, and I've been doing my best to stop them). Perhaps an outline could be something to the effect of:

1. Intro
2. Origins
3. Areas of habitation
4. Defining characteristics
5. Varying definitions (a brief discussion of how the term has and does vary by time and place, sans moral judgements and POVs)
6. See also, where we link to the other wikipedia pages that discuss all the other issues of black identity in detail.

I think paring it down in such a way would give us something of reasonable size and scope that could be worked on much more easily. Fortunately, the sections I list above have almost all been written already. We could add some more citations, discuss how to resolve the POV sentences, resolve them, and be done relatively quickly. Then we could move into a maintenance phase of small corrections, minor improvements, and of course, fending off vandals, of which this page seems to be a popular target. Let me know what you think. ThePedanticPrick 18:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

PS. "Tags" are various headers that can be added to a page. The NPOV tag, which gives a message along the lines of "This page needs to be modified to conform to a neutral point of view", is probably the most common, but there are others for "Please add citations", "Please wikifiy this article", etc. ThePedanticPrick

Black people are not just in the U.S.A or America. THis article deals with the relationship between black people in various parts of the world, and their worldview, and their experiences. --Zaphnathpaaneah 18:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I ignored the edit conflict and lost my comments. In a nutshell, do not rely on DNA markers. In my opinion you can have all of the "white" DNA markers in the world, and still come out looking like Shaka Zulu. the mtDNA markers help trace ancestral origins, not skin color, nose width, and hair texture. Also the original Ethiopians were not lightskinned, and do a search on google right now and you will not find a single "lightskinned" Khoisan. I know there are the dutch/khoi mixed ethnic group (whose name I cannot remember), but they are mixed, not entirely Khoi. In addition, not to sound arrogant, but I did do (redo) 90% of this article at first, and made an extremely high amount of contribution. I have been fighting off the compassionate-conservative viewpoints in here ever since. My take is that this article is about empathizing that black people come from a variety of regions and we should not use the "nearly pure West African/AFrican American Negro" mentality to determine who else on Earth is black. There ARE a lot of black people in brazil, they share and shared the same experiences, heck much of their religion is Benin/Yoruba based. Come on guys, put things in perspective. --Zaphnathpaaneah 18:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

If I'm reading Zaph correctly, this is the viewpoint he would like to see more fully expressed: black people come from a variety of regions and we should not use the "nearly pure West African/AFrican American Negro" mentality to determine who else on Earth is black. This is a great viewpoint that I whole-heartedly agree with. We can emphasize (not empathize) this without having 10 pages of badly organized info about racism, afro-centrism, and hypo-descent. ThePedanticPrick 21:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Umm. A quick point of order, gentlemen, if you please. Is it acceptable to ask if "Zaphnathpaaneah" is the same person who earlier signed himself "Zaph"? -- FrankWSweet 18:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I am he. Wikipedia seems to have fixed their "server problem" and I am able to sign in normally, instead of having to remote in before. And actually, I'm taking a hiatus from further editing of this article. It's me against too many points of view to keep up with, and no one is really supportive at this point. I can't believe you guys cited DeeCeeVoice. Besides, I want to see how the article changes without any black person moderating it for a while. I am doing my own experiment. --Zaphnathpaaneah 21:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Uncalled for attribution of "race"

This is in response to: "I want to see how the article changes without any black person moderating it for a while. I am doing my own experiment. --Zaphnathpaaneah 21:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)"

I find it deeply offensive that someone should publicly attribute a "racial" membership to me, knowing nothing about me. There is undoubtedly a way of lodging a formal complaint to whatever governing body is responsible for Wikipedia. I shall find it. -- FrankWSweet 03:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well - there is a picture of you here! [3] Paul B 12:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

How can you tell from the picture that I am White, and not, say, a full-blooded Puerto Rican who merely happens to look White to you, but not to other Puerto Ricans? Just curious. -- FrankWSweet 16:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Puerto Rican is a national (or regional) identity, not a racial term. However we view Black or White, it does not mutually exclude one from being included into a national identity. There are Black and White puerto ricans, and Puerto Rico itself has it's own ghosts with antt-black prejudice. HOwever I am not going to get into this silliness with you. I can see part of the tact here is to degrade the quality of the discourse to eventually create a pettiness that warrants some kind of executive decision on the part of the Wiki-moderators. For the record I haven't seen your picture and I don't care to.--Zaphnathpaaneah 07:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is your best access to that governing body http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RPA IF you are going to formally complain to Wikipedia because I assumed you were of some particular race, knock yourself out. I have a right to think that way and further, if just the mere use of a racial membership offends you, then you are really going overboard. IN fact, now that I recall, that comment had nothing to do with you. I seriously want to see where the article goes without any of the black contributors for a period of time (like a week or two). It seems to me that much of the controversy in here, are from people who are not black. I am left with the impression that Wikipedia contributiors think that I (and other black contributors) have a POV habit, yet I see the same lack of consistency in the "Caucasoid" and "White People" articles (Recall the capital W and B issue) So let me help you logde your formal complaint, in fact I will lodge a complaint and refer to you as the offended person, to make it easier for you to get to this governing body. Because it seems to me that offense you indicate is more like a smokescreen for ultimately censoring me from contributing. I want to see if the Wikipedia governing body that you would refer me to would penalize me in some way for attributing a racial membership (either inadvertently or not) to you. Who knows, with luck, maybe they will ban me for...what... I suppose this is slander of some kind? --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, dude, since you brought up race and you don't think anyone should be offended by the mention of it, may I ask a question? What exactly are your qualifications and credentials on the subject here other than being an "angry black man"? ThePedanticPrick 16:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem. Look at the quality of the article before I contributed to it, and after. It's shameful that people who are considered more qualified do a less quality job on handling this article (and other articles). My qualifications are irrelevant and I would rather you look at me as nothing more than a man with no qualifications than a man with a large resume. I am not impressed with qualifications. I hear there are Ph.D. professors in UTAH who teach that there were Israelite migrations and civilizations in central america 1600 years ago. So let us not get into "qualifications". --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. if it offends you deeply, I imagine you can never be one to say that "race doesn't really matter to me". I get publicly attributed all the time. I really don't care. --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

There you go Frank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Remove_personal_attacks#WHere_is_the_Wikipedia_governing_body.3F --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC) (the racial attributator)

"Dalit"

This article persistently uses the word "dalit" (i.e. the so-called "untouchables" in India) as though it were a racial term. As the article Dalit makes clear, the term does not describe a race. The most influential dalit in Indian history B. R. Ambedkar would not, I think, be considered to be "black" by most people (though of course it's impossible to say for certain what 'most people' would say given that "black" is not a clearly defined term)[4]. It's true that the some individuals within the modern dalit movement have appropriated the history of Aryan invasion theory and of race-based civil rights protest to position themselves in racial terms, something that's partly assisted by the Indian legal concept of scheduled tribes. However, it is surely inappropriate to refer to "dalits" as though they are unproblematically a race and that that "race" can inproblematically be deemed as black. As the discussion above indicates we need to be clearer about the ambiguity and problematic nature of this terminology. Paul B 12:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an excellent example of the kind of unsupported assertions, non-NPOV, and possibly even original research that currently fill the article. I, too, was suspicious of the presumption that the Dalit were a race, much less an Africoid or black race, but the theory intrigued me. As you seem to know more about this issue, I would encourage you to edit the article and make it clear that the Dalit's status as a race is disputed. Thanks in advance, ThePedanticPrick 16:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This is all based on a false assumption that "blackness" is defined in the same scope as "Whiteness". Despite your best intentions of neutrality, you are still working from a "white" standard and trying to view blackness from that standard. Dalits, are known in Veddoid scriptures as black, they are considerd black by the upper castes, and have been frequently referred with the term "black". I certainly agree that black is not a clearly defined term, and part of the reason that I am very interested in the article is clarify more. Certainly, blackness is not exclusive to those of African, and certainly not strictly West African descent. In regards to people of India read:

"Dalits: The Black Untouchables of India by V.T. Rajshekar"

Also, bear in mind that the word "Dalit" wasn't even used as a word until the 20th Century. Next understand that the issue here is not about race. I have tried to avoid using "race" in this article. As I understand the concept of race, there is a heavy "DNA" based element, and I clearly indicated that black people do not fit into any specific DNA classification (precisely, that DNA should not be used as the primary or sole standard for defining black people or black identity). So if you on the one hand say that "blackness is not a race, because race does not exist" it's contradictory to say that "dalits" are not black, as you cannot distinguish the racial misunderstanding from the accurate collective world identity. I certainly see unique cultural, social, and historical parallels and characteristics with dalits (considered an offensive word by the way) and black africans --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what a "white standard" of blackness is, but if we are going down that road then we can never engage in any meaningdul debate, since the correct "standard" cannot be determined. Of course the reality is that it cannot, so we try to examine the ways in which these issues have been modelled over time and between cultures. BTW, Dalit is not "considered an offensive word", it is the word they chose to adopt over the sentimantal "Harijan" and the traditional offensive terms "untouchables" and "chandalas". I am afraid I don't follow the following sentence

if you on the one hand say that "blackness is not a race, because race does not exist" it's contradictory to say that "dalits" are not black, as you cannot distinguish the racial misunderstanding from the accurate collective world identity.

If it does not exist, then they definitely are not black - because it does not exist! But anyway, no one is claiming that "blackness" does not exist in a general sense. Some specific claims are made - that a unified "black race" does not exist in any meaningful sense, and that there can be and have never been clear rules for delimiting the usage of the term "black" as a label for distinguishing dark-skinned from light-skinned peoples. Whether the uncasted peoples of India are part of this world identity is precisely what is disputed. Paul B 18:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I Think what really catches my attention is that people want to steer away from "race" in general, and specifically rather not identify asians in a racial context. However, often the same people will look at blackness from a racial context and then 'rightfully' explain that asians should not be included no matter what their experiences or phenotype. That's not a good way to handle this article. Black is an identity that varies in different parts of the world. The two main components of this identity seem to be "dark skin" and "Equatorial origins". One reason why I want black contributors to hold off on contributing is because I want to see ALL of the best objections and for us to collaborate on discussing them en masse instead of dealing with one at a time for the next 2 years. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Outline

Okay guys, I have finished studying this entire article, the comparable article White (people), and the non-archived discussions of this article. For what it is worth, here are my thoughts.

Let me first make clear that I have no stake or interest in this article per se. I was asked by A.D. Powell (an essayist and book author whose work my company has published) to correct a few factual errors in a few Wikipedia articles regarding the timing of certain historical events. Upon correcting an error in this article I was foolishly dragged into explaining the motives of long-dead legislators, a topic irrelevant to this article. I regret this involvement. I am perfectly happy to walk away and leave this article as it is. Since I am here, however, a sense of duty compels me of offer suggestions for trying to salvage it, So, here goes.

The article is presently a joke at best, and a disorganized collage of factual inaccuracies and logical inconsistencies at worst. Judging by the discussion record, this disaster seems to be due to at least one individual who apparently has an unshakeable POV agenda but dodges all efforts to find out what it is. I have concluded that the article cannot be fixed in situ because its organizational flaws are inherent, even to lacking a defined topic.

Its title implies that the article will inform about how, when, where, and why certain populations around the world have come to be called "Black," and by whom. I submit that an intellectually honest effort to do this would start with the last point, "by whom."

Consider three alternative answers to the "by whom" question: themselves, Americans, and Europeans. Most of the peoples mentioned in the article as it stands do not consider themselves "Black" nor are they considered so by their neighboring populations. And yet, Americans tend to see many of these same people as Black, either because (1) they descend partially from the Bantu-speaking populations who were caught up in the transatlantic slave trade (Brazilians, Puerto Ricans) or (2) because they "look Black" to American eyes (Dalits, Melanesians, Australian Aborigines). Finally, the descendants of Europeans who colonized the globe starting in the 15th century, especially of the 19th-century British Empire, lumped many non-European populations under the term "coloured," a concept that overlaps with the American definition but includes some (Turks. Irish) who most Americans consider White, and excludes others (European-looking biracials) who most Americans see as Black.

Rather than dealing with this definitional problem (just who is it that labels any specific population "Black" and why), the article adopts an intellectually indefensible grossly Eurocentric viewpoint. It is Eurocentric because its foundation assumption is that Europeans are White and everyone else is Black. In other words, it purports to explain why all non-Europeans are deep down the same sort of thing. It is grossly so because it includes every conceivable non-European population under its Eurocentric umbrella by using the most puerile rationalizations. Melanesians and Dalits with no shred of recent African ancestry are Black, despite their denial, because they "look Black" to an unspecified someone. Those Puerto Ricans and Brazilians who do not "look Black" to anyone are also Black, despite their denial, because they acknowledge partial African ancestry. And millions of White-looking African Americans with no detectable African genetic admixture are also Black because they self-identify thus. Only Eurocentric racialist Americans would even understand these arguments. Only singularly uninformed Eurocentric racialist Americans could advocate them.

I'm going to address this one point. First of all, the position does not take a Eurocentric position. Eurocentricity defines everyone outside of Europe as colored, and even though colored may be interchangeable to YOU in some way or another as "black". It is not currently a sensible form to use. "Colored" INCLUDED black people as one of many "COLORED" people in british colonialism, but that is not important. Why? Because there already is a "colored" article. This is the "black people" article and this is to discuss various people "bantu" and non "bantu" who share uniquely similar characteristics. There is no purile rationalization because the concept of blackness does not require that. This is not about finding a "DNA" link between "bantu" and the subjects in question, because that is not what makes one black. Why are "bantus" the core constituency of blackness? Why not veddoid or australoid ancestry instead? If dalits or the "undercaste" have been described in the hindu religion for 4000 years as black and if they are themselves relating to that religion in that context then what on earth is the relevance of saying that "they are not black because they are not bantu"? The point is, the experiences of the people trump and outweigh the EUROCENTRIC philosophy that "the only truely black person on Earth is a bantu type". The groups I described in the article are people whose current populations have some significant relationship as black people. I didn't include Puerto Ricans, (although I do feel they are out of touch with their black heritage), I did not include Iranians, I did not include Central Asians, or Japanese, or Chinese. I did not include Arabs, and I did not include berbers. As far as brazil goes, i do not know what you mean by "look black" other than if you have a purist view of what a black person looks like or not. Brazilians exhibit a strong African phenotype in some areas and less prevalent in others, however on average they exhibit enough of it to show a considerable African "bantu" heritage. The majority don't look like portuguese whites or Yanomamo natives. Finally, if African Americans who look "white" are themselves identifying as black, it would be a contradiction to say that only Eurocentric Americans would understand that. It sounds like you are trying to redefine "afrocentrism" as a sub-set of Eurocentrism, then debunking it from that viewpoint. However, you still are missing the point. Blackness is not a "bantu only" phenomonon. And blackness is not about just Africa. If you talk to people in Asia who view themselves as black you would understand. In this world, especially outside the states, people are still taught that "black" is "bad", and "coiencidentally" (sarcasm intended) those same people are taught that their curly hair, dark skin, and features are "not as good as" the lighter skinned Japanese, or Chinese or Portuguese, or Spaniard. So you are going to get nowhere trying to seperate the "word" blackness from the "experience" of black people. Still the problem is defining blackness which is not easy to do. But trying to relate it to "colored" is a mistake. And again, next week, I will be vigorously refuting the notion (in the discussion, and in edits of the article) that we should be using the "colored" designation as some kind of reference point. --208.254.174.148 11:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC) - Zaph

If the goal of the article is to support the extreme Eurocentric racialist ideological POV common to both U.S. White supremacists and U.S. Black separatists, then it violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. If its goal is to inform everyone (even people outside the United States) about how, when, where, and why certain populations around the world have come to be called "Black," and by whom, I suggest that it must be trashed and re-written from scratch, from a consensus outline, using consensus definitions.

See now you are being silly or underhanded. Who made you the law in deciding that only dark skinned bantus can be called or can consider themselves black? You fail to comprehend the scope of what it means to be black in the U.S., and instead look at some british or nationalistic mode. Blackness is more of a cultural/ethnicity than a race. Like being Jewish, or maybe Latino. There still is a strong "physical component" however it would be purist to strictly accept the phyiscal component. It would be like saying that only Latinos live south of Texas, and once they move north of the Rio Grande, they (or their children) are no longer latino. Or it would be like saying that once a Jewish person converts to Christianity they are no longer "culturally" Jewish. Unlike these things though, blackness does not easily fit into a criterion (dark skin, knappy hair) --208.254.174.148 11:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC) Zaph

It is possible that some existing text could be salvaged, as PedanticPrick suggests. But I would like to nail down an outline before even considering this.

Please do not act unilaterally. This statement of yours is a unilateral approach to handling the article. We, ALL of us, (not just you and Pedantic) will decide how much of the text will remain. We, ALL of us, will also clarify, and you will need to accept that some of your understandings of black people are based on your own experiences. You are not aware for example that there is a strong black native intellectual movement in India, or that I have East Indian friends who view themselves as Black (and are not descendants of recent African migrations). It looks like basically you see " global blackness" as a strictly African-American phenomonon. That is unfortunate, and even more unfortunate because this article is not going to go in that direction. --208.254.174.148 11:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC) Zaph

Here is a proposed list of topics for a new outline. They are in no particular order.

---Proposed Outline--- Goal: To inform the reader how, when, where, and why certain populations around the world have come to be called "Black," and by whom.

• Phylogeography and genomics refute the notion of widespread Blackness rather than reify it.
  • Both extremes of skin tone are neolithic (5 kya) adaptations to herding and farming and post-date the (70 kya) African Diaspora of 70 kya by almost the entire span of post-Diaspora history.
  • 19th- and early 20th-century definitions of "races" were Eurocentric (The European craniofacial phenotype was the standard against which everyone was measured.)
  • Despite a rhetoric of inherent traits, attempts to replicate commonality between, say, Australians and Africans failed and attempts to falsify succeeded.
• History shows that the notion of global Blackness arose among oppressed African-Americans seeking overseas allies.
  • Martin Delaney
  • W.E.B. Dubois
  • Marcus Garvey
  • James Weldon Johnson (opposed the idea)
• Survey of the current notion of global unity among "people of color"
  • The shift from pan-African political activism to the more inclusive pan-"people of color" activism.
  • Pan-African (or pan-"people-of color") movements in Latin America.
  • Pan-African (or pan-"people-of color") movements in Africa.
  • Pan-African (or pan-"people-of color") movements in Asia.
  • Pan-African (or pan-"people-of color") movements in Europe.
  • NGOs with pan-African agendas.
  • U.S. popular culture's idealized image of pan-African support versus the reality of conflicts spawned by religious, language, and other ethnic differences but which are politically rationalized as "racial" differences (e.g.: Hutus vs. Watutsi). -- FrankWSweet 17:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This page need major editing

One, it is way to one sided. The Afrocentric perception has a right o be presented, but it has to be defined as an opinion, and Afroocentric. The other sides have to be given as well I will add links to other perceptions out of Africana as well. Finally, i took out a bunch of subtopics that deserve their own page. They should not be in a main page that generally defines a people. I tried to keep the Eurocentric beleifs in and contreast them to Mainstream history and science perceptions. But I had to edirt some claims that were given as fact instead of opinion. And no, the Aeta of the phillipines dod not Embrace blackness, the Spanish imposed the term on them. They do not usually call themselves Negrito either. other Phillipinos do.

Are you aware of the history of the Aeta? The word "Aeta" means "black" in tagalog. The chinese called them black dwarfs. But that is not the issue. However the Aeta DID and still DO embrace their blackness, because they were very much proud of their kinky hair, dark skin, and equatorial features (the physical essence of what makes them black), which was distinct from the other Filipinos . They also faced persecution and prejudice because of these distinctive features. Before Europe came along, most Africans didn't view themselves as black. Everyone in the world had "blackness" imposed on them one way or another. The whole issue of blackness does not revolve around 'west african negroids'. I will be putting the Aeta back into this article, and I will be putting them in as a group of black people, again into this article next week. By the way, they do not "usually" call themselves Negrito? So what, "occassionally"? I'm sure they are aware of the distinctive difference between themselves and the sinoid and spaniard mestizos who (i) do not share their language (ii) do not share their history (iii) who do not share their culture and customs (iv) who do not look like them (v) who gradually took their land (vi) who try to claim their legitimacy (vii) who categorically look down on them ... hmmm sounds like the run of the mill garden variety black experience. This article is not about arguing whether or not blackness should be confined to those of West African descent or not. --208.254.174.148 11:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"Aboriginal" features in the Westerm Hemisphere

The comment "Archeology has shown that indigenous populations with Aborigine like features were the first to migrate to the Americas and their features are still seen in certain populations of Native Americans like the Fuegueans of Chile, and the indigenous groups around Veracruz" needs clarification. For one, how has archeology shown this? Where are the sources? What are these features? Finally, Veracruz (in Mexico) was once the major port that received African slaves in New Spain (present-day Mexico and Central America), and their descendants are still around, which could partially explain the supposed "Aboriginal" features---I must admit though that this term needs to be clarified by the author. I assume that the author refers to medium and dark brown skin tones, among other traits. Kemet 10 December 2005.

The author is referring to Australian aborigines, i.e. Australoid peoples - the argument being that an early migrant group was of this race, which was once more widely distributed, but which now only survives in Australia. As usual, there is debate about the usefulness of Australoid as a racial category. Paul B 01:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of the changes that I just made were stylistic, spelling, and tightening the prose a bit. I also added a couple of sentences to correct a misunderstanding regarding the world-unique Nordic skin-tone adaptation. My main change was to remove the following:

Archeology has shown that indigenous populations with Aborigine-like features were the first to migrate to the Americas and their features are still seen in certain populations of Native Americans like the Fuegueans of Chile, and the indigenous groups around Veracruz.

It would be good to have a source for this, since "Aborigine-like features" seems hard to define. My concern is that, if it is defined in terms of craniofacial anthropometry, then it may be worth mentioning, but the DNA studies connecting Amerinds to Mongolians are a lot more persuasive. -- FrankWSweet 17:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I also removed, "and those that resemble our earliest relatives the closest in craniofacial measurements, Aborigines of Australia." The apparent similarity between Aborigines and H. erectus has been shot down. For one thing, Aborigines of 50kya looked like Indonesians. What you see is just a family resemblance that evolved over 50ky and spread over a continent. -- FrankWSweet 18:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Im not editing yet but...

"A brief history of the concept of Blackness" is not going to work. I do not know what the agenda is here, but it seems evident that someone is more interested in making "blackness" as foriegn to the human experience as possible. Either that or the title of that section should be changed to "how Europeans came to describe darker skinned people". It's obvious that's what the section is describing.--Zaphnathpaaneah 12:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The statement in the following section: "As Eurocentrism has weakened, many populations have sought to overcome the stigmas imposed by centuries of colonialism. One approach, Afrocentrism has sought to take the stigmas and spin them into a positive light."... this implies that there is an inherent natural stigma to being looked at as black. Look at the white people article, notice how parts of the article descibe who gets the priviledge of being included as white as if it's an inherent good quality to appropriate. While here, it seems already, people want to rewrite this article with the attitude of "who has the stigma of being labeled as black". No matter how we try to spin, or counter-spin this issue, the naked truth still comes out. Being black is being portrayed as a liability (stigma) and white is being portrayed as a virtue.

next "As with Eurocentrism before, some of the peoples categorized have embraced this foreign concept and others have not. We must clearly delineate that all those that call themselves Black do not subscribe to a Global Black sense of identity, and some just call themselves Black in a local ethnic sense." We don't know how foreign the concept is throughout history. The writer assumes that no one on earth looked at themselves as "black". Amazing. The issue of a global black sense of identity is moot because most people throughout the world did not have a global concept. Mostly regional. Jewish people for example, after being seperated in antiquity became unaware of the existence of other Jewish people throughout the world. That statement that "just call themselves black in a local ethnic sense." does little more than try to "reassure" the unfamiliar reader that "don't worry, those groyups in Asia didn't really think they were black." Let's stop that kind of attitude. --Zaphnathpaaneah 12:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

With all this commentary about Eurocentrism in the Black People article, I find it amazing that the word is not used anywhere in the white people article. It is certainly non-neutral POV to characterize... no categorize... no compartmentalize blackness as not much more than a Eurocentric invention. Over the next couple of weeks I am going to have various readers of different backgrounds read this article and I am going to ask these questions.

1. Do you have a positive, neutral, or negative view of blackness and black people after reading this article.
2. After reading this article do you feel that your (if applicable) people are represented accurately? if not why?
3. Do you think that there is bias in the article, if so where?
4. Do you believe the writer has an objective understanding of black people? if not why?
5. Do you feel that the writer is trying to convey being black as a liability or a legitimate human experience? Why?

I am going to be talking to people from India, Philippines, the Middle East and various other places. AFter that I will post some of their anonymous responses in here and where appropriate i WILL be making edits. I can already see some of the changes are going into a rediculous realm, but thats ok. I want the people I question to see this and they will be able to point out these things. We aren't going to have 'they are called black but' every other sentance in the article. --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Finally, it seems that the current writer is trying to define blackness solely within a concept of "Eurocentrism" and "Afrocentrism". Not to sound offensive, but this view is ignorant of the way black people view themeslves. It is irrational to think that darker skinned people did not view themselves as "dark skinned" before EUropeans arrived to "dictate" this obvious fact to them. The fact that Europeans imposed their own latin based words on them "negro, negrito, etc" has nothing to do with the fact that an Aeta filipino can see for him or herself that their skin is dark brown. So I'm sure when they saw the European, or Chinese, they were aware of how "light" or "white" skinned they were in relation to themselves. So the idea that "blackness" is a Eurocentric concept is misguided. One very good example is that of the man named "York" who traveled with Lewis and Clark. He was accepted and idealized by some of the Native American because of his black skin, and curly hair. This was due to their cultural understanding of blackskin as a form of strength and virtue and certainly not a stigma. That indicates that the Native Americans had a clear concept of blackness that was not foreign to them or imposed on them by Europeans. As far as Asia goes, blackness has not been invariably created by Eurocentrism. I think you guys want to take another look at that and just take those kind of statements out. Hinduism, describing the black caste was not a Eurocentric religion. --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yea you guys shortened the article greatly and that would be good except you totally beat the black out of the article. The bible "supposedly" describes people as black "according to centrists"? What the heck is that??? The bible describes black people. Period. No additivees or preservatives. "kushimm" in hebrew means "black" and it means "beautiful". Cut and dry. See, all this "supposedly" and "according to centrists" stuff, thats the kind of manipulation I do not find acceptable in here, cut it out! --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yea it really looks like now the writers wants the reader to view blackness as nothing more than a liability and stigma from Euocentricism. Now I suppose these contributors, being a part of this experience have a good understanding of it. After all, we are using references and resources strictly from Europeans or... are we going to actually do some real insight into this article? And if you don't like my attitude, thats fine. Imagine if I went into the White People article and totally rewrote it as nothing more than a Eurocentric tool to alienate and control people of color (as that's how the term white seemed to be overwhelmingly used... in contrast to the "others" who do not have the rights and "virtues" of Euroepean white identity). Shall we be consistent and revolutionalize the White people article? Ignoring all of the variation and subtleties within it? --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Aboriginal" features in the Western Hemisphere

The comment "Archeology has shown that indigenous populations with Aborigine like features were the first to migrate to the Americas and their features are still seen in certain populations of Native Americans like the Fueguians of Chile, and the indigenous groups around Veracruz" needs clarification. For one, how has archeology shown this? Where are the sources? What are these features?

http://www.andaman.org/book/chapter53/luzia/luzia.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430944.stm

Also read ‘Luzia is not Alone’ by Walter Neves. Finally consider this picture of a Yamana native of Tierra del Fuego http://www.limbos.org/sur/yama/yaman11.jpg

Finally, Veracruz (in Mexico) was once the major port that received African slaves in New Spain (present-day Mexico and Central America), and their descendants are still around, which could partially explain the supposed "Aboriginal" features---I must admit though that this term needs to be clarified by the author. I assume that the author refers to medium and dark brown skin tones, among other traits.

The Natives around the Veracruz area, not the admixed population of Afro-Indigenous people in the proximity I was referring to are those mentioned in this article: http://www.thehallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=73

Re: I'm not editing yet but...

"A brief history of the concept of Blackness" is not going to work. I do not know what the agenda is here, but it seems evident that someone is more interested in making "blackness" as foreign to the human experience as possible.

Blackness along with Whiteness are historically modern concepts. Considering the span of human history, they are pretty foreign. Similar concepts of labeling have occured before, aethiops, melano-gaetulians, etc. But these were more descriptive terms than a belief that all dark skinned people were a race and all light skinned Europeans were another. It was a Eurocentric concept.

First of all, I am not going to respond to every itemized response. i already indicated that to a previous poster. If you want to refute everything I say as a matter of procedure, do it as one response and then I can address them. Also, it's very unwieldly to respond in this manner, especially since a sizeable portion of the items are incorrectly formatted (spaces in the front i believe)... and yet again, everytime I post, Wikipedia has server problems, so I will pick and choose with the itemizations, because it becomes apparent at that point that the goal is not for you to learn or to understand, but to merely argue and attempt to bog the whole process down in endless debate. So that being said, first of all, every "race" in the world, and Latinos, Asians, Africans, and Pacific Islanders and probably a host of other terms and concepts are also historically modern. That is irrelevant. That does not minimize the significance to THOSE people. This article is not about trying to prove how useless or irrelevant the concept of blackness is in the opinions of non-black individuals. That is not our job here. You seem preoccupied with that. And I will venture an opinion. What is your goal? To have the readers walk away with the notion that blackness is not really about anything, because of "reasons" you feel trump the experiences the people feel? I have told you that this article is not about attributing a "racial" (whether genetic or what) label to blackness. From my perspective it seems you are hell bent on creating an impression that the experiences of darker skinned people (who at various times have been called or call themselves as Black) are irrelevant. It also seems to me that you want to navigate the definition of blackness as far as possible away from humanity. It's not going to work. In history there have been black people, currently there are black people, and as much as it may annoy you, there is a worldwide black consciousness that has been gaining momentum since at least the early 1960s. So I will go ahead and be picky and answer what i feel is convenient for me to answer among the long list of items below, because I am really tired of repeating myself and getting responses that try to bypass the obvious. The name of the article is "BLACK PEOPLE" not "I don't like the concept of black people. let me explain why it shouldn't be used anymore"

Either that or the title of that section should be changed to "how Europeans came to describe darker skinned people". It's obvious that's what the section is describing.—

That would work as well.

No it wouldn't. If you want to make a seperate article on your opinions on how relevant the European perspective is on black people and the term go ahead. This article is called "black people" and I will endlessly edit the article as to incorporate every instance in history where I have seen or read groups of people characterized as black (either by themselves or by others).

The statement in the following section: "As Eurocentrism has weakened, many populations have sought to overcome the stigmas imposed by centuries of colonialism. One approach, Afrocentrism has sought to take the stigmas and spin them into a positive light."... this implies that there is an inherent natural stigma to being looked at as black.

Incorrect. There is no inherent stigma to being dark-skinned, but historically the concept of black did carry a negative stigma. It is only with time that ethnicities that adopted this name have been changing that imposed stigma.

No my friend. YOu have it backwards. There was an inherent stigma forced upon certain people. The concept of black carried a negative stigma, because people who were considered white pushed an ideology that they were inherently "better" than those who were not. That concept of worthiness is where the "stigma" comes from, not from the "word" black or some other "unknown" concept of blackness that you still cannot seem to understand. The "concept" of blackness is very clear: "dark skin, kinky hair, flat nose, and southernly-equatorial and/or aboriginal origins"... or something ALONG those lines. You know it, I know it, there is no need to try to play "political correct" and pretend that the concept of blackness and the "stigma" came from any other direction. Let me say it again so there is no explanation.. People in power who came from Europe imposed a very inhumane philosophy on those they conquered. Because the majority of the people conquered were of darker complexion, the Europeans pushed an idea that the lighter you are (closer to them in appearance) the better or more human you are... and consequently the further from them (in appearance) the less human you are. That's where the "stigma" came from. Those who were closer got treated better, and those who were further away were treated worse. The TREATMENT reinforced the stigma.

Look at the white people article, notice how parts of the article describe who gets the privilege of being included as white as if it's an inherent good quality to appropriate.

I haven’t looked at the White people article yet. But it is true that Colonialism imposed the White and Black paradigms, so they would make themselves look better.

Well go read it, then come back, and stop wasting time trying to itemize your responses with these comments. Obviously you are just here to argue, so I'm gonna stop here and not deal with whatever else you have to say at the bottom. Have fun for the rest of the week. I WILL be baack in here editing. I'm letting you guys have free reign so I and others can see what the goal is and ultimately refute these false philosophies.

Being black is being portrayed as a liability (stigma) and white is being portrayed as a virtue.

Incorrect. We are just pointing out how these terms were used historically. Blackness as an identity per se has no negative or positive connotations different than any other ethnicity.

We don't know how foreign the concept is throughout history. The writer assumes that no one on earth looked at themselves as "black". Amazing.

No historical records indicate such thing. Dark skinned yes. Members of a Black race, not in any written historical records.

I gave examples and you refute them... lol "Aethoipid, Kushite..."? This is the classical Eurocentric debate. You say one thing, i refute it with examples. You try to qualify the examples, then later on rely on short term memory loss... This discussion is absurd now.

The issue of a global black sense of identity is moot because most people throughout the world did not have a global concept. Mostly regional.

And with the advent of modern technology, these people are aware of other black communities, but that does not mean they identify with them as a global group.

Jewish people for example, after being separated in antiquity became unaware of the existence of other Jewish people throughout the world. That statement that "just call themselves black in a local ethnic sense." does little more than try to "reassure" the unfamiliar reader that "don't worry, those groups in Asia didn't really think they were black." Let's stop that kind of attitude. –

Jewish people never questioned others that showed different features but similar practices. That is obvious in their embrace of the Beta Israel among others. That is because their claim is ethno-cultural, not just a phenotype/race concept

That is not even a response to my comment. I am not talking about features. I am talking about experiences. Jewish people share experiences. Black people share experiences. Like it or not. This article is called "black people" not "only those black people I feel SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED black because they have specific characteristics that I feel merit it". Dude, yall go ahead, have fun, I'll be back Monday and I will just do what I do. We can debate and all that jazz. You all took the strength of the article out and replaced it with all of this nonsense which is nothing more than an attempt to keep black people seperated based on some idiot philosophy... oh and it's really "clever" how you try to flip the terminology as to make your efforts more effective. Call me and the whole concept of blackness a Eurocentric phenomonon and surely no good natured reader will walk away wanting to call ANYONE black! LOL. --208.254.174.148 05:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Zaph

On race: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001078/

With all this commentary about Eurocentrism in the Black People article, I find it amazing that the word is not used anywhere in the white people article. It is certainly non-neutral POV to characterize... no categorize... no compartmentalize blackness as not much more than a Eurocentric invention.

Like I said, I have not touched the White people article yet. The point of view is neutral. What is said in other articles is irrelevant as I am working on editing this one right now not the other one.

Over the next couple of weeks I am going to have various readers of different backgrounds read this article and I am going to ask these questions.

My opinion on your questions as follows.

1. Do you have a positive, neutral, or negative view of blackness and black people after reading this article.
2. After reading this article do you feel that your (if applicable) people are represented accurately? if not why?

Which is very true. Partly because so much space has been used in trying to claim all people in the world Black instead of focusing on those people who auto describe themselves as Black.

1. Do you think that there is bias in the article, if so where?

Leading Question. Just ask them what they think and what is missing as far as describing THEM, not who else they think also is black.

1. Do you believe the writer has an objective understanding of black people? if not why?
2. Do you feel that the writer is trying to convey being black as a liability or a legitimate human experience? Why?

Leading question again. Let them tell you their feelings without you trying to suggest possible negativity. I am going to be talking to people from India, Philippines, the Middle East and various other places. After that I will post some of their anonymous responses in here and where appropriate I WILL be making edits. We will be waiting for their comments and we will also ask people from these areas (I already have) what they think, and edit your edits if necessary.

  I can already see some of the changes are going into a rediculous realm, but thats ok. I want the people I question to see this and they will be able to point out these things. We aren't going to have 'they are called black but' every other sentance in the article

It’s quite simple, either we only allow those who auto define themselves as Black to write of their experience in THEIR region and not try to claim other people as Black without a true confirmation that those people consider themselves Black, or we show that Afrocentric beliefs do exist, but that they are but one trend of thought, and not one supported by most Anthropologists, geneticists, linguists, etc.

Finally, it seems that the current writer is trying to define blackness solely within a concept of "Eurocentrism" and "Afrocentrism". Not to sound offensive, but this view is ignorant of the way black people view themselves.

I am not trying to define people within the Eurocentric and Afrocentric paradigms. But those were the parameters imposed before I got here, so I kept those claims in, but made sure the reader knew where those beliefs were coming from.

It is irrational to think that darker skinned people did not view themselves as "dark skinned" before Europeans arrived to "dictate" this obvious fact to them.

Black is not dark-skinned, and all peoples claimed as Black are not even dark-skinned.

The fact that Europeans imposed their own Latin based words on them "negro, negrito, etc" has nothing to do with the fact that an Aeta filipino can see for him or herself that their skin is dark brown. 

Sure they can. And that does not mean they saw themselves As Black, Little Black or lost African tribes.

So I'm sure when they saw the European, or Chinese, they were aware of how "light" or "white" skinned they were in relation to themselves. So the idea that "blackness" is a Eurocentric concept is misguided.

Strawman. The first Malaysians were brown skinned themselves. Degree of shade may have not been as differentiating as phenotypes such as hair, eye shape, nose shape etc.

One very good example is that of the man named "York" who traveled with Lewis and Clark. He was accepted and idealized by some of the Native American because of his black skin, and curly hair. This was due to their cultural understanding of blackskin as a form of strength and virtue and certainly not a stigma. Afrocentric mythology. Africans meshed in with Indigenous cultures like Europeans did. Some were admired for their looks others weren’t. Only Eurocentric and Afrocentric claims later tried to claim this as evidence of earlier contact.

Hinduism, describing the black caste was not a Eurocentric religion. –

Nor do I claim racism is unique to Europeans, but they were the ones who expanded it to a global level. And Aryan impositions are still impositions. Furthermore I’m not sure that there was a claim that the Dravidians were a black people, but there was discrimination and their dark skin was used for identification. Could you list the Bhagavad- Gita or Vedas quotes pertinent?

The bible "supposedly" describes people as black "according to centrists"? What the heck is that??? The bible describes black people. Period. No additivees or preservatives. "kushimm" in hebrew means "black" and it means "beautiful". Cut and dry.

Chuwm or shachor meant black in Hebrew. Chuwm also mean black ones. Shachar meant turns black. Beautiful in Hebrew was hadar, yaphah, shepherd, Cush is borrowed from the time of Egypt to refer to Ethiopians, Cushites. You don’t see it used except in that context as referring to the people of the Ethiopian area. The Bible refers to that one group, not all people of the bible as Cushites. If they were being called the Black ones, Why not use a common usage Hebrew word and instead adopt the native word Cush used by the Cushites themselves?

That's silly. Midian is not in the Ethiopian area, yet Moses was married to Tzipporah, the Kushite. (Moses only had one wife, not two.)

Imagine if I went into the White People article and totally rewrote it as nothing more than a Eurocentric tool to alienate and control people of color (as that's how the term white seemed to be overwhelmingly used... in contrast to the "others" who do not have the rights and "virtues" of Euroepean white identity). Shall we be consistent and revolutionalize the White people article?

But of course. I am all for it.

Post The Epistemological Challenge in the white people article

We want to be consistent. --208.254.174.148 04:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Zaph

Lets see what happens... posting now --208.254.174.148 05:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Now here is the deal. I posted the article (and changed solely the terms Black to White where required, and the descriptions obviously where it applied). I made about four changes and about 96% of the section is letter by letter identical. I demand that you all observe consistency and for the next few days, whatever your philosophical point of view you pose HERE, post it THERE and whatever reasons you have to maintain the strength of your position HERE (in that section), use it THERE as well. Do not have me come back here next week and see that the section has been removed or grossly modified in the White people article, but remain unaltered in the Black people article. Since the section applies to both, there should be ABSOLUTELY NO DISCREPANCIES. i SHOULD NOT SEE in the white people discussion, a compromise that allows the white people article to be "preserved" because I will make a prediction. I predict that other writers of the White people article will find the prominence (at the near top of the article) to be inappropriate, the description to be overly heavy handed, and the logic to be "out of step with the experiences and general consensus that white people have today". (If I am wrong, I am fine with that as well, as I will use either stance to my advantage.). What I will not accept is somehow there is "good reason" to omit that section from the White people article, but to have it remain in the Black people article. But I seriously do not expect the writers of the white people article to allow that section to remain. We will see. Believe it or not this is part of my own research. It seems that non-blacks have a vested interest in seeing how black people perceive themselves and the world, and they want to have a hand in controlling it. It's similar to a white person having issue with a black person marrying an asian or east indian. I really want you guys to do your worst, you know, try to make 'blackness' as meaningless and irrelevant as you can. Use your best "logic" to steer the reader into viewing blackness as a concept that bears little value. Because honestly, anyone reading this will see it that way. It's almost like the article is saying that black people should disband and renounce their identity.... certainly the "non-African" people should avoid it like the plague! --208.254.174.148 05:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Zaph

The Epistemological Challenge

Added paragraph to clarify that in order to be accepted as White in the Eurocentric/Afrocentric view, one must be of mostly European ancestry AND "look White" AND self-identify as White. But to be accepted as Black in the Eurocentric/Afrocentric view, one must be of some African ancestry OR "look Black" OR self-identify as Black. A Venn diagram might help to get the point across. -- FrankWSweet 15:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not think we should be naive and pretend that the only black people in the world are the "sub saharans". A Venn diagram still requires that the scope of the three source identities be agreed upon. Since some will put the Ancient Egyptians in the "Caucasian" category, or the "Aeta" in as the Sinoid category, it's still not going to show an accurate group. The problem is none of the Wikipedia contributors can accept or at least seriously consider that the Southern Eurasian supergroup is a predominantly contigious historical group. In addition, it's really disingenious to make a disclaimer for every non-Equatorial African group that is or has been identified as black. Now we have the Khoi being used as an example of a NON black group! --208.254.174.148 08:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Before I edit, I am going to pose some questions.

This is Zaph. I am making sure to begin my editing (as promised) in a way that will minimize much POV response. I must admit the article is better than I expected, although there is certainly too much effort to disclaim blackness in Asia. This seems to require a great amount of discussion to refute.

I will deal with the easiest issues first and we will work our way up.

DNA - I do not agree with the people who classify who is or who is not black, based on DNA. Why? because the DNA markers that are used are not the markers that determine phenotype. If it cannot be concluded that the chosen DNA markers are concurrent with phenotype, then its impossible to determine if the progenators were originally "black" or not. They may be good INDICATORS, but it seems that we assume that the "region" of origin of these progenators must be the indicator of their original race. For example, one could assume that the DNA indicator of a particular blood type, came from a mutation or progenator who originally looked like a "black" person, or a "white" person.

Out of Africa vs lightskinned KhoiSan - Apparently someone is presenting the notion that the original inhabitents of Africa are middle complexioned Khoisan. Khoi people of South Africa are also dark skinned wooly haired people, and despite being different in appearance from other Africans. I do not understand why as a habit, people see a group of people who range in complexion or phenotype, and they only recognize those who most closely resemble Europeans as "the legitimate" variety. This once again, reinforces a very narrow stereotype of what is considered "black".

This is one of the root cause of the distortion of blackness in this article, and needs to be addressed. I do not believe that Khoi are "not Black". And again, the concept of excluding the more "African" Khoi as admixture, while keeping the furthermost lightskinned khoi as "legitimate" is not an objective way to discuss this issue. --208.254.174.148 06:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC) - Zaph. (once again unable to maintain his login due to server issues!!!)

Black vs black

I believe a big problem with this is that we may have overlooked something. Earlier in the year, we discussed the problem of capitalizing "black" when referring to the group. IT seems that many people (non black especially) do not see blackness as anything more than a literal skin color. While many Black people see blackness as a cultural identity similar to being "arab" or "kurdish" or "Jewish". I hear a lot of disclaimer regarding black Asians which I think is not accurate. There are black asians, thats just how it is. Their skin is dark and this isn't about them being "jet black" or not. If a medium toned Italian is seriously considered to be white, then it's absurd to exclude medium toned asians from being black. In fact, the question arises, why would or should medium-toned people outside of Equatorial Africa be viewed as white anyway? --208.254.174.148 08:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think what we need to so is to understand the difference between identifying somoene as a black person (someone with black skin), and a Black person (someone who self identifies as black regardless of their skin color). At this point, some may disagree, but this is the part where those who disagree should, and need to actually talk to black people and find out. You should not unilaterally dictate what Black identity should and should not be. I have grown up in a Black family very conscious of Black identity as something that transcends skin color. And in fact, because of that I have always viewed Black people as being much more diverse and tolerant culturally than whites. I know that there are Asians who do not view blackness with any subliminal stigma and who proudly consider themselves to be black (not hip-hop). Now the argument against this is to me absurd and disrespectful. It's absurd to discourage the kind of inclusiveness in the Black identity just because it started out as a "byproduct" of white exclusion and racism. It's disrespectful to continue to encourage a blind parallel to white identity, by discouraging people of lighter complexions from self identifying as black. We are entering an age where Eurocentricisty is expanding to identify various unrelated people as "white" or "Caucasoid". These various people do not see in their identity anything white, other than an attempt to gain economic mobility in the West, and a naive expectation of gaining more respect from Indo-European Americans because of it. --208.254.174.148 08:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There's one thing I don't understand: when white people exclude everyone who's not white, you complain, and then when we allegedly start expanding the definition of white to include everyone, you complain too. There's just no pleasing you, is there? ThePedanticPrick 12:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Pedantic. I have NEVER complained about white people excluding everyone who is not white. I pointed it out as a matter of a hypocritical notion of "equality". And you know, after the whole DeeCeeVoice RFC mess, i can honestly say, that kind of commentary (although it may be light hearted) would probably activate her... What I do not like, when expanding whiteness to "include" everyone, is that it is inclusive only in areas where Black people are involved. Its only inclusive as a political counter weight to the "core white sensibilities" whether it's a perceived statistical annhilation over time, or a feared political shift in people of color. Whiteness is a divide and conquer tactic in the Middle East, the USA, and elsewhere. When Jews became so successful they became "White". When arabs became a strong political force in the world, they also became white. Italians, Greeks, etc... all got added in when they could no longer be kept out of the economic pie. Its a trade off. Whiteness is given as a social perk, and you are supposed to then seperate yourself in some fundamental way from the remaining non whites, especially black people. Whiteness now includes Egyptians so that Ancient Egypt is no longer academically viewed as a Black civilization. It now includes East Indians so all of the black east indians are erased from statistical existence. It will soon include Latinos as to erase the Black brazilians and caribbean islanders... Whiteness is a social order, not some kind of optional group to be a part of. Whiteness was used as a social order in the Rwanda massacre. The "whiter" Tutsi were supported by the British and French to oversee the counties and they oppressed at times the "blacker" Hutu. The Hutu then over reacted and when their president died, went nuts. It's a dysfunctional social order as far as I am concerned. Slavs and now central Asians are going to be added in. Why not drop the whole "white" thing all together. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Addressing the Black experience in Asia, it's not sufficient to rely on "Africa" as the litmus. I do not think anyone in here is really aware of how a black asian sees the world. I do not see the white identity beind disconstructed in such a irreverent way, even though whiteness is more of a social order and does not seriously reflect an ethnic identity. I cannot conceive of a White cultural or social identity that exists as more than a social construct to reinforce a sense of superiority and seperation, especially from Black people. For many, white identity is synonymous with and considered to be a means to economic prosperity. And since this identity is excluded from African Americans and other Black people who openly identify themselves as such, it's important to respect the self-identity of those Black people in Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere, even if they are not technically black. Although I believe this angle is not cleared up yet (Black is still strongly African in it's foundation), the self-identity should not be diluted with empathsis on a European or Eurocentric origin. --208.254.174.148 08:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

A friendly suggestion to Zaph, assuming that you want to contribute to making this an informative article. You would be more persuasive if you initially focused on a specific case. Instead of simply repeating your belief that non-Africans are "black" in some way, pick just one population for now (Melanesians, say, since they "look black" to most Americans), and pick just one criterion of Blackness (socio-political self-identity, say, since you assert this). Write a few paragraphs to inform the reader on how, when, where, and why some Melanesians consider themselves to be "Black." Newspaper articles or political tracts might be good sources. This is just a suggestion. But if the consensus accepts those paragraphs as informative, you could then expand to other populations (Australian Aborigines, New Guineans) or to other criteria (appearance, say). -- Frank W Sweet 14:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is the copyright violations. It seems I cannot post a single thing from another website. I have to call every person that owns the website and I am not going to be doing all that. I would rather link to other sites with citation, but that also has been a problem! Explain, if i can link to Melanesian websites that clearly describe themselves as black, is there any reason it would be rejecetd? --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Black vs black

I believe a big problem with this is that we may have overlooked something. Earlier in the year, we discussed the problem of capitalizing "black" when referring to the group. IT seems that many people (non black especially) do not see blackness as anything more than a literal skin color. While many Black people see blackness as a cultural identity similar to being "arab" or "kurdish" or "Jewish". I hear a lot of disclaimer regarding black Asians which I think is not accurate. There are black asians, thats just how it is.

Sources of Asians by those same Asians claiming they identify as Black please.

Their skin is dark and this isn't about them being "jet black" or not. If a medium toned Italian is seriously considered to be white, then it's absurd to exclude medium toned asians from being black. In fact, the question arises, why would or should medium-toned people outside of Equatorial Africa be viewed as white anyway? --208.254.174.148 08:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Again you miss the point. Many people do not identify as Black or White. To categorize them as either without their belief in such is patronizing.

I think what we need to so is to understand the difference between identifying somoene as a black person (someone with black skin), and a Black person (someone who self identifies as black regardless of their skin color). At this point, some may disagree, but this is the part where those who disagree should, and need to actually talk to black people and find out. You should not unilaterally dictate what Black identity should and should not be.

Growing up in a Black family does not make you an expert on how all dark skinned people in the world identify, sorry.

The problem is the copyright violations. It seems I cannot post a single thing from another website. I have to call every person that owns the website and I am not going to be doing all that. I would rather link to other sites with citation, but that also has been a problem! Explain, if i can link to Melanesian websites that clearly describe themselves as black, is there any reason it would be rejecetd? --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You can always post links. That is an excuse.