Talk:Black people/Archive 15

message: The term "blacks" has often been applied to indigenous Australians. This owes rather more to racial stereotyping than ethnology, as it categorises indigenous Australians with the other black peoples of Asia and Africa, despite the relationships only being ones of very distant shared ancestry. In the 1970s, many Aboriginal activists, such as Gary Foley proudly embraced the term "black", and writer Kevin Gilbert's groundbreaking book from the time was entitled Living Black. In recent years young indigenous Australians have increasingly adopted aspects of black American and Afro-Caribbean culture, creating what has been described as a form of "black transnationalism."[2] (i dont know if this is in the article but it should be)--HalaTruth(????) 11:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It goes back further than that. If you have ever seen an aboriginal, especially from the north, you will understand that black can a very appropriate descriptor for skin colour.   "Black fellow" was a term used by both Europeans and Aboriginals themselves.  Here is an primary-source example from 1832. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trishm (talk • contribs) 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Black isnt only Africa

message: Afro-European
England - 1 million split evenly between afro-caribbeans and africans
France -  2 million of sub-saharan african descent
Netherlands- 300, 000 of surinamese descent.
To reduce controversy on defining who is black I have added figures on the African diaspora that are less controversial. This can serve as the upper limit of who is "black". For example if there are 40 million people of african descent in the US, then there can be no more than 40 million Black people of African descent in the USUser:Muntuwandi 20:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Europe

message: total figure extends above 900 million. This however has not included black populations in North africa the middle east and South India so the figure could be higher.  ( eg Egypt and Saudi Arabia)
User:Muntuwandi 04:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Total

message: I have serious issues with the credibility of your 
, 
In my opinion it should be common sense that these are not reliable sources but i'll break it down
John Entine
* dated 1999
* personal book
* is not an authority on population 
* book is a commercial product
* No methodology on calculation
* is mentioned only once in passing
Nigeria fight against economic crimes
* dated 2001
* Is a powerpoint presantation about financial crimes 
* Not an authority on global populations
* Is a Nigeria centric article.
* No methodology 
* is mentioned only once.
see Wikipedia:Reliable sources 
*  scholarship states "The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals."
*Non scholarly sources-Expertise of the originator about the subject—An academic expert in one subject is more reliable when writing about that subject than when writing about another. For example, a biologist is more reliable when writing about biology than when writing about nuclear physics.
* Editorial oversight—A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without, since the content is subject to verification. Self published sources such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media (e.g. The Economist) and other sources with editorial oversight, which is less reliable itself than professional or peer reviewed journal (e.g. Nature).
* Declaration of sources—A source which is explicit about the data from which it derives its conclusions is more reliable than one which does not. Ideally, a source should describe the collection process and analysis method.
* Age of the source and rate of change of the subject—Where a subject has evolved or changed over time, a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation. To interpret utility one must appreciate how the subject has changed and if that change has impacted any of the salient points of the source information. Historical or out-of-date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject. If no newer sources are available, it is reasonable to caveat use of sources with an indication of the age and the resulting reduction in reliability.
*online self published sources-Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, anonymous websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. See below for exceptions.
Accordingly the sources do not meet the standard of being a reliable source. If you dispute the information in the article I would suggest using current and reliable sources to back it up and not these. However we should not dispute the information for the sake of it. There must be good reason. I am fully aware that this is a very heated and sensitive article with passions running high. There is always a great amount of suspicion on anything new that is introduced.It is for this reason that I have attempted to include information that has the least controversy. I will not define anyone as black but leave that to the reader. I think it is time to move on there are alot more interesting things about the black diaspora that can be included.User:Muntuwandi 04:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: sources

message: I commented in the population estimate section, above, without having carefully reviewed the changes introduced in the last month, and especially the last week. I must withdraw any supportive comments I made. The article has systematically been altered to introduce five races as fact. This strong POV must be addressed. Now I see, in this context, the population estimate section has served to reinforce this POV, and especially perniciously by bandying about "admixtures" and allocating parts of one person to different races. I am deleting this section, which serves as a proxy for introducing this material. There is much more clean up necessary. Jd2718 06:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current state of this article 

message: Like many, I thought that Sub-Saharans could not contain different races in them, as on one show in the UK quoted Sub-Saharans were not very big travelers but looking at many articles say Arabs had coastal towns along the east coast of Africa in the early 10th century. Thus the native population could of not been as big as it is today so the Arabs must of caught a majority of the population and then untermixed with them. Also the majority of Africans taken by the Europeans in the 16th Century to the New World were from West Africa  and had Arabic names. I know that is not proof but it is very likely they had middle eastern ancestry.Caribbean1 17:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Even Sub-Saharans may not be "black

message: I recommend we make this article more similar in structure to the white people article. In particular, we should include a physical traits section as that seems to be a significant part of race (as is seen in the white people article). A 'culture' section would also be a good addition. 212.139.248.227 03:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New section required

message: Can we avoid bringing our personal issues and feelings into this article. Though this is the talk page, it is not a social networking forum. some of the stuff i am reading is really quite embarrassing. we should stick to the facts ie, what can be defined, what can be proved and what can be measured. User:Muntuwandi 03:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal issues

message: *State department representative  said 
"There are now nearly 800 million Africans on the continent and perhaps up to another 100 million persons of African descent living in other parts of world" 
* Molefi Kete Asante the african diaspora is over 1 billion
* African studies of university of miami says the diaspora in the americas is about 150million 
* though dated university of wisconsin] indicated the african diaspora is at 1billion.
*The African Strategic and Peace Research Group says the diaspora in the americas is 150 million 
the whole issue about the population is not aimed at advancing a viewpoint or to get an exact number, but just to add context. 
Are we talking of 50 people or 5 billion people and where are they(alaska, japan, greenland?). Without this context one might end up like president bush, not knowing that there are any blacks in brazil.User:Muntuwandi 05:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: what others have said

message: These remain one of the most controversial issues in western society. Malcolm X talked about it extensively in his autobiography almost half a century ago. Today it is no less controversial. I just hope that we do not recycle old arguments that have been debated over and over again. we should move forward and bring new insights. What is tiger woods or Halle berry or ethiopians? are now getting stale. Maybe according to Chappelle, let us have a racial draft. User:Muntuwandi 02:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything about black identity (or white identity) is controversial, that's why it's imperative that the article not endorse any 1 view point and simply document the various perspectives on what it means to be black.(Unsigned post.)
I can't believe you're bringing Ethiopians into this.  For the most part, they're not mixed with anything.  They're as black as the Kenyan man pictured in the article.  deeceevoice 06:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No don't start this debate again.  There are extremely strong views on both sides, but we don't need to discuss it because the article mostly discusses race and multiracialism as social constructions, so no need to argue over biology Iseebias
I'm not going to let such abysmal ignorance go unchallenged.  And don't tell me what I may or may not comment upon.  deeceevoice 07:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Watch your manners, deeceevoice.  Remember that you are on probation for racist behaviour.  You are forbidden from commenting on this article for the next 24 hours.  24.16.29.149 22:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiracial biracial interracial

message: its strange that someone get blocked from discussing on this page because wikipedia doesnt excepts racist behaviour. then why is this whole article about "black people" quite racist in my opinion. to define people in to races like black and white is just wrong. and to have a "kenyan man" on one of the pictures in the article and then have only celebrities in the "white people" section is just very very strange i think and wrong. i think we should discuss the deletion of this article bacuase i cant see any reason of defining people into races.. i dont see my friend as my "black friend" i see her as a friend i think this article is wrong wrong wrong... 
/matrix17
:I think these types of articles are a necessary evil.  Of course we don't want to promote racism, but the other option is much worse.  If there were no "race" articles on Wikipedia, then web-browsers would find less reputable articles about the subject.  There are other articles about a "black" "race", but many of them invoke outdated scientific racism. The strength of the Wikipedian community is that it is open to everyone of all backgrounds and it maintains a strict neutral point of view policy and other policies designed to guarantee the balance of any topic covered.  Although this article may give the impression of reifying "race", it actually decomposes the concept, incorporating all sides of the argument.  In actuality, these articles show that race is a social construction, countering racism.--DarkTea 15:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: i think its a double standard

message: At the heart of the problem are some who strongly feel that this article should be deleted, and I can understand their ideals. I share some of them too. But the reality is race and color play an important part of everyday life especially for people of color.  Take for example,
France does not officially recognize race and ethnicity. The ideal is that all citizens are equally French. No statistics are kept on race, religion and ethnic origin. To do so would be to encourage what the French call communautarisme, the idea that identity-based subcultures can exist within a society, a concept most French see as profoundly threatening to Republican values based on individual citizenship. 
After the 2005 race riots in france everyone saw that these ideals are actually a myth and as the National Catholic reporter put it "Race is a reality for everyone in France except the French state."User:Muntuwandi 04:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors should speak for themselves. By presuming to know some agenda of other editors, you are, in fact not assuming good faith. Please be careful. Jd2718 08:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: should this article be deleted

message: I would just like to say everyone is colored, There is no blacks or whites, because they are not colors they are shades. So if black people are colored that means white people must be colored. Kind of like native americans, there not indians to all idiots who say there indian still. They are just simply americans and not from INDIA!
White is the incorrect term for a "Caucasian"(note the asian part)
person just so you know, white people aren't actually white. Secondly any kind of racial pride is just plain stupid because it all goes back to the Only race,the Inferior race, THE HUMAN RACE!
TERMINATE ALL HUMANS WUHAHAHAHAHa
-just a joke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.208.79.61 (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everyone is colored 

message: (Disclaimer: I don't think anything POV slipped into this comment, and if something sounds POV, I certainly didn't intend for it to. Also, I would have implemented most of these changes, but I don't believe that the current restriction will allow me to edit the article myself.)
1. To preserve its relevance to the article, shouldn't the picture of "a Kenyan man" be changed to "a black man" or "a black Kenyan"? 
(Note: I don't really care about that, it just popped into my head.)
2. There are multiple flaws in this quote: "The difference in skin color between black and whites is however a minor genetic difference accounting for just one letter in 3.1billion letters of DNA. code[4] [sic]".
*Change "black" to "blacks", 
*"3.1billion" to "3.1 billion", 
*"DNA. code[4]" to "DNA code.[4]" (the period comes before the reference link), 
*"is however a minor" to "is, however, a minor" (this was likely intended to be an appositive, the current punctuation is ambiguous); 
*and, lastly, the information derived from citation [4] seems, to me, to have been improperly interpreted. Without getting into any discussion of what I or anyone else believe to be true, and taking the article to be solid fact, the gist is that it is POSSIBLE for one base pair mutation to result in the opposite skin color (opposite of whatever the base pair had previously indicated, I'm not calling one genotype the "default"). The article says, "The newly found mutation involves a change of just one letter of DNA code out of the 3.1 billion letters in the human genome," but goes on to mention that "Asians owe their relatively light skin to different mutations," stating that, in fact, more than one gene controls skin pigmentation. Moving away from the article, one gene to control pigmentation is ridiculous: ignoring blacks versus whites, the mentioned nearly pigment-less European phenotype is different from that of other whites, and is not alterable by increasing  melanin production through exposure to the sun (or an equivalent). Stick this type of person in sunlight for a day, and they'll turn pink; not tan, and certainly not black. [EDIT: Whoops! Forgot my name!] — KyleP 23:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous Suggested Changes 

message: I have fought, and failed, to make the main theme of this article be closely coupled to current mainstream scientific reasoning, instead of pseudoscientific nonsense. I have no objection to including pseudoscience, but it should be clearly identified as such. This is an interesting link that shows what claims of separate human races can lead some extremists to do:
click here for a chart. But I know it is not politically correct among most of the editors of this page to admit that maybe skin color is just that; skin color, and basically a very minor difference among humans.--Filll 17:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well spoken squeakbox.--Filll 18:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For all you fans of separating humans into races 

message: african brazilians are a small minority.most brazilians are mixed race. If racist americans call everyone who has a drop of african blood in their veins an african, mostly for the purpose of oppressing them into a racial underclass, this is an international encyclopedia and such concepts should not be refered for racist reasons originating in one country. the vast majority of brazilians are both proud of their african and european heritages and refer to themselves as "pardos", meaning coloured and mixed race. less than 10% of brazilians refer to themselves as "black".Since race is an unscientific concept it is the self-identification that counts. if you doubt this see references in Brazil and Demographics of Brazil. 84.90.18.136 19:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazil 

message: why is there a white person in the gallery? What would happen if someone put a pic of black person on the white people article. That should not be acceptable. If one sees the documentary African American Lives, in it henry louis gates talks about how back in the day whites would not allow blacks to congregate in church by themselves. There always had to be one white preacher or pastor in the black churches. This reminds me of the same thing.User:Muntuwandi 02:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: white person in gallery

message: There are several editors who contribute to this article. Therefore if only 2 editors agree on something it is still very far from consensus. I have noticed that "consensus" is used to justify edits
when in actual fact many other editors are in disagreement. User:Muntuwandi 04:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (chuckling) deeceevoice 08:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: I'm not certain I get the objection to the language of the lead.  The alternatives just don't make sense syntactically.  Seriously, what's the problem?  deeceevoice 04:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead paragraph

message: what is with focussing on five legged dogs or the man with 12 fingers. Yes these cases exist and are very interesting. but they do not reflect the average dog or average person. The same goes for the white guy who is black.
:It's the borderline cases that cause the most confusion.  For an encyclopedia to be useful we don't need to state the obvious "Nigerians are black" because everyone already knows that.  It's the more ambiguous cases that require clarity.  Also we have a hard-core black person right in the article's lead paragraph, which gives us more flexibility in the gallery Iseebias
: Six out of Eight in the Gallery are multiracial, Therefore this gallery would be more appropriate in the Multiracial article. there are also many repititions which reduces diversity. Two are black and asian. three are black and white. Five are american. This is one of the reasons why the population estimates are useful. Accordingly, more than 80% of blacks live in Sub-saharan africa. In defining blacks this should be taken into account. We should not give undue weight to the more exotic descriptions.User:Muntuwandi 04:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: five legged dog

message: This article needs to be locked to prevent racism posts that are frequent on this page. Shotmenot 18:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I requested semi-protection, and I see it was just done. Established users (everyone talking on the talk page these last couple of days, for instance) can still edit. New users and anonymous users cannot. This will probably stop the racist vandalism. Jd2718 20:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully though unfortunately rascists will always find some article to attack on wikipedia. Vandalism vigilance is, IMO, our best defence, SqueakBox 04:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lock this article

message: I think 4 editors have agreed on this, i think Deeceevoice is the last editor who likes the gallery.--HalaTruth(????) 15:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery Gone Again

message: Some of the most mixed people on the planet are African Americans, Slavery has left so much White blood that even when AA go to Africa they are know as mixed, not pure. Every Caribbean person has between 80-60% non-African blood, they also have Carib blood. So how fine can we take this point, either we keep it simple or we take it complex. YOu cannot have AA in the pure cat and Ethiopians in the confused cat. 70:30 and 80:20 is all complex linage (if that argument holds).Please review original research it is pure  and it will only take a less fussy editor 2 sec to delete it, just like the population thing. someone like yom for example.--HalaTruth(????) 12:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But everyone agrees that AAs are 83% sub-Saharan.  But with North/East Africans there is much more debate partly because there is much more at steak.  Wikipedia never solves disputes, it just reports them from a neutral point of view. Iseebias
But such matters are not -- I repeat -- not the purview of this particular article.  This is about who is considered black, and Ethiopians fit the bill -- even the so-called "Caucasoid" ones.  deeceevoice 12:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: They are considered black by the man on the street but there is controversy among highly reliable population geneticists some of whom don't consider them black. I noted the controversy while still insisting that they're black.  Keep in mind that if we want to apply all the definitions, we need to have a rough idea of someone's ancestry, because some definitions in the article are ancestry based, & with ethiopians there's still some uncertainty. Iseebias
And just where exactly in the text you've cited does it actually, precisely say that geneticists have said that Ethiopians aren't "black"?  deeceevoice 12:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: a 2001 Oxford genetic cluster study stated: 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a 'Black' cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. Only 24% of the Ethiopians are placed in the cluster with the Bantu and most of the Afro-Caribbeans.[] For those who define black by ancestry, we have to all know what someone's ancestry is.  Essentially all I'm saying is that North/East Africans have a mysterious history so it's hard to say ANYTHING certain about them, not just race.  That shouldn't be too controversial a point to make Iseebias
Again, this article isn't about "race."  It is not about genetics.  It is about who is considered "black."  And, again, several groups treated in this article are considered black by some and not black by others -- as is noted in the second paragraph of the article.  The parameters of who is considered black and who is not are spelled out early on; such classifications are variable.  You, yourself acknowledge, however, that the majority of people on the planet consider Ethiopians black.  What more do you need?
But for the sake of argument, percentages vary, depending on which study you're citing. This particular study clusters slightly more than half (52%) of Ethiopia's three, major population groups with black Africans -- which comprise only 75% of the population -- citing clades and haplogroups  specific to sub-Saharan Africa. The other half studied also have Asian affinities (which the study links to the "Out of Africa" model, which does not speak to admixture, but to shared characteristics, which it cryptically discounts out of hand -- presumably because it is irrelevant to admixture -- and does not discuss this matter further) and Arab and Near East affinities, citing clades and haplogroups more common, but not specific to Arabia and the Near East. This population also was found to possess two additional haplotypes which are consonant with black Africa -- "more common" there -- (but which for some reason aren't fleshed out in the article in terms of frequency).  One must look at a tiny schematic (which I don't have time, or likely, frankly, the knowledge) to try to make sense of that piece.
And I'm using this study here precisely because the investigators took great pains to differentiate among Ethiopians -- who are not one, single people. I live in D.C.  We have the greatest population of Ethiopians of any metropolitan area outside of Addis, and I see Ethiopians virtually every time I hit the street.  And I know what they look like.  (And I know they consider themselves black.)  So, I'm always leery of studies that speak of "Ethiopians" as one group and then proceed to make generalizations about the entire populace of the country as a result.  Further, it makes me wonder which populations they actually studied -- if the findings were skewed because the investigators started out with an unrepresentative sampling of the population.
So, with this study, we're looking at the three, major population groups of a nation, with the highest degree of genetic diversity -- because the other 25% are minority groups who cluster solidly with sub-Saharan Africans.  So, right off the bat, you're already looking at 64 percent of the population that clusters solidly with sub-Saharan Africa -- read "with no meaningful/discernible admixture or relatedness to outside populations whatsoever."  I haven't read further to determine the percentage of relatedness to other populations is represented by the other 36 percent, but suffice it to say that the vast majority of Ethiopians, taken as a group, across ethnicities, cluster genetically with sub-Saharan Africans.  I mean what am I missing here? deeceevoice 13:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: African AMericans are not black by all defs

message: Bob Marley was born to white british father and black mother Cedella Booker. Marley had very little or no contact with his father or his fathers relatives growing up. He was raised entirely by his black mother. Therefore even though he was genetically multiracial, culturally he was black jamaican. He spoke like a black jamaican, his buddies Peter Tosh and Bunny Wailer were black , he married a black cuban Rita Marley and the reggae music he played can be traced back to the ancient drum rythyms of black africa.
What is interesting is that in the new world many traditions that have long been abandoned in Africa 
have been preserved in the Americas. In Africa after colonialism there was a desire to become modernized quickly. For example traditional mysticisms and religions like voodoo were condescended upon by the African elite, and the church chasitized them as being demonic and pagan. Upwardly mobile blacks would disassociate themselves from such traditions and many traditions would be lost and forgotten. However in the Americas these traditions would be used as symbol of resistance to the oppression of slavery. Many blacks linked the church with slavery and thus continued to practice ancient religions. The result is Voodoo, Candomble, and Orixas are openly practiced in Haiti and brazil but are rarely seen in public in Africa.
Afro brazilian Walson Botelho says 
African culture is stronger in our part of Brazil than in some parts of Africa. Several gods forgotten in Africa are still worshiped in Bahia.nytimes
The basic point is that even though there has been extensive mixing in the americas, elements of black african culture are still pervasive and in some cases more african than on the mother continent.User:Muntuwandi 15:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: blackness scale

message: If in the photo Slash is expressing his opinion about people who attach importance to his "race," then I agree with him. ;-)  P0M 02:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some one for the Gallery

message: Am nobody ever see slash, thats how he mask his black identity, i think he is a good example we all know him. etc etc. Ahhhhhh Vin Disel put him, he keep cropping his hair but his voice gives him up everytime--HalaTruth(????) 00:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slash is black under the hair

message: Why is it that Black people have to discuss and argue their identy and origin's with white people? 
Can a white person answer this question: How white are YOU? And what if I was going to make a definition on who is going to be called white from now on and who's going to be called, off-white all the way up to black. To take it a step further: what if I add some characterics and race trades on your mental state of mind (The less melanin one has the lower on the lather you'll end up). Than, to take it up a knodge, how would you like it if I would impose MY DEFINITION of you to you and declared it to be the UNIVERSAL TRUTH? Than I will go to WIKI-White-people and put in some bogus lil'entry! How does that sound? It is not up to you to define me or any other person for that matter and push me out of history!! You cannot do that anymore that ship has sailed.
And tell me what do you have to back up these thesis of yours? Dravidians probably African but an essentially African cultural is in your imagination probably EuroArabic. Proposterous!! Than the case of defining by morphology or other physical trades whither someone is Caucasian or not, by which method? HITLERS? Are you going that way? The definition used by so-called scholars living in dark-aged Europe is a crock, gibberish from old white-only-in-it-for-the-loot-man and their melanin-envy, trying to come across as litterates, inventing terms to seperate people (white) from so-called subhumans (by Euro definition: darkskinned, broadlipped, kinkyhaired people). And you are so NOT SMART to accept their way of thinking with analysing where this is coming from. Next thing you're gonna tell me is that the earth is flat and women belong in the kitchen.. . (You know that the earth is not flat right and women today have voting-rights). 
The only way to PROPERLY identify whither people belonging to the same group share the same historical origin is by studying the history of those people and groups maticulously. Cultural trades, religious believe, language, burialsites, skills, arts, legends, fabels and folklore all the way down to their genetic make up. Next is to go digg in the ground to find traces. I doubt seriously whither the whites and that obnoxious lil'Chinagirl have done that. This discussion seriously needs to get away from the European focus point and back to where it belongs, Africans.  
Objectivity is urgently needed in these pages. Have none of you (again whites) had a proper education? Haven't you learned that arguements need to be backed up by scientific evidence, reckonising sources and USING them (f.e. Halaqal as an Ethiopian had to clearly very concise and accurate arguements). It seems to me that you are deliberately ignoring the objections, using this board for your own shady views. You need to stop it, take a reality check, argue with the evidence instead of basing the evidence to support your arguement, handle the evidence as objectively as you can (if you master that capacity), and get of your imaginary throne to listen to people with a little more knowledge about the region than yourself. Got it? good.
Now, In the light of new knowledge, where in the past the untruth was being established as fact by Eurob(i)ased views of the world during the renaissance and the industrial age, and that being that the term "Negroe" or "Black" used as a definition for the "homegrown sub-saharan" African, must be DEEMED unsubstantiated, unscientifical and biologically incorrect. This definition  of "Blacks" in referrence to the peoples of sub-saharan Africa or their descendents should be banned from here on out.  
There are sources available which are less questionable and more accurate such as the ancient Greecs traveljournals, they did never put much emphasis on race. The Greeks described breefly the appearance of the peoples they encountered Herodotus for example. Than the Arabics like El Mas'udi a highly praised Archeological scholar (although I wouldn't trust the translation made by the English and French in the 19th century, because their view was already tainted by economics and the slavetrade). Al Mas'udi is the first and only one, up till the 20th century as far as I am concerned, who observed in a scientifical nonpartial way and recorded amongst others, early CE purely African cultured Civilizations (which formarly was said to haven been build by the Arabs) I have nothing against the Arabs but those cities where there and thriving long befor Al Mas'udi arrived and saw (as he himself attests). You could also do an extensive research an try to study some of the different peoples living in Africa(Fulani, Dogon, Zagawe, Oromo, Ibo, Ife Yoruba, Massai, Ashanti/Akan,Zanj or waq waq or mende, Touareg, Amazight to name a few) and register their beliefsystem comparing them to one another and than you can start to call yourself a little educated on Africa. Untill then I think it best for you to reckonise your lack of knowledge and look to the more venerated and lamented scholars and writers. Reed Basil Davidsons Lost cities of Africa, that would be a good start!
We got to get some people in here who have the knowledge to tell other people about who every distinguishable group within Africa is. I think Eurocentrism shouldn't be allowed in this page.
It is almost blasphomy.
It's an interesting issue that keeps coming up. How is it that White people think they have the right to Africans and their history? Good for a debate from a psychological viewpoint on Eurocentrism. And if you don't stop the stupendous remarks on Anthe Diop I am going to go to WIKI-White-people and start my Afrocentric entry. And than I'll put you on trial. Got it? Good. --Glynn71 11:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's why really interesting people like Owen 'Alik Shahadah feel society needs to dump Eurocentric terms like black, negro, and negroid, and instead replace them with terms Africoids created themselves.  Hence black Americans are now called African-Americans, and black people world-wide are now called Africoid instead of the incredibley offensive term black-the dictionary says black is the color of evil and wickedness which is exactly why Eurocentrics assigned it to Africans who were from what Europeans called the dark continent and in the opinion of Europeans, practiced all kinds of evil wicked black majic and voodoo.  It's not a reflection of reality since no humans are literally black.  Only people of sub-Saharan African descent still allow themselves to be called black. Our tamil editor goes ballistic every time someone so much as hints that Tamils might be black because the rest of the world knows it's an offensive Eurocentric social construction & that the dictionary equates black with evil & wickedness.  Black is a white man's word. White man's invention.  White man's idea.  The white man taught the African what it is to be black just as he taught the Asian what it is to be oriental.  Hence Asians rejected the term oriental and started calling themselves Asian & decided what the parameters for being Asian would be.  They had too much self-respect to identify themselves by a term imposed on them for the purpose of dehumanization.  (The term Oriental means East but East Asia is only East relative to where Europeans live, hence the term is Eurocentric.  Similarly, Africans don't have black skin, they're just much darker than Europeans so the term black is even more Eurocentric). In the same way, the really smart Africoids are refering to themselves as Africoid instead of black/negroid.  Owen 'Alik Shahadah has really influenced the way I think about the word black saying: 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. Shahadah has stated, in addition, because it is a term placed on us, we have no bases for its control, and hence they are able to say; 'Ancient Egyptians weren't black.' Black has no meaning; except the meaning they place on it, if and when they chose.  I think we need to support progressive creative thinkers like Shahadah and those use the term Africoid, instead of constantly ignoring them & their ideas which is why I created sections just for Shahadah & Afrocoid in the article.  The more we try to sugar coat black identity and deny it's racist and Eurocentric origins, the more the Africoid movement gets undermined & they don't deserve to be undermined because they are creating a new identity with self-created termonology Iseebias
Karenga said something about we try to clean up an ugly toilet and b proud of it.(nigger etc) I agree with black as a non-white racial grouping, that film by shahadah got me editing on wiki so i cant flaw the attempt at something new. these opinions r refreshing at worst, revolutionary at best. never understood the difference between negro and black still confused--HalaTruth(????) 13:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  White people defining Black . . .? ... IS THIS STILL GOING ON???