Talk:African Americans/Archive 7

message: The first paragraph of this section seems terribly biased in the "whitey is evil" direction. Can we tone down the rhetoric and get something more encyclopedic?  Godfrey Daniel 09:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Political overtones

message: The wiki page Political_emancipation could use some attention. Currently it is only a stub. Particularly the explanation of the term 'political emancipation' entailing 'equal status of individual citizens in relation to the state, equality before the law, regardless of religion, property, or other “private” characteristics of individual persons' is construed to be an 'opinion' and 'not delivering a neutral point of view.' Does anyone have more information on the word 'emancipation' also being used in the political context of establishing (or any step moving towards) equality in light of the law? Inserting the Voting Rights Act as such a step of political emancipation was repeatedly erased.
The question one could pose, is: When there have been only 3 African-American Senators in modern times (out of more than the 1500 Senators in total), would you say that political emancipation has been achieved? 
FredrickS 18:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Emancipation

message: 'The term does not include white , Indian , or Arab immigrants from the African continent , and they are not considered Africans on the continent .'
What is the evidence for this statement?
These people are all considered as Africans in the demographics section of the Wikipedia article on Africa. Wikipedia is , therefore ,contradicting itself.
Morocco , Algeria , Tunisia , Libya , and Egypt are all African nations with Arabic populations . More than one hundred million North Africans are denied being recognised as Africans by whom? 
The use of the term African American  seems to be restricted to people of West African origin . Perhaps the term West-African American would be more appropriate . As it stands  , the term African American is promoting ignorance of the ethnic diversity of the African continent.
--213.122.31.235 11:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We are writing an encyclopedia, not a manifesto. We are not here to judge what would be better terminology. We are here to describe the terminology actually used in the world. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
"Blacks from other countries such as Nigeria, Haiti or Cuba are most commonly referred to by their nation of origin and not African American. African American means the descendants of slaves brought to America in 1619."  The veracity of these sentences is debatable--where are the sources for this assertion other than the author's opinion?  Kemet 29 Nov 2005
===Separate note===
There is also a new term, "Afrimerican", created by an Afrimerican, and introduced in 1989 in reaction to the various terms, and levels of ambiguity of terms used to describe and define the race/ethnic group, and it is gaining acceptance, popularity, and more widespread use among Negroid and non-Negroid people in America, Germany, and other countries.
Just saw this added by an anon under "Nomenclature."  My question is "huh?"
— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>    18:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature 

message: There is also a new term, "Afrimerican", created by an Afrimerican, and introduced in 1989 in reaction to the various terms, and levels of ambiguity of terms used to describe and define the race/ethnic group, and it is gaining acceptance, popularity, and more widespread use among Negroid and non-Negroid people in America, Germany, and other countries.
Just saw this added by an anon under "Nomenclature."  My question is "huh?"
— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>    18:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate note

message: This anonymous edit removed quite a bit of material, mostly about mixed race people. I'm not entirely sure of the merits of the material that was removed, so I'm not restoring, but others may want to look more closely. Among the material removed was quite a bit about Native American ancestry and a passage about "passing for white". -- Jmabel | Talk 15:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
:I put some of it back in under ethnicity but I'm not sure I like the way it is written. --Gbleem 21:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large removal 

message: Recently removed, with a complaint about lack of citation, but with the comment "I believe you.": "Virtually all of them also have some European ancestry, and/or Native American ancestry."
Usually, if you think a statement is accurate but uncited, you don't start by deleting. You ask for citation, or look for it yourself. 
This, from www.ancestrybydna.com, asserts that "the average African American has considerable European ancestry (actually, it’s 19.6%)", which tends to suggest that the comment was not way off base. 
Does someone else have something more solid on this? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:54, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
: This doesn't need an obscure citation, and there won't be a mainstream one for a while.  I do believe you, but to believe is not to claim for fact.  (Tee-hee, but God!)  --VKokielov 06:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry 

message: It doesn't seem to me like Neo-Black.com deserves two links, bolded, in a separate section. I'm not even sure it deserves one link. But I leave it to someone who has been more actively working on this article to actually make the call. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:29, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
* And I see that the section keeps growing. Again, just noting that someone may want to keep more of an eye on this: I can imagine it turning into a link farm. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: People of caucasoid origin or appearance, including whites, Persians, Indians, and Arabs, are traditionally not considered African American though they or their ancestors may have emigrated from the African continent after uncountable generations of residence. 
Given that there are no particularly significant number of Persians in Africa, why are Persians listed here? Indians I understand, because of the small merchants in former British colonies. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the lack of response in about 24 hours, I am removing. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but I think the editor was saying that all people came from Africa originally. If so, the point could be better made elsewhere. – Quadell (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persians?? 

message: As an 5th generation African-American, I find this page to show signs of racism.  I'd also like to see quotes from contemporary African-American scholars (Kanye West, Rev. Al Sharpton).
The two individuals named (West, Sharpton) are individuals who are in the U.S. media and are in the public eye as a rapper and a politician and advocate. They are not academics. Academics are those who have obtained a credential from a recognized institution of higher learning. Chriscarlos
Thanks. Reparaizins 20:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhuh. For the record, Kanye West isn't a scholar, nor is Sharpton much of one either. So way to go with the stereotype breaking. --66.229.183.101 09:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality? 

message: I leave it to someone African American to make the ultimate determination on online community links on this page, but the "Mr. Africa Poetry Lounge" strikes me as a pretty dubious inclusion. I can't think of comparable links for other ethnicities. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm not "of the ethnicity in question" [such delicacy of phrasing!], I don't think this would disqualify me from judging the suitability of an external link, just as I'd be happy if African Americans worked on articles related to, er, the ethnicity reflected in my shaving mirror. I took a quick look at the content of the "Cocoa Lounge Forum" and much of what I saw seemed stunningly banal. But then that's what I'd expect from a message forum with a "market" of millions. "Online communities", as they're grandly titled in this article, don't pertain to any of the kinds of sites that should be linked to; I recommend deletion of the lot. But as long as my pasty complexion and alien dialect are regarded as disqualifying me from this, I shan't delete them myself. -- Hoary 08:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poetry lounge? 

message: Recently added paragraph:
In addition, the term gained a significant following among academics and scholars for its more neutral demographic connotations. In this regard, one could write or discuss African Americans throughout American history without being anachronistic about Black or Negro political implications. Such a neutral context allows for a more accurate and free exploration of the differences between African American groups, political philosophies, cultural and religious practices. This usage has become politically charged because it counters the Black Nationalist theme of black unity.
I think I follow what this means to say, but it's not very clear:
* "…more neutral demographic connotations" ("its demographic connotations are more neutral") or (as I suspect) "…more neutral, demographic connotations" (its connotations are more neutral, more suggestive of demography).
* "In this regard, one could write or discuss African Americans throughout American history without being anachronistic about Black or Negro political implications." I think this means "The use of the term African American avoids the anachronistic political implications that might arise from using Black or Negro". But maybe it means something else.
* "Such a neutral context allows for …" I think this means "The lack of historical burden on the term allows for …"  But, again, maybe it means something else.
* "This usage has become politically charged because it counters the Black Nationalist theme of black unity." I literally do not know what this is intended to mean. What usage? Politically charged among what groups? What is being said to "counter the Black Nationalist theme of black unity"? 
In short, the writing is so mushy that I can't make sense of it. Please, could you try rewriting this with less ambiguity? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could the author of this paragraph please reword? 

message: The chart in the article lists the "Black American" population from 1790 to 1860.  Slaves were not Americans.  Slaveowners did not own Americans.  Also, the Free Negroes were not Americans.  The population figures should be titled "Number of non-Americans, enslaved and free." 
:You are disingenous; clearly people whom we identify as African America weren't identified as "Americans" during the time in question, nor were they identified as fully human.  Do you seriously suggest that we completely avoid retroactive labels and call them partial humans for the sake of historical pedantry and application of your logic?  They were enslaved Americans; we can debate about semantics later.  Kemet 15:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't read this piece in ages, but I agree with the above comment regarding the chart.  They were enslaved Africans.  I've tweaked the wording to make it accurate.  deeceevoice 18:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Slaveowners did not own Americans

message: Does a Wikipedia entry on the subject of African-American names exist?  In particular, I am referring to the distinction between Americans of most other ethnicities giving children preexisting names and African-Americans, to a greater extent, creating new names.  I was unable to find such a page but I am not confident in asserting that none exists because I don't know how best to phrase a search.  If no page exists, one should be created.  If one does exist, it should be given a link at the bottom of the African-American page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.85.88.211 (talk • contribs) 12 Jan 2006.
: I don't think we have such an article. The likely title would be African-American naming conventions. It probably has potential, but could be a lightning rod for trouble, so if you are going to start it, I suggest that you be very conscious of citing sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page or link needed

message: Perhaps in a fit of pique, a user who's been attempting to insert links to an "online community"  whose name resembles his or her own username has deleted links to two other "communities". I've already said above (in "Poetry lounge?") that I see no reason why any should be linked no matter how good they might be, but I decided to see for myself what the remaining ones actually were. Here they are, with my comments in italics.
*Mr. Africa Poetry Lounge Online community of Black Poets. I'll refrain from commenting on the quality of the poetry. But if this is worth linking to, surely the link should be from an article on black poetry or similar.
*NeoBlack.Com - African American Online Community: Web portal and information resource for black communities worldwide. General news. Not bad looking, but a lot is not about America. To put it politely, "advertising-heavy". (More directly: full of advertising junk.)
*NeoBlack.Com - Gallery Of Black Celebrities A nightmare of advertising. I was astonished to see some black person (too small a graphic for me to recognize) standing next to that great, great black celebrity George W Bush. (Really!) I clicked for a bigger pic but was assaulted with a more intense level of advertising, and gave up.
This stuff is pretty bad. If an "online community" is really noteworthy, WP can have an article about it. If a site is very informative about African Americans, link to that too. But I suggest cutting a section of links from this article to "online communities". Again, these don't pertain to any of the kinds of sites that should be linked to. -- Hoary 08:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Online communities" -- Why link to any?

message: The following clearly does not belong in the article and is more appropriate here.  Frankly, I doubt seriously that Malcolm X coined the term.  If you wish to challenge the veracity of the claim, then do so here -- and not in the article itself.  All you have to do is delete it, pending verification -- or simply excise it permanently and provide substantiation for your claim that it was used in early U.S. Census reports.  But please don't clutter the article with "I" this and "I" that.  Do not inject your personal opinions in the article; it is unencyclopedic -- and, frankly, no one cares what you (or any one of us) thinks. This is a reference work.
Deleted:
"Once again I am compelled to provide correction, and it is hoped the administrators heed, and make corrections per the facts, not popular opinion, not the Orwellian, white supremist, miseducation of Afrimericans agenda.   
    
"The claim that Malcom X coined the term African-American is a LIE, an UNTRUTH, that follows and feeds the thread of miseducation of Afrimericans, and the world about Afrimericans, the term African-American came about in 1863 when then President Abraham Lincoln performed a public swearing in ceremony of newly imported slaves as naturalized American citizens, calling them African-American, and publicly announcing all that wanted to stay in America would be allowed and given the means to do so, and all that wanted to go back to Africa, would be given passage to do so. Furthermore, the United States Census Bureau, also adopted and OFFICIALLY used that term in 1863 to 1870, and it was taken out of use when Afrimerican leaders of the time, and the general populace of Afrimericans at the time, rejected the term based on the fact the majority of Afrimericans in America, had not come from Africa, and were generations removed from their African ancestry, with said direct ancestry practically abolished per ones tribal family and land being obliterated, and annexed by others decades earlier, thus they wanted and were GIVEN a new term, Negro, which was the official term sanctioned by the United States government, and accepted by the people up to the 1960's, nearly a hundred years later. But, unbeknownst to them, Negro was given the same LEGAL definition as African-American."  deeceevoice 19:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from the article as completely inappropriate

message: *African American Sovereign Nation: To create an Independent Nation on the land of our Ancestors.
I think this should be removed, but I'd like to hear whether others agree. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I was about to remove it, but I didn't feel qualified to judge its relevance. I would remove it simply under the topic of "Wikipedia is WP:NOT a link directory". —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed. But why stop there? I recommend the removal of any link to any "online community": see two or three screenfuls above, under the heading '"Online communities" -- Why link to any?'. -- Hoary 08:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free, as far as I'm concerned. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel the adrenaline rush preparing me for being bold. -- Hoary 23:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with removing the section. An earlier version of my comment included that as a parenthetical, but I thought it'd get shot down, so I removed it.  —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gone. But I'm sure we'll soon see the same or similar links readded. -- Hoary 01:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed that there's nothing "wrong" with your goals. But there is also, as far as I can tell, nothing of encyclopedic significance about the fact that you are trying to do this. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another dubious link 

message: Recently anonymously added: "Former NBA player/coach Lenny Wilkins is another who used the term as a teenager when filling a job application." Does anyone have a citation for this? If true, probably worth keeping, because Wilkins as a teenager would mean the 1950s, a pretty early usage of the term. Oh, and while we're at it: I pretty much don't do sports article, but surely Lenny Wilkins shouldn't be a red link! -- Jmabel | Talk 07:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand half-corrected: it was redlinked because it was misspelled (should be Lenny Wilkens). But I stand by my request for a citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lenny Wilkens 

message: A friend has asked me to correct some glitches in three paragraphs under "Who is African American." But before I do so, I wanted to ask a question. In the following paragraph:
:Caucasoid peoples, Indians, Asians and Arabs are traditionally not considered African American, though they or their ancestors may have emigrated from the African continent after generations of residence. In relatively rare cases when South African whites, Caucasoid North Africans or Asian immigrants from Africa living in America have self-identified as African American in an attempt to benefit  from Affirmative Action or other entitlement programs, their claims generally have not been upheld.
What is meant by Caucasoid? The only definition I know of is by Carleton Coon in The Origin of Races (New York, 1962). But this was based on skull shape and included the people of Ethiopia, Senegal, Gambia, Mali, Upper Volta (nowadays called Burkina Faso), and many other populations who look utterly Black to Americans (indeed, some of whom have the darkest skin tone on the planet). Is the word merely intended to mean "White-looking" (to Americans)? FrankWSweet 18:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Caucasoid is a (pretentious, in my view) anthropologists' term, meaning exactly the same in racial terms as "Caucasian", which is to say, it is pretty darn imprecise. It predates Coon by a long time. And, in this case, it basically means "not black". "Non-black" would probably be as good a word, or better. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry. The only African immigrant that I have researched who applied (and was rejected) for Affirmative Action benetics is Mustafa Hefny of Detroit. But I cannot say that he is "really White," only that he was ruled to be legally White by the courts. He definitiely looks Black to most Americans. See his photos and a news story here . -- FrankWSweet 03:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children got by any Englishman upon a negro woman should be slave or free, be it therefore enacted and declared by the present grand assembly, that all children borne in this country shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother. [--See William Waller Hening, The Statutes at Large: Being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature in the Year 1619 (Richmond [Va.]: Printed by and for Samuel Pleasants Junior printer to the Commonwealth, 1809), 2:170; Kathleen M. Brown, Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender Race and Power in Colonial Virginia (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1996), 132; or Paul Finkelman (1992, cited above).]
There are two reasons for doubting that this law was the first acceptance of hereditary forced labor. First, it implies ("doubts have arisen") that the law was meant only to resolve the status of biracial children, and that the slave status of colonists of overwhemingly African ancestry were not an issue. Second, Jamestown was a benighted backwater surrounded by a vast New World empire comprising over a million European colonists in huge commercial cities that rivaled those of Europe, and with universities that had been in operation for over a century. It seems likely that, since the 1650s, the grandchildren of the original British colonists had succumbed to the surrounding Iberian hegemony, which had employed slavery in the modern sense since Las Siete Partidas del Rey Alfonso X (1265).
If you want to learn the details of this confusing period, I recommend the above references (Morgan, Finkelman, etc.). Finkelman is probably the best place to start, since he summarizes everyone else's conclusions and clearly recognizes the major historiographical disagreements spawned by the saemantic problem. -- FrankWSweet 14:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Still, if nothing else, this would seem to demonstrate with certainty that hereditary slavery was institutionalized no later than 1662. Right? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you should read the article. No, African is not an ethnic group. Yes, African American is an ethnic group. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is African American 

message: Goujagou removed a reference to Moroccans as an example (along whith Boers) of Africans who are not considered "Black" in the United States, in the sense of being eligible for African-American ethnicity. His comment was that there are black Moroccans.
Goujagou is correct. If you define "Black" by appearance (dark skin tone, kinky hair, etc.) then there are many Black Moroccans, just as there are Black South Africans, Black Japanese (members of the African Diaspora living in Japan), Black Chinese, and so forth. Nevertheless, in the context of the article the question is: "Who is seen as being on the Black side of the color line upon immigration"? Any immigrant who is seen as a descendant of the African Diaspora is usually assigned to the Black side of the U.S. endogamous color line, no matter what country they immigrate from. Any immigrant seen as "White" (more precisely, seen as non-Black) is assigned to the White side of the U.S. color line.
The problem comes down to who is doing the "seeing." The issue is complicated by the fact that federal courts have ruled that no one from Morocco (or anywhere in North Africa) is eligible for EEOC civil rights enforcement or affirmative action entitlements as "Black," no matter what they look like. See the Mostafa Hefny case, discussed in the body of the article, for the most recent precedent. The issue is further complicated by the ephemeral nature of the sub-Saharan phenotyoe, which can vanish in descendants after just two or three generations of out-marriage.
The issue is a hotly contested one within the African-American community and usually comes down to conflicting opinions on whether someone "looks black," on the one hand, versus family history "born into the African-American community," on the other. The debate is probably worth expanding into a paragraph or two in the article. For now, guided by federal case law, I would suggest leaving the Moroccans in there as an example of non-Black Africans. I would also remove aboriginal Australians from the paragraph since they are not part of the African diaspora. -- Frank W Sweet 13:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Moroccans 

message: Contributor 68.62.196.167 added the following two sentences to the opening paragraph:
although in the true meaning of ethnic group African Americans are not an ethnic group. The ethnicity for most has been obscured by how they arrived in the Americas.
I have removed these sentences because they imply a difference between "real" ethnicity in the land of origin and "synthetic" or "umbrella" ethnicity in the United States. In fact, all U.S. ethnicities are umbrella-like socio-political groups embracing diversity under a common self-identity in order to achieve recognition and political clout through bloc voting in the United States. See ethnic group. For recent essays in this, see Werner Sollors, The Invention of Ethnicity (New York: Oxford University, 1989). For the classical definitions, see Werner Sollors, Theories of Ethnicity: A Classical Reader (Washington Square NY: New York University, 1996). For a recent analysis of census data, see Mary C. Waters, Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America (Berkeley: University of California, 1990). -- Frank W Sweet 17:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; African Americans are part of the nation-state of the United States, and as American as apple pie and baseball; that African slaves were not willing to emigrate centuries ago changes nothing.  Kemet 15:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  true meaning of ethnic group? 

message: I reversed two of the changes made by 86.134.167.216. First, technically speaking, I do not think that one can say that the African-American community is a "culture." The term implies serious differences in language, religion, folklore, costume, etc. Ethnicity, on the other hand, implies self-identity within a larger mainstream. "Ethnicity" is to "culture" about like "dialect" is to "language." In each case, the former term denotes a group within a larger nation, the latter term applies to an entire nation. Second, the latest best estimates of the international slave trade are in Appendix 3 of Hugh Thomas, The Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade: 1440-1870 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997). Pages 861-862 summarize the different computation methods. There seems to be no dispute that Africans shipped to British North America numbered about half a million in all (including illegal importation after 1807). -- Frank W Sweet 23:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ethnicity v. culture, 500,000 v. 1,000,000 

message: I must say, as an African American, great article.  I'm speaking of the article reverted by Mike.  I've found that there tends to be quite a bit of biased opinions and pure speculations embedded in articles dealing with us.  Great work! Definitely deserves to be featured.
:I'm glad you like it.Cameron Nedland 02:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm one too.--Always Gotta Keep it Real, Cute 1 4 u 17:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am an African American... 

message: Half the article was posted by an amateur racial thinker who cites only his own self-published essays on the One Drop Rule--articles that have not been accepted by the thousands of scholars who work on the topic. This violates Wiki rules against original research, and has to be removed.  I also added parts of full bibliography (covering 1860-1954). Rjensen 07:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The text that I contributed is far from original research, being merely a summary of peer-reviewed journal articles and monographs. If Rjensen prefers that my contributions to the WP article cite its sources in the footnotes, rather than simply point the reader to sites where the sources can be found, I shall be happy to do that. Give me a couple of hours. Also, I am hardly "an amateur racial thinker," See a summary of my CV at my user page and details at . -- Frank W Sweet 12:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: (1) Why remove all the footnotes? I added them because of the complaint that the section lacked sources. (2) Where is the POV in the removed section? It summarizes every single current theory of the one-drop rule and includes footnotes to each theory's author and each one's peer-reviewed, scholarly published work that proposes the theory. Please explain what the problem is, and I shall try to fix it. But stop yanking out text without explaining the problem. -- Frank W Sweet 17:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One drop rule = forbidden original research 

message: The one-drop rule of invisible Blackness arose in the mid-1830s in the Ohio Valley and spread to the south after the Civil War.15, 16 Those who advocated the notion that you could look completely European and self-identify as White, but still be involuntarily Black due to an undetectable trace of Black ancestry, were a minority at first, and the idea was rejected both by popular culture and the law.17 But as 19th century was ending, the one-drop rule became increasingly accepted in the South.18 By 1900 it had become the law of the land in court cases.19 In the 1910-1930 period its acceptance spread throughout the nation, and it was made statutory and enforced in most states.20
Incidentally, not everyone uses the term one-drop rule thus. To some, the term is synonymous with Marvin Harris’s “hypodescent,” meaning that Americans who look slightly African are considered Black, even if their African admixture is less than 50 percent.21 This differs from the Caribbean, where you are White if you look preponderantly European.22 To others, one-drop rule refers to the U.S. folkloric belief that anyone who has even one drop of African blood in his veins is marked by some subtle physical trait, a clue that reveals the African ancestry. Some say that it is revealed in the color of the half-moons at the base of the thumbnails, or in the shape of the heels, or in blue or purple marks at specific locations on the body.23 To them, one-drop rule is the belief that no matter how diluted African blood may be, a residue of visible evidence will always remain, generation after generation.24 This is nonsense, of course, since about one-third of White Americans have detectable recent African genetic admixture in their DNA from ancestors who passed through the color line.25 The one-drop rule, on the other hand, is the idea that you can look completely European and self-identify as White, but still be involuntarily Black due to an undetectable trace of Black ancestry.26
Why were Americans the only society to adopt such a strange rule of group membership (undetectable and intangible by definition)? The question has interested anthropologists and historians.27 The four most popular theories are: that it maintained and expanded the agricultural labor force, that it was embraced by Black leadership to enhance ethnic solidarity, that it was used by White supremacists to support the notion of White racial purity, and that it was wielded as a threat to keep compassionate White families in line by exiling them to Blackness if they defended or befriended Blacks during the Jim Crow period of White-on-Black terror and oppression. Of course, these explanations are not mutually exclusive, and may have operated in combination.
The first theory is that the one-drop rule maintained or expanded the labor force by subjecting those of mixed ancestry to forced labor. Its strength lies in explaining why the one-drop rule triumphed in the early 20th century. This was the very period when much of the South's Black agricultural labor force fled to the North in the Great Migration. The one-drop rule shifted the color line pale-wards, trapping many who had been previously seen as White. The theory's weakness is that it is sometimes erroneously applied to slavery. This is an error because no court case ever ruled that someone was a slave merely because of his or her "race." Slavery was matrilineal. Hundreds of people of sub-Saharan phenotype were routinely freed following case law set by Higgins v. Allen, 1796 Maryland by proving that a matrilineal ancestor was free. Indeed, having mixed ancestry was useful because, ever since Gobu v. Gobu, 1802 North Carolina; Hudgins v. Wrights, 1806 Virginia; and Adelle v. Beauregard, 1810 Louisiana, the law of the land (subsequently followed in hundreds of cases) was that biracial individuals were presumed to be free unless proven otherwise. But most importantly, the one-drop rule was not adopted—indeed, it was virtually unknown—in the South until long after slavery was dead.28 (Also, see Race.)
The explanation that the one-drop rule was embraced by Black leadership in order to enhance ethnic solidarity matches the timing and direction of the rule's spread. The rule was advocated by both Martin R. Delany (1812-1885) and Frederick Douglass (1818-1895) before the Civil War. It was carried south after the war by the Black Yankees who built the schools, printed the newspapers, and opened the businesses that taught the newly freed to flourish as Americans. It was defended and supported by Black political leadership throughout the Jim Crow terror. The one-drop system of racial designation was a significant factor in African-American ethnic solidarity since antebellum times. African Americans generally shared a common lot in society and, therefore, common cause—regardless of their ethnic admixture and social and economic stratification. This theory's weakness is that it cannot stand alone. It seems unlikely that a minority population (Black) could somehow cause mainstream society (White) to adopt and impose a law that helped only Blacks. After all, one-drop rule was enforced by White elites through the judicial system.29
The theory that the one-drop rule was used by White supremacists in order to support the notion of White racial purity has the advantage that it reflects the excuses given by the very legislators who wrote the laws and the judges who enforced them. They claimed that they wanted to preserve the "purity of the white race" from being "polluted" by Black blood. White supremacists, whose motivation was racist, considered anyone with African ancestry tainted, inherently inferior morally and intellectually and, thus, subordinate. The theory's drawback is that articulate public figures, such as lawmakers and judges, do not always tell the truth, even to themselves.30
The theory that the one-drop rule was used to keep compassionate White families in line is psychologically compelling and matches court evidence of how the rule was enforced. Between 1900 and 1920, over a hundred court cases were held to decide whether an accused family was truly White or unknowingly Black. About forty of those cases were then appealed to state supreme courts. In not one of those forty cases was any genealogical evidence produced. In no case did an accuser reveal an ancient birth certificate, marriage license, school record, or the like. Instead, the testimony was that: An aunt was seen laughing at a joke told by a Black maid. An uncle was seen shaking hands with a Black carpenter who had been hired to build a chicken-coop. A 15-year-old niece was seen flirting with a Black boy of the same age. The testimony that banished families to Blackness was always about establishing one-on-one family-to-family relationships across the color line. The theory is compelling because it is a well-known law of group psychology that when a powerful group bullies a weak group, any member of the bullying group who befriends and tries to defend a victim will be expelled to the bullied group and become a victim himself. During the Jim Crow wave of terror, the White community bullied the Black community. And so, any White family that befriended a Black family was expelled from Whiteness and made legally Black.31
-----------------
:(1) Why remove all the footnotes? I added them because of the complaint that the section lacked sources. (2) Where is the POV in the removed section? It summarizes every single current theory of the one-drop rule and includes footnotes to each theory's author and each one's peer-reviewed, scholarly published work that proposes the theory. Please explain what the problem is, and I shall try to fix it. But stop yanking out text without explaining the problem. -- Frank W Sweet 17:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Rise and Triumph of the One-Drop Rule

message: Why was this article recently moved from African American to African-American? I'm active in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups and am unaware of any article with parallel naming. Contrasts would be Italian American, Polish American. Usually this is hyphenated as an adjective, but not as a noun, and article names are normally nouns. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was this article moved from African American to African-American?  And why has the person who did this not answered the question above (or, indeed, submitted this move for discussion before doing it)?  Badagnani 06:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphenation 

message: Just wondering why the sentence:"Some have Asian ancestry too" was removed, anyone know why?
Seems too obvious to me (I didn't delete it). It is self-evident that African Americans have ancestries from all other racial groups that exist in such a vast community of people as the Afro-Americans are. We must be careful not to state the obvious because when we do we assume our readers are fools, SqueakBox 15:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Asian Ancestry

message: looks like the majority of them are obviously of mixed ancestry, 11% of the population is said to be "black" how much of that is full-blooded?
I heard 95% of blax have something else in them.Cameron Nedland 02:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Likely relatively few blacks.  I once read in the New Amsterdam News that the percentage of African-Americans with Native American blood was in the mid-upper 80th percentile. But, then, a lot of so-called "white" Americans were mixed with nonwhite blood before they even arrived here.  Deeceevoice 05:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know how long this misunderstanding will continue, but scientifically there is no "black", "white" or "native american" race, so there's no logical definition of "full-blooded", "pure", or "mogrel".   Researchers have tried to make it work out genetically, but the data just won't nicely divide into a small number of distinct groups.   Plug Pakistani genotype data into a computer and the computer will tell you you've got an individual who is 30% Native American.  Justforasecond 06:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been living and dealing with issues of race and ethnicity all my life, so understand fully that all terms are relative.  I made the comment above, but I still refer to white folks as white folks. (Duh.)  Deeceevoice 12:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hardly. :p Both predate and supercede it.  Science never did and never will.  Deeceevoice 14:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Homogeneous X" is meaningless if you can't/won't define "X".  There aren't and never were any pure races, as any one who has spent more than fifteen minutes reading about the subject knows.  Talking about "nonwhite" blood as if there is such a thing as "white" blood or "black" blood is outdated thinking.    Justforasecond 21:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do any homogeneous African-Americans exists? 

message: this is so kewl.
Please name yourself after submissions.Cameron Nedland 00:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  kewl 

message: At the end of this BBC article the words African American ae used in reference to Venezuela, indicating a wider usage of this term than just a US-based person of African descent, SqueakBox 02:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other uses of the term

message: The article implies that North Africans are not indigenous to Africa, which is false. The article implies that North Africans are "Arab immigrants", even though pretty much all North Africans are simply Arabised Berbers, and thus indigenous. Furthermore, Berbers are certainly indigenous to Africa, and are Caucasoid, and "Arab" is not a racial term. 
Habib --83.72.194.208 17:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The great thing about wikipedia is you can go change the article!  "Be bold"Justforasecond 19:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The people of North Africa speak the "African" languages, while the rest of Africa speaks other types of languages, largely of the Bantu family.  There is a similar physiologic division that follows along the same lines, although racial intermingling to either side of the line is quite extensive.  From geographic perspective, all people indigenous to the continent Africa are Africans.  But from a linguiracial perspective, the North Africans are more correctly called "African" than those further south.  This derives ultimately from the fact that the name "Africa" was originally the name of the Berber country specificly, and not the name of the whole continent.  Because Africans from further south predominate in America does not change the historical, geographic, and linguistic facts of the matter.  Nor should it allow the North Africans to be effectively deprived of their racial identity when they immigrate to the USA.  If the Americans descended from African slaves imported from west, central Africa wish to have a peculiar identity all to their own, more thought needs to be put into the name they will give to their identity.  Appropriating the names "African" or "Black" for themselves is not an effective answer.  The latter is even more ambiguous than the former.  "Aframerican" would be a reasonable choice, implying their strong conexions to the histories of both continents, rather than that of a more immigrant group.  "Afro-American" was originated for similar reasons, although the word is poorly formed.Arrabbikum 17:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Africans 

message: "African Americans have made significant advances in the United States (particularly when compared to other minority groups in the United States), collectively enjoy a standard of living higher than that of most other people in the western world, and virtually all other groups in the former Second World and Third World. "
Where are your sources Kermet?! Blacks are doing better than Asians, Indians, and Mexicans (Latinos)?!?! Do they enjoy a higher standard of living in the US because of the safety net our nation provides or because of the average amount of income produced by aa's? I dont dispute 3rd world since it could be argues that almost all citizens of a first world must be significant higher than a 3rd.
:I suggest that you closely re-read the text I wrote---I will restore it shortly, AND closely review the sources I cited.  I am careful with my wording and the accuracy with which they reflect the sources I cite.  As for the assertions you make (including those about safety nets--by the way, EARNED INCOME is no safety net), I advise you to substantiate them with sources; editorials and armchair opinions just aren't good enough.  Kemet 7 April 2006
::Your precise, not accurate, those words have different meanings. I will be awaiting your source for the topic of this discussion. FatP
:::I am beginning to sound like a broken record:  CLOSELY RE-READ THE TEXT [and citations] before your critiques.  Kemet 8 April 2006
::::They say thats the difference between those with faith (you!) and science. Those with faith keep on repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over again. Its a form of self-brainwashing. FatP 4/8
:::::I'm atheist and secular.  Science rocks.  Kemet 10 April 2006
I question the utility of the current Economics section.  It focuses on a very small economic elite which is hardly representative of ANY American population, black or non-black.  Moreover, the older section has been deleted (which I'll reinsert shortly).  The section needs balance.  Kemet 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic Status 

message: does anyone realize that there is only one picture in this entire article in this entire article? could somebody please add one? thank you. Later!!!! User:70.124.132.176 02:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pictures 

message: African American is incorrect. The proper use in English is Afro-American, even though African American is often used by politicians and community-leading people. --Andrelvis
:According to who?  The proper way is to identify people with the terms with which they identify themselves; prescriptive "suggestions" are meaningless.  If few people call themselves Afro-Americans, then neither should you.  Kemet 19 April 2006.
::Your logic is faulty. By your logic, we shouldn't call the Dutch Dutch because that's not as they call themselves. Isn't this "English" wikipedia? Then the language should be used correctly. --Andrelvis
:::According to who is it more proper to say Afro-American vs African American?Cameron Nedland 22:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WHOM :) Just kidding. I think he's referencing the fact that it is two adjectives in a row, like how we don't say "Southern American" for "South American," etc. It probably would be more grammatically correct, but it's a lilttle too late for that, I believe. Reggaedelgado 02:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afric"an" American? 

message: Is there a reason why the black population went down until the great depression and then started coming back up?Cameron Nedland 22:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear, the total black population did not decrease at any point. It decreased as a percentage of the overall population because a large number of immigrants were coming into the country, mostly from Europe. There was a lot less immigration after the Immigration Act of 1924, so that was no longer a factor. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So blacks tend to have more children than other groups?Cameron Nedland 02:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so, but I'm not sure. Don't quote me on that. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking at the graph you link to, it does indeed appear that there was a larger number of immigrants before 1924. Whether or not one considers that to be large is, I suppose, a matter of opinion. Also, the table at African_American#Black_American_population plainly shows that the African American population increased, both as an absolute amount and as a percentage of the total population, between 1930 and 1950 (and after). - Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population trends 

message: I think that this article should be merged with Black people since it is the same race and ethnicity.  Also, you cannot have African-Americans since there is no such thing as African-America1028 00:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but they are the same people.Cameron Nedland 02:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Zoe's point was that not all black people are African Americans. "African American" is a subset of "black people"; to wit, African American is the set of all black people who are Americans. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, there are categories for Afro-Germans and Afro-Italians.  I don't know why it's Afro- for those two countries, and not African-; perhaps it reflects common usage, or perhaps it's just an accident.  As for the subset issue, that's not a line of logic that we follow on Wikipedia in general; it's not just these two articles.  For example, Square has its own article, even though all squares are Rectangles.  Finally, about the Liberian case, I suspect that the reason most people don't use the phrase "African-American-African" is because they feel it's too cumbersome to use in everyday conversation.  Maybe people should use it anyway, but that's not Wikipedia's concern.  We try to describe language as it's used, not as we think it should be.  --Allen 03:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't have a category for Square; we have an article for Square.  That aside, I'm not sure where you're going with this line of argument.  --Allen 02:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying that if we are going to have an article about Blacks in America called African American, we should have a category for squares drawn in America called "American Rhomboid Rectangular Quadrilatteral Polygons"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1028 00:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay then. Let's say that in the 1700s one African is taken into slavery and his brother is not. Then they had descendants in today's world. Why would the guy whose ancestor was a slave be an African~American and the guy whose ancestor wasn't a slave be an African when they are actually 6th cousins?1028 00:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because one is an American and one isn't. Unless the brother's descendents moved to America at some point. What's complicated about this? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm against merging the articles.  I think part of the confusion is that 1028 is interpreting "African-American" as a purely ethnic label.  If it were, 1028's arguments would make sense, but it isn't.  It's a label that makes reference both to a person's ethnicity and to their nationality.  --Allen 01:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If we're talking about someone in the United States, and we say that they are "German" or "Korean", we usually mean that they are citizens or residents of that other country who are only temporarily visiting the US.  We say "German-American" or "Korean-American" to make it clear that the people we're talking about have immigrated to the US permanently.  "African-American" is a bit of a special case, because it is often used to refer specifically to people who are the descendants of American slaves, rather than people whose ancestors immigrated from Africa to the US after the Civil War.  Still, when people refer to someone in America as an "African", they are often talking about someone whose permanent home is in Africa.  I know there are some people who feel that "African" is a more appropriate term for all Americans of African descent.  Perhaps you are one of those people.  This view, if sourced and worded in an NPOV way, could be added to African_American#Criticisms_of_the_term.  --Allen 02:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: Section "Who is African American?" contradicts:
*One-drop_theory#The one-drop rule was unrelated to slavery.
*One-drop_theory#Plessy v. Ferguson did not consider the one-drop rule.
*One-drop_theory#The one-drop rule was first legislated in 1910.
*Social interpretations of race#Race in the United States
*White (people)#The African Americans
-- Frank W Sweet 15:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not write passages in Wikipedia articles such as, "Some people think that the one-drop rule dates from U.S. slavery and that it determined whether you were a slave. For example, a Wikipedia article erroneously claims, 'The designation of anyone possessing any trace of African ancestry as "black", and, therefore, of subordinate status to whites, guaranteed a source of cheap labor during slavery and for decades afterward.' Reality was the exact opposite." It's bad enough for one Wikipedia article to refer back to another, but awful for one article to cite another as incorrect. If there are errors in this article, please fix it. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. It seems pretty clear that, legally, African American is wrong. Unless there are other opinions, I'll delete the passage "During slavery, there was also a strong economic incentive to maximize the number of individuals who could be owned, bred, worked, traded and sold outright as human chattel. The designation of anyone possessing any trace of African ancestry as "black", and, therefore, of subordinate status to whites, guaranteed a source of cheap labor during slavery and for decades afterward." JanSöderback 13:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article contradicts another article. 

message: President Kennedy began to say that colored people were Blacks in 1961 when he spoke in front of the National Press Club.  He is the person who initiate all of this baloney. Negroes did not "self-referentially" begin to say that they were "black."  That is the opposite of the truth.  Anyone who is old enough to remember the United States of 1949 to 1959 as I can knows that "Colored" people were "brown-skinned" like Joe Louis, "dark-skinned" like Martin Luther King, or "light-skinned."  Some others were called "black," and still others were called "light, bright, and damned-near white."  Many of that last group "passed for white."  Today (this is strange) people "pass for black" (my quote). 
 
"Black" used to be the "derogatory" and "pejorative" word (prior to the pronouncements by J. F. K., the inventor of the word "blacks" in the U. S. A.).
71.240.42.109
  
:I don't care what Malcolm X said.  Why is Malcolm X prominently cited?  He had a criminal record.  He's being deified despite the convictions and the time spent behind bars in prison for his criminal activities.  Malcolm X was a politician, IMHO.  He wasn't the Pope, the Dalai Lama, the Buddha, Mohammed, and Jesus Christ rolled into one.  He was a convicted hoodlum who was explaining that negroes are bereft of a nation of their own.  Had he said: "you are landless peasants," he would've been forgotten by now.  Superslum 08:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many fibs

message: I cut the following recent addition:
or the newly coined phrase "of original descent".  "African American" allows for members of the Anglo or Caucasian groups born in Africa (especially South Africa) to use the term "African American" once they become citizens of the United States, hence "Black American" or "of original descent" is preferable.  The "Original Descent" label is derived and based on the origins of all mankind (Biblical and scientific) being located in Africa and based on the physical characteristics and genealogy of the continent's current indigenous population, which is predominantly Black.
This looks to me like someone's idiosyncratic view, not a description of common usage. If I'm wrong, and someone has appropriate citation, fine, but otherwise it does not belong in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 16:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut apparent "original research" 

message: I question whether Haitian Americans are "sometimes" referred to their country of origin rather than African Americans.  There is a rather large Haitian community in my area, and it has been in my experience that by and large, Haitians and Haitian Americans are generally indignant when you refer to them as "African-Americans."  I'm sure it would be more appropriate to substitute "sometimes" with "generally" in the beginning of the article.  
It probably is a matter of how close one is culturally to the "mother" island, as well.  I'm sure that the prevalence of Jamaican-Americans in Lauderhill, Florida, would preclude the use of African-American to describe them, but a second generation Jamaican-American in, say, Kansas City, is undoubtedly less inclined to dispute the term.  
Just some thoughts. Bastique▼parlervoir 23:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting, whether for consideration or not 

message: Wow, this article should be deleted and redone. The general public should not be allowed to touch it. Let informed registered users who understand the differences between anthropological classifications, political correctness, and ethnicity write this. DuBois' double consciousness should also be noted.
:I understand the frustration but please remember that the point of Wikipedia, as I understand it, is that it is a "people's encyclopedia" of sorts. If informed users want to correct perceived or actual errors they may encounter in any article, not just this, they are free to do so within the official rules. The constant flow of review, posting (sometimes of inaccuracies), and correction makes for a solid article that is informative and can be a springboard for deeper research into any subject, IMO. --Msr69er 20:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DEAR GOD

message: i SAY YES BUT ANOTHER USER NAMED Yamla is being racial and says no.so I want your opinion please.Thanks!
Gemini531 22:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This personal attack is unwarranted.  Gemini531 is well aware that I have, in actuality, encouraged her (here and here) to note that people are African American if they are.  I simply asked that she link to the correct article.  --Yamla 22:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CAN SOMEONE CHANGE AN ARTICE ABOUT A PERSON (ON WIKIPEDIA ,LIKE A CELEB) TO AFRICAN AMERICAN IF IT'S TRUE?

message: Should I, and many other African American renounce our blackness and "not" be black so that the white contributors here at Wikipedia can feel like the Black racial/ethnic and African-American group makes sense to them? I mean, just let me know guys, I want to make sure that your minds are at ease. I will go to the Census and get the other 4-5 million Black people (the ones the whites identify as not necessarily black enough to be acutely black) whose skin is not more than halfway between the lightest and darkest skinned human, i will gather them up and we will renounce our blackness and not give a $hit about our heritage, ancestry, the struggle that made us, and our loyalty to what is ultimately important. It seems that there is too much interest as to WHY the "onedrop rule" should not be used. Obviously the "white" concept of Black is one of purely surface, shallow, superficial value. Where the Slavic, Germanic, Arabic,  Jewish, and other ethnicities are respected past any one superficial characteristic, the issue here especially with non blacks (and especially bi-racial people) insist on relegating Blackness to a superficial meaningless nuance of skin color. I also find it offensive as to how many want to credit the white race for inventing blackness. So I am here as a black man, with straight hair, and light skin (a black man who would ultimately make biracial mulattos jealous for looking more white than they do), i would come in here and tell you all: No, I do not wish to renounce any iota of being Black. I do not care if my skin is not dark. I do not care if my hair is straight. That does not make me any more or less Black. There are millions like me in Africa, and America and the Caribbean. We are officially telling you what it means to be Black. The Wikipedia articles "Black (People) and African-American are not "white perceptions of Black people" nor "What bi-racial people have come to dislike about the lable African-American". I am African-American Black, forever, with no exceptions. I, nor anyone in my family (neither side) cares about the origin or intent of the one drop rule. We unanimously renounce, with every fiber of our being, the notion of being white, or "part white", regardless of the fact that biologically we obviously are of Caucas-- (no, i do not recognize that word for those people) European ancestry. And let me educate you white people about something. You have your own ethnicites, and nowhere does your irish, or german, or any of that, dwell so much on straining itself to distance those who are not "exclusively of this extraction". Many French people are not french but are in fact Slavic. Many whites are hispanic and mixed with Native, Black, and Asian. Being Black is not one of detrimental leftovers. You don't strain out the nutrients (the mixtures across the world) and leave whats left as "black"... the "non-interesting darky side of the family tree". That is the other side of this "one drop rule complaint" nonsense. I cannot trace my African ancestry to the Dahomey kingdom, or to the Ashanti kingdom. I do not know if my African ancestors were kings or subjects, if they lived in Kumasi or Ougadagou or Timbucktu. Thank you slavery for that. So THAT is the reason so many of us hold on to being black despite the statistical odds. I rather be a part of the group that is honored for being dishonored, than to be a part of the group that dishonors itself by dishonoring other people. Being Black already entails being mixed, whether or not you wish to accept your blackness as the defining aspect of your ethnicity is up to you. Do not compel the readers on Wikipedia to reject the legitimacy of accepting blackness regardless of some arbitrary white reasoning to do so (or not to). --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Drop Rule question 

message: This article offers citations that the Klan is/was terrorist yet the article on the Klan says it is not, and that POV is being vigorously defended on its talk page. Skywriter 19:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article conflicts with [[Ku Klux Klan]]

message: How could the term African-American CONTRADICT with the term ONE DROP?  One drop is a theory that is inherently RACIST/DISCRIMINATORY. Why would WIKIPEDIA TAG African American using a racist theory as part of the argument???   It's like saying the term IRISH AMERICAN is questionable because a group of racist persons have a term they created called GREEN DROP which states that if a person has one drop of Irish blood that person isn't HUMAN!!!!  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.87.161 (talk • contribs).
:I can see why you're concerned, but the notice at the top of the page means that this article may conflict with the Wikipedia article on One-drop theory, not with the theory itself.  Click on the blue link to read our article about one-drop theory, and please improve it if you feel like it... it sure could use improvement.  --Allen 22:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cleaned up BOTH One-drop theory and this article.  There were two points of contention:  1) That the one-drop rule was used to increase the supply of slaves.  This idea is no longer presented in either article and therefore is moot.  2) That Plessy v. Ferguson affirmed the rule.  This was stated as fact in this article and denouced in the other one.  I did some research on this, and found several quotes saying that while the State Court did rule on race classification, the Supreme Court did not and merely took it as read that Plessy was black since he identified himself as such.  The court took the view that "you are black if the black community accepts you as black."  This is a far cry from the one-drop theory/rule and therefore I dropped that graf from this article as uncited and unverifiable with counter-citations.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One drop theory conflict question

message: I researched some of the inventions allegedly created by African Americans, the toilet and Peanut Butter.  According to these two articles,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_closet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_butter
Neither was invented by African Americans, which leads me to suspect that others weren't as well.  This isn't a racist statement, all I'm interested in is the truth.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.152.186.52 (talk • contribs).
:I don't know where the water closet thing comes from.  As for the peanut butter thing, there's no ref given in the peanut butter article, but the same claim (that he didn't invent it) is made in George Washington Carver.  But the ref points to here, which actually does suggest that Carver invented peanut butter, but didn't patent it because he was against patents.  I'll remove the did-not-invent claims from those two articles unless anyone can come up with a citation.  --Allen 17:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  African American Inventions 

message: It goes into extremely unnecessarily long detail about some topics that should have their own articles dedicated to them. Zorath 23:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this article so long?

message: Isn't Condoleeza Rice an African American?  Why is she not mentioned in the article?  WikiSceptic 15:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Condoleeza Rice|Condy Rice]] 

message: Since George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and a host of other Caucasians fathered mixed-race children, it would be more accurate to call their descendants Brown Caucasians.  Superslum 13:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A man whose last name was Ford was buried in a vault close to George Washington. Supposedly, he was the son of George Washington and his slave.  I had heard of him decades ago, but simply forgot about him because many slaveholders kept concubines.  His body has been removed from the vault, and destroyed.  A television station recently spoke with several of the descendants of Mr. Ford.  I think that the Today show talked with them.  One of the people bore a resemblance to George Washington; and all of them were Brown Caucasians.  Superslum 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: William Archer wrote a book in 1910 that is titled Through Afro-America.  His book marks the earliest use of that term that I have seen.  Eugenics was a big deal in 1910.  Superslum 16:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Brown Caucasians]]

message: Hi there. I am not american and was looking for some information on black americans but was redirected to this page. From what I can make out, 'African American' is a euphemism for 'Black American'. Are the two terms equivalent? Is there anyone who fits one group but not the other? When I am in America, is the term 'Black American' now considered rude/unacceptable? How do Americans describe blacks from other countries? Do they say African Germans or Black Germans?Curtains99 10:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above paragraph, which was clearly written in a respectful and thoughtful manner, is proof, IMO, of just how silly we've all gotten with our labels. It's absurd to think, in light of all the different expectations of different groups, that anyone should be able to keep up with what is and is not rude today.   I think everyone should just self-identify, if its important to them.  I should never be expected to know what the "proper" label for someone is, but I should accept and respect whatever they tell me they are, if they so wish to be identified. Unschool 20:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Curtains, "African American" is probably the most polite, but some people prefer to be called "black", "negro" (older folks, mostly), or "African" (radicals, mostly).  "Black Americans" is probably just fine and will work better if you are discussing Black Americans vs Black Germans vs black Africans, but I find "blacks" (as opposed to "black people") is a little rude.   You have to be careful though and it depends on what town you are in.   I witnessed a barfight in San Francisco that ended with people handcuffed in police cars when an Irish man used the word "oriental", which is offensive to folks who now go by "Asian" (but this term doesn't include over a billion folks from India and Pakistan).    For all I know, oriental is the appropriate term in Ireland.  It does get pretty crazy after a while.  A white girl from my high school was born in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe nowadays) and technically "African American".  She was also "Hispanic" as her grandfather had lived in Mexico for some time and was a naturalized Mexican citizan.   She, btw, grew up in France.  Justforasecond 19:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Justforasecond, that's very useful. Never knew that 'orientals' was rude. Thanks Curtains99 15:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If white Zimbabweans are not African because they are not 'native or indigenous' to the continent of Africa, does that mean that white citizens of the USA are not Americans as they are not native or indigenous to the continent of America because of the European colonisation of America? Curtains99 13:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether white Zimbabweans are African is neither here nor there, at least as far as this page is concerned. What is relevant is that if they move to America, they are still not African American. Etymology is not definition. - Jmabel | Talk 00:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference between Black American and African American

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_American&diff=prev&oldid=67766063 Is that legit? --DevastatorIIC 05:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's no good, certainly not without discussion.  Someone will need to change it back.  Good catch, seeing how many edits are done on this page daily; sometimes things like this slip through.  Badagnani 06:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain this edit 

message: I believe that this article is quite accurate as regards to the timeframe in which "African American" became popularized.  Yes, there were some who used the term as early as the 1950s, but Jesse Jackson brought the label to great prominence in the 1980s, and it shortly there after became the norm.  However, the article truly needs to be edited as to the implication of what "African American" replaced.  "Afro-American" did not give way to "African American".  For the most part, "Afro American" was unheard of by the mid-1970s.  Of all the labels affixed to Americans of African ancestry (colored, Negro, black, etc), "Afro American" had the shortest life-span.  (I'm not sure why that is; for my part, I suspect it may have just been before its time.) No, in the mid-1980s, before Jackson started his campaign, the term du jour was simply "black".  That term in of itself had not been easily accepted by white America—I distinctly remember a reporter from 60 minutes in the late 60s or early 70s (I think it was Mike Wallace) doing a story on this "new" label (our Spanish-speaking neighbors must laugh at all the contortions we put ourselves through), and watched him shocked as he could not bribe ten-year old children with a $20 bill to refer to themselves as "Negroes".  So anyway, what I am saying is that "African American" replaced "black", not "Afro-American", and I propose an edit reflecting this.  Unschool 20:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Nomenclature 

message: Colored people do not own businesses here in the "super-slum."  Why do people insert statements relating to "businesses" owned by Negroes?  I see monkey business every day, but little else.  People are trying to tell me that my eyes are not working right.  Where, oh where, are the (supposed) "black" "businesspeople?"  The article is a sham.  Superslum 22:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Click here for a few: Category:African_American_businesspeople. Can you be more specific about why you're so angry? 142.167.161.190 02:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which business?