Talk:Black people/Archive 4

message: I have heard the objections to the use of "black" in this discussion group and I have heard them very clearly. Now, I think it's time that we all come to a sense of honesty and reality about my position. 
*Black americans (African-Americans) have and currently identify themselves as Black, usually with pride. There is no reason to object to that, or to impose against it. They...WE have the right to be Black. We have historically been told that being black is bad, wrong, evil, nasty, dirty, inferior (etc) and this new wave of bull---- which seeks to eradicate recognizing us based on some post-colonial psychology is just another attempt to call us unworthy of recognizing even our unique social and cultural identity. We can be called black and you all can recognize it for what it is. You have historically hated us for being black, not hated us for any negative interpretations YOU have. You just hated us for not being like you (ligher skinned, straight haired, having whatever it is you think that makes you so important). 
*Black PEOPLE (i.e. black humans in any part of the world) deserve to be honestly respected in this article. Trying to explain them away again is based on our western imposition on equating black with bad. So again, I hear people being offended and having issue with identifying these people or those as black. Again, blackness is something that is objectionable based on the racist attitudes taught to us by white colonization. 
*Black People again! The Black Humans who are historically known as Black (Aeta, Aboriginals)etc, have their own identity as Black people. They need not to be justified in the minds of African-Americans or Africans. This is not about making "Black" as exclusive as "White". Each group of people in the world uniquely  have their identity, they do not rely on another to validate themselves. 
*You cannot should  your views on here. Black people exist. That is the plain fact, like it or not. Black people exist and we have and are unwilling to give up our identity nor the name of the identity for some grandiose request by others to categorize us based on some view that nationalistic identity is more legitimate. So there is no way that you can tell me that I or anyone else should not call themselves black. If black means 'bad' to you, then too 'bad' for you. I am not going to let white sensibilities determine how I identify myself. 
So it is for those passionate reasons that I have and will continue to aggressively involve myself in this particular article. 
--Zaphnathpaaneah 02:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What people have failed to acknowledge 

message: I certainly acknowledge and understand that the use of "black African" is inappropriate. However, I am offended greatly by the use of sub-saharan. To the African people in here, are you Sub-Saharans? How better then to describe the people in question? 
"EQUATORIAL". That scientifically shows the biological (not genetic) parallels to other EQUATORIAL people (the black people in Asia and elsewhere). This addresses the gap between the lack of genetic connection between the groups, and the relatively obvious physical similarities between them. It also addresses the relationship the sun, the equator, and the environment has on the physical characteristics. 
I also acknowledge that the use of black may or may not have a positive impact on some people, however that does not mean it should (or should not). How much of that is objective, and how much of that is self-hatred or colonial mindset is something none of us here are able to pin down. Is rejecting it due to a colonized mind or is accpeting it due to a colonized mind? Does it realistically show the difference today when one accepts (or rejects) it? 
Finally I do see a difference between a black person and a Black person. One is merely black based on their skin color, the other(s) are due to their ethnic similarities. The middle ground I am trying to bridge is the fact that a diverse group of unrelated and semi related people share many of the same characteristics and experiences. This must be addressed and not merely ignored. 
Now I have been as honest as I can be. I am not and far from being alone in this assessment. Most Black Americans I speak to agree with me that we should recognize that there are black people in other parts of the world and that we should not be ashamed of acknowledging it, nor should we encourage shame in their potential to recognize it without fear of disdain. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What Zaph certainly acknowledges

message: http://www.rebeccawalker.com/article_2003_black-buddha.htm
She seems to support my viewpoint. Here is what is said in the article: 
Which black people are you talking about?
Look at the statues at Angkor Wat or look at Bodhidharma, the founder of Zen Buddhism, who is depicted with a broad nose, thick lips, and curly hair. There are also some interesting murals in India's Ajanta caves depicting black people handing a lotus to a prince. Or look at Runoko Rashidi's book African Presence in Early Asia and read about black people in Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, and so on. I have personally met black people from Burma and I have a student who is currently living among the black people of south India. And that is just skipping the rock over the surface because we don't have a lot of archaeological information to discern the complete history of black people in Asia. The African diaspora in Asia has been mislabeled and African Americans continuity with the black Global diaspora has been broken as well. African-American's disconnection with the black people of the world is an injury resulting from slavery in America and in some way, western Dharma's exclusion of the black Asiatic experience in Buddhism has become conjoined with that continuum of injury. 
Thank you Rebecca Walker. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebecca Walker speaks

message: I in 1991, I observed a documentary on China that depicted Black skinned people.  The film maker indicated that Black skinned people reside in China.
China has listed 2,400 minorities with the United Nations.  there are millions of people of Black skin living there.  The Vietnamese people also includes many ethnic minorities which can be described as almost jet Black in skin tone.--VaniNY 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Black Asia

message: The word seems to have taken on a negative connotation, which was not intended on my part. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peculiarities 

message: Sincerely, I have the impression that many African Americans have a huge identity problem.
Because their original culture was largely destroyed by slavery, exclusion, etc.(Actually, white Americans aren't much better off. Many Euorpeans like to joke about them).
So they yearn for something that could give them an identity.
But really sincerely, no African would ever identify as "Black people".
Just be sincere enough to look at the many tribal wars which are destroying our continent.
I really hope that someday their will be a unity. But we are still very far away from it(Europeans are actually having similar problems, BOsnia, Albania, Georgia, Armenia, Russia, Rumania, Southern Italy/Northern Italy, etc.).
So do "Black People "exist: Yes, in America this identity certainly makes sense.
But in no way does it reflect the complexity of the world(Ex.: Black Arabs killing Black Africans in Darfur, Somalis are actually "Arabic" and not African, though they look Black, African Americans-if they don't have money- are in many places still considered to be inferior/slaves, etc.)
My point. It would be nice to have Blacks united against racism. But right now, there are still big divisions(Just go to Africa). And it is not helpful to ignore them.\
:The only problem is that you don't like how Black people choose to identify themselves. You think the whole self-hating black issue can be avoided if people just stop relating to themselves as black. Real dumb man. It also seems that most of these people arguing against black are arabs from Africa. You all get zero respect from me regarding your sneaky attempt to deconstruct black identity. You hate black people in general and you think you can "change us" by turning us emotionally from "black" to "arab". --Zaphnathpaaneah 00:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afro American identity problem 

message: The following article is an example that shows that it might even be dangerous to ignore the many differences between "Black people".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/24/AR2006072400793.html
Not Just Black And White
New Efforts Look More Deeply Into Racial Comparisons of Health Care
By Jeffrey G. Ghassemi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 25, 2006; Page HE01
That health disparities exist between whites and blacks in the United States is widely recognized, with the latter group faring far worse on many major health outcomes. But some experts are calling new attention to a host of lesser-known differences within the black population that they say may help explain the nature of such disparities and offer new clues about how to address them.
A small but growing body of research shows health disparities between native-born blacks and foreign-born blacks living in the United States. Carlotta Arthur, a researcher in the Department of Afro-American Studies at Smith College, in Northampton, Mass., recently highlighted some of these differences in the Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved. In a review article, she cites evidence that paints a better overall picture of health for foreign-born blacks than their U.S.-born counterparts -- at least initially.
Upon arrival, for instance, black immigrants have been shown to have lower rates of cardiovascular disease, cancer, hypertension, obesity and overall chronic medical conditions than U.S.-born blacks. Yet this robustness may drop with years of residence -- a concern for health researchers and immigrant advocacy groups alike.
"Much of the research out there doesn't bother to tease apart these differences among blacks," said Arthur. "But 'blacks' in this country are not a homogenous group," she said. "They include immigrants from Africa, Central and South America, and English-, French- and Dutch-speaking Caribbean nations, as well as people now known as African Americans."
Better understanding of such health disparities is critical to improving care and controlling health costs nationwide, says Raynard Kingston, deputy director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Immigrants, mostly from the Caribbean and Africa, account for a large part of the growth in the country's black population over the past 25 years, Arthur writes in her review. In the Washington area, African immigrants account for 11 percent of the foreign-born population (the second highest concentration in the U.S.) and number close to 95,000, according to U.S. Census data. Immigrants from Ethiopia, Nigeria and Ghana comprise nearly 45 percent of that figure, found a 2003 Brookings Institution report. Adding black immigrants from outside Africa brings the estimated count of recent black immigrants to the Washington area to well over 100,000, according to some experts.
While the reasons for an initial immigrant health advantage are not entirely clear, one theory points to "selective migration" -- the idea that healthier people tend to migrate. Other theories credit higher education and socioeconomic status, lower-fat diets and tighter social networks of foreign-born blacks.
But Winston Price, immediate past president of the National Medical Association, an advocacy group for physicians and patients of African descent, fears the loss of these health advantages over time. He and other experts predict that the assimilation process and associated stresses may lead to a decline in health status, a finding consistent with data on other immigrant populations.
Another factor: obstacles to accessing health care. These may include an inability to speak English, a lack of health insurance and discrimination -- bias and stereotyping -- by health providers. "Whenever there are barriers to navigating the health care system, people will have poorer outcomes," said Price.
Vera Oye Yaa-Anna, vice president of the African Women's Cancer Awareness Association (AWCAA), a Maryland-based health advocacy group, agrees. Her experiences working with African immigrants suggest that many find the U.S. health care system daunting.
"I may not have hard numbers, but I come across these people every day who say, 'I have cancer. Where do I go? What do I do?' " Yaa-Anna said. "The U.S. health care system may be better than ours, but at home we have family to help us navigate it. Here, most of our people don't go for early screening because they are lost."
The AWCAA conducted its second annual walk-a-thon last Saturday in Wheaton to raise awareness and funds for its cancer outreach programs.
Some of the research reviewed by Arthur supports the concern over growing health risks, showing lower rates of cancer screenings for certain black immigrant groups compared with U.S.-born blacks. Black immigrants were also less likely than U.S.-born blacks to have a regular place to go to for health care. Some fear that if such patterns continue for black immigrants, along with the already dismal health of U.S.-born blacks, disparities between blacks and whites could grow even larger.
Data show that U.S. blacks generally lag far behind whites on many health measures. Death rates from heart disease, for example, are twice as high among blacks as whites, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Similar gaps exist for obesity, cancer and infant mortality. Lower socioeconomic status among U.S. blacks as well as barriers to access (similar to the ones mentioned for black immigrants) contribute to the problem.
In response to current disparities and fears over future trends, some experts are calling for more research that looks beyond race to specific factors within it, such as ethnicity, class, sex and length of residence in the United States. They claim that understanding the differences within black communities can provide new ways of thinking about disparities and addressing populations at risk. According to Arthur, cultural differences might be addressed by printing health literature in many languages and promoting services that respect different belief systems. Other efforts could address social determinants of health care, like discrimination, psychological stress and economic issues.
"The same thing has already happened with other minority groups, including Latinos and Asians," Arthur said. "It's time to start doing it for the black population."
NIH's National Center for Minority Health and Disparities, established in 2000, has already begun to focus its research on this problem. Other institutions are conducting their own studies to address the issue.
Arthur applauds the move. "After all," she said, "we may have come here on different boats, but we're all in the same boat now." ·
Comments:ghassemij@washpost.com.
Firstly, your having yet another shadow debate. The differences between black people are already illustrated here in the article VERy clearly. Also, there is a clear understanding in the article that no scientific (i.e. DNA) basis can used to group black people together because it causes some to be excluded. Thirdly it's just as logical to consider black people in America who are mixed (one drop rule) as "not black" just as well as any Aboriginal, or East Indian. This whole discussion about the health factor is unrelated to this article. It's an unrelated discussion where you are equating "race" with "similar biology" and I have yet to use the word "race" or "same biology" anywhere in my contributions on this article. The concept of race is at the very best an inconsistent concept and impossible to pin down with certainty. ESPECIALLY with the one group that came before all the others, and from which all others derived from. All this is just an attempt to disintegrate the concept of a worldwide black identity. And it's justified because YOU think it shouldn't be that way for YOUR reasons. The fact is, it is there and was there and there is no reason to break it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An example for why "Black People" is wrong 

message: A few weeks ago I was going to leave this article alone, convinced you could be trusted to not give undue weight to your personal opinions. I come back to find that you've done ridiculous things like inserted light skinned Sri Lanken kids at the top of the article, and are making it sound as though the term Black describes equally if not more to Asians than it does to Africans.  Before you at least had the good sense to make it clear that the term refers primarily to Africans but you're trying to abuse wikipedia as a soapbox to promote your own POV, instead of finding mainstream sources and citing them.  Also by putting Ethiopians right next to Sri Lanken kids, people will start to believe Ethiopians aren't Black since the same article is absurd enough to equal weight to South Asians.  If you explain to me what agenda you are trying to accomplish, I will help you come up with intelligent ways of reaching it; but for now you're just making a mess, and are only discrediting your own views.  Editingoprah 17:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editingoprah learn to recognize compromise when you see it

message: *Inappropriate personal attack by Editngoprah.  deeceevoice 17:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That personal attack was written by Zaph, not me. Editingoprah 19:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies.  Yep.  I can't deny that it sounds just like him.  I saw the notation below with your tag and read it as your signature.  Sorry about that.  deeceevoice 19:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Then YOu go to the Africoid article and you just do that. but here that goes off the subject. Africoid has more than one meaning, but this is the BLACK PEOPLE article. Not the "Africoid" article. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: While I, personally, find your use of "B" and "b" to be interesting, to my general knowledge, there is not a wide spread and well recognized use, as you spell it out there.  If there is, the article should present that information and should present it early in the article.  Else the article's statements will be misunderstood, since upper and lower case have other uses than what you specifiy.  For example, how does one present a lower case "black person" when a sentence begins with that term ? So, if that is the actual situation, please specify some sources.  On the other hand, if that situation is only present in a narrow field, or in one or two publications, please specify those and quote the portions applicable. There's simply no reason to introduce your own, personal coding you know? Terryeo 16:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Look 
at this stupidity
!*

message: There are many sections in this article that read as mini-esssays and that are not supported by references based on reliable sources (See WP:RS. Unless sources are provided for those sections, material will be mercilessly deleted as per WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 08:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zaph the talk page is full of people trying to discuss things with you and it's impossible to convince you of anything (you just end up making personal attacks).  The founder of wikipedia has made clear that anything that isn't well documented by a reliable source should be mercilessly edited.  And the article is not gaining momentum at all.  It was in much better shape at the time it was protected.  Obviously you think it's better now because it reflects your personal POV. Editingoprah 16:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I quote from wikipedia verifiability: Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting other editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." 
Editingoprah 16:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced 

message: From what I learned (which was long before this article). St. Maurice is a patron saint of Austria and has statues erected in Germany. --Zaphnathpaaneah 12:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: St Maurice

message: Inidans might look Black, or might be "Black People". But they are extremely racist towards Africans.
* African students (And others are often discriminated in India)
*The relation between Africans and Indians in Africa is usually very bad(Uganda, etc.)
* Mississippi Masala, Ghandi and his racist quotes, etc.
Just read what they think and feel:
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/000456.html
Indians have a totally different culture than Africans(Different religion, different food, different clothes, different family tradtions, different education traditions, different economic traditions, etc.)
Why do you insist to put people who usually don't consider to belong to one group, into one group?
Either your "Black people" stuff is totally empty(Everybody can be it, and it means nothing).
Or you are wrong because you put people into one group, though they don't belong together. (Unsigned post.)
:There were two (or three -- I think three; my memory fails) ancient, Indian civilizations comprised of black African peoples.  The Dravidians of Mohenjo Daro were one. There are very clearly not just black, but Africoid peoples in the south of India.  Just google the subject if you doubt me.
:And, yes, many East Indians are appallingly racist and have been infected with the sickness of anti-black color bias -- like a good deal of the world when it comes to the internalization of white supremacist values. There are lots of incontestably black people (e.g., African-Americans, continental Africans) who also have internalized the sickness of anti-black color bias. So, what's your point?
:When the Persians invaded India, they pushed the black peoples to the south and spread their virulent anti-black attitudes with them.  The caste system in India is the result, upheld by the Brahmin class.  For example, the Tamil blacks, many of them of the Untouchable or Dalit caste, refused to accept the caste system with its injustice, racism and oppression and have fought against it since ancient times.  To the north, the population has been heavily miscegenated with Asian and Persian/Eurasian bloodlines.  They have adopted European values, try to marry light-skinned people with straight hair and more European features and look with disdain upon dark-skinned people of their own ethnicity -- let alone Tamils and other black Indians.
:Again, I am an African-American who repeatedly has been mistaken here in multinational, multi-ethnic D.C. for an East Indian or Bangladeshi -- and that is because there are lots of black people in India.  But in an African-American cultural millieu, there is no question that I am an African-American; it would never occur to anyone sane person to question my ethnic identity.
:Your opinions are seemingly based on ignorance and a simplistic notion of Indian peoples -- and, yes, that's with an "s".  Do not paint all East Indians with the same broad brush.  They are not homogeneous culturally/ethnically or physically, not all fair-skinned or tan with straight hair and Asian/Eurasian features.  Nor are they all racist (not even those of the north). There are Indians who are almost blue-black with straight hair, and almost blue-black with nappy hair who, if you plunked them down in Africa, or Australia, or New Guinea, dressed like one of the locals, no one would bat an eye -- and you, perhaps, least of all.  deeceevoice 15:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indians are racist does not belong here.  Actually any discussion of general racism would not be appropriate.  Please constrain talk page discussion to the article which the talk page is about. Terryeo 16:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Listen, Terryeo, please do not try to tell people what can and cannot be discussed on an article talk page.  People will write about what they will.  If someone raises a subject, it is likely that people will respond.  deeceevoice 17:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  errrr, ummmm, getting back to the article's subject, errr...208.106.20.67 18:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Such statements are irrelevant to the purpose of working on the article, and it could be inflammatory.  Talk pages are for talking about the article, not the subject of the article.  Anyone who wants to make a post titled "So and sos are racist" needs to find a forum, because that doesn't go in an encyclopedia.  Friday (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deceevoce, it wasn't me who posted the "stupidity" personal attack. It was Zaph. Editingoprah 19:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got it the first time.  Saw your note above and responded above.  deeceevoice 19:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Taking this section from the top. Indians are racist and so are Americans.. Shall I post the obvious ignrance that Americans have towards Black people and Africans? Or are we going to stop pretending that Indians (which are 4 times as numerous as Americans) all come from the same ethnic background? We all know that most Indians are not Black, I am not saying that all of India, most of india, or even half of India is black. I am addressing the elements of India that ARE Black, not the ignorant ones that are not. Here we go with another ignorant quarterback sack! --Zaphnathpaaneah 14:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indians AND Americans 
are very racist


message: Moved here so that interested editors can find references for all thse assertions made.
----
==Who is black today?==


Because it is more of a social classification label than a bonafide race, it cannot be objectively tested with consistent results. Similar to the difficult experience of unanimously agreeing on who is ethnicly Jewish, there is no scientific way to identify a "Black" person without excluding one segment that has historically been known as black. The criteria can be subjectively applied based on cultural and social customs, political reasons, or historical context. A black person in the U.S. would be considered non-black in Brazil, while a Colored person in South Africa would be considered Black in the U.K.. Finally any mulatto (person mixed with black) is usually considered black in the U.S. Some scientists have insisted on focusing more on DNA but this also creates more problems as Africans are extremely diverse genetically and intermixture among black people creates too many exceptions to the rules which they seek to impose.
*It is generally agreed that Equatorial Africans are unquestionably black, along with black African Americans. In fact, their "blackness" tends to be unquestioned, despite varying degrees of Native American and European admixture. 
*Northeast Africans, while generally considered black in the West, are sharply divided in some areas due to religious and ethnic identity. Arab culture and the Islamization of East Africa have caused cultural divides and, in some cases, armed hostilities, between so-called Arabs who otherwise would be considered black in any other cultural millieu and other black Africans.
*In Latin America, many people of predominantly African descent consider themselves black under very specific conditions, whereas many mixed Afro-Latinos use other terms to describe themselves. On the other hand, their  African heritage is often more strongly preserved and manifested than among other diasporic blacks. Their religious and social customs are much closer to Yoruba, Ife, and other groups than those of, for example, blacks in the U.S. 
*In the Middle East, various unrelated groups of Africans and other black people inhabit the regions. Their appearance in the region varies considerably, and there is no stong unified sense of black identity there. Mostly East African in origin, their culture is distinct, with some even retaining African languages. 
*In Southeast Asia, the Negritos (aboriginal Filipino) of the Philippines, the Sentinelese and the Orang Asli of Malaysia have retained the distinctive qualities that otherwise would be known as black characteristics. They share many physical features with continental Africans and are visually and culturally distinct from the Chinese and Sinoid peoples of the region.
*In India and Indonesia, the Papuans and Andamanese groups also have experienced social upheaval, economic hardship, displacement, violence, social and political marginalization and discrimination based on their social status and skin color. 
*Australian Aborigines are one of the oldest, distinct human populations outside Africa known today. Their skin color is, on average, darker than that of the average Equatorial African. 
----
::How about this. How about I semi protect the article from further edits by unsigned editors? Hmm. Yea I think I am going to put in a request for that EO... I mean "anonymous poster". --Zaphnathpaaneah 14:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This section is an essay and has no references 

message: Please find me indians who will agree that they are "Black People" and who will agree that they belong to one "Black People" group together with African Americans, Africans,Black East-Asians, etc. 
I am West-African, and I definitely don't see me belonging to one "Black People" group. As I know that Africans get sometimes discriminated in the US by African Americans(Who always know everything better, even about Africa).
:THANK YOU! You may even disagree with me, but you have hit the nail on the head on what I have been saying. There is MORE than one GROUP of Black PEOPLE. Each group has their particular contribution but they are all, each one, still legitimately black. And no African-American should be the judge of all the others. And with India. If only one out of THIRTY East Indian were to say they are Black, that would still leave a population of black Indians greater than that of the black population of the USA. --Zaphnathpaaneah 15:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is making a little more sense, I would say. Terryeo 21:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the recent edits by you and Jossi have been a productive step in removing original research and undue weight POV pushing, and limiting the article to that which can be solidly supported by reputable sources.  Every single week this article is bombarded with someone pushing yet another political agenda (and often they come in packs), so it's a breath of fresh air to have objective editors like you and Jossi come in and force people to stick to the facts and respect the policies of wikipedia.  Editingoprah 22:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: OH EO, when are you going to stop with the political punditry? Why don't you get a job working for FOX news, the no Spin Zone or something? Yes you have mastered the art of cleverly worded rhetoric. I'm sure you could sound objective and believeable if you told a blind man that it's safe to walk the streets of New York City during rush hour. Yes, yes, hurray for you. --Zaphnathpaaneah 14:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have met an American of Indian  descent from Bombay who considers himself a black person.--Dark Tichondrias 01:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do Indians/South Asians consider themselves to be "Black People" 

message: Somebody wrote:
"There are Indians who are almost blue-black with straight hair, and almost blue-black with nappy hair who, if you plunked them down in Africa, or Australia, or New Guinea, dressed like one of the locals, no one would bat an eye -- and you, perhaps, least of all. " 
But in Africa people killed other people, just because the dialect was different. Or because there were minimal cultural differences. It seems very unlikely that Indians -even if they looked very African- could better integrate than others.
Just be sincere: An Indian who looks very much like an African American, would need a long time to adapt to the African Amercian way of life. For instance people of Sudan or elsewehre who were settled in the US sometimes had massive problems to integrate.
And on the other side many African Americans who tried to start a new life in Africa failed, because they were unable to adapt culturally. (Unsigned post)
:Okay.  Now, this really is irrelevant to the discussion.  The article is about who is considered, or has been considered/called "black" -- not which group feels any sort of kinship towards black Africans -- a matter which, incidentally, the article already comments upon.  Got that?  Anything else is simply completely off-point.  deeceevoice 23:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How quickly we forgeteth our own words Listen, Terryeo, please do not try to tell people what can and cannot be discussed on an article talk page. People will write about what they will. If someone raises a subject, it is likely that people will respond. deeceevoice 17:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "Black People" a matter of integration? 

message: I have added the  tag to the article and marked these sections that read as an essay and that, unless supported by reliable sources, are obvious case of original research. Please note that Wikipedia does not welcome material that has not been previously published by a reliable source. This includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. See WP:NOR ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 09:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with this article 

message: I haven't read the article in quite a while and don't know what changes have been made.  But let me say this.  While some of Zaph's language and choices in this piece may be open to question, the addition of the photo of Bill Clinton with the comment about him being "America's first black president" is patently absurd, utterly irrelevant and, IMO, calls into question the motives of certain editors involved in this effort. It reads like trolling.  What?  You want to include a bunch of white, so-called "honorary soul brothers" in the article, too?
I don't know who contributed that utterly useless bit of trivia, and what's more I don't care.  But enough of this kind of nonsense.  If you aren't about contributing constructively and in good faith to the article, then perhaps you should move on, because that kind of inaneness will not be tolerated here.  deeceevoice 11:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh heeeeere we go with this utter nonsense. When are you going to go to the white people article man? Why don't you go there and contribute something useful? Fine put "negroid" Africans on the top, I don't care. But Oprah comes off. I put the kids up there because I wanted to show the similarities. SINCE WIKIPEDIA FAILS TO ALLOW REASONABLE USE OF IMAGES ON ARTICLES, I cannot use (cannot even UPLOAD) images of other black children on here. You notice no Nigerian, or any other West African kids? WHY? Because I have to have the owner of the images write a silly confirmation before I can even use the images. No one feels like doing that! --Zaphnathpaaneah 14:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh and I love how you put lightskinned Oprah with her long flowing straight hair. Nice example of a "negroid" presentation. Oprah looks less "negroid" in that picture than the Tamil kids, not to mention she's substantially de-negroid-ified in that picture compared to her images over a decade ago. Good job with the consistency pal. But I forget, all this talk about placing the "negroid" seal of approval on an presented image of a black person... that never applies to African Americans. --Zaphnathpaaneah 14:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oprah looks extremely negroid when she's out and about without her hair and makeup and lighting. Check out the images of her in Katrina or watch her movie Beloved. Whatdoyou 18:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bill Clinton?

message: I have deleted the tamil Image from the start of the article. Paste it somewhere else if needed because they are not typically considered black.
(unsigned post).
You may not simply remove an image without adequate justification.  This doesn't wash.  Tamils are mentioned in the article as a people who have been considered black by many -- and this is a historical fact.  Not necessarily "black" in the sense of black African -- though there are some who take this view also -- but most definintely black.  And many Tamils themselves self-identify as black and, as the article so states, identify with the African-American struggle for equality/black power.  The image is reinserted -- and reinserted where it was.  If you have a suggestion about where better to place it, then perhaps you'd care to mention it here.  I'm certainly open to suggestions.  Further, I will add a caption that clarifies its insertion into the article.  deeceevoice 12:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No you can kick rocks. I will restore the images, simply by the virtue that your not giving a credible reason. Secondly because I (and others) feel that they are. In addition, the use of entertainers and media people (instead of everyday people) should not be used at the top. Everyone in the world is saturated with images of American entertainers. MOST people forget that Black people are more than just entertainers (just like most people forget that black people historically have lived outside of Africa). --Zaphnathpaaneah 14:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not going to even address the assinine unsigned posters and EO. I address the Wikipedia moderators directly: How long are you going to sit by and do nothing while unsigned posters and an already refuted contributor continues to violate the policy here? I will simply do as you do then. I will ignore and do what I feel like doing. So we will let this come to a head sooner or later. Oh and by the way, more and more people are reading the article thanks to my widespread advertisement of it. I won't be surprised if this article (and the nonsense behind it) gets on the newspapers sooner or later, where this whole question of "who is really black, and what does black mean" gets addressed. And in the end EO, that was a big factor in what I was ultimately going for. The breaking point has already passed. --Zaphnathpaaneah 14:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dream on.  The rest of the world is not as obsessed with race as you are, and most Africoid people are proud of being Africoid and don't have this obsession with lumping themselves in with South Asians that you have.  You need to chill out and be more like Ezeu.  He agrees with a lot of your positions, but he's not obsessed the way you are.--Whatdoyou 17:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that you are not in a position to judge who is, or is not "obsessed" with anything, given your unabashed edit-warring with this article, making changes that are completely unjustified and purely argumentative.  Remain civil.  deeceevoice 18:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: YOU dream on. Do you know WHY I am not involving myself to the level I was before? I got this article on the forefront. That means that this article is now attracting the attention I have been insisting on. You all with your short minded concepts failed to see where i was going. Look at the Yoruba Article. When I first got to it it was "a marry making tribe". Now look at it (most of whats there now is not due to my contributions). See what happens is this. usually some racist smart-butt wants to nitpick something I contribute somewhere. They dont care that before hand the article may have been a zero. But so they do their thing and they attract attention. Now with this article? Black people in general know that when they see pictures of Black people in Asia, they aren't playing this STUPID game of "oh no they arent black". WE KNOW WHAT A BLACK PERSON LOOKS LIKE. Black people, everyday black people don't play "national identity" with being Black. When I read that Rebecca Walker was on the same page I was, and she was able to express it as casually as yawning, then I knew I no longer needed to be the avenging angel in this article. You guys are too LATE. The Black people in Asia are going to get more and more of a voice in this kind of conversation. They are going to look at themselves, look at each other, and look at your tired butts and say "yea I AM Black, and I'm ok with it, im proud of it."  Because be honest, the only way your narrow minded fear mongering rejection of Asians will hold up is if white racism prevails: That means if Black Asians play into the psychology of equating blackness with soemthing wrong. And for you in here to run with that, and to moralize it, its sad. You know thats why most refuse on the surface to acknowledge they are black,yet you pretend its objective. I cant wait to see how this article evolves over the next 9 months. YOU ARE TOO LATE "whatdoyou". --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tamil image

message: 1.  "Intermediate" is an utterly, abysmally inappropriate term for the section treating racial admixture.  Admixture is a well-known term used to describe miscegenated peoples.  There is no such thing as an "intermediate" black person, and people are not referred to as "intermediates."  I challenge the editor to find credible references to point to the the common use of "intermediates" when referring to multi-ethnic/racial black people.  If and when he/she does, then the subhead "intermediates" may be considered.  Until then, the insistence upon the use of this terrible term will be considered without merit and just another example of edit warring by this editor.  The subhead "Admixture" will be reinserted.
2.  The lengthy caption under the photo of the Ethiopian children is completely inappropriate.  No credible publication captions photos in such a way.  If the author has a point to make, then let them try to make it in the text, where lengthy text belongs -- not in the caption.  The original caption will be restored.
3.  The photo of the Ethiopian children is perfectly appropriate where it originally was placed, at the beginning of the article.  As a general rule, for an article such as this, I think it far more preferable to use images of everyday black people -- and multiple images -- rather than an image of a single, famous person -- particularly one made up so that her nose appears thinner (shading) and with her hair cosmetically straightened.  This isn't a matter of famous peopole who are black, but finding a photo that accurate illustrates the text.  This photo of Oprah does not do that.  The photo of Oprah has been deleted for these reasons.
4. Finally, there are those who maintain that Ethiopians are not mixed at all as a general population.  DNA testing does nothing but prove an interrelatedness among some Ethiopians (the population sampled, and not likely those of the south) and other populations.  It does not prove they are miscegenated with them.  Others contend the similarities are there because it was the blacks of the Horn of Africa who migrated out of Africa, taking a northern route, giving rise to mutated populations that became whites.  In that light, the placement of the photo of Ethiopian children is needless argumentative -- another reason it does not belong there and should be placed in its original location. deeceevoice 18:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring by Whatdoyoudo

message: I came here through a request at Wikipedia's Village Pump.  A request for comments might be the best way to go with this.  Please check out the following essay Wikipedia:No angry mastons: emotions seem to be running high on this page, which really doesn't help to get the best results for the article.  Best wishes, 68.7.88.112 19:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had heard about pseudoscience on wikipedia but now I see what all the fuss is about.   All humans have "links" as we belong to a single species.  This is a very basic biological concept that is taught in all but the lowest level courses.   I encourage anyone commenting on DNA to enroll in an introductory course at a local community college.   Wells  would be horrified to see his name being used to prove that Australians are "black people".   CarlosRodriguez 06:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've stated repeatedly here and elsewhere, DNA doesn't "prove" race; race is an unscientific social, political and economic construct.  DNA can reveal the relatedness of human populations; that is all.  So, before you go on and on about "pseudoscience" and what Wells would be "horrified" to read, you might try rereading the passage yourself first.  Furthermore, I encourage anyone commenting on my comments on DNA and then mischaracterizing them beyond all recognition to sit in on a rudimentary English class at any local elementary school and focus really hard on reading comprehension.  deeceevoice 13:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest RfC 

message: Those Ethiopian children do not resemble Caucasoids. Why are you putting that they look like that? Take it off. --69.241.247.13 03:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pic

message: Well your obviously out of touch with reality. Those kids do not resemble caucasoids. You cant distinguish them from other black people. They do not resemble any other white group. Ok which group do they resemble the most? French? Germans? Let me help you understand, A "Caucasoid" skull has nothing to do with someone being black or not. If that were the case, most of the Black Americans in America would be "not black". One can be Cauacsoid (based on this new silliness) and it have NO effect on them being black or not black. You gonna let a negroid shaped white man be reclassified as black? heck no. His skull will just be added into the greater Caucasoid variety! Its manipulation and how long will you and EO and others keep playing a game that has already been dissected and figured out? No one EXCEPT the forensic expert would or has ever gone from person to person measureing skulls in ethiopian villages (or american cities) saying "ok your skull is shaped like this, your not black, but your older brother, he is black, his skull is shaped more negroid than yours). "if only" you say... "oh if a forensic expert hod only the skull of an ethiopian" ... then all would be nice and flowery... oh why didn't you add the obvious  "if only the forensic expert already agreed with me first, and if only he chose the kind of ethiopian skull i wanted him to choose... if only... if only" OH you sound like those white guys I debated in the 90s. Silly sincere sounding appeals, oh if only, my heart just wants to go and find your expert and give him a free dinner so youll feel better. If only! --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  if only! 

message: Just check their actors:
*http://www.thenisai.com/img/gal/imgs/a_arj_0001.jpg
*http://www.thenisai.com/img/gal/imgs/a_ars_0001.jpg
*http://www.thenisai.com/img/gal/imgs/a_pra_0003.jpg
*http://www.thenisai.com/img/gal/imgs/a_aji_0001.jpg
*http://www.thenisai.com/tamil/gallery/tamil_actors.htm  (Unsigned post.)
This "Black People" article is racist American bullshit. A lot of Black Brothers over there have an inferiority complex:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferiority_complex
So they don't like to identify with Black Africans, but prefer to identify with Indians or Arabs, even if they have nothing in common with them. Because they think Indians or Arabs are stronger and more equal to whites.
But just accept it:
* Ghandi was racist 
* Many Indians, Sri Lankans, Tamils and others are also racist(Just check the situation in Kenya and elsewhere in Africa) 
*Almost all of this Asians(Tamils included) don't think that they have anything in common with Africans 
*Sometimes they refer to Martin Luther King, etc. But who doesn't? *Even white British(Pacifists) refer to Martin Luther King. It doesn't mean anything
But those actors look nothing like the majority of Tamil people, but you know india has a serious color complex, i mean the most serious in the world. If you are dark you can forget by default entering bollywood or any "face is your passport" industry, unless you wanna be a cleaner or the clown---Halaqah 13:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My sentiments precisely, Halaqah. To the author of the unsigned post:  this article is about people who have been classified/called "black" -- not about whether the applications of the term are universally agreed upon.  The simple fact is -- as has been supported by ample documentation herein -- that many people historically have referred to Tamils as black people, Tamils included, and that an increasing number of politically left/radical Tamils are doing so today.  You may personally disagree with the application of the term, but you cannot deny that many do apply and accept it.  You, therefore, cannot credibly contest the information in the article, and you cannot credibly challenge the inclusion of photo(s) of Tamil people.  There is no justification for either.  Accept it or move on.deeceevoice 10:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tamils are NOT Black People 

message: I told you guys this, almost a year ago, that if we let this nonsense prevail, soon Ethiopians would be placed in the "not really black" context? Well here we are. The Ethiopian kids are called "mixed with Caucasoid" and someone wants to insist they could be white if they were painted white and shaved heads. That is funny... First "Caucasoid" meant the shape of one's skull. Now "Caucasoid" implies "white race". So people who have a skull a certain shape called "Caucasoid" will be "like white people" if they live in Ethipia... but again, here comes Mr.Forget-me-Jones.... the SAME proportion in America (all of these Black Americans mixed with Caucasoid whatever, same amount with the "caucasoid look" or whtever  it is in those ethiopians you all see as so white looking)... those same looking people in AMERICA... you will NOT, nor EVER see pushed on this article as such. You will not see anyone in here say "Black Americans are mixed with Caucasoid and at least 20% if you shaved their skulls and painted their skin white would look like a European! Why? Because it's nonsense. If you did a whole bunch of things you could make anyone look like anything. You see an ethiopian's long nose and you guys 
go into some kind of orgy of "caucasoid" and you think its all about their entire face. A NOSE! Retarded. but go ahead "Zaph, your dreaming, Zaph your nuts, Zaph this Zaph that". Some of you should be hired as some kind of racialized experiments. See how your brain reacts when you see a black man in Ethiopia with a nose a certain way, how does the endorphins in your brain respond. When you see the same man in America, how does it react. Cuz thats all this is about. How does the "AMERICAN" and especially the "white American" feel? Look at the Rwandans with the same features... you know the "pretty looking Tutsis" . Lets get a cheer in here from some of you saying that they might not really be black. Come on. Why stop just at Ethiopia? The Rwandans have the same features too. And the Black Americans?  BE CONSISTENT. Call them Caucasoids, call them not really black. Have some balls. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just to remind you how obviously out of touch with reality  some contributors are 

message: I just love how this is added in:
*Admixtures is not the only way individuals can be genetically in between two different races. Although Ethiopians are widely considered Black both historically and by the census, because of their Negroid skin and hair type, a 2001 Oxford genetic cluster study stated: 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a 'Black' cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. Only 24% of the Ethiopians are placed in the cluster with the Bantu and most of the Afro-Caribbeans.[] In addition their craniofacial features resemble those of Caucasoids.[]  However the cause of their genetic and physical resemblance to both Negroids and Caucasoids may not be entirely explained by admixture.  Scientists believe that modern humans originated in Africa, and that all non-Africans carry a later mutation that occured in what is today known as Ethiopia.  The man who first carried this mutation is known as the Eurasian Adam.[] . 
So of course these intelligent scientists objectively determined that when this Eurasian Adam had this mutation, it made him look like a Norweigen. His parents must have been shocked at how different he looked from them, and from then on out, their entire family was cut off from the rest of the black people of that time. Of course this mutation made Eurasian Adam look white and caucasoid and there is simply no way that this muation would just be found among people who are black AND white. No it must mean that the white ancestors GAVE all people who have this mutation. Again, EO said so himself, once you walk out of Africa, your no longer black. Its magic! how many of you were fooled by this hocus pocus paragraph. Come on admit it. Razzle Dazzle Flippity Flam, Abracadabra Another Sham! --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brute force the article?

message: You wrote: 
stop the foolishness now, Ethiopians are a mixed as the people in the congo. If anyone is mixed it is the Arabs. Because the slave trade didnt bring mixing into EThiopis it took Ethiopian out of Africa and they became teh mothers of many rich Arabs. This is why Arabs look "black" so the story is wrong, but again Ethiopians are beautiful so i guess they cant really be black. thick lips and coarse hair is pure? Pure nonsense. legacy of "whitness" more or less "blacknes" its funny because the darker Africans we see today are more "recent" than the lighter ones, hence Africans were lighter the further back or black you go--Halaqah 13:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it you were being sarcastic here. because if not you know you messed up on the first highlighed statement. (which also proves my point about associating black with bad, white with pretty, and not objectivity). The second is simply false. The further back you go, the DARKER you go. You cannot tell me that the melanin in ones skin is generated through time, once it's gone, it's gone. The DNA profile of people who have dark skin was there when the first humans were on Earth. Black descendants did not come from white ancestors. Proof? The white arabs living in the desert hot weather of Iraq and Syria since Alexander's day did not get any darker. I believe that you just dont want to believe that the original humans we all came from were black black people. For you its like Darth Vader telling Luke he's his father. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Halaqah

message: I have merged the critics with the problem with black? It should be together. it should be put under one heading. Also the title needed to be changed to Defining blackness as this is what is being discussed (cant remember the original title) but it was long and should have been a sub-topic, ahh it was European objections to global black identity. I have to again stress that the article should remember they are 12 million "black" people in America, a significant minority compared to Africa 800 million (estimate) so the pan-America perspective is by numbers a minority view on a majority people. (as pointed out to Zap by another continental Africa " we see ourselves as Africans of say our various ethnic groups, not as black people" (my version) The problem is clearly this majority have no means to express their own self-interest and the banner of "blackness" is carried exclusively by African-Americans. (not discounting their contributions in anyway) --Halaqah 13:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move Criticism

message: I remind editors that this age is provided, courtesy of the Wikimedia Foundation, to discuss the article, not to discuss the subject of the article. If editors want to have a discussion about the subject, please move the discussion to USENET, a discussion forum, or a blog. Repeated violations of talk page discipline will be considered disruptive of the editing process. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page discipline 

message: The lead paragraph has been tweaked and restored.  The weak, mushy, say-nothing single-sentence thing that repeatedly has been substituted as part of the continuous edit-warring on the part of you-know-who (can't think of his tag at the moment) was woefully inadequate and totally uninformative.  This version has multiple citations from various, international sources: the American Heritage Dictionary; Nirmala Rajasingam, a Sri Lankan activist; Horen Tundu, a Bangladeshi-Santhal, author and research specialist whose work focuses on "Dalit and tribal historical/political situation of Bangladesh and India"; Iniyan Elango, a native-born Indian, physician and author of a book Without Malice: The Truth about India; and, finally, noted historian Runoko Rashidi.
And thanks, Yom. :D  (I knew that about the Haratins -- and there are others, actually), but I added the Maghreb Berber thing as an antedote to the horrible "sub-Saharan Africans" thing (that would have excluded a whole lot more black folks in North Africa--including Ethiopians :p) that was there earlier.  I've added "most" istead. I hope that meets with your approval.deeceevoice 19:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead paragraph (necessary to any article) has been restored and tweaked

message: "In addition, the term may refer to people who historically have been regarded as black. Blackness may also be a group identity assumed for political ends, the result of cultural and political forces at work often in a fragmented or stratified societal framework."
This may indeed have been mentioned by Zaph before, but I added this to the mix in the intro, because it's an important aspect of black identity and at the root of the growing globalization of the phenomenon.  I think this aspect of black identity could develop into a truly interesting angle in the article that then would lead readers ("See also") to the varied political movements of peoples who have been, or are now at least in some significant part are considered, or who consider themselves, "black": the struggle against caste discrimination in India, the Tamil struggle for independence, the struggle against Indonesian colonialist oppression in West Papua, the Australian Aboriginal struggle, the plight of the peoples of the Adaman Islands, the peoples of Melanesia; the movements of various "black" ethnic minorities around the globe; to renewed interest, on the part of editors and readers, in the woefully inadequate and highly U.S.-centric article on Black Power.  deeceevoice 19:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A missed opportunity?

message: More or less African is a colonial inheritance. I am looking at what people say is "true black" you know, says who? My lips are thick am i more "black" than someone with "thinner lips"? If my hair is "curly" and if i come from Rwanda, someone in the Caribbean has tighter hair than me, am i less "black"? Now the Caribbean person more than likely has European ancestors. We need to stop with someone else view of a "real African" there really are no things such as "African nose or African lips". Most people with these views have never been to African. Anyone in doubt take a trip to Mali or Niger, or even Nigeria or Ethiopia. In anyone of these countries you will see a plethora of diversity among the people in these countries alone. Among the Amhara alone you find great diversity (even in the same household), same in Mali. The images on this site should reflect the real Africa not the colonial stereotype.--Halaqah 21:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm tired of everyone trying to put images of Africans mixed with arab blood, or Africans half way into becoming caucasoid, or south asians. I don't know why people are so embarrassed and ashamed of actual pure negroids. The negroid race is the most diverse race on earth. It contains the khoisans, the pygmies, the bantu and the watusi. It may even contain the ethiopians, but not enough genetic research has been done to say for certain whether they're negroid or caucasoid, or a separate intermediate race, or simply a negroid/caucasoid hybrid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editingoprah (talk • contribs) 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notwithstanding  both your tiredness, images in articles needs to represent widely held opinions, including these that may not be in accordance to editor's viewpoints of what is accurate. 22:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This article written by actual ethiopians claims the Amhara of Ethiopia are arab, mixed with Black []
IS THAT VALIDITY, they are 60 million people in Ethiopia, so you are saying anyone of them can be an authority of Afro-Arab mixture? Ethiopians left Africa and populated Arabia, not the other way around. And any mixture would have been as impacting as the African mixture with ancient Rome. We must agree Africa is diverse and the images such reflect that diversity. Not three pictures of women from the same region. Diversity. And if you understand anything about the legacy of COlonialism you would know that people dont want to be "pure Black" i remember Caribbean people would boast of an Admixture, South African did the samething to escape the weight of being "black" ---Halaqah 23:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: A major oxford study claimed ethiopians aren't black so this needs to be mentioned in the article. The human race started out negroid in Africa over 100,000 years ago (probably in the form of a khoisan which is arguabley the most ancient and divergent branch of negroid) Tens of thousands years later mutations occured in Ethiopia and many of those who had that mution branched into the middle east and at some point became caucasoid.  The question is did they become caucasoid before or after leaving Ethiopia.  If they became caucasoid after leaving africa then pure ethiopians are negroid. But if they became caucasoid while still in africa, then pure ethiopians are caucasoid.  The answer is probably somewhere in between hence the intermediate position of ethiopians on the racial spectrum.  However because some of the fully caucasoids came back to ethiopia to mix with segments of the indigenous population, ethiopians were pushed a touch further in the caucasoid direction.  Editingoprah 23:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That's why the study is so important.  The most prestigous university in Europe is telling people who were thought of as Black that they're not Black after all. This is a very fascinating and notable development that needs to be mentioned. You say the study's not valid, but the greatest minds in england beg to differ.  If you have a source that says oxford is wrong feel free to add it, but censoring relevant reliable sources is not appropriate. Editingoprah 23:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We do.  Afrocentric scholars are constantly claiming caucasoids are negroid. We've claimed that Indians are negroid, we've claimed that arabs are negroid, we've even claimed their most sacred symbol Jesus Christ was negroid. So why are we so offended when caucasoids try to claim some of us as caucasoid.   Editingoprah 00:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats because you naive fool, those terms didnt exist 200 years ago. They didnt exist until recently for most of the world. Now you talk about their most sacred symbol... how is it that a thief can steal something and you automatically recognize the thief as the legitimate owner? Thats your biggest problem EO. Jesus didn't live in Europe. Jesus lived and grew up in Egypt. And if I recall you at least still held to the notion that the Egyptians were Black, or has that also gone up in the residue you have left of a conscience? When are you going to recognize that these people have distorted the meanings of the word "Caucasia" over and over for a political agenda? Now the Ethiopians, Egyptians, and Hebrews are "Theirs" to you? God I wish you would get off here and go be some white guy's puppy sidekick. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zaph, there's no evidence Jesus had a drop of negroid blood. Face it, you worship a white boy.  I on the other hand am intelligent enough to move beyond religion and look to science, and terms like negroid, caucasoid, and mongoloid, have objective genetic reality.  Ethiopian DNA is either more similar to the populations of sub-Saharan Africa or it's more similar to the populations of Europe. It's that simple.  Only future research will answer this question.  You may always consider them black no matter what, but to me black is a matter of blood, not color. Racial categories are no longer arbitrary political structures. Science has moved way beyond that.  They are clear mathematically identifiable clusters that are generated by computers. Certain gene pools cluster together. Others don't. It's that simple.   Editingoprah 06:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Modern Humans originated somewhere around 160-200kya, not just 40 kya. The first migrations out of Africa were probably around 50-60kya, followed by another ca. 40kya. Ethiopian and Horn African Haplogroups shared with populations outside of Africa are primarily due to gene flow from East Africa to North Africa, West Asia, and Europe (esp. Southeastern) beginning in the Paleolithic and continuing through the Holocene (with further migrations in the Neolithic from West Asia bringing these genes to Europe). The only haplotype found often in the area that did not originate there is Haplotype J, found mainly among the Semitic speakers, but which is connected to the Neolithic revolution, rather than any historic admixture. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is irrelevant. All of this nonsense about 100 years and 40 years has nothing to do with determining if Ethiopians are black or not. They are black, that's obvious. Their name is "ETHIOPIAN" greek for "black skinned people". Holocene, Neolitiic, yadda yadda, a neolitic revolution. They are Black, disucssion over! --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I find most of Zaphnathpaaneah's comments fascinating, but nontheless irrelevant to this article. In Wikipedia articles we describe the different opinions as reported in published, reliable sources. So, rather than engaging in a discussion about the subject of this article, editors should focus their energies in summarizing and describing what experts in the field have published in reliables sources. We can also include opposing viewpoints, again, if we can provide sources that describe these opposing views. Endless discussions about this complex subject are better held in other fora than these pages. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok then, recoginze that firstly this denial of Ethiopians is the "opposing" opinion, and the dominant view, the established view, the more sensible view is that they are Black. Don't try to make Ethiopians "non-black" and attach the term "opposing" to those who regard them as Black! --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not  have a specific POV in this dispute, so I do not need to recognize anything in particular. What I am saying is that regardless of what your opinion is, what we need in this discussion page is to address how to improve the article, based on research on existing, reliable sources. These discussions about who is black and who is not, based on editor's opinions, are interesting but nevertheless inconsequential to this article. You may want to read WP:NOT ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Oxford does give it validity whether you like it or not and makes it notable and reliable enough to be in the article.  But if other sources claim such idea reflect eurocentric bias, that should be added too. But as jossi said, editors' personal opinions are interesting but not relevant.  And your accusation of white people picking and choosing who is black based on biased criteria is hardly surprising because black is a category imposed by whites on non-whites and so it's always had a political component and ethiopians may simply reflect the latest chapter in that story.  Editingoprah 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I am tired of the mono-image of African people

message: You know all this nonsense sometimes wears down on a man's patience. HEaring the ignorance from Colonized Black and Eurocentric White people in honestly discussing this, going on and on finding ways to limit black people and make us into some isolated sub-human group, incapable of appreciating the complexities of history... Then i come across pictures like this, and I remember how stupid some of you sound.
[]
There is no white anyone anywhere that has had a cultural history of doing that to their hair. DNA be damned. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sometimes when it looks bleak

message: As much as I'd like to be, I won't be here reverting articles from misguided and biased contributions. So I guess the Eurocentric-Negrophobia Coalition will have their fun time until I get back. I hope someone else in here has the guts to take the risks and take a stand. Dont let no one in here call Ethiopians "not black" or put "Caucasoid" on the article. Caucasoid is strictly defined as the shape of a skull. When people add it in here, they are trying to make that relevant to the article and it's not. Secretly they are trying to slowly put "Caucasian" into the article and "Caucasoid" sounds like "Caucasian", and so it has a subconscious effect to distort the minds of people reading. They leave the article thinking that the Ethiopians aren't "really Black". And of course thanks to EO, we find yet another big chunk of our identity under seige in this discussion. Next week there will be heck to pay when i back get in here. Just warning the Coalition ahead of time. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Be glad I will not be here for the week

message: I've deleted the nonsense about Ethiopians being some sort of in-between population based on genetics.  First, the caption is incorrect/not substantiated.  Where did you get the idea that the recognition of a faciocranial structure (in only some Ethiopians, mind you) that varies from the classic Negroid phenotype is a recent phenomenon?  Where is the citation?
Further, the very same faciocranial characteristics of Ethiopians which have given some Eurocentrists an excuse to try to classify them as "Caucasoid" are shared by other blacks from the continent.  Some Nubians have the same characteristics.  Many Senegalese also share some of the same characteristics.  So do Somalis.  Where is the lengthy discussion of their DNA.  Or, what of the Tamils.  Where is the discussion of their DNA? 
The very same website used as a reference for the nonsense also contains the following information -- which is what many of us contributing to this article have said all along:
It's been well documented that Ethiopians share a substantial amount of their ancestry with Western Eurasians (Caucasoids), but less talked about is the similar position of Somalis. These findings have led researchers to reject recent admixture as a primary explanation, and posit that such elements are indigenous to East Africa.[emphasis added]
And:
The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African -- that is, the Ethiopian and Somali -- populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations.
...The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity -- and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis -- makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) -- that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. Tishkoff, et al. (2000). "Short Tandem-Repeat Polymorphism/Alu Haplotype Variation at the PLAT Locus: Implications for Modern Human Origins". Am J Hum Genet; 67:901-925]
Unless you want to present the full picture of the issue, then don't mention it at all.  To do otherwise, as editors here have sought to do, is blatantly misleading and POV.
There is no discussion of the genetics other popultaions herein.  And why?  The subject it has no bearing whatsoever on blackness, which is a concept which predates genetics.  What is more, the notion that Ethipians are anything other than idigenous black African peoples has been discredited and has not been supported by further genetic study.deeceevoice 14:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the most prestigous university in Europe singled out Ethiopians and explicitly said it was genetically inaccurate to call them Black.  If you have a reliable source saying somalis aren't black then feel free to add it but I'm aware of no such evidence and I am aware of evidence to the contrary.  But don't censor this information because it's absolutely fascinating, very relevant to the topic and very notable.  And the article doesn't say ethiopian caucasoid traits are the product of admixture. You're the one who kept trying to name the section admixture.  Others gave the section more appropriate titles. The article very clearly states that the Eurasian adam lived in ethiopia and so caucasoid traits may have been indigenous to ethiopia.  The article explicity states that admixture may NOT be the primary explanation! Editingoprah 16:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually it's a very credible view as evidenced by the fact that the most prestigous university in Europe advocated it. And they're hardly the first ones. We have a section devoted to people who are racially in between and of that group Ethiopians are the foremost example. Far more notable than any individual.  The article makes clear that it's not a widespread view, but that's what makes it all the more notable: The most prestigous university in Europe is telling the public they are wrong and unscientific to consider Ethiopians Black.  This adds variety and a novel and scientific perspective to the article.  Just because you don't want anyone questioning the race of ethiopians does not give you the right to censor ideas and theories.  This is not a totalitarian state.  All relevant notable ideas will be expressed and cited criticism of those ideas is also welcome. Editingoprah 17:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Deeceevoice the reason the article discusses the genetics of Ethiopians is because only the Blackness of Ethiopians has been denied by geneticists.  The subject of the article is Black people so any note worthy opinions of who is and isn't Black are appropriate.  The scientists clearly stated that clustering Ethiopians with Blacks is inconsistent with genetic structure.  Further, there's no credible up to date research that denies a genetic link between Ethiopians and caucasoids. The only debate is whether the link is caused primarily by admixture or whether the link is caused primarily by proto-Caucasoid mutations first occuring in Ethiopia. The article in no way implies that it's primarily admixture, and if anything implies just the opposite.  Most of the sources you added to the article fringe political fanatics, and you consider them reliable sources on who is black, but the world's greatest geneticists are not?  And btw it's very hypocritical and dishonest of you to claim that only Ethiopian genetics is discussed and that genetics is not relevant, since you appear to have added uncited genetic claims about tamils to the article___ Whatdoyou 18:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why single out Ethiopians for genetic interpretation?

message: I have fully protected the article so users may engage in discussion as a means of resolving disputes. Joelito (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is you guys never keep it protected long enough.  I say lock it for a solid year and by October 2007 people will be able to look back at these silly disputes with a new sense of perspective. And hopefully by then we'll have new editors who can bring fresh perspectives,  and some of the old trouble makers will have moved on. Editingoprah 19:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One year is extremely excessive and would go against one of the foundations of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Joelito (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's up to you guys, but keep in mind this article is a pretty extreme case Editingoprah 19:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I've been watching this for a while, unsure what can be done about it.  Obviously, a large central problem is that there's no real agreement on what a "Black person" is, other than maybe a couple unhelpful definitions, namely 1) anyone who's called a black person by themselves or others or 2) anyone who's skin is sufficiently dark.  I'm tempted to suggest this is just a dictionary definition and not encyclopedia material, but the regional and historical differences in who's considered "black" is a sufficiently large topic that a proper article could in theory exist.  Part of the problem we have is people lumping vastly different groups together based on skin color alone, which isn't very helpful.  Others insist that "Black person" means all kinds of things other than skin color, but again there's no agreement.  People point to biological factors, but I'm not convinced of the usefulness of that either- "race" in humans is a social concept, not particularly a biological concept.  If we make this article shorter, would this help?  It's going to be far easier to cover particular ethnic groups in their own articles rather than trying to lump them together because they're "black".  Anyway, I'm not sure I have solid suggestions yet, but can we at least start trying to define the specific problems?  I'd also like to draw people's attention to the articles Human skin color, Color_metaphors_for_race, and Who is a Jew?, maybe there's something to be learned from them.  Friday (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the top half of the article is excellent because it presents a wide variety of attempts to define Blackness and then presents all the criticisms people have of those definitions.  This is helpful because it's very well balanced, provides interesting definitions, and allows readers to choose the one they like, understand the complexity of the issue, and understand the shifting and subtle changes in this social and biological category.  The bottom half might contain useful information, but it's so poorly cited that there's no way to judge. Editingoprah 16:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm glad you agree because the top half of the article provides a very balanced and thorough overview of all the different ways this category is viewed from a huge variety of perspectives. Editingoprah 18:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this be fixed? 

message: This is a revision that repeatedly was vandalized (deleted without any attempt at justification) within minutes after it was revamped, with added citations, that I think is more informative and aptly summarizes the article content.  (See my remarks above regarding the lead paragraph.  The present lead is poorly and somewhat clumsily/colloquially written (subject/verb disagreement, use of contraction, split verb, "The classification of Black has had implications in factors...." -- there's got to be a more direct and less obtuse way of saying that!).  It definitely needs work, and I sought to address those problems with the following.  Comments?
Black is a racial, ethnic, social and political classification that has been applied to various non-white groups in different ways. There are no universally agreed-upon criteria for determining who is or is not black. As a result, the use of the term has varied, depending on prevailing societal norms over time. Most often and consistently, black has been used to identify most dark-skinned, indigenous peoples of Africa, including their descendants in the African diaspora. Black. yourdictionary.com - American Heritage Dictionary. Retrieved on 2006-10-08. A diversity of non-African peoples either have been or currently are considered black by some, and others self-identify as black people. They include, but are not necessarily limited to, peoples inhabiting Asia,Tudu, Horen. "Pan-Africanism in South Asia." Retrieved on 2006-10-08. the coasts of the Indian OceanElango, M.D., Iniyan. "Notes from a Brother in India: History and Heritage." The Global African Community, edited and posted by Runoko Rashidi. Retrieved on 2006-10-08. and the Pacific Rim"West Papua New Guinea: Interview with Foreign Minister Ben Tanggahma." Black Books Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 2 (Summer 1976), posted by Runoko Rashidi at History Notes: West Papua New Guinea. Retrieved on 2006-10-08.Rashidi, Runoko. "Melanesia: The Struggle Continues!." Blacks in the Pacific. Retrieved on 2006-10-10.
    
A person's designation as black often has been determined by colloquial, social, political, scientific or legal understandings. Factors such as censuses, anti-miscegenation laws, racial segregation, affirmative action, racial marginalization, slavery, apartheid and racial quotas all have functioned historically to define and mediate color identity.
    
More broadly, blackness also may be a group identity assumed for political ends, the result of cultural and political forces at work often in a fragmented, polarized or stratified societal framework. Lines. August 2002. Retrieved on 2006-10-08.
deeceevoice 04:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your lead is way too long.  There's no need to try to define who is and isn't Black in the intro since we have a definition section that does an excellent job showing the complexity of the issue and actually sources precise and fascinating definitions (along with detailed criticism of those definitions) that reflect the diverse views.  It's much better to keep the lead open ended rather than try to single out any groups because that will only create edit wars.  We can avoid a lot of edit wars by not saying anything controversial in the lead, since a lot of people only read the lead. __Whatdoyou 19:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, there doesn't seem to be a problem with singling out Africans and their progeny, and not all black Africans self-identify as black.  Further, the other references in the text are to broad geographic areas, rather than specific peoples. Further, the information adequately qualified with terms that are not overly broad, and the information is supported and explained later in the text.  So, what's the problem?  deeceevoice 00:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A better lead for the article

message: : Please try to avoid political diatribes and soap box speeches. You are free to write these in a blog if you want. However, effort here should be expended towards making a useful coherent encyclopedia article.--Filll 21:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black  People - A Descriptive Term