Talk:Black people/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12

Let this article be hereby known by the title of Bleople

I propose we contract the title article to Bleople and start a new trend. Let us make linguistic history--Cupidon 14:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not. — Matt Crypto 15:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit that bleople might be a useful term in the future, once we have decided that "colored", "negro", "black", "Afro American", "african American", and assorted other names are too old fashioned and too associated with negative connotations to use. But this venue is not the proper place to try to introduce it.--Filll 15:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Or just stick to calling people by their ethnic group names; Fulani, Zulu, Baganda, Oromo, Koori etc. African Americans have mostly lost the connection to their African tribal origins, but seem content with that epithet "African Americans", so why not keep it. In any case lets not add another word to the already existing, more or less colourful (pun intended) bouquets of neologisms (ie. Blasian). --Ezeu 17:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I am being slightly sarcastic. EVERY term will probably eventually become freighted with negative connotations and therefore need to be replaced. So there is a constant need for new terms that are politically correct.--Filll 18:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Well for the record I think it is just as offensive to be called White. I don't think in terms of colours. People are people, I don't think the fact that I can be "classified" as "white" says anything important about me, the only thing you would know about me was the colour of my skin and that my ancestors were probably from Europe. So the best name for the article would be "People" actually, and everyone can go in there. Alun 18:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, "People" may be pure, simple and all inclussive, but unfortunately it is not a sufficient and plausible classification, as people need to belong to, and self identify with specific groups. The problem, as exemplied by the arguments on this page, is that epithets delineating homogeneity are sometimes ambiguous, and when they are claimed by several groups, it gets messy. The epithet "Black" for example, is also used to describe peoples with ancestry other than African, but this article effectively denies this reality, because individuals within the group with most leverage (especially those individuals with a limited worldview) is able to dictate the conditions of its usage .--Ezeu 19:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Obviously the suggestion of using the term "people" was meant as a tongue-in-cheek joke. The ambiguity and disagreements are what are driving the conflict on the talk page. But the article is about a diversity and nonuniformity of opinions, which is clearly accurate, and this article can accommodate the wide variety of views that exist. In fact, I would like to have more in the article. --Filll 20:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems every other group gets to have a word to describe themselves except those of African ancestry. Europeans don't have to share the word "White" with Northern Chinese even though Northern Chinese have whiter skin. But African-Americans are being asked to share the word black with Australian aboriginals just because the early White settlers thought the the natives they were killing off looked like Africans. Well African-Americans want a right to our own unique global ethnic identity. We want the right to group ourselves based on our bond with our brothers and sisters in Africa. We don't want to see the name diluted to include people we have no genetic or historical relationship with us, and Australian aboriginals don't want to be confused with Africans either (they are proud to be the natives of Australia). The fact that Australian aboriginals were called black is a mistake of history that most people no longer recognize. So if you want us to call Australian aboriginals black, then what are people of African ancestry supposed to call ourselves to describe our African ethnicity. African-American? I don't live in America. African? I don't live in Africa ether? Nigger? WOULD YOU LIKE US TO CALL OURSELVES NIGGERS??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!! Kobrakid 20:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please try to contain yourself. If you are from country X, and you are of African origin, what is wrong with African-X? Good heavens. Or maybe you are trying to make some kind of joke, like many people on this page. --Filll 20:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't tell Black people what to call ourselves. It's not our fault a few rednecks in Australia can't tell the difference between Africans and Australian aboriginals. Why don't you just stop lumping all dark skinned people into one category, as all prejudice people do. Kobrakid 20:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not care. You can do whatever you want. But the problem is, people who are black or who self identify as black or who are of recent African ancestry do not agree with each other about any of these issues. At all. You think they do? Are you paying attention AT ALL???--Filll 18:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
And hyphenating my African ancestry with my country of citizenship further isolates me from my brothers and sisters in Africa. I don't want to be isolated. We are the same race. Why don't you call Austrtalian aboriginals white. They're genetically closer to whites than they are to me, but heaven forbid we disrupt the purity of the White race by allowing in a group of dark skinned natives. But it's okay to violate the purity of the African ancestry people (see I don't even a word to call us thanks to people like you). Kobrakid 20:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok make up a word. I do not care. Use Bleople for us people of color. Let's reclaim another racist term like jigaboo or jungle bunny or porch monkey or some other slur someone lumped on us. This is so stupid. I did not steal your name. You do not agree with other dark skinned peoples, or even other African Americans or even others of African descent. Do not blame me or other blacks or whites around you or whites 500 years ago or whites 2000 years ago. That is too easy to say that it is all the white man's fault. Always someone else's fault. Those unfair Aborigines. Those awful Europeans. Those ugly Arabs. What a crock.--Filll 21:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
No, the people I blame are the people right here on this board who are telling my people we don't own the word. I don't blame the rest of the world, because the rest of the world agrees with me. It's wikipedians who are trying to distort reality and redefine ethnic boundaries Kobrakid 04:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
So the rest of the world agrees with you, huh? Well we had several African people on this page who were extremely angry at African Americans wanting to call African people "black". There were huge fights. Check the fights. I do not think they all agree with you, for example. They just think it is another example of obnoxious pushy arrogant African Americans. And if everyone agreed with you, this article would already be written the way you want it. And we have plenty of quotes of others who disagree with you in the article. I saw many other editors making the same claim as you, that the whole world agreed with them, and that the term black applied to everyone around the planet, in spite of evidence to the contrary. They also used the same charges as you, that everyone who disagreed with them was racist or not a true black. All it proves to me is what I said before: NO ONE AGREES ON WHAT IS A BLACK PERSON. --Filll 06:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Be black. Who is denying you the right to be black?. How does anyone else's blacknes reduce your blacknes? On the contrary, your insistence that other people's blackness deprives you of your own blackness is paranoid, and an affirmation of an inferiority complex. And please do not throw the appellation "Afrocentric" in my face anymore. If anything you are the Afrocentric by claiming that black is a term excusive to black Africans (except apparently Ethiopians). And also I am sick and tired of you alleging that one is an "insecure black", or a white supremacist - because they disagree with you. --Ezeu 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the race card always get played in these discussions. Someone all of a sudden decides that if others do not agree with them, even if they are fellow people of color or other people of African descent, they must be racist. I get tired of so many racist charges being thrown. It is like the complaints that someone is an Oreo. It is just pure nonsense.--Filll 21:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not playing the race card and I find that term offensive. It's just a way of dismissing the honest concerns of people of recent sub-Saharan African ancestry (still no word to call ourselves) Kobrakid 21:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
What term do you find offensive? Black? African American? Afrocentric? Race card? Race? Oreo? Be clear if you want to debate.--Filll 22:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You are obstructing peoples of African ancestry to unite under the term black by robbing it of any meaning. You are destroying the group cohesion of the African ethnicity by diluting the most common term we unite under. Sub-Saharans Africans and their descendents around the globe feel a unique kinship with one another and have an intimate bond and we would like to use the word black to describe it if it's okay with you. We don't want the beautiful meaning of the word destroyed by watering it down to the point that any dark skinned person can claim blackness. The light skinned races of the world don't have to share one identity (Orientals are Orientals and Whites are Whites). But people feel the need to lump all the dark skinned groups together under the label black. The mentality seems to be "Oh they're all just dark skinned savages so why bother to make distinctions". Well peoples of African ancestry have no relationship at all to Australian aboriginals, so trying to categorize us both in to the same ethnicity because we share a similar skin tone, is not only offensive, it's stupid. You seem to be saying that people of African ancestry are not entitled to their own global African identity. We must either adopt separate ethnic labels (African American, African British) but if we to use a global term like Black, you're trying to force us to include groups like Australian aboriginals who have no relationship to us. How humiliating for people of African ancestry that we're the only ethnicity on Earth that gets so little respect that people try to deny us a term by which to call ourselves. No wonder the hip-hop community keeps using the word nigger. It seems to be the only global identity we're allowed. Kobrakid 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Black is not an ethnicity. Refrain from lumping Africans into your perception of reality. We do not need, and have neer needed your flawed advocacy. And please keep your hip-hop, nigger etc. allusions out of our face. --Ezeu 22:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Black is indeed an ethnicity, and one I am proud to belong to and don't appreciate you diluting. To those of us who are proud of our unique African ancestry, Black = African ethnicity, and we'd appreciate if you'd strop throwing your Australian aboriginals in our face. And btw, Australian aboriginals don't need your flawed advocacy. They're proud of their unique identity too Kobrakid 03:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Black is an ethnicity only in the American psyche, because black Americans have no other ethnicity to refer to. Africans in Africa who are the majority of blacks do not use the term "black" as an ethnicity, because the are well rootet in their own ethnic cultures and have no need for substitute terms. --Ezeu 06:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you even know the history of the word in the US? It was not always preferred. It was chosen by African Americans themselves to replace older terms that seemed archaic, and had too many negative connotations associated with them. And it fell out of favor a bit, like all these terms do, when it too developed negative connotations, in the 1970s (it is interesting to contemplate WHY it fell out of favor. Maybe it had something to do with what was in the news at the time? Hmm...) That is why the term "Afro American" was coined, just before it was replaced by "African American". Black replaced Negro (as in United Negro College Fund) which replaced Colored (as in NAACP). I am not diluting your term. It was diluted before "you" chose it. I do not think you are old enough to have been part of the group who "chose" it in the 1960s. You can define it as recent African ancestry if you like, but you have to know that this is not uniformly accepted arond the world. And this encyclopedia is for the whole world, not just the US. Sorry if that offends your provincial viewpoints. For example, South Asians are typically called "black" in England. Did you know that? This has been true for a long long time. Since before the US existed, possibly. I am not throwing the Aborigines in your face. But I am not going to deny they exist. And you cannot either. There are other dark skinned people in the rest of the world, no matter how that hurts your personal feelings. And how dark are you anyway? If you are like most African Americans, you probably might be viewed as very light skinned in many societies. Maybe not even of true African descent. I am not advocating anything special for Aborigines. You think that noting that they are called black in their native land by Europeans (which they are) is somehow advocating for them? What sort of warped reality is this? Wow--Filll 04:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't ask people of African ancestry how dark they are. An African-American with light skin, blue eyes, and 3 White grandparents is infinitely blacker than the darkest skinned 100% pure Australian aboriginal. Why? Because being black has NOTHING, ZERO, ZIP to do with color. It has EVERYTHING to do with African ancestry. I could be greener than the incredible hulk, whiter than the winter snow, but I'll always be BLACK because my ancestors stayed in Mother Africa while the rest of humanity abandoned it. I couldn't care less what they do in England. First of all, England just does whatever America tells it to do, and that's why the British census does not recognize South Asians as black. It's against British law for South Asians to self-identify as black on the census regardless of what the ignorant commoners may call them. Australian aboriginals are not black on the Australian census. The term black came out of the civil rights movement. It may not be a perfect word, but it's the only word people of recent sub-Saharan ancestry have to describe our ethnicity on a global scale, and I'll be damned if I surrender it to a few Australian red necks who mistook their natives for Africans. Kobrakid 04:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And why should I not ask a person of African ancestry how dark they are? Because this is a source of internal tension in the "black" community. Well, well. Isn't that interesting? Just like American blacks brand each other as high yellow or cafe au lait or oreos etc. Obsessed with tiny variations of color. However, I am glad to see we agree on something, namely:

An African-American with light skin, blue eyes, and 3 White grandparents is infinitely blacker than the darkest skinned 100% pure Australian aboriginal. Why? Because being black has NOTHING, ZERO, ZIP to do with color.

It is a social construct. It often has very little to do with color. I agree completely. However, you make some other very strange statements:

I couldn't care less what they do in England. First of all, England just does whatever America tells it to do, and that's why the British census does not recognize South Asians as black.

Well you should care what they do in the UK because WIKIPEDIA IS NOT ONLY FOR ThE USA. Do you understand that this is a global enterprise? You can hold your breath until you turn blue, but it is not for the US only. So give it up. And that is one of the most inflammatory statements I have ever heard, that the UK does just what the US tells them to do. Also, have you ever looked at the UK census rules? Well I have. The categories in 2001 were:

  • A White. Tick box options of: British; Irish or Any other White background (please write in).
  • B Mixed. Tick box options of: White and Black Caribbean; White and Black African; White and Asian or any other Mixed background (please write in).
  • C Asian or Asian British. Tick box options of: Indian; Pakistani; Bangladeshi; Any other Asian background (please write in).
  • D Black or Black British. Tick box options of: Caribbean; African; Any other Black background (please write in).
  • E Chinese or other ethnic group. Tick box options of: Chinese; Any other (please write in).

And guess what? In the UK, you can be Caribbean black, African black or other kinds of black. And guess what people chose in 2001? About 665,000 chose Caribbean black, about 544,000 chose African black and about 121,000 chose other kinds of black. So it does not sound like your claims are that accurate, once again. However, typical usage in the media and by the police and other government agencies, including the general public is to use black to refer to south Asians. You also state that

It's against British law for South Asians to self-identify as black on the census regardless of what the ignorant commoners may call them.

Oh so there is a serious penalty for a South Asian to call themselves black? I guess that explains why 390,000 people in the UK claimed they had a religion of "Jedi Knight". And it is against the law with serious penalties for an Asian to call themselves black, the same serious lawbreaking I would be engaged in if I misidentified myself on the US census? Have you looked at the Australian Census rules? They have done a lot of fine tuning, removing the use of the words "race" or "racial" to try to avoid offending anyone, and finding that this produced much better compliance. Also, you would not be called "black" or even African under Australian Census rules, but lumped in with other Americans and Canadians, according to their rules published in 2000. Hmmm...Also, it sounds pretty elitist and obnoxious for you to call people that disagree with you "ignorant commoners" and "redneck Australians". Not much different than you playing the race card against people that dare to disagree with you. The term "black" or its equivalent in other languages has been around a long time. For example, H. Imbert, a French anthropologist reported:

"In the earliest Chinese history, several texts in classic books spoke of these diminutive blacks; thus the Tcheu-Li composed under the dynasty of Tcheu (1122-249 B. C.) gives a description of the inhabitants with black and oily skin…The Prince Liu-Nan, who died in 122 B.C., speaks of a kingdom of diminutive blacks in the southwest of China.".

Some speculate that there were blacks in Japan before the Japanese arrived from Korea. There is a Japanese proverb which states: "For a Samurai to be brave, he must have a bit of Black blood." Another recording of the proverb is: "Half the blood in one's veins must be Black to make a good Samurai." It is fine that a few African Americans decided they would use the word "black" because they were tired of "negro" and "colored". But I notice that they did not change the names of the NAACP and the United Negro College Fund.--Filll 05:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

How am I obstructing people of African ancestry to unite under the term black? What did "I" do? I did not write hardly any of the article, except for making a few minor attempts to try to turn the language into something that more closely resembles English, since this is the English version of Wikipedia. It might be nice to have an Ebonics version of Wikipedia, or a Pidgin English version of Wikipedia, as was suggested earlier by OJPimp'son. And maybe eventually these will exist. I do not know. But there are people, including people of African descent, and African Americans and people who are pushing for global black pride and global black consciousness who want to include other dark skinned people in the word black. And some of those people self-identified as black, sometimes long before the popular use of the word black in the US in the 1960s. Or were called black by others, such as the "negritos" and other dark-skinned people that predated the Chinese in China and Taiwan. If you want to have a very restricted definition of what black means, maybe you should try to write your own page with your own definition and keep it from getting deleted. Because that is not what this page is about. This page is about the fact that NO ONE AGREES ON WHAT A BLACK PERSON IS. Not white people. Not asian people. Not black people. Not African Americans. Not African people. Not people in the past. Not people currently. Not scientists. Not black supremacists. Not black pride people. Not black muslims. Not black racists. Not politically correct liberals. Not governments. Not white racists. Not white supremacists. Nobody. If you want a different theme, write a different article. You can write your own definition that is very restrictive of your own group, and call it "People of subSaharan Ancestry who do not want to let others into their special club and are proud of it" or something like that. You can even call yourselves black* or something like that. But sorry, you cannot appropriate the term black for yourselves and your group because you do not own it, and you never owned it, and history demonstrates that very effectively.--Filll 22:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh utter nonsense. Everyone who counts agrees that Black = African ethnicity. Look at the U.S. census, look at the British census, look at the biological definitions of black. I couldn't care less if a few racist explorers said "hey those native South East Asians sure look like little niggers, lets call them negritoes." I also couldn't care less if a bunch of Australian rednecks had so little respect for the native people that they called them black because they were too ignorant to distinguish them from Africans. I also couldn't care less if a few self-hating African ancestry people are so desperate to lump themselves in with a non-African group that they're trying to popularize this all inclusive mindless definition of black. We African ancestry people own the word black if we claim it, and we have official government census, the founders of anthropology, and modern DNA studies to back us up! Kobrakid 03:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Everyone who counts huh? So Australia does not count? The Philippine people with the use of the word Aeta do not count? The Chinese with the Semang do not count? Both of these last two predate the existence of the US and were even well before Columbus, it appears. You seem to be a bit ignorant of history and geography, but I would expect this from someone of American background. And so you have decided that 100 years ago Australians should have known that you would decide to claim the word black for your personal exclusive use to refer to people of a particular origin from a particular part of Africa? And how were they supposed to know that? And I guess you have not canvassed other Black Consciousness people here on this talk page and in many Black Studies departments in US Universitites that want to talk about Universal Black Consciousness Raising. Just look at some of the proposed versions of this article from some of them. Do not argue with me. Argue with them. But it just proves my point: NO ONE AGREES. I also was not aware that the modern DNA studies "proved" that ALL PEOPLE EVER CALLED BLACKS HAD ANCESTORS WHO CAME RECENTLY FROM AFRICA. I also was not aware that this was one of the tenets of the founders of anthropology, who obviously stated that IT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT BLACK CAN ONLY BE APPLIED TO PEOPLE WiTH RECENT ANCESTORS FROM AFRICA. Wow what an interesting revelation (this is sarcastic in case you cannot tell). And why does the US Census Bureau definitions prove anything to you? Why are they more substantial than the UK Census Bureau, or some other country's Census Bureau, or some other government departments? You seem pretty desperate to claim that word for your own and erase history and current reality in the process.--Filll 04:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Australians used the word based on ignorance. They actually believed at the time that Australian aboriginals and Africans were part of the same race. It was never a formal classification, just informal ignorance. It's like the racists who call Arabs sand niggers. So by your logioc Arabs should be black cause well someone said it. As for the aeta, there's no proof that ther term means black. Some have SPECULATED that the term comes from a root word that means black in tagalog but it's only speculation. Modern DNA studies prove that sub-Saharan Africans define a unique race totally different from Australian aboriginals, and people who speak of blacks in a biological context use the term exclusively to refer to Africans. It has no other biological meaning because the other groups mistaken for blacks have no genetic connection to Africans beyond the basic connection all humans share. And the U.S. census AND the U.K census agree that Black = African. And the founders of anthropology equated black with African. Have you not even read the intro to the article. I don't have to erase history. I actually know history. Kobrakid 04:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
That is because you prefer your own definition that black refers only to a "race" of Africans. Black is much more than that, and irespective of how many times you bring up your beloved U.S. census, that is a fact you will never eliminate. No one has ever claimed that Australian aboriginals are Africans, but that they are black. It seems you have to obfuscate the issue in order to make your point. --Ezeu 06:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
As I stated above, the UK census does not equate BLACK and African. This is just some desperate claim you are making. It is not true. I looked it up. And the details are copied above. Why are you so frantic to set SubSaharan Africans or even SubSaharan WEST Africans apart from the rest of humanity, and claim the name black exclusively for them, even when many of them who were on this page objected to it being applied to them? To them, it was just more evidence of obnoxious American imperialism. A little like American blacks who went back to Liberia and acted like complete jerks to the Africans living there. It is still going on even now, well over a hundred years later, I notice. Arrogant African Americans expressing animosity and worse to their dear African "brothers". And I am not sure that the US census use of the term is anything more than an attempt to keep African Americans from exploding in rage over something, like they do about just about anything. They have not kept up with changing times, to rename the category more politically correct, because they are a big slow stupid government bureaucracy. And I am not aware of "black" being a current biological term. In fact, it sounds like nonsense to me. Show me a reference to a biology textbook with that as a formal definition. And what on earth does the genetic distance between Aborigines and SubSaharan Africans have to do with anything? So what? I don't care. And no one should. This is just more evidence of how complicated the history of the human race is. From a Stanford University website on the history of South Asia, there is a nice bit of history of the nation of Funan about 2000 years ago. It is noted that
Funan had a Malay upper class, but most of the population was Negrito. A Chinese ambassador was offended by Negritos who were "ugly and black" with frizzy hair, who walked around naked.
It is also noted on this Stanford University site that the Indian Kerala region at the formation of Israel had both "black Jews" and "brown Jews" who moved to Israel between 1948 and 1955. These black and brown Jews moved to Israel where they are now known as Cochini Jews. I have found MANY MANY examples of people being called black by others for the color of their skin for hundreds of years. Not just white crackers. Not just ignorant Australians. Not just Europeans. Not just people aping the arrogant African American Black Pride clowns. If we threw all that other stuff out, there would be NO REASON for this article to even exist, since there is already an article on African Americans. You want to shoot your mouth off about your crazy racial theories? Go and do it at that article. However, I am not sure you will get too far because there are African American Black pride people who have a much more inclusive agenda than your restrictive elitist viewpoint. And they are just as skilled as you at using the race card constantly at people who do not agree with them, like all African Americans. Only problem is, you do not agree with them.--Filll 06:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, I do not think that the hip hop community or rap community grabbed the word "nigger" because the awful white man would not let them have their own name (after all, who used the word nigger more often before? ). It is meant to shock and garner attention, like the homosexuals using the words "gay", "queer" and "faggot" to refer to themselves, or feminists and lesbians using the words "dyke" and "bitch" and "cunt" to refer to themselves. The rap community after all likes to talk about cop killing, and pimping, and call their women "bitches and hos" and use the phrase "mo-fo" all the time for the same reason. They are choosing the most powerful shocking words they can think of to get attention. And to a certain extent, it works.--Filll 22:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Purity of African ancestry people

From Kobrakid: But it's okay to violate the purity of the African ancestry people
What the heck does THIS mean? How "pure" do you think the "African ancestry people" are? Starts to sound a little bit like the pure Aryan race of the Nazis. Or like that great quote from Dr. Strangelove, about the

international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
--Filll 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparing other editors to nazis. That's a real sign of intelligence Fill. Yup, you're really interested in maintaining an intellectually honest civil debate. So not only have my people been subject to far more opression than any other group, but now we're being compared to some of the worst oppressors of all, and all because we want the same right to a unique global ethnicty that every other ethnic group on earth has. You take the term "pure" out of context and try to call me a nazi. Your cheap political tricks don't scare me. BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Kobrakid 21:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why always compare racists to Nazis, the true and actual menace continues to be the Communists, i.e. Castro, Chavez, Morales, Zapatero, etc...The fact that Communists are less racist means they are only more dangerous cause it makes their spread and acceptance more possible (though it is ironic to be sure).--Cupidon 22:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am definitely being sarcastic here. My comments were definitely meant to highlight the irony of the situation, with someone claiming that his "race" is "pure" somehow, whatever that means. I do not claim that Kobrakid is a Nazi. After all, it is not necessary to brand people as Nazis when we have had some people that really claimed to espouse Fascist and Nazi goals here on the page, and were proud of it, although we do not seem to have heard from them lately since one of their group was banned from contributing. But racial purity arguments really reek, for the reasons I stated. Others who want to get so worked up about racial purity have not had the best of intentions. So I do not think you will find this a very fruitful line of argument, if you want to pursue it. But be my guest, if you want to find out where it will lead. Proclaim yourself as championing the interests of Black Racial Purity. Maybe you can even start a new page about this? I would be glad to help you if you need help. Kubrick was making a wisecrack to demonstrate how stupid statements about purity were in his Strangelove film, which is why it is such a well-remembered quote. It demonstrates how ludicrous these kinds of claims are. So tell me Kobrakid, since I seem to be so stupid that I misunderstood, what do you mean when you talk about "black racial purity"? Explain yourself and enlighten the rest of us uneducated unwashed masses.--Filll 22:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fill that test proves NOTHING

I just took that race test you provided. It was fun and entertaining but not particularly relevant. The photos they asked us to classify were not randomly selected. It's very easy to find exceptions to a general rule and then conclude that the rule is not valid, but you could use such faulty logic to disprove anything. The people they selected for that test were selected BECAUSE they are hard to classify. It wasn't a random sample. If I took a photo of the first 20 people who walked into a shopping mall and then asked each one what their race is, and then created a test on-line, I guarantee people would score close to 100% on my test. Why? Because my test would be based on a random selection of people. I would not be selecting the most hard to classify, most racially ambiguous people I could find, just to make a point. The people in the test you cited represent probably less than 1% of the population. The vast majority of us are very easy to classify Kobrakid

Of course that is not a random sample. Of course they were chosen to be hard to classify. The point is, people like that exist. I have met many in my life. I do not care if 1% of the population is hard to classify or 0.1% or 10% (although I suspect it is higher than that, because I have personally met several people like this). The point is, our cherished idea that we can always tell others of another race is wrong. Even if it is in a minority of cases. I have seen pictures of Berbers that look awfully white to me. I would not have a clue that they were not regular white people of European extraction. I have seen many "black" models that I would not have known if they were African American unless they told me. Colin Powell looks a heck of a lot whiter than most Italians I know, and a fair number of white members of my family. Ask most Japanese, and they claim that it is obvious that Koreans look nothing like them, but genetic tests and reality demonstrate that this is not at all true. The autochthonous people of Japan, the Ainu look awfully European, but genetically they are quite distant. Although the Lemba (who look just like a Bushman tribe) look far less Jewish than the average white Italian, they are in fact far closer genetically by some measures. Kennewick man appears to demonstrate that Caucasians were present in the Americas 10,000 years ago. The indigenous people of the Arctic are all supposed to be darker skinned, but the Saami do not fit this model. The point is, things are more complicated and ambiguous and contradictory than we want to believe with our nice neat models. There are counterexamples. There are intermediate cases. Our racial groups are not discrete and well-separated. It is naive to believe that things are so nice and neat, the way the Klu Klux Klan claims, and the way Black Pride activists want to claim. Sure one can tell some people by their looks. But it is not quite that simple, and to claim it is, is to be mired in the past, and sort of wishful thinking. --Filll 04:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Fill all you are saying is the totally obvious point that human races blend into each other. But this is true of ALL biological classifications and proves absolutely nothing. The existence of intermediates like Lemas, Ethiopians, and Blasians no more disproves the existence of race then the intermediate shades in a rainbow disprove the existence of color. The overwhelming majority of people can be racially classified just by looking at them and those racial classifications have exceedingly high correlations with actual DNA. Kobrakid 04:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I would beg to differ. It is more complicated than just saying they "blend into each other". But they do "blend into each other". A lot. That is the whole point of the "within group variance" and the "between group variance". And even if only a few percent are difficult to classify by looks alone, they still exist. Ever talk to one of them? Get their views on "race"? I suspect not. You cannot equate something discrete like the three types of cones on the back of the human retina with the far more complicated situation with genetics, in very high dimensional spaces and intermixed human populations. They are not even at all comparable. Sorry. And what is your purpose to divide people up into "races"? How many races should there be? 4? 6? 50? 100? It can be done of course. I can come up with some fairly complicated and detailed criteria to make some arbitrary division. And what is the purpose of this exercise? What is usually done is to do that to prove that one group or another is inferior and deserves to be treated more poorly than other groups. So what is your purpose? As I said above, one might have been able to make the case for possibly different medical treatments, but this window will soon be closing with individualized and far more accurate treatments in very short order. So it is basically of no value except for the purposes of discrimination, fighting for resources and spreading hatred.--Filll 05:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Those are moral arguments not scientific arguments. You have no scientific arguments. And if you feel classying people as black serves no purpose, then what purpose does this article serve? __Whatdoyou 00:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes there are both social aspects to this, and scientific aspects. I think this article be valuable for historic reasons, and for social reasons. It might have some importance in the history of science, and if people can ever stop fighting so much, we might get a bit more modern science into it as well.--Filll 18:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


So this is how I see it. There is no consensus here and we have two very different points of view. We need to include both points of view, I don't care if some people are "offended" by this, it is clear that wikipedia policy encourages all significan points of view. There is no doubt that the point of view that Black people do indeed form a "race" that is of recent West African origin is prevelant in North America, all of the genetic data used are used from this point of view. So I suggest we broadly split the article into two. We have a section about the idea that Black people are a specific people with recent origins in West Africa, we can include much of the genetic data and other definitions of this more exclusive concept in this section. Then we have an equal section wich gives the other point of view, that Black is also used, usually outside of North America to mean diverse and non related groups of people from various parts of the world that happen to share the traight of having dark skin. Given that we have to include all points if view I don't see that there should be a problem with this. There is no point in arguing about who is right or wrong, there is no right and wrong, there are merely different points of view. We could even have two sets of galleries. How does this sound? Alun 06:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there are more than 2 different views here to accommodate. The entire point of the article is to demonstrate that NO ONE AGREES ON WHO IS A BLACK PERSON. Now the arguing on the talk page is with people who want to push one particular definition over the others. I would prefer giving everyone and all points of view an airing.--Filll 07:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Well it's just a suggestion, there are clearly two general positions here. Some people equate Black with a recent West African origin, other people take a different view. There are other points of view, to be sure, but from what I've read of the talk page these are the source of the greatest disagreements. Alun 07:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
No offense but I think this project is fastly becoming a fool's errand, people keep falling into the trap of equating blackness with dark-skin pigmentation tout court, for the majority of people across the world blackness is equated with (recent) SubSaharan African origin. Why's it so difficult for some people to understand this? I repeat Ghandi was not black, Gaddafi is not black, nor are Rushdie or Naipaul. I do concede that in America the definition of blackness is more inclusive but only to the extent that people of partial (known and/or evident) African ancestry are automatically determined "black" (e.g. Barack Obama), not even Americans go so far as to include Indians or Pakistanis or Filipinos or Australian Aborginals in there definition of blackness, so why do we?--Cupidon 06:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Ghandi was not black, and neither are Gaddafi, Rushdie or Naipaul, and no one ever claimed they are. How Americans decide to use the term "black" does not dictate how it is used in a global perspective. --Ezeu 07:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's my point exaclty. Glad we agree (with Ezeu I mean). By the way are you black or African-American (just wondering)? Regards.--Cupidon 07:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm African. --Ezeu 07:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Please do not confuse systemic bias and your POV for a global perspective, read the dictionary definitions. And yes, in many ways the whole of wikipedia is a fools errand. We come here to make an encyclopaedia, but the vast majority of articles are rubbish and will probably never be any good. There are all sorts of people here who want to push their own personal opinions, or who want to impose a specific point of view. We reach consensus by cooperation and compromise. You need to accept that your point of view, while a valid point of view, is not the only point of view. You may fervently believe that Black people are all of recent West African origin, you may even believe that this is a global view, but you need to accept that this article is not only about what you believe. There are other people out there who actually do hold different points of view, and hold them strongly, equally as strongly as you. You must see that your point of view about Black people is not universal, the people here who are giving the opposite point of view are proving this too you again and again. We do not hold our different points of view just to upset you, we do not hold them because we want to be difficult. We hold them because many of us come from different parts of the world, where there are different people who have different perspectives. Because more than one point of view exists (and it does) we need to include all significant points of view, this is wikipedia policy. You may not like it, it may offend you, but there you are, you cannot change it. There are plenty of sources that contradict you when you claim to have a global perspective, not least the OED, which is by no means the font of all knowledge, but certainly shows that Black people does not specifically refer to a "race" of people form West Africa. You can have your point of view in the article, be happy about that, do not try to tell other people that their point of view is not correct, this is an encyclopaedia, it contains all relevant points of view, in many ways there is no right and wrong here. Alun 07:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • for the majority of people across the world blackness is equated with (recent) SubSaharan African origin.
How do you know this? If you want to claim this in the article you need to find a source that supports it, the source would need to be a global one and not one only for North America. Even if it's true, we need to include minority opinion here anyway, as per WP:NPOV. Alun 07:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a nonsense statement. We have had other African American editors here claiming the opposite, also with no references quoted, just as fervently. And also using the race card and throwing tantrums when others did not just roll over and agree with them, and allowing them to write a single POV article. The real answer, which I have been arguing for months, is what I believe is obvious:NO ONE AGREES ON WHO IS A BLACK PERSON. Maybe if I repeat it enough, some of the people fighting this so desperately might absorb the reality of the situation, instead of insisting that the entire world is the same as East St. Louis or Compton, California, or the South Side of Chicago. I have seen this where I live near Washington DC as well. Since African Americans are the majority of the population here, they assume that all of the US and in fact all of the world must look exactly like this area does. And when I mention to them that African Americans only represent about 10% of the US population, they are stunned and they refuse to believe it because that is not what they see around them in this immediate area. They had thought that the reason all the people on the television were not black was because of those disgusting racist whities and "mofo" crackers that were keeping the black man down. And when someone goes to China or Japan, they assume that those societies revolve around a conflict between blacks and whites, because that is all they can understand. The idea that there are different places in the world with different dynamics is just beyond them. They cannot grasp any type of conflict anywhere in the world that is not between blacks and whites. They cannot understand tensions over religions or languages or between other groups, because all they are familiar with is a division into blacks and whites. So they make these sweeping generalizations based on almost zero knowledge.--Filll 07:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

More definitions of black

I also will note that when I lived in the New York Metropolitan area, it was very common for Jamaicans to call the much lighter skinned African Americans as "blacks". Jamaicans were not called black or regarded as blacks by anyone, including African Americans or the media. In fact, it was common for Jamaican parents to warn their Jamaican children to stay away from the "blacks", referring to the light skinned African Americans. And there were battles between gangs of Jamaicans and "blacks". So this is another example of how NOBODY AGREES ON WHAT IS A BLACK and also that black is often just a social construct. Also from the talk page of African American we see thes e contributions:

What about the term "black". Is that inappropriate to be used? I have had an interesting time in the "black people" article, where some contributors (A Canadian and Yemeni) have advocated that ultimately the term "black" is nothing more than a slavery term and should not be used to describe the people in question. What are the opinions of those here? --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

and from an African, speaking of the term "black":

am so happy that the term is dying and being replaced by African American, just listen to the ring African American. It makes sense, African poeple in America. black, a color, what does that tell me about you? nada---Halaqah 01:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


Race and ethnicity are completely different each other. Race refers to people that have similar pyhsical appearances and the same ancestry. Ethnicity refers to people that have a specific heritage, culture, language and tradition. Blacks from the U.S. and blacks from Jamaica are of the same race because we are black and we are of African ancestry. We are ethnically different. The culture, heritage and history of black people in these nations are different. Blacks in the U.S. started the civil rights movement and created rap and jazz music. Blacks in Jamaica created reggae music and gained independence from Britain. There never were any blacks from Jamaica that participated in the American civil rights movement, and no blacks from the U.S. participated in Jamaica'a independence from Britain. African American is an ethnicity, not a race. It applies to black Americans. Read the definition, or read mine. An African American is a black person born in the United States of America, or an American-born black person, who is of African ancestry, or a descendant of enslaved Africans brought to the U.S. during the Atlantic Slave Trade. If a white person comes from Italy to the U.S., that person is an Italian-American, not European American. If a black person comes from Nigeria to the U.S., that person is Nigerian-American, not African American. Europe and Africa are continents, Italy and Nigeria are countries. A person's nationality refers to the country of their birth. Italian, Nigerian, American, German, Ethiopian, and Canadian are nationalities. European, African, and Asian are not nationalities. The term African refers to the indigenous peoples that makeup the continent Africa. They are the ethnic African tribes like Yoruba, Zulu and Ashanti. These people are also black people. They, along with others, don't consider other people to be African. You have to look at this historically, racially and scientifically. Yes, humanity started in that part of the world, but when humans went to other lands, they became their own race: white/Caucasian, Indigenous American, Arab, Asian and black/African. That's how it is. Besides, the term was used by Malcolm X and pro-black groups towards themselves and other black Americans before it became acceptable. One more thing, why do you think the Cherokee and the Apache are known as Native Americans? Because they were in the U.S. and the Western Hemisphere first.Also, black people in other countries created ethnic terms that combines their African ancestry and their nationality. For example, blacks in Brazil are also known as Afro-Brazilians. I also don't hear some complaints about people of East Asian ancestry calling themselves Asian American considering the fact that the Middle East and South Asia also makeup the continent Asia, and a lot of people don't just call them Asian American. In some cases, they just call them Asian.Cclass 22:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
On your first question, I believe the prevailing term is "Afro-Canadians", but, of course, there aren't many; "Black Canadians" is broader, and can include dark-skinned people from South Asia. No, they are not generally considered African American, unless they are relatively recent immigrants (a generation or two) from the U.S. - Jmabel | Talk 04:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Now as I survey these and other things, the only conclusion I can reach is what I have said over and over:NO ONE AGREES ON THE DEFINITION OF BLACK PEOPLE.--Filll 07:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't get your point, you mention some black people (Jamaicans) calling other black people black but not wanting to be called themselves black. What's your point? Anyway in Spain we don't have Jamaicans (at least not many), though many people do like Bob Marley, but I still miss your point entirely. Let's keep the perspective global like someone said. Also in Spanish we differentiate between moros and negros, most people seem to prefer negros over moros and affectionately call them negritos, little black ones, moros on the other hand are almost universally detested which is strange in a way since they're less dark.--Cupidon 07:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Filll has written his point out in bold lettering, how can you not get it? There is no agreement about who is Black. Is this not clear enough for you? Alun 07:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Alun is completely correct. I guess I have to keep repeating my point: NO ONE AGREES ON WHO iS BLACK. What is it about that statement that you have a problem with, or are not quite understanding?--Filll 07:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cupidon. Also his point about moros and negros is very pertinent and describes well the reality of Spain. I would only add that moros doesn't necessarily mean moorish it rather means now brown person, usually originally from India, Pakistan, Egypt, Las Filipinas, sometimes dark Arabs, to be sure Moroccans and Tunisians, and mulatos. It does not includes Lebanese people, Iranians, Syrians or Armenians, these we call turcos.Regards.--Magencio 12:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That is fine if his statement describes Spain. But Spain is not the whole world. Spain is a small small place. The use of the terms "negro" and negrito" in Spain might not be well defined, but if they are, they probably do not agree with the use of the term "black" in other places. I have known many "black" people whose skin is far lighter than the average Spaniard. There are many people in the US (and maybe in northern Europe too??) who view a lot of Spanish as "black" in fact (and there are plenty of racial slurs about Hispanics that support this). The reason for this confusion is what I have stated over and over, but people do not quite seem to understand:NO ONE AGREES ON WHO IS BLACK.--Filll 15:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
No offense but it seems you know little about Spain and are confusing us for a Latin American banana republic, which we are not. Spain is the eight economic power, it is home to many multinationals like Telefónica, La Caixa, Banco Santander Central Hispano, etc...Also many many Spaniards are blond and blue-eyed and even more are so as children, no Spaniard who is no a mulatto would ever be confused for a black, not even Spanish gypsys, although there is some residual Moorish blood in Andalucía and even Valencia, but in Cataluña the gallic influence is predominant. In the Basque lands you have some swarthy and even almost green-skinned (verde-oliva) types, that is very strange to look at. These Hispanics in the U.S. you speak of of course are not Spaniards and probably are either mestizo or mulato or even pure Indian or Black, so the confusion is understandable. Regards.--Magencio 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I know about Spain. I spent two weeks in Spain. I know that there are many people with very white skin in Spain, but there are also those with more olive or swarthy skin. I am not confused about the difference between Spanish speaking Mexicans and South Americans and Spanish people from Spain. And I am not kidding when I say that many American "blacks" are lighter than many people from Spain. And that some Americans might definitely view some Spanish people, even from Spain, as "dark skinned" or even use racial epithets to that effect. --Filll 19:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the term "black" refers to something other than just the natural darkness of one's skin. --Melanin D. Ficiente
EXACTLY! Black refers to African ancestry. People think it refers to dark skin but that's a complete misunderstanding.__Whatdoyou 00:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Melanin D. Ficiente /Ed Poor, I think you get it. It is sometimes (not always) more of a social construct. But not everyone agrees. Which is why I say:THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED DEFINITION OF BLACK PEOPLE.--Filll 19:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Filll, mate, calm down. You are absolutely right. Many people, maybe not most, but a significant minority agree wholeheartedly with you. Take a deep breath. I am of the opinion that Cupidon (who vandalised my user page earlier) and Magencio are part of the same meatpuppet group that included Albinomite and the other falagists, so they may well just be trying to stir it up a bit. Love the nom de guerre Melanin D. Ficiente. Alun 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
THere may not be any agreement in your country but most of the world agrees tha Blacks are people of African ancestry. Stop pushing your cultural values into this artilce. __Whatdoyou 23:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You just want to do what? Rewrite the article so it only applies to African Americans? Then I have a suggestion for you. Go to African Americans. Easy? --Filll 00:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am calm. I am positive that these are the same "falangist" characters. I still have not decided if the "falangists" are just pulling our legs or not. But I figured there is no problem with pulling their legs back, since they seem to be so worried about "blacks" and impure races. Spaniards are viewed in a certain manner, and I might as well be honest with them. And see how they like it.--Filll 19:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The UK census does equate black with African ancestry

"The other other black background" on the UK census is not for Asutalian aboriginals or South Asians. It's for people of African ancestry who don't fit any of the previously listed categories. There's not a census in the world that classifies Australian aboriginals as Black.__Whatdoyou 23:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well you can try to stand on your head to explain away the categories that the UK has in their census. I think they speak for themselves.--Filll 23:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Fill where does the UK census mention Australian aboriginals or any other non-African ancestry group in their definition of black. They don't. Those groups have other categories on the UK census they are classified in. You are creating disagreement where none exists. __Whatdoyou 23:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
They have three types of blacks you can choose from, if you want to choose. So what is your problem?--Filll 00:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
And not all people of African ancestry fit into 1 of those 3 types and so they select the "other black background category" That category is not for Australian aboriginals or South Asians. That's laughable. Here's an article from the BBC that makes clear beyond any reasonable doubt that for the purpose of official statistics, the term Black refers to African ancestry people ONLY. Other dark skinned groups like South Asians are in a separate category[1] You guys are using informal anecdotes to imply that black has no clear meaning and spreading misinformation just so you can deny people of African ancestry of their identity. It's sickening__Whatdoyou 00:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Not all people of African ancestry can fit in 1 of the three categories? Did you not even read the three categories above for Blacks?
  • African blacks
  • Caribbean blacks
  • Other blacks
So that is African black is not a useful category for African blacks huh? Very interesting. I really do not know what to say to you under these circumstances.--Filll 00:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
So what if your a person of African ancestry who is coming to England from the U.S. or Brazil or France etc? Such people exist you know, and they select the "other black bacground" category. That category is not for dark skinned people of non-African ancestry. Dark skinned people of non-African ancestry are not considered black except among people who don't know anything.__Whatdoyou 00:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I am impressed by your incredible powers of reasoning. Yes you really got me. You have proved me wrong. Wow.--Filll 00:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as you had no argument to begin with, it wasn't hard__Whatdoyou 00:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You go right on believing that. I am sure whitie is doing something bad behind your back right now. Watch out for dem crackers ! --Filll 00:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Translation: Fill is so embarassed by how the BBC article exposed his ignorance that he is trying to mock the way blacks talk about whites__Whatdoyou 00:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that is it. You got me. I am sure everyone can tell. --Filll 01:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what Whatdoyou's point is. I can find no evidence that what he is saying is correct. It does not say anywhere that "Other Black" is exclusively for people of recent African descent. It does not say it on the BBC article he points out, the BBC article nowhere says that Black people are only considered of recent African descent. Could you point out or quote this section please, because I cannot find it at all and I've just read it twice.. Other Black means Other Black, it can include people of recent African descent, for sure, no one ever said that people of recent African descent can't respond there. Likewise anyone identifying as Other Black can also respond there. The UK census does not collect racial data, but ethnic data. If I felt, as a white man, that I was "ethnically Black" (I might have been adopted by Black parents for example and brought up in Black society and culture) then I could respond as a Black person. I understand that this is a reductio ad absurdum argument, but it is true. I really don't understand what you think you have proved, but your "evidence" doesn't support your claim. The only reference I can find in the article is this statement Much of the growth in the ethnic minority population was in African, Bangledishi and Pakistani communities. This is about people actually from Africa. So what exactly is your point? In the UK anyone that consideres themselves a Black person can respond in one of the three groups for Black people. I can find no document anywhere that states that this section is only for people of African descent, the BBC article does not claim this. Alun 07:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No Way Out?

Is this a "No Exit" case? Is there no way out of this imbroglio? If so, what is the problem?

Western culture is strongly geared to dichotomizing. We not only "tomize," we even imply that there are natural divisions in the structure of the Universe. If you start out believing that there are discrete entities where none exist then one spends time trying to bring unity where none is perceived, and to explain a jagged collection of disparate beings in the "uni-verse."

莊子 (Zhuang Zi, or "Chuang Tzu" if you're a bit old-fashioned) saw past the Platonism that distorts our own thinking. His description of the myriad phenomenal beings in the universe was "大同小異" (da tong xiao yi), which basically means that on the whole everything is the same and that in respect of minor features everything is different.

All of this was brought to mind when something started nagging at my unconscious: There is no pre-existing boundary between "black people" and "non-black people." Every person who asserts that a boundary exists has determined what that boundary shall be for him or her. Having decided for myself where that boundary is, I then naturally tend to reject the boundaries drawn in other places by other people.

If we ever recover DNA from the earliest group of Homo sapiens sapiens we will discover that not a single one of u s is "black" on the basis of that standard, and except for the aliens who monitor this debate (C'mon bems, 'fess up!) we are all "black" to some extent.

How do you crowd all of the content about all of the "lighter shades of dark" into a single article? The first step is to outline the essential problem discussed here. Then second step is to farm out broad sub-groups to subsidiary articles. (Maybe one article for each group on the C-S square chart) P0M 00:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Several times in the past few months I have made this same suggestion.--Filll 00:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Why don't so called politically correct editors like Wobble just have enough respect for African ancestry people to allow them the exclusive right to a black identity that most of the world acknowledges. He's just on some crusade to deconstruct the concept of race by lumping unrelated people (Australian aboriginals, Africans) into 1 racial category so he can claim that race is nonsense, and he is robbing African ancestry people of their identity in the process. It's really an abuse of wikipedia. I'm sick of black identity being exploited for everyone's political agenda. Why doesn't he use the White people article to pursue this crap?__Whatdoyou 00:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing that the San, the Mbuti, the Nilo-Saharan, the West Africans, and the East Africans would each reject the company of all the others (and anybody not currently African) as "not truly black" -- unless, of course, they are more civilized than most of the rest of us. P0M 01:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It is a fantasy that African Americans have that there is one big happy family of Africans just waiting to welcome them into the fold, and only the White Man is stopping it from happening. This denies the wide number of wars in Africa right now, and the Hutus and the Tutsis slaughtering each other in Rwanda, and the warlords stopping the food shipments in Somalia to starve the citizens, and Idi Amin and the Darfur mess and the treatment of native Africans by returning freed American slaves in Liberia and many many other bad examples. All caused by the White Man of course, preventing them all from living together in peace and harmony and brotherly love. But they all are full of black pride and respect for each other. Obviously.--Filll 01:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
All races have internal conflict, but it's nowhere near the amount of conflict BETWEEN races. People have evolved to favour their own kind. When everyone is African (as in Africa) there will be genocide between different kinds of Africans (i.e. Rwanda). However when Africans are placed in a multi-racial environment with Orientals and Whites and South Asians and Australian aboriginals, all teh African ethnicties tend to stick together and see the others as outsiders. The problem is a few people want to imply that Australian aboriginals because of their dark skin are part of the same club as Africans are part of. Nothing could be further from the truth__Whatdoyou 01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes that is it. All the conflict in the world is black-white conflict. I have heard that one before. And I am sure that the Tutsis and Hutus did not see each other negatively. You just keep telling yourself that. And the whole problem can be traced back to the Aborigines and how they happen to have dark skin. Oh the shame of it !!!-Filll 01:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

We could all leave this article except for various extremists. And let you beat each other silly. Because you do not agree with each other, in case you had not noticed. Or we could divide the article up into different POV, which I gather is against Wikipedia policies. I am not sure how to keep you calm. However, I have seen examples of your reasoning above, and I do not really know what to say to you in light of that.--Filll 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just let the black people article be for people of African ancestry. Australian aboriginals already have their own article. South Asians can have their own article. Who are these white people with so much free time that they are passionate about the right of Australian aboriginals and South Asians to be called black? The last time the article called a South Asian black a Tamil editor became so outraged that he unleashed a massive racial attack on people of African ancestry. HELLO! They don't WANT to be called black. I think you guys want to pit one dark skinned ethnic group against another and sit back and watch the sparks fly.__Whatdoyou 00:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
This is the Black people article, not the African people article. This utterance is a remarkable example of both circular reasoning and conspiracy theory. "I define black people to mean group X only, therefore anyone who is not group X is obviously not black!". "anyone who disagrees with me is part of the Great White Plot to sow dissention". Of course our Spanish friends can do the same, inspired by the glorious theory of the Medish race. "I define white people as Southern Europeans. Anyone who denies this is attacking the right to self-determination to white people. If they are not Southern Europeans they can shut up, since - obviously - they are not white and have no right to say who is. That goes for the quasi-Mongoloid blodie Nordics as much as for the North African non-Europeans." Paul B 16:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Somehow it is hard for me to take these tantrums seriously. I think you make about as much sense as our friends the falangists.--Filll 01:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

We are all of African ancestry. Ethiopians are of African ancestry. San are of African ancestry..... P0M 01:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
We all lived in the ocean if you go back far enough in time. What's your point? Tired of the PC nonsense__Whatdoyou 01:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer an article with a wide variety of viewpoints, including useful scientific and cultural information, and for it to be written without the editors ripping each other to shreds. And you cannot tell who is black or not, or who is African American or not, among the editors. I am a minority, but that should not matter in writing this article. And we have lots more. And guess what? They still do not agree with each other. But you are free to believe that if you want.--Filll 01:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The article IS written with a variety of view points. But I feel very strongly that most common definition of black (African ancestry) is not given enough weight, and there's a movement by Wobble to give fringe views such as Australian aboriginals being black, undue weight__Whatdoyou 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Who is more closely related to you, a second cousin all of whose ancestors 10 generations back are Ainu like yours, or your half-sibling one of whose parents is Chinese? P0M 01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not seen evidence of this. What did wobble do? What movement does he have going on? And the article still does not have much modern scientific material in it, and balancing viewpoints. It mostly reads like a rant from some black racists angry at the world.--Filll 01:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That's because it's not a science article__Whatdoyou 01:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, science and genetics and anthropology have no bearing whatsoever on an article about a race. Yes that makes a lot of sense.--Filll 01:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice of you to acknowledge that the article sounds like the rants of black racists. And I guess that was your intent. I know you have a bit of that in you, clearly. No one is that frantic for racial purity unless they have a bit of that in them. Maybe you could start a page on black supremacy? I will help you if you want. And you can spew there and spin your theories there.--Filll 01:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
There already is one on black supremacy. It was created by deeceevoice. Paul B 13:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I just skimmed it, but it looks pretty good.--Filll 13:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the consequences of defining "black people" very narrowly is that it would eliminate Afro-Americans. And defining it even more narrowly would split off the non-San people from what may arguably be the direct line of descent of the earliest Homo sapiens sapiens population.

I just found another neat map, one that uses genetic information to show how we are all related.P0M 01:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Having stared at that map a bit just now, I have to admit that you are correct, it is fantastic. I really like it.--Filll 19:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Mitochondrial DNA traced out

Falangists MUST be a joke

That last comment, edited out by Ezeu, definitely demonstrates that these guys are just trying to make a few jokes and pull our legs. There is no way they are serious. The problem with trying to be funny like that is if you go a bit too far, it becomes obvious that you are not serious. Next time, try to not to go to such extremes because you ruin the joke. Some of the other comments I see here as well are so outrageous and extreme that I do not believe they are real either. Just a good place to come and make fun of others I guess. But it would be nice to write an article too. --Filll 04:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

They are obviously trolling. Their objective is to disrupt this page an nothing else. --Ezeu 05:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it is a bunch of fraternity brothers just having some laughs at out expense.--Filll 05:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
You are kidding yourselves. These people really exist, they really hold these views. We have mass graves and extermination camps to prove that these people exist. fascism may be nasty, but we shouldn't put it down to student high jinks just because we feel uncomfortable about it. Alun 05:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe. But the last statement was so outrageous and so over the top that it is difficult to believe that anyone would truly hold those views. --Filll 12:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Article is stable

The only reason the article is "stable" is that for the last few months it has either been locked for weeks on end because there was so much fighting over it, and people edit-warring, or a cadre of reverters has been blocking any change to the article at all. It probably took me 10 tries to get a tiny bit of corrected grammar into the article because there was so much reverting. I think this article needs to get some more attention from new editors because it reads poorly, it is unbalanced, it is missing a lot of material and has only limited scientific material in it. Wikipedia articles not supposed to be recruiting tools for either white racists or black supremacists. So lets try not to push for either extreme so hard.--Filll 04:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is in no way my intention to offend any of the people who have so far contributed to this article, but I am going to be honest and direct, as it stands the piece is a joke and a foul cross between a pc banner and an amateurish and outmoded collection of subpar "race" articles that have been circulating freely through the internet for years. Also, I second Lukas19 in protesting the grotesque demonizing and nazi-izing of certain editors by other editors, this is simply intolerable by any standards. As to the topic in question: I think the obvious course to take—in dealing with a subject of such controversy—is a conservative one that remains centered around a core definition of blackness or negressence as an essentially sub-Saharan African designation or classification; one that to be sure is shared by the greater (sub-Saharan) diaspora principally located in the Americas and Europe. The gallery as it stands is, to put it bluntly, a gallery of freaks (in the Baroque sense of excentric examples) and in no way an accurate representation of the majority of blacks (an extremely varied group to be sure), and yet I think it could be saved if we were to "populate it" with representative "faces" of some of the more important African ethnic groups, this would I think prove extremely enlightening to a great number of people who upon hearing the word black picture some "notorious" African-American rapper, athlete, or, yes, murderer. My general impression is that reason and logic long ago fell by the wayside during what has become an increasingly tortuous definitional odyssey. (For those who are wondering: yes I do belong to the dreaded "Falangists" and this is an assumed name I will be changing periodically as a precaution against those who futilely think they can block and ban the truth). Cheers, note I have tried to communicate this in the most neutral tone possible.--SanIsidro 07:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well as I said before, why don't all moderates and people interested in trying to inject a scientific tone into the article stand back and let the black supremacists and white supremacists have at it. However, if a black who wants to restrict the meaning and a black who wants to be more inclusive decide to both get their way, then there will be lots of noise and fury and maybe some banning and locking of the article. If the white racist wants to put material in the article about how blacks are more stupid and more prone to violence and crime (as supported amply by studies), then there might be some conflict with the black supremacist editor who wants to write about how blacks in subsaharan African discovered prime numbers more than 10,000 years ago and were responsible for the pyramids and the first civilizations in Africa and China. All of which are also supported by studies. If we remove all material that these people do not like such as:
  • aborigines
  • ethiopians
  • Shan
  • aeta
  • genetic evidence that humans are similar genetically to each other
  • any definition besides American definitions since that is all that matters
and so on and so forth, this will still cause conflicts. You know, there is no good way to remove the conflicts. Because guess what? NO ONE AGREES ON WHAT IS A BLACK PERSON. Anyone who thinks that there is agreement around the world, or that there was never any usage of the term black person aside from the Black Power movement in the USA in the 1960s is kidding themselves. This is supposedly an encyclopedia. If a kid in Melbourne, Australia wants to know what the term "black fella" means and its history, which has heard repeatedly at school, this article will be just about worthless to him. If someone in Yorkshire wants to understand a bit more about the people called black in his neighborhood, which include a lot of South Asians, then the article will not help. Not describing the controversies and disagreements will not make them go away. I have no idea what your motivations are, and why you think that you can enforce some sort of uniformity of belief, when it is so obvious that one does not exist. Either we can go with an article based on there not being agreement, or we can split it up into competing articles (which I do not believe Wikipedia encourages), or you can fight it out here and get each other banned.--Filll 13:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Related Articles

I took a look at the "Black supremacy" article mentioned above. It looks good to me.

I also looked for an article on "African people" but what I found forwarded to Africa. Somewhat surprisingly, the discussion there has little to do with genetics and much to do with ethnicity, languages, political divisions, etc.

There seems at this time to be little information regarding the interconnections among the various population groups in Africa depicted in the charts already on this page. Wells thinks that the San and related languages are possibly the most archaic of any on earth since no other languages (except one or two in Africa that may have imported some vocabulary items) use the so-called "click" sounds.

The original "starburst" appears to occur in Africa, with some components heading toward the interior of Africa and some heading out of Africa through the Mid-East. One way to divide an article would be to follow each of these paths. P0M 17:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit shocking to me that there is no page on African people. There definitely needs to be one. Some of the energy that is expended here in needlessly fighting might be better served by writing more articles or expanding the other articles that exist. I have repeatedly suggested on this page that it would be nice if black people and african people etc had an entire suite of connected articles, like Jewish people for example. I was summarily shot down angrily for that suggestion which I made several times. I do not know what is wrong with it, however.--Filll 17:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the poster above: we need an article on African people/Africans, which will take much of the heat out of this article, which many people are treating as an article on African people / ethnic identity, instead of being an article about people who are called 'black' by themselves or others. -- The Anome 18:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's consider the similarities:
  • Both Jews and African people have a disapora
  • Both black people and Jews are a "race" or collection of races (ashkenazi, seraphidic, Falasha, in the case of jews for example) and also an ethnicity
  • There is controversy in both cases, about who is black and who is a Jew
  • being Jewish can be a matter of pride, and also a slur, just like being black
  • Being jewish is often associated with a physical origin, like black often is
  • there are people who claim they can tell blacks and jews by sight. There are also people who claim that this is more difficult than often believed
  • both groups were subject to discrimination and slavery in the past
The difference is that there are a group of people who do not want to be called black, but who have been called black. And also the term black has been applied to some groups that are very dissimilar genetically (although I do not know how far apart Ashkenazis and Seraphidic are genetically). Also there is a religion often associated with Jews. On Wikipedia Jews have a fantastic suite of articles. Take a look. It is really impressive. Why can we not do something like that for blacks/ africans/ afroamericans etc? It might take a lot of the heat out of the fighting. Just a thought.

--Filll 19:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more, Jews and blacks do have a lot in common.--SanIsidro 19:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Begging the question

Whatdoyou's recent edits to the intro of Black people beg the question of what "Black people" actually means by defining it to mean people of (biologically recent) African ancestry. A central point of the article is that there is no generally accepted consensus about what "Black people" means, and by defining it in the intro of the article, you either create a circular argument, or much of the article would have to be deleted, as the discussion of other concepts of Black people would necessarily be moot. -- The Anome 18:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There's more than 1 definition of black people so the articles should be separated based on definition to avoid needless confusion and edit warring. This article can focus on Black as an ethnic term and I created a separate article to focus on black as a dark skin color identity__Whatdoyou 18:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I don't understand what the problem is with dividing the article up into the 2 types of definitions. This article can focus on all the debates about how much African ancestry is required to be considered Black (the standards vary enormous from America to Brazil). The other article can focus on black as a term for a dark skin. We're talking about 2 totally different things, so why not have 2 totally different artticles? Cardriver 18:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Two would be a good start. Black skin color and black ethnicity is a good start for a separation. Maybe even one on science of black skin etc. I see no problem with a suite of overlapping articles with cross references. Other groups do it, why not us?--Filll 19:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


What if we had a template for black and african people articles that looked like [2]? For blacks, what articles would you include? I have some ideas off the top of my head but there are probably many others. I might suggest:

Overview articles

Black and African people by region






Other related terms


Political and social movements

United States

South Africa




Assorted lists

What do you think?--Filll 20:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fill. We should separate this article into 2 articles: Black people (those of recent sub-Saharan African ancestry) and dark skinned people (people who are dark in skin color regardless of whether they are from Africa or not) Gottoupload 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that this article (Black as a skin color identity) was created for those who want to use the braoder definition of Black. But Black is most commonly used exclusively to describe those belonging to a group characterized by recent sub-Saharan ancestry. This is one of the world's biggest ethnic groups and one of the world's most vocal users of the term black. An entire article focused on black being used in that context makes sense. Gottoupload 00:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It is all the same to me. Whatever people think is the most reasonable division. I think we have plenty of material. The archives and history contain tons of great stuff that was deleted. And we have barely scratched the surface I suspect. --Filll 00:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Example of what I had in mind can be found here for African american topics or here for Pan African topics. Now all we need to do is collect black people topics together in the same way and organize them. Since there is some overlap it has to be done carefully. I would suggest our template be for global black/african topics.--Filll 13:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

black people VS Black people

According to this article, the names of ethnic groups should be capitalized[[3]]. So here's a solution, how about 2 separate articles. One called Black people with a capital B, and the other called black people with a lower case B. So all the people who are interested in writing about the people of African descent who define the black ethnic group, can write the capiatl B Black people article, and all the people who are interested in writing about all dark skiined groups collectively can edit the lower case B black people article.

Because the 2 terms have very different meaning and were created for very different purposes. For example Australian aboriginals are black (with a small b) but they're not Black (with a big B) Michael Jackson is Black (with a big B) but since his skin has become lighter he's no longer black (with a small b). Now within the subject of Black people (with a big B) there are all kinds of controversies about who is black, so there are enough topics to argue over without giving us the added burder of mixing 2 completely different definitions of B/black into the same article Gottoupload 00:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This sounds good except it might be confusing to some people. We would have to explain it very carefully in the articles.--Filll 00:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
No where near as confusing as things have been so far. I'm from North America so this whole idea of calling non-African dark sinned people black is very new to me. I'm used to people making a clear distinction between someone who is very dark (Australian aboriginal, Southern Indian) and someone who is black (of African ancestry). So it's been terribly confusing to me to come to wikipedia and see Australian aboriginals and Southern Indians discussed as though they were black because I've met many dark skinned people from India who looked like they could have African ancestry and have asked them about it. Invariably they tell me "No I'm not Black, I'm just very dark skinned". But now I see from these discussions that there may be some people in some parts of the world who use black as a synonym for dark skin, while I have always known it as a synonym for African ancestry. This is especially confusing because I knwo a lot of people who are only HALF African-American who describe themselves as "Light skinned Blacks" So really these 2 different conceptions of what it means to be black need to be separated as quickly as possible Gottoupload 00:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
What makes it even worse is when people who are of 1/64 African extraction or 1/128 African extraction or even less are still called "black". This entire issue is very confused and as I have said over and over NO ONE AGREES ON WHAT IS A BLACK PERSON. Just acknowledging that simple fact would solve a lot of these arguments.--Filll 00:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
No one agrees on any one single definition of a black person but we all agree that there are many different definitions of a black person and so the 2 main ones should get there own article. I'll start creating Black people (with a capital B) and black people (with a small b) now. The two articles will start off very similar since they're both branching off of the same parent article (this one) but overtime the two articles will diverge (just like different races) and then this parent article can go extinct (deletion). Everyone on board? Gottoupload 01:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, lets see how it goes. Seems like a constructive solution. Lets not throw out the baby with the bath water. --Ezeu 01:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm coming in late here, but I'm guessing this idea might fall foul of POV fork. Certainly the articles would have to be very carefully written and titled. I'd seriously consider trying to get wider community input here, an WP:RFC or similar. exolon 01:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've notice the only way to get things done on wikipedia is to just do it. Often people have to see an idea in action before they're willing to give it a chance. Anyway not sure what the big deal is. Wikipedia has lots of articles that share the same name. This one's simply making a distinction between the use of a capital B to denote ethnicity Gottoupload 01:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I am certainly willing to try anything to try to calm the rancor on this page. I have suggested something like this myself a few times in the past, so I am glad to support an attempt.--Filll 01:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Black people versus Black people (ethnicity)

This page was duplicated/forked to Black people (ethnicity) today with the apparent intention to split the article into two separate topics. Please discuss whether this is necessary on that article's talk page. Thanks! --DachannienTalkContrib 01:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus for my capital B idea so just redirect the black ethnicty article to Black people (with a capital B) since they're about the same thing Gottoupload 01:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Using capitals is not a very clear method of distinguishing different articles. Changing the wording is simpler.Muntuwandi 01:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Why can't 2 articles just have the same name? Lots of wikipedia articles have the same name, especially when it comes to people Gottoupload 01:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

black is not an ethnic group, it is a lay term for non-White people, there is no ethnic group called black anywhere in the world. Capital B makes sense because English Caps Names, Jew, Muslim, John, Peter, Sudan. black is a color, Black is the above.--Halaqah 11:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity simply means people who are from the same part of the world. Black (ethnicity) describes people of equatorial African origin (not West African only). Not sure why Alun wants to separate the black ethnic group in to many different ethnic groups. We don't see it that way.__ Whatdoyou 15:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting out of hand

We now have 3 articles. This one, the 'capital b' one and the 'ethnicity' one. If this keeps up the admins are very likely to blow the forks out of the water and push everyone back into here to thrash it out on the talk page. If this keeps up we'll have a version of 'black people' for every editor/school of thought and thats a POV fork violation for sure. exolon 01:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to redirect the ethnicity one to the capital b article Gottoupload 01:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)