Talk:Black people/Archive 5

message: The difficulties will not be resolved until people acknowledge that there are many different points of view here. The encyclopedia article should acknowledge this, and document as many of these as it can, with links to more extended articles on subtopics if need be. 
Just claiming "oh it is simple, just follow my point of view" does not help matters. The problem is, not everyone agrees with any given point of view. So lets acknowledge that there is disagreement, catalog the disagreements, and move on.--Filll 21:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I have my point of view, but I have argued from day one that there is no agreed precise definition of "black". "Black" is an ascription based on subjective criteria; "black" is adopted as an identity by a variety of groups; "black" refers not only to African people, as other black peoples are referred to as black and self-identify as black. This point has been made over and over again by almost everyone, except for two stubborn people who have now escalated the quarrel by trying to assert that some black Africans (Ethiopians) are not black. The problem here is that some editors are trying to push aberrant theories (eg. the Ethiopian issue). Under no circumstances can such bizarre assertions be accepted. When editors cease from pushing controversial assertions, and agree to what is generally accepted, then an acceptable consensus may be reached. . --Ezeu 23:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I specifically discussed the Ethiopian issue on your talk page and you agreed it could be mentioned as long as we didn't imply that it's a mainstream view.  We made very clear that it is not.  You're saying that under no circumstances can the scientific judgement of oxford scientists be accepted, and yet you accept bizarre sources claiming that South Asians are Black even though this is contradicted by the census and the world's most authoritative dictionary (webster) says Black refers primarily to negroes.   I have no problem accepting diverse views but stop implying that the views of others are bizarre when our sources are far more mainstream and credible than yours and we're not the ones starting race wars on this talk page by calling Tamils Black.__Whatdoyou 23:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never claimed that South Asians in general are Black. I have argued that Papua New Guineans, Andamese Islanders and Australian Aboriginals are black.--Ezeu 05:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you do understand that that's not a mainstream view.  For example there was a famous case where a film maker was accused of creating an anti-Black film and Black people were outraged by how Blacks were portrayed in the movie. The controvery died down when the film maker explained that the characters in the movie were not Black, they were Australian aboriginal.  I understand that in Australia Black commonly refs to all dark-skinned people and so this view has the right to be represented, but it's obscure, just as the view that Ethiopians are NOT black is also an obscure view. Most people consider Ethiopians Black because they're sub-Saharan and most people do not consider Australoids black because they've been genetically and culturally isolated from most Black people for at least 50,000 years__Whatdoyou 16:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This will not get resolved

message: Moved Because of Excessive Modification to My original Text
Regrettable Polemics
I am sorry to encounter tension between different Black people on this page.  Many have criticized Back Americans in various ways.  This is quite tragic since African Americans have been struggling for centuries against the worst forms of discrimination and oppression.  Lives have been lost in these struggles.  Much of it has been done in the name of other Black people around the world.  It is sad to learn that we African Americans have so few friends outside of our own nation.  Also, all Black people, and people of color in general, regardless of their continent of origin, are in serious danger in view of the virulent White Supremacist activity that is springing up all over the White Occident.  So, lets have a little solidarity, please.  I see that some non-American Africans have expressed the opinion that African-Americans "appear different than" or "think differently from" other Africans. Well, any phenotypical differences can be attributed to the miscegenation which was forced on us during the 400 years of slavery.  Cultural differences are due to numerous factors, not least of which is the fact that we reside as a subjugated sub-culture in a powerful, wealthy nation with which we have a complex relationship. Yet, for the most part we are of Africans of African origin and physiologically, differ only superficially from other Black Skinned people around the world.
PBAAD - Person of Black African or Asian Descent:
Terminology appears to be a sore point here.  Why not introduce a new term which has fewer painful associations?  I propose Person of Black African or Asian Descent (PBAAD).  Or, Black-Skinned Person, BSP.  
The Word Black: Some of you resent the terms "Black" and/or "Black people". There should be absolutely no displeasure or shame associated with this word.  If the term "Black people" is used in a descriptive sense rather than as a socio-political term, then there is no need to differentiate between African American Blacks and non-American Blacks.  Nor should geography be a limiting factor.  People who can be described as Black based on the color of their skin can be found all over the world.  I have personally spoken with dark-skinned people from around the world and they invariably identified themselves to me as Black.  There are Black-skinned people residing in Oceania, in Micronesia, and all over Asia, including Sri Lanka, China, Vietnam and especially in India.  The Dalits of India, for example, have identified themselves as Black people.  They have actively reached out to African-Americans and expressed a wish for solidarity with them. Where slavery, war and enforced miscegenation has caused a lightening of Black skin, or a total disappearance of a given Black populace, this should not be misconstrued as a proof that Black people did not exist.
Some one here wrote in to say that she doubted that a certain Arab prince who has Black features would consider himself Black. How can she know?  Self-identity is very personal process. It is not up to non-Blacks to decide who they wish to designate as Black.  Black as an identity is majority based on superficial phenotypical characteristics.  If the Arab prince's skin is Black then he is a Black man.  Blacks did not initiate the idea of race. Choosing to categorize human beings as Black or white was an arbitrary decision probably made by Whites.    After creating this quite unnecessary identity, whites often imposed restrictions and abuse as a result.  Black people have a right to reply to this phenomena.  Since many if not all have suffered based on race, Blacks have a right to heal from their wounds.  They have a right to digest the discriminating practices which have been imposed on them again and again over the last several hundred years.  I speak not only of slavery and social subjugation but also of such phenomena as the designation of the Black skinned Dalits as  "untouchables".  We Black-skinned people have the right to forge an identity that spans a nation, a continent, or the entire globe.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by VaniNY (talk • contribs) 22:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been no critisism against African Americans per se. There has been some worry that the African American point of view may permeate the discussion, as African Americans have a more prominent web presence than other black people. These worries have however turned out to be unwarranted as there have been vocal African Americans on both sides of almost every issue discussed here. --Ezeu 23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that 2 of the African American editors are speaking for groups they have no knowledge of.  They are saying that many Tamils consider themselves Black but the Tamil editor says fewer than 1 in 10,000 Tamils would self-identify as Black.  They are saying that White people have called South Asians Black but the White editors are saying that they only consider people of sub-Saharan ancestry Black.  Everyone needs to speak for themselves. If Zaph or Deeceevoice want to call themselves Black they're free to do so, but why they should care so much about what other cultures and peoples they know nothing about are called is beyond me.__Whatdoyou 00:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black  People - A Descriptive Term 

message: How can you have an article called Black people when editors refurse to adheare to standard definitions of the term. If we can't all agree on who Black people are, the article should be called people who have been called Black in different times and places, and since that's a stupid title, let's just delete the whole thing and move on.  Essentially what has happened is that a few (not most)of the African ancestry editors are angry that they are the only ones who are considered Black and wish to spread the label to other groups by citing less mainstream sources.  They feel it's unfair that they are called Black when equally dark skinned people descending from South Asia and the Pacific Islands are not generally called by that term. They also don't wish to be associated with the ethnic groups that never left sub-Saharan Africa prior to slavery and so they want to broaden the definition of Black to include many others.  But by spreading the term to others, they have caused a backlash from segments of the Tamil community who don't wish to be lumped in with people of sub-Saharan ancestry. This is a very disturbing development and I don't see anything positive coming from this article.  It's just causing people to focus on race and in a very unhealthy way.  People should just identify by their specific ethnic groups (African American, Nigerian, Tamil, British, German).  Broad terms like Black, White, and Oriental serve no useful purpose outside of medical research, and just encourage people to stereotype one another & paint with a broad brush.  People speak of forging a global black unity. For what purpose?  Are you trying to start a global color war?  Why not forge a global human unity.  Unity has no integrity if it is based on excluding those of the wrong color. __Whatdoyou 23:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few of the definitions were created by Black people/people of color.  And Ezeu and Editingoprah did an excellent job finding criticism of the definitions which provides good balance.__Whatdoyou 00:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes there are a lot of people who don't want to be of African ancestry, that's why I was hoping Black could be a term that Africans could claim with pride, the way Europeans take pride in the word White.  But unlike the white people article, where other ethnic groups are begging to be included, on the black people article we have this ridiculous attitude of "if I have to be called Black you do too." I would rather see the whole thing deleted than publicize this embarassing display of self-hatred.__Whatdoyou 00:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just delete this article. It's pointless

message: Wouldnt it be nice to get it right before Zaph gets back? --Halaqah 00:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary. Zaph can be somewhat quarrelsome, but I'll take Zaph anyday instead of blatant stupidity. --Ezeu 03:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: B4 Zap gets back

message: I do not believe anyone can agree on what the term black means. It is contradictory and to some groups has negative connotations and to some other groups has positive connotations. And it matters desperately to some groups about whether outsiders are calling them black, or they are identifying themselves as black, or if some other group is called black or not, or if some other group willingly self-identifies as black. And this is all wrapped up in a huge measure with people that seem to be very angry about everything and anything. 
Unless people accept that there is a divergent set of views on this topic, it is going to die under a hail of vitriolic and bombastic polemics.
Just take a deep breath and accept it: not everyone will agree on a definition of what a black person is.--Filll 00:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is a real mess, and as long as editors keep trying to assert their opinions, rather than relying on attributable, reputable, and reliable sources, it will continue to be a mess. If such sources are not forthcoming, we should mercilessly delete the unsourced and non-cimpliant material. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @
Why do we continue? what is written as an intro accommodates more people than it excludes. I am a die hard anti-black. I hate a color label for my race. And i am happy, i represent the African camp, the we are not black we are from Africa. The intro is fine, it cant get much better, the def are fine the critic is fine-finish. what is the other option, start over? wait for zaph to get back? Lets move to the next issue. Lets not worry about the huge measure of angry people, lets just do our best to be balanced and reflective of the plethora of pros and cons regarding the whole "black" issue-Baka!--Halaqah 00:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Question is: are there any reputable/reliable sources that describe the issue of "black people". If not, this article is doomed. If there are, then we can rely on these sources only and avoid creaing original research, i.e. "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm still asking for feedback on my alternative lead (above).  It is properly sourced/footnoted and, as any good introduction should, it incorporates, along with some corrections and some tweaking, some of the original language and summarizes the scope of the article fairly succinctly, with appropriate qualifying language.  deeceevoice 11:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead we're using now is much better than the one you created. Yours is selective and redundant and your sources are not reliable.  It's an obvious attempt to push your agenda that non-African ancestry people can be Black, even though you know nothing about these groups. Kobrakid 19:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Still confused

message: A fairy tale:
Over 100 years ago, African Americans favored the term "colored". They formed the NAACP. And then the term came to seem old fashioned and fraught with negative feelings, so they adopted the word "negro". And formed the United Negro College Fund and other organizations. But in time, this word came to sound old fashioned and had developed negative associations. So they took the word "black" . And came up with phrases like "black is beautiful" and "black power". But again, eventually this word seemed sort of out of date, and had developed some bad connotations, so it was discarded in favor of "Afro-American". And people wore "Afros" and platform shoes and bell bottom pants. And again, after a while this term seemed mired in ancient history, so Jesse Jackson proclaimed that "African American" should be the preferred term. But again, predictably, "African American" has started to sound out of date and inaccurate and negative to many...and on again, looking for new terms and phrases....--Filll 00:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is an Ethiopian black or not? Is a Swede white or not? Is a woman female or not? The answer is pure and simple. I have looked at that Oxford study that Whatdoyou uses, and I cannot see that it explicitly says that Ethiopians are not black, and even if it did, I'd disregared from it. --Ezeu 03:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some think Ethiopians are black. Some do not. Some Swedes are white. Some are not (Sweden has a lot of immigrants, and it has the Sami/Laplanders who are more akin to the Inuit). Some women are female but some are not, depending on what you mean by female; there are a lot of intersex individuals who have both male and female characteristics of various kinds. This is just far more complicated and ambiguous than people want to admit.--Filll 03:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... which strengthens my original point that "black" cannot be defined in one sentence. For the sake of argument, ethnic Swedes are white, and so are the Sami (twist it like you wish, but they are certainly not black). Immigrant Swedes like myself may not be white, but that is is a different issue. But let me commend you on your good-natured point of view.--Ezeu 04:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  I completely agree. The entire topic is far too complicated to define it in one sentence. This is even more true given that different people want to use different definitions for what is "black", and it is not possible to reconcile these different definitions (including getting agreement about the exact "racial" makeup of the Inuit or Sami, whatever race means in this case). I just want to get some sort of agreement out of most people here that a range of opinions are all equally valid and should be allowed, as long as they are all catalogued and documented and supported with references. --Filll 04:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  I also want to point out that according to the definition of "free" some Africans might be viewed as free by some people, and some Africans might be viewed as not free by other people.--Filll 04:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but most Africans consider themselves free. Geopolitical and globalization discourse dictates that Africans are unfree, but the man on the street corner in Harare or Kampala will argue vehemently that he is free.--Ezeu 05:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pejorization

message: Why do we not just make a list of different definitions, with references. Everyone can put in their two cents. There is no answer to this otherwise. Now all we need to do is to get everyone to agree that it is ok to let all divergent views heard. Is anyone not in favor of letting all views be heard?--Filll 00:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeat

message: Blacks and Oceania 
This article has enormoous potential to create unification and solidarity around the world. However, it would benefit from some first hand experience and real facts.  Some one has got to go out there and speak to dark-skinned people around the world.  Everyone here would benefit from reading Runoko Rashidi.  He has done so much of the footwork that I am also trying to do.  He has traveled to many different nations, finding Black people and supporting archaeological evidence in different nations.  He has discovered Blacks on every continent. His Text "The African Presence in India" gives us these three quotes:
"...Apollonius of Tyana, who is said to have visited India near the end of the first century C.E., was convinced that "The Ethiopians are colonists sent from India, who follow their forefathers in matters of wisdom."
"The literary work of the early Christian writer Eusebius preserves the tradition that, "In the reign of Amenophis III [the mighty Dynasty XVIII Egyptian king] a body of Ethiopians migrated from the country about the Indus, and settled in the valley of the Nile."
"And still another document from ancient times, the Itinerarium Alexandri, says that "India, taken as a whole, beginning from the north and embracing what of it is subject to Persia, is a continuation of Egypt and the Ethiopians."
Regarding Oceania, I myself have often encountered people from Nouvelle Caledonie. Intrigued by their dark skin, I wondered if they considered themselves Black.  The answer was yes.  I was invited to their community center in the city in which we live and met numerous Melanesians, Polynesians and even encountered dark skinned Micronesians.  They all look like African-Americans or Caribbean Americand.  There is some minor different in hair type.  On the other hand, I have met obviously Black Europeans who have told me that, although they look Black, they aren't because, either their father or mother is white and they "feel" white.
A Tamil has written that the Tamil are not Black.  This is fine for him to say.  However, just as neither a woman or man can deny their gender, a Black person can not deny his color : it's immutable (excluding Michel Jackson) and belies the facts.  We are talking about a skin color here and not an elusive socio-political identity.  The Tamil gentleman should try to go beyond the implication of what the term "Black" means in the Occident to get to what Black means to him and his people. It looks as though he is being overly influenced by what Black means in Western culture.  Let him realize that being Black doesn't mean that he has to go out and learn to rap. A West African also wrote to say that Tamils and people of West African descent have little in common.  He felt that African-Americans were denying their link to Black Africa while creating ties with Black skinned people around the world. There appears to be unhealthy resistance on both sides of the question - those who have been traditionally labeled as Black by the Occident as well as those Black-skinned Asians, (or residents of Oceania) who have been left to languish as dark skinned anomalies in their various nations.  Hence we have had a sort of non-identity for these people since the dominating ethnic and racial group has traditionally crushed and excluded such dark-skinned people.  A good example are the various indigenous ethnicities of Vietnam - many were dark skinned people. Calling the indigenous brown and black people "Moi" or savages, the Vietnamese invaded their mountainous land, crushed them, excluded them and reduced them from 50 million to 50 thousand. China has registered morethan  2,400 minorities with the UN. Many of these are Black skinned peoples.
We should be carefully about accepting only a narrow set of criteria for determining who is Black and who is not. About superficial racial appearance, Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop stated that:
"There are two well-defined Black races: one has a black skin and woolly hair; the other also has black skin, often exceptionally black, with straight hair, aquiline nose, thin lips, an acute cheekbone angle. We find a prototype of this race in India: the Dravidian. It is also known that certain Nubians likewise belong to the same Negro type...Thus, it is inexact, anti-scientific, to do anthropological research, encounter a Dravidian type, and then conclude that the Negro type is absent."
It's true that African-Americans have a direct link to Black Africa that is very important to acknowledge and honor.  Yet other ties are quite as real and important.  Thus the Tamil's dark skin color frankly, does link them to other Blacks at a paleontologic level.  Regardless of whether someone says they are not Black, they are Black if both archaelogical evidence (such as the art work discovered in India by Runoko Rashidi) and paleontologic evidence (genetic research conducted by Villena) conflates. 
--VaniNY 04:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with stating these views, as long as you let people express other views and people to critically examine your views and provide rebuttals and references. However, trying to impose your will on everyone else will just cause trouble.--Filll 04:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tamils 

message: Self Determination
I read above that a White Scandinavian is determined to write this article.  Would a Christian be permitted to structure and mold an article on Jews and Judaism?  Just as the article on Mormons was written by Mormons and the articles on Jews and Judaism are written by Jewish people, this article should be written by Black people.  Really, this article reminds me of the Museum of Natural History in New York.  Everyone deplores that they exhibit the human remains of non-white people as though they are an inferior species.  But no one has succeeded in closing the museum down.  If this article goes forth as it is - writing about a vast number of often disenfranchised and powerless people who themselves have limited access to technology, without their input, without their consent, as third parties in their own earthly existence, then this article violates basic standards of human rights and humanity.  This article has been proposed despite the fact that it is a questionable subject matter.  Its creation has been structured in such a way that members of the hegemonic white culture are permitted to write  about (objectify) the historically subjugated Black and Brown people.  No consideration has been taken of the extremely active White Supremacist movement which is currently gripping the international white community. Their internet activity is particularly intense. No consideration has been taken of the frequent inclusion here of references to and quotes from Michael Levin who is an avowed White Supremacist. History has shown the damage that white racism and racist value have done to the other races. Yet no one has suggested that there is conflict of interest inherent in the participation of the follower of a White Supremacist in the writing of an article on Black people.  This article is be written in the apparent exclusion of members of the World's Black  Population.  This is a clear indication that this project is inherently:
* exclusivist, 
* racist
* classist
* unjust
* biased against Third World people
* biased against agricultural societies, that lack equal access to technology
* slanted towards the West and against the East
* Pro-White
* anti-Black and anti-people of color
I have noted that all the other Wikipedia articles involving issues of identities were written by those who belong to those identities.  Some Scandinavian person, who speaks very flippantly about things which I live and know as a Globe Trotter and as a Native New Yorker - I find this to be a violation of human decency. This articles smacks of intellectual imperialism and identity rape.
:Welcome to wikipedia.  This piece is typical of the kind of racist, intellectual arrogance of the website I constantly encounter when dealing with black subject matter.  I refuse to let these ... ("people") define our past, what and who we are.  They have no clue, no right.  deeceevoice 10:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you're trying to define the past and identity of ethnic groups completely unrelated to you (i.e. tamils, Australian aboriginals, etc).__Whatdoyou 16:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Thing - '''Self Determination''' 

message: This is one of a number of articles on Black people on this site that reveal a disproportionate manipulation by non-Blacks who reveal a  less than healthy attitude towards Blacks. Another article is the Black Supremacy article which is filled with incendiary, anecdotal, primarily conjectured material that does nothing more than rile anti-Black hatred and rationalize Anti-Black racism. Black people should envisage Boycotting Wikipedia. Without some support and complicity from Wikipedia, it's impossible to correctly handle the insidious, insistent, systemic racism that pervades this site.
Technological Inequalities
Has Wikipedia given any thought to trying to level the terrain so that Black Africans, Oceanic residents and Asians may participate more fully in the article-writing processes?  Europeans and White Americans dominate here.  Since many Africans have no access to technology, how likely are they to contribute here and speak for and of themselves?  Let not a Blond Scandinavian tell me what Black people think about themselves.  If not, isn't this just some vulgar rehashing of the old invading Ethnographer studying the primitives?  The two individual above were discussing my people as one would discuss germs under a microscope.  This is so vulgar! I appeal to these trespassing individuals to retire from this domain and allow Blacks to write an article about themselves.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by VaniNY (talk • contribs) 05:32, 12 October 2006 .
:Response: When this sort of situation arises, there is no possible response. All one can do is walk away. And hope that somehow balance and reason will surface in this process. I for one would decline to even confront these issues. --Filll 05:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're definitely speaking for yourself on that score, Ezeu.  The article had its shortcomings, but the racist trolls are out and about here -- just as everywhere else.  I'm ashamed of nothing.  deeceevoice 10:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Black Boycott of Wikipedia

message: As I reflect on the situation, I think that there have been some slightly unfortunate statements. Some comments: 
* It appears to me there are differences of opinion between various people of color here
* These differences of opinion might or might not be due to some manipulation by caucasians, either now or in past centuries. However, these differences exist, so the reason they exist is somewhat irrelevant. 
* this article is being fought over so fiercely because it is viewed by some as a rallying point for "black pride" or "black unity" or "black identity" or "black consciousness" or "black empowerment" or "black solidarity" or a global black movement or black separateness. I think that is a bit much to expect from this article. I would humbly suggest that another article, linked to this one, might be a better place to promote this kind of agenda. 
* science has rendered the concept of race obsolete, particularly when it comes to trying to identify the race of someone by skin color or by the slope of their heads or the width of their noses. This smacks of the sort of "racial science" the Nazis tried to promote to support their vision of an Aryan race (which is somewhat comical considering that the Aryans were from South Asia and in all likelihood had dark skin). Using skin color to identify people by race is a trap; the same trap that white supremecists fall into. Now some people here want to promote the same viewpoint? I think it is ill-advised. It should be mentioned and documented with references of course, but other viewpoints as well should be presented. 
* a lot of the long statements I am reading would be better suited to a blog or a forum than here on Wikipedia
* is it really reasonable to expect Wikipedia to address the imbalance and misrepresentation of   groups that have no access to the internet? If they did, one option might be to remove access of people from rich Western countries to participate in this venue. As technology spreads, those people will have increasing access to Wikipedia and the article will evolve accordingly. 
* humans are tribal by nature and wiring, and a lot of this rancor is driven by tribal hatreds, just as our Cro-Magnon ancestors probably killed off the Neanderthals. Can we put these aside to allow a calm, reasoned article with references and multiple viewpoints to proceed? Let's not give in to our worst instincts and try to use this article as a platform to promote a Race War. 
* over human history, clearly there has been intermixing of those with different characteristics and migrations. And these outward characteristics are quite fluid and can change in a few generations. Just consider how much the Lemba resemble their neighbors in the Kalahari, athough they are definitely genetically related to the Seraphidic Jews. The same can be said of Jewish communities in India and China. Another intriguing example of how complicated human history is is presented by the discovery of Kennewick Man, the remains of a prehistoric man found in Eastern Washington who has features that more closely resemble Patrick Stewart than the autochthonous peoples of the Americas. And then there are the mummies from Nevado Ampato, Perum and the Tarim mummies, which appear to have Caucasian features. What about the Ainu, the indigenous peoples of the Japanese Islands who were displaced by the arrival of the Japanese, presumably from the Korean Peninsula, and appear to have many Caucasian features outwardly, but more complicated genetic backgrounds? This seems to indicate that humans migrated, that humans interbred, and that outward "racial" characteristics can change in just a few generations. This should just be recognized and acknowledged, and documented with references. 
* This notion that there is some struggle between blacks and whites that has driven all events of human history for thousands of years and all history must be viewed through this lens seems sort of ridiculous to me. This is the same sort of bankrupt argument the white supremacists use. Do we want to follow their ugly lead?  
* according to the best scientific evidence we have, ALL humans at one time lived in Africa
* according to the best scientific evidence we have, ALL humans at one time had dark skin. Lighter colored skin is just some sort of mutation, as far as we can tell. 
* clearly humans will use anything they can get their hands on to divide themselves into tribes and to attack those who are different (see Jerzy Kosinski's story The Painted Bird): perceived "race", language, appearance, sex, interests, physical characteristics, disabilities, religion, age, dress, profession, etc. These tribal forces might be hard-wired into humans by evolution and might have had some evolutionary advantage in our past. However, they are not useful in the discussions about writing this article.
* When I look back at the history of the article and the history of the discussion, the one good thing I see arising from all this discord is that there is a lot of good information that is embedded in it. If we could cull out the wheat from the chaff and mine these histories, we would have a lot more good content to present in Wikipedia. 
I again appeal for some acknowledgement that people will allow multiple viewpoints in the article, as long as they are properly documented and referenced. Why try to beat those with other viewpoints to a pulp and silence them? To what end?--Filll 13:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reflection

message: many tasmanian aboriginals would find the caption "the last four tasmanian aboriginals" highly offensive! that may be the original title of the photograph, but there are several hundred original tasmanians alive today Benvenuto 22:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  tasmanian aboriginals 

message: I agree with VaniNY that we should have a firm foundation. The best current theory that ALL human beings originated in Africa, including Tamils and Chinese and Aborigines and Europeans and Indians etc. ALL OF US (unless you are some alien from another planet). And blackness, at its root, refers to people who have darker skin, or whose ancestors have darker skin, or have been suggested to have darker skin by someone else, who have identified with a darker skin group etc. Now, these people might not have dark skin in practice, and that is a complication and an interesting ambiguity and contradiction that can be addressed. However, someplace, somehow there is a connection with the IDEA of darker skin. Which means melanin. And all humans used to a lot of melanin and therefore darker skin, and some mutations have created some humans with less melanin and therefore lighter skin. And melanin can be described. And humans migrate. So we have three pillars that we can use to start with:
* all humans have African origins
* all human ancestors had darker skin
* humans moved around
Does anyone dispute those three pillars?
Then we start with that firm base, and move on to more complicated issues.--Filll 20:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen no scientific evidence whatsoever that early humans were dark-skinned and you have provided none.   This is not a mainstream scientific theory you are presenting, actually, no scientist has commented on it.  That Africa is a sunny place does not mean early humans were dark-skinned.   Evolution happens.  The Africans today are not identical to the Africans of 20000, 200000 or 1000000 years ago.  There is no melanin evidence from 200000 years ago and scientists do not say that white, brown, black, yellow, or red skin is a mutation.   They are evolutionary adaptations.   There is no evidence that the first humans had dark skin and likewise, there's no evidence that their skin was "darker" than everyone today, and there's really no reason to think that would be so.   CarlosRodriguez 23:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You completely miss my point.  I don't support the hypothesis, but didn't feel the need to comment on it; it's not the issue at hand.  (Try to stick to the point.  We're discussing the structure of the article.)  I was simply stating -- again -- that another article on the site already deals with the melanin/human skin color issue -- and presents information that likely will lead to unnecessary bickering and controversy here.  All the more reason to leave it be.  deeceevoice 21:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Basics

message: Ok let me help you all in here. When the first paragraph is created it describes very clearly what the word (the title of the article) is. So, despite arguments for why it "should" or "Should not" be used, it is what it is. It's a definition, not a "disclaimer" or "justification". Let's use some examples so you can all understand:
Planet - The International Astronomical Union (IAU), the official scientific body for astronomical nomenclature, currently defines "planet" as a celestial body that, within the Solar System... then there is a, b, c reasons why a planet is defined as such. Very clear. Now, later on in the article, there are opposing views and what not. 
*Notice that the paragraph doesn't start off saying "There is no universally agreeable definition of what a planet is, some believe it is based on this while others believe it should be more based on that". This is a "disclaimer" and is pointless and useless.
Arab - The Arabs (Arabic: عرب ʻarab) are predominantly speakers of the Arabic language, rather than a pure ethnic group, mainly found throughout the Middle East and North Africa.
*Again notice what they are clearly defined, and any disagreements are later on in the article. 
Jewish - Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים, Yehudim; Yiddish: ייִדן, Yidn) are followers of Judaism or, more generally, members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation, or the Children of Israel), an ethno-religious group descended from the ancient Israelites and from converts who joined their religion. The term also includes those who have undergone an officially recognized formal process of religious conversion to Judaism. The current Jewish population is over 14.5 million, the majority of whom live in the United States and Israel.
* EVEN THOUGH JEWISH has a whole ARTICLE called [who is a Jew], where the same lack of agreement is present, the definition is clear. 
NOw, I will unilaterally make this article's first paragraph follow the policy, the character, the integrity and the common sense for THIS article. because despite all of those in here who are sure they are "more competent" or "more objective" than I, you have FAILED to do such a simple thing. WHY? Because too many of you do not LIKE the definition. You do not WANT it to be what it is. Some of you hate the notion of black people being so numerous, or so accepting in other cultures, some of you hate other cultures being a part of the black identity. Too #$&#$ BAD! When will you guys get it in your thick skulls, this is not about what YOU think a term or concept "SHOULD BE", this is about what it is. THIS IS THE ONLY TIME I WILL DISCUSS THIS FOREVER. You have all read my comments, and I am tired (as I am sure so many of you are) of writing about it, talking about it, debating about it. Your complaints have been noted, your arguments have been considered. There has been consensus and there has been discord. ENOUGH! I am angry BECAUSE many of you in here have better skill at this than I do, and you choose, CHOOSE not to put your personal prejudices to the side and honestly and accurately handle this article. Some of you are so anti-black or so narrow minded in general, you fail to observe objectivity outside of your "should" (non-objective) mindset. I am through with waiting. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still half-way doing the first paragraph? 

message: This is crap. Period. I removed it. End of discussion:
*There is no universally agreed upon criteria for deciding who is and isn't Black, and the precise definition of black people has varied in different locations and time periods. A person's designation as Black has often been determined by colloquial, social, political, scientific or legal understandings. The classification of Black has had implications in factors such as censuses, anti-miscegenation laws, racial segregation, affirmative action, racial marginalization, slavery, apartheid and racial quotas.
Why is this crap? because it is someone's attempt to say in so many words "I don't like the notion that Black people are more than what I assumed, but I cannot really disprove it because it is historically true, so I will put this disclaimer in so other readers won't objectively come to conclusions I disagree with."
For example the Aeta (people who have historically been black before all of those "implications" were even thought of.) are black, the word Aeta "means" black in Tagalog. None of those determinations or implications in the crap above have played a role. There were no census, anti-bullcrap laws, racial segregation, affirmative action, etc etc that caused the Aeta people to be known as Aeta or Black in history. Same with the Kushites, the Nubians, etc. Those are historically black people. I do not think anyone in here is too stupid to see this obvious fact, so I am no longer interested in hearing the arguments against this obvious fact. No more crap guys. Sorry. We baked this issue completely. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed the CRAP