Jump to content

Talk:African Americans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnthonyTheGamer (talk | contribs) at 20:48, 24 August 2012 (→‎Brown People On This African American Article: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Small typo

"Some of these were. Slavery, reconstruction, development of the African-American community, participation in the great military conflicts of the United States, racial segregation, and the Civil Rights Movement."

There should be no colon after "were". Could someone fix this?

Spanish pronunciation

The very last paragraph expands on pronunciation in Spanish and Portuguese: "In Latin America, negro, which translates as black is the term generally used to refer and describe black people and, similarly to mulatto, it is not considered offensive at all in these regions. However, it is pronounced differently, with the e (a mid front unrounded vowel in American Spanish: [ˈneɣɾo], and a close-mid front unrounded vowel in Brazilian Portuguese: [ˈneɡɾu]) being closer to a sound that it is intermediate between phonemes found in English words such as pay and egg (in Spanish) or day, city and item (in Portuguese)." It fails to mention, however, that in Spanish the -g- is also pronounced differently, although this is indirectly indicated in the IPA rendering ([ˈne'ɣɾo]).

Ridiculous

The whole episode of adding an admixture section and adding "partial ancestry" in the lead paragraph is ridiculous. What does that have to do with the cultural contributions AAs made and AA history other than slavery? Nothing. I say get rid of the admixture section and the "partial ancestry" words in the lead paragraph. Go to back where it was. B-Machine (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current version is pretty decent. I think the "at least partial" makes sense in the lede since just "ancestry" by itself is unclear. The admixture section, while poorly named imho, seems to do a pretty decent job of representing the diversity of african americans, although there is some material that could probably be moved into the miscegenation - united states article. This article is about a whole lot more than just cultural contributions. a13ean (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see why it should be added. I don't see people clamoring for an admixture section at the white American article. You think every white person in the U.S. is of 100% European descent? Why are some people so hellbent on adding an admixture section to this article? I have my ideas, but I won't share them because I could get blocked. I say it should be removed and never brought back along with the "partial ancestry" bit in the first paragraph. B-Machine (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's already there: White American#Admixture. Some people who consider themselves white are have non-european ancestors. Some people who consider themselves black and/or african american have non-african ancestors. What does this mean? Pretty much nothing. a13ean (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still say they should be removed. B-Machine (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there hasn't been a lot of activity here, you could start a WP:RFC to start and see what other editors think. a13ean (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ancestry and ethnic make-up, of ANY group, is important. African-Americans are a very highly mixed-race group, and it is clear to everyone else that this obviously needs to be mentioned in the article, just like any other mixed-race group such as Mestizo. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, you're wrong about AAs being highly mixed especially AAs don't really engage in interracial screwing. Second, you clearly have an agenda of trying to deblacken AA culture and history. Let me tell you something, jazz is black music, rock and roll is black music, hip-hop, blues, R & B, it's all black. No, some admixture from centuries ago don't belong here and I will make it a priority to have it removed. B-Machine (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you don't have consensus to eliminate the language concerning partial ancestry. Nobody agrees with you. I have restored the language. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IN COMBINATION According to the U.S. Census only 12.8% of Americans are Afroamerican. 13.6% adds "Afroamerican in combination", something which is excluded in the White American section of Wikipedia. Why?--79.156.196.252 (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT REQUEST OF 4 JULY 2012 : Add Gates' DNA PERCENTAGES to the "admixture" section

As it stands it just sounds like speculation when in fact there have been ample DNA studies. The contribution of Chinese Americans and Native Americans to the gene pool have been so negligable that I am surprised it is even mentioned here

EDIT REQUEST

RECOMMEND AFTER

"Harvard University historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr. wrote in 2009, "African Americans ... are a racially mixed or mulatto people—deeply and overwhelmingly so." [

ADD 

Henry Louis Gates summarizes recent genetic studies on African Americans as follows:

   58 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one great-grandparent);
   19.6 percent of African Americans have at least 25 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one grandparent);
   1 percent of African Americans have at least 50 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one parent); and
   5 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent Native American ancestry (equivalent to one great-grandparent).[3]


^ Gates, Henry Louis, Jr. In Search of Our Roots: How 19 Extraordinary African Americans Reclaimed Their Past, New York: Crown Publishing, 2009, pp.20-21.


You can qualify it with "

Due largely in part to rape of African American woman slaves in the antebellum era"

or leave it out, it doesn't matter. But the numbers SHOULD definitely be there. Numbers are important not just pure speculation and "Chinese blah blah blah" although that had less than 1 percent effect on the AA gene pool. Gates also summarize the Native American DNA but it was not very significant (although still traceable) the overwhelming impact on the AA gene pool after they were forced into the US was EUROPEAN due to rape and explotiation of slaves common throughout the New World (case in point brazil)

This is rather important, thanks. If you refuse please explain why as this is rather easily verifiable :) I know it makes white people feel bad but as an African immigrant the EYES DON'T LIE. and happily with DNA, we don't NEED EYES.

(as any african immigrant to the united states, such as myself, can see, african americans are definitely a "new people") It is nothing to be ashamed of. It is nothing to be proud of. It just is what it is. Keysbusyggh (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Here is also a good data http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091221212823.htm

"The rich mosaic of African-American ancestry. Among the 365 African-Americans in the study, individuals had as little as 1 percent West African ancestry and as much as 99 percent. There are significant implications for pharmacogenomic studies and assessment of disease risk. It appears that the range of genetic ancestry captured under the term African-American is extremely diverse, suggesting that caution should be used in prescribing treatment based on differential guidelines for African-Americans. A median proportion of European ancestry in African-Americans of 18.5 percent, with large variation among individuals. The predominately African origin of X chromosomes of African-Americans. This is consistent with the pattern of gene flow where mothers were mostly of African ancestry while fathers were either of African or European ancestry."

""We were also able to show that there is little genetic differentiation among African-Americans in the African portion of their ancestry, reflecting the fact that most African-Americans have ancestry from several regions of western Africa. The greatest variation among African-Americans is in their proportion of European ancestry, which has important implications for the design of personalized medical treatments." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keysbusyggh (talk • contribs) 20:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT REQUEST #2: African Americans' African Ancestry Ranges from 1 to 99 percent

You should also add:

African Americans, while still a socio-historically identifiable racial group vary widely in their relative percentages of African ancestry. One representative study of 365 self-identified African Americans found individuals with less than 1 percent West African ancestry to those with as much as 99 percent. Likewise, genetic studies have found little variation among African Americans in the source of their African ancestry due to intermarriage among African Americans from diverse African countries over time, but instead variation in terms of the percentage of European ancestry. This has great implications for the attempt to provide medical diagnoses for African Americans and demonstrates such attempts may be misguided at best without an understanding of the diversity in European ancestry within the African American community.


Here is also a good data http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091221212823.htm

"The rich mosaic of African-American ancestry. Among the 365 African-Americans in the study, individuals had as little as 1 percent West African ancestry and as much as 99 percent. There are significant implications for pharmacogenomic studies and assessment of disease risk. It appears that the range of genetic ancestry captured under the term African-American is extremely diverse, suggesting that caution should be used in prescribing treatment based on differential guidelines for African-Americans. A median proportion of European ancestry in African-Americans of 18.5 percent, with large variation among individuals. The predominately African origin of X chromosomes of African-Americans. This is consistent with the pattern of gene flow where mothers were mostly of African ancestry while fathers were either of African or European ancestry."

Keysbusyggh (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No African-American scientist?

There's no African-American scientist in here which I think is a significant omission. How about including Percy Julian in the gallery of pictures on the top right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashujo (talk • contribs) 11:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To discuss changes to the infobox, please visit Template talk:African American ethnicity. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Labeling African-Americans as an Ethnic Group

I looked over the wiki article, and it does not really define blacks in the US as an ethnic group as well as a race. I believe there should be more of that. As I am not a registered wiki editor, can someone else edit that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CEF9:D20:597E:B58:4190:3E01 (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"total or significant partial ancestry"

The article defines African Americans as Americans who have "total or significant partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa". Because of the One-drop rule, I don't think the word "significant" is appropriate. What do others think? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about you get rid of the word "partial"? It's ridiculous. B-Machine (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would leave all the qualifiers out:
"African Americans or African-American people[3] (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans, and formerly as American Negroes) are citizens or residents of the United States who have ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa."
Cut out was: "total or significant partial".
The definition is imprecise. "Total or significant partial" do not make it more precise. Bus stop (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with Bus stop's suggestion, but there was a recent discussion that resulted in a consensus to include "partial". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 2 August 2012

Please make an addition that the term African American although used to associate the black people in the US is really incorrect. In order to be truly African American one must immigrate from Africa to the US. The black population that has been born on US soil are simply Americans. 50.142.46.85 (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. FloBo A boat that can float! 13:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Africa is a continent, not a country. B-Machine (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with FloBo that a source would be needed to support the requested change. Bus stop (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

President Obama in intro

Obama became the 44th President in *2009* or he was *elected* the 44th President in 2008. The wording should be changed to one way or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.199.71.168 (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed.TMCk (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brown People On This African American Article

Why are there brown people on this article? On http://www.dictionary.com/ it reads that African American means black people of African descent. Beyonce Knowles, Rosa Parks, Condoleezza Rice, Malcolm X, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michelle Obama are not black, they are brown and especially Barack Obama who is biracial. Racial stereotype reads that all dark skinned people are black which is not true. AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_Americans&oldid=508987776"