Talk:Black people/Archive 3

message: Make a list of what disputes have caused the page to be protected 
* Is "black" or being of the "black" race universally accepted by African people (the majority) or is it only a Western view-point. Very few people (especially the culturally independent) rarely refer to themselves as "black"; Ethiopians, Hausa, Wodabee, Somali, Swahili (etc). In South Africa they do, but look at their history with the white world.
* Who outside of Equatorial Africa can be considered Black.
* Are Asians excluded strictly because they are geographically from Asia, even if their phenotype and experiences indicate a black identity? 
* Are Black people in America who look very lightskinned more "black" than North Africans who consider themselves to be Black and who are darkerskinned than these lighterskinned black Americans?
* Is the concept of Pan-Africanism only limited to the Western Hemisphere?
* Can definitions be sourced from the people who are actually called black and not some European (again) defining us?
Resolve them
* [] - case closed by the arbitrator. Plese see him regarding the conclusions as well as the case notes. 
* again see the link above. 
* Obviously not. 
* No, that would indicate that blackness outside of Africa is dependant on American heritage and there is no fundamental reason to believe or accept that.
Peer Assessment - Please post a SHORT assessment of the issues and opinion regarding them.
* I Zaphnathpaaneah have interviewed American black people in my area in various walks of life, different classes, different cities, and all unanimously agree that black people in Asia exist, and that being black is more about a shared human blackness than strictly a continental African DNA link. For example, some have pointed out how offensive it would be for a bunch of "high yellow mulattoes in America to be considered more black than black Filipinos, East Indians, or any other person that I can see with my two eyes are obviously black people." Some have also indicated how this "Americanizing of blackness is yet another colonial scheme to divide and conquer and that DNA is another Willie Lynch attempt to pit us against each other."  - if another so called black contributor on here wishes to speak personally on the phone with some of these black people, feel free to leave me a message so I can arrange it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 23:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do List items 

message: The mediator Jon Cates at the Mediation Cabal (see mediation here) recommended the following compromise:
:The article should speak to the association of black to skin color with a section devoted to the consideration of 'black' due to lineage. While the U.S. Census does specifically mention Africa, it does not state Sub-Saharan Africa; further, it incorporates non-African examples. As for the British Census, it does not have this same delineation. In particular the British census points only to African-Blacks in one of the 4 subgroups of Black or Black British. It is in my view that this point is paramount, as both Census bodies (which I feel are reliable) include non-Africans in their definitions of Black.
None of those involved in the mediation (except one sockpuppet) refuted this compromise. Including non-Africans in the definitions of Black is also overwhelmingly supported in the discusions on this talk page. This article should now be unprotected. --Ezeu 19:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation conclusion 

message: There seems to be a problem.  The U.S. census defines Black exclusively in terms of recent sub-Saharan lineage.  It states quite clearly that Black refers to “ a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro,"or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.”  Black Africa is a synonym of sub-Saharan Africa and all of the non-African groups mentioned (i.e. African-Americans, Haitains) are descendents of the recent African diasporas.  So while I strongly agree with the mediator’s excellent conclusion that we need to be encyclopedic by relying on census definitions, the notion that non-African descended examples were included in the census is categorically false.
Further there’s nothing at all to indicate that the British census includes people of non-African ancestry.  It’s sub-divided into Carribean, African, other Black background, and all Black groups but Caribeans are African-diasporas people and other Black groups is for Haitains, and Black immigrants from America who are also of African diasporas ancestry.  The other Black groups most certainly does not refer to the extremely dark skinned South Asians of Britain because their classified as Asian in the British census.  So if we’re going to be encyclopedic and if we’re going to accept the mediators conclusion that the census of two major countries on two separate continents is reliable, we must adheare to African heritage, and not color, when defining Black.--Editingoprah 22:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for reprotection: Minor technical problem needs to be solved

message: I disagree.  Census "definitions" are not really definitions at all, but categories established for the collection of demographic data.  They are erratic, inconsistent and under revision on an ongoing basis.  Census population categories are determined not by majority consensus (no pun intended), but by statisticians for political ends.  The Bureau of the Census is but one element of the U.S. government -- nothing more.  And while some may argue there are wider, even ulterior or sinister motives for the way certain populations are grouped, one of the clearest driving forces is the way government programs are structured, funded and targeted.  For example, the U.S. government has seen fit to classify Spanish-speaking people as "Latinos."  That can include (improperly) Catalans, but also certain peoples native to, or directly descended from, Latin America or historically Spanish-ruled portions of the U.S.  And that group is cross-racial, including blancos, indios, and morenos -- whites, indigenous peoples, and blacks.  Census groupings are artificial parameters constructed for political purposes, are specific to (in the case of my examples) the U.S., and often bear little resemblance to real-world conceptions of "race" or color.  
Furthermore, sub-Saharan Africa is a geographic term (which also includes Ethiopia and Eritrea) -- not a racial one.  That it has become synonymous with "Black Africa" is a misnomer.  Sudanese are among the blackest human beings on the planet.  Many of them are so black, they're not even blue-black; their skin has a purplish hue.  And Sudan is a predominantly black Saharan nation.  The same is true for Chad, Niger, Mali, Mauritania, Egypt and Libya, with the last three having black populations that have been substantially Arabized ethnically over the centuries.  However, much of the population of those three nations, if set down in the U.S. and dressed in Western clothing, would be completely indiscernible from African-Americans.  YOur argument makes no sense whatsoever.  deeceevoice 12:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look more closely at your genetic tree. It puts Amhara, Tigray-Tigrinya, Beja, Cushitic, Sudanese, Tuareg, and Barya (!!!) as separate from a putative "Sub-saharan" branch, when all of these populations live south of the Sahara (with some living in the Sahel and a little bit north of the Sahara). The inclusion of "Barya" (a Nilotic population that can be "Blue-black") in this list is even funnier! Clearly "Sub-Saharan" is simply a geographic term. Part of the reason for the above grouping is to define E3b, which originated in Somalia (a Sub-Saharan country) as "North" (the invented "East/North" category above) African to deny the substantial Sub-Saharan (again think of it geographically) genetic influence on North Africa (both Berbers and Arabs of Morocco, e.g., like most of N. Africa, are of the E3b lineage paternally, differing from Horn Africans in their Maternal DNA, with 80+% E3b lineages on the Y Chromosome). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I did notice that some Sub-Saharan populations were not group with sub-Saharans.  This could be because sub-Sahara proper does not include the horn of Africa,  it could be because they're making a distinction between pure Negroids and those who have substantial admixture from the Arab world, or, since all human races come from sub-Saharans, the population may include some transitional ethnicities that blur the line between races.  Editingoprah 23:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are obviously misinformed, then, as Sub-Sahara proper does include the Horn of Africa. Just look at a map. If it doesn't, then Southern Sudan and most Kenya, too cannot be considered south of the Sahara, and neither can all of West Africa, the CAR, Cameroon, Uganda, and northern Congo (Kinshasa). Look at where the Horn of Africa is - the Sahara desert ends right before the top of Eritrea. Secondly, Horn Africans are not mixed with Arabs, and there is no true genetic basis for races, which is why the people living there "blur the line between races" in your view. Arab genetic influence in the region is very minimal (see Semino et al 2004 regarding the J-M172 motif), and foreign genetic lineages are only found in significant numbers in the form of J lineages from the Neolithic, the result of admixture from the Sub-Saharan Africa tied Natufian culture of the Levant (the progenitors of agriculture in Southwest Asia); these paternal lineages are only found in the Semitic groups in significant numbers, while Cushitic groups only have these lineages in small numbers (e.g. <3% in the Oromo). Features simply cannot be used to determine race or genetics, and straight noses and hair is not (necessarily) indicative of Asian admixture (see e.g. the Fulani in Nigeria, whose paternal lineages were found to be 100% E3a, a purely West African lineage, just as E3b is purely East African). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 23:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sub-Saharan proper means under the Sahara,  not just South of the Sahara,  and the horn of Africa extends East of it,  so one could make the argument that Ethiopia is technically not a sub-Saharan country if one wanted to exclude Ethiopians from the Black race.  Personally I'm agnostic on this issue because both craniofacial and genetic evidence suggest that Ethiopians resemble Caucasoids to a much greater degree than other "sub-Saharans"http://72.14.221.104/search?q=cache:R1fvD9z2NJIJ:scbe.stanford.edu/events/pdfs/genomebio.pdf+Wilson+et+al.,+Nat+Genet,+2001+Ethiopians&hl=fr&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=7.  Now this doesn't mean they genetically mixed with Arabs (though the historical record, their proximity to Yemen, and recent DNA research all suggests they did so);  it could simply mean that Ethiopians were the branch of the Black race that began the great exodus out of Africa, mutating into Caucasoids in the process.  But clearly, for whatever reason, they're on the racial borderline. Editingoprah 08:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here we have a contradiction by EO. EO... here is a secret for you. Not all Africans who left Africa became Caucasoid or Sinoid. Many retained their Negroid appearance and simply genetic diversity allowed them to differentiate. That does not make them descendants of Caucasoids. Why not put a Caucasoid branch tree out here and show where the Caucasoid progenator created all of the races of India and Africa. (I bet you there will be along line from this Caucasoid progenator, which would be in Ethiopia, to the Australian and most black Indians.... ). Remember, Caucasoids were not the original inhabitents of Earth. Black people were. :) The first "Caucasoid" is likely one of these so-called transitional groups in this chart above. Oh I'm gonna have so much fun now! --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I am gratified that Deeceevoice, perhaps the most vocal black Wikipedian, has joined this discussion. Maybe Deeceevoice will be more successfull in pointing out the obvious fallacies in Editingoprah's reasoning. I have more or less given up arguing with Editingoprah. Apparently Editingoprah attends a class on Black studies (together with Whatdoyou) which teaches somewhat outdated, and blatantly ludicrous knowledge. Paradoxically, some people who usually disagree on "black" issues like myself, Deeceevoice, Zaphnathpaaneah, Paul Barlow, Yom etc. are rather in agreement against Editingoprah's fallacious arguments. I have argued before that Editingoprah's point of view, although it borders on the periphery of reality, is not entirely uncommon. The prevailing line of thought, even among African (including diasporan African) scholars, contradict Editingoprah's line of thought, and support the consensus here on Wikipedia*, and in general. It annoys me that Editingoprah can disrupt this important article in this manner – but I am also happy that this issue can be discussed, and that all opinions can be taken into account. The only way to go forth with this issue is by letting the article reflect and explain the different points of view (even the fringe views). Editingoprah, you must accept that others (quite may others) disagree with you. I beg you to compromise and allow other views to be represented in the article. --Ezeu 20:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *By "consensus here on Wikipedia" I refer specifically to the the discussions referring specifically to this article.--Ezeu 20:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Ezeu you're the one with outdated and blatantly ludicrous views if you still believe Australoids are Black in any meaningful sense of the term.  The label Black was given to them by racist colonizers who had the outdated view that all dark skinned people were related,  but this idea was thoroughly discredeted by modern genetic research that showed they were among the most genetically distant from Africans.  Of course you can argue that being Black has nothing to do with genetics,  but even cultural and political definitions of Black exclude non-Africans (see the census, dictionary) with the exception of the redneck segment of Australia.  But of course now people are even trying to argue that census definitions have nothing to do with being Black,  so if we can't talk about genetics, and we can't talk about the census, all that's left is just a random pointless article about all the completely different and unrelated ways the term Black has been used in different cultural contexts.  I have no intention of disrupting this article.  I was quite happy with the version of the article that was protected, which although left out genetic and census information,  still did not give undue weight to the views of isolated cultures and movements (i.e. Australia, the untouchables of India).  I have no problem with people considering Ethiopians Black (from a cultural perspective they are, from a genetic perspective they might be but it's uncertain, historically and even today most people consider them Black) and I have no intention of pushing the sub-Sahara/supra-Sahara distinction in the article.  But trying to argue that people like Australoids and Indians, who are not related to Africans in any shape or form,  are all part of the same Black ethnicity because they share dark skin, demonstrates a lack of intelligence.  Editingoprah 21:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not agree with your correlation between black and African (you interchangeably and deliberately use the words "African" and "black" to muddle the issue), and your fixation with genetics is inane (that graph you keep invoking is inherently meaningless). Yes, Africans identify with each other, and yes, Black Africans do have a common identity. No one is arguing against that. --Ezeu 22:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The article, as it it is now, does not actually reflect what Editingoprah and his alter ego Whatdoyou want to say. They introduced a stange definition of "black" (see this diff), which triggered a dispute that led the article to be protected for almost two months. --Ezeu 10:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor technical problem needs to be solved

message: I'm sorry, but I don't think this article is very useful. All I wanted to know was what causes the dark skin color, and its anthropology; e.g. who were the first people with dark-colored skin, where were they, why is their skin dark, why are some Indians very dark and others not, etc. Moreover, the article is most exceedingly political. The vast majority of its text exists solely to preach about how  "black" is a stigma and not a race. I thought that was pretty obvious by now, but even so, this kind of agenda-pushing, though well-intentioned, is not encyclopedic. Much could be said about ethnography/anthropology in this article, but information has been forsaken in favor of sermonizing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.95.48.112 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah right! Like we are too stupid to figure out this obvious meatpuppet. Classic trick: when the going gets tough, and you run out of intelligent arguments, try to sidetrack the discussion. What a farce. --Ezeu 09:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it so hard for you to believe that other people actually agree with me, despite all the citations I provide.  You're constantly accussing me of using sock puppets and meat puppets, are constantly talking about me to other people, and are generally coming across as paranoid and obsessed.  I know I'm sexy and all, but I don't need a stalker.  Editingoprah 22:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not a very useful article because it tries to make a coherent discussion about two completely different topics that are best discussed in separate articles.  The first topic is peoples of African ancestry, and the second topic is the social stigma of having dark skin regardless of race or ethnicity.  These topics have nothing in common other than the fact that they both have been described as black.  Now the subjects you're interested are better discussed in an articvle devoted exclusively to skin color,  since Blacks are not the only ones to have very dark skin.  Indians and Australoids do too.  But to answer your questions, the first people to have dark skin were the Blacks from which all humans emerged and they developed dark skin to protect them from the sun which became less imporatnt as humans left Africa and needed lighter skin to absorb vitamin D as they moved to less sunny environments.  Some Indians have dark skin because they live in the South while others live up North where lighter skin is required.  In addition India was invaded by lighter skinned and the degree of admixture is reflected by skin color.    Editingoprah 05:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Deeceevoice I would be fascinated to read a genetic study claiming there's a non-trivial amount of Black blood in India but all the research I've read suggests that Indians are Caucasoids.  You'll probably find more Black DNA in the Greeks and Arabs than you would in India.  Cavalli-Sforza,  the most famous genetecist of our time who did the largest most comprehensive genetic study to date wrote on page 119 of 'The great human diasporas':  The caucasoids are mainly fair-skinned peoples, but this group also includes the southern Indians(dravidians), who live in tropical areas and show signs of a marked darkening in skin pigmentation, however their facial and body traits are caucasoid rather than african or australoid.  If you're aware of more recent genetic information that refutes these claims, then by all means cite it.  Contrary to waht you read on Afrocentric web pages,  skin color is controlled by very small amounts of DNA and can change rapidly due to natural selection to different climates.  Dark skin does not mean Black blood.  Editingoprah 17:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uninformative and POV

message: I've talked to Black people at every opportunity. All agree that Black people that we are debating are BLACK. Even if I pretend to agree with Editing Oprah, I get a very... how should I say... offended response. There is no Black American I can find who is willing to say that the Asians in question are not Black. The responses usually go something like "I am not stupid, I know what a Black person looks like" or "Don't make up excuses, everybody knows that Black people are always looked down upon and you showing me a picture of a black man and telling me he is not black is just another example of that". I will be a-editing. --Zaphnathpaaneah 21:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zaph are you not capable of understanding the fact that words can have more than one meaning?  The term "black person" can refer to person of African diasporas ethnicity regardless of color, or it can refer to a person who has very dark skin, regardless of race or ethnicity.  The problem with the latter definition is that an article that aims to discuss all people with dark skin, regardless of ethnicity is difficult to pull off in a coherent, objective, and encyclopedic way, and an article that aims to mix the first definition with the second creates nothing but confusion.  Also,  if you focus on the more inclusive deinition of black, you rob people of sub-Saharan ancestry of the term we currently use to describe our ethnicity,  and force people to use more offensive terms like Negroid and sub-Saharoid to distinguish African diasporas ethnicity from other dark skinned groups.  Also by arguing that groups as genetically unrelated as Australoids and Negritoes are Black,  you make it look like Black people don't understand science, and thus we're not taken seriously when we make the much more credible and scientific argument that Ethiopians and ancient Egyptians are related to Blacks.  And if you're so obsessed with convincing people that Blacks had great civilizations,  why are you so desperate to lump us in with Australoids anyway?  With all due to respect to them, theirs was one of the most primitive cultures in recorded history.  And the untouchables of India?  Let the Caucasians have them because genetically and craniofacially that's what they are, and including them in the Black category only reinforces the stereotype that Blacks are at the bottom of the social ladder,  indeed the very fact that the lowest caste in India, the caste that cleans up human waste and is believed to polute all other castes, would see Black as an appropriate self-description means they are redefining Black to mean "stigmatized" and "lowest of the low".  In fact so low in the caste system are the untouchables that they're not even part of the caste system but considered beneath it.  They gain much more from associating themselves with a race famous for its athleticism, rhythm, and stereotypical sexual potency,  then we could ever gain from them.   And yet you want to reject science, make Black people look ignorant of science, and reject our genetic connection with ancient Egypt and Ethiopia, rob African diasporas ethnicity of its name, rob this article of encyclopedic status, and all so you can invite the most stigmatized members of other races into the "Black" category?  I don't get it.  Editingoprah 22:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm Back 

message: THank you AntiVandalBot and RebornSentinal for restoring my changes from EditingOprah's unwarranted reverts. And I am here, so EditingOprah, you looking for some consensus? You got it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 21:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Phony War begins 

message: Black Dutch/Irish are not considered distinctly seperate socially, culturally, or ethnically from Dutch and Irish in general. The term "black" Dutch, or "black" Irish is a very relative term that is extremly subjective and relative. But guess what, i won't remove it, because it actually is a relevant addition. Placing them at the TOP of the list of groups is disingenious and certainly suspicious and misleads the reader. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EditingOpr... I mean Anon's addition of Black Irish/Dutch

message: From the "Black Billionaires" article EO says:
*Yom I already explained to you on the other board that Ethiopians are in between Blacks and Caucasoids, some argue that they're the first Caucasoids, or that Caucasoids are Ethiopoids if you prefer, but for now it doesn't matter since the fact that Forbes (the bible of the financial world) does not list them as billionaires is a reliable source that they are NOT billionaires. Many times people are described as billionaires simply because they own a billion dollar business, and people are incorrectly described as billionaires all the time. Editingoprah 00:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The U.S. census describes Blacks as a person originating in any of the Black races of Africa, not just anyone originating from Africa.  Egyptians are African but they're not considered Black in the census.  Ethiopians would be considered Black by most people, but the only Ethiopian I know considers herself Arab.  Genetically they are in between sub-Saharans and Caucasoids with some studies claiming they are are closer to Blacks and other studies claiming they are closer to Caucasoids.  Editingoprah 11:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bullshit, EO. No offense, but that's what that is. No Ethiopian would call herself Arab, whether she be Christian or Muslim. A descendent of the prophet (i.e. having an ancient Arab lineage) maybe, but not Arab. Ethiopians are not considered to be Arabs by anyone, and especially not by Arabs. Stop pushing your POV, EO. Consider the wide group of people who disagree with you, people who usually disagree with each other on these issues. I don't deny that Ethiopian skulls are craniofacially "Caucasoid," an invented race category, but at the same time, then you have to ask what weight to give it, as Horn Africans are described as Super-negroid in limb-proportions (along with Ancient Egyptians, e.g.). Moreover, the genetics of Ethiopians clearly show mainly native lineages (with J lineages occuring in the Semitic-Speaking population at about 30% for Y chromosomes, but themselves passed on to Ethiopians in the Neolithic by the agricultural and Sub-Saharan tied culture, the Natufians). The figures you are coming up with are by deciding that E3b is Caucasoid (it arose originally 20,000 years ago in the Horn of Africa, probably in a proto-Somali male), so as to remove non-Caucasoid influences from Iberia, Sicily, SE Europe and the whole North Africa and Middle East, where high levels of E3b are found. Also, you create a false dichotomy between the terms "black" and Caucasoid. Even genetically, "Caucasoid," is merely a comment on facial features, that are not necessarily connected to genetics. Consider the 100% E3a (a West African lineage) Fulani, who are often of the so-called "Elongated East African" type (i.e. long nose and face, with little prognathism, what you would falsely label "Caucasoid"). You can be black and still have facial features that qualify you for the contrived "Caucasoid" in-group, but that doesn't mean that the latter group is accurate in describing your genetics. You also ignore the fact that "black" is a social, not genetic, classification (consider Alicia Keys or Halle Berry, e.g., who is half-white, but still considered "black" or "African-American"). Your definition would be that black people have to have a majority of ancestors that stayed in Africa after the first exit Out of Africa. Given that most blacks have some little white DNA, both Alicia Keys and Halle Berry would have <50% African DNA, and not black by your standards. Please reconsider — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 13:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Edintingoprah, your assertions are absurd on their face.  Skin color and hair texture are defining elements of blackness.  They are not the only ones, however.  I'm am confident a good forensic anthropologist could determine from the skulls of this group of Ethiopian children (skin and hair removed) that they were, indeed, black.  There's not a whole lot to go on with just a frontal view, but a couple of glaring things:  the enlarged incisors.  That's a hallmark of Africoid peoples -- and the extent to which that is the case here would point to a Nilotic or Cushitic people -- in a word: black East Africans.  Secondly, there is no bilobate chin -- a Caucasoid characteristic.  Thirdly, there is likely some degree of facial prognathism --perhaps not pronounced and perhaps not alveolar, but very likely maxillary -- again, another hallmark of Africoid peoples.  The skulls of some of them are likely dolichocephalic -- another Africoid characteristic -- and I'm confident that their eye sockets are likely very clearly rounded (as in the case of King Tut) -- again, an Africoid characteristic.  And that's just for starters.  So, you see, your "100% Black on the outside and 100% Caucasoid beneath the skin" is absurd -- and quite simply incorrect.  17:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If we let some people have their way, there would be NO black people on Earth. We would be analyzed out of existence. But black...er "dark skinned non black humans" would still effectively be kept from competing for the coveted jobs of relevance that white people fear us "taking" from them through fair educational advancement... that policy wouldn't change. Remember all of you, all of this nonsense, from this article to the ultra consrvative white-ring pundits to the crazyness of the Bush administration, it all comes down to an equation like Einsteins theory of relativity. Make choices and policies that ultimately prevent black kids from growing up to compete fairly for high paying and influential jobs in America and across the world. And I swear this comfy-wumfy racist policy will not continue. It ends now, it ends here the line is drawn, no further! --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing Oprah has contradicted himself

message: This is what I feel is truly the bottom line in regards to this issue of classifying black people or Caucasoids or Negroids. This has nothing to do with political manauvering on my part. This has to do with a deep psychological issue in Americans and to a lesser degree throughout the world. People, ask yourselves, why is skull shapes so significant of all things? Why would EO declare that deep down underneath the skin is a Caucasoid? And after all no matter how much we say, we know deep down we look at Caucasoids as inherently white oriented people, distinct and seperate from black people. Here is the reason why. Racism has taught us that black people are inferior, but over time it has been placated with "different". Ok, but the underlining issue is still that Black people are fundamentally different than everyone else. This alleged difference comes from our mental capacity and how that capacity apparently differs from whites (and Caucasoids). This is further postulated to be from the shape and size of our brains. So the caucasoid brains share a similarity in shape and thus all people considered Caucasoid share a common capacity towards some greater or more respectable goal. The negroid people do not. That's how the story goes. The Ethiopians, Egyptians and other "caucasoids with dark skin" all share a historical legacy that is appreciated by white people. They also share a Christian history. But the Negroids apparently do not. (yes I know all about the great west african civilizations, but I am not supporting the racist notion, I am conveying to you all why this stupidity about Caucasoids and straining out blackness in others is happening) So I see time and time again an attempt to fulfill this disgusting argument against Black people by artifically creating this "caucasoid" division based on skull shapes and sizes which for the past 200 years has been a fundamental racist method of justifying black inferiority. Now we abandon the word "inferiority"  but still hold up it's implications. Instead of recognizing that Black and Negroid people vary greatly, and vary widely across the Earth (just like Caucasoids and Sinoid people do), we follow a pre-determined philosophy that places Black people narrowly in a group, stuck within Africa, and limits our capacities in history. People will go on and on about the remaining accomplishments, but in the end, the quesiton remains.... why couldn't we also venture beyond barriers that others could overcome? Since some are destined to ignore the implications and sidestep the issue, they never look at thie issue the right way. We did venture out, we did found great civilizations in and outside of Africa. Our Black ancestors ventured out, established civilizations throughout the world. But now modern racists and fools will simply say "they aren't black because they aren't in Africa". EO feels offended to include Aboriginals because he feels they are too primitive.  That's not scientific, that's just prejudice. This ultimately goes to intellect and our alleged lack thereof. IF you disagree, then tell me, why is "race and intelligence" constantly found on these articles? I myself did not put them there and at some point I took them off. --Zaphnathpaaneah 00:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The True Bottom Line

message: Yes, I read your classical Negro article and thought it was quite good.  It was unfortunate that Ezeu nominated it for deletion, and that they deleted it after only 2 votes.  Ezeu had never heard of the classical negro theory and thus felt it wasn't noteable enough for wikipedia but in fact the theory was constructed by Seligman and is very well known in the anthropological community as the "true negro" theory.  Now all I'm saying is that racial differences exist on a continuum and Ethiopians (for whatever reason) are genetically and craniofacially in between to Europeans/Arabs and other soc-called Black Africans.  That's an indisputable fact of science.  Now you're arguing that it's arbitrary where on the genetic continuum one draws the line between Negroids and Caucasoids,  and that Caucasoids are simply expanding their racial category to including more diversity, and robbing Negroids of their diversity in the process.  This may have been true in the past, but the scientists of today are much more sophisticated and now can build objective genetic trees and perform genetic cluster analysis where computers group populations in the most objective way possible.  The fact of the matter is that when genetic trees are created, 4 main brainches emerge. The first includes the peoples of sub-Saharan ancestry.  he second includes South East Asians and Pacific islanders.  The third includes Arabs, Europeans,  and East Indians, and the fourth includes North East Asians, native Americans, and Inuits.  Now objectively each of these branches corresponds to a human race,  and since the human category Black is most often used to describe African diasporas ethnicity,  it's only natural that scientists view the first branch as Blacks.  Now what you're trying to do is extend the definition of Black to include not only the first branch, but much of the second (Oceanic people, aeta), and tiny parts of the third (Southern Indians).  All you are doing is redefining Blackness as a transracial category based on one tiny aspect of phenotype (skin color) but this in no way changes the fact that sub-Saharans all form a unique branch of the human tree and thus qualify as their own separate race.  If you redefine Black, people will just use other words to define African diasporas ethnicity (i.e. Negroid) because we are an objective race separate from other dark skinned people whether you like it or not.  Some Aetas may look Negroid, and some African-Americans may look Arab (though the ones you showed had light skin but braod features) but the appearance of Oceanic people is nothing more than an evolutionary coincedence.  As for Ethiopians being the ancestors of Egyptians, as I said many times I am agnostic about whether or not they are Black or Caucasoid.  The tree I will show below does classify them with other sub-Saharans so if they are Caucasoid, they are the breed of Caucasoids that is most closely related to Negroids so one can argue that ancient Egypt was created by Negroid-like Caucasoids.  But don't get too excite about them being lumped in with Negroids, because they are the one group that is so ambiguous that they bounce from one branch to the other, despending on the study.   
Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg
So these are the genetic branches of the human tree objectively generated by computer.  These are the major racial groups.  Sub-Saharans are indeed a separate branch whether you allow us exclusive rights to the term Black or not,  or force us to adopt more achaic terms like Negroid to describe our uniqueness.  And I'm not sure why you are so ashamed of sub-Saharans never leaving Africa.  In fact Africa is where modern humans evolved in the first place and those that left prematurely became Neandertals and were eventually killed off by Homo S. Sapians which continued to evolve in Africa before branching out. Editingoprah 01:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The truer bottom line? BULL

message: Anyone who is going to argue that EITHER of these two men are not black in any sense needs to get off the computer and get their head examined. A whole group of black people here are laughing their butts off after EO posted that DNA chart. EO, you got slammed. (Sorry for the move, someone else posted this section in the wrong area. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This conversation really ended here

message: I felt good letting my friends here see this conversation live. There's about 8 of us here now, but a few were on here earlier helping me out, and I got to entertain them with my skills on here. EO, hey buddy thanks. Some of these cats here would love to meet you and ask you why you are such a sellout. For some reason they all think you are black, but that you got a case of the Clarence Thomasitis. Seriously though, it's not personal, but you are an embarrassment to black people. You wonder why we would be ashamed of not leaving Africa, and all you do is twist it around,  any example of our ancestors leaving the continent automatically means they aren't black. That's stupid. You really shouldn't be on here saying this kind of thing because you just make yourself look bad, and you make people think you weren't raised right. You may have grown up ashamed of being black, but don't try to put that on anyone else, that's your problem. I'm not going to waste anymore of my finger energy debating with you. That picture with 50cent was the hiroshima bomb. You keep on bringing your DNA charts. Eventually more black contributors are gonna slam you on here. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read my statements below if you still have a problem seeing bravery on my part. I have chased you all over Wikipedia, and i cannot go past a certain point as I will simply find myself being put out of the process by the moderators. Now, the issue about "naming conventions". The word is "EQUATORIAL". YOu can call us Equatorial people. or Black Africans. Equatorial Africans. I prefer that than that nasty word "SUB" Saharan. I don't like the idea of my people being defined by being beneath a desert. Thats IDIOTIC. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't take any intelligence to mindlessly lump all dark skinned people together because you're desperate for a non-African connection.  It takes intelligence to understand that skin color adapts rapidly to climate, and just because some people look a bit like Africans, does not mean there's a blood connection, and trying to form a global identity based on trivial external appearance reveals a shallow and superficial mind. Editingoprah 00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't an exercise of using intelligence. This is an exercise of observation. This article is called "black people", not "African-Americans" or "African-Diaspora". This isn't called "blood relationships among black people". This is called "black people" which clearly implies black people throughout the entire world. You definition of Black is not objective, but instead is based on YOUR experiences in YOUR environment. That is not a responsible way to investigate anything. That is a prejudiced way of handling things. it's ethno centric and a part of the concept of American exceptionalism. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guys, I'm done here.  

message: EO's sarcastically comments "I guess anything is better than African in the minds of people who claim fixating on Sub-Sahara dehumanizes Blacks, and so apparently, sub-Saharans are so low on the totempole in the minds of some Blacks that even the most dehumanized people in Asia and the Pacific Islands are considered a step up."
Basically he has been saying that my real reason for wanting to acknowledge some Asians as black is because I dislike my Equatorial African heritage. Let me educate EO on this. EO, when you discover that there are other people like you in the world, who share your own experiences, you find yourself connected to them. If I knew I had a long lost brother, I would not look at the brothers and sisters I already have with any less love and closeness. No, all of us would be happy to know we have found our sibling. You however would be the jaded sibling, feeling left out and jealous because another has been recognized and added to the family. Unity comes from mutual respect and an open mind. Black unity especially has been sustained in this manner. Up until the late 90s most black people throughout the world were not able to directly communicate with each other, so all of the knowledge we could get without too much effort was through TV which whitewashed the blackness of many people (Indians, Cubans, Samoans, Australians, etc). You are still believing what you were told by white media producers over the past 50 years or so. Me, I actually talk, email, chat, meet, and interact with these people directly. What they share with me totally and utterly destroys your idiotic narrow minded rediculouseness. When I talk with other Black people from Africa and America, they also agree with my position. It is this universal agreement that makes me take the position I have. Sure, there are a few once in a while who think like you do. Mostly they are the kind of people that don't even know where the Philippines are, or are aware of anything about other cultures but the humiliating stereotypes. You, with your talk of too primitive Aboriginals and even the lowly untouchables... you continue to perpetuate racism. I do not include the untouchables or aboriginals because they seem to be primitive compared to us, nor because I think they enhance us to the eyes of others. I include them because thay have been known in history as black, they have had universal human experiences that are peculiar to other unquestionably black people, and they, like black people everywhere else have experienced the same modern across the board issues that black people everywhere else have experienced. You should be grateful that most of the people I come in contact with do not even know what Wikipedia is or do not have the time to come here. You should be grateful that only a small handful of friends of mine are willing to post on here. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Dishonesty of EditingOprah 

message: Zaph essentially what you're saying is that being Black is simply a pattern of physical traits including including dark skin especially, but often also kinky hair, broad features or some combination of the above.  Although these traits evolved in Africa (the birth place of all humans) you feel that some of the people that left Africa tens of thousands of years ago retained these traits and can still be considered Black. You do not view genetic distance as relevant, because you see this only as a measure of how genetically isolated groups are from one another, and even genetically isolated groups can retain similar physical traits.  I've reconsidered and now view this as a valid point of view.  I still prefer my definition of being Black but presenting diverse view points will make for a more interesting article, and I've been impressed by the flexibility you've shown while editing the article, in that you've allowed my views to be well represented too.  Thanks for the fun debate! Editingoprah 04:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a long reply, but I will not give more reason to activate this debate. Black is more than a pattern of physical traits, however I will delve into that more as we get more information about the Asians and Pacific peoples. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no longer interested in debating, I'm interested in understanding.  And I realize I can not do justice to your entire position with just a brief summary.  I get that there is much more to your perspective on Blackness including but not limited to a feeling of being oppressed based on skin color and many of the other things you've described and will hopefully continue to describe in the article. Editingoprah 05:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Truly. In all sincerity I have learned much from this quarrel. I now understand that there are other points of view, points of view that I have to acknowledge (however peculiar they may seem to to me). Let this article allow for, and reflect the different points of view. --Ezeu 22:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I respect Zaph's opinion

message: This article has quite a few references. We are going to need to list or put ((fact)) next to areas that we feel need more citation. The article needs to be cleaned up and the grammar needs to be more sophisticated, but that's not my department. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I have been thinking about the claims made by EditingOprah and others that Ethiopians are not black. I am a Ugandan, and according to ethnologists, linguists and traditional oral history, the Iteso (my grandmothers people are Teso, and I have curly hair texture like Somali and Ethiopians), the Karamojong of Uganda, and the Turkana, Jie and others in Kenya and Ethiopia, who are related to the the Kalenjin group and Maasai cluster – all originate from, and are closely related to the tribes of Ethiopia. In Africa we are black, and we acknowledge that there are other black people who are not Africans. My people do not identify primarily as black, but with their specific clans and tribes. Some diasporan Africans have an identity issue (because they do not belong to a clan or a tribe), which makes them somewhat protective of the term "black". Editingoprah, allowing non-African black people who self refer as black to use the term "black" is not a weakness but a strength. Anyway, we have our own word. We are Black Africans. Don't tell me you are ashamed of being called a Black African!--Ezeu 09:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of people equate Black with Negroid, and Negroid-Caucasoid is a contradiction in terms, unless you're talking about a hybrid or some other kind of genetic intermediate.  The article has really become about who is regarded as Black, since it depends on the definition.  Thus if we do mention Ethiopians simply say that most people consider Ethiopians Black, with the exception of some scientists and possibly some Ethiopians themselves. Editingoprah 00:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editing, thats true, but do you know why? That was a deliberate manipulation of public opinion in the 50s and 60s. Like tobacco or something. The people who had the influence abused it by misappropriating the concept of Caucasoid (a person with a skull shaped a certain way) to mean not Black (a person of a particular racial/social background whose skull can be shaped any way). There are certainly some white people with "negroid" skulls, but that is not respected in the scientific community. No instead, what happened was that the Caucasoid definition was expanded way beyond its meeaningful origin in order to insure that all whites are classified as Caucasoids. --Zaphnathpaaneah 20:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: But that is not the part that you cut out. You cut out the Jewish part, and made your comments for that. --68.60.55.162 20:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Jewish part went out also, but comments weren't for that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethiopeans are not white blacks 

message: Coiencidentally this goes to the recent reverts by some who dont like my statment that blackness is like Jewry an identity that one cannot scientifically lock down and that there is disagreeement on it. The referts are done out of a panic by those who dislike the idea of black people even being spoken of in the same breath as jews. Its not NPOV, its an obvious fact that blackness is far from unanimously agreed upon and LIKE JEWISHNESS there are differences across the world as to who considers who Jewish  OR BLACK. Get off it with that NPOV crap. <--Zaphnathpaaneah 19:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that is not the part that you cut out. You cut out the Jewish part, and made your comments for that. --68.60.55.162 20:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Jewish part went out also, but comments weren't for that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish comparison

message: This statement has been taken out: 
*Although Cablinasian Tiger Woods has visible Black ancestry, he's not considered Black because both his parents are non-white so hypodescent does not apply. He is however African-American]] 
There are multiple reasons
* The word "although" is used, which pretends that "cablinasian" does not already incorporate the fact that TIger acknowledges his black heritage, which he does. 
* He is considered black by many prominent people. There is no "consensus" other than "white only" consensus that he is "not black". We do not live in the 50s anymore people. White only consensus is not "consensus enuogh". He is at least 1/4th Black and that is historically (despite any objections) been considered black, whether in Asia, America or otherwise. It certainly is enough of a background that one cannot say "he is not black".
* not considered black because both his parents are non-white is a... non-sequitor? There is no way that non-white heritage automatically makes one not-black. 1. Blackness is a non-white group, and 2. there is no mutually exclusive history, and certainly not in America, of non-white mixed people being "not black"
* To say "Hypdescent does not apply" is false. Hypodescent certainly does apply. If the contributor says that "hypdescent does not necessarily determine" or something like that, is fine. But Tiger Woods has represented himself as a black person. He certainly has the option to be considered black if he choose to on his own accord.
I sense anti-black sentiment in this, but I am reserving my reaction to that impression until I see how the consensus really goes. Keep in mind, I didn't remove Tiger's picture, nor did I replace the comments with my own opinion, I merely left it blank. Respond in kind to the good natured intention on my part. --Zaphnathpaaneah 20:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tiger Woods

message: I took this statement out 
*White racial traits however are genetically recessive,  so mulattos are typically regarded Black
Why? because it is false. White racial traits incorporate themselves into a mixed person at just the same capacity. What happens is that SOCIALLLY people are predisposed to NOTICE the Black/African traits, and thus they stand out with more obviousness to the observer due to the socialization of white people as a strictly endogamous group. Halle Berry exhibits variation from her white mother AND black father to such a degree that the differences are noticeable. But again, as it has always been, the white social group renounces, or disavows their relationship to mixed people as being part of their identity. So the blackness that shows in mixed people is socially more apparent only because it deviates (only slightly if you look objectively)from the "pure" White models. --Zaphnathpaaneah 20:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Myth I am destroying 

message: "Emmy, Golden Globe and Oscar-winning actress and ex-model Halle Berry, the first black woman to win the prestigious Academy Award for Best Actress, is of paternal African American and maternal Caucasian descent. If she lived in Brazil however, she'd be considered White"
This is not true. Black + White people are called Mulatto, or Moreno. However, Latino people are in fact called White and there are no distinctions between Latino and White in brazil. There are also people with light skin and some black ancestry called white, but that's not the case.  -- Unsigned!
Brazil has it's own racial issues. Firstly they still associate "blackness" with "poverty", and that affects how one is classified. Secondly, the society has a historical habit of trying to classify as white as possible for the goodies that one gets for doing so. I hardly find Brazilian racial categories objective or reflective of reality. They base their terms strictly on skin color and nothing else. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admixture in Brazil 

message: I took this out 
*==Youth Culture==
Black youth culture typified by rappers has become mainstream among youths of many backgrounds.  Dress, language is copied in possibly an attempt to be perceived as "cool".  This poses a delimna as whether to integrate and lose a distinctiveness or retain an separate identity and alienate some sections of society.
because this slowly degenerates the article into one about the perception viewed by some regarding black american youth. This has nothing to do with describing what black people are or their unified experiences. I could see this "black youth & rapper" nonsense reinforcing the myth (that becomes a self-fulfulling prophecy) that black youth are primarily of the rapper hip-hop mindset. Black youth identify with hip-hop culture just as white youth have and had identified with heavy metal culture and 'alternative' and so forth. You can certainly put in the American section of this article the prevalence of hip-hop culture among the youth of black americans (and even mention it's influence around the world). But a seperate section fulfills a stereotypical expectation and assumption by certain non-blacks who have a narrow view of black youth. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Youth Culture

message: I changed Caucasian to white in a caption. Although the term is commonly used in the United States, Caucasian is not an accurate word to describe all White people. If you click on the Caucasian link, you will see various definitions with precise meanings (including people from the Caucasus region).Spylab 18:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Caucasian]] not accurate term for whites

message: I removed 
*Black is a form of ethno-racial classification, and is not dependent on national identity nor regional ethnicity. Though literally implying dark-skinned, black has been used in different ways at different times and places.  Although most Africans consider themselves blacks, many have limited or no cultural relatedness to, and, thus, feel little or no kinship with, one another. 
Because it's not really saying anything but to "disclaim" some idiotic notion or other. Also the fact is, Black people feel kindship with one another when there is a greater threat, that is racism, discrimination. We are like the human race when aliens seek to invade and conquer us. We will unite and ignore our differences, even if some are stupid and short sighted enough to side with the aliens. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is an unecessary use of the disclaimer. it tries to POV the reader before giving them a chance to determine themselves if it's ethno-racial or not. The first line is only accurate to those who wish to make it so. I do not agree. "Ethno-racial"... means what? --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the racial disclaimer 

message: this is not an honest discussion, i noticed in write up on African-American a section discussing the problem with the term. Now who really has a problem with that term? The "coconuts of America." okay now how many people in Africa and the diaspora hate this word, or even if they don’t hate it politely say "i prefer African American" (out of respect to those who used it in the past). truth doesn’t have a personal agenda. plurality means state the truth. Many people and the list is long are trying to get away from shallow color labels. So why ignore this in the article? Only two groups call themselves by a color, African people and the people that invented the system Europeans. And guess what everything white is alright. Why fight to clean up someone else’s definition of you? Imagine a term like "black Africa" so now where do "blacks" come from Blackia, or Blackistan. imagine an alien coming down to earth trying to figure it out: okay Chinese are from China, Indians from India...blacks????? And on another note some of you write good stuff and fight the fight but that doesnt make your agendas okay, because this is about accuracy and anyone with an open case file with Muslim, Africans should not be allowed because people will always bring their nonsense with them. If someone is from the KKK they shouldnt be allowed to contribute to "the history of Africa" and the same goes for these Christian/Islamic black national radicals.----Halaqah 20:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then let us discuss the truth of the matter. The truth of the matter is that in common usage across the country, and in Africa, and in parts of asia the word "black" is used by people who have dark skin, and by people who do not in reference to people with dark skin. That's the nitty gritty truth. The truth is in America (and growing elsewhere) the acknowledgement of one's black skin, or family with black skin, or ancestors with black skin (whether froM Africa, Asia, Latin America, or Australia) is made with pride and cherished. That's the nitty gritty trurth. You say "where do blacks come from" Blackia or Blackistan? I remember making that same complaint against people who want to call themselves "mixed" (where do they come from, Mixalia or Multiraciostan?). Yet let me clarify for you. Nigeria, Niger, Sudan, Guinee, New Guinea, Guyana, TanZania, Zanzibar, Ethiopia are all countries where the words are based on a description of people as "black". Now is that a bad thing? Is that a good thing? I do not know. One can see it either way. However it's a nitty gritty fact. Finally I fail to even really understand your "shouldn't be allowed statement". I am a Black Christian with very strong opinions. Do you say that I shouldn't allowed to contribute here? Should the Muslims be allowed instead? Who should then? Should only those who agree with a certain POV be allowed? (Usually it's a center-conservative white American POV that's considered "most" acceptable). Are you stating that? --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: problem with black

message: i would advise everyone to go and look at the white people article and then come back to this. It has its faults but starts accurately. black, white are social terms ignorant of true culture and linguistics. and if "black people" and "white people" is to be discussed i think the articles should bear some similarity. As opposed to overstate some pan-American opinion of what we African people are.
No, my unsigned person. First of all, we need to stop believing that black people are just the "opposite" or "parallel" to whites. Black people existed first as the first people, and from them came (of many) one group of people, known as 'white'. There is no "comparison". There is no relationship between the Pan-African opinion and the "black" article here which requires further scrutiny. Also, this article does not propose that black people are based on a genetic disposition (where-as the white article erroneously insists on a genetic link to base whiteness on). No, I do not agree with you that we should go to the white people article for any kind of guidance. In fact, I implore us to avoid looking to the white people article for any kind of sense of balance. Black people does not mean "white people, only their opposite". --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: white people

message: — Various people of the Middle east whose ancestors were also brought during the colonial slave trade period (1500-1850) 
excuse me is this the only type of Afro-Arab?? Africans have lived in "Arab" countries for 1000's of years. Slavery is not the only way they got there, how about trade and immigration? Next thing any African that speaks Arabic as a first language can be considered Afro-Arab. Like Sudan. These are not solid terms and have no foundation in scholarship so who is writting this material and limiting it like this. It is biased and not universal.--Halaqah 20:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, which makes me wonder how you seemed to have missed these statements.
*The earliest mention of people described as black can be found in Ancient Egyptian writing and Bible. Biblical references of the dark-skinned people in Sudan and parts of Arabia known as the Kushites.
*In all cases, the words were applied to various peoples, ethnic origins and skin color. [2] Although the word Kush itself originally may have referred to particular ethnic groups or empires in the Sudan, throughout antiquity in the Near East, this word became the most commonly used word (as black is today in the English-speaking world) to describe African peoples with dark complexions. [3]. In Ancient India, the Sanskrit name of Krishna literally meant black or dark-skinned person. Throughout India, other references to black people in the Rig Veda scriptures indicate their presence in that region.
*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. 
(I removed the Afro-Arab example because thats what your complaint centers around). In any event, I certainly show examples of Black people in the middle east prior to the Arab slave trade. You feel free to add even MORE to that. But do not put a POV up because you find the information lacking. A POV is used when You and others dispute something, not when you initiate a conversation about a topic. I agree with you, so add more examples. 
I am removing the POV tag, because it was placed prematurely. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well right off the back I can say that's not a good reason. We are not disputing much yet. You feel it's not universal because more empathsis was not put on the middle east? then add it. And I do not know why you say that Africans do not call themselves black. I have African relatives, we are black, end of story. This political correctness is not a substitute for reality. Maybe you think that Africans "shouldn't" call themselves black, but this article isn't called "what people should call themslves". You and I differ about why people avoid calling themselves black. I feel its a case of self-hatred. You feel its a case of avoiding being mentally controlled by white racism. My son's grandmother is Fulani, and she knows herself as being undeniably black. It's not something that creates this issue you bring up. I neither state that it's political nor racial. I just state what it is. YOU can determine why people say they are black, but I am not here to justify it. In fact, I need no justification. You can elaborate on the "whys" in the article, in fact that has been in the article already. Your "problem" with black is deleted because there is no problem. WHy is black a problem? That's the problem itself.... to say that acknowleding your black is a problem. You create a problem, then try to attack a problem YOU made up! You ever hear Jewish or White or any other group say problem? Heck, what is the "Jewish Problem" hmmm? That's a NAZI thing. Since we know that the word Black was used prior to European colonization, there is no reason to justify striking it from the record. Secondly, since black is used today (whether you like it or not) and is and has been used widespread, that is why this article exists. If you are trying to socially engineer the annhiliation of black, then start from the beginning. You be the first to join the Eurocentrics in saying "The Egyptians were not black". Because eventually that's where this will lead, no matter how noble you spin your case, the end result is to seperate the people today from the accomplishments of their ancestors in history. --Zaphnathpaaneah 20:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: But let me give you more info as to why black is "ok" and nothing needing to be avoided. Firstly, black is a word, not made up by anyone. It's found in every language. Are you arabic Halaqah? If so, then you are familiar with the word they use, it's not "Ayn"... It's "abed"... slave. That's the common everyday use in social settings that Arabs (who do not consider themselves black) use for black people, whether African, Indian, or whatever. Period. Secondly, a big chunk of people of African descent living in American do not agree with you. They do not find themselves related closely to Africans that they would substitute being "black" for being "African". No, it's as absurd to them as it is for white American people to call themselves Europeans. That's the REALITY of the situation, and it makes sense. I personally find African to be a "politically correct" way for some to say "black" because they are ashamed of being known as black (why? I have no idea). The momentum of our society will determine in the future if "black" is an offensive or colloquial term or not. Just like the momentum determined that it was the word to use after the 1950s. But there is no obejetive way possible to say that it's wrong or offensive. Black relates to a dark color, that's it. You put meanings behind it: Black is evil, black is bad, black is all this negative stuff YOU associate with it. I don't do that. Black was a word used prior to colonialism, just as i said before, used IN Egypt prior to Roman, Islamic, or Greek occupation, so this argument you make against it, it's absurd to me. --Zaphnathpaaneah 20:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Afro-Arabs

message: I had to move and greatly shorten the "Terms no longer in use" for two reasons. Firstly, the placement of it unduly deflects the readers' attention away from the information about BLACK PEOPLE. Here is why. Black people certainly have been called various things by white people, things that confused people among other things. Those terms have their OWN articles (which I wikied them to) and all of the detail in THIS talk page about THOSE terms should instead go to THOSE pages. So for example, the long detail about Mulatto and it's origin and what not, that goes to the MULATTO article (and not be explained here). This section seemed to try to empathize white divisions of black people during the Jim Crow era in America at the expense of clarifying the 21st century reality of black people all over the world. I could even see an article entitled "Jim Crow notions of race" or "Colonial racial divisions among black people". However, here, that will only confuse the article and bring in so many diversionary and oppositional viewpoints, it will be mired in controversy. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terms no longer in use 

message: I removed
*At one extreme, in the United States it is relatively easy to tell who has such ancestry. 
Because it's a weasely statement. It's a matter of one's POV and the statement itself predisposes the viewer to take a perspective that they may not have. Many people do not see it being so easy as many African Americans are viewed as Arabs by Continental Africans. This article is here to clarify who has such ancestry, so let the article speak for itself. Words like "it's relatively easy" and "obviously" and what not only serve to manipulate the reader to "following along" a prejudice or stereotype. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed POV statement 

message: I got this from the Madagascar article
*Madagascar's population is predominantly of mixed Austronesian and African origin, though those who are visibly Austronesian in appearance and culture are the minority, found in the highland regions. Recent research suggests that the island was uninhabited until Malay seafarers arrived between about 2,000 to 1,500 years ago. Recent DNA research shows that the Malagasy are approximately of half Malay and half East African stock, although some Arab, Indian and European influence is present along the coast
I wonder, does it ever cross people's minds that the "visibly Austronesian" people have a substantial similarity to the "African" people, and that it is the "Sinoid" or "Mongoloid" appearance that is actually which is "minority"? I ask because I indended on finding pics of Madascar people and Borneo people where you can see their obvious similarities and their black features. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting interpretation 

message: If you read the St. Maurice article, you will see that I had to correct something. The article describes the sculptures of Maurice as being that of a Moor. Yet earlier (in this article, and in others) you will see me disputing others in regards to what Moors look like. The Wikipedian majority concluded that Moors don't look like Black Africans. Ok fine. I acquiesce. Here is the funny thing. When a sculpture represents a Black African looking man from Egypt in an article... a black african looking man who had nothing but an honorable history as St. Maurice did (read it). Why is this man then described as "represented in his sculptures as a MOOR"? He is represented as a Black African. We can certainly argue again that Moors ALSO look like Black Africans. But this triangulation of Moors is once again a Eurocentric bias that implies that even if one looks like a black african if they come from Egypt and did great things, we only see a non-black Moor! This nonsense (literally this makes no sense either way you try to think of it) is Eurocentric bias and should indicate to you all how arbitrary Eurocentric notions and complaints about Blackness truly are. I can't wait for someone to yell out against having the Sri Lankan kids on this article. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My friend, if you prefer a better term then use it. I use "equatorial African" as that correctly refers to the relationship between the people and the world. Equatorial peoples are "black" people, or at least people with darker skin and so-called "negroid" features. Since White people hijack African (Afrikaaner, Berbers, Arabs, etc), why would I continue to use "African" indiscriminately, especially since that word comes from a European (Roman) province near Cyrene, which was applied to the whole landmass by white colonizers centuries later? I keep hearing how "Africa" wasn't a colonizer's name, but it was! This is totally unrelated to Kemet and Moors. The first term is relating to a physical landmass, the second refers to a country's name and it's people, the third to a group of people whose relationship was as diverse as black people are now. I am not going to argue about which term to use, but I will say this, when you replace "black" with "African" you actually limit the scope of things. African intellectuals makes me think we are talking about Wole Soyinka or someone born and raised in the continent. Black intellectuals makes me think we are talking about people all over the world. So you see what limits what. I am not going to revert and counter this point on the article unless it goes overboard (where you put "African" everywhere, turning this article into another black means Afriacan-only Article, like EditingOprah tried to do) --Zaphnathpaaneah 20:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact let me give you the ultimate reason why "black" is the preferential word, and why, even if my logical reasons for the article existence were not valid (and they certainly are), why morally, identifying yourself as black is ok, and in fact should be embrased. Black kids in America and all over the world. Among them are many who hate themselves and self-destruct from that self-hatred. What do they hate about themselves? Audience? All together "they hate themselves because they are told that they are black and that black is a bad thing." That's the cold hard truth. It is why hip-hop is bound towards bitches, hoes, pimps, niggas, gangstas, and thugs. It is why black children perform inconsistently in school and why black families struggle with so many emotional problems. Black people esp in America, Brazil, AND Africa fail to respect each other, because we are told and taught ever so slightly that black means primitive, sub-standard, inferior, and so forth. Every nationalistic, regional, and social name (Whether African, Nigerian, Berber, Arab, or whatever) will have their darker skinned (black) people and their ligherskinned (whiter or non-black people), thats a fact of life. Fighting for the exclusive legitimate use of the name is a silly game (forcing African to be a word only used for dark skinned people is silly). But socially speaking, people are predisposed to recognize the "whiter" counterparts as the more "legitimate" counterparts. So back to the ultimate reason. Black kids who hate themselves do not hate themselves because they refuse or fail to call themselves African. The "American" gang in South Africa, the most notorious street gang in S. Africa, do not do what they do because they hate being African, they do it because they know they are black and their society has equated black with "bad". American rappers do not rap about having sex with their b--ches because they aren't African, it's because they equate black with sexual animal with no morals. I do not agree that we should abandon black and let it shrivel and die, because children grow up regardless linking "black" with "themselves" and will still link "black" with "bad". it is the "bad" part has to go. Not the "self" part. You are not going to convince dark skinned African, Asian, and Australian children to abandon identifying themselves as black. But you can get them to abandon calling themselves "bad because I am black". And that is the ulterior motive I have for this article. You got me red handed. Notice in this article whose pictures I put in it, each one was very deliberate on my part. Notice who I did not put (no sports, rappers, entertainers, criminals, or any slaves). We have had enough of that, it's saturated in our lives every day. I stand corrected, I did put Samuel Jackson in there, as entertainers (actors and what not) that is one component that is popularized among black people, however Sam Jackson is a better role model than 50Cent, for the very least that he plays his roles with a lot of dignity and he does a lot to positively inspire BLACK children.  --Zaphnathpaaneah 21:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Why is Black Pride somehow disparaging to African pride? When did this phenomonon begin? Many people who do not identify in Africa with black are among those who still engage in "I hate darkerskinned" social politics. You know, the ones in Mauritania who still have dark skinned slaves. The ones who supported the deportation of Wolof from the Mauritanian side of the Senegambia river. Or the ones in Somalia who regard themselves as ARABS (which is insane). The word Africa was used as a word by Romans to describe people you call Berbers (neither of which represented the identity of those south of the Sahara! The reason I won't go back to Negro is because I don't speak Spanish, Portuguese, or Latin here in the USA. Black is the proper word if you want to choose between the non-english Negro and the english Black. Your experiences on your part of the continent differ from the experiences of my family on another part of the continent. So be proud of our mother land and be proud of who you are. Be Black and African and don't do the silly "black is bad" routine. And for god's sake if you are going to stand up for your beliefs, have the courage to SIGN your comments! --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of the political nature of denying black identity 

message: Apologies for the long list of edits. Since I cannot adequately meet the copywright requirements yet, I decided to just pull pictures already uploaded. Feel free to move them around, but please do not unilaterally take them off without discussing first. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures uploaded

message: shouldn't there oppession in the article? - Another unsigned 
Well, Mr. Unknown. I would imagine the shared experiences of black people around the world include a particular and peculiar form of marginalization based on prejudice against their skin color. I certainly think oppression, exploitation, and discrimination should be included.  You wanna sign in and contribute? --208.254.174.148 02:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppession? 

message: I took out sometimes from the first paragraph because it is illustrated in the last sentance already. Reiteration is a POVing of the readers. 
Black (noun, black or blacks; adjective, black people) is a term that commonly refers to the indigenous peoples of Africa (with the exception of Maghreb Berbers) and their diasporic populations throughout the world. Black sometimes also refers to various non-African, dark-skinned peoples who inhabit Asia and the Pacific.[1]. Blackness is not dependent on national identity nor regional ethnicity. Though literally implying dark-skinned, black has been used in different ways at different times and places. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sometimes reiterated in the first paragraph

message: You guys see all the pictures I added (and here is where I totally am cool with us changing some, adding, removing, moving them around). The only contribution Editingoprah makes is one of a white man from Ireland in order to incite some readers to backlash against any non-africans being included as black. So you all see for yourselves, the spirit of the different positons. They speak for themselves. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zaph, if you want to include unofficial definitions of Black, then include ALL the most notable ones, and Black irish are at the top of that list.  Either Black means African or Black means any ethnic group that's been historically called Black. Make up your mind. But don't arbitrarily decide that Asians who've been called Black are Black but Irish who have been called Black are not. Either you respect official definitions from the census and anthropology, or you accept any and everything that can be referenced. You can't have it both ways. Editingoprah 09:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Zaph using first hand knowledge is not allowed in wikipedia, as everything we add must be verifiable. Second, good judgement is in the eye of the beholder and wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV.  And third, consistency means including EVERYONE who has been historically recognized as Black,  not arbitrarily giving undue weight to South Asians to support your personal agenda.  Editingoprah 10:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL who has the greater amount of stamina? Who will get sleepy first. Who has the ability to type in their sleep. Ok, my first hand knowledge is verifiable by the other things I also mentioned. It all works together. Good judgement certainly is in the eye of the beholder, and as I have shown you, the Wikipdeia cabal has shown you, Wiki moderators have shown you, your judgement on this matter is just not good. For example, the Runoko rashidi reference which you (with your bad judgement) keep relating to, uses African in the diffusionist or humanist sense (in that all people came from Africa in pre-history, and that because the Aeta retain their physical resemblence to African people, thus they are regarded also as Africans). Now I don't oppose this interpretation. But that does not detract from the fact (whether I opposed or not) that the Aeta ALSO look BLACK. You can argue all day that they are no african, you can't credibly argue that they do not look black. And by the way, the South Asian thing is not arbitrary. Many other users have supported me, and i've wiki-crossed referenced to the links.  AETA is a pre-colonial, pre-white-man word that means literally BLACK! --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yet ANOTHEr mistake on Editingoprah's part. The Runoko article, which he tries to use as a bridge to justify the statement: 
*Dark-skinned peoples who inhabit Southern Asia and the Pacific are sometimes viewed as Black by those who believe they are part of the global African community.
He erroneously assumes that Runoko describes the Aeta in the article as part of the global African community. Runoko does no such thing. He describes them as BLACK (with the same reasons I have), and does not try to push any social or historical relationship to black Africans. He only recognizes the ultimate human relationship between the Aeta and Africans in pre-historical times. Never does Runoko assert that the Aeta are part of any Pan-African, Afrocentric, or Kemetic relationship. The "global African community" that EO is relating to is Runoko's theme on his website, which relates the concept of human blackness with "global African community". In effect, it goes over EO's head that Runoko is articulating the humanistic concept of blackness in this article with Runoko's research showing that the Africoid phenotype of the Aeta ultimately comes directly from their ancestors in Africa. --Zaphnathpaaneah 11:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Runoko clearly tells you why he calls them black:
* In regards to phenotype, broadly speaking, the Agta can be described as physically small and unusually short in stature, dark-skinned, spiral-haired and broad-nosed.  They are an extremely ancient people and, I believe, close representatives of the world's earliest modern humans. 
*The presence of diminutive Africoids (whom Chinese historians called "Black Dwarfs") in early southern China during the period of the Three Kingdoms (ca. 250 C.E.) is recorded in the book of the Official of the Liang Dynasty (502-556 C.E.).  In Taiwan there are recollections of a group of people now said to be extinct called "Little Black Man." 
*Similar groups of Black people have been identified in Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia and Indonesia, and it seems almost certain that at one time a belt of Black populations of this type covered much of Asia. 
Whatever point it is you think I'm making in your favor, it's lost in the complications of your endless bounds and leaps. The theme in this article is very coherent. You are THE only one who makes such a fuss, and no one as of yet has supported you, let alone COHERENTLY! --Zaphnathpaaneah 11:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never seen this section before. But here is the funny thing. I didnt delete it, I clarified it and of course revealed the glaring contradictions. Now it's up to you to clear up those contradictions in a reasonable manner. For example. Black became widely used for only five to 10 years? (Black was pushed by Malcolm X over negro), yet you have him going for African instead. You don't know what this black thing is and that's ok. It's something that a lot of people don't understand. A lot of people hate being black and want to make it go away and dissappear. I see your article and it does just that. You don't want black people from Africa to be black (but be African instead), and you don't like the idea of people outside of an African context to be called black either. I am going to just let you see for yourself how useless this is. Your very own "I hate being black" section. I am certainly NOT going to delete it. Just don't let it bleed all over the other sections. No matter how much you think black SHOULDN'T exist, it DOES and I have very accurately described it in the article. Don't "shouldn't" it away. --Zaphnathpaaneah 15:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Although I will not go over all the comments while I was away, I will respond to the few I feel i need to. Firstly, I have black relatives FROM africa, IN Africa. The word "black" as in the people who are not arab, who are not magrheb. You Halaqah share a belief that is shared by other Africans who deny being Black, the ruling classes of Sudan deny being black and they also justify the actions to exterminate the... "Other" Africans (the ones they CALL Black) in Sudan. Again in Mauritania, again in Nigeria, again in Egypt... the ones like you who "deny" being Black seem to have a problem with the darker skinned (usually not muslim) ones that accept being Black. Amazing. I am proud to be black, and proud to be African American. It's no imagination that many share MY view (much more than your own) as well!
Malcolm went from Negro, then pushed for black and then when he got back from the beautiful motherland said quoteing now: X had favored the descriptive term "African American" as more historically and culturally defining over either prior term, and used the term at an OAAU (Organization of Afro American Unity) meeting in the mid-1960s, saying, "Twenty-two million African Americans - that's what we are - Africans who are in America." This man is a king among kings. lets follow him. --Halaqah 19:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: African-American and Black both have a valid use here in America (and in other areas). I have no problem with using one or the other. However, I do have a problem with those who promote one while insisting that we not use the other. Here is why. For both, there is a valid argument that colonialism and white supremacy imposed the terms on us. For African-American it is a stronger argument that it was created by whites (no african group or nation ever called themselves African). Black has been a term used to describe the same group of people prior to any white supremacy or colonialism (Kushites, Aethiopians, etc). So I have not seen a good reason to justify one term over another. I also know of many Black Americans who renounce "african-american" because they are not related to Africans anymore over the generations, they regard the fact they were sold to whites by Africans as the breaking point of their relatedness, they have no affinity. I personally do not like that attitude, however I understand that. So in all due honesty it is unfair to choose one term and impose it on all of us over another. So you can quote Malcolm X and whomever else you wish. This isn't about how to justify not using black people. This article is CALLED "black people", and I am going to make sure that people throughout the world who have and are regarded as black, will be described in THIS article. You and EO both need to get over your "I don't think black should be used" trip, because it's YOUR trip. I know many more people who argue against African-American. For both sides of this "exclusive identity" issue, my response is this: WHATEVERRRRRR. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is an example of how to see a contributor's intent. 

message: There are several images on this page which are copyrighted and for which there's no fair use argument for using them on this article.  In keeping with our policies I'm going to remove them.  Unfortunately these cover virtually all the images of high profile people.  I'll take a look on Commons for some Free images of similar personalities, but they're unlikely to be of equal quality.  If anyone has good photos they've taken themselves - uploading them to Commons license would be great.... The images I'm removing are:
*Oluchi for Victoria's Secret.jpg
*Blasianbusinessman.jpg
*Rock_wcw_champion.jpg
*Swat14.jpg
--Siobhan Hansa 11:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrighted images 

message: This article is very "American" and far from reality.
In the US, you have the tendency to divide people in White/Black.
This is not the case abroad, where culture(Language, religion, etc.) is much more important. Therefore it does not make much sense to put Africans from different parts of a continent into one group if you want to describe them, as there are many, many differences(Culture, language, religion, food, clothes, the way life is organised, the status of women, etc.). As these people in daily life don't usually see themeselves as members of one group(Remember Rouanda?).
Actually the same is true in Europe, where nobody would dare to ignore the massive differences between the different European Nations, which led to many wars and millions of death. And which are still of huge importance(In polls, most Europeans indicate they fear the European Union).
From my own experience I can tell you that people there don't classify themselves as whites, but first and foremost as Germans, French, Dutch, English, Irish, Russians, etc.
And it also doesn't make much sense to pretend that there would be one European/White culture, linked to the people of white skin. As the differences between lowerclass whites living in Britain and lowerclass whites living in Russia, or lowerclass whites living in Greece and loweclass whites living in Norway might be bigger as the cultural differences of upperclass Blacks in South Africa and upperclass Whites in Britain.
Once again, another UNSIGNED person is confusing the explanation of a term with a division between racial lines. And once again, the comparision is made between "European nations" and "American". Guess what unsigned, most of the commentary is regarding NON-European, NON-American people! --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is very "American" and far from reality 

message: Stop the personal attacks or else you will be blocked. Btw, "darkie" was indeed a commonly used racial slur. It is mentioned in the Darlie article and also in many other places on the 'net. My point is that you need to try to be a little more patient with people before assuming bad faith. Take a breath, calm down and try to stay cool. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already went past that point with some people. Listen, using the racial slurs in the page (especially at the TOP) is inappropriate and inexcusable. You do not see that in the other pages for other ethnic groups and so therefore I am rejecting your response as hypocritical, double-standard, and inconsistently applied. Please feel free to request any action to be taken against me. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please 

message: You guys want to help EO justify putting a white man's face ahead of the faces of other people of color in an article entitled "black People" (a man who by the way is called black only in the context of him having dark hair, and not being in any way shape or form similar in any way to any other group called black in the world). I don't care if EO disagrees with my position about the Asians and Aboriginals, this issue is to be handled appropriately. YOu have one group of people who only RELATIVELY refer to each other as black (black-irish), they do not absolutely refer to them, nor to each other as black people in any way. The Negritos have referred to themselves, and by others as black people not just "black-aeta". And I am not going to allow this silliness to continue any further. I let the subject stay in the article despite my objections, but he has continuously tried to meander it to the top (as to incur the readers' backlash against all the groups). I will not stand for it and I am removing it from here on out. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm fed up with EO's crap