Talk:Black people/Archive 1

message: Here's what Neil Risch, Alberto Piazza, and L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza had to say about Arnaiz-Villena's pseudoscientific methodology, used both in your cited study by the latter, as well as his tract one "on the genetic relatedness of Jews and Palestinians". Keep in mind that "Human Immunology" magazine retracted publication of the latter study based exactly on its lack of scientific merit.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6868/full/415115b.html
Sir:
Even though the controversial withdrawal of a paper on the genetic relatedness of Palestinians and Jews by the journal Human Immunology (see Nature 414, 382; 2001) is a minor episode compared with the tragedies caused by ethnic/religious conflicts over past decades, the issues involved are worth revisiting.
The stated purpose of the paper by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena et al. was to "examine the genetic relationships between the Palestinians and their neighbours (particularly the Jews) in order to: (1) discover the Palestinian origins, and (2) explain the historic basis of the present ... conflict between Palestinians and other Muslim countries with Israelite Jews".
They conclude: "Jews and Palestinians share a very similar HLA genetic pool that supports a common ancient Canaanite origin. Therefore, the origin of the long-lasting Jewish−Palestinian hostility is the fight for land in ancient times."
It is difficult to believe that knowledge of genes may help to explain the present conflict. Although population genetics can address issues of relatedness of populations, mating patterns, migrations and so on, obviously it cannot provide evidence about reasons for conflicts between people.
Our primary concern, however, is that the authors might be perceived to have been discriminated against for political, as opposed to legitimate scientific, reasons.
Even a cursory look at the paper's diagrams and trees immediately indicates that the authors make some extraordinary claims. They used a single genetic marker, HLA DRB1, for their analysis to construct a genealogical tree and map of 28 populations from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Japan. Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics.
The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups. Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute.
We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit.
This term defines a race of people, not just a skin color as discussed in the opening paragraph. Black people are not just dark-skinned. Blacks have many other genetic characteristics that define the race.--Black Man 00:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arnaiz-Villena study : pseudoscientific and unsuprisingly favoured by such historical "scholars" as the "Stormfront" neo-nazist hate group

message: Would anyone oppose moving this article to Race in society or a similarly named article, where Whites could also be discussed?  As it stands, this article is dangerously close to unencyclopedic by mere virtue of its name alone.  Tomer TALK 05:55, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
:I don't see anything "dangerously unencyclopedic" about the nature of this piece.  However, I'm not opposed outright to your suggestion.  Perhaps it would be helpful to see the beginnings of such an article (on "race in society") first.  My first reaction to your idea, however, is that your suggested piece seems a bit overly broad and potentially ridiculously unmanageable/sprawling.  Perhaps the solution, since you seem concerned about "whites" as a subject, would be a separate article in which changing definitions of whiteness could be explored.  deeceevoice 14:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to move and merge article 

message: Deeceevoice, of course all humanity originated in Africa.  This is exactly why I don't think the article should imply that, say, Tamils are particularly more African than, say, Han Chinese.--Pharos 20:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the article says "can" apply.  Actually, more properly/grammatically, it should say "may"; it doesn't say it definitively does, or that it applies to all -- say, Han Chinese.  deeceevoice 20:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, that was an incomplete revert/edit.  I've corrected it.  You likely still will have problems with it, but the text now is accurate.  It implies no such thing.  It doesn't even mention gentics.  The definition is purely about the use of a word, "blacks."  Members of the groups mentioned (and likely others) historically/colloquially have been referred to as "blacks."  I can't help what someone incorrectly may infer.  deeceevoice 21:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I edited it -- again.  I thought your version far too simplistic/sparse.  Now I suppose people will complain about my use of "Negroid." (shrug) deeceevoice 21:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-African dark-skinned peoples 

message: I'm fed up with going through this with every single article treating black people on Wikipedia:  the perverse need to insert an endless list of pejorative, insulting racial slurs associated with the group.  No other ethnic or racial group on Wikipedia receives similar treatment in articles dealing with them.  There may be a legitimate need to present such information on Wikipedia -- but it should be done in a separate article.  The time for automatically associating backward, ignorant, disgusting terminology with a group -- as though it defines who and what its members are -- is long past.  Time for this to end.  deeceevoice 14:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most wikipedians are German, which explains racism.  Here's proven racism from an admin.  That same admin has many sock puppet accounts and stalks people out of racist motives, shown here.  66.252.129.190 16:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The term "pretty table" (or something like it) was used by someone in an edit note -- hence the quotation marks.  And there already is an article devoted to slurs:  List of ethnic slurs.  And, no.  I did not suggest that such ugliness is a thing of the past -- quite the contrary, especially on Wikipedia, which is frequently a venue for racist interjections in articles, racist vandalism and the like.  What I meant was that automatic inclusion of racist slurs in an article on any ethnic group should be a thing of the past.  As I said in the discussion regarding someone's interjection of a racist photo in an article on Watermelon, it's time for Wikipedia to be an intelligent, enlightened arbiter of information (no, not a censor) and stop reducing segments of articles to racist word association games.  Enough already.  deeceevoice 23:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

text: No. I didn't suggest a separate article.  I stated that an article already exists where such information would be appropriate.  Frankly, I don't see the need for the table at all.  This is an English-language site.  There are absolutely no parallel such tables in other articles on so-called "races" or other ethnicities anywhere else on Wikipedia. It's simply unnecessary.  And it's a safe bet that there is no, for example, listing of terms like "dago," "guinea," "greaseball," etc., in the article on Italians, or of "Christ killer," "kike," etc., in the article on Jews.  Leave it be!  deeceevoice 11:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fed up.  The "pretty table" should be history -- certainly, at least, here.

message: Just a bit of trivia here: in Brazil, the term "negro" is the politically correct, whereas "black" is deemed pejorative. I cannot vouch for other portuguese speaking countries, but this is how these words are viewed in brazilian portuguese.
^^^ someone wrote above (not me) and didn't sign their name DyslexicEditor 14:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made an edit like this saying when negro was the thing black was bad to say but I heard it off a stephen king novel (said so in my edit summary).  Well, Stephen King was right it seems and I also guess so as nobody reverted me.  Oh and the n-word used to be a friendly term that should go there--I want some others to do it because I don't want to write it and have what I wrote erased via reversion (instead of altered) if I do it wrong.  DyslexicEditor 14:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portuguese language 

message: Is Wikipedia sinking to the lowest common denominator, as detractors feared when it first emerged?  Unless one is an EXTREME populist, after all, one acknowledges that the majority of any population is ignorant about most things.  (Specialists, by definition, specialize.)  Yet if all voices are treated equally, and if increasingly they dominate postings on Wikipedia due to their sheer numbers, then the result will be an ignorant Wiki.  There must be many discussions about this elsewhere, but this page (and the non-mirror image page at whites illustrates the problem as well as any other.
The intent of the Wiki founders and directors is good and clear.  E.g., the Wiki guidelines state: "If possible, terms used to describe people should be given in such a way that they qualify other nouns. Thus, black people, not blacks; gay people, not gays; and so forth."  Yet this page here  is named blacks, and that usage is prevalent throughout.
#Then let us just change it to "Black" and link it within the Black page. I agree with you, i just don't know how to change it. I'm not experienced enough yet
::Before doing any of these changes, there needs to be consensus on this talk page to do so. I disagree with the above comments because the Wiki guidelines quoted are about how to refer to groups of people within an article, not about the name and cultural connotations that arise from what a group of people call themselves. The title of this article, for what it is about, is correct.--Alabamaboy 00:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest even further changes to the article name. Instead of using Black (people) why not just Black people? In my opinion that would make the meaning much clearer and could not be mistaken for the colour black or something else. Denis Kasak 21:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lowest Common Denominator in Wiki? 

message: I see the complaints being made by some regarding the POV in the article. What I presented was a widespread point of view by BLACK people on what they consider THEMSELVES to be. Not what someone who is not part of that experiences believes. IN addition, much of the content is from a Black point of view. What is so hypocritical of those complaining about the POV in the article is that, before when the article was so crappy with a lot of anti-Black pov, and empathsis on what the word "nigger" and "negro" means (which has little relevance to Black people), very few people complained except those who were Black. Now here we are, and once again a Black perspective, which is complex, and difficult to grasp is being attacked for the parts that are critical of the white aspects. That's too bad, because White people need to get it that they are not above reproachment. I am not here to villify White people, but I am here to accurately describe what and who considers themselves Black and how that inclusionary grouping has come to be, changed, and currently is changing. PART OF THAT is the impositions by white government officials, white judges, white scholars... throughout the past three centuries. Those imposition define and redefine it for their (white people) own convenience, whether economic (slavery), social(Jim Crow/Apartheid/NAZI), or cultural (bell-curve, concerns about diffusionism and Afrocentricism). 
The complaints that come and go in some of the racial articles in Wikipedia follow this format, that is, when they are distortions of Black people, no white person cares. When the distortions are removed, and in the process white people are noted for their participation in the accurate portrayals or distortions, white people cares and wants to dump the whole article. No the article won't be dumped. It doesn't matter how much you dislike my point of view, we will find a equitable (and I empathize that word) way to a consensus. We will not allow unilateral Eurocentric exasperations to dominate the future of this article. Yes, it's sad, someone said, about the article. Go back in time before I touched the article, with it's stupid chart of "negro" and "nigger" and tell me how sad that was to you? Did you find that crap enlightening or did you not read the article at that time?
yes I am very critical when the quality of insight into an issue is determined by how much a white critic is exasperated. Enough! --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I modified the article. 

message: WHy is any reference to East India taken out of the article? I agree that we need to cite the sources, a process that I am horribly unfamiliar with doing. But I do believe that Black people are abundant in India, about 20-30 percent of the population, depending on who is counting. I am aware of the Dalit movmements that AFFIRM the blackness of the Dalit people in India (about 100 million of them), as well as the Siddi people and many Dravidians consider themselves Black. However, I am aware of many East Indians who hate Black people so much that the mere mention of there being a Black presence in that country scares them to death.  I will place the East Indian references BAAAACK into the article. Unilateral removals of course is underhanded, and I would like some insight BEFORE it's done.--Zaphnathpaaneah 19:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  East India omitted from the article 

message: I have read enough complaints about the quality standards. I am firstly, convinced that yes, the article needs a lot of citations, of course. I am also convinced that the biased attitude of some of the critics here is obvious, as the white people article lacks the same standards as this article. Two references. One reference to a criticism of the term (which is irrelevant since the term itself lacks references) and one governmental refernce to the U.S. census, which I also have in this article. In addition, there is ONE link to an outside source, no books, and no professors so and so, no nothing. Shall we start rewriting the white people article? It miserably fails to meet the standards of quality that critics here earnestly point out. I think the critics need to find a reasonable attitude and to set their racial fears and egos aside and deal with the uncomfortable issue rationally. Right now I see an immature eurocentric attitude and yes a knee-jerk response. I see critics anticipating how I may respond to their next comments, but no real interest in truthseeking other than to defend the "honor" of the white race (or social construct or whatever). The "white people" article sucks, it's lame, it's retarded. I don't care, because I am interested in this article. If you want to be constructive, be constructive. Do not try to come in here with a notion of fairness and think I am too dumb to notice obvious things. Where is the neutrality and lack of citation tag on the white people article???--68.60.55.162 05:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Listen, anonymous shrieking victim, there is no conspiracy going on here. None of us know each other, and you don't know the race or sex of any of the other contributors. If you would get off your high horse and quit whinnying about racism for a second you might have noticed that I have edited the article on whites. I agree that it's pretty bad. It's a load of crap, in fact. The problem is that this article is an even bigger load of crap. At least the whites article doesn't say "Black people are trying to make us look bad!!!" every paragraph. The link to the white-supremacist page is positively embarassing. I must confess that my eyes glaze over every time I get to the references section of an article, so I hadn't noticed that. If it's still there, I'll remove it. How about instead of hooting and hollering and stamping your feet every time someone has a criticism, you try to work with others to make a better article? ThePedanticPrick 14:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, unfortunately when the same person is present in one article and makes no comment about certain problems, yet comes into another article maknig the same comments about the same problems... i find that to be a little ludicrous. ANd just recall, I am responding to others who came in HERE hooting and hollering and stamping THEIR feet everytime they saw a criticism of white people. Complaining that the entire article should be rewritten. I requested that THEY (you being one) contribute to make it better and not attempt to unilaterally control it. I have already contributed a great deal to make this article better. Rememebr, before I came along, there was a stupid "negro/nigger" chart on the article, and little or no real information about Black people. Now, I am seeing that the issue is really gaining momentum. --68.60.55.162 06:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't the one who raised the capitalization issue. I was the one who fixed it. And the reason I haven't suggested starting the Whites article from scratch is that it has a clear structure and considerably fewer POV statements. It mainly just needs to be cited better. That is not the case with this article. ThePedanticPrick 16:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  I am not addressing you specifically, nor did I name you specifically. I am adddressing you, Kwertii, and any other complainant who seems to be biasedly motivated to denounce the article instead of just contributing contstructively to it. I don't feel like trying to keep track of who is who, because up until now, none of you were interested in contributing, just complaining. Furthermore, I don't believe there is a conspiracy, nor did I imply it. I am very sure each of you individually are acting out on your own passions, and I could care less if you are acting in concert or not. --208.254.174.148 19:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I haven't read the white people article. If you say it's bad, I'll take your word for it, and I'll agree that it ought to be cleaned up, too.  But there are a lot of bad articles on Wikipedia. That some other article is bad is completely irrelevant when discussing how this article is bad. That the white people article is bad is not an excuse for the black people article being bad, and in fact is entirely irrelevant. (See Ignoratio elenchi.) Don't read a racist pretext into this - there is none, and you have no idea what my race is, nor does it matter. Kwertii 19:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

text: There's a difference between dump and rewrite. Please stop being so paranoid. If people want to make this article better, it seems like you of all people should support that. Can't we all just get along? ThePedanticPrick 16:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we can get along when you respect the contributions of others. I am not getting that. I am getting a condescending attitude with sprinkes of sarcasm, and the usual exasperations. My responses have hedged that, but now that you want to get along. Tell me, what do you think of the last section below? It is a matter of opinion if there are Black people in Egypt??? --208.254.174.148 19:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no expert on demographics in Egypt, but the sections on it seem fine to me. I think you should just ignore the anonymous racist. S/he's not making any sense, and just exemplifies the tendency to downplay Egypt's black component that is mentioned in the article. I think the 3 pages of discussion on it could be deleted or archived without any great loss. ThePedanticPrick 20:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Style Note 

message: There is an area in India inhabited by Black jews. This area is known as Cochins, and is documented currently and in antiquity. Cochin_Jews and Herodotus mentioned the Colchins (in modern Georgia) as Black: 
"it is undoubtedly a fact that the Colchians are of Egyptian descent. I noticed this myself before I heard anyone else mention it ... My own idea on the subject was based first on the fact that they have black skins and woolly hair... and secondly, and more especially, on the fact that the Colchians, the Egyptians and the Ethiopians are the only races which from ancient times have practiced circumcision." - Although this story is heresay, it is not an account to be dismissed as a fabrication. This is not "vandalism" or "nonsense".  --208.254.174.148 20:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It most certainly is nonsense. Cochin Jews are Indians inhabiting the town of Cochin, also spelled Kochi, in the South of India. They are as dark as the other Indians of the area. They have no connection whatever with Colchis, which is the ancient name for part of the Caucasus, in Georgia. The story from Herodotus is not evidence of anything. It is part of a completely nonsensical passage in which Herodutus is saying that the ancient Egyptian pharaoh Sesostris conquered a vast swathe of territory in Europe and in Asia Minor. Herodotus tries to prove this by saying that he has seen boundary markers put up by Sesostris in Thrace and that the Colchians look like Egyptians. But the fact is that there are no boundary markers put up by Sesostris in Thrace because the whole Sesostrian empire as he imagines it did not exist. There is no historical or anthropological evidence suggesting anything so improbable as Egyptians in Colchis, nor is there any other claim about black skins (and by the way, when ancient Greek writers used the term melas for skin they often meant swarthy or even ruddy. That's how Homer uses it). The whole story is worthless as history and should mnot be presented here as fact. Paul B 13:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cochins 

message: No discussion. No more "sub" words to describe Black people. Use "Equatorial" to describe Black Africans. - Zaph.
:No discussion? I thought this was a talk page. For what it's worth, a google search gives 542,000 hits for "Sub-saharan african" and only 21,000 for "Equatorial african". The "sub" in sub-saharan simply denotes the fact that black people primarily come from the part of Africa that is south of, or below, the sahara desert. "Sub" comes from the Latin word meaning under or below. It does not mean inferior. "Equatorial" isn't really accurate, since, as the article clearly states, black people are indigenous to many areas that are quite far from the Equator, both in and out of Africa. ThePedanticPrick 03:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word "SUB-saharan" will not be used. 

message: Pedantricprick - you are way out of line removing the large sections of the talk page. The discussions between the rest of us was relevant, and there is no reason to remove them. You do not remove something you disagree with and call it superfluous. I am sorry that discourse about race and black people is so touchy with you, that the mere debate about it causes you to over react. Perhaps with discourse about Kashmir, Israel, Russia, and other "non-black related debate" you feel less inclined to take the nuclear options you take here, but I am here to make sure that won't happen. This discussion is tense, it's touchy, it's hard. But it is no less worthy or relevant to the respect of any other controversal subject. I am so sick of the attitude of putting black-related-discourse under a paternalistic overcompensating form of censorship. I have seen flagarent ignorance left on talk pages. I see you left the discussion about IQ tests (which is far less relevant than whether or not Egypt and India have sizeable Black populaionts) in here. I am not going to tolerate your fake-ness. Aren't you the same person that obsessed about using the capital "B" in Black in this article, while also ignoring the fact that "W" was used in the White people article? Yes, you (or whomever) did change the W, but only after I pointed out the obvious contradiction. Someone had mentioned it earlier that month, and her comment was ignored. So no, I restore the content you deleted. And I reported you. - Zaph
:Slow down there, Zaph. I didn't delete any sections. I only removed the sections headers that were separating a discussion that properly belonged in one section. If you look at the history page, then click the link that says "last" next to my name, you will be able to see the difference between my version and the previous version. Because you didn't take the time to look closely at the change I made, and instead just added a bunch of content to the talk page, there are now about 8 duplicate sections in the article. I'm not going to take them out, since I want you to see for yourself that I'm right. (And also, since it's your mess, you have to clean it up). ThePedanticPrick 20:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: PS Click here to see what I'm talking about. Notice there are no substantial deletions of content, but some content is moved around because I remove the section headers. ThePedanticPrick 20:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing the talk page - No censorship allowed. 

message: For god's sake, do you guys come in here dreaming and sleeping about the big bad black intellectual? Israel, Jewry, Arab, and those other racial and ethnic groups where there is currently war, destruction, racism abound, and all sorts of ignorance, they do not have this much "controversy". What do you guys think is going to happen? This article is going to be respected and then Black people are going to take over the world and enslave you all? Shit! If you want to contribute positively to the article then DO so, but stop putting up complaints, then folding your arms with a smile, and expecting any black person who reads your complaint to do a dance and step to conform to your concern! Enough with this "Oh no no no, negro, we must put a stop to your assertive point of view, let me put a "flag" on your articles!" How many more stupid flags can you put in here to distort the reader from reading the article objectively? - Zaph
:It's hard to believe that a topic that is non-controversial could inspire so much emotion and foul language. How about instead of barking at everyone who disagrees with you, we try to work together, thereby eliminating the controversy? Isn't the best way to get rid of an enemy to make him/her your friend? ThePedanticPrick 23:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded and backed. -Mysekurity  e-mail 03:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Please feel free to remove the POV flag from the article page, as noone seems to have voiced an objection to this. If you do not want to do so, discuss it here, or I will do it myself. Also, please refrain from making this a racial issue, as it is clearly not. If I have offended you in any way, I appologize, but stating that I'm a racist, or want a black person to come and clean this article up is completely untrue. I don't see why you take such an issue with me, when I am almost completely agreeing with you. I will not bring up the number of black friends that I have, or how much I love black people, because I do not need to defend myself. As a caucasian male living in an Urban dwelling, and attending a public school where the majority of the students are non-white, I take personal offense to your accusations. Please follow the guidelines of civility, and do not make assumptions about me or the other contributors to the article. Thank you. -Mysekurity  e-mail 03:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Anonymous, that would be great if it were true. Perhaps you could explain the following: http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=1325 (Thanks, zaph, for the link) ThePedanticPrick 21:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, this page is 170 KB long, and needs to be archived shortly. I will gladly do the honors, provided there are no objections. Thanks, Mysekurity  e-mail 03:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TAKE the controversial flip out of this talk page 

message: It is not a "claim" that the one drop rule was invented by white politicians for the sake of white social sensiblities in the 18th and 19th century. Laws were made based on this rule, i took "It has been claimed that" out of the statement in the "Criticisms of the term" section. Come on. - Zaph
:The fact that laws were made based on this rule does not prove that white politicians invented it. Legislation usually reflects the cultural values of its time, rather than create these values. If the US government had as much influence over the racial views of its people as you seem to think, affirmative action would have already been successful and we would all be getting along happily. ThePedanticPrick 18:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pedantric a "rule" in the article relates to a social rule (de facto) and rule of law. Those WERE established by White politicians. Some rules do not reflect the cultural values, but other rules ESTABLISH cultural values. Look at the history of the one drop rule and you will find laws being established in the states, that did not "universally" recognize throughout the western hemisphere. Keep it as it was --208.254.174.148 00:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because something is called a rule (and the one-drop rule is often called a theory, as well as a rule) doesn't mean it is a law or started out as a law. After all, there is no rule of thumb or golden rule on the law books in any state or country that I am aware of. The fact that laws were made based on the One-Drop Rule (or theory) is interesting and merits mention in the article, but the claim that white politicians invented it is unsubstantiated and should be left out. I hope I have made myself clear this time. ThePedanticPrick 17:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Closer inspection of the "Criticisms of the term" section reveals that there is not one single criticism of the term "black" mentioned. Instead, we have a poorly structured and extremely POV discussion of hypo-descent. As an educated person with white skin, I think it's safe to say that most of us "educated whites" came to reject the "One-Drop rule" because it's completely f--king ridiculous, not because we're afraid of being bred out. This fear isn't even rational from a racist perspective, because after all, if you don't like black people or their genes, you would want to keep them away from your race as much as possible, and keeping the mixed-race children classified as "black" would be more effective at this. Can we either clean up this section and retitle it (eg. "Disputes over hypodescent and the One-drop theory") or just get rid of it? Maybe move it to the hypodescent or the one-drop rule article? ThePedanticPrick 19:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ok with rewordin the title. However, you confuse me. First you say  "This fear (of being bred out) isn't even rational from a racist perspective, because after all, if you don't like black people or their genes, you would want to keep them away from your race as much as possible, and keeping the mixed-race children classified as "black" would be more effective at this." yet that's exactly what the purpose was for the onne drop rule. So could you clarify? Maybe I misunderstood your statement. --208.254.174.148 00:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake. While the fear is definitely irrational, what I meant to say is that if you're afraid of black genes getting into your race, the last thing you would do is drop the one-drop rule to artificially (from a hypodescentist view) inflate your race's numbers. You would use it to keep black people and their genes out. I'm going to edit that section later today. Let me know what you think. PS. 'Pedantric' is not a word, nor is it a part of my username. Pedantic is. Thank you. ThePedanticPrick 17:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Drop Rule 

message: Let this section contain wording that needs to be changed. Primarily, my concern is that the wording used often reflects racialized sentiments, and not neutrality.
For example
"miscegenation" would not be a good choice to describe the mixing and intermarriage between Black and Semetic north Africans in ancient history. It implies some kind of illicit or improper behavior.
:"miscegenation" comes from the Latin for "mixed origins". The second half of the word derives from the root that also gave us "genetics" and "Genesis". The first half "misce" is used in words like "miscellany" (a mixture of things). So stricly speaking miscegenation just means the same as the English term "mixed race". The problem arises because of the similarity of "misce" to the "mis" prefix, meaning "wrongly", as in misconstrued, miscreant, misconceived or misbegotten. Some people assume that "miscegenated" means something similar to "misbegotten". 
:However I agree that the word should be avoided, even though it did not originally imply what you say it does. In the context in which it is used is does reinforce a rather unpleasant set of suggestions, it creates an unnescessary impression that there is something "wrong" with race-mixing, an impression sustained by this whole paragraph with its portrayal of "black" identity as something static until alien peoples come along and mix with this essentialised "black" body of people. It's fairly typical of essentialist thinking, as though there is no natural gradation from "black" to "white" occurring as a result of adaptations that created the very disctinction in gradations in the first place. Paul B 09:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have mixed feelings about dropping "miscegenation" simply because it has the syllable "mis" in it. By that logic, we should stop having the "Miss America" pageant. I would vote for "intermarriage" simply because its meaning is more clear, but hasn't a large percentage of the racial mixing in history occurred outside of marriage? ThePedanticPrick 15:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats because you are ignoring the connotation that has been established that Paul pointed out. When a word carries a negative connotation, and is understood widely to carry that connotation and it is not necessary to use, then we should not use it. Miscegenation is not a word that is necessary to use, and it carries a negative connotation. In contrast, "Miss America" does not carry that, because firstly, the "miss" in Miss America is a title and an adjective, and is unrelated to any negative connotation in regards to race. Come on Pedantric, don't get me started.  --208.254.174.148 00:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but let me assure you that I wasn't deliberately ignoring the connotation. Being largely unaware of the word until quite recently, I'm also unaware of the negative connotations. I also have not read the paragraph that Paul was referrring to. In any case, I'm all for using a different term, provided it's a simple yet accurate one. Perhaps "racial mixing" is best? ThePedanticPrick 17:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: That's fine. I am keeping my eyes peeled in the White people and Caucasoid articles. That one statement that lighter skin helps prevent rickets and has a suggested asthetic appeal caught my attention. The "asthetic appeal" had to go, so I took it out. --208.254.174.148 00:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that was pretty ridiculous. I still want to see some better evidence that being white actually prevents rickets, and with people like Thandie Newton, Denzel Washington, Taye Diggs, and Beyonce Knowles walking around, the idea of white aesthetic superiority quickly becomes patently ridiculous. ThePedanticPrick 17:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording  

message: Original paragraph:
Many scholars criticize the hypodescent rule. Although others theorise that their motives for doing so are often to limit any social movement towards economic self-determination among black diaspora. The One Drop Rule, now villified by many Eurocentric scholars (especially when applied to ancient cultures by Afrocentric scholars), had been established by white politicans generations ago, to prevent racial mixing. This one drop rule, which white American, Australian, and, to a lesser extent, other colonies had established for the sake of upholding white society's perceptions of purity with its own identity, became the de facto social experience for black people across the United States. For the sake of moral solidarity against the presumed immoral oppression, this rule was embraced by black people in America, especially in a Christian context, and the effect has become a permanent aspect of black identity. Once black literature and intellectual expression experienced a boom in the beginning of the 20th century, the hypodescent rule is said to have become a new threat to European colonial ambitions, and to white racial-social controls.
Comments:
The original paragraph conflates hypodescent (the notion that anyone of even slight sub-Saharan phenotype is Black) with the one-drop rule (that someone of utterly European appearance and White self-identity but with a known trace of African admixture is also involuntarily Black). The former custom dates to the early colonial period (around 1700) while the latter did not become widespread or statutory until the early 20th century. The former is common in other former British colonies (substituting ‘’Coloured’’ for ‘’Black’’) while the latter is unique to the United States.
FrankWSweet 17:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Consider it fixed. -- FrankWSweet 12:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, I have expanded the story of when, where, how, and why hypodescent was invented by the planter elite. But I fear that this narrative strays so far from the topic (criticisms of the term) that it confuses more than it informs. The problem is knowing what we can safely leave out. -- FrankWSweet 16:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of the term 

message: apparently some clown whose pornographic name I will not mention wants to entertain himself, so I had to check the reverts to make sure he wasn't a smokescreen to make other less obvious changes to the article. I kind of caught on as to how a vandal will make some obvious ignorance and then some "hero" will change things back... but not to exactly what was in the article before...and we overlook our "hero's" changes because we assume he just did reverts from the vandal's obvious mess.... drowning out the subtle with the obvious. But it looks like we are playing fair in here.  Thank you Paul, TMS, and Frank, how can we ban blankey-blank-man? --208.254.174.148 04:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I figured out anonymous Arab person's whole problem with my position on here:
"I simply don't see the reason Arabs were singled out while other blatant racists were not." - the comments from the unknown...
My response is what the $#&@#^ do you think I have been doing in this page? Heck you don't even realize what you say. Why is one "racist" singled out, but the "other" racists are not? In essence you ADMIT there is a real issue with Arabization, but you just don't like that the focus is on Arabs. Well you know what? Take a number, just about everyone, Jews, Arabs, Asians, higher Caste East Indians have made the complaint you made... It goes something like this
#You see an article or comment I make. 
#You ignore the fact that there are mentions of other people because you focus on your own "group"
#You then accuse me of singling you out and pre-emptively accuse me of being racist against your group.
#We argue.
#You get offended
#You admit that yes we have a race problem with black people interacting with our ethnic identity, but...
Did you read the whole article? Arabization AND Latinoization AND European Colonialism, AND Eurocentric Jewish rejection of black Jews, AND... The point is, this is a global issue. People in China rioted (with national "moral" outrage no less!) when African students were dating Chinese women in the late 80s (they don't riot when white people do it, or arabs!). East Indian hindu fundamentalism oppresses Dalits to this day. The Papuans on the Java side of New Guinea are treated like crap by the Jakarta government.... I could go on and on. So you being Arab need to get a grip and, (pun intended) stop calling the tea kettle black. This conversation has ended. --208.254.174.148 07:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabs singled out? 

message: I think this part should go
"In short, hypodescent and the color line itself were designed to avert servile insurrection at a unique time and place. It was the only time and place with more forced laborers of European descent than of African descent. Virginia was the only New World colony where such a method of permanently splitting potential insurrectionist allies could have worked. No other colony would have benefited from splitting Europeans from Africans by an endogamous barrier. This is because no other colony, whether British, French, Dutch, Spanish, or Portuguese, had such a high fraction (more than half) of European forced laborers. None could benefit by preventing mixing between Europeans and Africans, and so none had to criminalize intermarriage. Consequently, none ever needed to invent or enforce an endogamous color line nor adopt hypodescent."
There awere many other places in the new world where there were more than half the population being African. Brazil, Mexico at some points, Puerto Rico before 1896, Cuba, British Honduras(Belize), Jamaica, Guadeloupe, Martinique, etc... Also, I think the section is more of a discussion on "the History (or the origin) of American bans on interracial marriages. Is there a way to shorten the section, and/or maybe link it to another page? --68.60.55.162 00:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making progress but 

message: You wrote: The next question is, ok were the children of these alienated Africans (whom were also of European descent) also alienated?
:On topic (finally!). There is no evidence of this. Judging by court-case wording, Chesapeake social customs of the time resembled those of the Spanish Empire. Recall that Jamestown was a benighted backwater surrounded by a vast commercial New World empire comprising millions of European colonists in huge cities that rivaled those of Europe, and with universities that had been in operation for over a century. As in the hegemonic Spanish Empire, Blacks were held as slaves and cruelly treated by Whites, even by those Whites who had visible African ancestry themselves. In short, you were White if you looked mostly White. This predated the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry.
::YOu missed your whole point. You said that hypodescent was designed to stop slave insurrections. Now you are flip flopping. We don't know what the overall experience was of Black people. And you trying to focus on Chesapeake bay for the next 100 years or so (at the exculsion of the many other colonies that sprang up with their own issues with blacks) is not an honest way to look at the matter. I apologize, but I am kind of fed up. It would seem at this point I am 
You wrote: I believe from what I read, and I did read it, that your saying that [hypodescent] comes from simply a need to maintain enough of a population to work the fields?
:I wrote no such a thing. I wrote that it was a consequence of the outlawing of intermarriage in 1691.
:: Let me quote you via cut and paste
::What made the 17th-century Chesapeake unique was that Africans were a small minority of the forced laborers. 7,000 out of the 9,000 Virginians held in bondage were of European descent...
and "In short, preventing servile insurrection-->criminalized intermarriage-->created a color line-->spawned the notion of hypodescent."  You had made a cause and effect link leading to "servile insurrection"as the ultimate first cause, or ultimate goal. Again you say "It seems to me that you want to read a different motivation into the 17th-century gentry who INVENTED hypodescent than the one that I and a half-dozen other historians have concluded. " (empathsis mine) 
You wrote: Why not just pay the workers regardless of their racial background?
:Off-topic. The social preference for wage labor over forced labor was still far in the future. Trust me, you do not want to know why.
:: MAN, what is up with you? Put the reason in here and discuss the matter. There was a reason that the WHITE settlers chose the relatively small number of AFRICANS to be the slaves, and why they decided to hypodescent their progeny as black. I didn't ask for the social preference for wage labor over forced labor. I said the social preference for exclusively using BLACK AFRICANS as forced labor.
I'm going to stop here, this has become a mess, of YOUR doing. I will restart the topic below. I am kind of pissed that you would go through all of this rigamorole, and even though you seem to keep an air of seriousness, you do not show CONSISTENCY in your position! SO I am starting it over. 
You wrote: During the middle of the 17th century, in Virginia, there were black plantation owners. However, there was an attitude that Africans were not worthy of the same respect as whites, in part because they did not have a Christian background in their original cultures (which is hypocritical, as Europeans were not the original christians, nor were their religious beliefs originally Christian).
:True, but off-topic (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry).
You wrote: Africans were not as numerous as the white indentured servants that were the more threatening competition (especially if Black slavery would be established, causing even more of an economic hardship on the poor white working class.).
:Not exactly, but off-topic. White forced laborers were not nearly as serious a threat as what actually happened in 1676, reflecting dozens of servile insurrections throughout the New World. What actually happened was a bloody uprising by ALL forced laborers, Africans, Europeans, biracials, and Hispanics (incidentally, Anthony and Mary Johnson were named Antonio and Maria when they stepped off the boat). As in every other New World servile insurrection, they correctly saw that their ethnic separation into groups was a divide-and-conquer strategy fomented by the planters to weaken them. Nevertheless, this is off-topic from the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry.
You wrote: What I believe you may overlook is the abundance of Native American land that was doled out (again by establishing another group of people as sub-human) to these poor whites, and they thus became landowners and had to have slaves as well.
:Wrong and off-topic. It was illegal for forced laborers (whether African, European, Hispanic or biracial) to even till any land to their own benefit, much less to own land. The class of poor White subsistence farmers (as opposed to the middle class of craftsmen and shopkeepers) did not become demographically significant until after the changes of the 1690s. It did not precede those changes. But this is off-topic from the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry.
You wrote: [Hypodescent] did not play a role in creating slavery or stopping slave rebellions…
:I never said it did. I said that the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry was a consequence of the 1691 outlawing of intermarriage. The outlawing of intermarriage was meant to split society into Black and White. The splitting of society was meant to prevent alliances among forced laborers.
You wrote: Whence sprang the criminalization of intermarriage? From … a racist perception of Black Africans as an alien person (no longer equitably human).
:Perhaps, but off-topic. It may be true in the sense that Gooch could not have pulled off the intermarriage ban otherwise. (Just imagine trying to outlaw intermarriage between tall people and short people.) But it is off-topic from the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry.
You wrote: This "alien'ness" becomes spread out as an inherent human or spiritual defect.  It came from an attitude that since Europeans were by and large Christianized at the time, and Africans were not, the individual Africans by this association had no moral rights to the same equal treatment even if they converted. Somehow there was an inferred biological or physical ineptitude that was associated with Black Africans, and this sub-humanness was "passed down" to the children, tainting their bloodline whether or not the child was of white parentage or not.
:Perhaps, but off-topic (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry). Worse yet, you are bizarrely equating the topic at hand with contempt for Blacks. The population of Puerto Rico is genetically 50-50 Euro-African in a normal (Gaussian) distribution and yet 90% of those living in the U.S. check of "White" on the census, and most of those on the island disdain Blacks. The average White Puerto Rican is proud of his fractional African ancestry, but this does not make him any less White nor any less contemptuous of Blacks. "Racism?" Perhaps so (although I prefer to call it colorism). But Hypodescent (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry)? Not a chance.
You wrote: you might want to review some of these laws at this period as they penalized white women and black men more harshly or singled them out for punishment more often than whitemen and black women.
:Please cite a specific source if you want me to examine evidence.
You quoted from the 1705 law that first made hypodescent statutory via a 1/8 rule.
:What was your point? This law came 14 years after intermarriage was outlawed. It was the first expression of hypodescent on record and it is clearly consequent to the 1691 law. I fail to grasp your point.
You cited: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/sthtml/
:Off-topic (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry). This account starts in 1740 and we are talking about the 17th century.
You cited: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1h314t.html  - Court document regarding Anthony Johnson, a Black land-OWNER.
:Was there a point to this citation? If so I fail to grasp it.
You cited: http://www.lovingday.org/map.htm - a link showing the history of interracial bans with a year by year comparison from state to state.
:This website claims that intermarriage was outlawed in Virginia in 1662. This is incorrect. The correct date is 1691.
You cited: http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/family/cruz-berson.html - Miscegenation Laws in the US by Barbara Cruz and Michael Berson
:This website claims that, "Laws prohibiting miscegenation in the United States date back as early as 1661." This is incorrect. The correct date is 1691.
You cited: http://academic.udayton.edu/race/
:I see nothing on this website pertinent to the topic (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry).
You wrote: In An American Dilemma (1975), Gunner Myrdal, a Swedish economoist states that miscegenation policy developed because intermarriage was a principal concern in the white man’s order of discrimination.
:Wrong and off-topic (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry). First, Myrdal was talking about the U.S. in 1944. This is three centuries after the topic at hand. Second, what he actually wrote was, "The ban on intermarriage has the highest place in the white man’s rank order of social segregation and discrimination." (p. 606) Finally, as it turns out he was wrong. For details, see http://backintyme.com/Essay050501.htm. Still, it us off-topic (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry).
You wrote: I am trying to establish that the anti Black motivations PRECEEDED ... the ideas of banning interracial marriage.
:Off-topic. No one disputes that. The issue at hand is not whether Blacks were seen as the "other" by 1691. They were. The issue is, "who was considered Black?" Specifically, the notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry.
You wrote: Hyperdescent was in addition a gender based, and social institution, not an economic one.
:No one disputes that. Indeed, I see no economic motivation for hypodescent (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry) at all. I believe that the framers of the 1705 law making hypodescent statutory were telling the truth when they said they were trying to resolve who would be considered Black in the light of the1691 law outlawing intermarriage. Recall the topic (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry).
You wrote: A white man marrying or cohabiting interracially would experience a different reaction from virginia courts than a white woman. Only five states had anti-miscegnation laws by the time of the civil war.
:Wrong on too many counts to be worth discussing (read Breen and Innes), and thoroughly off-topic (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry).
You wrote: I could not find any law in Virginia preceeding 1800 that says "a person of any percentage of negro ancestry is deemed to be black". And i still do not see the economic "logic" that allegedly was the root cause of the one drop rule going that far back in Virginia.
:You have reverted again to conflating hypodescent (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry) with the one-drop rule! Please stop doing this! It is very irritating! The topic is the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry. Recall Woods and Berry versus Sheen and Channing. Furthermore, I am truly astonished that you could find no hypodescent (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry) law preceding 1800. Virtually every state had a hypodescent (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry) law on the books by then. The first law in this regard was in 1705 Virginia, the first in history defining who was considered a member of the Black endogamous group. The law used a one-eighth blood-fraction rule (you belonged on the Black side of the color line if you had one or more great-grandparents who had belonged on the Black side of the color line). For a thorough analysis of the statute, see Paul Finkelman, “The Crime of Color,” Tulane Law Review, 67 (no. 6, 1992), 2063-112, 2085-86, 2106. The article also tells where you can find and examine the original document. The later Virginia law of 1785 dropping hypodescent (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry) down to a 1/4 rule (you were Black if one grandparent was Black) is even more famous. Jefferson's explanation of the 1785 hypodescent law has been scanned into the web and you can read it in his own handwriting. As Jefferson explained, the new law made his son Eston Hemmings legally White, a social status into which he was accepted by Charlottesville society after his father's death. Dozens of articles have analyzed the 1785 law, but Finkleman is as good a place to start as any.
You wrote: I think we also may be mixing two ideas.
:I disagree: I think that you find it impossible to stay on-topic.
You wrote: I'm saying the one-drop rule was established due to racist attitudes, those racist attitudes may or may not have been the result of greed.
:Off-topic. We are not talking about the one-drop rule. For a history of the one-drop rule, see African_American#Who_is_African_American.3F. We are talking about the notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry. We are not talking about labeling Sheen or Channing "Black." We are talking about labeling Berry or Woods "Black." Why is this so hard to understand?
You wrote: But they were at least concurrent (I believe the attitudes against Africans were before the first slave insurrections) with the first slavery laws in Virginia.
:Off-topic. The topic is the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry.
You wrote: I do not believe that a fear of (predominantly white) slave insurrections at this early time would be the inspiration for white Virginians and Virginian judges calling a child of various degrees of parentage "black".
:I never suggested that it was. I even diagrammed out the cause/effect chain.
You wrote: I believe the attitude that black people were tainted aliens of lesser humanness were the motivating factors.
:The motivating factors for what? For the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry? If so, then merely labeling "attitudes" with terms like racism, prejudice, ignorance, and so forth explains nothing. Historiographical narrative must explain why something happened there and not elsewhere and why then and not earlier or later. In this context, we must explain why the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry arose in the Chesapeake (rather than in Massachussets, Jamaica, Sainte Domingue, or Puerto Rico) and why it arose at the turn of the 18th century (first expressed in statute in 1705) and not before or after.
:Unless you can stick to the topic (the historical origins of the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry), this conversation is senseless.
:More importantly, I am increasingly convinced that the whole subject is misplaced in this section. The role of hypodescent (the specific notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry) is important both in racialist U.S. Black self-identity and in racialist U.S. White perceptions. It is important enough in U.S. history to deserve a section of its own under Black (people), the way that African_American#Who_is_African_American.3F has its own section under African_American. It must be made clear that, although "racism" and slavery are important, they are distinct phenomena from the unfolding of the unique ways that USAmericans have determined whether someone belongs in the Black endogamous group or the White one. It must be stressed that slavery and "racism" were ubiquitous both geographically and temporally, but hypodescent (the notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry) and one-drop (the notion that even if you look White, were raised as White, and consider yourself White, you are still Black—like it or not—if you acknowledge any African ancestry at all, no matter how slight or how distant) were unique to British North America. The first arose in the 1690s and was made statutory in 1710. The second arose in the 1830s was made statutory in 1910.
:It appears to me that you are more interested in the origins of "racism" than of either hypodescent (calling Woods or Berry Black) or one-drop (calling Sheen or Channing Black). I suggest that you pursue this interest. I am more than willing to help, if you would accept. You might start with the Rig-Veda of 3,750 years ago, where it tells that in the Indo-Aryan conquest of Dravidian India, the Hindu god Indra blew “away with supernatural might from earth and from the heavens the black skin which Indra hates.” Where it says that Indra “slew the flat-nosed barbarians” and decreed that the foe was to be “flayed of his black skin.”
:In the meantime, I shall make a separate section on the origins of hypodescent (the notion that you are Black even if you have less than half African ancestry) and try to connect it somehow to the account of the one-drop rule in African_American#Who_is_African_American.3F. -- FrankWSweet 19:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Frank, these quotations from the Rig-Veda are completely and utterly spurious. There are no references to 'flat nosed barbarians'. You are referring to the passage in which the Dasa are referred to as 'anasa', usually translated as 'faceless', but sometimes as 'noseless'. This is a generic insult-term (like the modern american term 'dickless'). Yes, some 19th century racialists adopted the - minority - interpretation of 'noseless' and further interpreted that interpretation to mean 'flat nosed'. But that's not what the passage says, and in any case, the dominant reading, from Panini, is 'faceless'. As for the other passage, there are no references to Indra hating 'black skin'. The Dasa are certainly abused with epithets associating them with darkness, but the most obvious interpretation of that is that they are being associated with the night in opposition to the light. As for the Gita, it would be odd to interpret racist content to Krishna's discourse to Arjuna, because Krishna himself is dark-skinned! He is always depicted that way in Indian art, and his name actually means "black" (the word "krisna" is Sanskrit for black) Paul B 12:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No kidding! I got the translations from Thomas F. Gossett, Race: The History of an Idea in America, New ed. (New York: Oxford University, 1997), pp. 3-4. He also gives several other examples. He was peer-reviewed by Oxford, but I do not know if he reads Sanskrit or was just quoting someone else. I shall look up his sources and get back you, if you do not mind. I appreciate your comments. There is a lot of strange stuff floating around about the period when the Indo-Aryan language replaced Dravidian in much of India (for example, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml ). You are far more knowledgable about India than I (my field is the US color line), and I would hate to unknowingly step into something unpleasant. -- FrankWSweet 12:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul, are you still there? According to Gossett, he got the translations from two sources. The first is The Hymns of the Rigveda, trans. Ralph T. H. Griffiths (Benares, 1896), v.I, pp.488-90. The second is Adolf Kaegi, The Rigveda: The Oldest Literature of the Indians (Boston, 1886), pp 43-45. Would it be safe to say that these two are no longer considered to be idealogically objective translations? -- FrankWSweet 16:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuation of Itemized Responses

message: (removed orginal comment but leaving zaph's self-self dialogue)
Awww that is so cheezy. I don't even get to see her comments in this discussion and now you all want to silence her. --Zaphnathpaaneah 18:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  deeceevoice rfc 

message: This is in response to: "I want to see how the article changes without any black person moderating it for a while. I am doing my own experiment. --Zaphnathpaaneah 21:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well - there is a picture of you here!  Paul B 12:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you tell from the picture that I am White, and not, say, a full-blooded Puerto Rican who merely happens to look White to you, but not to other Puerto Ricans? Just curious. -- FrankWSweet 16:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Puerto Rican is a national (or regional) identity, not a racial term. However we view Black or White, it does not mutually exclude one from being included into a national identity. There are Black and White puerto ricans, and Puerto Rico itself has it's own ghosts with antt-black prejudice. HOwever I am not going to get into this silliness with you. I can see part of the tact here is to degrade the quality of the discourse to eventually create a pettiness that warrants some kind of executive decision on the part of the Wiki-moderators. For the record I haven't seen your picture and I don't care to.--Zaphnathpaaneah 07:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Hey, dude, since you brought up race and you don't think anyone should be offended by the mention of it, may I ask a question? What exactly are your qualifications and credentials on the subject here other than being an "angry black man"? ThePedanticPrick 16:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not a problem. Look at the quality of the article before I contributed to it, and after. It's shameful that people who are considered more qualified do a less quality job on handling this article (and other articles). My qualifications are irrelevant and I would rather you look at me as nothing more than a man with no qualifications than a man with a large resume. I am not impressed with qualifications. I hear there are Ph.D. professors in UTAH who teach that there were Israelite migrations and civilizations in central america 1600 years ago. So let us not get into "qualifications". --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncalled for attribution of "race" 

message: Okay guys, I have finished studying this entire article, the comparable article White (people), and the non-archived discussions of this article. For what it is worth, here are my thoughts.
Let me first make clear that I have no stake or interest in this article per se. I was asked by A.D. Powell (an essayist and book author whose work my company has published) to correct a few factual errors in a few Wikipedia articles regarding the timing of certain historical events. Upon correcting an error in this article I was foolishly dragged into explaining the motives of long-dead legislators, a topic irrelevant to this article. I regret this involvement. I am perfectly happy to walk away and leave this article as it is. Since I am here, however, a sense of duty compels me of offer suggestions for trying to salvage it, So, here goes.
The article is presently a joke at best, and a disorganized collage of factual inaccuracies and logical inconsistencies at worst. Judging by the discussion record, this disaster seems to be due to at least one individual who apparently has an unshakeable POV agenda but dodges all efforts to find out what it is. I have concluded that the article cannot be fixed in situ because its organizational flaws are inherent, even to lacking a defined topic.
Its title implies that the article will inform about how, when, where, and why certain populations around the world have come to be called "Black," and by whom. I submit that an intellectually honest effort to do this would start with the last point, "by whom."
Consider three alternative answers to the "by whom" question: themselves, Americans, and Europeans. Most of the peoples mentioned in the article as it stands do not consider themselves "Black" nor are they considered so by their neighboring populations. And yet, Americans tend to see many of these same people as Black, either because (1) they descend partially from the Bantu-speaking populations who were caught up in the transatlantic slave trade (Brazilians, Puerto Ricans) or (2) because they "look Black" to American eyes (Dalits, Melanesians, Australian Aborigines). Finally, the descendants of Europeans who colonized the globe starting in the 15th century, especially of the 19th-century British Empire, lumped many non-European populations under the term "coloured," a concept that overlaps with the American definition but includes some (Turks. Irish) who most Americans consider White, and excludes others (European-looking biracials) who most Americans see as Black.
Rather than dealing with this definitional problem (just who is it that labels any specific population "Black" and why), the article adopts an intellectually indefensible grossly Eurocentric viewpoint. It is Eurocentric because its foundation assumption is that Europeans are White and everyone else is Black. In other words, it purports to explain why all non-Europeans are deep down the same sort of thing. It is grossly so because it includes every conceivable non-European population under its Eurocentric umbrella by using the most puerile rationalizations. Melanesians and Dalits with no shred of recent African ancestry are Black, despite their denial, because they "look Black" to an unspecified someone. Those Puerto Ricans and Brazilians who do not "look Black" to anyone are also Black, despite their denial, because they acknowledge partial African ancestry. And millions of White-looking African Americans with no detectable African genetic admixture are also Black because they self-identify thus. Only Eurocentric racialist Americans would even understand these arguments. Only singularly uninformed Eurocentric racialist Americans could advocate them.
::I'm going to address this one point. First of all, the position does not take a Eurocentric position. Eurocentricity defines everyone outside of Europe as colored, and even though colored may be interchangeable to YOU in some way or another as "black". It is not currently a sensible form to use. "Colored" INCLUDED black people as one of many "COLORED" people in british colonialism, but that is not important. Why? Because there already is a "colored" article. This is the "black people" article and this is to discuss various people "bantu" and non "bantu" who share uniquely similar characteristics. There is no purile rationalization because the concept of blackness does not require that. This is not about finding a "DNA" link between "bantu" and the subjects in question, because that is not what makes one black. Why are "bantus" the core constituency of blackness? Why not veddoid or australoid ancestry instead? If dalits or the "undercaste" have been described in the hindu religion for 4000 years as black and if they are themselves relating to that religion in that context then what on earth is the relevance of saying that "they are not black because they are not bantu"?  The point is, the experiences of the people trump and outweigh the EUROCENTRIC philosophy that "the only truely black person on Earth is a bantu type". The groups I described in the article are people whose current populations have some significant relationship as black people. I didn't include Puerto Ricans, (although I do feel they are out of touch with their black heritage), I did not include Iranians, I did not include Central Asians, or Japanese, or Chinese. I did not include Arabs, and I did not include berbers. As far as brazil goes, i do not know what you mean by "look black" other than if you have a purist view of what a black person looks like or not. Brazilians exhibit a strong African phenotype in some areas and less prevalent in others, however on average they exhibit enough of it to show a considerable African "bantu" heritage. The majority don't look like portuguese whites or Yanomamo natives. Finally, if African Americans who look "white" are themselves identifying as black, it would be a contradiction to say that only Eurocentric Americans would understand that. It sounds like you are trying to redefine "afrocentrism" as a sub-set of Eurocentrism, then debunking it from that viewpoint. However, you still are missing the point. Blackness is not a "bantu only" phenomonon. And blackness is not about just Africa. If you talk to people in Asia who view themselves as black you would understand. In this world, especially outside the states, people are still taught that "black" is "bad", and "coiencidentally" (sarcasm intended) those same people are taught that their curly hair, dark skin, and features are "not as good as" the lighter skinned Japanese, or Chinese or Portuguese, or Spaniard. So you are going to get nowhere trying to seperate the "word" blackness from the "experience" of black people. Still the problem is defining blackness which is not easy to do. But trying to relate it to "colored" is a mistake. And again, next week, I will be vigorously refuting the notion (in the discussion, and in edits of the article) that we should be using the "colored" designation as some kind of reference point. --208.254.174.148 11:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  See now you are being silly or underhanded. Who made you the law in deciding that only dark skinned bantus can be called or can consider themselves black? You fail to comprehend the scope of what it means to be black in the U.S., and instead look at some british or nationalistic mode. Blackness is more of a cultural/ethnicity than a race. Like being Jewish, or maybe Latino. There  still is a strong "physical component" however it would be purist to strictly accept the phyiscal component. It would be like saying that only Latinos live south of Texas, and once they move north of the Rio Grande, they (or their children) are no longer latino. Or it would be like saying that once a Jewish person converts to Christianity they are no longer "culturally" Jewish. Unlike these things though, blackness does not easily fit into a criterion (dark skin, knappy hair) --208.254.174.148 11:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please do not act unilaterally. This statement of yours is a unilateral approach to handling the article. We, ALL of us, (not just you and Pedantic) will decide how much of the text will remain. We, ALL of us, will also clarify, and you will need to accept that some of your understandings of black people are based on your own experiences. You are not aware for example that there is a strong black native intellectual movement in India, or that I have East Indian friends who view themselves as Black (and are not descendants of recent African migrations). It looks like basically you see " global blackness" as a strictly African-American phenomonon. That is unfortunate, and even more unfortunate because this article is not going to go in that direction. --208.254.174.148 11:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Outline 

message: One, it is way to one sided.  The Afrocentric perception has a right o be presented, but it has to be defined as an opinion, and Afroocentric.  The other sides have to be given as well  I will add links to other perceptions out of Africana as well.  Finally, i took out a bunch of subtopics that deserve their own page.  They should not be in a main page that generally defines a people. I tried to keep the Eurocentric beleifs in and contreast them to Mainstream history and science perceptions.  But I had to edirt some claims that were given as fact instead of opinion.  And no, the Aeta of the Philippines did not Embrace blackness, the Spanish imposed the term on them.  They do not usually call themselves Negrito either.  other Philipinos do.
: Are you aware of the history of the Aeta? The word "Aeta" means "black" in tagalog. The chinese called them black dwarfs.  But that is not the issue. However the Aeta DID and still DO embrace their blackness, because they were very much proud of their kinky hair, dark skin, and equatorial features (the physical essence of what makes them black), which was distinct from the other Filipinos . They also faced persecution and prejudice because of these distinctive features. Before Europe came along, most Africans didn't view themselves as black. Everyone in the world had "blackness" imposed on them one way or another. The whole issue of blackness does not revolve around 'west african negroids'.  I will be putting the Aeta back into this article, and I will be putting them in as a group of black people, again into this article next week. By the way, they do not "usually" call themselves Negrito? So what, "occassionally"? I'm sure they are aware of the distinctive difference between themselves and the sinoid and spaniard mestizos who (i) do not share their language (ii) do not share their history (iii) who do not share their culture and customs (iv) who do not look like them (v) who gradually took their land (vi) who try to claim their legitimacy (vii) who categorically look down on them ... hmmm sounds like the run of the mill garden variety black experience. This article is not about arguing whether or not blackness should be confined to those of West African descent or not. --208.254.174.148 11:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page need major editing 

message: The comment "Archeology has shown that indigenous populations with Aborigine like features were the first to migrate to the Americas and their features are still seen in certain populations of Native Americans like the Fuegueans of Chile, and the indigenous groups around Veracruz" needs clarification.  For one, how has archeology shown this?  Where are the sources?  What are these features?  Finally, Veracruz (in Mexico) was once the major port that received African slaves in New Spain (present-day Mexico and Central America), and their descendants are still around, which could partially explain the supposed "Aboriginal" features---I must admit though that this term needs to be clarified by the author.  I assume that the author refers to medium and dark brown skin tones, among other traits.  Kemet 10 December 2005.
:The author is referring to Australian aborigines, i.e. Australoid peoples - the argument being that an early migrant group was of this race, which was once more widely distributed, but which now only survives in Australia. As usual, there is debate about the usefulness of Australoid as a racial category. Paul B 01:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Aboriginal" features in the Westerm Hemisphere

message: "A brief history of the concept of Blackness" is not going to work. I do not know what the agenda is here, but it seems evident that someone is more interested in making "blackness" as foriegn to the human experience as possible.  Either that or the title of that section should be changed to "how Europeans came to describe darker skinned people". It's obvious that's what the section is describing.--Zaphnathpaaneah 12:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Im not editing yet but... 

message: "A brief history of the concept of Blackness" is not going to work. I do not know what the agenda is here, but it seems evident that someone is more interested in making "blackness" as foreign to the human experience as possible. 
Blackness along with Whiteness are historically modern concepts.  Considering the span of human history, they are pretty foreign. Similar concepts of labeling have occured before, aethiops, melano-gaetulians, etc.  But these were more descriptive terms than a belief that all dark skinned people were a race and all light skinned Europeans were another.  It was a Eurocentric concept. 
First of all, I am not going to respond to every itemized response. i already indicated that to a previous poster. If you want to refute everything I say as a matter of procedure, do it as one response and then I can address them. Also, it's very unwieldly to respond in this manner, especially since a sizeable portion of the items are incorrectly formatted (spaces in the front i believe)... and yet again, everytime I post, Wikipedia has server problems, so I will pick and choose with the itemizations, because it becomes apparent at that point that the goal is not for you to learn or to understand, but to merely argue and attempt to bog the whole process down in endless debate. So that being said, first of all, every "race" in the world, and Latinos, Asians, Africans, and Pacific Islanders and probably a host of other terms and concepts are also historically modern. That is irrelevant. That does not minimize the significance to THOSE people. This article is not about trying to prove how useless or irrelevant the concept of blackness is in the opinions of non-black individuals. That is not our job here. You seem preoccupied with that. And I will venture an opinion. What is your goal? To have the readers walk away with the notion that blackness is not really about anything, because of "reasons" you feel trump the experiences the people feel? I have told you that this article is not about attributing a "racial" (whether genetic or what) label to blackness. From my perspective it seems you are hell bent on creating an impression that the experiences of darker skinned people (who at various times have been called or call themselves as Black) are irrelevant. It also seems to me that you want to navigate the definition of blackness as far as possible away from humanity. It's not going to work. In history there have been black people, currently there are black people, and as much as it may annoy you, there is a worldwide black consciousness that has been gaining momentum since at least the early 1960s. So I will go ahead and be picky and answer what i feel is convenient for me to answer among the long list of items below, because I am really tired of repeating myself and getting responses that try to bypass the obvious. The name of the article is "BLACK PEOPLE" not "I don't like the concept of black people. let me explain why it shouldn't be used anymore" 
 Either that or the title of that section should be changed to "how Europeans came to describe darker skinned people". It's obvious that's what the section is describing.—
That would work as well.
: No it wouldn't. If you want to make a seperate article on your opinions on how relevant the European perspective is on black people and the term go ahead. This article is called "black people" and I will endlessly edit the article as to incorporate every instance in history where I have seen or read groups of people characterized as black (either by themselves or by others). 
The statement in the following section: "As Eurocentrism has weakened, many populations have sought to overcome the stigmas imposed by centuries of colonialism. One approach, Afrocentrism has sought to take the stigmas and spin them into a positive light."... this implies that there is an inherent natural stigma to being looked at as black. 
Incorrect.  There is no inherent stigma to being dark-skinned, but historically the concept of black did carry a negative stigma.  It is only with time that ethnicities that adopted this name have been changing that imposed stigma.  
:No my friend. YOu have it backwards. There was an inherent stigma forced upon certain people. The concept of black carried a negative stigma, because people who were considered white pushed an ideology that they were inherently "better" than those who were not. That concept of worthiness is where the "stigma" comes from, not from the "word" black or some other "unknown" concept of blackness that you still cannot seem to understand. The "concept" of blackness is very clear: "dark skin, kinky hair, flat nose, and southernly-equatorial and/or aboriginal origins"... or something ALONG those lines. You know it, I know it, there is no need to try to play "political correct" and pretend that the concept of blackness and the "stigma" came from any other direction. Let me say it again so there is no explanation.. People in power who came from Europe imposed a very inhumane philosophy on those they conquered. Because the majority of the people conquered were of darker complexion, the Europeans pushed an idea that the lighter you are (closer to them in appearance) the better or more human you are... and consequently the further from them (in appearance) the less human you are. That's where the "stigma" came from. Those who were closer got treated better, and those who were further away were treated worse. The TREATMENT reinforced the stigma.
Look at the white people article, notice how parts of the article describe who gets the privilege of being included as white as if it's an inherent good quality to appropriate. 
I haven’t looked at the White people article yet.  But it is true that Colonialism imposed the White and Black paradigms, so they would make themselves look better.
: Well go read it, then come back, and stop wasting time trying to itemize your responses with these comments. Obviously you are just here to argue, so I'm gonna stop here and not deal with whatever else you have to say at the bottom. Have fun for the rest of the week. I WILL be baack in here editing. I'm letting you guys have free reign so I and others can see what the goal is and ultimately refute these false philosophies. 
Being black is being portrayed as a liability (stigma) and white is being portrayed as a virtue. 
Incorrect.  We are just pointing out how these terms were used historically. Blackness as an identity per se has no negative or positive connotations different than any other ethnicity.
We don't know how foreign the concept is throughout history. The writer assumes that no one on earth looked at themselves as "black". Amazing. 
No historical records indicate such thing.  Dark skinned yes.  Members of a Black race, not in any written historical records.
I gave examples and you refute them... lol "Aethoipid, Kushite..."? This is the classical Eurocentric debate. You say one thing, i refute it with examples. You try to qualify the examples, then later on rely on short term memory loss... This discussion is absurd now. 
The issue of a global black sense of identity is moot because most people throughout the world did not have a global concept. Mostly regional.
And with the advent of modern technology, these people are aware of other black communities, but that does not mean they identify with them as a global group.
 Jewish people for example, after being separated in antiquity became unaware of the existence of other Jewish people throughout the world. That statement that "just call themselves black in a local ethnic sense." does little more than try to "reassure" the unfamiliar reader that "don't worry, those groups in Asia didn't really think they were black." Let's stop that kind of attitude. –
Jewish people never questioned others that showed different features but similar practices.  That is obvious in their embrace of the Beta Israel among others.  That is because their claim is ethno-cultural, not just a phenotype/race concept
:That is not even a response to my comment. I am not talking about features. I am talking about experiences. Jewish people share experiences. Black people share experiences. Like it or not. This article is called "black people" not "only those black people I feel SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED black because they have specific characteristics that I feel merit it". Dude, yall go ahead, have fun, I'll be back Monday and I will just do what I do. We can debate and all that jazz. You all took the strength of the article out and replaced it with all of this nonsense which is nothing more than an attempt to keep black people seperated based on some idiot philosophy... oh and it's really "clever" how you try to flip the terminology as to make your efforts more effective. Call me and the whole concept of blackness a Eurocentric phenomonon and surely no good natured reader will walk away wanting to call ANYONE black! LOL. --208.254.174.148 05:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re:  I'm not editing yet but... 

message: We want to be consistent. --208.254.174.148 04:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post The Epistemological Challenge in the white people article 

message: Added paragraph to clarify that in order to be accepted as White in the Eurocentric/Afrocentric view, one must be of mostly European ancestry AND "look White" AND self-identify as White. But to be accepted as Black in the Eurocentric/Afrocentric view, one must be of some African ancestry OR "look Black" OR self-identify as Black. A Venn diagram might help to get the point across. -- FrankWSweet 15:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Epistemological Challenge 

message: This is Zaph. I am making sure to begin my editing (as promised) in a way that will minimize much POV response. I must admit the article is better than I expected, although there is certainly too much effort to disclaim blackness in Asia. This seems to require a great amount of discussion to refute. 
I will deal with the easiest issues first and we will work our way up.
DNA - I do not agree with the people who classify who is or who is not black, based on DNA. Why? because the DNA markers that are used are not the markers that determine phenotype. If it cannot be concluded that the chosen DNA markers are concurrent with phenotype, then its impossible to determine if the progenators were originally "black" or not. They may be good INDICATORS, but it seems that we assume that the "region" of origin of these progenators must be the indicator of their original race. For example, one could assume that the DNA indicator of a particular blood type, came from a mutation or progenator who originally looked like a "black" person, or a "white" person.
Out of Africa vs lightskinned KhoiSan - Apparently someone is presenting the notion that the original inhabitents of Africa are middle complexioned Khoisan. Khoi people of South Africa are also dark skinned wooly haired people, and despite being different in appearance from other Africans. I do not understand why as a habit, people see a group of people who range in complexion or phenotype, and they only recognize those who most closely resemble Europeans as "the legitimate" variety. This once again, reinforces a very narrow stereotype of what is considered "black". 
This is one of the root cause of the distortion of blackness in this article, and needs to be addressed. I do not believe that Khoi are "not Black". And again, the concept of excluding the more "African" Khoi as admixture, while keeping the furthermost lightskinned khoi as "legitimate" is not an objective way to discuss this issue. --208.254.174.148 06:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before I edit, I am going to pose some questions.  

message: I believe a big problem with this is that we may have overlooked something. Earlier in the year, we discussed the problem of capitalizing "black" when referring to the group. IT seems that many people (non black especially) do not see blackness as anything more than a literal skin color. While many Black people see blackness as a cultural identity similar to being "arab" or "kurdish" or "Jewish". I hear a lot of disclaimer regarding black Asians which I think is not accurate. There are black asians, thats just how it is. Their skin is dark and this isn't about them being "jet black" or not. If a medium toned Italian is seriously considered to be white, then it's absurd to exclude medium toned asians from being black. In fact, the question arises, why would or should medium-toned people outside of Equatorial Africa be viewed as white anyway? --208.254.174.148 08:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's one thing I don't understand: when white people exclude everyone who's not white, you complain, and then when we allegedly start expanding the definition of white to include everyone, you complain too. There's just no pleasing you, is there? ThePedanticPrick 12:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: A friendly suggestion to Zaph, assuming that you want to contribute to making this an informative article. You would be more persuasive if you initially focused on a specific case. Instead of simply repeating your belief that non-Africans are "black" in some way, pick just one population for now (Melanesians, say, since they "look black" to most Americans), and pick just one criterion of Blackness (socio-political self-identity, say, since you assert this). Write a few paragraphs to inform the reader on how, when, where, and why some Melanesians consider themselves to be "Black." Newspaper articles or political tracts might be good sources. This is just a suggestion. But if the consensus accepts those paragraphs as informative, you could then expand to other populations (Australian Aborigines, New Guineans) or to other criteria (appearance, say). -- Frank W Sweet 14:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black vs black 

message: I believe a big problem with this is that we may have overlooked something. Earlier in the year, we discussed the problem of capitalizing "black" when referring to the group. IT seems that many people (non black especially) do not see blackness as anything more than a literal skin color. While many Black people see blackness as a cultural identity similar to being "arab" or "kurdish" or "Jewish". I hear a lot of disclaimer regarding black Asians which I think is not accurate. There are black asians, thats just how it is. 
Sources of Asians by those same Asians claiming they identify as Black please.
http://www.dalitstan.org/store/bkrev/dal_tbu.html  (notice the original name of the book!)
http://www.andaman.org/book/chapter8/text8.htm - Andamanese people (the island people just EAST of India.)
http://www.pacificaids.org/grafix/vanuatu-gang_big.gif - People in Vanatu
http://community-2.webtv.net/BARNUBIANEMPIRE/BLACKPEOPLEBLACK/page5.html
I am giving a physical description, not a quote from some group leader claiming to be black. You won't find that anywhere, not in Africa, nor Asia predating the colonization period. So that's a moot point. And I will not reply to nested itemized replies after this. 
Their skin is dark and this isn't about them being "jet black" or not. If a medium toned Italian is seriously considered to be white, then it's absurd to exclude medium toned asians from being black. In fact, the question arises, why would or should medium-toned people outside of Equatorial Africa be viewed as white anyway? --208.254.174.148 08:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Black vs black 

message: 71.29.143.224 removed the following sentence: "In other cases, as in Brazil, the name is synonymous with low social status." I wish he/she had posted here the reason for this removal. On the off-chance that the contributor felt that the sentence was not detailed enoigh, I have expanded it a bit and added a source. -- Frank W Sweet 18:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Varying definitions of the term "black" 

message: We are talking about the idea that someone who is utterly White-looking (like Carol Channing, Peter Ustinov, John James Audubon, and the present Queen of England Elizabeth II) is considered Black in some intangible undetectable way due to a known trace of distant African ancestry.
Scholars who have tried and failed to find a similar belief outside the United States include: Gary B. Mills, The Forgotten People: Cane River’s Creoles of Color (Baton Rouge, 1977), 193; Carl N. Degler, Neither Black nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States (New York, 1971), 101; Joel Williamson, New People: Miscegenation and Mulattoes in the United States (New York, 1980), 2; James Baldwin, Nobody Knows My Name (New York, 1962), 19; F. James Davis, Who is Black?: One Nation's Definition (University Park PA: State University of Pennsylvania, 1991); Magnus Morner, Race Mixture in the History of Latin America (Boston: Little Brown, 1967); and Marvin Harris, Patterns of Race in the Americas (Westport CT: Greenwood, 1964). 
I have put the phrase back as it was, to match one drop theory, African American and Passing. If Jmac800 can cite a source for his claim that such a notion is found elsewhere, especially in Mexico or the Caribbean, I shall be happy to remove the phrase. -- Frank W Sweet 04:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the one-drop rule unique to the U.S.? 

message: Excuse me, but isn't this rather strange:
 Australian Aborigines — Australians consider Aborigines to be Black, despite their lack of connection to the African slave trade.
By this logic, I suppose those dark-skinned Africans who were taken as slaves were black, while their dark-skinned cousins who weren't are not black? Camillustalk 18:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. The above taken-out-of-context sentence appears under the heading, "Who self-identifies as Black in an ethno-political sense?" It followed the heading "Who is a descendant of the African Diaspora?" in order to compare and contrast the only two replicable criteria of Blackness: African descent and self-identity. Australian Aborigines have no connection to the African Diaspora. The are no more closely related genetically to Africans than are Frenchmen or Englishmen--less so, in fact. But, as the article shows, they consider themselves Black nonetheless. Regarding Africans in Africa, whether they are part of the African Diaspora is arguable. Millions of Africans were enslaved and forcibly taken to other countries within Africa but never left the continent. Some argue that their forcible capture and transport make them part of the Disapora, even though they stayed within the continent. Others argue that "African Diaspora" means dispersal out of Africa, so intra-continent slaves do not qualify. But this is a semantic argument that leads nowhere. The basic point is that some Australian Aborigines consider themselves "Black" (as do some Dalits and perhaps some Papua-New Guineans, Melanesians and Philippine Aeta) despite not being part of the African Diaspora in any way. -- Frank W Sweet 15:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have the figures, perhaps you do, but I'd imagine that many millions of Africans were not taken as slaves, either intercontinentally, or overseas, and also have no "connection to the African slave trade"? Camillus (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps this is "a semantic argument", but I still have problems with the sentence above, maybe I am taking it out of context, but I feel it should stand on its own merits. First, I have the problem I mentioned before, also I have a problem with the bit about "Australians consider ..."; it seems to me that many Aus Aborigines see themselves as Black too. I agree with the comment below under "OK this kind of went overboard" - there is too much here about how non-blacks (and particularly Europeans) see blacks, and not enough about how they see themselves. My point about the "connection to the African slave trade", is that this seems to be being used as some criteria as to whether someone is black, when as you say, many Africans had nothing to do with this trade, and they certainly see themselves as black, and many of them are actually quite proud of being black. Camillus (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange?

message: I'd like to be able to copyedit this phrase, but I'm afraid I don't know what it means: "...four million African slaves were transported to plantations in the Indian Ocean" Now, I realize that, despite the comedy that a literal reading of this phrase inspires, these Africans were not actually sent to kelp or krill plantations at the bottom of the sea. But, I still don't know if I believe what the sentence is trying to say. Where are all the Africans in the countries that border the Indian Ocean? The rest of the sentence is just as bad from a literal perspective: "about eight million were shipped to the Mediterranean basin" Are we talking about Spain, Italy, or North Africa? And once again, where are all these africans today? "and about eleven million were carried to the New World" This one I actually believe, but "carried"? Who wrote this? Could he/she please clarify their intended meaning? Thank you. ThePedanticPrick 19:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote it. I gather that you have two problems with it: accuracy and clarity. Regarding accuracy, I have added a footnote with a link to a source. The link will take you to a peer-reviewed article by one the foremost historians of the slave-worked plantations that were situated in the island archipelagos of the Indian Ocean. Please read the article. Let me know if you would like more sources. Currently, the most up-to-date estimate of the slave trade overall is Appendix 3 of Hugh Thomas, The Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade: 1440-1870 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997). This work demostrates and discusses the various approaches to computing this number. Regarding clarity, I would be grateful for your editing, once you have read the sources and understand what I was trying to say. -- Frank W Sweet 00:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding your repeated query "Where are all these Africans today?" I offer three increasingly deep answers. The short answer is that they all died long ago. But assuming that what you meant was, "where are all the descendants of these Africans today?" the second answer is that they are still there. Their ancestry-informative DNA markers are found in various densities around the globe. As the article explains, the descendants of the African slaves genetically assimilated into the general population in every African-slave-importing nation on the planet save one. In places where they were a large fraction of the population (Puerto Rico, Madagascar, Brazil, Egypt, the Comoros), the alleles are frequent enough that many residents former African-slave-importing nations today "look Black" to the typical USAmerican. Where they were a small fraction of the population (Spain, Portugal, Reunion, Mauritius, Argentina, Chile), the alleles are so scattered that they seldom align and few if any residents today "look Black" to the typical USAmerican. Third, your question could be interpreted as asking why Americans cannot grasp that Africans genetically assimilated into the general population in every African-slave-importing nation but one. The one African-slave-importing nation on the planet that managed to preserve an endogamous enclave of strongly African appearance is the United States. USAmericans have a uniquely hard time accepting that the United States is the odd-ball exception. And so, USAmericans expect descendants of Africans everywhere to "look Black" in their eyes because they erroneously expect endogamous enclaves to have been preserved everywhere. -- Frank W Sweet 16:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, Frank, your knowledge and courtesy astound me. Your contributions here have probably been the most informative things I have read on wikipedia in months. I only hope that my ignorant comments at least provided some amusement for readers of this discussion page. I will make some minor semantic edits to the phrases in question, lest they confuse and/or annoy the two other obsessively literally-minded people on the globe. Happy to help out in whatever middling way I can. Here's to a happy new year of continuing enlightment and education! ThePedanticPrick 16:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am grateful for any editing that you undertake. I am dead serious on my WP user page, where I say that [talk page discussion] is a strength because it brings out nuances and angles that the author might not have considered, thus improving the final product. The most intractable flaw in my writing (and that of anyone who has studied the beejeezus out of something) is that it inadvertently assumes that the readers already have background information. Bad assumption. Please, once you make the bit about underwater plantations intelligible, you might want to take a look at the part about indigenous Australians to see if you can figure out what Camillus's complaint is and correct the text accordingly. Thanks again. -- Frank W Sweet 17:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please excuse me, Frank, as you've obviously studied this issue greatly, but I do feel that your approach is a little too US-centric. You use the criteria of "looking Black to the typical USAmerican" - WP is trying to get away from this kind of thing (systematic bias?). Also, what exactly is the "typical" USAmerican? As regards the US being the only place to "preserve an endogamous enclave of strongly African appearance", this doesn't quite fit with my experience, living for two years in Guyana, and travelling around the Caribbean. Although there is much intermixing there (Guyanese call mixed-race people "cook-up"), I saw many many people who had a "strongly African appearance" (so-called "blue-black"), and some who told me they had no knowledge of any intermixing. Please don't take this as a personal attack, as it appears to me that you have a lot to offer WP, but as you are a major contributor to this and other articles, I would hope you would be a little less US-centric. Camillus (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding my phrase "looking Black to the typical USAmerican," this phrase is not in the body of the article, but in a discussion exchange with someone who essentially asked why there were no people of African slave ancestry in and around the Indian Ocean, when the fact is that there are millions of them. Regarding your suggestion that Guyana is a counter-example to my claim the the United States is the only place to "preserve an endogamous enclave of strongly African appearance," please look up the meaning of endogamous. There are many people of "strongly African appearance" throughout the New World. But only in the United States are they an endogamous enclave. Specifically, all nations (but one) that once imported African slaves now have unimodal continent-of-origin DNA admixture scatter diagrams. Where each histogram's mode (peak) is located depends on the overall population admixture. The United States is the only such nation with a bimodal scatter diagram. Please see Afron-European Genetic Admixture in the United States for details and sources. I am sorry if I come across as US-centric. I am not from the U.S. and English is not my first language. But the falsifiable, objective, measurable fact is that the U.S. endogamous color line is truly world-unique, and USAmericans have a hard time seeing this. -- Frank W Sweet 18:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Frank, I do know what endogamous means, and I reiterate that my experience in Guyana was that I met many people who say they have no knowledge of exogamous marriage, and had no appearance of any mixing, looking completely African. I'm afraid that I don't understand your description of statistical scatter diagrams, but I will have a (closer) look at your page at backintyme.com (I admit I got the impression you were American from the pages cited on your user page). Camillus (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stop drowning the Africans!! 

message: While I agree with a lot of the article and helped edit prior versions of it, I will give it a week before I do some editing, because comments like 'semi-voluntary' to describe the Black ethnicity in the USA, do not just describe the struggle between concepts of racialism vs ethnicity and one droppism in this country, but seem somehow to convey that most people are being held hostage in this ethnicity. At the present time this article acts like Blacks are only such because they have been imposed raciality and they have been brainwashed into accepting this moniquer.  It totally obviates the fact that Ethnicities form from common experience and struggle and formation of new cultural identities within that struggle. There is a valid Black ethnicity, and that ethnicity which has many beautiful aspects to it is completely misrepresented here in this article. 
I get no sense of the Afro-American rich experience here or that of Australian Aborigines or other Afro-Diasporic and Proto-Afro-Diasporic people who do refer to themselves proudly as Black, and more a huge pontification on why they really shouldn't identify as Black. 
There are plenty of ethnic groups that developed their titles from derogatory terms imposed on them.  You still have to validate their ethnic experience from that point on.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.145.161.179 (talk • contribs) .
:I agree with a lot of these comments. Camillus (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be great and would make for interesting reading. However, I think it would take volumes to describe in detail (is this what you mean by "validate") the experiences of all the ethnic groups that have turned derogatory labels into a thing of beauty and pride. By all means, we can mention who has historically been called black or called themselves black in this article, but to do each ethnicity justice would require many separate articles. In software engineering, there is a concept of "scope creep", which is when a project gradually goes beyond the bounds (scope) of what it was originally designed or intended to do. We need to keep this in mind to avoid turning this page into the Guinness world record for longest Web page. I do agree, though, that the article should mention that blackness is embraced with pride by many, whether or not it was initially imposed from above. I haven't kept up with many of the recent edits (too much holiday "cheer"), but hope to do so in the future. Happy New Year! ThePedanticPrick 16:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to add a few more such groups, perhaps a paragraph or two for each, following the Dalits, Aetas, and indigenous Australians. The problem is that finding credible sources (preferably peer-reviewed) for such groups is like pulling teeth. Also, Salsassin added another paragraph and a table from African American for the U.S. Black ethnicity. The problem here is that we can expand the A-A section only so far before duplicating what is already explained on the African American main page. -- Frank W Sweet 17:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK this kind of went overboard 

message: I know the word "preto" is an offensive term for black in brazil, and I just read a few weeks ago about the intermediate color terms such as mulato, moreno, and I forget the rest. Can someone help? ThePedanticPrick 22:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brazilian portuguese has no such terms?

message: These "African by Nature" links  are biased and inflammatory and don't belong in the black people article.  Namely, the site promotes the controversial school of Afrocentrism.  This is enough to disqualify them from inclusion, but aside from this, the site also contains inaccuracies such as references to "African Madonnas" (rather than Black Madonnas) and to a negroid Egyptian civilization, which is anything but universally accepted as historical fact.  The site also features an essay by Jacob H. Carruthers that uses a quote by David Walker that includes the phrase "..the white slave holders, our enemies by nature" .  What is alarming about this quote is its designation "enemies by nature".  Even if the "enemies" are slave holders, it doesn't sound good and clearly expresses more than just antipathy toward slavery.  Another quote, of Carruthers, declares that "the present campaign by the defenders of Western Civilization is designed to murder the voice of African Centeredness," thus concluding that those who seek to preserve Western culture and heritage are fundamentally oppositional to the interests of black people, engendering racial dissent and misunderstanding.  In another article that rips the Santa Claus tradition of Christmas (on a puerile, racist theme, of course), the author claims that the "...Middle East...[is] basically a part of Africa," and therefore that Jesus was black .  These are just from the first link in their "Open Our Eyes" section of essays, but I think it's enough to give the reader an idea of the tone of the site.  The glossary, under "White", claims that "Europeans and European-Americans have been taught to believe that the word 'white' gives them a divine right over brown skinned people" . Such generalizations and assumptions are racist and naive and should not be linked to by an encyclopedia.  This is Wikipedia, not Propagandapedia or Afrocentripedia, and links to this site aren't worth including.  The external links section is fine without them. --Jugbo 03:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "African by Nature" links 

message: I think it is true that this is clearly a biased source, and should not be included as evidence or citation. However, I think it should be cited as examples of Afrocentrist philosophy. For example, say somewhere that despite the fact that Dravidians may resemble sub-Saharan Africans more than, say, Swiss do, they are no more African than them because both Swiss and Dravidian people decend from a migration out of Africa that went two different directions. Then state that Afrocentrists who consider Dravidians to be Black people cite that because physical appearance, or phenotype (as opposed to genotype, genetic characteristics) are what people USUALLY distinguish race by, the combination of a similar Dravidian phenotype with their experience of persecution and racial discrimination at the hands of other Indians establishes them as Black people. Obviously this is an unscientific and biased perspective, but I think including it as an example of Afrocentrist philosophy would contribute to the article. 69.254.201.64 18:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: == Re:"African by Nature" links 

message: Precolonial concepts of Blackness exist. let us not try to give so much credit to Europeans for "inventing" blackness. In fact, the modern concept linked to the word predates the European idea. I will clarify this in the article.  Oh yeah, one more thing.  I'm back.--Zaphnathpaaneah 03:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precolonial concepts of Blackness exist 

message: We need some citations, some clear citations, (not some uncited "citations") regarding the Romans naming the river after Berber tribal names. I have yet to find a map, or a testimony from a Roman general or traveler that shows any "Niger" naming from the Berber. In fact, the Niger river was not fully explored from it's southern Nigerian source to it's Senegalese outlet in the 19th century (long after the southern portion was named "Niger". In addition, the "river bend" Timbucktu portion where the Berbers would be most present and in contact with Romans, that portion was also not associated to the Nigerian Delta outlet until the 19th century by Europeans (Romans nor French nor British). So a continuity issue arises. How would the portion of the river (the Niger delta portion) be named after the Berber name in antiquity, if those who named it "Niger" did not know that it was connected to the berber portion until AFTER it was named "Niger" in the delta area.  Finally, the "Berber" language is not clear.
In fact, the problem with the Berber origin is that it does not specifiy with "berber" language we are talking about. The Romans actually named the river Dasibari. And it is called similarily "Isa Ber" meaning "big river" in Songhay; (People who lived in the northern region (the Berber region) from the mideval period perhaps even earlier. Where did I get this information? Well, from the Niger River article in Wikipedia. 
By the dawn of that century it had been established that the Niger originated somewhere in the Highlands of Guinea, not far from the Atlantic Coast. Explorers managed to follow the course of the river northeast through the lush tropical forests of Guinea to the land of Timbuktu. From here they found that the River wound around vast areas of savanna and the arid sand dunes of the southern Sahara. Geographers of the time speculated as to whether this was a tributary of the Nile or even if it was the Congo River. 
After several attempts explorers were, in 1834, able to follow the river all the way to it’s outlet to the sea. After following the river for some 4,200 kilometers (2,600 miles) they discovered that the Niger enters the Atlantic Ocean a relatively mere 1,700 kilometers (1,000 miles) from it’s source. It was now possible to properly map the route of the River and, subsequently, open it to use by foreign merchants. From this point onwards the Niger began to take on a level of importance far exceeding it’s previous limited use. --Zaphnathpaaneah 23:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Niger Berber theory citation needed 

message: I changed the line: Some African Americans also have European and/or Native American ancestry as well to Many African Americans also have European and/or Native American ancestry as well because the vast majority of African Americans are of mixed racial ancestry. Current DNA samplings and tests have consistently shown that the average African American is racially mixed. Some is more "recent" than others, but few (if any) are of strictly pre-colonial, sub-Saharan ancestry. Skin tone is not a reliable indicator of one's "blackness"; you may find a large range of skin tones within one generation of African Americans with the same parents, hence Carol Channing's warnings from her mother as a young adult. Tiger Woods is a good modern day example - though it is often pointed out he has less than 50% African ancestry, his skin colour and phenotype is stronger than many people typically classified as exclusively African American/black. 
Why are there no links/discussion to the informal caste system within the topic: U.S. society equates the label with African-American ethnicity? This caste system in the U.S. concerning blacks greatly shaped the views of both Americans and the world about what black means in America and how it has changed over the centuries, particularly the past 100 years.  This caste system, though somewhat waning, still exists in black America, is not as formal and strict as places like India. Yet like India, it is applied unevenly depending on one's gender and wealth. Could there be a link to the topic and an expansion on the subject within that topic concerning U.S. perceptions?
A separate, but related topic is the history and concept of bi-racial or multi-racial identity in the U.S. Should there be a link to the topic? What I have read seems somewhat lacking when discussing U.S. attitudes concerning blacks. It glosses over the term bi-racial. A 50%-50% split concerning blacks is genetically impossible in the US, since the vast majority of African Americans are of mixed racial ancestry. If it means the offspring of two people externally identified as coming from two distinct racial groups, then what of the offspring of those children and can it be applied retroactively? Nothing in the article adequately addresses the identity of offspring of two bi-racial/multi-racial persons or of a bi-racial and a black person and how cultural biases can lead to logical fallacies concerning racial identity.
That's why many within the African American community consider the designation ephermeral and elitist, especially after the 1960's Civil Rights/Black Pride era. They took offence at those emphasizing their mixed racial heritage, etc., viewing them as abandoning their African American ethnicity out of sense of shame or a way of using their "otherness" to gain greater social acceptance and white privilege (e.g. Tiger Woods). Since both currently and historically this legal/ethnic identity is/was not allowed to pass down the generations unless those offspring also had children with someone of non-black racial ancestry, otherwise they would be considered black. Even this a relatively new phenomena from a legal viewpoint (e.g. 2000 U.S. Census). In the past, it was informally acknowledged by labeling such persons mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, vs. "Negro" but they were still considered part of the black community though with a higher social status by all. As the black community became more genetically mixed over the centuries, these terms fell out of use to be replaced by Colored or Negro, often used interchangeably to subtly acknowledge black America's racial diversity.
This is where those leading the current multi/bi-racial debate paint themselves into a logical corner. If first generation mixed persons want to identify themselves as bi-racial/mixed and the bulk of African Americans are of two or more racial groups, what makes them any different from the "average" black person? Differentiating themselves becomes meaningless if they want to use the accepted definition of black AND say "but I am of significant non-African stock, thus I'm different (i.e. better)." Everyone "black" in America can reasonably make the mixed-race claim, though they may lack to birth records to do so because of the slavery/miscegenation laws of the past. 
For those who say it's both the racial and cultural identity that define them as mixed this also is a very weak argument. What of those who come from "recent" bi-racial joinings who were raised mostly/exclusively by the black parent, most likely in a traditional black community? Or white kids raised by blacks in a black community? Why can't they be considered black? What of black children raised in a traditional white community by white parents? What of blacks who consciously reject any traditional black cultural leanings? Can they consider themselves to be mixed?  Indeed, what of the fluid exchange of cultures and genes in America in general? Since African Americans are both a racial and cultural amalgamation of African and European cultures and phenotypes, saying one person is "mixed" vs. black is pointless. 
The strongest argument that can be made is that of non-black parents in a multi/bi-racial relationship who may resent their identity and cultural heritage being shunted to the side because of enduring racist attitudes in America. This is a very valid point and unfortunately often ignored. But more often than not, it is the children of these joinings who make the most of their non-black ancestry, not the parent(s). And they most often do it for the reasons mentioned above (white privilege and shame).
:The foregoing paragraphs make some excellent points. If the author were willing to sign them (rather than remaining anonymous), they might even be worthy of discussion. -- Frank W Sweet 14:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Some" to "Many" 

message: Removed sentence: "The same thing could be argued about African-Americans, given the ideological prevalence (at least among the "white" population, who possess the social and economic power to determine the meaning of such categories) of the one-drop theory." This sentence's only content, other than personal value judgment, is that US-Whites invented and/or support the one-drop rule. Overwhelming peer-reviewed evidence shows this to be incorrect. The U.S. Black community has supported and enforced the one-drop rule since 1840 and continues to do so today. U.S. society as a whole (Whites) supported it only between roughly 1910 and 1967. -- Frank W Sweet 15:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two minor reversions of recent changes. 

message: Who uses these terms?  Why is this edit acceptable?  Are these terms really contemporary enough to have right there in the beginning of the article??? - CobaltBlueTony 14:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negro? Colored? 

message: removed the phrase: "however the concept of Black people can be found as early as the 2nd Century BC". It needs citation. If it is suggesting that humans were unaware of skin-tone differences until the 2nd century BC, then it seems exceddingly unlikely, especially in view of findings by Kurzba, Tooby, and Cosmides described in the article. If the phrase is suggesting that an endogamous color line, caste system, or ethnic self-identity centered "Blackness" existed prior to the Reformation, then it flies in the face of all serious research yet conducted on the origins of the "race" notion. Either way, it is so unlikely as to demand strong peer-reviewed citation. -- Frank W Sweet 14:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Removed the following because it attributes motives to people, appararently based upon the author's mind-reading skills.
For different reasons, black and white Americans renounce the self-identity of Asians, Pacific Islanders, and others as black. For black Americans that renounce, this is due to an assumption that the label "black" is applicable only to Black Americans due to the association of brutality and racism with black perserverance. For white Americans, the identity of non-Africans as Black undermines a status-quo and can threaten the cultural and social projections white people have established throughout the world in the former colonies. In response, many (especially conservative) assume that extra-African blackness is a shallow or empty association to black Americans. Very few are aware of, or respect the sophisticated and very real intra-cultural relationships between black people of direct African ancestry and black people of other backgrounds.
The above may be restored if peer-reviewed citation can be found showing evidence of such simplistic and shallow motivations. -- Frank W Sweet 15:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. society equates the label with African-American ethnicity 

message: Judgesurreal777 wrote: For this important topic, there needs to be more references.
I agree, and I accept part of the blame. When, last December, we began turning this article from a pean of Afrocentrism into an overview of the different (and often contradictory) meanings of the term, Salsassin agreed to do the grunt work of writing (he's good at that--he's a lawyer) and I agreed to do the citations and references (I am a historian and molecular anthropologist). He did his part, but I fear that I have fallen down on the job. My only excuse is that we have both been distracted by some very interesing discussions of recent findings in phylogeography. I hereby ask Salsassin (and anyone else for that matter) who is interested in this topic to please mark places in the text that could use references with the following template: . This will put "" into the text. I will then be happy to go through and replace the tags with peer-reviewed scholarly sources (tweaking the text as needed). -- Frank W Sweet 11:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, guys. Please mark places in the text that need references with, " ," so that I can go through and replace the tags with scholarly peer-reviewed sources. If nobody is willing to help out by at least doing this, I will have to remove Judgesurreal777's "" template. -- Frank W Sweet 01:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For this important topic, there needs to be more references 

message: Paragraph tweaks: (1) Replaced, "mistaken for" with, "were of overwhelmingly European genetic admixture like millions of so-called". (2) Deleted: "of strong sub-Saharan African appearance and by very fair-complected Blacks who adhere to the belief that their shared historical experiences make them a single people." Nothing wrong with it, but this seems like the wrong paragraph to get into motivations. Isn't there a better place to say this? If you really like it here, go ahead and put it back. it just seems out of place to me. (3) Added, "helped create in the 1830s North and" plus link. (4) Cut back claim that many forms now allow multiple choices. Census 2000 did this, but EEOC, Small Business Admin, the Judiciary, and all other federal agencies continue to insist on one-and-only-one box. A citation would be needed otherwise. -- Frank W Sweet 09:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. usage of black 

message: Right, the section on South Africa is problematic. First of all, during Apartheid there weren't three racial categories - there were four: Black, White, Coloured, and Asian. Secondly, the tone of this section assumes that the South African experience of having distinct identities for black and coloured people is not only a throwback from apartheid, but that it is somehow inferior to the American experience of not having this distinction. Why should Coloured South Africans and Black South Africans be lumped together? Their cultures (and languages) are distinct (that's just historical fact. no point arguing over it) and secondly that sets White people as the benchmark against which all other groups are judged. There is more to being black or coloured than just being not-white. Joziboy25 April 2006, 21:47 (UTC)
:I agree. The fourth group, "Asian," should be mentioned, even though the paragraph is about "Black" versus "Coloured" and how these classifications contrast with the U.S. single dichotomous colour line. On the other hand, I do not see in the current paragraph any suggestion that the U.S. system is superior. On the contrary, I wrote the paragraph and my intent was to show how inflexible and counterfactual the U.S. system was. Nevertheless, since you see an implication of U.S. superiority in the paragraph, please feel free to change it and make it more neutral while you are adding something about the Asian group. To me, the paragraph's two important points were: (1) the existence of the intermediate category "coloured" in the R.S.A. but not in the U.S.A. and (2) the flexibility of the old R.S.A. system versus the inflexibility of the U.S.A. system. -- Frank W Sweet 22:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your changes look good to me. Thanks. I added a footnote to further clarify that no implication of superiority was intended, and also to bring the paragraph up to date since the ending of apartheid. I think the opening sentence generalization was originally intended to lead to the point that Brit colonizers tended to call everyone of dark complexion by the same Black-Coloured-White terminology, even when the indigenous people had no connection to Africa. But when the paragraph expanded into an explanation of RSA customs, the opening sentence was out of place. The confusion between USA vistors and South Africans was because some African Americans look utterly European, but see themselves as "Black" nonetheless, due to the U.S. one-drop rule. In RSA, they were not seen as Black. Thanks again, and please feel free to continue tweaking wherever you think it useful. -- Frank W Sweet 22:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South African usage 

message: Someone inserted some vandalism in front of a dozen references to the following journals: Human Biology, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, American Journal of Human Biology, American Journal of Human Genetics, Legal Medicine, Comptes Rendus Biologies, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Tissue Antigens, European Journal of Medical Genetics. The vandalism suggested that these journals are "accepted by the Stormfront group, but decried as invalid and unscientific by geneticists Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Alberto Piazza, and Neil Risch." This is incorrect. The world's leading and most highly respected molecular anthropology journals are not secretly supporting Stormfront. And none of the articles cited have ever been challenged by the men named above nor by anyone else in a peer-reviewed source. -- Frank W Sweet 21:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry that you feel that way, but the article that was criticized (and retracted) claimed to find genetic similarities between Israelis and Palestinians, something that cannot be spoken in today's world. It had nothing to do with sub-Saharan DNA in European populations. The article that I cited is an entirely different article on a different topic. Besides, the Arnaiz-Villena study is just one of a dozen that I cited, which all agree as to the presence of sub-Saharan DNA in European populations. Even the recent National Geographic Hapmap project shows sub-Saharan DNA in European populations. Do you seriously want to debate your claim that all of those journals and National Geographic are pawns of Stormfront? I am sorry, but I do not want to debate this. In all sincerity, debating such a notion seems pointless. If that makes me an "ignorant fanatic," so be it. -- Frank W Sweet 21:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not understand. Are you claiming that the criticism you cite was aimed at the study that I cite? But the journal names do not even match! The study that I cite was in Tissue Antigens but the study that Cavalli-Sforza & Co. criticised was in Human Immunology. Please explain. -- Frank W Sweet 22:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah. I see now. You use criticism of a Human Immunology article to discredit an unrelated Tissue Antigens article that has never beeen challenged by anyone. I understand. Thank you. What about A. Hajjej et al., "HLA genes in Southern Tunisians (Ghannouch area) and their Relationship with other Mediterraneans." European Journal of Medical Genetics 2006 January - February;49(1):43-56. Quotation: "This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara." Is that one also dicredited? -- Frank W Sweet 22:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What about A. Hajjej et al., "HLA genes in Southern Tunisians (Ghannouch area) and their Relationship with other Mediterraneans." European Journal of Medical Genetics 2006 January - February;49(1):43-56. Quotation: "This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara." Is that study also discredited? -- Frank W Sweet 22:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I already did. It was one of the studies (in European Journal of Medical Genetics) that you implied was part of a vast Stormfront conspiracy. -- Frank W Sweet 23:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: ? You lost me. It was the editors at Nature who said it was withdrawan for "political content," not me. -- Frank W Sweet 23:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Um. How many more studies do y'all think I should post before they are no longer "weasel words"? -- Frank W Sweet 13:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stormfront? 

message: The paragraphs on Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe in "Who is a descendant of the African Diaspora?" have attracted so much debate that they have bloated beyond usefulness to this article. In addition, the tangential debate over DNA studies has jeopardized the stability of this article. It took us over four months to stabilize this article (since December 2005) and its stability is still fragile. It does not need to be the hub of an apparently interminable debate on DNA admixture. Finally, the paragraphs are now common to two different articles (White (people) and Black (people)). And so, unless anyone has a cogent objection I shall split off the paragraphs on Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe. I shall replace these paragraphs in this article with a one-paragraph summary and a link to a separate new article titled Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe. I shall copy all of the existing paragraphs, their references, and their "disputed" tags to the new article. I expect the ongoing DNA admixture debate to continue in the new article. I expect the disputants to stop hammering away at the present article, since there will be nothing here but the essential one-paragraph summary and a link. I will wait six hours from now before implementing this split-off. -- Frank W Sweet 17:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spliitng off [[Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe]] 

message: I suppose this is a small thing comapred to the vitrolic responses the dicussion page is getting, but I have some issues with the section on the Latin origins of the term Negro as having come from the Niger river. Niger was a Latin cognomen at least as far back as the second century B.C. to refer to dark (Roman) individuals, at a time when Roman geographers would have had little notion of the Niger river and certainly of its Berber designation. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the Latin root began there, and seems more likely that the river was named after the already-existing term or even that they are unrelated.
To the Anonymous poster of this fact just above. I mentioned this several times, but some contributors have a prejudiced reasoning. I explained that the Romans named the river Dasibari (similar to the name given by some of the current BLACK groups in Niger and Mali). This WAS linked to the Niger River page, but someone took it off. The fact is, some contributors want the world to view blackness as nothing more than a mere concoction... an afterthought if you will of the White enlightened mindset. "Oh those people don't really HAVE a name, we just gave them one from our own boredom." These are the KIND of statements I hear. "Blackness doesn't really exist, it's a product of white supremacy" and the such. That's baloney. "Blackness" is a relational term to those who do not consider themselves Black, however the concept goes far beyond the "Latin" based societies. As we see, there are Black groups outside of Europe's tendrils, that had their own peculiar names, which means that the non-whites were also intelligent enough to see skin contrast and also shallow (or just human) enough to consider very dark skinned people to be black. It wasn't a "white" invention from some labratory of some Habsburg aristocrat or what not. --68.60.55.162 03:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of "Negro" 

message: This section was removed for it's blatently POV slant (this belongs here in the discussion, not out there in the article):
"The word “Black” (and even worst "black" lowercase) has no historical or cultural association. It does not fully articulate the history and geo-political reality of African people. Black as a political (or colloquial) term was fashioned as a reactionary concept in the 60's and 70's against White supremacy, but it was never meant as an epithet for African people, but moreover a transitory term to move a people away from Coloured and Negro. As a political term it was fiery and trendy but never was it an official racial classification of peoples who have a 120,000 year old history. Indians are from India , Chinese from China . There is no country called Blackia or Blackistan. Hence, the ancestry-nationality model is more respectful and accurate: African-American, African-British, African-Brazilian, and African-Caribbean. 
The mass usage of “black” by people of African decent is poor justification for the flagrant usage of the word. Because if that argument is to hold-up it would be justified to start using the term Nigger again, due to the self-destructive resurgence of this word among African-American people."
I certainly, as a Black man, disagree with this silly interpretation of "Black". The word Black, first of all, is a non-politically correct term, and is unabashadly straight-forward in describing the people of which I am one. I am Black and also African-American, and I do not need to follow someone else's THEORY as to why the word (which is commonly used without reliance on Eurocentric ideals) should or should not be used. The word "black" has been used outside of a Eurocentric context for millenia, all over the world. And there is nothing wrong with the obvious fact that some people are "black". If we remove the Black element in African-American, it will obviously be over run with Afrikaaners and north African Arabs trying to usurp the word for exclusive use for themselves. After all THEY are African-American too. I find it DISRESPECTFUL to deny using the word Black to describe me, my heritage, and my ancestry. I am Black, no strings attached. Get over yourself! --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any firm opinions on this matter, but I would like to point out that it might be more accurate to describe you as dark-brown. And if you feel the need to respond that I'm actually pink and pasty, not white, don't bother -- I agree with you (hopefully, I'll be a much nicer tan color by the end of the month). Perhaps the world doesn't need to describe these things in such "black and white" terms. ThePedanticPrick 16:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "African-American" is problematic since, outside of America, "African" is not considered a race (since, as everyone has mentioned, both white people and Arabic peoples live in/come from Africa). Without the concept of 'blackness', Charlize Theron, for example, is African-American. Were I to emigrate to America, so would I be - even though five hundred years ago most of my ancestors were European (but then 20000 years ago, everyone's ancestors were African). In South Africa, the new orthodoxy is to use "black African". That leaves no ambiguity. Joziboy 09:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rejection of "black" acceptance of African

message: There's one thing I don't understand: when white people exclude everyone who's not white, you complain, and then when we allegedly start expanding the definition of white to include everyone, you complain too. There's just no pleasing you, is there? ThePedanticPrick 12:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An old comment revisited 

message: I am wondering, why after all that hemming and hawing did my version of the article get restored. I don't MIND, but I figured we were all working together. I appreciate the consideration by whomever made the choice to do so. I'm just curious as to why.  It looks like the change was made by Dynamicknowledge24. I appreciate it, but I was also interested in how well the article was incorporating the required "citation" and It would be nice to merge the two. I also know that the version I started was not a cleaned up version (but goodness before it was a terrible version). So can we try to work with the two? --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zaph's version restored 

message: Was "black" an official category in apartheid South Africa?
The article says It is sometimes used to refer to all non-white people, especially in a political context. This has also been the case in South Africa. I think that this is incorrect. I'm sure that some people of colour are or were known as 'coloureds' in that country.
:Coloureds in the South African context refers to people of mixed race. Coloured communities in South Africa refer to themselves with that label, and Black South Africans also term themselves "Black". Hence such things as Black Economic Empowerment. So it's an official category even now, and not viewed as being offensive. 
:Under the classification system used during Apartheid, only members of the Bantu races were classified as black, though officially it may have been "Bantu" in documentation. Those who descended from the Indian subcontinent were referred to as Indian. So Coloured, Black or Bantu, Indian and White were the main areas of classification under Apartheid, though the former three groups were usually classed, as a group, as "non-whites". Nowadays the broad race labels have survived, with the exception of "Bantu". Thus for people to discuss "black", "Whites", "Coloureds" or "Indians" in South Africa is fairly normal and not considered offensive. However, some people prefer to use the term "African" as opposed to "Black". An interesting development in post-Apartheid South Africa, possibly due to things like Black Economic Empowerment, is for Coloured and Indian South Africans to either identify themselves as nigger or be identified as nigger. Thus affirmative action and BEE are job reservation and empowerment programs for blacks, Indian and Coloured people, despite BEE for instance specifically being called "Black Economic Empowerment".  Impi 22:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 'people of colour', as a term, is hardly used in South Africa. Don't forget that the offensiveness of many words varies from country to country. Neither "Black" nor "White", "Coloured" or "Indian" are considered offensive in SA. Impi 16:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: South Africa

message: "many so-called "white" Americans are of African descent,"
Recent mtDNA, Y-Chromosome, and autosomal DNA analysis suggest that African admixture into the White gene pool has occurred at a negligible (<1%) frequency.
:Well, technically, ALL humankind is of African descent. deeceevoice 06:08, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "White gene pool"

message: What is registration black, or 255 255 255 255?? How is it different from 0 0 0 255, which is black in CMYK?? 66.32.249.176 20:19, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Registration black uses all four CMYK ink colors at full intensity for purposes of processing color seperations. The black color used in most printing is ususally about 50% C 25% M 25% Y 100% K, because 0% C 0% M 0% Y 100% K tends to look "flat". --b. Touch 04:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Is this meant to be a joke? Quill 22:16, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: PaulinSaudi, you're a racist idiot. deeceevoice 05:55, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Please cite appropriate references.
===Other "Black" Populations===
In ancient times, there were/are black aboriginal groups closely resembling Bantu throughout Asia.  Presently, the so-called "Black Thai," or Tai Dam, whose facial characteristics and skin color very closely resemble those of the San of the Kalahari, are found in Thailand, Cambodia, parts of India and China.  Tamils, in southern India are black -- blacker than many Africans -- and are commonly referred to as "black."  And the rest of India is pretty much "black" by U.S. standards (even though most wouldn't admit it! :-p).  And then, of course, there are the peoples of Melanesia, in Greek, the "Black Islands":  New Guineans, for example.  I've no time to add any of this to the main article, but perhaps someone else will. deeceevoice 06:17, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Registration black 

message: In ancient times, there were/are black aboriginal groups closely resembling Bantu throughout Asia.  Presently, the so-called "Black Thai," or Tai Dam, whose facial characteristics and skin color very closely resemble those of the San of the Kalahari, are found in Thailand, Cambodia, parts of India and China.  Tamils, in southern India are black -- blacker than many Africans -- and are commonly referred to as "black."  And the rest of India is pretty much "black" by U.S. standards (even though most wouldn't admit it! :-p).  And then, of course, there are the peoples of Melanesia, in Greek, the "Black Islands":  New Guineans, for example.  I've no time to add any of this to the main article, but perhaps someone else will. deeceevoice 06:17, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Other "Black" Populations

message: Super.
I think that there should be a picture, so that visual learners will be able to put a picture to the words. 68.149.202.222 23:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Super