Talk:Mulatto

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mulatto article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Barack Obama?

An editor has twice recently placed a photo of Pres. Barack Obama on this page, and another editor has twice removed it. There should be debate.

Clearly, Pres. Obama fits the definition of mulatto, in that he is the child of an African father and a Euro-American mother. The question, however, is whether mulatto is an appropriate term to use of any modern person, or whether it should be consigned to history? I am of the latter opinion, except in the case of the rare modern person who voluntarily describes him- or herself by that term. Persons of mixed race who describe themselves as mulattoes are of course entitled to do so; but I don't think they're entitled publicly to call anybody else by that term. Pres. Obama is not known to refer to himself publicly as a mulatto. To identify him as such here would reflect an unencyclopedic POV, which many readers would assume to be racist. I therefore oppose putting Pres. Obama's picture on this page. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I stand with you in this quite firmly, J D, without the slightest need for a crutch.

Wordsmith (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree but not for the reason you state. While he acknowledges being mixed race, he explicitly identifies as black and not as mixed race. Therefore it's not appropriate to put his picture. As far as the term itself being offensive, I don't take it so, it's in the nature of American English or maybe English generally. I don't like "gay" and would much prefer homosexual which is used in some countries (nederlands, germany). It's pointless to obsess on trivial stuff when essential matters are not being addressed. Lycurgus (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion someone doesn't have to state to be something if he is something. This is encyclopdia where controversial sections (not saying that this truly is) can be made about a person; it's called editing without biases even if its not in favor of the subject being said. He has a white (European descended) mother and a black (African) father so it qualifies as being a mulatto period. From 1850-1930, the mulatto was a seperate category in the census. [1] However, they used "half-breed" along with it, which is racist in my opinion. With that being said, it is only in the US where you would find the word mulatto to be thought of as negative. In Haiti, for example it is used extensively and often refered to the wealthy minority. Historically, the "mulattoes" of Saint-Domingue (Haiti) were among the richest in the all of the New World. All words come from somewhere; the word "gay" at one time meant happy. Words change. But I suppose "other" and "mixed" are more appropriate methods of categorization. (sarcasism). Furthermore, these caregories can equate to combinations not specfic to "black" and "white." Savvyjack23 (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agree he is the thing referred to, and if it were not for the fact that he had gone to such great pains to establish himself as black rather than mixed race, a choice all of us in his position have had to make, then I would agree he would be a good choice for the picture. In my family my mother and father were not the only black-white couple, just the first. None of the children of these marriages identifies as anything other than mixed and that is pretty common as is the choice the president made. If a picture is going to be put up, it should be someone who identifies with the label. As far as it being derogatory, it does compare a human to a mule but there's no other term of that specificity in English. For a long time I've answered "black and white" which in the past would produce puzzlement but today does not. People still don't in general deal well with anything presented in too stark or matter of fact a way and like it or not this is the word we have so ... . Pardo would be great if we could introduce that in English :) Lycurgus (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, this has gone round and round here, and right now we have an iconoclastic situation for the English term and I'm good with this. At one time there was a thumbnail gallery like for other ethnicities/racial groups but that's gone or moved now. Funny that the subject of this thread is here. Lycurgus (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Currently the Spanish article has replaced the image of Obama, was still there as of the 5th of last month. Lycurgus (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure citation 55 is worthy

I could say "forget that everyone already knows that the moon landing is a hoax", it doesn't really mean anything. Seems more like a logical fallacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creepyinfant (talk • contribs) 21:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mulatto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080624204524/http://www.kacike.org/MartinezEnglish.pdf to http://www.kacike.org/MartinezEnglish.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I have checked the archive link and it works. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

South Africa

@Fifi stahlman:'s additions regarding South Africa appear to be valuable, but they need more specific citation. For example, any attribution of purpose or intention behind an action (such as ". . . the aim of subdivisions was to enhance the meaning of the larger category of Coloured by making it all encompassing;") ought to have its own reference to a particular statement in the source.

More important, fifi stahlman's only source is Palmer (2015), which she or he cites three times, without ever citing a specific page in the book. That makes it unreasonably burdensome for readers who want to verify the article's assertions. All articles have to be verifiable, so references should specify the page or other exact location in which the material relied on is to be found. I respectfully ask that fifi stahlman kindly improve the references in the material he or she has added. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• I was wondering just how much the edition has to do with this article and the term "Mulatto". In fact, the whole section seems to be about other terms and the history of race relations in South Africa, instead about the subject of the article. But I did think the information was interesting, so decided to let others decide. Just my 2 cents. Dave Dial (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point. Is this article about mixed-race persons in general, or mixed-race persons with African ancestry in general, or is it specifically about persons and groups historically referred to as "mulattoes"? There's already an article, "Multiracial", which makes me think that this article's focus should be narrower. From that perspective, there's probably a good bit of material in this article that belongs in (and perhaps duplicates) the other. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yea, I think this article is supposed to be more about the term, Mulatto. Most of the things you are referring to probably belong in the Multiracial article. It makes more sense that way, I believe. It could be that I am being too Americancentric, but I don't know if other English language countries use the term as an acceptable use for multiracial any more than Americans do. Seems outdated and offensive in most english speaking countries, though I know many South Americans look at it differently. Dave Dial (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you're being Amerocentric at all. The article does seem to replicate information from the identifiable 'multiracial' WP:COMMONNAME in Anglophone countries (not just the US). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thorough revision needed!

@Dom Kaos: made some deletions today of matter that, while unsourced, was apparently credible and should not have been deleted, in my opinion, but simply tagged with "citation needed". I started to revert the deletions, but, honestly! The whole article is such a mess that I can't really say whether or not the deleted matter ought to be in there or not. As the previous thread ("South Africa") suggests, this article contains a good deal of information that belongs rather in the article, Multiracial. Most of the material in the section, "Africa", seems to belong in an article on racial classification and identification in South Africa, not here. Moreover, nearly half of the section, "Latin America and the Caribbean", is about the United States, which is not usually regarded as belonging to either of those regions, and which has its own section, further down.

Clearly, the article needs a complete overhaul.

To that end, the first thing that needs to be done, in my view, is for us (or whoever is going to revise the article) to decide on what the article is about. Although I am not very learned on this subject, I'll make so bold as to offer a few thoughts on that, in hopes that others, better informed, will take up the discussion:

1. Whatever this article may be about, it is not, I think we can all agree, about mixed-race persons, or multi-ethnic cultures, in general. We already have "Multiracial", and presumably other, culture-specific articles, for those topics.
2. This is English Wikipedia, and although it must maintain a global perspective, it should not attempt to define English terms by their cognates or analogues in other languages, or to explicate concepts in Anglo-American law according to the laws of other societies.
3. Historically, mulatto is a salient term and a legal concept in the English-speaking tradition, having to do with the offspring and descendants of unions (of whatever character) between persons of European (mainly English) extraction and African (mainly or, as far as I know, entirely sub-Saharan) extraction.
4. The term is no longer salient in any English-speaking society at any level, and it's inappropriate to refer to modern-day persons of mixed race as "mulattoes", even if the Spanish, Portuguese, French, Creole, etc., cognates of that term are still current and inoffensive in other countries. In my opinion the article should have nothing to say about modern-day persons of mixed race. (See point 1, above.)
5. Every one of the Thirteen Colonies, I'm pretty sure, passed numerous laws regarding "mulattoes" (usually in the context of "negroes, mulattoes, and Indians" and usually with the intent of restricting their conduct or licensing some abuse of them). I assume England also had laws concerning "mulattoes".
6. Some, and maybe all, of the American colonies, and then States, made certain legal or social, or both, distinctions between "negroes" (sometimes called "blacks") and "mulattoes" (sometimes called "colored"), generally, I believe, in favor of the latter.
7. Louisiana had a multi-tiered system of racial classification, under which I gather rights and privileges increased with the percentage of "white blood".
8. The other slaveholding States (and, I presume, all the Colonies) had a legally-defined class of "free persons of color". It would be interesting to know whether the status of members of this class varied in any way according to the perceived or documented ratio of white to black ancestry.
9. The article could profitably examine the legal and social distinctions made in those societies between whites and "mulattoes", on one hand, and between blacks and "mulattoes" on the other.

This should be enough to start a discussion, and I'm out of time for today. Please add your thoughts. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 22:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

South Slavic Countries (Former Yugoslavia)

South Slavic nations use the term all the time to describe so that should be mentioned. I also clearly remember one elementary school textbook that taught us about different races, tolerance, mixed marriages etc. That's where I read the word "mulattio" for the first time, along with other terms for children of mixed couples. It is used in everyday life by some of the most liberal people I know. "Children of mixed marriage" is a broad expression and it can mean anything-from mixed race to couples of different nationalities or even religion. So it's not used for "multiracials" when you want to be more clear. Reading this article came as a surprise to me.... does the rest of the english-speaking world avoid that term or only USA? I believe this only applies to North America, so that should be made more clear.