Jump to content

Talk:Mulatto/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Mulatto flag

There is a mulatto flag. This ethnic flag is a symmetric cross flag, rendered in the colors black, white, and [[gray]There were two tpies of flags mad by warbird and mluattoworld]. [1]



This flag has somewhat of a history behind it, but not that much.� As you can tell by the colors, and the way they are arranged, this flag represents who we are.

It really did not take much time or effort to come up with this flag.� I actually thought of this design after having a heated discussion with two friends of mine who happen to be Dominican.

Our discussion was mostly about my guest editorial that was posted on a website called Interracial Voice.� The name of the editorial was called Mulatto: A "Race" of People".� In the editorial, I spoke of how it was diffucult to "play both sides of the fence", in other words, to feel a "racial bond" with both blacks and whites.� Not just difficult, but impossible.� My belief is that because of this, we cannot consider ourselves to be of "both" races, but of neither - since we are not not "racially bonded" with both.� As mulattoes, we are a people, and the only people that we can really feel a "racial bond" with is eachother.

I explained this to my friends, and they are against mulattoes having a culture of their own.� However, they are Dominican, and they have a culture, which I thought they took for granted.� Afterall, they can have a culture, and mulattoes can't?� Just who the hell do they think they are?� Well, although they are Dominican, they were both black, and born in the United States.� With that being said, I could only guess that they developed some African-American perspectives on things.

I was so angry at them for thinking that we weren't good enough to have our own culture, while at the same time, they were; that is why I came up with this flag.� This flag was actually a mockery of the Dominican flag, after the two friends of mine that upset me that day.

To this day, I am still friends with the two women, but we have both agreed not to discuss issues concerning race & culture anymore.

To clear things up, this flag is no longer a mockery of the Dominican flag.� I designed it the day after the heated discussion.� After that, I didn't even touch it until a few weeks later.� When I was�over my anger, I looked back at the flag which I have designed, and I realized how much the colors and their positions represent who we are.

To those mulattoes who read read this website, and have websites themselves, I would encourage you to copy this flag and display it on your website, even if it is a personal homepage that is not dedicated to the issues discussed here on this website.� I would ask that you do not link this flag back to my website (but, please do mention why the flag is there, and what it represents).��It is not my flag; it is our flag. File:Mulatto3214.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulattoking (talk • contribs)


http://web.archive.org/web/20010216050151/internettrash.com/users/mulatto/index3.htm The flag was mad by warbird miller he was the frist mulatto to think up of a flag for us.Many mulatto support this flag if you do internet search you can see that.And to and many flags are made up by someone at frist and the people support there country flag how do you think these flags come from threw someone makeing it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.27.165.11 (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Latin America Statistics

I reordered the countries from highest to lowest percent of mulatto population in Latin America and noticed some discrepancies in the numbers and some sources. Puerto Rico sticks out the most at 76%?? It looks like this used to be a different number and someone changed it. When I look at the CIA Factbook, it gives 81% as white and 10.9% as mixed, so I find it hard to believe that 76% is correct. Many of the other countries don't add up either. Does anyone know where the percentages came from originally or did someone just guess or did someone vandalize the numbers? Cuba shows 51% and the Dominican Republic shows 73% in the CIA Factbook. Kman543210 (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I figured out that an anonymous user changed Puerto Rico from 26% to 76% yesterday, so I changed it back, although I'm still not sure what source the 26% came from. Kman543210 (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Mulatto in Europa Statistics

There are Mulatto in Europa Africa and Canada they just go by diffrent names but they are still mulattos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.27.165.11 (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In Europe, Africa, and Canada, there may be inhabitants who by simple definition of the word might be considered "mulattoes", but they don't automatically belong to a "mulatto" ethnic group. KumarFilo (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Yes there are mulattoes in Africa. Mulattoes (half black and half white) would be a subset in the set coloreds because coloreds usually include anyone with partial African ancestry in South Africa. Even an indian could be considered a colored in South Africa. I agree with you that egyptians, tunisians, libyans, algerians and moroccons are majority mulattoes because they have substantial African ancestry in their populations.KumarFilo (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed pictures

Mulatto in Southwest Louisiana

This article on mulattos were bad , but I have read worst. First of all, I feel that you have to be a Mulatto to know. However , their are people who call themselves Mulatto and do not know what it means or where it comes from. I never seen such a debate on the term Mulatto before. The term means a mixture of races. I am from Southwest Louisiana and we use (especially the old folks) this word all the time. Sometimes in Creole Zydeco and area rap songs. Some with different view and from other parts of the USA or other countries may refer to the term Mulatto as having one black / one white parent. The usage depends on locality and the ever changing English language. Words do change meaning by locality and cultures. I feel that an Black Asian can call themselves Mulatto. Yes, the word Mulatto did derive from Latin word Mule , which was first used to describe mixed Moorish/Spanish/North African Canary Islanders. Like I said word meanings change. For the North African - Sub-Saharan debate. I feel that , it is just a distinction for North Africans to consider themselves Arabs because of their Muslim religion. I never understood why they class themselves from other Africans on the continent. I cannot tell them what to call themselves but as far as I am concerned they reside on the continent of Africa so they are Africans. Just as my national identity is American since I reside on the continent of North America. To clear things up , they are light skinned African blacks, they are tribes who live in remote Africa who had no contact with the outside world until recently and they are light skinned. So they were probabaly light skinned black tribes members who ended up in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. I have read and heard about light skinned blacks completing admixture tests and coming with 90-100% sub-Saharan African ancestry. I also heard of a very dark skinned man who lived his life as a black man with a black family who also did a admixture test to find that he was abt. 95% European and the rest was Native American. Well as for race I am a multi-ethnic Louisiana Creole. creolegenealogyqueen@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by CreolegenealogyqueenLA337 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is embarassingly bad

First of all, mulatto is not in current, everyday use in English speaking countries though you wouldn't know that if this article were your only source of info on the term. Colin Powell and Barack Obama are not commonly called "mulattos".

I have to disagree. In Louisianna, mixed (black and white bi-racial) people are commonly known as mulattos. Both by the blacks and the whites. 66.32.13.121 06:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Professor Sam

Secondly, the passage in the intro on the etymology of ethnic terms is original research and that's not allowed. This article isn't here to convince people of your personal preference to use the term mulatto. Plus, it's a bad, weak argument. Negro and nigger are derived from the Latin for black, but no one would seriously argue that they aren't widely seen as archaic and racist on the basis of the etymological argument that anon keeps reinserting. The origins of words and the meanings that they acquire over time through usage often have little to do with one another. --Media anthro 12:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Negro is not a racist term: in fact it was the only non-derogatory term available for much of US history because the term "black" was itself considered racist! Not until the black power movement in the 50's and 60's when they started using it in a positive manner did it become politically correct to use. Wikipedia is for documenting history, not revising it.Geira (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Mulatto is not in everyday use, but it does have some prevalence; also, Mulatto is actually the correct identifier for Colin Powell and Barack Obama, and the same argument can be said for the opposing viewpoint of "black racialist types." Bi-racial is a generic term that isn't very descriptive.
Secondly, mullawad is expalined in the etymology section. And your is such a strong word.Shakam 05:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I apologize, I meant "your" in a very general sense. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a general standpoint that reflects as many viewpoints as possible rather than pushing one strongly partisan viewpoint. I wasn't addressing you specifically.
If you contend that mulatto is a general term that people of African and European heritage use semi-regularly, it is your job to verify that. If mulatto is the "correct identifier" for Sen. Obama and Colin Powell, then you need to provide evidence to that effect. I'm open to the notion that people in US society still use the term as an identifier, but you must show evidence.
May I suggest that the discussion of mullawad and other etymology be developed in the etymology section and not in the intro? The way the article is now, it seems as if whoever wrote it is POV pushing a particular view of "why mulatto is actually okay". That's really not the purpose of the article.
Finally, the intro is written quite poorly, something I have tried to correct. Phrases such as Also, a person of lighter skin pigmentation that may refer to his/herself as the oxymoron, light-skinned black are difficult at best to understand and seem unnecessary to tell the reader what mulatto means.--Media anthro 12:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe your a white racist you don`t even no any mulattos who the hell are you to tell someone there not a mulatto or biracial.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.209.45.244 (talk • contribs) .
In all sensibility, mabye there should be a directory for anyone who searches "bi-racial", further emphasizing who they would like to search for, ex. mulattoes, mestizos, etc., but at the same time, unless society pushes along a new word, mulatto is the most commonly accepted word that describes a "specific" ethnicity
Please respect our civility policy. Future violations may result in blocking your ability to edit.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 04:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


mulatto is an offensive word to mixed people because its origins come from the word Mule. Its a word used to show mixed kids that their just like thier black parent, an animal for work and is not a human being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.124.221 (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What is a Mule? It is the result of breeding a horse with a donkey ie: crossbreeding. I think that it is logical to think that at the time of the origin of the word that "mulado" or "mulato" was meant to denote the "crossbred" aspect of the term. The world was a homogenious place at that time and there was not the mixing of the races that there is today. The politically correct (?) term "biracial" is confusing because without seeing the person one cannot denote what races have been mixed. If one cannot use "Mulatto" as it has been coloquialized into what some consider offensive what is going to be the new word for someone with a mix of Caucasian and Negriod genes? BTW there is no "black" race. The correct word in the English language is "Negriod". Are we so politically correct that we cannot even still speak the Queen's English? MarshallB. BTW my partner considers herself "Mulatto" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.242.230.166 (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Angsax (talk)Negroid was the correct reference and is/was specifically used to define a person with particular physiological characteristices. I'm not sure where/when/if Negriod was a word or who used it. A couple of points here. What does a person's personal viewpoint have to do with a so-called encyclopedia?

Language is used so badly nowadays that few people understand the correct, as opposed to politically correct terms.

For instance, just 15 years ago I asked a fellow student if she thought that Blacks tended to associate with other Blacks, referencing an article I had been reading. She, a Black woman corrected me and told me that I should say colored, not Black. My response was that I wasn't referring to colored people as that would include any non-white group and I meant Blacks. How things change! Now I rarely hear someone say "colored". The North East USA, upstate NY is very parochial and the colleges closed minded (opinion of course - mine.

Mulatto has always meant a person born of a Black (African descent) and a White.

Etymology is very difficult as the English language was not standardised until the middle 1800s, so the arguments will continue. Common knowledge, or personal knowledge is not always correct (even if I'm always right - haha) - that is a joke. Angsax (talk) Where do the tildes go? angsax—Preceding unsigned comment added by Angsax (talk • contribs) 15:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Etymology section a mess and biased

This section needs a serious cleanup. Also, it's transparently biased in favour of the least likely etymology (according to experts on the Spanish and the Portuguese language), from muladí/muwallad, for some reason. FilipeS 12:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The bias has been changed heavily in favor of the theory that the word mulatto derives from the spanish word "mule", this is seen by the fact that the word mulatto is described directly as coming from "mule" in the first paragraph, whereas the word muwallad first appears in the next paragraph, etymology. Unless you can document one as being more likely than the other, then i see no reason why the "mulatto from mule" theory should be in the first paragraph solely !
i will see to this getting editted unless you can argue why it should not.--Partheth 19:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no significant changes in the etymology section. FilipeS 14:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mulato is not "small mule" in Spanish. It's "mulito". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.136.193 (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am guessing here... but probably the word for mule and mullato and muwallad/muladi all share a common history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.131.118 (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Website sited for etymology seems inaccurate and biased. Other origination of words on site are inaccurate and incomplete. Site should not be used as a proper source. Please site other sources (merriam-webster may be efficient enough for sourcing), thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.215.67 (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

African section

When was this last updated? "enough to be considered black under South African law". Whaaaah? The apartheid is over by the way. I am going to delete that part.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Mulatto, Mule

"(cur) (last) 00:47, 21 August 2008 Kman543210 (Talk | contribs) (19,277 bytes) (removed etymology; there is a difference between a definition and etymology; see mestizo, castizo, zambo; none have etymologies at beginning. See etymology section) (undo)"

Either way an encyclopedia must have accuracy if general knowledge is out there, not frivolous speculation. Of course words meaning change over time, but general knowledge is that mulatto means a mule. No matter how desperately you want to talk around that, the fact will always remain. I'm not saying that you can't describe yourself as a mulatto, but to remain intellectually honest as to its etymology. At this point, you may remove the etymology, or derivation of the word mulatto, but I will state the meaning of the word itself in the opening paragraph. Same difference, surely, but there really is no running from 'mule'. Sorry.

It is not a generally accepted fact that mulatto comes from mule. Accepted by whom? If you cannot show any development from the original Latin and Arabic through mule and then mulatto, you are making impossible intellectual leaps. You comment, therefore, regarding the relationship between mule and mulatto is erroneous. At best it is speculative; at worst tremendously specious. If the latter is true, your argument borders on de facto racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.32.0.40 (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Note:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mestizo

Opening section: "The word mestizo originated from the Romance language / Latin word 'Mixticius', meaning 'mixed'."
So mestizo means mixed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castizo

Opening section: "Castizo or castiza is a Spanish word with a general meaning of 'genuine'."
So castizo means genuine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zambo

No etymology of any sort is provided.


Nevertheless, it will state that mulatto means a mule in the opening section. KumarFilo (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I shan't get into an edit war over something so silly, but I really don't understand your insistence on including the etymology at the very beginning. Mulato may derive from the word mulo meaning mule, but that is not what it means now. Including a full definition does not mean you have to include the etymology at the very beginning, especially since there is an entire section dedicated to this. How does the word coming from mule give the reader any more knowledge on it's present-day usage right from the top? Are you trying to give the word a negative connotation? Then including the Latin word from which mulo came from? That is way overdone in my opinion. I know I'm not the only one who feels that way because I wasn't the person who originally moved that out. Again, etymology is good to include, but it has an entire section, so it's unnecessary to put it at the top. Kman543210 (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I was the one and I'll do it again. I already explained things on KumarFilo's talk page in good faith. What I was getting back can hardly called "assuming good faith". If he doesn't change his attitude and tries to work as a team I don't see any positiv future, to be quiet honest. regards, --Floridianed (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not this word, mulatto, receives a "negative connotation" by me stating the truth is not my concern. This is an encyclopedia after all, so facts outweigh any feel-goodisms. Like I said, the meanings of words change over time, sure, but the base meaning will always stay the same no matter how much you want to hide the history of a word from public view. I shortened it to include only the meaning and not etymology since for some odd reason you feel upset that mulatto means a mule. So I didn't include the etymology, I included the meaning of the word mulatto itself by stating "..Spanish word for mule..". Which is, to your chagrin, exactly how the other entries (castizo, mestizo) you provided, presented their terms in the opening sections. I'm sure the word 'mulatto' has taken on new meanings, by different people, in different regions today, but the fact of the matter is that the word itself 'mulatto' means 'a mule'. You can't really run from that. Sorry. KumarFilo (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to get at least one point: It doesn't belong in the lead of an article about "Mulatto's" (people!!!!). --Floridianed (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Says who? All the other multiracial labels have the meaning of the word itself in the opening section. How is 'mulatto' exempt? KumarFilo (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind giving example-links? --Floridianed (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to clarify that mulato in Spanish does not mean mule, but it did derive from the Spanish word mulo which means mule, in the sense of a hybrid. Here is the official definition from the RAE:[[1]] No one is trying to hide the etymology of the word, as there is an entire section of the etymology (2 paragraphs). This article should not be about the term, but it should be about the people who are part black and part white. I disagree that the etymology needs to be at the beginning, but thank you KuamrFilo for at least trying to compromise on this, as I am concerned that you would state "it will state that mulatto means a mule in the opening section" without regard for any other editors' opinions. Kman543210 (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


Here are the examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mestizo

Opening section: "The word mestizo originated from the Romance language / Latin word 'Mixticius', meaning 'mixed'."
So mestizo means mixed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castizo

Opening section: "Castizo or castiza is a Spanish word with a general meaning of 'genuine'."
So castizo means genuine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zambo

No etymology of any sort is provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesti%C3%A7os_(Sri_Lanka)
Opening section: "In Sri Lanka, the names Mestiços (Portuguese for "Mixed People") or Casados ("Married") were applied to people of mixed Portuguese and Sri Lankan (Sinhalese people and Tamil) descent, starting in the 16th century."
So mestico means mixed people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapa
Right at the top: "In the Hawaiian language, hapa is defined as: portion, fragment, part, fraction, installment; to be partial, less. It is a loan from the English word half."
So hapa means a part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baster
Right at the top: "The name Baster is derived from the Dutch word for ‘bastard’ (or ‘crossbreed'). "
So baster means a bastard.


And so on. The bottom line is mulatto means a mule. So I will state that and include it. KumarFilo (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Now you slipped:"mulatto means a mule" (in Spanish. NO! It's by your own research "mulato", ONE "t" only). Let me remind you, we're talking about the origin of the word, remember? So anyway, again, don't just change it again. Thanks, --Floridianed (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I shall reiterate that the Spanish word mulato does not mean mule. I speak Spanish and would never even think of the mule if someone said mulatto. The word mulato derived from the Spanish word mulo which means mule, but that is not what mulato means. If you don't believe me, here is the official dictionary entry for mulato: [[2]]. There is a difference between meaning and etymology. Kman543210 (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
You're correct. Un "Mulato no es un Mulo" and un "Mulatto es menos un Mulo"! --Floridianed (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I am Portuguese and I can tell you that mulato or mulata just means a person that has visible traces of black and white parentage. As to the etymology of the word I cannot say anything except that the connection with a mule, if that was the case, is definitely lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.134.45 (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course "mulatto" may not literally mean a mule right now because words change meaning over time. But the fact of the matter is that "mulatto" is derived from the Spanish word for mule. It is this that is a fact. It is this which should be stated in the article. Etymology is the study of origins of words. Etymologically, "mulatto" originates from "mulo", or mule. And that's it. LzqTAnFKVf7 (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


just curious about melado

Hi all, not realizing the debate of the etymology of mulatto I always assumed the that the term "melado" was of similar origin. However, this does not seem to be the case. Does anyone have information on it's origin? Is it an actual dictionary word or is it slang? Would this term be considered derogatory by most people? I've heard it used in a non-derogatory way which is perhaps out ignorance and would like information so as to use or not use this word in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.77.71 (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Merged Some Tags ...

Removed all but the one as no process evident here and the one remaining the only one likely to be the basis of one. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Also setting Miszabot to archive threads not active for 120 days. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Removed them all, ordered list. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Mulatto are found all over the world...

List of countries:

.Cananda .US .Latin america .Asia .Europea .Arabe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.126.128 (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Subjective in nature?

"the latter definition of which makes the term highly subjective in nature"

I've removed phrase this from the article lead. It seems to be trying to make an important point, imo; I would guess about the fact that we are all the same species whatever our melanin level, or even the further point that especially in America, many so-called blacks have white ancestors, and likewise, there are plenty of American people who pass for "lily" white who have black ancestor, etc. (Please note, for the record, that I don't even agree with this whole framework of racial bias, but the one drop rule has historical currency, and the mulatto designation is at least somewhat inherently related to that). Per WP:PRESERVE I bring this here for discussion. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this is completely out of place in the brief introductory paragraph. Perhaps it could be addressed deeper in the article. Jaydiem (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we get into the mulatto people?

OK this is kind of ridiculous, I mean it would be nice to hear about the actual Mulatto people and their significance in history instead of hearing people go back and forth on whether the word means "mule" or not. Words change meanings all the time but we still use them. I mean by this logic we shouldn't use the word "kid" or "kids" when referring to children because the word "kid" is used to describe a baby goat. How many people have used the word "kid" or "kids" when referring to children in the general sense or when even referring to their own children? When a mother says "I'm going to go put the kids to bed" I'm sure the first thing you picture is not a human mother putting her baby goats to bed now is it?

I mean come on,instead of bickering you could be listing more facts about the lives of mulatto/Biracial slaves during and after slavery, or the many civil rights leaders that were of mulatto ancestry how about listing Mulatto achievements because there were many.


furthermore, there are many Mulattoes I've met that were not offended by the word Mulatto although not all knew the origins of the word the ones that did were still not offended by the term because they also knew that the meanings of words can change with the times.

From what I've noticed the people that were offended by the term have been Blacks that were from two black parents to some it's taken as anyone who identifies as mulatto is trying to distance themselves from their black side.

Note: I'm also not implying that all Black people feel a certain way. nor am i implying that all mulatto, biracial, mixed race, multiracial feel a certain way I'm just stating what I've seen and heard.

  • In Brazil the black comunists sophism mestizos with mulattoes via the vague and pseudocientific term "pardo", because "pardo" not only "mullatoes"; "pardos" are mulatos, zambos/cafuzos and mamelucos/mestizos!and mamelucos not have black blood.; only mongoloid and caucasoid origins..!!(not negroids)!!
Including the United States, mulattoes have had more success and have had a higher status than darker-skinned contemporaries for a variety of reasons. This is particularly true in Haiti where they ran the country often and constitute or constituted a "ruling class." This article seems construed around American sensitivities and NAACP pressure to ignore skin color. While this is good for the future, it tends to ignore past reality and present reality in much of the world.
As a result, this article has limited usefulness. Ignoring the elephant in the living room may make some people feel better, but it doesn't help advance our knowledge of the world very much. Student7 (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

I don't know where did you get these sources from, but - no matter how well reputed they may be - the word "mulatto" most certainly comes from the Portuguese term "mulato", first spread in Northeastern Brazil. Popotão (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering that there existed sub-Saharan descendants in Portugal and the rest of Iberian Peninsula BEFORE colonization and slave trade began in Brazil, the term likely evolved in Europe. Bab-a-lot (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

In response to User talk:Tarc

The gallery does not illustrate any racist terms. I used no racist terms in my submissions. Unless you're indicating the entire article is racist. Please explain. You're accusing me without explanation. Please cite the terms of which I am violating. The gallery illustrates, not only the various physical results of mulatto offspring, but the various types of mulatto ancestry, from ambiguous to specific, to recent (or first generation). Unless there is a unanimous consensus, I see this objection as coming from you only, as in your opinion. It's subjective. Please view the bios of each person. With the exception of Cornell West and Vanessa Williams, who are African-American descendants of slaves, all bios indicate specific European and sub-Saharan African recent ancestry or parentage. I'm putting the gallery back up until I'm notified of an official Wikipedia violation, not one based on personal opinion. Please explain to me how that is racist.

The gallery is placed between the 'Colonial Era' and 'Contemporary Era' sub-sections to illustrated the type of mulatto posterity produced by both, regardless of social race labels/classifications applied during these eras. It doesn't matter, they're all American, whether they look white, black, or in between, who are born of mulatto ancestry, or of sub-Saharan/European (Caucasian) parentage. I wanted to included more, because I know there are more, but didn't want to make the gallery to long. I think it's pertinent that people read the article and understand that mulatto isn't just pertinent to a specific range of looks, but it's very broad. I wanted to add more range, using someone like Boris Kodjoe but that individual has no American ancestry. Will likely use him for Germany.

There should be a subsection somewhere discussing the trend of European and continental African dating, offspring and unions that started in the mid-1900s. It's significant, and a huge sub-topic to explore. I came across a thesis about the resulting population in Germany written by a graduate student a couple years ago. The article also doesn't discuss the initiatives taken by the British government to induce mixed race communities in Britian during the mid-1900s, and that the same sort of initiatives to taken by other European governments. People such as Poly Styrene were born from such initiatives.

There is information about 'mulatto' populations in parts of Europe born to these types of unions that should be included. There is a huge population in Switzerland, for example. There is also mulatto 'legacy' ancestry in places like Tanzania where there is a population cognizant and accepting of it. I just hope that you don't work to 'narrow' the perimeters of this topic, because it's not narrow in the least bit.

There needs to be expansion about the mulatto colonial populations of Africa as well as these people were very influential in those societies and contributed immensely in modernizing those regions (Sherbro clans).

I am working on a gallery for Brazil, and will be putting images and information together for other sections of this article.

Unless an individual self-identifies as "Mulatto" according to a reliable source, we cannot use them as examples of Mulattoes or any other racial or ethnic category. Simply knowing their ancestry is not enough.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Bab-a-lot (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

White/Black vs. European/African

I reverted an edit changing white to European and black to African because that's not what the citation says. If that change is appropriate, perhaps a different citation should be used. Victor Engel (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

studies by peer reviewed Journals unreliable?

The links i posted were from peer reviewed journals.

Can you please explain how they are unreliable? --Nicki44445 (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. the article is a frequent target of POV pushers and at first glance I misjudged. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The source is probably reliable, but the relationship to this particular article is not relevant enough for inclusion. Due to, at the very least, undue weight. Also, it's a bit concerning that wiki editors with no other contributions keep trying to add this into this article. Nicki4445, Greg neo, Wanger90. Per BRD, after being reverted one is supposed to discuss the issue, not make up other accounts to add the same section. Dave Dial (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I actually think it is quote relevant to know that the definitions of mixed race categories such as "mulatto" are socially variable just like other racial categories. I agree it was possibly excessive and I am not sure the source supported it entirely. But I think it is very relevant to include - much more relevant than the different population genetics studies that have no relevancy at all exactly because being "mulatto" is a social category and not a genetic one. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, there are a few things wrong with adding that section. 1: The author of the source is an assistant professor of Sociology (Luisa Farah Schwartzman), who has had a few of her theories published. 2: The entry makes claims not supported by the source. For example- "Research has found that the growth of the mixed race population is in part due to large numbers of blacks "whitening" (blanqueamiento) there racial classification by reporting to be mixed race" and "Studies have found a large trend in reclassification (blanqueamiento/whitening) from black to brown in the 1950 to 1980 period". Those are unsourced claims that cannot possible be true. 3: This theory is not supported by any other source and is based solely on the author's opinions about Brazilian categorizations. There is a lot of guessing, innuendos and conclusions drawn with almost no real data to back any of it up. This is an article about the word Mulatto, not the sociological views of "Blanqueamiento" in Brazil. And that is not even getting into the obvious attempts by what is probably the author to repeatedly try and insert this section into this article(WP:COI,WP:SOCK). Dave Dial (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Those facts are quite well documented in the large literature on race in Brazil, so I don't know why you would say that they cannot possibly be true. Tge fact that there may be a COI in inserting it (for which you have no evidence) is not a reason to include the material. The topic is not about the "word Mulatto" because this is not a dictionary - it is about the concept mulatto and a part of describing this concept is describing its history in different social contexts - such as Brazil where it is well known thaat Mulatto and the corresponding categories have been growing as people reclassify themselves under the influence of the idoelogy of Racial democracy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a section in this very article already titled "Brazil". If there are facts that are well documented, with valid sources, perhaps a sentence or so could be added to that section. Some of which is already described there. For any addition describing large groups of people whitening their skin color to classify themselves as "Mulatto", there would have to be detailed sources and data. Dave Dial (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Heh, its not about "whitening skin color" its about classication schemes becoming gradually whiter so that persons who would have previously classified as black become mulatto and people who used to be classified as mulattos become white. There is no change in skin color (which has no relevance for the concept of Mulatto anyway) but only a change in how the boundaries between the categories are drawn.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Lol! Well, that's much more believable than the way I was interpreting the section. Sorry about that. In any case, it still doesn't deserve it's own section, but I wouldn't be opposed at all it being mentioned in the Brazil section with a wiki-link to the Blanqueamiento article. Dave Dial (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I d agree that its better to include in the Brazil section and with less emphasis, and with a stronger statement of relevance to the topic of the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that sounds about right. Perhaps the OP or someone else would put a couple sentences or paragraph here, or in the article. I am not familiar with the social aspects of race in Brazil. As well as my obvious reading comprehension problem noted above. heh-heh Dave Dial (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

How is this addition controversial?[3] Dave Dial should take a look at WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV (particularly WP:DUE in WP:NPOV). [4][5][6] Tobby72 (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's controversial because, 1- you are trying to change a section in this article that has long-held consensus, and 2- you don't seem to realize the overwhelming amount of reliable sources(in this article and just in general) have written about the rape of slaves in the chattel slavery system. You seem to be cherry-picking some sources to fit your own POV and adding them to the article, which is undue weight considering the amount of scholars/sources that describe the master-slave rapes. The fact is, it's not only the opinion of the overwhelming amount of scholars/sources, but just plain common sense, that a Master-Slave "sexual relationship" is rape . When a "sexual relationship" begins and ends with a "do what I say or I will beat/kill you", there are not many "choices". Add that to the fact that slaves were not even counted as People, but as property, and how can anyone ask for a page number on this fact? So please, if you want to change this article, propose them here on the Talk page first. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Here, Toby72 asked me to take a look at this. Here is what I saw in a not-so quick look at recent edits.

  • This 14 April version of the article had an initial paragraph in the Colonia Era section which was largely unsupported.
  • In this 15 April edit, Toby72 replaced this paragraph with new content, still largely unsupported. The new content changed the focus of the paragraph, removing a heavy weight previously given to rape in a master/slave relationship in favor of heavier emphasis on mulatto offspring.
  • In this series of three April 15 edits, DD2K reintroduced the emphasis on rape, citing supporting sources.
  • In this 15 April edit, Tobby72 reverted the DD2K edits, saying "WP is not a blog".
  • In this 17 April edit, Tobby72 added and rearranged some material.
  • In this 17 April edit, anon 69.105.28.149 reverted the article back to its state as of the last edit by DD2K, without explanation.
  • In this edit, apparently not noticing that the article had been anonymously reverted to one of his prevvious edit versions, DD2K made some further edits to the article, saying, "Undid revision 550678046 by Tobby72 (talk)Not weighted properly. Vast majority of scholars(and obvious common sense) state slave/master 'relationsips' were rape by the very nature".
  • In this May 3 edit, Toby72 added and removed some material in this and other sections of the article. saying, "readd quotes per WP:NPOV, plus add pics".
  • In this May 3 edit, DD2k reverted the prior edit by Tobby72, saying, "... rv- stop- If you want to make these kinds of controversial changes, use the Talk page."
  • In this May 3 edit, Toby72 added a {{Tone}} tag to the section.

I think I've got that straignt. Some of the edits mentioned above were separated from one another by unrelated edits made by other users.

Guys, please re-read WP:BRD. I know that it is an essay and not a policy, but it does describe a workable method for reaching consensus by identifying objections to edits and keeping discussion moving forward and help towards breaking deadlocks. That Bold-Revert-Discuss method is much superior to the Bold-Revert-Unrevert-Edit war method which has been tried here. Regardless of how the section at issue got to be in its current state, can we please have some discussion aimed at establishing a consensus about what it ought to contain?

It looks to me as if the main area of disagreement is how much weight should be given to information about master-slave rapes in colonial America in an article on the topic of Mulatto, which the lead sentence describes as, "a term commonly used in the United States to refer to a person who is born from one white parent and one black parent, or more broadly, a person of any 'mixed' ancestry." Input from editors not involved in the edit-warish exchanges above would probably be useful. I'll mention that this source might be useful. It speaks somewhat to the subtopic at issue here, though not from an American Colonial Era viewpoint. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

To put it simply, DD2K's point of view is: "ALL children between white men and black slave women were the result of rape." My point of view is: "Not all children between white men and black slave women were the result of rape." Sally Hemmings, for example, returned with Jefferson to America, instead of remaining in antislavery France.
I would like to propose the following addition (repeatedly deleted by DD2K) :
Dorothy A. Mays wrote: "The nature of the sexual relationships between masters and slaves varied widely. Some relationships were outright rape, some the result of coercion, and others were the result of mutual consent." Dorothy A. Mays (2004). "Women In Early America: Struggle, Survival, And Freedom In A New World ". ABC-CLIO. p.173. -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
@Wtmitchell- That looks like the sequence of events, except for the fact that the anon ip did not revert to the established consensus version, they just made a copy-edit. I would also add that I did post to Toby72's talk page, and mentioned the BRD process.
@Toby72 - It's not my point of view, it's history and backed up by the overwhelming amount of sources. Once again, your proposed edit is undue weight and does not reflect the overwhelming view of scholars and historians. Not to mention the book you cherry-picked that quote from is neither about Mulatto's nor Master-Slave "relationships". For every one instance you can find making a description you provided, there are dozens of scholar/history books that mention the prevalent rape of slave women in the Slave-Era. Just take a couple of quotes from William's reference above:

::::All slave women ... were vulnerable to being raped, but the mulatto afforded the slave owner the opportunity to rape, with impunity, a woman who was physically white (or near-white) but legally black

And:

::::mulattoes were symbols of rape and concubinage. Gary B. Nash (1974) summarized the slavery-era relationship between the rape of black women, the handling of mulattoes, and white dominance...It was resolved by insuring that the mulatto would not occupy a position midway between white and black. Any black blood classified a person as black; and to be black was to be a slave.... By prohibiting racial intermarriage, winking at interracial sex, and defining all mixed offspring as black, white society found the ideal answer to its labor needs, its extracurricular and inadmissible sexual desires, its compulsion to maintain its culture purebred, and the problem of maintaining, at least in theory, absolute social control. (pp. 289-290)

There are plenty of sources for these facts:
Unburdened By Conscience: A Black People's Collective Account of America's Ante-Bellum South and the Aftermath - By Anthony Neal
Black Cultures and Race Relations edited by James L. Conyers
The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family By Annette Gordon-Reed
In any case, there are dozens and dozens more sources that make the same descriptions. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

::::Rapes occurred, and many slave women were forced to submit regularly to white males or suffer harsh consequences. However, slave girls often courted a sexual relationship with the master, or another male in the family, as a way of gaining distinction among the slaves, avoiding field work, and obtaining special jobs and other favored treatment for their mixed children (Reuter, 1970:129). Many of the sexual contacts between the races at this time took still other forms, such as prostitution, adventure, concubinage, and sometimes love. In rare instances, where free Blacks were concerned, there was even marriage (Bennett, 1962:243-68). (pp. 38-39)

Who Is Black?: One Nation's Definition - By Floyd James Davis pp. 38-39. Tobby72 (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated/contradictory references provided for the contemporary frequency of use of the term mulatto

re: References for the claim, "Contemporary usage of the designation is generally confined to situations in which the term is considered relevant in an historical context, as now most people of mixed white and black ancestry rarely choose to self-identify as mulatto.[2]"

  1. The first link provided, http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/white_Americans::sub::Admixture has no information whatsoever, but seems to be a mixture of advertisements, and perhaps a gateway to somewhere else.
  2. The 2nd link, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1287189/ is a genetic analysis of, "The Ancestry of Brazilian mtDNA Lineages," and states that, "for the census in Brazil, 51.6% of Brazilians in 1996 classified themselves as white." This alone does not identify how many of those 51.6% would even qualify as mulatto, but chose to self identify as white rather than mulatto; nor does it reveal the comparitive unknown number of the remaining 48.4% that did coose to self identify as not white, but qualified to be mulatto and if mulatto was a choice. Furthermore, the sample that was studied for the article revealed mixes of European, African, and native American DNA.
  3. and finally, the 3rd link, http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1415-47572006000400004&script=sci_arttext actually states the opposite of the wiki claim, "Mulatto is the term commonly used in Brazil to designate the offspring result from the union of White and Black people."

While I am without comparative figures compiled to confirm or dispute the claim, "...most people of mixed white and black ancestry rarely choose to self-identify as mulatto", there are evidences from the internet that it is a term used to self-describe:

Historical populations in Europe and their posterity

Shouldn't this article mention the 'Moorish Empire' as this coincides perfectly with the etymology of the term? Also, what about the historical Iberian Peninsula populations, as well as places like Italy, Iraq, Oman and Yemen where the populations still display genetic evidence of the once dominant 'mulatto' populations. Bab-a-lot (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Moors were/are not a black population. They are Berbers [who again, are not black]. If anything, North Africans are darker today than they were in the past since so many Sub-saharan Africans [black people] were brought to North Africa as slaves after the advent of Islam. The middle East is a different story however, since black slaves were brought there from the horn of Africa in massive numbers shortly after Islam came about.. So Mulatto phenotypes are common in the middle east, in Saudi/Yemen they may infact make up the majority. 107.222.205.242 (talk)

Apologies if my edit is bad; I don't know how to do this, but want to at least contribute my point of view. Please fix up my edit as appropriate.

Isn't the whole premise underlying the statement

> In the broadest sense, it is applied to persons of Black and White ancestry.

seriously flawed? AFAIK, homo sapiens first appeared on the scene somewhere in East Africa about 200,000 years ago, whereas the first Homo Sapiens setting foot in Europe is perhaps just 40,000 years ago. In other words, *most* of the ancestry of every white person on Earth is African and Black, and so every white person is a "mulatto" by the definition given above. Richard Dawkins famously refuses to tick the "Caucasian" box on US Visa forms because there is no biological reality behind the US government's conception of race.

IMO, the summary ought to mention quite early both the lack of any biological significance of this term AND the fact that it is an offensive slander derived from "mule" - the sterile (genetic dead-end) offspring of a horse and a donkey. Or is this in fact not the origin of the term? 80.203.21.218 (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)TheDag, April 25th 2014

  • @80.203.21.218: - You are talking above the average person, and of a more scholarly study of the history of Man. We can't give definitions, or write articles, of a word and it's origin and also give a lesson in the history of Man. You are right that we(probably, almost definitively) all originated from Africa. And that many of our ancestors that left the Continent of origin have African blood. But, when those ancestors left they developed new blood too. Whether through diet, environment or other means. For example, some say the early Man who went to Europe "mingled" with the Neanderthal. This is almost conventional wisdom those who study this aspect of anthropology. In any case, we give the definition and history of the term, we don't base it on anthropology. Thanks for the question. Dave Dial (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted False Assertion Regarding Colonial Law

I have deleted the statement, "Rape was not held to be a crime under Colonial Law." As written, the statement was demonstrably false: In the British-American colonies rape was a felony punishable by death, just as it was in England. The appalling fact is that forcing a slave to suffer unwanted sexual intercourse did not constitute rape, because the person of the slave was deemed property of the master, which, within grievously broad limits, the master could use or abuse as he saw fit. (Paradoxically, consensual sexual relations between blacks and whites were generally held to constitute a crime during the same period and long afterwards.) The article did cite a book in support of its dubious statement, but didn't specify a page, so the reference couldn't be conveniently checked. I dare say that if the relevant passage could be found, it would say more or less what I have said here, or at least that rape of slaves was not held to be a crime. With proper citation, I would support the introduction of a statement to that effect in place of the one I have deleted. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:34, 18 September 2014 (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)

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:

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

checkY 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 IITalk 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)

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. [7] 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 "mulattos" 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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.138.57.97 (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

South Slavic nations presumably use a cognate term in South Slavic languages. This article is about the English term. If it can be shown from reliable sources that the English word mulatto is in current use, and is not regarded as offensive, in some English-speaking communities, that should be mentioned in the article. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Use "mulatto(es)"

Although mulatto in the English language technically has two versions of plurality, "mulattoes" and "mulattos;" mulatto(es) is used not only in books etc. but in official U.S. documents of the English language. Although derived from the Spanish "mulato(s)," where foreign words usually receive an "s" only such as in radio(s) etc. I suppose the same plurality reflects how negro(es) or tomato(es) is pluralized; also from Spanish. Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Usage in Brazil

In Brazil, many people of African descent consider the term "mulato", when used to describe race or skin color, to be an offensive racial slur, due to its commonly attributed etymology "mule-like", implying the bestiality of people thus described. —Daniel Ávila, 14:54 (UTC), 03 March 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.17.153.167 (talk)

Modern Spanish point of view

Since mulato/a is a Spanish term, we need here some clarification. Mulato/a is a perfectly ok term to describe a mixed black and white color of skin, regardless of the race or origin of the person. It means neither black nor white; it means something in the middle. Mulato/a s the model of skin desired by people, specially in Spain, that’s why they have sunbaths and go to uva rays baths compulsively. It is not pejorative at all. All the opposite; a mulato/a person is beautiful always. That includes the song. He’s showing his rhythm to a beautiful ‘mulata’ woman. Así que de peyorativo nada majete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.163.26.99 (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Mulato is a Spanish term, but this article is Mulatto, an English term with a specific meaning in the law, history, and culture of the English-speaking world, which is distinct from that of cognates in other languages. The fact that it was borrowed from Spanish (or more likely Portuguese) is irrelevant. The Dutch word, warenhuis doesn't mean warehouse, and shouldn't be considered in Warehouse on English Wikipedia. The Italian word, preservativo doesn't mean preservative, and shouldn't be considered in Preservative on English Wikipedia. Likewise, the Spanish word mulato doesn't mean mulatto, and shouldn't be considered in Mulatto on English Wikipedia. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I disagree Jdcrutch. Although an English term, it is a term resulting from the colonization of the Americas in which we are all intrinsically linked in this hemisphere. This same spelling (mulatto) is also used when writing about other countries within the Americas, especially in Haiti where it is still used and is spelled "mulâtre." Your examples, although in good faith, are much further away in comparison. The meaning (offspring of one white parent and one black) is the same in English, French, Portuguese and Spanish, just as the word "negro/negre" means black, used negatively or not. Are we going to say "negro" no longer means black in English? No.
However, I agree that "mulatto" is not a Spanish word; derived? Yes. It is also debatable on whether or not it is considered offensive, especially when it was because of the southern Democrats of the 1930's who pushed to remove it (disenfranchising?) from the census which had it used from 1910-20, in favor of perhaps an even more racist, "one-drop rule," which classified them along with the "negroes" (recently removed in the census during Obama's administration). During the 20-30s, I don't think it is even a question whether who's interests this served.
So with 212.163.26.99's argument considered, I wouldn't opt to renaming this article for the Spanish spelling in any way, but it does discuss all mulatto groups, not just in English-speaking countries. With the ever-so changing demographic of the United States and further entry of Spanish-speakers, it isn't so far-fetched to believe that these terms will reappear and reform. Currently, this article's scope is limited and should be broadened further by countries who still use the term. Savvyjack23 (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Offensive status

"Its use is considered outdated and offensive", there are two sources listed with this, neither say anything about the term being outdated or offensive, so not sure why that was added or those sources were cited. As such, I'm removing that sentence and sources, which are not even sources for that statement to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4F00:3D00:DDC7:4963:78A7:8FBA (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. Both cites clearly state that it’s outdated and offensive. Since this disruption keeps happening, I’ve extended the protection that just expired. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Stop deleting my valid comments from an actual mixed-part-black person, someone actually qualified to be opining on the matter while the rest of you are not.
Again, IT IS NOT AN OFFENSIVE TERM. Remove that racist projection from the description in the Mulatto description, NOW. Melange6 (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I am also a 'mixed-part-Black' person. I'm betting, however, that I'm either a bit older than you are or perhaps hail from a different part of the country than you do. I've noticed that millenials, genZ'ers, and Black folk not born in the US or raised in certain parts of the country have begun to accept this term partly due to the whitewashing of history. The term comes from mule. Quadroon and octaroon are very much its sister terms - both in meaning and as contemporaries. IT.IS.OFFENSIVE. And not just to me alone.
The dilution of this term is a product of internet disinformation. Do a search. You'll see that it is a HIGHLY contested topic - showcasing the fact that its not just a small group of folks making this up. Because of this, it has given folks license to completely disrespect others purely on a human level.
In a group therapy session, a peer used the term. I gently corrected her saying, "hey, would you mind not using the term 'mulatto'? It's widely considered to be a racial slur and I personally find it offensive." Her response? "My BLACK friend said that it's okay, so I'll used it as much as I want you, MULATTO!" and she continued to used the term as much as possible to refer to me.
Why aren't we given the same kind of consideration as anyone else. You ask someone to stop kicking your chair on the plane, and the non-sociopathic members of society will absolutely do so. You're asked by a colleague to stop using the term "Bitch" because she finds it offensive, and responding with "My GIRLFRIEND said it's okay, BITCH!" is obviously a ridiculous and inappropriate reaction.
Now, yes, you will see the term used throughout time in ways that are accepted and respected. This is where we need to split the hair of context and usage. When it is used academically or artistically, it is never treated casually. formal. It's a statement. ("I am your son, white man!" [8]) It's a treatise on racial studies. (Ex. [9], [10]) It's conceptualized for political/philosophical discourse. ("the tragic mulatto" as concept similar to "the magical negro") It's NOT used as a casual and unnecessary descriptor, strewn about for others to assume its suitable for the daily lexicon.
We could draw a comparison to the term 'Coloured.' (Which, by the say, is called out as being a slur in many places in the Wikipedia article.) Well, how can it be a slur? Hello! NAACP! That MUST mean that it's accepted...and by golly, it WAS the right term at one point. So, would YOU take offense to someone calling you Coloured and/or continually referring to people in that manner after you educated them?
Hell, I actually have a Black friend that prefers that term just because she thinks it's prettier. And honestly, I less offended by Coloured than I am by African-American. So, let me go into the "Coloured" article and remove the statement about it being considered a slur to some people and then randomly sprinkle it around as a descriptor in other articles. "MLK, a colored reverend, attended Boston University." "G.W. Carver was a colored scientist and inventor at the turn of the 20th century."
At the very least, we can all agree that referring to a mixed-race person as "mulatto" is outdated and not the politically correct term of the day. In the articles where we keep referring to people as mulattoes, it's inappropriate because of the lack of parity with how we treat other terms. Like, "Negro." We don't refer to Frederick Douglass as "Negro." We use "African-American." It would be absolutely disrespectful to refer to him using the contemporary language. We don't refer to Hervé Villechaize as a "midget" even though he actually preferred the term. We use "little people." Or acknowledge that people are "born with dwarfism" rather than call them "dwarfs."
And lastly, @Melange6@, you do have a seat at the table of this conversation but you don't represent all of us. Hell, I even dig, the reappropriation of this term as "Latto." While I may adopt THAT term in certain social circles, a stranger aping it back to or in reference to me would be a gross assumption of familiarity and therefore disrespectful in my eyes. Even more, the moment I hear someone outside my race use "Latto" or refer to me as "Latto" at work, I'm going right to HR because it's NOT for them. YOU may be okay with it, but I'M not. And just like "Nigga," while they may say it behind closed doors or in THEIR inner circles or rap it out loud with their favorite hip-hop track, a non-Black person bet'not let it slip out around me.
Grokante (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect image id

The image titled Pinckney Benton Stewart on the mulatto entry is incorrectly labeled. The image is Homer Plessy of the famous Supreme Court decision. Ampittis (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Offensive Term?

Should there be something in the "Contemporary Era" that says that the term is now considered offensive, and is no longer used as a standard term? Because that's certainly the case, the dictionary lists it as such, and I was surprised that that wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article.Carlo (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC) 

Greetings. I will contact the dictionary editors to find out where they got the notion that 'Mulatto' is derogatory. I my-self claim Afro-Metis and Mulatto heritage and do not find this term derogatory.Riverlisp (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

It is controversial as to whether or not this term is offensive. Many do not find it derogatory in the least, but use it to represent our heritage.2601:182:4381:E60:BD7A:135:CE5E:1C5B (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, you people MUST DEFER TO THE MULATTO on the matter of whether or not WE find the term offensive, which we do not. What is about humbling yourselves that you have such a tough time doing? It is NOT AN OFFENSIVE TERM, PERIOD. Remove any negative connotation that you racist supremacist anti-Mulatto editors have ascribed to the term. I am Mulatto, and I'm telling you that it is not offensive. Who the hell are you to tell us how to feel about our own language? Melange6 (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Have to admit I was expecting to see Nirvana's usage in Smells Like Teen Spirit mentioned here. Are there other references in films and songs? JohnCastle (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Anglocentric bias

This article claims that the term is offensive, without clarifying any details. But in reality, in Spanish and Portuguese, as well as even in English if you're in a Spanish speaking country, this term has no negative connotation. Someone said to me that this shouldn't be added to this page because it's on English Wikipedia, but as per WP:Global , Wikipedia is an universal encyclopedia, not just an encyclopedia for countries with the English as its primary language. This is just the English version of Wikipedia, but read by people all around the world with English as a second language. Therefore, people should know that mixed people of European and African ancestry are called Mulattoes in countries like Brazil. This person them said that this article is just about the English term. But as far as I know, there's no articles about the word in other languages. So why isn't this article about this word in general? The page Negro clearly states that it depends on the language if it's offensive or not, and I think this page should too, especially since it already talks about its usage in Spanish speaking countries.

93.15.241.95 (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

This again? In English, it's outdated and offensive. In Spanish and Portuguese it may not be, but you'll need references to state that, since it's referenced as offensive in English. There are 49 Wikipedia articles in other languages concerning the term, mostly poorly referenced. They discuss the same etymology, which derives from comparisons between people and livestock in slaveholding places. In English, it is without question demeaning, and this is the English Wikipedia, so that will be the dominant tone, absent significant references otherwise. The Portuguese article, which is well referenced, notes that it has been described as a racist term by some scholars, and is not commonly used nowadays. I will look at adding those references once I've reviewed them in more detail Acroterion (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
If the term is outdated and offensive, I think the article should not contain information about "mulattoes" living today. As a first step, I removed the info box, but there is more that should be deleted. Any thoughts ? Rsk6400 (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I've already shared those thoughts. If you are not Mulatto, you have no say no so, period, over a term that is ours, as you are unqualified, inexperienced, & uneducated to be telling me and the millions of people like me how we are to feel about a term that is OURS & that was designed for us. Humble yourselves & defer to us. Remove any negative connotation that your non-mixed, racist anti-mixed-race & anti-Mulatto editors have ascribed to our word. Melange6 (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Why not? How else would you refer to the Haitian mulatto elite? Or mulattos in Angola and Mozambique which were a privileged class during colonization? What about the term mulatto being deeply rooted in Brazilian culture, specially music like samba? Knoterification (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Your viewpoint is controversial to say the least.2601:182:4381:E60:BD7A:135:CE5E:1C5B (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing controversial about the word, visit my page, and defer to us on the subject as you do not have the lived experience of a Mulatto to be suggesting anything is controversial to us WITHOUT GIVING US A SEAT AT THE TABLE TO DISCUSS WHAT WE OWN, and that does not pertain to you: https://twitter.com/FTMPWorldwide/status/1537948648343908357/photo/1 Melange6 (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
A given self-defined group does not have a veto over sourced content, nor may a particular editor credibly demand to be a self-appointed spokesman who dictates content. Acroterion (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)|

@Knoterification: Words have different meanings in different languages. I'm convinced that our readers know that. Everybody who has ever learned a second language knows that words sounding similar and having the same root can be very treacherous. So, we don't have to mention that the word "mulatto" is an English word or that it is outdated and offensive only in English. Also, adding a link to English language is certainly overlinking. Do modern historians really use the term "mulatto" when referring to Haitians or Angolans ? In that case, my Oxford dictionary would be wrong. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Than we should change the article, because it is clearly not about the use of term "Mulatto" in English, but in many languages. Just like the article for "Negro".
Modern historians do use the term. Yes your dictionary is incomplete.
Sons of White Fathers": Mulatto Vengeance and the Haitian Revolution in Victor Séjour's "The Mulatto"

Marlene L. Daut

Mulattos in Brazil and Angola: A Comparative Approach, from the Seventeenth to the Twenty-First Century

Luiz Felipe De Alencastro In Racism and Ethnic Relations in the Portuguese-Speaking WorldKnoterification (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Knoterification: I tried in vain to verify your claim about the books you mentions and also to look for "Mulatto" at jstor. But even if one or two historians should still use the word, the consent of all the dictionaries I consulted would absolutely trump those primary sources (see WP:PSTS). I don't know what this article is "clearly" about, since I got the impression that some editors who worked on it didn't know that either. We simply cannot use an offensive word in wikivoice. And there no way to define a group of human beings across different societies just by way of their degrees of European and African ancestries.
Also: Please respect WP rules on edit warring, on WP:BRD, on WP:ONUS, and on WP:NOCONSENSUS. To change the article, you need consensus here on the talk page. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
It is not that hard. Just search form them in google. You can find hunderds of others if you search for mulattos in Haiti, Brazil or Angola. Dictionaries are not infalible. Some people find the term black offensive, but it is used in a Wikipedia article, despite the fact that there is no way to define a group of human beings across different societies just by their skin colour. Knoterification (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Vlaemink: Would you please respect WP:BRD and take part in the discussion before making changes that didn't achieve consensus in an ongoing discussion ? Rsk6400 (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello,
I've taken the liberty of overlooking some of your ( Rsk6400 ) recent edits and I'm sorry to say this, but your style of editing and communicating can come across as quite accusative and aggressive at times. I don't think it's particularly constructive to seemingly assume a racist-bias when people do not agree with you, nor do I think that constantly quoting Wikipedia guidelines or policies (sometimes not even supportive of your point/POV) is very helpful. The core tenet of Wikipedia is WP:SOURCE, yes, but WP:AGF comes next. I think you should read that one as well. For example, I was not aware of this particular discussion on this talk page (started in march, revived a few days ago), I'm convinced you (and others) will have a far better experience if you'd assume good faith in your interactions.
Having said that, my opinion of the matter at hand here is quite straightforward: the word mulatto is a word occurring in multiple languages, whose speakers might have different cultural attitudes towards this word, i.e. non-offensive, obsolete, descriptive, etc.. I do not contest the fact, that it is considered offensive in contemporary English; but as long as the only lexical sources are limited to English dictionaries; this claim cannot be extended to all other languages, whether explicitly or implicitly. Vlaemink (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the AGF problem: In this edit[11], only some hours before, you reverted me without taking part in the discussion, although the edit summary of the very edit you reverted contained the link to that discussion. So I assumed that this is the way you normally edit. Also on this page I left a link to this discussion in one recent edit summary (18.52, 29 Nov, before you reverted it was no. 5 from the top). Please note that I didn’t accuse you of bad faith, I just thought it necessary to remind you of the rule. Since you said it was a mistake, I retract it. For the rest of what you said, I’ll answer on your German user’s talk page.
Regarding the content problem: As I already said above, I’m convinced that our readers know that different words have different meanings in different languages. And this is the English WP, so we use English words. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
If one already knows the subject, one generally doesn't need to look it up in an encyclopedia; so I would not make the assumption that the average reader is aware of not just an identical word, but an (at first glance) identical term having cross-linguistic nuances. Yes, this is the English-language Wikipedia; but it is also (by far) the most international Wikipedia and being able to communicate in another language and correctly interpreting it within its cultural subtext are two different things. Especially in cases like this particular article, where the word used is in fact a direct loanword. Vlaemink (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Well said. Mulatto is an archaic word in English. In Brazil, though some people have opposed its use in recent years, it is still deeply ingrained in popular culture, and used in academic settings to describe a social category that, unlike in the USA, was clearly distinct from "black". In Haiti it is used to refer to a small elite that until very recently held most power in the country. Knoterification (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Please don't forget that people in Brazil don't speak English, so they use the Portuguese word "mulato", not the English word "mulatto". On the other hand, if you really think that dictionaries are no reliable sources on the use of the English word "mulatto", as you said above, it will be hard for us to reach a consensus. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
It will be hard to reach a consensus when dictionary entries are taken as proper and all encompassing reference-material for an encyclopedic articles. Also, let's keep this discussion of a sufficient intellectual level; I'm quite sure Knoterification knows that Brazilians do not speak English negatively and I'm quite sure you (Rsk6400) are aware that even without an extra t, 'mulatto and mulato are the same word as well as basic concept. I ask you directly Rsk6400, what is your current position and argumentation so that others may respond to it? Vlaemink (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Vlaemink, please read my comment of 08:53, 28 November 2022. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
In that comment you talk about your personal belief that "our readers" know that "words have different meanings in different language". You claim that "everybody" supposedly knows that "words sounding similar and having the same root can be very treacherous" and that therefore we don't have to mention that the word "mulatto" is an English word or that it is outdated and offensive only in English. Apart from the logic of that statement not being particularly sound, this seems to be argumentum ad populum; and one rooted in your personal assumptions at that.
Therefore I'm sorry, but have to ask again: what is your current position and what evidence (i.e. reference material) do you have to back this position up? Vlaemink (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I think that I explained my position well enough. Feel free to seek dispute resolution. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
As you were the one to raise this issue and given your last reply, I will assume that you will not seek to further contest Knoterifications edits concerning this particular issue in the future; thereby closing the matter. Vlaemink (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
After three discussions in two languages, I have given up all hope that you will ever understand me correctly. I already gave Knoterification two warnings on their talk page, but I still hope that it will not be necessary to take this to WP:ANI/3RR. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Either clarify your position or let the issue go. Melodramatic passive agressiveness like the comment above adds nothing. Vlaemink (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has got out of hand. @Acroterion:, before preceding to more formal steps, might I ask your opinion on whether the second sentence ("Its use is considered outdated and offensive in English.") should contain the words "in English" or not ? Thanks in advance, Rsk6400 (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting is this Dutch article]. The article, from 2008, states that the term is offensive but the offensiveness is derived from the American usage. To my opinion, the addition of "in English" is not correct. The Banner talk 19:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't know a lot about the history of racial categories in Dutch culture, but I would not be surprised if it were similar to the Anglo-Saxon world. It is also common that due to cultural similarities and wide use of the English language, the Dutch are the first to adopt cultural tendencies from the Anglosphere. Knoterification (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion, and administrators won't arbitrate content. I note that we've seen profoundly disruptive conduct from a now-blocked editor who asserted ownership over the term, and who asserted that there was nothing at all offensive and outdated about it, which does not agree with the use in English. This editor was a source of considerable exasperation for others, including myself, so I would appreciate it if we could avoid characterizing other editors' comments as "melodramatic." That's a personalized comment that is unhelpful. It appears that other languages are following the same trend as English, but more gradually. Whether ot not the inclusion of "in English" or its absence captures that accurately is the central issue. Acroterion (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
American hegemony, as an agent of cultural homogenization, in action. Inn Brazil for example, some adopt the American way, others reafirm mulatto as a specific Brazilian social identity, for example musician Caetano Veloso. https://www.uol.com.br/splash/noticias/2021/12/21/caetano-defende-uso-do-termo-mulato-nao-vejo-qual-o-problema.htm Knoterification (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
The corresponding German word "Mulatte" is also marked as "discriminatory"[12] by Duden (called "the preeminent language resource of the Standard High German language" by its WP article). But I still hold that while words in different languages may be similar, they are never identical (except, perhaps, scientific terms like homo sapiens). So the Brazilians just don't use the English word mulatto, but the Portuguese word mulato.
May I suggest this solution: You add something based on reliable secondary sources to the section on Brazil. But please remember that an 80-year-old celebrity might not be the best source for the current use of the word, especially since he doesn't self-identify as "mulato" but says that his father was one. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
@Rsk6400: Let's not muddle the waters here; as this whole issue is quite straightforward when it comes to WP:CITE: It is you who has pushed the claim, that mulatto/mulato is offensive across all languages, i.e. that it is a universally offensive term; if that is still your claim, then you should provide sources for that. If that is no longer your claim, you should clarify what is.
If it still is however and you cannot, or cannot do so convincingly (for example, because others bring forward source material that conflicts with this) provide these sources/references then you will have to accept some form of consensus or differentiation.
In the mean time, it is your claim (mulatto/mulato being offensive across all languages) that has no sources and hence should not be placed in the article while this discussion is still going on. Over the past few days, you, Rsk6400 have nevertheless reverted the article to contain your as of yet unsupported claim a total of six (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) times, while lecturing other participants on edit-warring and the 3RR. This is not constructive. Vlaemink (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
After a very quick google-search:
In English and among many African Americans, the term "mulatto" carries offensive connotations. In Spanish and Portuguese, however, and among U.S. Latinos/as and Latin Americans, the term mulato/a (so spelled) not only does not carry an offensive connotation but has in fact now become a sign of pride and identity. (in Grace and Humanness: Theological Reflections Because of Culture by Orlando O. Esp, Orbis Books, 2007)
Vlaemink (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Note that I never claimed that the term is offensive across all languages. Seems like Vlaemink is attacking a WP:STRAWMAN. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
By opposing (as you have done and stated numerous times) the addition of "in English" in "Its use is considered outdated and offensive in English" you are implying that the term is offensive in general and hence across languages. Vlaemink (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
1. Yes he does. Mulato and pardo interchangeably.
2. If you knew even a little bit about Brazil, you would know Caetano Veloso has a deep influence in the country, not only as a singer, but also as a thinker and writer.
3. I don't know what is the relevance of his age. Like it or not he is still alive and is currently using the word. Knoterification (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I will also add that if the article was only about the term mulatto in Anglophone settings, than the categorization "offensive in English", would be redundant. But the article is clearly not only about the term mulatto in Anglophone settings. Knoterification (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
As I already said, I suggest you add something about Brazil, but please follow WP rules and also please try to avoid aggressive language. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC on the addition of "in English" to the lead section

Should the words "in English" be added to the second sentence of the lead section ? The resulting sentence would be "Its use is considered outdated and offensive in English." Rsk6400 (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment This has been discussed extensively in the section above #Anglocentric_bias. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose Since this article is part of the English Wikipedia, we don't have to clarify the language. Words, even if they sound similar and have the same root, are different in different languages. Of course we can add sections on the use of "mulato" in Brazil or "mulâtre" in francophone countries. According to MOS:LEAD (the lead should summarize the article), we should do that first before we change the lead. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong support: Mulato/Mullato is a term used across multiple languages and cultures. It has already been shown, that in Spanish and Portuguese (where the term originated) the term does not carry the same offensive connotation as in English and has in some cases become a sign of pride and identity. This is the English-Wikipedia, yes, but English is a world language and should therefore represent a worldly view; as per WP:NPOV. In this case especially, the context of Spanish-speaking and Portuguese-speaking cultures cannot be relegated to a secondary role, as it is within Brazil and the Spanish-speaking countries of South and North America that the term mulato was/is most used. The lead should not reflect merely one cultural sphere/ language, but make clear that the use and interpretation of this term varies both across time and cross-culturally. Vlaemink (talk) 09:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I fail to see though, why this wouldn't be accounted for when writing that its offensiveness instead "differs cross-culturally". Or why its current offensiveness in multiple languages, would make it offensive in general. Especially with Spanish (~550 million speakers) and Portuguese (~250 million speakers) involved. Vlaemink (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Than we should specify those languages (apparently Germanic languages). Currently despite the article claiming that, the sources only point to English. Knoterification (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I had recently added this link to the discussion (in Dutch). The Banner talk 20:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Intersting article. I don't speak Dutch, but it appears to defend its use in the language, right? Knoterification (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
It is an opinion piece which seems to come to the conclusion that in contempory Dutch (and I would support this from my personal experience) the use of word mulat has long since died out. The leading Dutch dictionary Van Dale doesn't note "mulat" as derogatory; stating simply that a "mulat" is a "descendant of a white and a black person" -- but I would ignore this and focus on the fact that is no longer a word used in contemporary Dutch; which I think the article kindly provided by TheBanner clearly shows. Vlaemink (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Makes sense. Do you know if mulatto was ever a social category in the Dutch speaking world? Or was there hypodescent like in the USA? Knoterification (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) Summarize the reliable sources. The language this Wikipedia is in has nothing to do with how we treat a subject, and rejecting that idea is the main reason I'm bothering to leave this comment. The language of this project creates a systemic bias that we need to work to remedy as best we can, rather than reinforce. If the reliable sources say that it's offensive in English-speaking countries but not in Spanish-speaking countries, we should say that. If the reliable sources say it's offensive and Wikipedia editors say "but not everywhere", then leave it out because we only go by the sources we're summarizing. Based on the thread above, it seems likely that something like "Its use is considered outdated and offensive in many places, especially English-speaking countries" might be called for, but I don't see many sources linked there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Comment: I fully concur with this assessment. In requesting this RFC in this form, Rsk6400 has limited the number of possible solutions / grounds for consensus considerably. This RFC should not be about whether "in English" ought to be added to the second sentence of the lead section, but rather on how differing (sourced/properly referenced) cultural attitudes should/could be included. Vlaemink (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Strong Support: I agree 100% with Vlaemink, I don't see why one would oppose specifying that it is offensive and outdated in English, since that seems to be standard in Wikipedia (negro, orient, gringo). Knoterification (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Adding "in English" suggests the term is only offensive in English. Rather, I would suggest others find the languages where it is not considered offensive, provide reliable sources to back up that information, and propose a section about the difference of use in those languages. :— The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
    Following a neutral point of view, and avoiding anglocentric bias, one should not assume it is offensive in most languages because it is offensive in English. We should both state languages where it is offensive, and where it isn't. Currently all sources provided are exclusively about the English language. Knoterification (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    The onus is on you to provide that information, and evidence it is not offensive in other languages. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
    1) That information has already been provided; see the above section; 2) The statement "it is considered offensive and obsolete" is different from "it is considered offensive and obsolete in English". The latter statement has been proven and isn't disputed by anyone here, but the former statement is as it implies cross-linguistic offensiveness and obsoletion. And for that claim, it is not Knoterification who needs to disprove that (though this has in effect already been done) but for supporters of that statement to provide evidence in support; which has not been the case so far. Vlaemink (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - I would say it is a dated and potentially offensive in North America, since those are defining characteristics. It seems accepted use in many locations and is not a current and explicit pejorative even among North Americans, so whether one is offended or even recognizes the word seems more a personal variable. But it also seems not as accepted as Mestizo, Pardo, or Cafuzo. Colourism concerns make any racial term touchy and potentially offensive, but this one seems simply not a hot button. It seems more touchy to choose among more recent racial labellings e.g. 'black' vs 'negro' vs 'African-American' vs 'Mixed'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


  • Support. Since the article is about the people called Mulattoes in many different places this clarification is useful. I see that the lede has changed already, I think that the current version is also okay. Alaexis¿question? 12:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, in other languages it's not considered offensive. Even in English, I've seen cases and certain countries where it's not necessarily offensive. I'd even go as far as saying "Its use is sometimes considered outdated and offensive."--Ortizesp (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This page needs to go into more information about the ethnicity in different countries

There isn't enough information on this page. Say if someone were to really extensively look into the term and the people who are identified as mulatto, you would not be able to get much. Each country in Latin America, for example, should have their own section like the "mestizo" article. It would also be nice to bring the population table back, that was rediculous to delete that in the first place. The word may be offensive to English speakers, but censoring the article is not helpful for those who truly just want to use it for research purposes. Lifeinvegas (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Mulatto

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mulatto's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto1":

  • From Mestizo: Mörner, Race Mixture, p. 55.
  • From Haiti: Corbett, Bob, ed. (9 November 2003). "17201: Corbett: Hayti and Haiti in the English language". Webster University. Archived from the original on 9 March 2017. Retrieved 8 March 2017.
  • From Brazil: Jonathan Watts & Donna Bowater. "Dilma Rousseff impeached by Brazilian senate". The Guardian. Retrieved 31 August 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ Link to site with picture of the mulatto flag:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mulatto/Archive_3&oldid=1248760937"